NeuroTypical

Hi and welcome!

According to yjacket:Iraq harbors and shelters guy who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism. Iraq harbors and shelters the guy who mixed the bombs for the first World Trade Center bombing, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism. Iraq not only harbors and shelters Zarqawi, while he was the most wanted terrorist in the entire world, but also sets him up to operate out of an Iraqi government office, as an arm of the Iraqi state, but Iraq doesn't equal Islamic Terrorism. yjacket, everyone reading the thread can see that you refuse to admit Saadam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, despite overwhelming evidence the rest of the world accepted a decade ago. I can't speak for the rest of the thread viewers, but I'm judging you and your opinion accordingly. I see you've started using bold as a way to insult people with different opinions than you. Rather than just make a point, you insult the intelligence of your opponent. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm judging you and your insulting demeaning smear tactics accordingly.To speak to your point, I've read up on Bin Laden's motives, propaganda, and philosophies and tactics. Bin Laden wanted to re-establish the Caliphate, but understood all the Islamic nations were either fragmented, weak, ruled by secular governments, or afraid of the US. He bet big that the US was a paper tiger. He bet on the following path: * He'd attack the US * We'd not have the guts to respond substantively * The Islamic world would see the US weakness, and cease to be afraid of US involvement in their affairs. * The Islamic world would rise up against their corrupt or secular rulers, spread to other nations, and unite and bring back the Caliphate. Well, we responded substantively. To the extent that the world now sees a higher level of grassroots Islamic terrorism, he made advances. But he didn't really get his global uprising. True, to a certain extent. Much of the Islamic world, and many Islamic nations, detest Israel and do not believe it has a right to exist. Many believe all the Jews should be murdered, pushed into the ocean, etc. Yes indeed, they hate the US because we ally with Israel. Since Radical Islam is a global thing these days, with the \majority of violence taking place an ocean away from us and our allies, I fail to see how you can blame it all on US support of Israel. Agreed 100%.

Hi Kelly and welcome. Suicide is a horrible thing, that can leave marks on the surviving loved ones that last a lifetime. It seems to me that you're coming here with three things. First is your friend's suicide, but the second thing that seems to scream more loudly, is your issues with your parents.If I'm reading this correctly, you were 11 in '91, that puts you in your 30's, right? You mentioned seizures - are you dependent on your parents for your support? If so, you're sort of stuck in the relationship you have. You can't change them, only yourself. If not, you have more control over your relationship with them. But you still can't change them, only yourself. This suicide threat is of course your third thing. Kudos to you for not wanting to burden random strangers with a hand in your death. But yeah, you should probably seek some professional help to help you with these thoughts. Are you in a position to do so? Sounds like you would prefer to not have to go through your parents to see someone...

We have one of the cheaper Dyson Animal vacuums, works good so far for our 3 cats and 2 dogs.

A point I wanted to make: There's a lot of talk about "the Church" teaching this or that, or claiming this or that. Just wanted to point out that "the Church" isn't a person. It doesn't have desires or likes or loves. When people talk about "the church" in vague terms, they're either referring to it's members (like me, and just about everyone else on this thread), or it's leadership. It's a helpful distinction to think about when you find yourself saying "they" or "the church". Who? Members? Leadership? A point of criticism I often hear, is that the church (by which they mainly mean the leadership) has "hidden the truth" or "keeps us from knowing things". This is false. We don't live in some compound. Our minds, thoughts, and destinies are not controlled by the church. You want to know what you don't know? Go read and learn. It makes no sense to blame people you don't know, for not telling you what you didn't even know you wanted to know. Or to see your own lack of knowledge, as the result of some conspiracy from some nebulous, faceless, "they". If you want to know what the church has to say about something, search lds.org. For example, see what's been said about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There's a pretty large article about it published in 2007 - but mormons will only know about it if they've read the article and remember it. If you want to know what individual mormons have to say, ask them or read what they've published. But it seems silly to take one mormon's ignorance (or even lots and lots of mormons' ignorance) as some sort of intentional effort to keep the truth from being heard.

You pretty much had me up to there. Looks like you're accusing people in the church of being willfully decietful.I get that kid missionaries can have odd ideas and be ignorant of church history. That's different than knowing the truth and refusing to share it. You want to try rephrasing that? If not, you want to try substantiating it? Who in the church is keeping people from knowing the truth, and exactly how do you think they go about doing it?

Got kids? (I mean, besides the one you married...)

Howdy

Link, please. I'm thinking you've been misinformed or misinterpreted something you read. Look Mike, it's a shame that nobody has visited you since your baptism, when it looks like you want visits. Your wording was a bit vague about who told you what was all lies, the early Saints did practice polygamy, and there's plenty of sources. If you want to read up on Joseph Smith and stuff he did, give Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling a read - it's hailed by both believers and critics as a good, honest, bio of Joseph Smith. Whether you're a convert, or born in the church, or something in between like me, it's important to know what you believe, and why you believe it. Do you believe in God? Do you believe God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and he restored the church? If yes, read history to your heart's content, and learn the history of our church. If no, well, what do you want to accomplish here?

Julio Iglesias

Funky makes a great point. Not everyone believes in things like "basic human rights" like freedom of speech. We're not too many centuries down the road from a time when almost nobody believed it. My buddy had a discussion with one of his smart consultant associates, a practicing Muslim originally from Pakistan. This person is a highly-educated, well-traveled person, who has lived in a dozen countries, working for various corporations in various capacities. My buddy asked him about why there's no freedom of speech in Islam - here's his response:

Fun story: So, bishops have responsibility over everyone in their flock. If you're a baptized member on his rolls, he has a clear scriptural mandate to know how you're doing. This is true even if you're an angry person who hates the church and has demanded no visits from any dang mormons. So once every year or two, he and his counselors make an attempt to "contact the Do-Not-Contacts". I got to go with them one year, as Executive Seceretary. Interesting trip. We went to 4 homes, and saw 3 people. One guy politely thanked us for the visit, and said he wasn't interested. One guy got defensive, saying it was outrageous to expect a guy to go to 3 hours of church a day. One guy was mad that we knocked on his door. So, every person we talked to, we let them know they still appear on our rolls, and all they need to do, is put a formal request to have their names removed in writing and send it to the bishop. The two uppity guys angrily said they'd do that immediately. I was Exec Sec another 3 years, and we never got any letter from either of them. Bishops tell me this is hardly an uncommon occurance. So, in a congregation with 350 names on the rolls, there's the story of 4 of them for you.

Hi and welcome. Just a few things: This is an international message board - you're not likely to find someone in your area here. Are you a baptized member of the church? If so, you might have some luck contacting a bishop in your area - try here if you can make outgoing calls. If you're looking for an AA sponsor, you can find them at aa.com. Our church does have a similar program, but I don't think it really uses sponsors, and may or may not be available in your area. Good luck and God bless.

A few years ago, I learned some things about the way the geopolitical world functions, and it changed my outlook and debate style. (I've largely returned to my former debate style for this thread, largely out of habit. I spent so many hours debating the rightness or wrongness of the war back in the late '90's, it got ingrained in my brain I guess.) Anyway, life got clearer and easier for me to find my place, once I realized that the geopolitical world doesn't function on right and wrong. It was quite a shocker to me, but I believe it's true. No country interacts with it's neighbors on principle. Not the US, not Canada, not Russia, or Australia, or the UK, or anywhere else. The countries that come closest are Israel (operating on the principle of "we have a right to exist"), and it's neighbors (operating on the principle of "no they shouldn't"). But even there, right and wrong are just notions the elites use to drum up support for what the government wants to accomplish. No, on the geopolitical stage, it's not about right and wrong, it's about leverage and interest. If you're a nation (or an elite in a nation), you want what you want because you want it. And you'll use whatever leverage against your neighbors you have, to get it. Every nation has political capital, economic capital, and military capital, and every nation applies them differently to itself and its neighbors. Within a nation, there's an ongoing power struggle (nicely termed "internal debate") about how to best use the nation's capital. And when you're a nation with bigger capital or more visible use, you invite kibbitzing from citizens of other nations. That's what's happening in this thread. Right and wrong, in a geopolitical context, are only useful to the extent that it advances or hinders your faction or your opponent's. And there are plenty of cases where you have the power to pursue your agenda, even if everyone thinks you're wrong. This is what happens when God sets His children lose on their own planet. This is what we've always done, across all of recorded history, ever since getting kicked out of the garden. The folks in Enoch found a better way, and their reward was to not have to play the game any more. It makes me sad, resigned, and hopeful for the millenium. (To the folks whose gut reaction will be to believe I'm saying this in defense of America's actions, I can only tell you that you're missing my point. But feel free to call me more names, if you think it helps.)

Oh cool. I've filled out the link, and eagerly await my email invitation to view the live stream. So tell us Pam, who will be speaking? If an internet influencer of your caliber is giving the benediction, there must be some pretty bigwiggy bigwigs on the card... Is there a way we remote watchers can communicate with the presenters during the presentation? A twitter account, or live chat or something?

Yeah, question #8 is broken.

Thank you for replying, yjacket. So, the guy who pushed Leon Klinghoeffer off the boat, the guy who mixed the bombs for the first World Trade Center bombing, and Zarqawi, all sheltered by the Iraqi government, and Zarqawi actually operating out of an Iraqi government office, and you're willing to admit that there "probably" was "a terrorist in Iraq".I think folks reading this thread can reach their own conclusions. I'll add "pedantic" and "looking for a fight" to things you've called me, and take that as my answer to my question about you wanting genuine debate.

Canadian humor is superior in most ways to US humor. And, unlike a lot of people in the US, Canada and Great Britain actually have an understanding of irony.

Let's set up the tricky question properly. One of the justifications (and one the administration did quite a bit of backtracking, clarifying, distancing on, before the war started), given to the rest of the world was that Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorists.This is a better way to put it. Because again, yes, you can make a good case for the war in Iraq not being justified. You're making the case now, in fact. But I was there, and I remember. I remember the whole left-of-center world erupting loudly at the phrase "al-qaeda in Iraq". I remember the salivation and hand-rubbing, as they cemented the comments/videos/news reports/newspaper articles into their long-term memory, books, articles, magazines, and hyperlinks. They knew the administration screwed up, and it would cost them dearly in future elections. I remember the whole right-of-center world doing damage control. Specifically saying "wait - our main justification isn't al-qaeda in Iraq! Our main justification is [loose groupings of other things, like yellowcake, and 1441, and Hans Blix is a weenie, and state sponsor of terrorism, and drumming up sympathy for the Iraqi people, and pushing dreams of a stable, etc, etc]." I remember the left-of-center world not caring. Bush would pay for saying "al-qaeda in Iraq". The right became weakened and exploitable after using the phrase. And the left-of-center folks continute to exploit and not care to this day - as evidenced by your post. Yep. I've known and accepted this since before Gulf war II. It would be nice if you would accept that I knew it, and was talking about it, since before Gulf war II as well.(Oh, and for the record, I don't make fun of the Canadian military much. I was actually housed in a military installation in Montreal back in the '90's, who leased out the campus to corporate interests. I learned a thing or two about you guys. Easy to poke fun of, but yes, still worthy of a measure of respect.) I agree that's the question. Gotta be careful of the definition of 'we' though.I see folks on the left continuing to make political hay out of the current situation in Iraq. Praetorian seems to think "send trainers" would be a good solution. The OP says "they wanted us to leave, we left - they're on their own". Any other ideas?

Hi yjacket,Could I ask you to respond to my post addressing this belief? Are you still of the impression that there were no terrorists in Iraq at or before the time of the invasion? I mean, it seems like you're shifting the goalposts here. You started with some pretty bold claims: "All the justifications given at the time for war, WMD, terrorists, etc. were proven to be factually false." No, that's not true. "...no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!)" No, that's not true either. Now that I answer your false claims, and point out the falseness, you brand me a war justifier, and try to feel my pain about how hard it must be to have to do a "complete role-assessment and an admission of guilt, fault and contrition." Do you see how this might come across as a tad insulting? Look, you can make a good argueable case that the 2nd Iraq war was not justified. But surely, you can do it without making false claims to support your beliefs. Surely, there are enough true claims you can make? That's pretty much my main point of disagreement with you. If you would just stick to the true stuff, and abandon all the false made up stuff, you'd still have a pretty good case to make... Thank you for clarifying that you were not intending to insult me. Just to make sure you know: I am not taking offense. I am not angry. I am not a hater. I am not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic. I am not locked in the throes of extreme blind nationalism. I am not beholden to US media. I am not blindly content to remain unaware of the realities outside of my own borders.And yeah, no really, if you keep responding to my posts by creating this strawman image of me that looks like that guy, it really does speak to the strength of your argument. You should be able to just discuss things, without having to opine sadly about how it's not my fault I'm a blind deluded sheltered ignorant media dupe suffering from cognitive dissonance. But now, for a breath of fresh air, here's something you said that I totally and completely agree with, and wish more people understood: This is why I never really get worked up when the latest Iranian president is threatening to rain fire and doom down on America's cities. That's what' presidents of Iran do - that's what they've been doing for 30 years. However, just because I don't think there's a high risk of them using nukes on me, I still support them not getting nukes. Praetorian and yjacket, do you disagree? Do you think the US or the international community should allow Iran to develop the means to create, arm, and deliver a nuclear warhead?

Well, that's sure not true. Holy cow, yjacket, who told you that?Do you remember the major media reports covering the saber rattling just prior to March 2003? They were about WMD and support for terrorism, yes, but they were also about Saadam throwing out UN weapons inspectors, enforcing UN resolution 1441, and high corruption of the oil-for-food program. No, there were no official ties between Saadam's regime and Al-Qaeda. But for the love of pete yes, there were clear, long-established, obvious, undeniable ties between Saadam and terrorists. After the war, they found bomb vest factories. Before the war, well, Saadam wrote checks to the families of anyone who would explosively martyr themselves in Israel and kill some Jews. Saadam had no ties to terrorism? Good grief. In the words of : yjacket, could I respectfully suggest that you take a second look at whatever sources told you otherwise? You've been lied to, for years, and bought into a notion that some folks tried and then abandoned years ago. No threat? Excuse me? Exactly how many times does a government need to try to assasinate a former US president before they become a threat? How many terrorist bomb vests does a government need to produce and ship to Israel? How many most-wanted-terrorists in the world does a government need to shelter and aid, before they can be considered a threat? You may be right. Is it your contention that because I disagree with you, I suffer from this "bad case of Nationalism"? Do you need to insult me like Praetorian? I sure hope that's not what you meant.

Maybe there's been a miscommunication. I didn't realize you were only talking about having failed objectives as how they were "similar". But now that I realize that's what you're talking about, let me change my answer.I'm not sure we failed in Afghanistan, because I'm not exactly sure what the objectives were going in. The only things that makes sense was "Kill Bin-Laden", "deny al-qaeda a base of operations in Afghanistan", and "go neutralize al-qaeda in Afghanistan". Those have happened, eventually, sort of, at a pretty tremendous cost. Everything is expensive in Afghanistan. It looks like I've found a second person to argue Iraq with, who just can't avoid trying to make it personal. No really, my patriotism wasn't insulted. I don't hate you either. I just disagree with you. Can you accept those as facts? Or do you have to believe that an opposing viewpoint absolutely has to be personal at some level? I was five at the time - not really paying enough attention to form an opinion at the time. 40 years of hindsight later, and I see Vietnam as part of the overall cold war - Vietnam was hardly a success, but the cold war was won. It is true that sitting here opining about Iraq and talking about current events makes both of us armchair commanders. It is also true that I have never been in the military, whereas I take it you were, for a time, in Canada. I only have military parentage, and am surrounded by it here in Colorado Springs. So yeah, your time in the military gives a perspective that I lack. My wife and I are friends with many folks back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and have discussed matters deeply with them across years. And I have to tell you, that many of them have expressed opinions very, very different than yours. Like this: Perhaps it's different in Canada, but the vets I've talked to here in Colorado Springs, especially the ones who have seen combat, retain a strong sense of patriotism and national pride. So no, I don't think you get to just pull out your "I was in the military, and as far as most troops are concerned..." card that easily. So, let's count:* I disagree with you, because my "patriotism was insulted on some level". * I haven't been in the military, and therefore "don't really seem to grasp a soldiers motives" * I believe what you want me to believe about Iraq, because I'm an American (and presumably, therefore, some sort of brain washed fool). Why is it you are so intent on writing my story for me? Can't we just debate stuff without you getting all insulting and uncharitable and strawman-setting-uppy? Let me ask again - can we please talk without getting personal? Insults aren't really helping... Well, after he got the boot as Bush's Sec of State, he retired from public life despite numerous offers from numerous places. He joined a silicon valley venture capital firm, did a bunch of his own armchair generalling, got on the board of directors of Steve Case's Revolution Health, serves on the BoD of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is generally running around getting paid for speeches like any famous former beltway insider. He made some noises about being an Obama cabinet member, but received no nominations. I'm sure he's far, far richer than I will ever be. Well, maybe you know something the Washington Post doesn't, but they said that Andrew Card asked him to resign. Well, until around 2010, I was following several Iraqi blogs, run by Iraqis, in English. They had an interesting mix of reactions about America's involvement. They all were united in hating Saadam, and praising Bush for toppling the regime. But there were mixed reactions about what happened after, what was happening then, and what would happen in Iraq. The notion that "any Iraqi" would disagree that any good came from the wars, is blatantly false. "Many Iraqis", sure. "any Iraqi", no. I've seen links to this over the years, ok - tell you what. I'll watch it.

Sorry to hear the story. I know "sadsister" is a name that doesn't do justice to what you're going through. First question - how old was your niece at the time of offence? Keep in mind, everything I have to say below, is from the point of view of someone who'se niece was 8. If your niece was 17 or something, that can be a different story. I don't know one way or the other, but from what I can tell, child sex offenders share similarities across demographics.Genuinely repentant child sex offenders tend to do everything they can to avoid contact with children. Additionally, parole restrictions may mandate a certain distance by law. You should find out what those conditions are, and notify the authorities if you see him violating them. Do not assume anything. Do you know that your brother is/will be excommunicated? Are you sure the church knows what he did? If you are not sure, then feel free to consider it your duty to let the bishop know.My wife's brother lived in another state. Her mother tried desperately to keep what hapened secret and private. The only reason the church found out, is that we sent them copies of the court transcripts. Well, we can hope he'd end up divorced. There are women who will overlook such crimes against their own kids, in order to keep a man. Has your brother's wife filed? If she hasn't by now, I wouldn't hold my breath. Taking care of elderly parents is a good thing. I could see such a situation as a win for everybody, if there was an understanding about visiting children. But whether your brother remarries, stays married, stays single, or searches for more prey, are basically up to him. It's very hard, but it's possible. If he's honest, reliable, and hard working, there are options for him. Here's a common story - your brother's details will vary: Sentanced for 5-life, paroled after 5 years to a halfway house for sex-offenders. Halfway house will help him find a job - his way out of the house is to keep his nose clean for a while, and get a job. Then he'll be on parole, with restrictions. I can't stress this enough - find out what the conditions of his parole are, and if you find out he's violating them, gather evidence and inform the authorities. This is not about being loud with your parents. This is not about causing scenes. This is about protecting communities from known risks of harm. Yeah - me and my wife. It's been just a lovely last 6 years. There are some things you need to be aware of. If you attend any parole hearings or other court proceedings, you will need to pick which side to sit on. They have the offender/defense, and a bunch of seats behind him. They have the victim/prosecution, and a bunch of seats behind them. Your brother will be on one side, your niece will be on the other. You don't get to sit in the aisle, but you can choose to not attend. You will find that as this thing moves through the next several years, everyone will grapple with this fact in different ways, and it will extend into daily life in various ways. Wherever you choose to sit, you will find beloved family and friends making different choices. This might split apart your family. Prepare to have your ability to love and forgive tested in ways you never expected or wanted. Are you married? Stay close to your husband. As things stand now, my wife and I are the only people sitting on our niece's side. Everyone else sits on the other side and calls us boatrockers. I hope your family can find better ways to cope.God bless you and your niece.

Heh. In the history of human civilization, how many invaded nations can you name, that admitted the invaders had legitimate reasons to do so? I inherited some pamphlets dropped on my father in WWII by the Germans - they sure seemed to think my dad was there under false pretenses. Because invading and leaving him there in desert shield turned out to be such a good idea. Tell me again who ended up delivering justice to Saadam? Was it the Americans? Well that's just blatantly and obviously false. The Americans not only helped Iraq's fledgeling police force, but defended, fuelled, supplied, and paid for them for a long time. They worked hard to convince the Sons Of Iraq to stop fighting the Americans and work with them. Anyone who needs to see how wrong Praetorian's claim is, needs only search on some videos and articles from Michael Yon during his time as an embedded reporter. The one about bringing the police chief the goat is one of my favorites. Valid point. Even though the Saadam-era Iraqi constitution was largely similar to the US constitution, even though Saadam "won reelection" in the months before desert storm with 98% of the vote, yeah, both were shams and invalid, and Iraq knew nothing of representative democracy. Yep - we were hoping for something more like Germany or Japan. You're absolutely right - it didn't work out that way. You don't understand why a nation would want some of what another nation has, but wants to limit the costs of obtaining it? Help me understand correctly here - are you are advocating that US re-invade Iraq? What course of action here would not seem "strange" to you? Oh man - if you were trying to establish credibility here, I'm afraid you just lost it. You don't have to do much reading to understand that Afghanistan and Iraq are most certainly not the same - in history, culture, reaction to events, or probable outcome. I have no intention of sending you (or anyone else) hate mail. I don't hate you - I don't even dislike you. Just disagree with a lot of stuff you're saying. You can understand that, right? My response to you is only an indication of disagreement, not of hate? (This one other guy I argued with on Iraq, accused me of being "a hater", but couldn't really say why. I'd like to avoid the same sort of playground insulting back-and-forthery here, if you're willing.) Thanks for the insight into who you are and what would motivate you to participate in what you consider the unjust invasion of another country. Oh, it wasn't ignored. I wondered how they were going to have any different outcome, and I still wonder, but I've read enough to understand at least we went in hoping to learn what didn't work all the other times. Again, I'd refer anyone interested to read a little of what the Americans actually did to change from invader, to occupier, to rebuilder, to supporter/trainer, to all gone. It's all online and free - there's no reason to be locked into such a simplistic and false mindset as "America lost because we fought Iraq's history". Here's a decent example of some of what was actually happening:http://www.michaelyon-online.com/battle-for-mosul-part-iii.htm

Hi and welcome. That's a pretty interesting story. How interesting. I've never heard of a Bishop urging someone to divorce a mentally ill spouse. Heard of lots of other people urge that, but never a bishop. Huh.One comment: As far as relief society goes, they are there to serve the needs of sisters. Visiting teachers don't visit the men, they visit the women. If you had daughters over 18 living at home with you, they would get visits from the Relief Society, but not you, married or otherwise.(I don't want to ignore your larger point that you struggle mightily as a single dad and the church hasn't been as involved as you'd like. Just wanted to make that point about RS clear.) Welcome to the forums!