BF2S Forums Delusional Bush DOESN'T listen to his generals. Credibility = 0.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

This whole "we haven't been attacked so warrantless wiretapping, the invasion of iraq and the patriot act are justified" reminds me of the simpsons episode where they spend a ton of money on an anti-bear police force and hold up the fact that there are no bears in springfield as proof that the police force is doing a good job.

except for the fact that the terrorist are constantly looking and planning for more attacks in the US. Your argument would hold water if nobody was trying to attack us, but they are.

Which is also why this absurdity that every other president was successful in stemming terrorism is bullshit because hardly any other president HAD to address this issue in the first place.

Please tell us what you would be  typing IF we had, had another attack in the US. You would be screaming from the rafters with joyous enthusiasm that Bush was a failure. But since you can't do that yet, you are forced to down play the fact that more attacks like 911 have not happened here.

Exactly what Hitler failed to do, look where he ended up.

Note im not calling Bush a dictator or a facist.

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

eir neighbors?? Is there any period in history where the countries of the ME were EVER at peace with one another, EVER???

Under the Ottoman empire.

Besides, what can you expect from the center of the (old) world, all the trade lines ran through it, so everyone wanted to control it.

Also the Persian Empire.

I will probably sound like an arse for saying this but Eugenics, people Eugenics.

It is back to supremest thinking elite & curbing world supplies to meet the needs. I don't think it is a party line thing, it is an elite thing. Higher powers seek wars for their own ends, money & domination over the masses. Bush isn't delusional, He is doing what he is told by those who let him sit in the presidential role.

If people are violent, pander to their nature. Give them guns & let them kill each other, more resources for the elite that way.

Suppress man in the third world & lower class countries, In fact wipe them of the earth & take there resources.

Do you think this is so far fetched & not happening? well here is a link & small portion from the article. If you would care to look at names of those who are members of Eugenic Societies in Britain & the US you might begin to see a frightening reality.

http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm


"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.

Depopulation policy became the top priority under the NSC agenda, Club of Rome and U.S. policymakers like Gen. Alexander Haig, Cyrus Vance, Ed Muskie and Kissinger. According to an NSC spokesman at the time, the United States shared the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than nuclear annihilation.In 1975, Henry Kissinger established a policy-planning group in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs. The depopulation "GLOBAL 2000" document for President Jimmy Carter was prepared.

It is no surprise that this policy was established under President Carter with help from Kissinger and Brzezinski - all with ties to David Rockefeller. The Bush family, the Harriman family - the Wall Street business partners of Bush in financing Hitler - and the Rockefeller family are the elite of the American eugenics movement. Even Prince Philip of Britain, a member of the Bilderberg Group, is in favor of depopulation:

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund, quoted in "Are You Ready for Our New Age Future?" Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995).


Do you not see peoples?

lowing wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

lowing wrote:

I think the real issue with it is, they truly and simply don't care about their lives or anyone else's life. To them life doesn't begin until they die and reach their 72 virgins and shit. We hold life as precious and we want everyone to feel the same way. They all hate each other, and are willing to kill each other and willing to die trying, without pause.

I could be wrong, but I think that's the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say, and you've said a lot of ignorant things. I think I now understand why you come on here and piss off everyone every time you open your mouth. You really have no firm grasp on reality. You really believe this? Honestly? Aren't you an adult? Don't you lambast others constantly for having juvenile opinions? You alone are justification for increased spending in the public education system.

We (all Americans I presume?) hold life as precious. They (the whole of muslim society I presume?) don't care about their lives or anyone else's? I wish the world functioned according to such simplistic paradigms. If you (americans) hold life as so precious why invade a country and kill tens of thousands of people?

Really, and how pray tell, has the Muslim community in the ME shown how valuable life is to them and their neighbors?? Is there any period in history where the countries of the ME were EVER at peace with one another, EVER??? What is the reason that poverty in the ME is AND HAS BEEN FOREVER so fuckin' high??

Why, when there is an earthquake in the ME 25,000 people die from it, where in a modern nation maybe 100 or so, if even that?? Why in the ME are people starving and dieing from disease, yet, EVERYONE has a fuckin' machine gun???? Why if not for all the violence and total disregard for life, has the world spent the last 60 years trying to help solve all the problems to stop the killing?? If they hold life so dear explain why they are cutting peoples heads off on video for the whole world to see?? Answer these questions, genius.


But please, try actually refuting my post and explaining why I am wrong if you can. If ya want though, you can just continue with the attacks, really I enjoy them, it shows you have nothing you can  refute

Sorry for the large quote but I'd like to expand on lowing's comment a bit here.

Is it wrong for us to generalize muslims as violent? Possibly. Is it wrong for us to generalize Americans as peace loving, probably. But there's one clear difference between "us" and "them."

I keep hearing about how Islam is a loving religion, and how the kind people of this faith are being misrepresented by their far right extremist partners. Now, I'd call that a fair observation if not for one daunting thought. Where is the voice of the so-called moderate muslim? I'm not saying that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, I've posted plenty of evidence to the contrary citing atrocities of Christians across the globe. However, I've yet to see a large uprising of the moderate muslim populace speaking out against the extreme violence that some of its believers act out. To me, that silence is deafening. It sends me a clear message that these people WILL tolerate extreme violence to fulfill their agenda. That's not to say that we're not a violent people either, but you'll find right here, and in most of America at this point, that the people don't want war. Nor are we killing our own citizens over religion, or suicide bombing each others' churches. The only significant revolutionary voices I've heard from Islam in my lifetime is the voices of terrorists and people who support them.

It's not to say that most Muslims WANT to see blood. All I'm saying is that they're not objecting to it as much as I'd like to see from an apparently peaceful group of people. There's historically been, and is now, a very high tolerance for very extreme violence in the Muslim world.



On to my own short point. We should have invaded Iran instead. The disassociation between the ruling class and the general population there would have been quite a bit more suitable to establish a republican government in, being that the people of Iran are far more progressive and in general take to western culture much more willingly and eagerly than the people of Iraq. All of that without even mentioning how much more nuclear capable Iran is/was than Iraq would have been.

rocksrhot wrote:

stef10 wrote:

Bush is such a noob of war.

Is he such a noob at war, or is someone else pulling the strings? Do you believe he makes the decisions or Corporate America (Arms Sales Etc) & financiers?

Lmfao.

Not wrote:

lowing wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

I could be wrong, but I think that's the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say, and you've said a lot of ignorant things. I think I now understand why you come on here and piss off everyone every time you open your mouth. You really have no firm grasp on reality. You really believe this? Honestly? Aren't you an adult? Don't you lambast others constantly for having juvenile opinions? You alone are justification for increased spending in the public education system.

We (all Americans I presume?) hold life as precious. They (the whole of muslim society I presume?) don't care about their lives or anyone else's? I wish the world functioned according to such simplistic paradigms. If you (americans) hold life as so precious why invade a country and kill tens of thousands of people?

Really, and how pray tell, has the Muslim community in the ME shown how valuable life is to them and their neighbors?? Is there any period in history where the countries of the ME were EVER at peace with one another, EVER??? What is the reason that poverty in the ME is AND HAS BEEN FOREVER so fuckin' high??

Why, when there is an earthquake in the ME 25,000 people die from it, where in a modern nation maybe 100 or so, if even that?? Why in the ME are people starving and dieing from disease, yet, EVERYONE has a fuckin' machine gun???? Why if not for all the violence and total disregard for life, has the world spent the last 60 years trying to help solve all the problems to stop the killing?? If they hold life so dear explain why they are cutting peoples heads off on video for the whole world to see?? Answer these questions, genius.


But please, try actually refuting my post and explaining why I am wrong if you can. If ya want though, you can just continue with the attacks, really I enjoy them, it shows you have nothing you can  refute

Sorry for the large quote but I'd like to expand on lowing's comment a bit here.

Is it wrong for us to generalize muslims as violent? Possibly. Is it wrong for us to generalize Americans as peace loving, probably. But there's one clear difference between "us" and "them."

I keep hearing about how Islam is a loving religion, and how the kind people of this faith are being misrepresented by their far right extremist partners. Now, I'd call that a fair observation if not for one daunting thought. Where is the voice of the so-called moderate muslim? I'm not saying that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, I've posted plenty of evidence to the contrary citing atrocities of Christians across the globe. However, I've yet to see a large uprising of the moderate muslim populace speaking out against the extreme violence that some of its believers act out. To me, that silence is deafening. It sends me a clear message that these people WILL tolerate extreme violence to fulfill their agenda. That's not to say that we're not a violent people either, but you'll find right here, and in most of America at this point, that the people don't want war. Nor are we killing our own citizens over religion, or suicide bombing each others' churches. The only significant revolutionary voices I've heard from Islam in my lifetime is the voices of terrorists and people who support them.

It's not to say that most Muslims WANT to see blood. All I'm saying is that they're not objecting to it as much as I'd like to see from an apparently peaceful group of people. There's historically been, and is now, a very high tolerance for very extreme violence in the Muslim world.



On to my own short point. We should have invaded Iran instead. The disassociation between the ruling class and the general population there would have been quite a bit more suitable to establish a republican government in, being that the people of Iran are far more progressive and in general take to western culture much more willingly and eagerly than the people of Iraq. All of that without even mentioning how much more nuclear capable Iran is/was than Iraq would have been.

All ya had to do was say, "I agree".

usmarine2007 wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

Seeing as we all get daily classified briefings makes us all experts on Iraq..uh wait. no we don't.  The only thing we know (unless you have been over there and you know whats going on) is what the completely biased news media tells us.  It does not matter what paper it is, they are only going to tell you what sells papers.  A new school or clinic in Iraq does not sell papers, but 23 dead from a car bomb does!

Believe what you want, but chances are I am laughing at you!

Hell, even if you have been over there, you still have no real idea of what is going on.  It is not up to us to know, it is up to the people WE elected.

Problem is that some people actually believe what those elected people tell them, & It is up to us to know what is going on & hold people accountable.

lowing wrote:

rocksrhot wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Hell, even if you have been over there, you still have no real idea of what is going on.  It is not up to us to know, it is up to the people WE elected.

Problem is that some people actually believe what those elected people tell them, & It is up to us to know what is going on & hold people accountable.

Yeah, like getting informed by YOU TUBE conspiracy videos

Oh yes, the Government is all in a big conspiracy to destroy the United States, rocksrhot. Get your head out of your ass already, you started off with no creditability when you suggested that the United States was a illegal country and it was still part of the UK, you keep going down hill, I suggest you either start thinking while you have the support of a few people here(like one or 2) or you just leave, no one takes you seriously.

commissargizz wrote:

To all those people who put other people down because they write about conspiracy theories.

When do you begin to believe anything.
Because it is written?
Because you have seen it?

Because someone has told you.

There is only one truth. Sometimes it is hard to find behind all the lies. Listen to everything, read everything, learn what you can and then make up your mind.

1. I accept things at face value, and when people in the know, WITHOUT agendas ( Michael Moore) has something to say that is credible, I listen. I refuse to listen to people whose primary goal is to denounce someone they don't like. You never would have seen Fahrenheit 911 if 911 occurred under Clinton.

2. Sometimes, you have to, unless you plan on being at every event that will ever occur when it occurs to see for yourself.

3. Yup

4. Told the same thing from different credible sources...IE Zarquawi is dead. Do I have reason to believe he is not? And if Michael Moore puts out a video claiming he is not, those that hate Bush will jump on it as fact FOR NO OTHER REASON than because they hate Bush and CHOOSE to believe EVERYTHING negative against him, truth has nothing to do with it.

Listen to everything CREDIBLE, read everything, CREDIBLE, Learn what you can from CREDIBLE sources, then make up your mind. Stop following people that have 1 goal, deface the president. Like I said you would not be watching  Fahrenheit 911 if 911 had occurred under Clinton.

TeamZephyr wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. I accept things at face value, and when people in the know, WITHOUT agendas ( Michael Moore) has something to say that is credible, I listen. I refuse to listen to people whose primary goal is to denounce someone they don't like. You never would have seen Fahrenheit 911 if 911 occurred under Clinton.

Wrong oh so wrong.

If you ever read some of Michael Moore's books you would notice that it isn't just rampant bush bashing. He spends as much time if not more bashing Clinton for being as conservative as Bush on many things.

Clinton recieves an absolute shitcanning by Moore and if 911 occured under Clinton you would have seen a very anti-Clinton film come out of it, stop with this continued stereotype that Moore and Clinton are all lovydovey and that Moore respects Clinton, you've got it all wrong son

Oh then it must be Moore's exploitation of sensitive events, for money, that had me confused.

Is 1 the only item you care to address?

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-29 13:57:08)

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh then it must be Moore's exploitation of sensitive events, for money, that had me confused.

Sorry, but are you complaining that he's too much of a capitalist now?

Yup, in his case, he is "CAPITALIZING on the deaths of his countrymen, and if you can't see the difference then I feel sorry for you.