Norseman82 Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 Poland, anyone? Last I heard they were predominately Catholic. Nie.... Unfortunately, since the fall of communism, weekly mass attendance has fallen considerably, from what I've read.
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 Nie.... Unfortunately, since the fall of communism, weekly mass attendance has fallen considerably, from what I've read. I have heard the same, unfortunately. Religion held them firm against communism, but theyve had a decade of western hedonism.
God Conquers Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 yup it's sad. By the way, there IS a camp of Arabs and Arab Americans. It's called Guantanamo Bay, and it's illegal(or should be) under international law. Using the words "foreign combatants" instead of "prisoners of war is a load of manure
BLAZEr Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 That love is my point...at that moment the Supreme Court appointed a president when it wasn't clear that he had won Florida. Pal, I don't like Gore either. I supported Bush, because under the impression that anti-abortion meant pro-life. I was wrong. Hyper you love to talk out of your butt. The Supreme court did not appoint anybody. The Supreme court did not allow the votes in Florida to be recounted ad-abusrdem. They allowed the decision of the secretary of the State of Florida to declare the ballots counted and GW Bush the winner. Then all the different electors appointed by the states met to cast their electoral votes. George W. Bush won the electoral college and is president. Contrary to popular belief, our system does not allow us to choose the president it allows the electoral college to choose the president. In most states the electors are bound by law to vote for the candidate that the majority of their state supported in the General Election. Some states do not require this. George Bush fairly won the electoral college election. Get over it. And by the way, every time the votes were recounted (including hangine chads) Bush won by more and more votes. Wherever you got your 1000 vote information you were wrong.
M.SIGGA Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 Wow, I'm glad I didn't get online in the past 24hrs and see this post b/c I would have gotten way to emotional. lol. BTW, BUSH smells of elderberries. God Bless America.
Paladin D Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 BTW, BUSH smells of elderberries. God Bless America. Better than Gore.
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 yup it's sad. By the way, there IS a camp of Arabs and Arab Americans. It's called Guantanamo Bay, and it's illegal(or should be) under international law. Using the words "foreign combatants" instead of "prisoners of war is a load of manure Guantanamo Bay is not illegal under any law, and the camp is comprised mostly of Afghans - not Arabs or Arab Americans. (there is a difference; Afghans do not speak arabic, nor do they write in arabic. I believe they speak Farsi; either way, they have a closer ethic relationship to the peoples of India than they peoples of Arabia). All those detained were actively fighting against the US; yes, it is a POW camp. No, they are not being tortured.
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 BTW, BUSH smells of elderberries. God Bless America. That is an awfully uncharitable attitude, Sigga. Show our president the same love you show your brothers and sisters on Zboard.
hyperdulia again Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 (edited) Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Edited November 22, 2003 by hyperdulia again
Ellenita Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 All those detained were actively fighting against the US. Yes it is a POW camp. No they are not being tortured Isn't the war in Afganistan supposed to be over? In which case, why haven't these POWs been returned? A number of human rights organisations have condemned the treatment of the men being held. It appears as if, by not naming them officially as POWs they are therefore not subject to international law, and by not having them in prison in the US they are not subject to US law - this surely is a denial of a basic human right, legal representation, their case to be heard in a court. I am not making a case for or against their guilt, but even the most wicked of Nazis were given their day in court at the Nuremburg Trials. There are nine British citizens among the group. The press and anti war protestors have had a field day over here saying it is hypocritical to hold them in such limbo while taking the moral high ground. It is a real problem for moderates about the war - even people who are supportive of Blair's stance have argued that if Americans were being held in similar circumstances in another part of the world the senate would be 'up in arms' about it.
musturde Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Lebanon's Prez is Christian ( I think Catholic). Hey that means he's a famous Catholic! (Theres a prob with the Lebanese Gov, it's as if Syria controls it now).
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 I am not making a case for or against their guilt, but even the most wicked of Nazis were given their day in court at the Nuremburg Trials. Nuremburg was a show trial, and had absolutely no legal justification to exist. No precedent called for it's existence, and had no authority to do what it did.
Ellenita Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Nuremburg was a show trial Absolutely, but at least it was a public forum and they were given the opportunity to state their case. There are legal precedents for POWs at an international level - these have existed since before WW11. One such precedent is the return of POWs at the end of the war, so if these are POWs, why haven't they been returned? Please understand, like most people, I find acts of terrorism horrific and although I would rather have peace than war, I voted for Blair and therefore think he has some integrity and would not have chosen to go to war in Afganistan unless it was absolutely neccessary. I also understand that the normal rules of peaceful society might have to be suspended temporarily in a war situation. However, now that the war is supposed to be over, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the moral high ground while the situation at Guantanamo Bay exists and I believe it does not serve the US well in terms of international perception. A decision needs to made concerning the men being held - if they are not POWs, let them have their day in court.
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 There are legal precedents for POWs at an international level - these have existed since before WW11. One such precedent is the return of POWs at the end of the war, so if these are POWs, why haven't they been returned? As far as many in the government are concerned, the war isn't over.
M.SIGGA Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 That is an awfully uncharitable attitude, Sigga. Show our president the same love you show your brothers and sisters on Zboard. Sorry if I was too blunt but anything less would be a lie on my behalf - he gets all my Christian love but I do not respect the man at all. Vatican City is the world's last Christian nation. Having ''God'' on our money and the world's majority of Sunday Christians doesn't make America a Christian Nation. God blesses America with opportunity to help the lowly and oppressed and I love America, but imposing that title would be an insult to Jesus.
Paladin D Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 The US Government does not consider the terrorists being detained, as POWs. Therefore, they wouldn't be under the genueve (can't spell it) convention.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 23, 2003 Author Posted November 23, 2003 Other than Vatican city there are no other countries that qualify. And you might not like Bush, but he is saint compared to the previous White House inhabitants.
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 The US Government does not consider the terrorists being detained, as POWs. Therefore, they wouldn't be under the genueve (can't spell it) convention. Geneva
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Sorry if I was too blunt but anything less would be a lie on my behalf - he gets all my Christian love but I do not respect the man at all. You aren't asked to respect him, just to love him. But remember, love is a verb. Do you show him love by, at the very least, not insulting him?
Seatbelt Blue Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Other than Vatican city there are no other countries that qualify. And you might not like Bush, but he is saint compared to the previous White House inhabitants. Argentina is officially Catholic.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now