Welcome cleo, the baby killer.
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
- Status
It is impossible to save the lives of people who have been slaughtered. Think about it.
You did not address the question of the children and babies who have been killed in Iraq not by an "evil dictator" but by your president, with the full support of Billy Bob and perhaps you yourself. Regardless of the "intent" of the military, babies are being killed there and you don't seem to care. Maybe you have condemned it elsewhere and I just haven't seen it. I hope you have, because otherwise it would appear that you are a hypocrite and totally insincere in your defense of the lives of babies. Or maybe you think it is OK to kill babies if it is politically expedient? If so, then why do certain moral dilemmas get a free pass in this regard, while others do not?
This is too silly for a response.
Originally posted by Sozo
cleo... I am against the killing of babies. I am not against war to protect the lives of those who would have been slaughteredhad someone not intervened.
There is no evidence that these children would have been killed. Just saying so does not make it true. The recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine was quite clear in stating that the death toll among civilians (i.e., women AND CHILDREN) is dramatically higher under the US occupation than it was under Saddam, due to bombing deaths and other war-related violence. Unicef also documented a tremendous increase in malnutrition, but maybe you think slow starvation of children and babies is OK too if justified by a political agenda. Your understanding of the basis for the war is extremely naive, btw, but I suppose that would be the subject for a different thread. At present I am most interested in your callous acceptance and justification of the deaths of so many thousands of Iraqi babies. They are precious in the eyes of God, but apparently not in yours.
Not such a bad idea....you might actually make more sense in German than you do in English.
I will be happy to answer granite's question after we have explored, to my satisfaction, the issue of your apparent support and collusion in the killing of innocent children, both born and unborn, in Iraq. You may be quite surprised at my answer. However, I am not going to let you off the hook of your own apparent inconsistencies so quickly. Nice try at changing the subject, though.
There are mass graves in Iraq filled with the bodies of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children. There are terrorists in Iraq right now killing innocent Iraqi civillians, some of them are children. One thing we know for certain is that Saddam is no longer murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
They must not be aware of the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam brutally murdered. Oh wait, New England is the home of many of the commies [democraps] in this country, they aren't interested in truth.
Exactly how many children do they claim have been killed by Coalition bombs?
Sozo doesn't have a political agenda, how often have you seen him posting in the political threads?
How many thousands?
You are an idiot.
Sozo
New member
cleo... Poor attempt on your part to turn the attention off of yourself.
I am against babies, Mothers, Fathers children, etc. from dying in car crashes, fires, tsunamis, etc. But, unfortunately, it happens. For you to claim that there is never the necessity of war, proves that you are both naive and ignorant.
Comparing my view against yours comes to this:
In order to protect innocent lives from those whose agenda it is to oppress and slaughter them for the purpose of selfish ambition is the obligation of those who have it within their power to do so.
I would suspect that you would do the same if someone broke in your house to rape your wife and children. (But, then again, maybe you wouldn't).
There is a huge difference between maintaing order and insuring freedom where casualities are the unfortunate result (primarily by the oppressors, and not those who are there to set the innocent free from them), and your agenda to go in and kill whomever is necessary if it protects your own selfish interests.
I am against babies, Mothers, Fathers children, etc. from dying in car crashes, fires, tsunamis, etc. But, unfortunately, it happens. For you to claim that there is never the necessity of war, proves that you are both naive and ignorant.
Comparing my view against yours comes to this:
In order to protect innocent lives from those whose agenda it is to oppress and slaughter them for the purpose of selfish ambition is the obligation of those who have it within their power to do so.
I would suspect that you would do the same if someone broke in your house to rape your wife and children. (But, then again, maybe you wouldn't).
There is a huge difference between maintaing order and insuring freedom where casualities are the unfortunate result (primarily by the oppressors, and not those who are there to set the innocent free from them), and your agenda to go in and kill whomever is necessary if it protects your own selfish interests.
Billy Bob, it is touching and sweet for you to jump in to defend your friend, but I am sure he is man enough to speak for himself.
No, George Bush is doing that, with full support from you and Sozo. Sozo has said quite emphatically that anyone who does not actively oppose the killing of innocent babies is guilty of murder. He is quick to fling charges of "baby killer"; I am merely pointing out the log in his own eye.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/327/13/931
As you can see from my post count, I am quite new here and have no idea where he posts and doesn't post. However, abortion is a political issue, make no mistake about it.
No, George Bush is doing that, with full support from you and Sozo. Sozo has said quite emphatically that anyone who does not actively oppose the killing of innocent babies is guilty of murder. He is quick to fling charges of "baby killer"; I am merely pointing out the log in his own eye.
They are well aware. On of the co-investigators in the study lives in Baghdad and has first hand experience living under both regtimes.
I will assume this is a joke and move on .
Here is a link to the article so you can inform yourself:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/327/13/931
As you can see from my post count, I am quite new here and have no idea where he posts and doesn't post. However, abortion is a political issue, make no mistake about it.
Right. Too bad Sozo already stole your thunder by calling me a commie, so you had to find another epithet.
Count me in!
Count me in!
Cleo,
I wish to add my name to two lists.
1. If you know of anyone who does want their baby, I will take it. Like Knight and Sozo, I am not kidding or joking around. If there is a baby that I can raise that would otherwise be murdered then by any and all means I will definitely and happily raise the child as though they were my very own.
2. I really, really want to be on the list of people who "owe you an apology"!
You really are tremendously idiotic (really, I'm not just saying this to get on the list)!
To demonstrate, let me ask you a couple of questions…
Is there any such thing as a just war?
Was it morally wrong to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiping out tens of thousands of the enemy to save hundreds of thousands on both sides?
Should Hitler have been allowed to run his nation the way he saw fit? Was it really worth the lives of all those American boys just to save a relatively small percentage of the world's Jews? I mean common, he wouldn't have killed every last Jew on the planet; there would have been plenty left over! Besides! His economy really benefited from the slave labor force, right?
What should have been our response to the 9-11 attacks, or did we deserve what we got?
Why do you advocate the murder of unborn babies?
How about babies who are born? Can we kill them too?
How about the murder of old people, don't you think that the elderly are too big a burden on our society? Wouldn't it be a better, more productive use of our resources to kill everyone over 70 and use the savings to protect the unhatched eggs of Bald Eagles and Northern Spotted Owls?
Again, I am not kidding. I really do want you to answer these questions and display your mindlessness for the world to see!
Resting in Him,
:Clete:
Count me in!
Cleo,
I wish to add my name to two lists.
1. If you know of anyone who does want their baby, I will take it. Like Knight and Sozo, I am not kidding or joking around. If there is a baby that I can raise that would otherwise be murdered then by any and all means I will definitely and happily raise the child as though they were my very own.
2. I really, really want to be on the list of people who "owe you an apology"!
You really are tremendously idiotic (really, I'm not just saying this to get on the list)!
To demonstrate, let me ask you a couple of questions…
Is there any such thing as a just war?
Was it morally wrong to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiping out tens of thousands of the enemy to save hundreds of thousands on both sides?
Should Hitler have been allowed to run his nation the way he saw fit? Was it really worth the lives of all those American boys just to save a relatively small percentage of the world's Jews? I mean common, he wouldn't have killed every last Jew on the planet; there would have been plenty left over! Besides! His economy really benefited from the slave labor force, right?
What should have been our response to the 9-11 attacks, or did we deserve what we got?
Why do you advocate the murder of unborn babies?
How about babies who are born? Can we kill them too?
How about the murder of old people, don't you think that the elderly are too big a burden on our society? Wouldn't it be a better, more productive use of our resources to kill everyone over 70 and use the savings to protect the unhatched eggs of Bald Eagles and Northern Spotted Owls?
Again, I am not kidding. I really do want you to answer these questions and display your mindlessness for the world to see!
Resting in Him,
:Clete:
Wrong. The attention had turned from me to the subject of adoption, and then to Skeptic and then to seat belts. If anything, I invited the attention back on myself by jumping back into the fray to point out your inconsistency. You are the one who seems to be uncomfortable with the turn in the conversation.
These are all tragic accidents. The Iraq war, while tragic, was cynically conceived and recklessly executed without consideration of the spilling of innocent blood. Those who warned of the calamitous consequences were ignored.
I never claimed any such thing. I never said anything about any war except the current one in Iraq, which is predicated on a string of falsehoods. Either you misunderstood what you read or you are deliberately trying to neutralize my rebuke by putting words in my mouth again. If you think I am naive and ignorant, you will have to prove it by something other than more false witness.
Since I am female, I don't have a wife for anyone to rape, so I am sorry to thwart your charming fantasy. Nobody broke into our national "house". We were lied to about the threatl, and innocent children were killed and are being killed as I write this. You continue to defend their deaths. I don't understand this, given your stated opinion.
It is shocking to hear you dismiss the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, born and unborn, as "unfortunate casualties." What do you mean by "your agenda to go in and kill whomever is necessary if it protects your own selfish interests"? That is the agenda of the current administration, supported by you and BillyBob. It is not my agenda, never has been, and never will be.
Clete, Billy Bob, and others find it (understandably) easier to defend the collateral damage of the Iraqi war because we're the ones causing it. Criticizing Saddam for murdering his own people is a safer bet.
Was Saddam a thug and a tyrant? Yep. Did he deserve to get sacked? Sure. Is the war turning into a cluster? Seems that way. Iraqis have been and will continue to be killed by coalition forces--unfortunately that's what happens to civilians in wartime. Deflecting attention from collateral deaths by pointing out Saddam murdered his own countrymen is apples and oranges.
Was Saddam a thug and a tyrant? Yep. Did he deserve to get sacked? Sure. Is the war turning into a cluster? Seems that way. Iraqis have been and will continue to be killed by coalition forces--unfortunately that's what happens to civilians in wartime. Deflecting attention from collateral deaths by pointing out Saddam murdered his own countrymen is apples and oranges.
Re: Count me in!
Re: Count me in!
Re: Count me in!
Of course there is. Why do you imagine that I think otherwise? I do oppose the current occupation of Iraq, but to extrapolate from that that I would never think there is a "just" war defies logic. Did you really think I said that, or are you letting Sozo do your thinking for you?
I think we should have hunted Osama Bin Ladin down like the dog that he is. Instead, he is a free man. Bush lied about Osama's connections to Saddam, figuring correctly that many of you were too stupid or to notice the difference, and now over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis are dead. Go figure.
Other than Sozo's false witness, why would you think I have ever advocated such a thing? Are you another one who will defend the killing or unborn Iraqi babies? I don't get it. Is it a race thing? A religion thing?
No, I don't agree with you. I don't want to see either babies or old people killed, either here or in Iraq.
Maybe it's time for you to wake up from your rest. When Christ set you free, he didn't intend for you to be imprisoned ever again, even by bonds of laziness, ignorance, or intolerance. "Truth smacker"? Yes, from what I have seen on this thread, you do seem intent on smacking down truth whenever it rears its head.
I find it interesting that cleo still hasn't admitted her position. Of course, I'm not surprised she doesn't understand that a Truth Smacker is one who smacks idiots, like her, with the truth. Yes, cleo, I called you an idiot. And you're a commie, too. Actually, you're an idiotic, socialist, pinko, commie, liberal. When Christ sets someone free, He sets them free from sin, and they become slaves of righteousness. And righteousness is intolerant of unrighteousness. Also, all wars have collateral damage. There's no way to change that. There's collateral damage on both sides. But the terrorists are the ones who are intentionally killing innocent civilians. They actually seek them out in order to kill them. Do you think they should be allowed to do so, or should they be stopped?
Chileice
New member
Sozo,
If you don't like to interact with people who have differing ideas, get off the forum. This is NOT YOUR forum. Everyone has the right to express themselves within the limits of decency (which you often cross, in my opinion). Why don't you get off cleo's case. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but you should be able to express your differences without resorting to low-life tactics and name calling.
Cleo,
Hang in there. Even though I won't agree with all you say, it's nice to have new blood on TOL.
If you don't like to interact with people who have differing ideas, get off the forum. This is NOT YOUR forum. Everyone has the right to express themselves within the limits of decency (which you often cross, in my opinion). Why don't you get off cleo's case. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but you should be able to express your differences without resorting to low-life tactics and name calling.
Cleo,
Hang in there. Even though I won't agree with all you say, it's nice to have new blood on TOL.
Re: Re: Count me in!
Re: Re: Count me in!
And no one does my thinking for me.
Race is a complete non issue.
Religion defines one's worldview and so is undeniably vital to a coherent understanding of anything.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Re: Re: Count me in!
I imagined otherwise because if our war in Iraq is not a just war then there is no such thing as a just war.
And no one does my thinking for me.
We have and are doing just that.
You are stupid. If he is alive he is living in a cave or some third world hut, running like a scared rabbit.
You are a bald faced liar. You know that this is not true nor could it be. Everyone and I mean everyone who knew half a wit about what they were talking about believed that the information that the President had been given was true and reasonably accurate, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, the entire CIA, the English Secret Service, and anyone else who was in a position to know anything about it.
Far fewer than would have been under Saddam's tyrannical rule.
Because you do and have. I can read Cleo. You give all kinds of reasons why it would be a bad idea to criminalize abortion, that's what I call advocating the murder of unborn babies.
Yes. In the context of this discussion, you bet your butt. If it had been necessary to wipe out every man woman and child in the city of Baghdad in order to remove Saddam from power, it would not only have been justified but worth it. The point is that it was not necessary and the limited loss of life, both civilian and miliary is the lowest of any war that has ever been fought!
This question makes very little sense.
Race is a complete non issue.
Religion defines one's worldview and so is undeniably vital to a coherent understanding of anything.
Then why not advocate the criminalization of abortion? If you are pissed off about Iraq then the abortion in this country alone should nearly put you into a catatonic state! We've murdered more babies in the last thirty years than there have been grown people killed in all the wars in history combined!
I never suggested that I was asleep, but I will never stop resting in Him.
Had you left off "intolerance", you would have made a correct statement. I, being in Christ, hate those things which He hates and am intolerant of those things He is intolerant of, including child killers, homos, adulterers, etc.
Only your version of it. It's sort of easy too! :chuckle:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
"If it had been necessary to wipe out every man woman and child in the city of Baghdad in order to remove Saddam from power, it would not only have been justified but worth it."
Nice attitude, Clete. One tyrant's life is not worth this much. Of course it happens that Iraqis are brown skinned and have a different culture, so justifying their death is easier that way...
This kind of fanaticism is dangerous and devalues life. See quote below.
Nice attitude, Clete. One tyrant's life is not worth this much. Of course it happens that Iraqis are brown skinned and have a different culture, so justifying their death is easier that way...
This kind of fanaticism is dangerous and devalues life. See quote below.
C
cattyfan
Guest
various posters have been asking since page one for cleo to define her position on abortion. she has so far declined to voice it directly, but her position is clear from her indirect statements and from her defense of those who support abortion.
And her support of those who support abortion is (ironically) in keeping with her choice to attack those who would defend the innocent slaughtered by people like Saddam and her choice to attack those who would fight to free the oppressed in the Middle East.
cleo needn't bother typing out for us that she is pro-abortion for those in the womb and anti-freedom for those outside the womb. Her longform (albeit ill-thought-out) answers are sufficient.
And her support of those who support abortion is (ironically) in keeping with her choice to attack those who would defend the innocent slaughtered by people like Saddam and her choice to attack those who would fight to free the oppressed in the Middle East.
cleo needn't bother typing out for us that she is pro-abortion for those in the womb and anti-freedom for those outside the womb. Her longform (albeit ill-thought-out) answers are sufficient.
Reading into posts like this is the worst kind of judgmentalism. Funny how you people get so infuriated when people jump to conclusions about what you say or don't say, and yet you feel fine doing the same thing if you think a poster isn't coloring inside the lines.
Cleo, just spit out your opinion and at least put the question to rest.
Cleo, just spit out your opinion and at least put the question to rest.
Sozo is quite capable, but I wanted a piece of the action. I enjoy smacking around lying fools like you.
George Bush is killing children? Our military has the most precise weapons mankind has ever had at it's disposal. Our military takes great pains in targeting only our enemies, unfortunately, they hide among civillian populations and even in schools. If any child has died from a US missle, it is entirely the fault of our enemy. They had a chance to lay down their arms and peacefully surreneder, they chose otherwise. They are now getting help from hippie, commie liberals like yourself who hate America. You are as much an enemy of the US as they are.
Yes....so?
Sozo doesn't want children to die in Iraq anymore than he wants them to die on an abortionists table.
Then he must know that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. For you or him to claim that the US is no different than Saddam is pure stupidity and political propaganda. If you are an American, I hereby remove your citizenship and give you 24 hours to:
:sozo: Get Out Of My Country!!!
Frome the article:
1991? How does this article relate to our current multi-lateral effort in Iraq? Why are you using statistics from 14 years ago?
Then you should be more careful with your accusation.
That doesn't mean that Sozo has a political agenda.
You are a commie idiot.
Last edited:
- Status