Posted on 01/17/2005 10:33:57 AM PST by Pyro7480
During the bottom-of-the-hour news break, it was announced that a Catholic bishop was kidnapped in Mosul.
Unreal. Just as you think these pigs can't sink any lower, they do. Bastards like them can not be reasoned with. They can only be killed so the rest of us can live in freedom and peace.
Equally sickening is the fact that the left will immediately criticise Bush for this, thereby playing right into the kidnappers hands. Why are people so stupid?
The IRA are Marxists, so I don't think they really would care. Besides, I would rather have 10,000 armed-to-the-teeth Maltans for this. ;-)
In fact, I say START with the mosques.
Adding prayers!
We must have been reading 'between' the same lines. I thought the same thing;in fact,until I read your post,I had believed that he had said it.
>>Iraqi Christians were safer under Saddam than under Bush.<<
Have you spoken to any of them??
Saddam's policies may have seemed to be friendly to Christians but I know Chaldean Catholics who are still missing family members from the time of Saddam.
I am one city north of Chaldean Central in Michigan. They celebrated the fall of Saddam and understand that their families are always in danger, just being Christian over there.
Oh no! He's dead, he has to be...the media will keep the whole thing quiet as usual.
Prayers going out.
And, as much as I hate to say it, I don't see how the abductors can turn the Bishop loose without appearing weak to the Islamic world.
Last month, they blew up several churches in Iraq. Now, they kidnap Archbishop Casmoussa.
Please remember our catholic brethren in the Middle East who are constantly subjected to persecution.
Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Ah, the K.O.M.!!!
Sort of Gurka Light
"PS: IF Saddam did take Saudi Arabia - or just kept Kuwait - he would have been pumping that oil in record numbers of barrels to pay off his debts."
Pay off his debts my azz...he would have used the oil money to become stronger...now if I had been in charge...I would have put 400K American troop in the oil fields and started stealing the oil...screw the Saudi's...let Saddam take over all of the ME...as long as we steal the oil...pphhhttt!
I can see how you could get that impression from the MSM. But as usual, the MSM made a hash out of the statement.
AP Breaks News PromiseAlso, the outgoing Vatican ambassador said that the difference between the US and Vatican positions regarding the justness of the Iraq war was the imminence of the Iraqi threat, something over which reasonable people can disagree.HERE'S A STORY IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CLAIMS THAT A "CARDINAL SAYS BUSH BROKE IRAQ PROMISE."
Trouble is, the article shows the cardinal (Pio Laghi) saying nothing of the kind.
It quotes him as saying:
"When I went to Washington as the pope's envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don't worry, your eminence. We'll be quick and do well in Iraq,'"I'm sorry, but "Bush was wrong" does not mean "Bush broke a promise." The first statement attributes to the President a misperception of fact (how things would go), while the second attributes to him a moral failure to perform actions that were reasonably within his power to bring about--or a moral failure by making promises regarding something that one unreasonably believed to be within one's power to bring about."Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable."
"Bush was wrong."
The Cardinal attributes neither of the latter to President Bush.
Opponents of the President might wish to attribute these to him, though based on what the Cardinal says I severely doubt that Bush was understood to promise a specific outcome. It would be more natural to understand the President as making a commitment to act expeditiously and making a prediction (not a promise) that things would go well. The first (commitment to act expeditiously) is a promise. The second (things will go well) is not.
In any event, but the Cardinal does not say that Bush broke a promise, and by headlining the article the way it did, the Associated Press misportrayed the Cardinal's remarks--and simultaneously portrayed itself as a petulant organization willing to spout Democratic Party spin as if it were a pouting child suffering a disappointing loss.
Since the AP says it subscribes to the Associated Press Managing Editors' ethics statement, it's interesting to note that this statement says:
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.Well, the AP didn't sufficiently do these things in crafting the headline of this story. It therefore is also interesting to note that the APME ethics statement also says:The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises [SOURCE].
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.Somehow, I doubt the AP will issue a retraction.Now, someone might nitpick that I haven't demonstrated that the AP broke a promise because the ethics statement only says a paper should guard against inaccuracies, not that it is committed to preventing them.
Fair enough. If the AP is not committed to preventing inaccuracies then it has not broken one of its commitments.
But my headline is at least as accurate as the AP's.
The problem is that we have been tiptoeing around the Muslims, hoping they would be grateful to us for liberating them. There are probably many who are, but we should have been much more aggressive with the ones who aren't and are just basically carrying on jihad-as-usual.
The other problem is that the Church has not been very forthright in supporting Christians anywhere, and always kowtows to the Muslims. I doubt that anything is going to happen to change this, even if the unfortunate bishop appears in one of their gruesome videos.
You have a point. He would have had to have sold the oil somewhere, although he could have set the price.
I say if you killers do not release him, your mosques will be flattened immediately! The people can rebuild them later. We are not tough enough! P.C. is over. This is war. Smash them hard now!
There is no question but that Christians in Iraq were better off under Hussein and that our invasion of Iraq has put them in a worse position. Under Hussein, Christian women were not killed for not wearing head scarves, Catholic churches were not being bombed, and Christian merchants were not being killed for selling alcohol. All of these things are happening in Iraq today, which is why Christians are fleeing their country.
It is also revealing to note where many of the Christians are going when they flee Iraq: they are going to Syria, another dictatorship governed by the Baath Party. Christians are always going to have some problems in a majority Moslem society, but those problems have been far less in Syria and Iraq than elsewhere in the Arab world. The Christians in the Mideast already know what the neocons have yet to figure out: popular rule in the Mideast means Islamic rule, which is disastrous for the Christians living there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.