Friday’s Mini-Report

March 28, 2008

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* It’s Friday afternoon, so it must be time for some White House official to resign in the face of scandal: “An aide to President Bush has resigned because of his alleged misuse of grant money from the U.S. Agency for International Development when he worked for a Cuban democracy organization. Felipe Sixto was promoted on March 1 as a special assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and stepped forward on March 20 to reveal his alleged wrongdoing and to resign, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Friday. He said Sixto took that step after learning that his former employer, the Center for a Free Cuba, was prepared to bring legal action against him. Stanzel said the alleged wrongdoing involved the misuse of money when Sixto was an official at the center.”

* The Iraqi Army isn’t taking the lead: “U.S. forces were drawn deeper into Iraq’s four-day-old crackdown on Shi’ite militants on Friday, launching air strikes in Basra for the first time and battling militants in Baghdad in heavy clashes.”

* Given how ridiculous Bush’s comments on Iraq are, I almost feel sorry for him: “President Bush on Friday branded the recent eruption of violence across Iraq as a ‘defining moment in the history of a free Iraq’ and insisted it was crucial to quash criminal elements eager to disrupt the new government.”

* Fred Kaplan: “The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is ‘a power struggle’ between rival ‘Shiite party mafias’ for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country…. In other words, as with most things about Iraq, it’s a more complex case than Bush makes it out to be.”

* Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has clarified his remarks about calling on Hillary Clinton to withdraw. “Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make.”

* Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign is using the push for her withdrawal as a new fundraising pitch.

* Darcy Burner’s “Responsible Plan” for Iraq is starting to get some attention — and sponsors.

* Can’t tell the difference between ISCI, SIIC, and SCIRI? Kevin Drum comes through with a clip-and-save gem.

* Gallup tracking poll shows Obama with his biggest lead (eight points) in several weeks.

* The problems associated with the CIA destroying its torture tapes continue to linger.

* Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey will replace Navy Adm. William Fallon at U.S. Central Command.

* Al Gore compared global warming deniers to those who “still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

* The right seems pretty worked up about the release of Geert Wilders’s Muslim-bashing film “Fitna” online. Steve M. explains why.

* I’m a little surprised Paul Krugman didn’t have more positive things to say about Obama’s speech on economic regulations today, given that it sounded like the kind of speech Krugman could have written. I’m encouraged, though, by the fact that Bob Kuttner agrees with me.

* Dean Barnett takes on Spencer Ackerman on the “Obama doctrine,” and Ackerman responds. If there’s such a thing as a first-round knockout in foreign policy analysis, I’d say Ackerman just scored one.

* I’m thinking about starting a new feature called, “Which media outlet is doing unnecessary and misleading favors for John McCain today?” In this afternoon’s edition, it’s NPR.

* Don Siegelman is free — and he’s talking.

* And finally, just so readers know, I’m switching servers once again tonight, this time going to a fancy schmancy dedicated server. It should address all of the problems we’ve been having this week (though I may need to do a fundraiser to help pay for the extra costs). I mention this because, at some point tonight (I don’t know exactly when), the switch-over will happen, and we might lose a few comments. If this happens to you, I apologize in advance.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

“It’s Friday afternoon, so it must be time for some White House official to resign in the face of scandal.”

Good one CB.

  • “Given how ridiculous Bush’s comments on Iraq are, I almost feel sorry for him.”

    Bush is far beyond the limited scope of my pity. I feel sorry for America instead.

  • * I’m a little surprised Paul Krugman didn’t have more positive things to say about Obama’s speech on economic regulations today, given that it sounded like the kind of speech Krugman could have written. I’m encouraged, though, by the fact that Bob Kuttner agrees with me. He believes Hillary is the reincarnation of FDR and the New Deal. He’s stuck in the 1930s.

    Remember the Haditha incident where Al Qaeda tools Tim McGirk and Jack Murtha said eight Marines were guilty of murder even before they had been charged? A fifth Marine had all charges against him dropped today (link: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2844311120080328), leaving three to face a kangaroo court having already been pre-judged on lesser charges (thanks to Murtha), and none for murder (which is what Murtha wanted them charged with). As the charges have been dropped, Murtha has been asked to comment on his smear of fellow Marines. Like the “Benedict Arnold” that Murtha is, he’s said nothing.

  • I’m a little surprised Paul Krugman didn’t have more positive things to say about Obama’s speech…

    Given Krugman’s recent history, I hope this was a bit o’ tongue ‘n cheek.

  • …it’s a more complex case than Bush makes it out to be.

    Or, it’s more complex than Bush can handle. Clearly, anyone who is fighting against (or even obliquely to) us is evil. Occam’s razor says so: we are pure good, so anyone against us in any way must be evil. It’s amazing that after 7 years we all still have trouble with this.

    Al would have been better off comparing global warming deniers to people who think that the world is only 6,000 years old in perpetuity…they’re mostly the same people anyhow. And unfortunately, the world isn’t flat; if it was there’d be a spot for pushing people off…i have a list.

    I’ve been subjected to NPR all my life. It’s not bad, but it sure has been getting worse. And if any evil terrorists need to be broken, i would think that Garrison Keillor non-stop for a couple of days would do it…and not leave any marks.

  • Huh. Well, SteveIL. I guess the 24 unarmed civilians shot themselves, then.

    The charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, 26, were dismissed “in order to continue to pursue the truth seeking process into the Haditha incident,” the Marines said in a statement.

    Surely that means he’s innocent? SteveIL says so!

    Court-martial for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the accused ringleader, has been postponed until later this year pending the appeal of a discovery ruling. Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson are set for court-martial in April and May, respectively.

    In previous hearings, Marines have testified that Tatum, who originally faced more serious charges of unpremeditated murder and negligent homicide, was among those who “cleared” two Iraqi houses after the roadside bombing, resulting in 19 deaths.

    Another Marine testified Tatum told him to shoot a group of Iraqi women and children he found on a bed in a closed room. That Marine said he walked away but saw Tatum return and heard a loud noise, possibly gunfire or a grenade.

    Did you not get past the lede in the article you posted?

    It’s not a smear. They killed innocent civilians according to their own compatriots. Are they smearing these poor murderers, too, SteveIL?

  • “It is ‘a power struggle’ between rival ‘Shiite party mafias’ for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country.”

    So now American troops are in harms way not fighting terrorists, not fighting “evildoers,” not fighting insurgents nor in the midst of a sectarian civil war, we’re in a gangland turf battle. The scary part is, the US interest is that we’re one of the gangs fighting over the turf to control the oil. Swell.

    If Hillary is using calls for her departure as a fundraising tool, maybe that’s the whole point for hwer staying in: make enough cash to get her campaign out of the red.

  • SteveIL, you are ill. Your support for Bush and neocons makes you an Al Qaida tool. They (and your ilk) are the biggest enablers of Al Qaida ever.

  • doubtful, do you know the story about Haditha? Not the one McGirk, Murtha, or the Democrat media have told you, but the one that has come out? There was a battle going on. Soldiers cannot be convicted of murder or anything else while in the midst of a firefight.

    That last part of the article you put in, Another Marine testified Tatum told him to shoot a group of Iraqi women and children he found on a bed in a closed room. That Marine said he walked away but saw Tatum return and heard a loud noise, possibly gunfire or a grenade. Much of this kind of “testimony” has been thrown out due to the fact that it was unsubstantiated. If anything, the reporter leaving that sentence in there could constitute a smear against Tatum since all charges, not some, not one, but all, have been dropped.

    And this statement, The charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, 26, were dismissed “in order to continue to pursue the truth seeking process into the Haditha incident,” the Marines said in a statement. Yeah. That’s CYA-speak for “we don’t have anything, which is why we are dropping the charges”.

    Surely that means he’s innocent? SteveIL says so! I don’t say so, that’s the law that says so in this country. Innocent until proven guilty. “Proven” is the operative word.

    Huh. Well, SteveIL. I guess the 24 unarmed civilians shot themselves, then. The only people who have said there were 24 unarmed civilians are the “witnesses” (Al Qaeda plants) quoted by the ethically-challenged Tim McGirk. He rushed this story through to be the next Sy Hersh (which is a joke in and of itself). So far, everything he wrote about has been disproven, especially the part that said there wasn’t a battle going on. How much you wanna bet that Al Qaeda planted a bunch of those civilians for McGirk to report on?

  • Here is (for me) the money paragraph in Kuttner’s comments on Paul K’s NYT column this morning:

    “But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama’s proposals in commenting on the New York speech — “cautious and relatively orthodox” — was preposterous. Even if Krugman’s sympathies are with Clinton, he owes it to his readers and to his own credibility to play it straight and credit Obama with a breakthrough when credit is due. This was surely one of those times.”

    For me Krugman revealed his bias towards the end when, talking about perceptions vs. reality of all three candidates, he indulged in a little reductio ad absurdam on Ms. Clinton:

    “Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.”

    This does not match the rhetoric he used in talking about McCain or Obama, and clearly has a dismissive attitude intended to ridicule more realistic criticism of Clinton’s image.

    Now I have to admit that I have read Krugman for years, and probably will for years to come (deity willing that he and I should live so long). I should probably denounce and renounce and otherwise find a bus to throw him under for today’s column. But I’m gonna try to hate the sin, call attention to it, and love the sinner.

  • * I’m a little surprised Paul Krugman didn’t have more positive things to say about Obama’s speech on economic regulations today […] — CB

    Are you, really? Like I said yesterday… Nothing will change Krugman’s opinion of Obama; Obama could embrace everything that Krugman himself had ever said, and Krugman would still find something to carp about. It’s no longer about Obama’s positions on economy, it’s not even that Krugman so likes the Clintons — he did manage to insert a little dig at Bill. It’s all about Krugman’s personal dislike of Obama. But, give the old devil his due… At least he didn’t say that Obama was worse than McCain 🙂 I guess there are some lines even Krugman won’t cross…

    Re: Darcy Burner and her plan for withdrawing from I-wreck.
    I was amused to see the quote from the DCCC spokesman saying that it didn’t mean that there’s a split among the Dems regarding the approach to the issue. Of course not. All those in Darcy’s group are either newbies or wannabies. The entrenched pols will use them to see which way the wind blows first; if the group is right (I-wreck is a big issue and the idea of pulling out entirely — or almost — polls well), they’ll join the bandwagon. But not before.

    Not that I’m enamored of her plan, either. What’s with the idea that we leave enough troops there to defend the Embassy? That Embassy is huge, the size of a small city, and is sitting in the middle of a mayhem zone; it’ll require a *lot* of protection. Besides…Since when do we keep any diplomatic personnel in a hostile country? Civilians have always been evacuated from the hot spots first. And, if civilians aren’t there, then whom will we be defending?

  • SteveIL,

    Try to at least come within a light-year of the facts. A firefight does not excuse the deliberate slaughter of unarmed non-combatants. This is drummed into all those who go through basic training in the American military.

    First, there is no question that a massacre occurred. This was the conclusion of a military inquiry, not merely Sy Hersh, so, although this may make your head explode, the military and Sy Hersh agree that a crime was committed.

    That there may be insufficient evidence to convict all those charged means that those who cannot be convicted must be freed — that’s what “innocent until proven guilty” means — it relates to putting them in prison or otherwise subjecting them to official punishment. It does not mean we have to treat those who are obviously, but not provably, guilty as if they didn’t commit a heinous crime.

    If you want to pretend that the deliberate killing of innocents is forgivable, that’s just a reflection of your own psychological problems. Don’t expect people with a functioning sense of morality to agree with you.

  • StevelL says…. The only people who have said there were 24 unarmed civilians are the “witnesses” (Al Qaeda plants).. StevelL, you are one sick fuck. Your total lack of concern or regard for innocent civilians caught in the middle of our president’s national wet dream and the oil in Iraq is just mind-blowing…please, please, please STFU!

  • SteveIL – I’d respond to you, but it’s not fair trying to have an intellectual fight with an unarmed opponent. Going after you is like laughing at retards or shooting fish in a barrel – after awhile it becomes unseemly.

    But I do thank you for your unceasing efforts to prove that computers are so user-friendly that bipeds lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them just like real people.

  • crucial to quash criminal elements

    It is almost pathetic to realize that der chimpfuhrer has resorted to plagiarizing the Chinese occupiers of Tibet, Vladimir Putin, and your average run-of-the-mill South American dictator.

  • SteveL: leaving three to face a kangaroo court…

    kangaroo court = military court martial ????

    WTF?

    Hey buster, you got something against the way US military self regulates itself?
    You got something against the Marines buddy?
    You got something against America fella?

    Note to FBI and CIA personnel scanning internet threads:
    SteveL is exhibiting anti-US speech. Please put him on your watch list.

  • Stephen1947, @19

    Nah. It’s a typo. It should have been: “there are million$ of rea$on$…”

  • Charles (#13), you’re back for more punishment. Excellent. Try to at least come within a light-year of the facts. A firefight does not excuse the deliberate slaughter of unarmed non-combatants. This is drummed into all those who go through basic training in the American military. You are doing nothing more than repeating what that liar Murtha has said, and which has been debunked by the evidence given. Why do you think the murder charges have been dropped?

    First, there is no question that a massacre occurred. This was the conclusion of a military inquiry, not merely Sy Hersh, so, although this may make your head explode, the military and Sy Hersh agree that a crime was committed. I think you mean Tim McGirk of Time, whom I said is trying to emulate Hersh. The military doesn’t think that a crime was committed, which, again, is why all these charges are being dropped. What remains is a nothing more than an attempt to make somebody a scapegoat.

    If you want to pretend that the deliberate killing of innocents is forgivable, that’s just a reflection of your own psychological problems. Don’t expect people with a functioning sense of morality to agree with you. That’s pretty funny coming from someone completely devoid of morals, still parroting the line from your puppet-master, Jack “Benedict Arnold” Murtha. Based on what you said, it is hard for me to believe that you support the troops but not the mission, since it is blatantly obvious you don’t actually support the troops either.

    ROTFMLiberalAO (#18), Hey buster, you got something against the way US military self regulates itself? Hey, this has been a setup from the beginning. Murtha screwed his fellow Marines by pronouncing them guilty before they were charged. The man handles appropriations for the military. Any court-martial of the remaining men is tainted before they begin. What part of that don’t you get?

    You got something against the Marines buddy? No, but Murtha has got something against his fellow Marines.

  • “Can’t tell the difference between ISCI, SIIC, and SCIRI? Kevin Drum comes through with a clip-and-save gem.”
    So now I’m in favor of a ‘gotcha’ question to the three presidential candidates: Who’s fighting whom in Basra, whom do we support, and why are we supporting them?

  • * Dean Barnett takes on Spencer Ackerman on the “Obama doctrine,” and Ackerman responds. If there’s such a thing as a first-round knockout in foreign policy analysis, I’d say Ackerman just scored one. That was policy analysis? Ackerman says “fuck” a lot and made a homosexual reference. If that’s what “liberals” call a “knockout in foreign policy analysis”, it’s no wonder they are clueless.

  • StevelL says “…You know gets me is how people can take the side of the terrorists instead of their own…”

    Oh, so sorry, I forgot the part where they invaded our country and destroyed our infrastructure…so who should be considered the terrorists by who? and, yes, I feel sorry for the US soldiers also. Our CinC has forced them into an intolerable, horrific situation and something terrible happened. Imagine if we had never gone into Iraq…those innocent civilians would still be alive and these men wouldnt have to live with the memory of what they did…GWB should rot in hell forever. Yeh, yeh, I know, he bears the biggest burden, whatever…

  • * The Iraqi Army isn’t taking the lead: “U.S. forces were drawn deeper into Iraq’s four-day-old crackdown on Shi’ite militants on Friday, launching air strikes in Basra for the first time and battling militants in Baghdad in heavy clashes.” I see Reuters is using stringers again, Sadrist terrorists posing as “journalists” to report the news (who else could do interviews of the terrorists?)

    The U.S. is hitting the Sadr forces with airstrikes. When called in by the Iraqi ground forces because we have the aircraft to do the job. The U.S. is hitting the Sadr forces with artillery. When called in by the Iraqi ground forces because we have the guns to do the job. The U.S. is hitting the Sadr forces with direct fire (from armored units). When called in by the Iraqi ground forces because we have the tanks to do the job. Sounds like the Iraqi ground forces have learned a lesson in using combined-arms operations to avoid putting themselves unnecessarily at risk in fighting the enemy. Of course, the Reuters piece doesn’t say the Iraqi Army did any of these things. But when reporting the news based on an agenda, these kind of inconvenient facts get left out. I would say that Reuters doesn’t know what taking the lead means when it comes to combat.

  • locanicole (#14), StevelL, you are one sick fuck. Your total lack of concern or regard for innocent civilians caught in the middle of our president’s national wet dream and the oil in Iraq is just mind-blowing…please, please, please STFU! Millions and millions babies have been aborted for the last 35 years, and all based on a ruling from an unelected, black-robed oligarchy of seven individuals that said this was a right. “Liberals” call this a “choice”.

    Don’t talk to me about how concerrrrrned “liberals” are when it comes to innocents. I don’t see it.

  • In a way, the Iraqi government’s operations against the Sadr forces are in some ways reminiscent of another operation that occurred about 15 years ago: the Clinton/Reno death machine that hit Waco, TX. Some could say Clinton was only trying to stop a religious extremist; and all those deaths, including those children killed, were because Koresh wouldn’t surrender. Well, Maliki told the Sadr people, the religious extremists, to surrender; they chose to fight instead. Clinton got re-elected despite this because the Waco massacre was spun by the Democrat media in his favor. It’s already being spun by the same Democrat media that Maliki and/or the Iraqi military are the bad guys.

  • SteveIL,

    Nobody knows what caused the fire that killed the Koreshites in Waco. It’s at least believable that the fire was set by Koresh and crew, ala Jonestown, yet you place all the blame on Clinton and Reno. That isn’t what the investigation found — remember when you insisted, above, “innocent until proven guilty?” You are such a hypocrite.

    It would never occur to you that the authorities who took part in the raid on the bunker include at least a few people now in Iraq, people that you also insist could not possibly commit any outrage like Haditha. You are worse than a hypocrite, you are an inconsistent hypocrite.

    Oh, and by the way, my statements about the illegality of killing noncombatants above weren’t by way of Murtha — they are simple facts, and they don’t rest on who says them. You can look it up, or ask somebody who actually served.

  • StevelL, I’ll let my previous comments stand…as to abortion vs killing living, breathing, cognant human beings…apples to oranges. If you insist on making the comparison, how bout this one..2 wrongs do not make a right…Do children in Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the mideast deserve to die because a woman in the states made a choice about her body that you disagree with? You are too twisted for words…Fianal Notice is right “Steve-ILL” only I dont think you’ll get well soon..you are terminal…

  • (though I may need to do a fundraiser to help pay for the extra costs)

    Steve, if you need to do a fundraiser, I will be more than happy to chip in. When I don’t have the time to check my other sites, you are the one who talks about what needs to be talked about. The responses to your items speak to that in no uncertain terms.

    Michael

    P.S. On this new job I don’t have time to participate in “real time”, so to speak. Now that hubby and I are prepping to move back to Seattle, that will be even more difficult, due to the time difference. Last year when I was on vacation in Hawaii, I almost went crazy. Your last post was done almost before I had time to drink my first cup of coffee.

    Keep up the good work!!

  • Charles (#32), Nobody knows what caused the fire that killed the Koreshites in Waco. It’s at least believable that the fire was set by Koresh and crew, ala Jonestown, yet you place all the blame on Clinton and Reno. That isn’t what the investigation found — remember when you insisted, above, “innocent until proven guilty?” You are such a hypocrite. Hmmm, let’s see my statement:

    In a way, the Iraqi government’s operations against the Sadr forces are in some ways reminiscent of another operation that occurred about 15 years ago: the Clinton/Reno death machine that hit Waco, TX. Some could say Clinton was only trying to stop a religious extremist; and all those deaths, including those children killed, were because Koresh wouldn’t surrender. Well, Maliki told the Sadr people, the religious extremists, to surrender; they chose to fight instead. Clinton got re-elected despite this because the Waco massacre was spun by the Democrat media in his favor.

    The Waco massacre was a completely botched law enforcement operation as it resulted in the deaths of 86 people. The fact that 4 ATF agents were killed on the first day trying to serve warrants justifies that statement. And the fact of the matter is, Clinton did get re-elected in 1996 despite this. But nowhere, nowhere, do I even hint that I said or think Clinton and/or Reno, nor anybody else from the government who were at Waco, were guilty of murder.

    But what happened at Waco was in no way the same as what happened at Haditha, since the Marines were engaged in combat operations, not law enforcement operations. The one aspect that is similar is that like those law enforcement or elected officials whom I would say weren’t guilty of murder at Waco, there’s even less reason to convict any of the Marines for any wrongdoing at Haditha since they were engaged in pure combat.

    Again, you have again attempted to imply things I didn’t say. And failed. If I were a “liberal”, I would say that your attempt was very…”Rovian”.

    Oh, and by the way, my statements about the illegality of killing noncombatants above weren’t by way of Murtha — they are simple facts, and they don’t rest on who says them. What has been said by the Marines at Haditha, and which has yet to have been disproved, is that there was a firefight after an IED exploded killing another Marine. The only “evidence” that came out against the Marines were from a day after, enough time for terrorists to make it look like the dead Iraqis were murdered in cold blood. This would not be an unusual tactic by terrorists to get the stupid to believe the Marines were guilty of murder. Considering Haditha was a hotbed of terrorists at the time, it is ridiculous for anyone to not believe the Marines, and those who don’t are the real tools of Al Qaeda. That would be McGirk and Murtha, and anyone whose strings are being pulled to quote the Murtha line.

    You can look it up, or ask somebody who actually served. Would that be from this fresh batch of the new “Winter Soldiers II”? A whole lot of them were asked to testify on the record (and under oath) that they committed or witnessed the “crimes” they allege occurred. None would. That says much. It gives these guys an out to say whatever they want without having to have their words stand up to any scrutiny. Unlike those who are being legally exonerated for Haditha.

  • SteveIL,

    I know, you won’t be able to resist replying, so you can take the last word after this. Here are two quotes from your last comment: “the Clinton/Reno death machine” and, in almost the same paragraph, “nowhere, nowhere, do I even hint that I said or think Clinton and/or Reno, nor anybody else from the government who were at Waco, were guilty of murder.”

    Even with your 5th grade reading skills you could possibly see the contradiction
    between those two statements.

    As for the evidence of a massacre committed by at least some of the Marines at
    Haditha, it has convinced the military sufficiently to charge them. That means it’s conclusive. Don’t address your arguments to us — it’s the military court that you should be trying to convince of the innocence of those involved.

    Any real soldier, winter, summer, spring or fall, can attest to what I’ve said. Your unfortunate tendency to discount anybody who doesn’t agree with you as “liberal” or a “winter soldier” is one of the symptoms of your peculiar delusions. Tell you what, go down to the recruiting office and ask one of the recruiters if, in a fire fight, you would be allowed to shoot anybody you want to. Let us know what the recruiter says.

  • I didn’t see the right wing video.
    I read the Koran. Cover to cover.

    Islam, in my estimation does call for violence in God’s name 20% of the time and calls for peace and mercy the other 80.

    It is a religion of peace OR war. Both sides can justify their view.
    Additional violent tendencies are adopted due to the traditions set by Mohamed in the Hadith, which I don’t believe was ever deemed divine. The Hadith is held in equal esteem by some Muslims and is directly responsible for at least some of the bloodlust of its worrisome adherents.

    That said, the New Testament is quite clear about its prohibition of violence yet we hear we must kill Muslims from Christians. So the scripture doesn’t seem to matter much and those that wish to kill will justify it in whatever way they must.

    • Comments are closed.