Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12667 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9926 Jun 23, 2013
Every religion suffers from these stupidities and judgements against people that don't follow their mental illness.

Religious people are only nice because they want to convert you to their cults. They judge you in secret and are two faced liars.
LNC Llin

United States

#9927 Jun 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Every religion suffers from these stupidities and judgements against people that don't follow their mental illness.
Religious people are only nice because they want to convert you to their cults. They judge you in secret and are two faced liars.
Everyone who does not agree with "the clone" is a member of a "cult"
LOL

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9928 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The question to ask is why some European countries who traded in Euros participated in Iraq? So I doubt it had to do with Saddam planning to trade in Euros. These are just theories that anti war people invent. There are all sorts of theories like this. The first thing I remember anti war people stating was that the US was doing this to steal oil. Well, how are they supposed to do that when it gets sold on OPEC? Were they supposed to build secret tunnels to steal it and nobody was supposed to know? And now, of course, look at the end result. No stolen oil at all, no secret tunnels, and a major deficit for the US. Sometimes these theories are emotional and irrational. Saddam himself didn't set the price for his oil, OPEC and market forces did. Prices are always determined by supply and demand just like most other things naturally are. When people get emotional about something, all sorts of irrational theories are created.
..thank-you ..no one could have said this better..

ha-ha.."Thinker" ..you limey ..you can sit on it ..!

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9930 Jun 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never studied nature and dont realise that its all part of it. Your mental illness of faith prevents you from accepting natural reality as it is.
..NO , I never studied nature ..I'm not some f**king mountain man ..!!

But , I found out I was wrong ..okay , you happy ..?

Dear : "I_see_you".."B ob of Quantum-Faith"..and "dickless" ..

Anal sex occurs in the animal kingdom ...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9931 Jun 23, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..thank-you ..no one could have said this better..
ha-ha.."Thinker" ..you limey ..you can sit on it ..!
Believe it or not, truth can sometimes be more simple than fiction. I think that Bush was a kind of Texas sort of guy and after 911, he and others underneath him pretty much said, enough is enough, it's a different world now. And I think he had intentions of going after Iran or North Korea as well, or at minimum, chose Saddam to set an example and send a message for the other two, to show them that they could be next if they don't change the things they are doing. He even gave a speech beforehand labeling the three as an axis of evil.

Saddam was the guy always running around calling the US a paper tiger, and made Iraq out to be invincible. So if Bush showed he could pull that off in a matter of weeks, the other two might start to rethink their behavior. Even Tony Blair himself said in an interview that after 911, the world changed and the thinking changed and they could no longer let these countries carry on the way they do. Also, is the little known fact that the war against Iraq was not illegal in the least, and I wonder why nobody ever mentioned the following fact. There never was any treaty signed between the US and Iraq, there was only a ceasefire, and the ceasefire was based on unfettered weapons inspections. And Saddam continually played games with these and eventually even kicked the inspectors out in 1998, thumbing his nose at the US and basically daring them to do anything about it.

This was a breach of the ceasefire and the US could have and should have gone in right then and there. But big nose Clinton was too lazy getting BJs and sticking to comfortable status quo, which probably infuriated the more hawkish people. But, after 911, enough was enough and it created the right environment of fear for Bush to do what probably should have been done in 1998. He couldn't have sold it in 1998, but he could after 911. There was no second war against Iraq, it was merely the continuation of the first war after the ceasefire was breached.

This wasn't about oil at all, or Euros, it was about what they thought was the stabilization of the Middle East, with Saddam being the worst offender and destabilizer. I don't think that Bush did it the right way and botched it, but I think this was actually what he had in mind.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9932 Jun 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never studied nature and dont realise that its all part of it. Your mental illness of faith prevents you from accepting natural reality as it is.
...Don't you think putting a 'spam'..'nuts'..and..'disagree '..on "every single" post , means 'you' might have the mental illness ..

what kind of person does that ....hmmm???
Thinking

London, UK

#9933 Jun 23, 2013
I don't claim the Euro as the only reason... some factoids for you:

Trading oil in Euros seriously hurts the US dollar and America's ability to run up debts sustainably.

Removing a diminished Saddam Hussein did Iran a big favour.

GWB said god told him to invade Iraq.

Venezuela is not a promoter of world terrorism but the West's supposed ally Saudi Arabia is.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
The question to ask is why some European countries who traded in Euros participated in Iraq? So I doubt it had to do with Saddam planning to trade in Euros. These are just theories that anti war people invent. There are all sorts of theories like this. The first thing I remember anti war people stating was that the US was doing this to steal oil. Well, how are they supposed to do that when it gets sold on OPEC? Were they supposed to build secret tunnels to steal it and nobody was supposed to know? And now, of course, look at the end result. No stolen oil at all, no secret tunnels, and a major deficit for the US. Sometimes these theories are emotional and irrational. Saddam himself didn't set the price for his oil, OPEC and market forces did. Prices are always determined by supply and demand just like most other things naturally are. When people get emotional about something, all sorts of irrational theories are created.
LNC Llin

United States

#9934 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't claim the Euro as the only reason... some factoids for you:
Trading oil in Euros seriously hurts the US dollar and America's ability to run up debts sustainably.

Removing a diminished Saddam Hussein did Iran a big favour.
GWB said god told him to invade Iraq.

Venezuela is not a promoter of world terrorism

but the West's supposed ally Saudi Arabia is.

<quoted text>
15 of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/in...

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the...

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9935 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe it or not, truth can sometimes be more simple than fiction. I think that Bush was a kind of Texas sort of guy and after 911, he and others underneath him pretty much said, enough is enough, it's a different world now. And I think he had intentions of going after Iran or North Korea as well, or at minimum, chose Saddam to set an example and send a message for the other two, to show them that they could be next if they don't change the things they are doing. He even gave a speech beforehand labeling the three as an axis of evil.
Saddam was the guy always running around calling the US a paper tiger, and made Iraq out to be invincible. So if Bush showed he could pull that off in a matter of weeks, the other two might start to rethink their behavior. Even Tony Blair himself said in an interview that after 911, the world changed and the thinking changed and they could no longer let these countries carry on the way they do. Also, is the little known fact that the war against Iraq was not illegal in the least, and I wonder why nobody ever mentioned the following fact. There never was any treaty signed between the US and Iraq, there was only a ceasefire, and the ceasefire was based on unfettered weapons inspections. And Saddam continually played games with these and eventually even kicked the inspectors out in 1998, thumbing his nose at the US and basically daring them to do anything about it.
This was a breach of the ceasefire and the US could have and should have gone in right then and there. But big nose Clinton was too lazy getting BJs and sticking to comfortable status quo, which probably infuriated the more hawkish people. But, after 911, enough was enough and it created the right environment of fear for Bush to do what probably should have been done in 1998. He couldn't have sold it in 1998, but he could after 911. There was no second war against Iraq, it was merely the continuation of the first war after the ceasefire was breached.
This wasn't about oil at all, or Euros, it was about what they thought was the stabilization of the Middle East, with Saddam being the worst offender and destabilizer. I don't think that Bush did it the right way and botched it, but I think this was actually what he had in mind.
..I found nothing wrong in this post ...

My only beef is ..I wish someone in the Media or the Administration , could have warned us more clearly ...Starting wars are easy ; ending them ,yeah, not so much ...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9937 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't claim the Euro as the only reason... some factoids for you:
Trading oil in Euros seriously hurts the US dollar and America's ability to run up debts sustainably.
But it sure helps Europe.
Thinking wrote:
Removing a diminished Saddam Hussein did Iran a big favour.
That might have been the result, but I don't think that was the intent. To have a free democratic ally of the US right next to them would be worse than Saddam, and if the Iranian people see Iraq being successful, it would encourage them to have what the Iraqis have and overthrow their government. It was a good plan on paper. On paper. But Bush and his people never really understood Islam and it's effect on people there.
Thinking wrote:
GWB said god told him to invade Iraq.
I think he had reasons for making that statement other than God actually telling him to do that.
Thinking wrote:
Venezuela is not a promoter of world terrorism but the West's supposed ally Saudi Arabia is.
<quoted text>
The Saudi King and ruling party is not. Bin Laden always wanted to overthrow the Saudi King and always wanted to create a "Caliphate". Bin Laden originally hated the US because it protected Saudi Arabia when Saddam was on it's border and they also were in the way of his plans. The whole thing about having the infidel on Holy Land was not his real motivation at all, he just used that.

He went to the Saudi King and offered that his "Mujihadeen" protect Saudi Arabia instead of the US. He had no intention of really protecting Saudi Arabia at all. He knew that Saddam would mow right through them, but that's what he wanted to happen. Then, Saddam takes over and the King is gone. Step one done for him by Saddam himself. Then he fights a long guerilla war, the Iraqis get tired of it and eventually leave and the "brave" Mujihadeen immediately come to power whether the people like it or not, in absence of any other power. And there's your first Caliphate, starting in the holiest of Muslim lands.

If you think that's crazy, what do you think happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets? Where do you think he got this idea from? And the Taliban filled the power vacuum, whether the Afghanis wanted them or not. And if they could get a powerful army like the Soviets to leave, he figured they could surely get the Iraqis to leave. Truth is often far more simple than fiction.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9938 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't claim the Euro as the only reason... some factoids for you:
Trading oil in Euros seriously hurts the US dollar and America's ability to run up debts sustainably.
Removing a diminished Saddam Hussein did Iran a big favour.
GWB said god told him to invade Iraq.
Venezuela is not a promoter of world terrorism but the West's supposed ally Saudi Arabia is.
<quoted text>
..well ,actually you did ..you claimed Iraq was invaded because she was considering adopting the euro ..something about any nation considering the euro ,was labeled into the axis of evil ...

A) a democratic nation in the Middle East harms every single regime in the area ..

B) the KSA (kingdom of Saudi Arabia) crushes Al-Qaeda cells when they find them...
B1) Caracas is aiding the FARC (narco-terrorists)..if you knew anything about South America , you would know it is very dangerous ..
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9939 Jun 23, 2013
Addendum to sentence above.

And there's your first Caliphate, starting in the holiest of Muslim lands and the RICHEST, which would fund the spread of rule of the Caliphate, which probably would have been he himself, to the rest of the Middle East.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9940 Jun 23, 2013
LNC Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
15 of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/in...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the...
Al Qaeda has men and women from every nation on Gods green earth ( except Liechtenstein )..

Saudis are American allies , those men were chosen specifically, not to raise any red flags ..
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9941 Jun 23, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>Al Qaeda has men and women from every nation on Gods green earth ( except Liechtenstein )..
Saudis are American allies , those men were chosen specifically, not to raise any red flags ..
Actually, they could have been chosen to create a rift between the US and Saudi Arabia. The US stood in the way of bin Laden's plans and without the US as an ally, Saudi Arabia could be more vulnerable. Apparently, the King does enough to keep people in Saudi Arabia happy enough, and their pockets are well lined, so not enough people have any interest the overthrow of the King, so bin Laden couldn't count on the people themselves to do this, but could count on outside forces doing this by invading. And then, once again, here comes the brave Mujihadeen to the rescue to fight a guerilla war, the country completely destabilizes, the invaders leave, creating a power vacuum, and viola, who do you think steps in and comes to power whether the people like it or not? Actually, they could be seen as heroes and trick the Saudis into letting them take power with promises of life returning to normal, when in fact, life would change for them drastically.

The same thing happened with the Iranian revolution. The regular people were not organized, but Ayatollah Khlomeini and his followers were because our good old friends, the French, gave him asylum there while he organized and planned everything. Same people that went past the sanctions against Iraq and the oil for food program. They and the Russians did tons of business with Saddam under everybody's noses, which is why they objected the most to the invasion. So the Ayatollah and his followers pretty much promised that after the revolution, they would turn power over to the Iranian people. Suckers. They trusted him.
Thinking

London, UK

#9942 Jun 23, 2013
BS.
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..well ,actually you did ..you claimed Iraq was invaded because she was considering adopting the euro ..something about any nation considering the euro ,was labeled into the axis of evil ...
A) a democratic nation in the Middle East harms every single regime in the area ..
B) the KSA (kingdom of Saudi Arabia) crushes Al-Qaeda cells when they find them...
B1) Caracas is aiding the FARC (narco-terrorists)..if you knew anything about South America , you would know it is very dangerous ..
Thinking

London, UK

#9943 Jun 23, 2013
If Bush truly wanted to build a democratic Iraq, he had the ability to prevent Cheney from nickel and diming the post war process.

I've seen plenty to suggest that Iran is responsible for exporting terrorism as opposed to Iraq. So why did Bush help Iran out?

Better to have kept Saddam constrained with North and South no fly zones. If Saddam had been overthrown from within there would still have been huge casualties, as there are in Syria, but the US and the UK would not have taken the blame.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
But it sure helps Europe.
<quoted text>
That might have been the result, but I don't think that was the intent. To have a free democratic ally of the US right next to them would be worse than Saddam, and if the Iranian people see Iraq being successful, it would encourage them to have what the Iraqis have and overthrow their government. It was a good plan on paper. On paper. But Bush and his people never really understood Islam and it's effect on people there.
<quoted text>
I think he had reasons for making that statement other than God actually telling him to do that.
<quoted text>
The Saudi King and ruling party is not. Bin Laden always wanted to overthrow the Saudi King and always wanted to create a "Caliphate". Bin Laden originally hated the US because it protected Saudi Arabia when Saddam was on it's border and they also were in the way of his plans. The whole thing about having the infidel on Holy Land was not his real motivation at all, he just used that.
He went to the Saudi King and offered that his "Mujihadeen" protect Saudi Arabia instead of the US. He had no intention of really protecting Saudi Arabia at all. He knew that Saddam would mow right through them, but that's what he wanted to happen. Then, Saddam takes over and the King is gone. Step one done for him by Saddam himself. Then he fights a long guerilla war, the Iraqis get tired of it and eventually leave and the "brave" Mujihadeen immediately come to power whether the people like it or not, in absence of any other power. And there's your first Caliphate, starting in the holiest of Muslim lands.
If you think that's crazy, what do you think happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets? Where do you think he got this idea from? And the Taliban filled the power vacuum, whether the Afghanis wanted them or not. And if they could get a powerful army like the Soviets to leave, he figured they could surely get the Iraqis to leave. Truth is often far more simple than fiction.
Thinking

London, UK

#9944 Jun 23, 2013
The quickly expanding population of Saudi points to this changing in the not so distant future. Hopefully peacefully, but that seems unlikely.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, the King does enough to keep people in Saudi Arabia happy enough, and their pockets are well lined, so not enough people have any interest the overthrow of the King...

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9945 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they could have been chosen to create a rift between the US and Saudi Arabia. The US stood in the way of bin Laden's plans and without the US as an ally, Saudi Arabia could be more vulnerable. Apparently, the King does enough to keep people in Saudi Arabia happy enough, and their pockets are well lined, so not enough people have any interest the overthrow of the King, so bin Laden couldn't count on the people themselves to do this, but could count on outside forces doing this by invading. And then, once again, here comes the brave Mujihadeen to the rescue to fight a guerilla war, the country completely destabilizes, the invaders leave, creating a power vacuum, and viola, who do you think steps in and comes to power whether the people like it or not? Actually, they could be seen as heroes and trick the Saudis into letting them take power with promises of life returning to normal, when in fact, life would change for them drastically.
The same thing happened with the Iranian revolution. The regular people were not organized, but Ayatollah Khlomeini and his followers were because our good old friends, the French, gave him asylum there while he organized and planned everything. Same people that went past the sanctions against Iraq and the oil for food program. They and the Russians did tons of business with Saddam under everybody's noses, which is why they objected the most to the invasion. So the Ayatollah and his followers pretty much promised that after the revolution, they would turn power over to the Iranian people. Suckers. They trusted him.
I'm happy to see ,that can imagine a scenario wherein the Saudis are just as much the victims of Al Qaeda , as we were ..

I find it unlikely the Ayatollah ever promised power to the Persian people ...( I'm sure they did not expect a police state ,though ), under the Shah things were decidedly hostile towards conservatism ...

as , for Russia and France ignoring our wishes in Iraq "bully for them " How many nations wish 'us' to stop aiding the Israelis ..?

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9946 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If Bush truly wanted to build a democratic Iraq, he had the ability to prevent Cheney from nickel and diming the post war process.
I've seen plenty to suggest that Iran is responsible for exporting terrorism as opposed to Iraq. So why did Bush help Iran out?
Better to have kept Saddam constrained with North and South no fly zones. If Saddam had been overthrown from within there would still have been huge casualties, as there are in Syria, but the US and the UK would not have taken the blame.
<quoted text>
Iraq seemed to have a educated and cosmopolitan society ...I figured ( and who didn't) remove Saddam and Voila democracy will ensue ..
Thinking

London, UK

#9947 Jun 23, 2013
I preferred to partition Iraq. Kurd zone, Marsh arab zone, leave the sunnis and shiites under Saddam to coexist peacefully (!).

Bush believed in instant gratification. He failed.
number four wrote:
<quoted text>Iraq seemed to have a educated and cosmopolitan society ...I figured ( and who didn't) remove Saddam and Voila democracy will ensue ..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 1 hr par five 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr ChristineM 10,709
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 244,784
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 20,532
Santa vs. God: logic? 10 hr Shizle 2
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 14 hr Shizle 11
Is the Christian god good? 15 hr Shizle 4
More from around the web