Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Now you're strawmanning the point I made.  But let's play your strawman:  it is not unreasonable that at some point someone on bushs staff thought it appropriate to talk about religious war, when talking to Palestinians, because , let's face it, that's what Islamic leaders seem to want to talk about. Only afterwards it was realised how poor the choice of words was.  The point is it was retracted.  Islamic leaders don't retract. I wonder why.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:


He did. He used his religion to back up his conviction about invading Iraq. He even said he got down on his knees to ask the Lord - in those words.

Maybe he misspoke, it's hard to say.

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

so he prayed to be guided, but did he invade BECAUSE of his religion?

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 10:13pm:

I've never claimed Bush went to war on the basis of religion.  yes, I once thought invasion Iraq was a bad idea, as we've covered time and again, but similarly to how Bush is allowed to misspeak, I am allowed to change my mind. My mind on Iraq has changed, as we've covered time and again. Not sure why you think that's some kind of negative, or why you think that somehow diminishes what my argument to you is?  Is this another of your 'I'll ignore what he says and just go with what I want him to say' type of nonsense?

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:


But you should answer that if you're making the claim, Karnal.  There is a big difference between seeking guidance from your faith (as stupid as this is), and doing something based on what you believe your faith commands you to do.  The reality is that the war was fought on the pre-tense of stopping a serial killing maniac with weapons of mass destructions, who happened to also be secular. So, the idea that this was all somehow based on religion is preposterous to say the least.  Today, I'd support it simply on the basis of knowing that a serial killing genocidal maniac wankjob would be removed from power. Fantastic.

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 10:30pm:


You can of course quote me when ever I said 'waging a religious war.' 

A religious zealot? yes, I don't like any leaders who try to use religion within their decision making. I think it's stupid and inappropriate, so undoubtedly I may have called Bush a religious zealot because he probably is.  But waging a religious war? Not to my recollection.

And nonsense then, as I have clearly stated and you have clearly ignored time and again. Why would I be pretending now? Do you not see how irrational this question is, Karnal? It's just plain stupid to think someone is making something up NOW. Especially with the Iraq War, which has only seen a decline in its public opinion. Why would I NOW say I would agree with removing Sadam Hassain if it was 'nonsense'?

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 10:34pm:

Oh I have no doubt you ACTUALLY believe it was a 'crusade'. That just goes to show how plain dumb you're being. All to try and justify what? That the current most problemetic religion in the world is Islam? It's so interesting to see you try and pursuade an irrational point of view just to try and stay apologetic to your cause.

And no one forgot that Sadaam was secular in 2003. He was indeed secular: he didn't care who he killed  and raped. Your hero. That is why it is a lot more reasonable to believe that indeed they had faulty intelligence on his weapons of mass destruction.   And it is indeed plausible to consider that being religious, both Blair and Bush would've prayed before making the last of their decisions. But to suggest they invaded Iraq BECAUSE of their religion? Please, tell us, how this is plausible.