Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church
A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.
Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."
A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village....
Yes, I was even going to give credit to Harding for "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" ,but that was said at least by the committee for the election of Herbert Hoover who did have brains. I won't make the mistake of crediting either Harding or Bush with that much intelligence.
You're shifting the burden of proof to me. I cannot conceive of any jurisdiction, let alone one answerable to Biblical judicial principles, that works this way. Burden of proof is upon the prosecution or plaintiff, not the defense. I'm just playing juryman here, not taking sides until all evidence is presented & arguments made. You're the prosecutor, so make your case!
I did look up BP's Libyan oil drilling, and that was last summer's news, before any of this late dustup. There is nothing novel or overly suspicious about companies making international contracts like this. At worst it could've been unethical, given the character of one of the parties.
Not just radical Muslims, it seems, are heedless of due process of law.
jpw, if it's really "mainstream" news, then please cite mainstream news articles to give credibility to your charges - only the 1st one seems plausible. By "mainstream" I assume you mean major news sources like AP, BBC, CNN, AFP, et al. - but wait! I thought we are not supposed to trust them because they're controlled by the New World Order/Trilateral-Commission/Illuminati/whatever?
And of what relevance to any of this is Eisenhower's opinion about the defense industry of 50 yrs ago?
Like Jim, you love to throw charges around w/o substantiating them. I have difficulty squaring this attitude with Christian ethics. Ever serve on a trial jury? Even secular courts are more rigorous than many Christians I encounter.
Yes Jim, you did miss something. How does agreeing with Harding's words (which actually were Coolidge's) prove Bush had a conflict of interest? That's a non sequitur.
And you beg the question: is it true that Bush's foreign policy actually benefitted the oil industry? And even if you could correlate his military actions with oil profits, that is at best only suspicious & still no logical proof of causation. Did industrial profits in WW2 prove that FDR was a tool of evil capitalists?
I thought you read that Norman Geisler book on logic.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." - Matt. 7:2
Hmmm, I seemed to have missed something, Neil. I suppose there is no conflict of interest Bush Jr's policy since he apparently agreed with that other great Republican President Warren G. Harding."The business of America is business." Of course that's in general and specifically like Harding that meant oil business, q.v., Teapot Dome scandal. It set a great precedent of sending former cabinet members to jail, let's hope that tradition continues.
In protecting oil Bush Jr., was remarkably consistent, to accomplishing any other goals than that, the results are very dubious. There is no protection of minority religions in Iraq, for example.
Mike note, I mentioned a famous Democrat in no a positive light.
Neil, all through WWII there was planning on how the outcome was to be, some of it came out well and some of it didn't. Going to war without considering what the aftereffects will be is just plain stupid, but then I never have accused Bush of a being a great intelliect
Actually that is exactly what we have got in Iraq and Afghanistan. You did notice General MacArthur didn't go for the status quo in Japan? The results in Europe were too well planned, except to stop Germany from becoming a military power again, and the allies did seem to succeed in that.
Except if good results are not attempted it is really nothing more than murdering your own and the other nation's soldiers.
No, I didn't mean a Pyrrhic victory, since by definition that pertains to combat; postwar occupation is a different issue. Regardless of how undesirable the peace may be, it is not a good reason to conflate war & peace.
"U.S. should have had a little higher goal then that of keeping Bush and friends oil income coming in regularly."
Causal evidence for this theory? And there's the problem of motive: why would a regime change necessarily benefit the oil industry? Usually businessmen prefer the status quo to the uncertainties of war or a new regime. Better the devil you *know*...
Ah, Neil then you mean Pyrrhic victory You might say we won both WWI and WWII, but WWII happened because we left a mess after WWI Winning a war should have become clear by now, which there should be at least results one can live with more than 20 years.
I'm very aware that wars will always be with us, until the final war at the end of the Millennium.
A Bill of Rights would at least make a more noble purpose than protecting oil supplies, which we really didn't do. We haven't stopped poppy growing in Afghanistan, either. Perhaps as bumbling Bush said he kept the terrorists away from our shores, but that may be debatable, and Iran still stands bolder than ever.
Would a Bill of Rights help these countries, considering the Inadequacy of Islam, probably not, even our Constitution was infamously ignored by Andrew Jackson, but the U.S. should have had a little higher goal then that of keeping Bush and friends oil income coming in regularly.
Jim Lincoln wrote "The U.S. has lost both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"
I'm not sure what you mean about the Bill of Rights Jim but I feel both wars are a loss. We never have had a post-war plan for either country. The ironic part of all of this is that Christians in Iraq were safer under Saddam Hussein than they are with the country we left them. The terrible cost in lives and money to wage these wars will take it's toll for years to come.
Except for Israel of course, they do a fair job of protecting religious rights. The U.S. has lost both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because we didn't demand they copy the U.S. Bill of Rights into their constitutions, We would have done our part, yes, then it would have been up to the Iraqis and Afghanis to see those rights were protected. They no doubt wouldn't do that, but then the blame would rest on them.