Church Position On The Current War On Terror

[zelder]

Is Iraq more or less free now than a decade ago?

If a building is damaged to the point where, if left to it's own devices, it will collapse and cause further destruction and loss of life, doesn't it make more sense to implode it in a safe manner?

If we had not taken military action, how likely is it that there would have been further terrorist action of similar magnitude against us?

We druids are naturally peaceful people, but when Rome invaded, who was it who organized the resistance?

Yours under the oaks of just self defense,

Nathair /|\

I agree with George Washington who warned that speading freedom with the sword is a bad idea.

The official explanation is that Building 7 collapsed from fires. However B7 was further away from the twin towers and less damaged than other buidlings which were repaired and still standing. It takes weeks of preparation for a demolition like that. There are many addtitional anamolies which when put together are very disconcerting.

I don't think it is likely that more terrorist attacks would have happened if we had not attacked. Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord. I can't comprehend how vengence will bring peace. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from further attacks. If Al-qaeda really did pull off 9-11 single handedly, then I think the most we should have done is sick our own terrorists on al-qaeda, the CIA.

[zelder]

Yes.

http://en.fairmormon...on_to_forgeries

So just how was Pres. Hinckley "easily decieved about things like salamander letters"?

Okay maybe I was a little harsh using the word decieved. Hinckely himself says that he was tricked though.

"I accepted him to come into my office on a basis of trust.... I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however.... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."

[WalkerW]

I'm pretty sure the source linked to by ELF has demonstrated the 9/11 demolition conspiracy theory (along with others) to be BS.

[ELF1024]

I'm pretty sure the source linked to by ELF has demonstrated the 9/11 demolition conspiracy theory (along with others) to be BS.

I've long since given up arguing with the 9/11 Truth crowd.

Most of them are complete nitwits, will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

Like with some apostates from the Church, they get hyper-focused one tiny insignificant fact or rumor, and then make it out to be the biggest mountain on the planet.

[Calm]

Okay maybe I was a little harsh using the word decieved. Hinckely himself says that he was tricked though.

"I accepted him to come into my office on a basis of trust.... I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however.... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."

You need to provide links with your quotes.

I agree he was tricked by Hofmann. I would disagree he was deceived or tricked by "salamander letters" or that he was "easily" tricked or deceived since those whose opinions he was relying on were experts in the area and usually experts aren't "easily deceived". From what I've read, Hofmann was a genius at his work and put in a huge amount of effort to achieve his results in many cases.

[WalkerW]

I don't remember ever thinking that Iraq had a specific role in 9/11 beyond connections to known terrorists. But this was always minor. I always found the genocide (including women and children) at Hussein's hands to be the most important issue. I'm not quite sure why the murder and horror stories of Iraq are never brought up.

As Christopher Hitchens has written,

Since this crisis began, I have become used to arguing with people who say that, if menaced, Saddam Hussein will make use of the genocidal weapons that they usually say he does not possess. I have accustomed myself to hearing that the American oil companies, which wanted to lift even the sanctions on Saddam until recently, are now controlling the White House. I have drummed my fingers while waiting for the opposing speaker to say that this is a war for profit that will also cost far more than we can afford, and can't be a war for democracy in Iraq because it would lead to loud disagreement among Iraqis. Some say that this policy is determined by the fact that America is an empire or a superpower, an observation that would be just as true, or just as relevant, if the United States was intervening on Saddam Hussein's side (as it once did). Some slyly imply that if only the Bush administration had signed the Kyoto treaty-which got exactly no votes in the U.S. Senate-it would have a better chance of persuading people that Saddam Hussein was a menace: one of the great non sequiturs of this debate. Some say that because the United States was wrong before, it cannot possibly be right now, or has no right to be right. (The British Empire sent a fleet to Africa and the Caribbean to maintain the slave trade while the very same empire later sent another fleet to enforce abolition. I would not have opposed the second policy because of my objections to the first; rather it seems to me that the second policy was morally necessitated by its predecessor.) Finally, I keep hearing that Saddam has not attacked the United States and therefore should not be attacked, even though-had Iraq openly done such a thing-there would be no need for the administration to have sought the enforcement of violated Security Council resolutions. It could simply have evoked the clause on self-defense in the U.N. Charter, and done so from the first, instaed of trying to restore the vertebrae of international law...My jaw has many times dropped on hearing that Saddam Hussein is a "bad guy" all right, but only one among many...Did the people who said this have any idea what they were saying? How many bad guys could they name who had violated the Genocide Convention on their own territory, invaded two neighboring states, openly financed suicide bombing, sought and nearly acquired nuclear capacity and were within easy reach of 9 percent of the world's energy reserves? People say that Saddam understands deterrence and self-preservation-this of a man who blew up the Kuwaiti oilfields after he had surrendered them, and after he had been threatened with dire consequences if he did so. A man who not only murders his mildest critics but has also murdered members of his own family and members of his own government. (His foreign minister, Naji Sabry, has seen one brother tortured to death and another merely tortured. His suave deputy Tariq Aziz has seen his son imprisoned for twent years as a reminder of who is boss...) The only possible rival here is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, who can't threaten sea-lanes or commerce very much but who does possess some awesome weapons...The same smart-*** critics used to say that double standards were being employed for Saddam and Kim. Yes indeed. But this facile point obscured the fact that Kim actually has the deterrent power that Saddam lacks. "More time" was a plea to give Saddam the chance to join the North Korean madman-plus-WMD club, in which case a military intervention in Iraq would have been almost impossible to mount to begin with...Saddam has been warned and put on notice and the entire debate on armed enforcement has been exhaustively conducted in full public view. There is no surprise attack being readied here-at least not from the American end...This brings me to my closing point. On my last visit to Kurdistan I made some friends for life, and I have kept up with them. They, and their allies in the Iraqi democratic opposition, could each tell you a story that would harrow up your soul. You'll get an idea, when the mass graves and secret prisons are opened...Only after a long train of blunders and hesitations and betrayals did the United States decide that it was, at long last, in the same trench as the resistance. No matter how it comes out, or how the alliance may fray, I shall never have the least serious doubt that it was the right side to have been on. (A Long-Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, 2003)

[Hestia]

Zelder is no longer participating on this thread and is very close to being banned from forum.

[urroner]

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

Twin Towers Conspiracy Theories

The Grassy Knoll

Roswell Coverup

Paul is Dead and Elvis is Alive

Global Cooling Warming Climate Change

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Twilight Zone.