A large cross that had been prominently displayed outside a chapel on an isolated military base in northern Afghanistan was taken down last week, prompting outrage from some American service members stationed there.
“We are here away from our families, and the chapel is the one place that feels like home,” a service member at Camp Marmal told POLITICO. “With the cross on the outside, it is a constant reminder for all of us that Jesus is here for us.”
The service member said he asked the base chaplain, a military officer, what had happened to the cross. “I had to take it down,” said the chaplain, according to the solider, without further explanation....
That Jim approves of the early Crusades implies he approves of the pope's goal in initiating them: liberating so-called "Holy Sites" from Muslim authorities who harassed (i.e., overcharged) pilgrims seeking to fulfill Indulgences. How can any avowed opponent of Catholicism accept this? The whole error with the Crusades is false theology, and a false view of the role of the church in the world.
BTW Jim, many Jews were murdered by the popular crusading armies as they made their way across Europe. To their credit, at least some clergy of the day denounced this.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- This of course is the infighting between Muslims, Bush was a failure at protecting religious freedom and other freedoms as defined in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this he was a spectacular failure, but of course to him protecting the oil resources of Iraq, he was a great success.
Yeah, protecting the oil resources. Unfortunately for your theory,we get more oil from Nigeria than from Iraq.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- I'm disappointed we have taken out the Iranian nuclear (and missile capabilities)
Jim, all but the last of that is utterly appalling. I am thankful that even our current crop of leaders (Bush included), for all their foolishness, have more sense than this. You, an avowed Vietnam veteran & advocate of liberty of conscience, should know better. Should we put guns to the heads of Muslims to get them to renounce their faith, or just kill them outright?
Islam's most dangerous physical enemy is itself, if outsiders have enough sense to stay away. I forget where, but one of Israel's enemies in the OT destroyed itself by fratricide.
Caroline Glick wrote: In their article, the Kagans and Sullivan explain the strategic implications of next month's withdrawal. First they note that with the US withdrawal, the sectarian violence that the surge effectively ended will in all likelihood return in force.
This of course is the infighting between Muslims, Bush was a failure at protecting religious freedom and other freedoms as defined in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In this he was a spectacular failure, but of course to him protecting the oil resources of Iraq, he was a great success.
She recognized Iran as a threat, and I've has always stated that. In fact I believe I have stated we should have went after Iran before Iraq, and I'm disappointed we have taken out the Iranian nuclear (and missile capabilities)
She had a great article, as is the one on the Crusades. The early Crusades were justifiable wars, some of the later ones weren't.
You would have made a great Anabaptist, Neil, they didn't believe in the defense of Vienna from the Turks either, too Catholic for one thing.
Though I favor a non-interventionist approach in general, I think the below link gives an intersting insiders look on the war on terror and future trends in defense.
Jim, so is "one woman's opinion" your own or not? Do you just toss out random op-eds w/o taking responsibility for them?
I don't buy that "Bush did it for oil" backwards theorizing. Besides, what if he did aim to raise its price? We should rejoice, for the reduced consumption would reduce pollution, which your Democrat friends say they want.
True, the Crusades were not an avowed attempt to "destroy Islam," but they were religious wars nonetheless, waged for the stated purpose of liberating "Holy Places" for pointless popish pilgrimages (i.e., indulgences). That was beyond their power, but given their track record with those within their power (e.g. Albigenses, Waldenses, Huguenots), never beyond their desire.
As is so typical of ecumenical "Christian" apologists today, Stenhope ignores Rome's bad theology as a motivation (assuming he is even aware of it).
Ah, well one woman's opinion, and still not bad, as I pointed out since other religions weren't protected in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had already lost the war, but from a Bush perspective we won it, if we kept the oil flowing. You'll note, that I have always been a supporter of doing something about Iran, and it would have made more sense if we had. Anyway, Glick is correct about the tyranny of the mob -- especially an Islamic one. It might be an Arab spring but more like an American winter.
Amazing – after all the ridicule Jim heaps on Bush about what a clueless bumbler he was, he now posts neocons & Zionists who basically endorse Bush's unconstitutional Iraq intervention, bash Obama's withdrawal, & worse, call for US gov't–sponsored religious warfare: "Islam is eternal war. We must rid the earth of it." – that is no less a call for a military crusade than Pope Urban II's in 1095. And just as stupid.
The Crusades were very properly listed among the "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Mackay.
A restorative: www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=226
COMMENTS | 
Unfortunately for your theory,we get more oil from Nigeria than from Iraq. 
mr b: "franks explanation , i agree with that . it's straight from the bible."
