http://www.democracynow.org/2000/5/22/noam...on_state_terror

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/31/excl...n_failed_states


JOHN FROM TEXAS

YEP WELCOME TO NOAM CHOMSKY (MIT PROFESSOR) THE LIBERAL THAT HAS OUT-DEBATED EVERY NEOCON OUT THERE(THE LATE WILLIAM F BUCKLEY LOST HIS DEBATE WITH CHOMSKY). YEP NOAM CHOMSKY HATED AND FEARED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND EVERY NEOCON. YEP WRIGHT IS CORRECT, THE US DOES SPONSOR STATE TERRORISM THROUGH ISRAEL.

DR. WRIGHT IS SUPPORTED BY NOAM CHOMSKY.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...=Noam%20Chomsky



JOHN FROM TEXAS

Here's a more detailed mp3 on Chomksy Israel/Palestine. it begins at 7:15 (7 minutes 15 seconds into the mp3)

http://willmedia.will.uiuc.edu/ramgen/arch...atters061203.rm


JOHN FROM TEXAS

Most demagogues have some truth in their messages. No one would believe them if they got all their facts too wrong. However, it is absurd to say the 9/11 attacks as justified. It is wrong to say that it was God's judgment on America. Fanatics attacked and killed innocent people on 9/11. Christians should not try to use those attacks by fanatics to justify their own religious hate.

We could say that the bigots that equate Islam with terrorism also have some facts or truth on their side. It's true, isn't it, that many terrorists claim to be Muslims? But it is equally wrong to attack Islam since Islam teaches, properly, that killing one innocent is like killing the whole world. That's a deep spiritual truth if you think about it. They are NOT real Muslims since Islam teaches peace, and no true Muslim would ever take an innocent life.

Likewise when Wright talks about "white Christianity," he errs. If white people act hatefully, they aren't acting in a Christian manner.

Yes, there is quite a lot of truth in what Wright says. It's the angle he puts on it that is offensive. A lot of white people have done a lot of bad things to a lot of black people. That does not justify talking about white people as a group. That kind of generalization is inflammatory.

Many stereotypes have some basis in reality. For example, it is true that Jews controlled a lot of things in Germany. You see, Hitler had his points also. The law forbid Jews from owning land; so they owned shops and they were lawyers. Yes, it was easy to convince people that they ran things; but it was wrong to defame them as a group.

the tibetans of the middle east.

"...it is absurd to say the 9/11 attacks as justified"

Yes that is absurd. It was more of a false flag operation....

The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

Sound familiar? Bush prides himself on 'keeping us safe'. We may not have actually carried out the attacks but we sure didn't do much to intercept them, or fully investigate them afterward. There are just way too many unanswered questions.

I agree 100%. But even IF they were legitimately, 100% foreign attacks on our soil, they were not conducted over some vague hate of our "freedom" like the criminal BushCo would have us believe. We DO bear responsibility for those attacks in our horrendous record of meddling, mischief and murder in the Middle East. That is not to say that 3000 innocent people deserved to die like that for the sins of our country, and I don't think that Rev. Wright meant that either...

(Oh, and welcome to the board, AC! )

Well it's inflamatory becuase Americans are more intrested in American Idol than actually paying attention to what goes on around the world.

Wright did not say "the 9/11 attacks" were justified. Wright said we are "indignant".

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/indignation

Wright: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans,” he said, “and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own frontyards.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3555561.ece

The people of the United States are indignant 1) simply because it was a violent attack and it was wrong, but 2) because people in the United States rely on the corporate news media for world news 3) The American people think we have never done a single "bad" thing to anyone else, therefore no one has a right to attack us.

Corporate news media tell you what you are allowed to hear. The corporate news media censors sensitive political information. Here's a simple example: How many dead American soldiers did you see in pictures of Vietnam? now how many from Iraq? Americans do not "think" they live in a bubble, but they do. Americans do not realize the truly viscous and violent coups the CIA and other US covert groups have orchestrated in other countries, which resulted in the deaths of people in foreign countries.

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Yet? Sanitorium and other Neocons want to say we are at was with Islamo-Fascists? Yet? The Wahhabis out of Saudi Ararbia are largely responsible for the extremist Islamo-Fascism in the Middle east as they export it to other countries in the middle east with thier money and thier Madrassas. Yet? Did Bush attack Saudi Arabia? No he did not. No he did not.

It is true that extremist forms of fascisms (cults) exist in all religions. Look at the Hagee cult. Hagee is fascist extremist and would be pleased if the United States would obliterate Iran. Hagee is just as much a fascist as Osama Bin Laden. The only difference is how Hagee twisted christianity to get build his extremist organization. Osama twists Islam.

The Jews have extremist cults too. It was a Jewish extremist that assasinated Rabin and a Muslim extremist that assasinated Anwar Sadat. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/rabin/11-06/index.html
Timothy McVeigh was associated with the cult "christian identity".

For Bush and Neocons to point the finger at Islamist fascists and then go bomb a secular country in the Middle East (Iraq) and not bomb Saudi Arabia, is simply a false hypocritical lie for corporate profit.

But Wright? Well do a background search. Is he really an extremist or did he just have an angry moment. What was going on in the world when he gave those speeches. It is OK for a christian pastor to have an angry moment, but it is the responsibilty of the sheep and/or other elders to correct the an elder pastor.

Now if you watched Fox News Sunday they are telling you where they are going to attack Obama from. They are going to paint with a broad brush for Fox will imply "For 20 years Wright was an extremist".

Obama needs to do damage control. Obama needs to realease all statements which Obama personally or the congregation with other witnesses, corrected thier pastor.

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

As a matter of fact if Obama could prove that Wright was approached and corrected, Obama could come out of this looking better than most conservative churches, because most conservative churches do not take seriously 1 Timothy 5:19, and most have probably never approached a pastor for correction, most christian conservatives are too scared to approach thier pastor. Yes that would definitely speak for Obama's charachter and judgement, and he would earn respect of conservative christians.



JOHN FROM TEXAS

you have offered 1 Timothy 5:19 (Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.) a few times in this and other locations, so it seems to be important to you.

but the pastorals as authentic epistles are among the more questionable documents. besides the language is the assumption of an organized clergy which most certainly in late antiquity did not exist in any degree.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

christian belief as a less organized religion did not receive official sanction until constantine, and then of course, everything was changed and catholicism became a parallel to the imperium.

see also a recent article on how changes in art motifs indicate the coherence of the religion relative to balance of family vs authority. NYR Books, Volume 55, Number 4 · March 20, 2008, The Private Art of Early Christians

Actually the pastoral epistles predate and are formulaic precursors for the Gospels. Most are not suspect as to authenticity.

Christian belief did not require any sort of official sanction to emerge exponentially as the dominant religion of the early so-called 'christian era'. When it did receive sanction, Ceasaropapism was the negative result; and from which scourge the world finally emerged with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (although there is a nefarious tendency to relapse)

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were both bishops in the 1st century. The hierarchy may not have been as ossified as they have become but they were indeed institutionalized as persons of authority over doctrine in a geographic area.

i am happy to accede to higher authority on this question. but one more if i might.

the early period was rather fluid in respect to the various doctrinal matters that later or sooner became fixed (and the just cause for murder of heretics, of course). if that is a fair statement, and the gospels as agreed text (to the degree they were agreed!), as you suggest, post date timothy, and that of extant period writings, where are the contemporaneous mentions of jesus (or even writings that mention jesus in the years immediately after the passion). is not paul the first writer to specifically discuss jesus as the chief figure in the narrative?

Something is strange!!!!

As of right now, the “Members of Trinity United Church of Christ for Obama” have a donation graphic showing a goal of $5000, but $0 donations on Obama’s website.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/Membe...rchofChristforO

Speaking of donations, won’t the church donation record’s show the days he was there? That might prove he did not hear Wright say those things.

It all along with all other verses should be important to all christians.

You do not consider 1 Timothy 5:19 the Word of God? Show evidence.

See also - Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.



JOHN FROM TEXAS

Jeez. GIVE IT UP ALREADY. This is such a PETTY issue. Who Gives a crap what Rev. Wright said (and it wasn't all that bad anyway, for anyone who REALLY wants to know)...

i am not going to enter a 'word of god" discussion until i have evidence what language is native to divinity, then we can worry about translation problems between the divine and the all too human.

i raise the question about textual authenticity and i suppose others also raise questions about translations among the various terrestrial, human languages involved. the early period is fascinating, isn't it, as one religion spreads and replaces another in a large, globalized empire that itself falls to pieces from its own internal contradictions.

Paul is the first to offer Jesus as the messiah(Hebrew)/christos (Greek) in writing.
There are no extant writings until Paul began writing. (Josephus the historian in his "Jewish Antiquities' '93 A.D. mentions Jesus)...but his entry is controversial.

Normally the message or 'Gospel' was transmitted orally(not uncommon in the ancient world)...especially early on because of the imminent expectation of a quick return of Jesus - writing things down for posterity didn't seem necessary. However; as the apostles started aging and with no immediate 2nd coming they began to write down their experiences. Paul (Roman citizen and schooled as a Pharisee) and Luke a physician, were two of the early advocates for Christianity that had the education to write down these events. Also Paul experienced some turmoil and had requests for guidance from his new 'churches' causing him to exchange letters with these geographic centers, hence Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans etc.

Wasn't looking for this thread to go that way either, but you made issue of me using that verse. I brought the verse up to help Obama, not to get into a theological debate. I have no problems either way.

But? that's all you had to say. You question the textual authenticty.

Big deal

So What?

Why did you bring it up? It's off subject. We were talking about Wright and State terrorism, not textual authencity.


JOHN FROM TEXAS

thanks for comments and explications. i have pauline issues with international distributors all the time and can relate!

It is not a petty issue to everyone.

What I was pointing out is that Barack’s church appears to be less connected than the attack dogs would like. The church congregation hasn’t even donated a cent to his campaign.

The other comment is just a way that he might be able to prove to the skeptics that he wasn’t there.

That is strange.


Another thing that I think is strange is the timing of the release of this "gd America" viceo. 1st who was the original source and why after the "math" doesn't add up for Clinton and Obama appears to be the likely candidate - then why is it NOW the video is suddenly released? DO people really think Obama would have the "math" to win right now if this video had been released in Jan 08? I don't think so. I think the corporate media favored Obama. I am suspicious that the corporate media had the video the whole time and it was a setup. Butter up Obama up to beat Clinton - then destroy Obama - then McCain walks int othe whitehouse. I am going to fight that, but that might have been the logic.


I think Randi Rhodes is naive about this and still trying to keep the "Obamarama"band playing. IT WILL BE AN ISSUE that neocons will not give up on, because neocons feel the have an "edge" on "thier side" of extremism over Wrights and Chomky's view. You don't hear too much about the abuse of Palestinians by American corporate media. That's by design. The Wright issue is not going to go away(neocons will make sure).Be prepared to hear GD America all the way through November. I think kingarbear and I will both vote for Obama or Clin, but if Obama has too much baggage or other issues we don't know about that can potentially destroy a Democratic victory over McCain then logic says - go with Clinton now. Get off the "badwagon" and investiagte Obama now while we still have a chance.

Also as far as the Pelestinians being "bad" and Zionists (these extremists are like our "neocons" and different from the jewish people by the way), weren't the American Indians all "bad" before we stole thier lands? Weren't American "white settlers" attacked by Indians? Weren't those attacks "mini 911s"? Were those attacks not retribution? for killing all thier Buffalo? for all the treaties broken? For killing thier women and children? For stealing thier land? Now how likely is it that there are "only bad Palestinians"? Or how likely it is that every Iraqi that took up arms against the USA in Iraq "are just bad terrorists"? After an American Apache gunship helicopter mowed down thier family members?

Occupation is not the way to fight this war. Surgical strikes like Clinton launched against Osama Bin Laden with cruise missles and special forces covert attacks, and International cooperation with police an intelligence agaencies are the way to fight this war. Neocons made fun of Clinton for using cruise missles to attack the terrorist Osama bin laden, but just recently Bush used cruise missles to attack and kill terrorists in Somalia. Hypocrites. Hypocrites and propagandists for "endless wars" for corporate profit. National and International corporations are tearing the guts out of the American people and Bush is just letting it happen.


JOHN FROM TEXAS

Didn't one of the NeoCON hacks just have to apologize for saying that Obama was - when it was proven that he was elsewhere during that speech? Who was t - Morris or Krystal?

Of course, he didn't fix his unsubstantiated accusation - he just retracted it on page 10 or something, after the fact. LIE - and retract later. The lie gets remembered & the retraction is lost in the back pages.

The out-takes of Rev. Wright's speech were about Hillary getting taxi cabs
and not being called the "N" word. I also heard him talking about killing Iraqis. I did not hear
a Wade Churchill style statement. Even Churchill did not say the attack was justified. Churchill just said we should find out why we were attacked, and not blame it on religion.

We were attacked because commodity dealers and currency dealers in the twin towers
were screwing Arabs out fo their oil and managing embargoes that were starving children.

That aside I do not think 9/11 had any connection to Obama throwing Reverend Wright
under the bus. I think Obama wants to distance homself from all black militants.

Bernake goes for 0.75 percent cut. Rate is now 2.25

That is the way to fight inflation.


I guess Ed is joining Randi in calling people names, who don't like the Obama's slams on America
from his wife, "I am ashamed to be an American"
and Reverend Wright, "No one called Hillary the "N" word".."Taxis don't pick me up"
. The caller was a patriot, not a racist.
I got me kicked off Randi, and if it gets me kicked off here so be it


I call them like I see them, and Obama does not like America.
He can throw Michelle under the bus too, if he had a bus.

God "curse" America is unacceptable, and being black, or part black, is not an excuse for hating America.
Tiger Woods should run for President.

Mark did not dislike you Ed.

I don't have to stand before the lord. I am going to hell.

Now we are part of the VRWC. Randi thinks Hillary is part of the VRWC!!!!

I'm white, and not running for any office, and I will say it too:
"God Damn America."
Make something out of that if you wish.


Mac

I don’t know about God damning America, but New Orleans could use a few new levies now that he got rid of the gays!!!

Now that I think about it; that's pretty damn clever!

Rev. Wright simply pointed out that what goes around, comes around. We beat the crap out of nations all over the globe so we can take their wealth, and the logical outcome is that eventually someone hits back.

Why no outrage over the War Authorization Act that said if a nation simply possesses WMDs it is OK to attack them. This was an official sanction of 911 and future attacks as well. We jump all over Rev. Wright, in part at the behest of one of the war - and 911! - authorizers; Hillary Clinton.

What a nation of fools we have become. To fight the BS war on terror, we allow armed robbers/mass murderers to set up a gigantic terrorist factory in the middle of the middle east. There are 2 million refugees at least, who have watched their country destroyed, their families killed, tortured, exiled and forced into poverty , prostitution and homelessness and nationlessness. Could any of them possibly be angry enough to lash back?

And then, to the disgust and dismay of the world, the US opposition party toys with nominating one of the promoters of that war as well as the next war in Iran.

Democracy is pointless if misused so badly.