In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Axis of Evil.
which also targeted the regimes of the respective countries, not the population. In fact the "we need to liberate the oppressed people of Iran/Iraq etc.. is the whole justification for the stuff in the first place
You have a point, don't entirely agree, but I understand where your coming from.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
The point is that terrorism is utterly unlikely and incredibly overestimated. And it is not irresponsible to completely ignore it, just as you completely ignore the fact that you could randomly die from being hit by lightning. Which is just as likely.
A lot of people seem to think that terrorism is incredibly prevalent, that a terrorist is hiding behind every bush and that you need to be constantly vigilant. This is utterly untrue. This is mostly due to a constant fear campaign based on nothing more than re-mentioning the same rare instances all the time, and publicizing every single one globally.
The greatest damage that terrorism has ever done is the result of the US overreaction to it. There are barely any terrorists threatening you. That guy with a beard and slightly darkish skin isn't a terrorist. The fact that you are too stupid to distinguish maths from arabic doesn't even change the fact that even if he were scribbling into a notebook in arabic, it is almost certainly a recipe for cookies, his grocery list, or an erotic novel. It is NOT a terrorist plot. No terrorist is going to kill you.
Chill out, relax, and don't turn life to hell for anyone who fits your stereotype of the non-existing terrorist that you see behind every corner.
This shit is annoying me to great lengths. The cause and effect are just so completely out of proportion. If you had spend the same amount of money you spend on hunting imaginary terrorists on...basically anything else except maybe crack cocaine, the world would be a better place. If you had found a reasonable place to spend it in, it would be amazingly better, AND saver. I am not even certain whether you spending that money on cocaine to dump into the water supply of New York City would have resulted in a worse net effect.
Just stop worrying about terrorism. Worry about your bathtub instead, it is more dangerous.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
The point is that terrorism is utterly unlikely and incredibly overestimated. And it is not irresponsible to completely ignore it, just as you completely ignore the fact that you could randomly die from being hit by lightning. Which is just as likely.
A lot of people seem to think that terrorism is incredibly prevalent, that a terrorist is hiding behind every bush and that you need to be constantly vigilant. This is utterly untrue. This is mostly due to a constant fear campaign based on nothing more than re-mentioning the same rare instances all the time, and publicizing every single one globally.
The greatest damage that terrorism has ever done is the result of the US overreaction to it. There are barely any terrorists threatening you. That guy with a beard and slightly darkish skin isn't a terrorist. The fact that you are too stupid to distinguish maths from arabic doesn't even change the fact that even if he were scribbling into a notebook in arabic, it is almost certainly a recipe for cookies, his grocery list, or an erotic novel. It is NOT a terrorist plot. No terrorist is going to kill you.
Chill out, relax, and don't turn life to hell for anyone who fits your stereotype of the non-existing terrorist that you see behind every corner.
This shit is annoying me to great lengths. The cause and effect are just so completely out of proportion. If you had spend the same amount of money you spend on hunting imaginary terrorists on...basically anything else except maybe crack cocaine, the world would be a better place. If you had found a reasonable place to spend it in, it would be amazingly better, AND saver. I am not even certain whether you spending that money on cocaine to dump into the water supply of New York City would have resulted in a worse net effect.
Just stop worrying about terrorism. Worry about your bathtub instead, it is more dangerous.
But that requires people actually have a proper understanding of statistics and probability, which is math, which is same thing as Arabic... OMG It's a secret plot by terrorists!
Looks like Trump is starting to uncork some of his nastier attacks on Hillary. And as an added bonus, he's given us a new nickname for Elizabeth Warren: Goofus.
On May 08 2016 02:14 Simberto wrote: Also, another great example of how overhyped terrorism is. People are so afraid of something so incredibly rare it's absurd.
Rare enough that you shouldn't assume everyone who looks Muslim is a terrorist and should be treated with a massive degree of suspicion. Not so rare that it wouldn't be wise to keep an eye out and have a reasonable degree of scrutiny of those who support an ideology that all too commonly leads to terrorism.
It really isn't. Go look at actual numbers about the threat of terrorism. The chance you will be a victim is unbelievably tiny. your talking about an order of 1 in 3.5 million or worse. Your more likely to get killed by your toaster then a terrorist Source
So you're trying to say that in a nation with rather significant security measures with a very small Muslim population, it's best not to have security measures because of a low occurrence of terrorism?
You can also look at Iraq which has thousands of incidents of terrorism each year. Not exactly comparable, but no less meaningful than your own number.
Is your point that there shouldn't be a degree of scrutiny applied to individuals who are expected to be more likely to support ISIS and domestic terrorism? Certainly it's fair to wonder what that degree should be, but to say that it's best not to even pay attention to that is just straight up irresponsible.
The point is that terrorism is utterly unlikely and incredibly overestimated. And it is not irresponsible to completely ignore it, just as you completely ignore the fact that you could randomly die from being hit by lightning. Which is just as likely.
A lot of people seem to think that terrorism is incredibly prevalent, that a terrorist is hiding behind every bush and that you need to be constantly vigilant. This is utterly untrue. This is mostly due to a constant fear campaign based on nothing more than re-mentioning the same rare instances all the time, and publicizing every single one globally.
The greatest damage that terrorism has ever done is the result of the US overreaction to it. There are barely any terrorists threatening you. That guy with a beard and slightly darkish skin isn't a terrorist. The fact that you are too stupid to distinguish maths from arabic doesn't even change the fact that even if he were scribbling into a notebook in arabic, it is almost certainly a recipe for cookies, his grocery list, or an erotic novel. It is NOT a terrorist plot. No terrorist is going to kill you.
Chill out, relax, and don't turn life to hell for anyone who fits your stereotype of the non-existing terrorist that you see behind every corner.
This shit is annoying me to great lengths. The cause and effect are just so completely out of proportion. If you had spend the same amount of money you spend on hunting imaginary terrorists on...basically anything else except maybe crack cocaine, the world would be a better place. If you had found a reasonable place to spend it in, it would be amazingly better, AND saver. I am not even certain whether you spending that money on cocaine to dump into the water supply of New York City would have resulted in a worse net effect.
Just stop worrying about terrorism. Worry about your bathtub instead, it is more dangerous.
It really depends on how you apply that line of logic.
Should you worry about random individuals on an airplane being terrorists because they look vaguely Muslim? No, that's a clear overreaction. However, I have seen it taken too far in the other direction. Occurrence of terrorism is low, so we shouldn't bother to do due diligence on undocumented immigrants? No, because that's really irresponsible and dangerous.
That perhaps isn't relevant directly to this incident, but both actions have the same sort of rhetoric supporting it: that those who worry about terrorism are superstitious racist morons and that terrorism is overhyped and not a real danger. So it can be a slippery slope.
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Axis of Evil.
Can you elaborate what you mean by this?
It's the nickname he gave Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. They were the new "axis of evil".
On May 08 2016 02:39 Gorsameth wrote: We were not talking about dividing the population but about unrealistic Muslim fears and while Trump certainly plays off of them the exact same feeling have been very prevalent ever since 9/11. The math teacher getting pulled off a plane could have just as easily happened in 2002 and similar cases have happened repeatedly over the last decade.
Yes, it's a fact of the war on terror era but up until now politicians, especially in the US were responsible enough to not turn a matter of security into an issue that is going to divide the national population along ethnic or religious lines. This is absolutely poisonous and countless times more dangerous than the terrorist threats itself, and ironically the actual goal of the terrorists
@WhiteDog:
I think that's pretty representative of his stance on the issue over the years. I don't think he's ever attacked American Muslims.
He designed half the muslim world as ennemy tho.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Axis of Evil.
Can you elaborate what you mean by this?
Bush's seemingly haphazard designation of states as being evil, mostly sponsoring terrorism, and needing to be removed Including Iraq, Iran, North Korea and later Libya, Syria and Cuba.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
I'm not a fan of bush, or the GOP, but his rhetoric was that it is part of human decency to, when you have the power to help people, to do so and not just sit idle watching people suffer. Part of what makes some conservatives hate the left is because of the left's cruelty to those in need other than themselves. They see the left as always willing to spend trillions just so they don't have to pay for things evoking, civil rights, evoking supposed "hardships" that need to be addressed--but when actual atrocities happen in the world the left shuts off its empathy and suddenly its 100% isolationist bullshit that does nothing but show who the true racists of the world are. That is Bush's rhetoric.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
I'm not a fan of bush, or the GOP, but his rhetoric was that it is part of human decency to, when you have the power to help people, to do so and not just sit idle watching people suffer. Part of what makes some conservatives hate the left is because of the left's cruelty to those in need other than themselves. They see the left as always willing to spend trillions just so they don't have to pay for things evoking, civil rights, evoking supposed "hardships" that need to be addressed--but when actual atrocities happen in the world the left shuts off its empathy and suddenly its 100% isolationist bullshit that does nothing but show who the true racists of the world are. That is Bush's rhetoric.
Or maybe we can't solve everything and sometimes trying to fix something we can't fix only ends up making it all worse. I think the current state of the Middle East adequately proves that point.
Not to say there isn't more the West could and probably should be doing, I'm not for isolationism but you can't just jump around fixing the world without a proper plan.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
But this is what your 3 words were apparently rebutting:
On May 08 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote: I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Were we supposed to infer you think the Bush administration in some way was trying to fight "Muslims" or the populations of certain countries?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Ryan and Donald Trump, the top Republicans in the United States, plan to meet next week to try to unite their party, with both men focused on the Nov. 8 presidential election, but the Wisconsin congressman also perhaps looking further ahead.
Speaker of the House of Representatives Ryan has invited Trump, this year’s likely Republican presidential nominee, to meet on Thursday with Ryan and other congressional leaders on Capitol Hill, Ryan‘s office said in a statement on Friday.
A key part of the conversation is sure to be Trump’s combative, in-your-face campaign persona and Republican leaders’ requests for him to tone it down, but political analysts said Ryan will have other considerations in mind, as well.
One issue is likely to be his own future, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
Ryan, 46, lost his 2012 campaign for vice president as Mitt Romney’s running mate. Ryanprobably has serious doubts that Trump, like Romney, can win this year, Sabato said.
If so, Ryan will want to find a balance between accepting Trump, 69, as the nominee and keeping some distance from him, just in case the real estate mogul’s campaign ends in disaster.
“Suppose Trump loses overwhelmingly. Would you want to have been siding with the captain of the Titanic, or maybe seen as someone who was begging the captain to watch out for icebergs?” Sabato said, adding that a Trump defeat could push the party in a different direction in 2020, maybe toward Ryan as the nominee.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
I'm not a fan of bush, or the GOP, but his rhetoric was that it is part of human decency to, when you have the power to help people, to do so and not just sit idle watching people suffer. Part of what makes some conservatives hate the left is because of the left's cruelty to those in need other than themselves. They see the left as always willing to spend trillions just so they don't have to pay for things evoking, civil rights, evoking supposed "hardships" that need to be addressed--but when actual atrocities happen in the world the left shuts off its empathy and suddenly its 100% isolationist bullshit that does nothing but show who the true racists of the world are. That is Bush's rhetoric.
Or maybe we can't solve everything and sometimes trying to fix something we can't fix only ends up making it all worse. I think the current state of the Middle East adequately proves that point.
Not to say there isn't more the West could and probably should be doing, I'm not for isolationism but you can't just jump around fixing the world without a proper plan.
I don't disagree with you. But understand, the reason Bush got elected was partially his down to earth, human personality that understood and grocked the mindset of his constituents. A voting block who, much like his own family, still had memories of the cold war, still had memories of the domino effect that they saw in China. These were a people who feared the threat of the Russians so much that even though Russia was no longer an enemy that sense of an enemy coalition we need to beat is still present. Bush understood that qualm, that unease, that need of the american people to be united and bring peace to the world. Especially now that they won, that the cold war was over, and america could finally "make the world right" that russia had been "stopping" for so long.
To simplify that to simply a disdain for muslims is rather insulting to the american public that voted for him twice.
On May 08 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote: I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Were we supposed to infer you think the Bush administration in some way was trying to fight "Muslims" or the populations of certain countries?
I don't think he was thinking about saving poor people and creating beautiful democratic nations when he was painting those countries as evil no.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
I'm not a fan of bush, or the GOP, but his rhetoric was that it is part of human decency to, when you have the power to help people, to do so and not just sit idle watching people suffer. Part of what makes some conservatives hate the left is because of the left's cruelty to those in need other than themselves. They see the left as always willing to spend trillions just so they don't have to pay for things evoking, civil rights, evoking supposed "hardships" that need to be addressed--but when actual atrocities happen in the world the left shuts off its empathy and suddenly its 100% isolationist bullshit that does nothing but show who the true racists of the world are. That is Bush's rhetoric.
Or maybe we can't solve everything and sometimes trying to fix something we can't fix only ends up making it all worse. I think the current state of the Middle East adequately proves that point.
Not to say there isn't more the West could and probably should be doing, I'm not for isolationism but you can't just jump around fixing the world without a proper plan.
I don't disagree with you. But understand, the reason Bush got elected was partially his down to earth, human personality that understood and grocked the mindset of his constituents. A voting block who, much like his own family, still had memories of the cold war, still had memories of the domino effect that they saw in China. These were a people who feared the threat of the Russians so much that even though Russia was no longer an enemy that sense of an enemy coalition we need to beat is still present. Bush understood that qualm, that unease, that need of the american people to be united and bring peace to the world. Especially now that they won, that the cold war was over, and america could finally "make the world right" that russia had been "stopping" for so long.
To simplify that to simply a disdain for muslims is rather insulting to the american public that voted for him twice.
I wouldn't call it 'disdain for Muslims' and no where did I say it was but one cannot ignore the role his administration played in created the environment of fear and distrust for Muslims that festers to this day.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
But this is what your 3 words were apparently rebutting:
On May 08 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote: I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Were we supposed to infer you think the Bush administration in some way was trying to fight "Muslims" or the populations of certain countries?
I don't think he was thinking about saving poor people and creating beautiful democratic nations when he was painting those countries as evil no.
Not to mention that part of him invading Iraq was "God" telling him to as well. In talking with the French President Chirac; Bush told him that in invading Iraq was to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse:
This phone call occurred only weeks before the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq. Bush was trying to convince Chirac to have France join the coalition, but Chirac adamantly refused. Bush then added that “in the Middle East” he saw “Gog and Magog at work.” (First reported by Jocelyn Rochat in his article in France’s magazine Allez Savoir! published on September 10, 2007.) Chirac was shocked and wondered how anyone could be of such a mindset. Lately, several journalists have written that this episode was very under-reported.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
I'm not a fan of bush, or the GOP, but his rhetoric was that it is part of human decency to, when you have the power to help people, to do so and not just sit idle watching people suffer. Part of what makes some conservatives hate the left is because of the left's cruelty to those in need other than themselves. They see the left as always willing to spend trillions just so they don't have to pay for things evoking, civil rights, evoking supposed "hardships" that need to be addressed--but when actual atrocities happen in the world the left shuts off its empathy and suddenly its 100% isolationist bullshit that does nothing but show who the true racists of the world are. That is Bush's rhetoric.
Or maybe we can't solve everything and sometimes trying to fix something we can't fix only ends up making it all worse. I think the current state of the Middle East adequately proves that point.
Not to say there isn't more the West could and probably should be doing, I'm not for isolationism but you can't just jump around fixing the world without a proper plan.
I don't disagree with you. But understand, the reason Bush got elected was partially his down to earth, human personality that understood and grocked the mindset of his constituents. A voting block who, much like his own family, still had memories of the cold war, still had memories of the domino effect that they saw in China. These were a people who feared the threat of the Russians so much that even though Russia was no longer an enemy that sense of an enemy coalition we need to beat is still present. Bush understood that qualm, that unease, that need of the american people to be united and bring peace to the world. Especially now that they won, that the cold war was over, and america could finally "make the world right" that russia had been "stopping" for so long.
To simplify that to simply a disdain for muslims is rather insulting to the american public that voted for him twice.
I wouldn't call it 'disdain for Muslims' and no where did I say it was but one cannot ignore the role his administration played in created the environment of fear and distrust for Muslims that festers to this day.
I don't disagree with the results of his administrations actions. I simply see why they pursued the actions that they did. There's a reason that war didn't really become the thing it was until after 9/11. it wasn't like he said "in my first 100 days lets kill us some Saracens!" and just invaded the middle east. The security measures were fairly extreme--but even after running on a platform of pulling back that security, did you notice Obama did not dismantle the Patriot Act, did not close down our various prison facilities. You and I may not like what Bush did, but unless you think him a malicious person, we should at least try to understand why he would do what he did.
On May 08 2016 03:31 oBlade wrote: I know the term - I was hoping you could explain what your point was.
That Bush's war rhetoric went far beyond just nation building in Iraq to save the poor people.
But this is what your 3 words were apparently rebutting:
On May 08 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote: I'm no fan of the Iraq war but it was never a war against Muslims or the Iraqi people but a failed attempt at nation building. The goal wasn't to wage war on any population as a whole or to punish Muslims or whatever
Were we supposed to infer you think the Bush administration in some way was trying to fight "Muslims" or the populations of certain countries?
I don't think he was thinking about saving poor people and creating beautiful democratic nations when he was painting those countries as evil no.
Not to mention that part of him invading Iraq was "God" telling him to as well. In talking with the French President Chirac; Bush told him that in invading Iraq was to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible's satanic agents of the Apocalypse:
This phone call occurred only weeks before the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq. Bush was trying to convince Chirac to have France join the coalition, but Chirac adamantly refused. Bush then added that “in the Middle East” he saw “Gog and Magog at work.” (First reported by Jocelyn Rochat in his article in France’s magazine Allez Savoir! published on September 10, 2007.) Chirac was shocked and wondered how anyone could be of such a mindset. Lately, several journalists have written that this episode was very under-reported.
EPT
