December90 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Whoever released the classified documents to the public should be jailed... Releasing classifed information amounts to treason. Just because you might not see the harm in "these particular" classified documents does not excuse their release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Has there ever been a war in History where God wasn't on both sides? Obviously the losers side... or they wouldn't have lost. :saber: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS@THEGOALLINE Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Has there ever been a war in History where God wasn't on both sides? When asked if God was on the side of the Union during the American civil war, Abraham Lincoln replied,“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Whoever released the classified documents to the public should be jailed...Releasing classifed information amounts to treason. Just because you might not see the harm in "these particular" classified documents does not excuse their release. These documents were judged to be worthy of declassification. It happens all the time due to various reasons. The most common reason is lots of classified materials should not be classified in the first place but could, later, be embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I know Ill get flamed for this BUT....I tire of hearing American complain about the use of the Bible in anything. This nation was built on Christian principals... If you think it was built on Jewish/or Islamic/or Buddhist principals you are wrong....This is simply our government operating how it always has. This country was intended to give people religious freedoms yes, but it was built a Christian nation... Seriously If you want to be any other religion you can do that here go ahead fold a piece of paper into a cool shape and worship that You are allowed to do that here its totally cool with me, you worhip what you want and I will worship what I want it doesn't make either of us wrong it also doesn't change the fact that the US was founded on those same Biblical principals found on those images... It's not the referencing of God specifically. It's the obvious intent at influencing GWB's abviously small intellect by biblical refrences. As noted by another, no wars are fought with out god on both sides. It's just this war was such a fraudulent enterprise from the beginning, that such behavior simply adds to the whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 PhotoShopped... Also: Whoever released the classified documents to the public should be jailed...Releasing classifed information amounts to treason. Just because you might not see the harm in "these particular" classified documents does not excuse their release. Yes. These documents were judged to be worthy of declassification. It happens all the time due to various reasons. The most common reason is lots of classified materials should not be classified in the first place but could, later, be embarassing. Where do you see that these have been declassified? These are from GQ not the government. Also: *checks calendar* Hmm.... I should care about this now because......... About 5 years too late no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 These documents were judged to be worthy of declassification. It happens all the time due to various reasons. The most common reason is lots of classified materials should not be classified in the first place but could, later, be embarassing. First of all the documents were not released through official channels. If they were the handling caveats would have been removed. They have not been. My jaw dropped when I saw some of the classification markings. Second, much of the information that we have is classified due to intelligence sources and methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 PhotoShopped...Also: Yes. Where do you see that these have been declassified? These are from GQ not the government. Also: *checks calendar* Hmm.... I should care about this now because......... About 5 years too late no? You think GQ has a mole inside the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Interesting article. Thanks for posting. The concern should have been what if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation. Could there be any four words to better describe the Bush administration than arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness and ineptitude? Reconstruction of Iran couldn’t have been handled any more poorly. Thanks Dummy. BTW, did you guys see the GQ cover with Jennifer Anniston wearing a tie? Good Golly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Who really cares? If anyone in the audience was opposed to this, they have the right to speak up. These weren't intended for any of us so we have no right to be offended, upset, etc. This is pretty petty in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nothing new. But it prompted these thoughts. I went to a Masonic ceremony recently as an invited guest and after the "Daughters of Job" appeared and sang "Onward Christian Soldiers", a friend of mine and some of his lodge were engaged in this same conversation outside. He later showed me something he was writing about on his laptop. It reflected what was "common knowledge" to me about Rumsfeld's views and some of his comments on matters like General Boykin's (and others) public statements and the situation in general back then. I remembered much of it and will share it here in my own paraphrasing (other than the quotes, which are in orange), including a couple of the easiest found links of good--to--questionable sources, but the actual information holds up to scrutiny easily enough independent of the two sites (commondreams/agitprop) I'd never seen before. This kind of stuff encompasses a common outlook in the admin at the time and is much tied to how the "other side" perceived our overall outlook on their beliefs and culture beyond the particulars of terrorism and Hussien. Anyway, Lt. General William Boykin was a well-know evangelical Christian military leader during the war with Iraq (and veteran of Somalian operations) and was Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Bush. He had a very distinguished career of military service. He would also appear in various churches around the country (in full uniform) providing updates and commentary on our "war against Islam": Referring to a Somalian who declared Allah protected his side, Boykin commented: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." He described radical Muslims as "Our spiritual enemy" and said such foes "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus" and that they hated us "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian" and regularly declared that in fighting Muslim terrorists, "the enemy is a guy named Satan." He believed GWB as POTUS was a heavenly choice: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him . . . I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there." Another face/voice of this reality is found in Marine Lieutenant-Colonel Gareth Brandl: The colonel, a charismatic young officer who is on his second tour in Iraq, will command one of the battalions "at the tip of the spear" in the assault. We met him in his operations centre, an old Iraqi army barracks, which still had on its wall a large picture of Saddam, dressed as Saladin. ""The marines that I have had wounded over the past five months have been attacked by a faceless enemy," said Colonel Brandl. "But the enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3199212.stm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20060217010850/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3989639.stm http://agitprop.typepad.com/agitprop/2009/05/rumsfeld-christian-jihad-iraq.html Whether one has issue with these ways of thinking, it should always be considered that these are men who risk it all on the front lines under our flag. The clash of Abrahamic religions (save the Bahai), will be a big piece of these matters in the eyes of many involved, as it has throughout history. And, returning to the matter of "Onward Christian Soldiers", here's a little story featuring one historical figure many admire: When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minster Churchill chose the hymns. He chose Onward, Christian Soldiers and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:[5] "We sang Onward, Christian Soldiers indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation." —Winston Churchill I remembered learning of that long ago, so found it on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward,_Christian_Soldiers Religion plays a big part in much of the armed conflict in human history as it inevitably plays a big part in most things human (fuzzy & prickly). Religion is a powerful expression of fundamental aspects of human nature. BTW, save your money on going to see Angels & Demons---it's not that good lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 BTW, save your money on going to see Angels & Demons---it's not that good lol. Better or worse than the Da Vinci Code? I LOVED the book so much I feel like I have to see the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Better or worse than the Da Vinci Code? I LOVED the book so much I feel like I have to see the movie. I don't wanna derail the topic, but I may be one of the few who like DVC better because enjoying the book helped carry the weaknesses in the movie in my head (using it to "fill-in"), which I understand is different than how that worked for others. I didn't read AAD, and the movie was well-filmed with good production values for the most part, but poorly written (dialogue), plotted, and edited IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I know Ill get flamed for this BUT....I tire of hearing American complain about the use of the Bible in anything. This nation was built on Christian principals... If you get flamed for it, it's just because your assertion is wrong. For many reasons. Here are some of them, in incredibly brief form. (Or as brief as I'm capable of.) The Founding Fathers were rejecting the notion, directly espoused by the Bible, that the right to govern is granted and ordained by God. The line "We The People" is a not-so-subtle announcement that government will be by regular folks -- not by some special group that God ordained to rule according to His direction. In terms of rejecting the Biblical, scripture-based notion of governmental rule that was commonly accepted at the time, it really doesn't get any more fundamental or direct than that. The People "ordained and established" the Constitution, by consent of the governed. Not God, and not by divine right. Again: hard to miss the stark contrast there. Our laws fail to uphold many of the Ten Commandments. Honoring the parents? If anything we do the opposite and honor the kids. Adultery/coveting thy neighbor's wife? No law. Tens of millions of people work on Sundays. Hell, our economic system depends on usury, a Biblical sin. Even if you want to define usury as only the charging of excessive interest, or compounding interest, or charging interest only to the poor, then we're still WAY out of compliance with that one. Guilty, big-time -- and it's not only accepted, but celebrated as an essential part of our way of life. More importantly, most of our most fundamental governmental principles PREDATE Christianity by anywhere from a few dozen years to several millennia. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Judaism and the entire Old Testament... All predate Christ. You could try to argue that Rome was contemporary with Christ and maybe they stole their better ideas from his teachings -- but no. They got their start earlier and actually went through waves of persecution of Christians. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Jesus' teachings. Yet we've incorporated important aspects of their governmental system as our own. Then there's the more contemporary stuff, including British parliamentary rule. Arguably, some of that is influenced by Christian ideals. Of course, much of it isn't. Witness the Magna Carta, arguably the most influential document upon the eventual content of the Constitution. Was it a Christian-compliant document? Hell, no. In fact, it was a direct slap in the face to King John's claim of full and arbitrary rule by the will of God, in accordance with Biblical scripture. The Magna Carta forced John to accept the authority of mortal law over the authority of God. Hey, wasn't there a Commandment about putting some other idol before God? Oops. The United States was founded on moral ideals, informed by many sources. One of them is Christianity. The fact that we picked and chose some of our ideals from Christianity, or from sources with which Christianity agrees ("no murdering" being a prime example), doesn't make us a nation "based on Christian principles." It makes us a nation based on principles of many origins, including that subset of Christian principles that we didn't explicitly throw out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 BTW, did you guys see the GQ cover with Jennifer Anniston wearing a tie? Good Golly! Oh yeah, I saw it alright.:hump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 These documents were judged to be worthy of declassification. It happens all the time due to various reasons. The most common reason is lots of classified materials should not be classified in the first place but could, later, be embarassing.These wer not declassified. As mentioned, handling caveats would have been redacted. 90% of classified material is classified based o the source/equipment more so than the actual content.Additionally, any comments on how much time was spent making these covers must take into account that anyone proficient in PPT can throw those together in 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Cause classifiied documents never get leaked to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 You think GQ has a mole inside the government? lol, no But they didn't get this through legal means. Cause classifiied documents never get leaked to the public. Doesn't matter if it happens or not. They're not supposed to be leaked. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I know Ill get flamed for this BUT....I tire of hearing American complain about the use of the Bible in anything. This nation was built on Christian principals... If you think it was built on Jewish/or Islamic/or Buddhist principals you are wrong....This is simply our government operating how it always has. This country was intended to give people religious freedoms yes, but it was built a Christian nation... Seriously If you want to be any other religion you can do that here go ahead fold a piece of paper into a cool shape and worship that You are allowed to do that here its totally cool with me, you worhip what you want and I will worship what I want it doesn't make either of us wrong it also doesn't change the fact that the US was founded on those same Biblical principals found on those images... You will get flamed for it because you are completely wrong. Not because you don't have the right to say it, and prove yourself ignorant in the process. This nation was built on the principles of the Enlightenment. Go read about it, then come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Whoever released the classified documents to the public should be jailed...Releasing classifed information amounts to treason. Just because you might not see the harm in "these particular" classified documents does not excuse their release. Good thing Nancy Pelosi understood that in 2003 when she was (or wasn't) briefed about waterboarding, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.