Hehe.......you said poo flinging.

The anti-Moslem rhetoric has been coming from the right. Not from Obama. And Bush did not contain it. He encouraged it.

The taliban did not give safe haven to Bin Laden. He had lived there for many years as a hero of the long fight against the USSR - in which the US supplied the Taliban with weapons, money and advisors. The agents were so proud of what they had done they published a book about it. Osama Bin Laden was largely a US creation.

The US asked Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden. But it refused to give any evidence for the request. It is normal and legal practice that a nation must not surrender anybody without seeing cause for arrest. (Canada is exceptional in its willingness to lick American boots in this respect.  In fact, the FBI has long since made it public it has no evidence against Bin Laden other than his video.

The raid was not planned in Afghanistan. Nor were the bombers trained in Afghanistan. Nor did they come from Afghanistan It was planned in Hamburg. And the bombers were trained in the US. And they were all Saudis.

The US did respond to the bombing by heavy bombing of Iraq that killed many thousands of civilians. Then it added the invasion as an extra - sort of an overreaction under the circumstances.

The invasion has nothing to do with Bin Laden - or with defending women-folk. Afghanistan is supposed to become one of the bases for the encirclement of China and Russia.

Go to Google. enter "Project for the new american century".  Look it over. Note that it was signed by several members of people who became secretaries in the Bush White House.  Note, too, the name of Jeb Bush.

As to sanctuary, the US has for years protected a terrorist who blew up a Cuban airliner killing all aboard. It has refused all requests to have him extradited anywhere despite plenty of evidence. He is now living in Florida as a celebrated hero of the Cuban exile community.

By the way, the US illegally bombed Camobida (with which it was not at war and which had not attacked the US) killing at least a half million civilians over a period of more than a year.  I think that is what is called terrorism. Would be be in favour of bombing the US in retaliation?

The fact is that the anti-Moslem rhetoric has ratcheted up significantly in intensity since Bush left office. The fact is that Bush did not have a bad relationship with the American Moslem community. No one has any doubt that there were terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan. As you say yourself, bin Laden was living in Afghanistan (and, absolutely agreed that the US made him) and in a number of videos he has never denied his responsibility or involvement in 9/11. The US could have provided all the evidence in the world to the Taliban and they wouldn't have handed him over. The Taliban "government" basically didn't operate as part of the international community. Yes, the group that planned the attack was in Hamburg. But there's no reason to attack Germany - the Germans themselves raided those terrorists. 

I've read the "Project for the New American Century." I'm well aware of its contents. Undoubtedly its authors were thrilled that 9/11 provided a reason to attack Afghanistan. I'm still not sure what you expected the US to do after 9/11. They were attacked, you know. As Mother Jones (an overtly left-wing American magazine) noted in an editorial after the invasion of Afghanistan (sorry, can't provide a reference; I just remember reading it) it's a left-wing knee jerk reaction to blame the United States for everything - even when the United States is the victim (as they were on 9/11) - and the US has as much right to defend itself as any other country does. Any President of any Party - Dubya, Clinton, Obama, Carter, anyone - would have done exactly the same thing, "Project for the New American Century" or not.

I suspect, graeme, that you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. And since this isn't a thread about Afghanistan but rather about Bush himself (I just gave the example as something I agreed with him on - feel free to disagree with me as passionately as you want on that) I'm not planning to continue the debate on the Afghan War. 

You've taken my words completely out of context, Witch, which I don't really appreciate. If you look at my original post you'll find that I agree with you on that. The lies regarding the Iraq War were unforgivable and probably more than anything else the act that renders Dubya not only a failure as President but probably a criminal as well. I was, however, referring to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when many on the left seemed to think that the US should just forget about it. No country in the world, having been subjected to such an attack, would fail to respond militarily if they had the resources to do so. No matter what President, no matter what Party, no matter what ideology. If you think going to war in Afghanistan happened simply because Bush was President you're living in a fantasy.

Rev. Davis

Please give us a Christian context for your remarks. And please explain several troubling areas.

Lefists favoured  no response to 9/11? Who? How many? Where? What do you define as a leftist? Is Rush Limbaught a leftist? Is Fox News leftists? Is a Christian minister who advocates killiing innocent people a leftists?

Why are you not upset by the wide American use of torture? Because it isn't used on Christians?

If you are in favour of bombing a country and killing innocent civilians, do you advocate bombing of the US for sheltering terrorists? directing the genocide of 200,000 Mayans, including Christian missionaries? for training Latin American military officers in killing and torturing at the School of the Americas? (Have you ever heard of the school of the americas?

If you know the Taliban would not have handed over bin laden under any circumstances, what is your inside souce? Of can you see around corners?

If there is evidence against Bin Laden, why has the FBI publicly said it has none?

There was a reprisal against Afghanistan. It was heavily bombed, killing thousands of innocent people. Isn't that enough to satisfy Christian justice?

The invasion came later, quite separate from the bombing. I guess the Christian view might be the US didn't love their neighbour enough the first time.

And wasn't it George who called the war on terrorism "a crusade"?

George Bush was not just a guy who made a couple of bad mistakes. He was the most ignorant person, the most used by his handlers, the most destructive in social and economic terms of all presidents in US history.

And president Obama has been trapped into followiing pretty much the same policies. He, like Bush, has not condemned all moslems. But, as in Bush's day, and with as little comment from  Obama as there had been from Bush, the vomiting of racial and religious hatred goes on. It is coming from the left? Funny. My impression is that it has been coming from the right. Do you know what the right is?

graeme, once again you're twisting everything I've said.

Where did I say that leftists built up hatred? The hatred is being spewed by the right wing nut jobs out there. Ive not ignored them. My point was that they were somewhat quieter under Bush, but since he's left office they seem to have claimed more freedom to be even nuttier. The Mother Jones article didn't spread hatred. It made an impact because it was such a balanced critique of other left-wing responses that had been made at the time in response to the war in Afghanistan. I wish I had kept it. It's simply in my memory.

I fully understand that extradition requires evidence. I still do not believe the Taliban would have co-operated. That is my opinion.

On Afghanistan, I can at least understand your confusion. I looked back at my original post and realized that in the course of typing I had used the wrong word. My bad!  I said that I had "no problem with the war in Afghanistan." What I meant to say was that I had no problem understanding the war in Afghanistan. Forgive me for that error. I've used the edit function. (There's a case where you could actually help, graeme, if you would quote what I'm saying rather than just putting your spin on it. Then I would have noticed my mistake much earlier.) I understand the motivation for the American response. I may not agree with it from a Christian perspective, but I understand it. You don't understand someone who was attacked striking back against their attacker? It's a primal human response. Perhaps you spent far too much time in the ivory towers of academia! (Or whatever kind of buildings they have at Concordia!) I repeat what I have said. Regardless of who was in office (Democrat or Republican) the United States would have responded militarily to the events of 9/11. Are you seriously suggesting that any President of the United States would not have responded militarily? Jimmy Carter (probably the most dov-ish president in recent history) sent the military into Iran to try to rescue what - 50 hostages. The attacks of 9/11 were certainly greeted with delight by the proponents of the Project for the New American Century. I've acknowledged that. What I'm saying is that the United States would have responded militarily even if the Project for the New American Century didn't exist. If you believe they wouldn't have, my opinion is that you are not in touch with reality.

I actually wasn't aware that "free enterprise" was right wing jargon. You prefer "capitalism?" Fine. Six of one; half dozen of the other. What's your point?

I believe Moslem countries have many reasons to fear the western world. They have been mistreated and exploited by the western world for centuries. Fear and anger toward the western world are perfectly understandable.

Your suggestion that I am trying to equate free enterprise or capitalism with Christianity is laughable, and I'm not sure where you've gotten that impression. I do believe (as did Karl Marx) that capitalism creates wealth, probably more efficiently than any other economic system. However, in principle I believe capitalism is antithetical to Christianity. Simply put (and I'll try to keep it simple because in every response you make to me you clearly demonstrate an inability to understand - or, as I suggested, you understand but twist to suit your own purposes) capitalism is about acquiring all that I can get; Christianity is about sharing. Capitalism is about "look out for number 1" and Christianty  is about "love your neighbour." The model of early Christian communities (and, thus, probably a fair representation of what Christ and his earliest followers desired) is found in Acts 4:32-37.  Perhaps you should read it.

Ayn Rand? That leaves me almost speechless. Her philosophy is odious to me. I'd be interested in having you show me where I have defended capitalism or suggested that capitalism is consistent with Christianity. And I want a quote. You're very good - as I've notedin other threads - at spreading baseless rhetoric around. Back your rhetoric up. Show me where I equated Christianity with capitailsm - with a quote; not with you twisting what I've said to suit your own purposes.

No.

How can we mss him if he won't go away?

It would be the same graph.

Exactly the kind of headline-scoring reporting, lacking in any substance, that we've come to expect from Maclean's.  This is a magazine that recently ran a cover story entitled, "Why your daughters are sluts," which I guess was an attempt to go even further than a previous cover story called, "Girl, what will it take to get you to breed?" 

Geez, George Bush visited an Islamic cultural centre.  That makes me forget all about the war, the homophobic ballot initiatives, the anti-science approach, the deficit caused by taxcuts for the top 1%, etc., etc.  I miss him!