All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: 'The Evil Triplets'

topic by Barb 2/10/2002 (1:42)

reply top CONSERVATIVE TRUTH 02/10/02- THE EVIL TRIPLETS by Tom Barrett Editor@ConservativeTruth.org Every word in a State of the Union Address is carefully considered. President Bush did not ad lib any part of the 2002 Address. So we can be sure that he intended for North Korea, Iran and Iraq to feel threatened by his words. There are many nations that provide active support to terrorists in a variety of ways. These include moral support, financial aid, training, intelligence, weapons, and safe havens. There are at least forty nations that would qualify as terrorist nations if the definition included these activities. Then why did President Bush single out these three nations, describing them in a term harking back to World War II, by saying they '...constitute an axis of evil'? The three nations Bush listed have little in common. North Korea is an Asian Communist nation; Iraq and Iran are Arab Islamic states. Iraq's government is a secular Islamic government run by a dictator; Iran's is a religious Islamic state run by fanatical old men. The only thing Iran and Iraq agree upon is their absolute hatred for one another. The tie that binds these disparate states together is their inclusion on our nation's hit list. The reason they achieved this status is found in the president's words when he said, 'Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.' Our government is signaling a shift in emphasis from going after terrorists and their training camps to dealing with nations that have the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at a time. I won't say that this emphasis is overdue, because I don't have access to the information that the president uses to order his priorities. I will say that I welcome this shift. 'But aren't you a religious man, a minister? How can you approve of making war on other nations before they attack us?' My answer is in three parts. First, the Bible doesn't say that nations should not go to war. In fact, there are places where God commands war to punish evil nations or to right wrongs. There are liberal theologians who argue that all violence is wrong, that war can never be justified. Due to space limitations, my answer to these people must be short: 'Read your Bible.' Second, it is very possible that these nations have already attacked us. Again, I don't have access to the White House intelligence briefings (I didn't renew my subscription), but I wouldn't be surprised if the president had evidence proving the complicity of these three evil nations in the September 11 attacks or other terrorist activities. I say this because I have found our new president to be a man who gathers the facts before he talks. I don't believe he would highlight these nations without hard evidence, which may go beyond the fact that they threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. The third reason I would support military action against the Evil Triplets is found in the doctrine of preemptive action. In a nutshell, we must answer this question with regard to nations that threaten ours: Are we being 'fair' if we wait for madmen to attack us before we take action, or is that course suicidal? I submit that waiting is not only suicidal, it is stupid. Thank God we don't have stupid people running our nation today. The problem is that we cannot depend on the so-called 'community of nations' to deal with North Korea, Iran and Iraq. The United Nations would debate and argue for years while hundreds of thousands perished. Communist China would veto any Security Council resolution against their client state, North Korea. The Arab nations would threaten to withhold oil from the world if the United Nations took any military action against Iran and Iraq. Yet these nations pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States and its citizens. Listen to the words of the president: 'Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.' 'States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.' The three nations President Bush targeted are linked to the terrorists in Afghanistan. These groups have trained tens of thousands of killers who are at work today in at least sixty countries. Our troops in Afghanistan found '...diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.' The Evil Triplets have the ability to supply these cowards with what they most desire - weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children at a time. We cannot allow that to happen. As we face this threat we can be sure of two things. President Bush will not act in haste or without serious deliberation. He will give these three rogue nations the same opportunity he gave the Taliban regime. As you read this, quiet back door negotiations are ongoing to persuade these terrorist states to join the family of civilized nations by giving up their weapons of mass destruction. We can also be certain that if these evil nations fail to comply with our just demands, they will suffer the same fate as the Taliban. With or without a coalition, our president will do what is necessary to protect this nation. He has made his position clear: 'I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.' Amen, Mr. President.

reply by Ron 2/10/2002 (2:30)

reply top 'First, the Bible doesn't say that nations should not go to war. In fact, there are places where God commands war to punish evil nations or to right wrongs. There are liberal theologians who argue that all violence is wrong, that war can never be justified. Due to space limitations, my answer to these people must be short: 'Read your Bible.' ' I love this. Note, he uses the worlds label of 'liberal', attaches it to theologian and now has a nice label which his target audience(readers of conservative'truth') are sure to immediately view as their adversary. Textbook media spin doctoring. He also makes an allusion to Gods behavior in the Jewish covenant, and uses that to justify his belief in things clearly forbidden in the Christian covenant. This is typical of fundamentalist hypocricy and lawlessness. They use verses to further their agenda of the moment, at times preaching the need for forgiveness based upon the teachings of their 'lord' and at other times preaching the need of war, ignoring the teachings of their 'lord' and instead assuming they are simply Jews. But Integrity does not allow for such things and those who practice such things lack integrity. 'Second, it is very possible that these nations have already attacked us.' Yes, and it's possible that Mexico and Canada have already attacked us. Hell, it's possible that my next door neighbors are mass murderers, but what the hell does that prove? Nothing. But it's worth mentioning in order to further fan the flames of fear in his target readership. He is clearly preying off of their fears, and offering nothing at all of Reason. 'Again, I don't have access to the White House intelligence briefings (I didn't renew my subscription)' Here he feigns the air of being reasonable, and colors himself innocence with a humorous little quip. why if he's joking, he must be a good guy! '...but I wouldn't be surprised if the president had evidence proving the complicity of these three evil nations in the September 11 attacks or other terrorist activities' And then back to wild speculations that have so far not been supported with anything of substance. 'I say this because I have found our new president to be a man who gathers the facts before he talks. I don't believe he would highlight these nations without hard evidence, which may go beyond the fact that they threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. ' And now we see the Truth of why he believes these things, because a politician with an obvious agenda said them, of course! What harder evidence could one possibly need than the words of a politician with an agenda? Crap, only a fool would fail to invest their lives into the words of politicians! 'The third reason I would support military action against the Evil Triplets is found in the doctrine of preemptive action.' This should be good, certainly won't be biblical... 'In a nutshell, we must answer this question with regard to nations that threaten ours: Are we being 'fair' if we wait for madmen to attack us before we take action, or is that course suicidal?' Well crap my pants. That's brilliant reasoning. Should we wait until criminals commit crimes or should we just punish everyone we think might comit a crime? That's the real question being asked, but he uses more colorful words that better prey off of his readerships fears to cloak this, words like 'Madman' and 'attack' and 'suicidal'. More textbook spin doctoring. 'I submit that waiting is not only suicidal, it is stupid.' Hitler certainly didn't wait for anyone to attack him, I wonder if he tried arguing that he figured everyone was nuts because they didn't see things the way he did, so he figured they would inevitably attack him, thus morally justifying(by conservative'truth's reasoning anyway) Hitlers aggression. Spin Spin Spin, it's all about Spin. Get the suckers, I mean citizens to believe that unprovoked attacks on foreign powers is not only not wrong, but it is a moral imperative, and we'll be walking down the Nazi path to glory for the homeland in no time! 'Thank God we don't have stupid people running our nation today.' Hahaha! Having so far said NOTHING of substance(PLEASE, if you think he's said anything of substance here, by all means point it out to me), he then jumps off topic and plants a big wet one on the governments behind. I could go on and dissect every paragraph but this type of thing isn't even worth my time. I won't make a habit of this, but I wanted to do it at least once to demonstrate that it is not very difficult at all to identify propoganda, big on spin, short on substance. His whole premise leans on the concept of preemptive punishment of countries being a good thing. Once you go down this road, you justify every terrorist act that is carried out against the United States out of fear that the US might attack them in the future. Unless of course you want to wallow in hypocrisy, which is a common thing for my fellow Americans to do today. 'They can't kill us, those savages. Why, we'll kill them and show them what it is to be civilized! In fact, now we won't even wait to attack in self-defense, now we'll be the aggressors out of a moral imperative we whipped out of our butts.'

reply by Raquel 2/10/2002 (9:54)

reply top I could not agree more with you Ron!. It gives me the creeps to read this type of stuff. It would be a waste of time if it wasn't for your reactions. Good job and thanks!

reply by barb 2/10/2002 (18:24)

reply top Thanks Ron. I wanted to get some feedback on this.

reply by nemesis 2/11/2002 (9:47)

reply top The statement '. . . Iraq and Iran are Arab Islamic states . . .' shows how knowledgeable the author is! Also,when he ays '. . . I say this because I have found our new president to be a man who gathers the facts before he talks . . .' makes me wonder if this guy believes in tooth fairy as well!