From this ONE attack (compared to 5 years of battle plus occupation in Iraq) Germany suffered 320,000 deaths, followed by the United States with 135,000, then United Kingdom, Canada, and France where the last three all with less then 65,000. (from the Encyclopedia Britannica)

War is hell and should not be entered into lightly. Americans wanted our government to “connect the dots” after 9/11, if you remember. When you connect dots – you hope that you have enough of them to give you an accurate picture. If not, you end up doing more harm than good.

Victory is measured by the final results – not by intermediate death tolls. This “war has been the least harmful to our military in history. Today, more die from motorcycle accidents back home than in Iraq (according to CNN).

The first and absolute most important thing to bring to light is that, according to BOTH testaments, whoever rises to power is a man of seeming peace who must satisfy a near-laundry list of stipulations, as this man will fulfill not only the definition “anti-christ” but also “saviour” to Christianity’s parent religion, Judaism.

Remember that the Jews denied Christ as Saviour, and that is where the two religions split: the man(woman) whose coming we fear in the name of “Christianity” is the Jewish Messiah. Their “Messiah” must rebuild the temple and sacrifice a rare red-hued bull, which was extinct until the wonders of genetic research in the latter half of the 20th Century.

The same man who rebuilds the temple is our “antichrist,” so states our new testament, and he will defile the temple, most likely through the kosher butchering of a cloned animal – an abomination to end-all be-all nature of God.

It’s all right there in the Book(s). The violence that precedes the “antichrist” is between two of the three major religious factions of the world either defending “his” honor or rejecting his authority…

think about it.

I. Assuming what the author says is true, he is as equally guilty of creating the “narrow the range of acceptable discourse” in the public spectrum. He is essentially censuring one group for supposedly doing the same to another. Some are condemning Wright, and he is condemning them for condemning Wright, how is this not hypocrisy? One could equally argue that this blind anti-Americanism is really the problem.

II. Maybe what Wright said truly deserves harsh criticism. It is a genetic fallacy to say that only blind patriots condemn Wright or support the war– it has nothing to do with the actual truth of the claim. His premise (that patriotism is the cause for this scandal) has no bearing on the truth. One has to look at the context of what is being said not the potential motives of the argument. I could easily argue that he is merely writing this article because he is a communist propagandist even though it has nothing to do with what he actually said.

Best

Good post despite the crap formatting, though.