|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
 Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:40 pm
|
 |
|
Where are the lies Mech? Why don't you point them out for me so we can explore each false accusation one by one. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:05 pm
|
|
|
Are you that RETARDED that someone needs to point it out to you?
Did you take the "short bus" to school Fart-talker? |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:33 pm
|
|
|
He is that retarded, and then some. |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:23 pm
|
|
|
FW: Where are the lies Mech? Why don't you point them out for me so we can explore each false accusation one by one.
Mech: Are you that RETARDED that someone needs to point it out to you?
Did you take the "short bus" to school Fart-talker?
------------
Look at your self mech.. you're pathetic. Still waiting for you to fight for yourself without namecalling and flameing.. Didn't I just explain this in an earlier thread?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 07-21-2003] |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Mon Jul 21, 2003 8:15 pm
|
|
|
I think there comes a time when we must genuinely look at truth outside our political biases and petty hatred, for the sake of what is right for humanity.
What is the truth?
I think we all know the truth...
The truth is that a good and decent man named GW Bush used our military in a decisive, pre-emptive way to remove a mass murderer from power. The truth is that it was a rational decision, based upon the information available at the time, and available now.
This is the bottom line. This is the world we live in now. There are monsters in this world who would kill millions who love peace and freedom. Saddam was one of those monsters.
Unless you disagree with that argument, then the bottom line was that GW Bush acted rationally on behalf of God and the survival of humanity itself, because a monster like Saddam would have not thought twice about using a nuclear weapon on a US city. To say that Saddam was not attempting to acquire this ability is to ignore historical evidence and the testimony of his top scientists such as Dr. Hamza. Bush acted rationally and in a way that was not politically beneficial to himself in order to eliminate this threat and to stabilize the most destabilizing region on Earth.
Can you imagine any other politician who would knowingly invite the baseless assaults that he is enduring now? Most politicians would take the easy path, and the easy path does not involve risking US servicemen...and enduring the profound criticism Bush is undergoing now. Clinton took the easy path...the illusion. Bush made the hard political decision. He did what was right and what needed to be done. He removed a threat to the world.
But this is only the first step. There are other threats. N. Korea and Iran are now the most imminent threats. And I guarantee you, if a lesser man is voted into office at this critical point in history because voters are so blinded by their ignorance and hatred and belief in the lies and spin of the left, then a lesser man will be elected. He most certainly, will not do what is right. He will not deal with the threats to free people of the Earth. He will not take pre-emptive action on N. Korea because this would not be politically advantageous. He will not make the hard decisions to put US soldiers in harm's way where national security interests are at stake. Murderous regimes will proliferate and a nuclear weapon will be given to a terrorist group which WILL use that weapon. Millions of Americans or any perceived enemies of fundamental Islam will die.
This is the course people like Mech are advocating because they are so blinded by their petty hatred that they do not see the truth...and the truth is, that Bush has understated the threat, if anything.
This goes beyond politics. This is the survival of free people and the prevention of a nuclear weapon going off in some city where free people still reside...all because people like Mech want to make false and unproven allegations.
Now who is the one lacking in mental capacity here? The one who is trying to eliminate the person who is trying to eliminate the capabilities of terrorists and terrorists nations...or the one who wants to keep him in office to continue this hard task? |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:03 pm
|
|
|
FASTWALKER: "Unless you disagree with that argument, then the bottom line was that GW Bush acted rationally on behalf of God ...."
You make want to throw up! That is the most assinine, satanic statement I've heard come out of your mouth yet.
If anything, Bu$h is working DIRECTLY AGAINST the divine plan and will most certainly pay for it once he leaves this world.
Sick, sick, sick..Fastwalker. |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:19 pm
|
|
|
By taking Saddam out, GW did act on behalf of God. |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:29 pm
|
|
|
Let's see if Mech can answer a question for once in his miserable, dishonest, self-delusional existence....Mech says;
quote:
If anything, Bu$h is working DIRECTLY AGAINST the divine plan and will most certainly pay for it once he leaves this world.
Ok answer me this Mech; How is getting rid of a mass murdering / torturing dictator and freeing millions of Iraqis from brutal oppresion "AGAINST the divine plan" in your opinion?
|
| |
|
|
jetblack
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 36
Location: NY NY |
|
Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:42 am
|
|
|
Pretty good exchange. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:00 pm
|
|
|
Flashback |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:56 pm
|
|
|
Though Mech cites various sources.
His opponents in this topic trust only one source: http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/TalkingPoints/default.htm
Remainder will be edited out
posted temporarily here:
==================================
Until it becomes it's own topic:
"The Cult of Conservatism"
>A goldfish living in a bowl that is painted black on the outside will never know it lives in a bowl unless someone takes it out and shows it the rest of the world. Mindsets can be like that - locked into a `thinking box', unable to see outside because the web of beliefs is so all-encompassing <
http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm
>Universal Definition
CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top...and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. <
>Other Identification Marks
(a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong.
<
>They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members loyal to their ranks.<
>There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its teachings.<
>Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained. <
(reference to former members of Bush Administration {Clark, Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, et al}...Republicans who have become Independents {Senator Jeffords et al}...Conservative "journalists" who quit writing rightwing attack articles {"Blinded By The Right"}...former rightwing 'spokesblondes' {Arianna Huffington} etc....and the attacks which have followed their escape from the cult of conservatism)
>Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by other members with coercion to get them to return to the group. <
>Abuse Of Individuality: They adopt a “groupness” mentality. They are not permitted to think for themselves apart from the group and only accept what they are told. <
"dittoheads" unthinking parroting of cult propaganda and kneejerk defense of cult leadership:
>“Us Versus Them” Mentality: Isolation from the community in general. Anyone and everything outside the group is seen as “of the devil” or “unenlightened” etc. Their enemies now include former friends; the Christian church; governments; education systems; the media - the world in general. Those who are involved with these in any way see such involvement as a “means to an end”. <
Note hostility towards anyone who attempts to present truth or question cult teachings:
>Abuse Of Free Will: They must unquestioning submit to the groups teachings and directions and their own free will is broken. Their “will” actually becomes the groups “will” without their realizing it.<
>The cult member sees himself as “righteous” in comparison and this comes across in their attitude toward all outsiders. <
Paranoid belief in a mythical "Liberal" media, which is imagined as on constant attack against the cult.
Kneejerk attack response to any criticism of cult leaders or cult teachings.
>Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether justified or no, it is regarded as “persecution”. Any criticism of the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the “true Christian” or “enlightened” one - not because they, as an individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because they are “the only ones who are right”. <
>Their world-view alters and they perceive the world through their leaders eyes.<
Disclaimer at "Identifying a Cult" http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm
>Not all these points will be found in every cult, but all cults will have some if not most of them, although these may vary to some degree. <
Reminder:
This will become it's own topic, but due to hack attacks, is being posted temporarily here.
|
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:24 pm
|
|
|
Excellent points, shatoga, considering the social organization and characteristics of a cultlike group. Of course I see those group characteristics in the Bush administration.
And I would like to speak to the concept that Bush taking out Sadam Hussein is a God-condoned act in itself and so humanitarian that it is beyond scrutiny.
First of all, Congress only has the power to wage war. This was instituted because of human nature and fallibility in one leader-- a wise move of our founding fathers. Due to the fears caused by 9/11 both engendered in the people and the politicians, the Congress too quickly and under duress gave the president the power to react to 9/11, not realizing that he would make a false connection to Saddam Hussein, thumb his nose to the UN and most other countries, and pursue a path that surprised and disappointed many who voted to give him the power.
IT WAS NEVER PROVEN THAT HUSSEIN WAS CONNECTED IN ANY WAY TO 9/11
The WMD excuse to attack Iraq came next as the reason to invade. Did that turn out to be true?
IT STILL TO THIS DAY HAS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
The argument to this day includes the following:
1) they moved it
2) and someone will yet find it
Is this fair to the people of the U.S. who are solely paying for the destruction (including innocent Iraqis) and paying in blood for an "eminant" (Consitution) threat to our freedom and safety?
OUR FREEDOM AND SAFETY WERE NEVER THREATENED
The real reason Bush attacked Iraq is that sanctions were about to be lifted and the administration feared the European and Russian oil and economic deals in the works with Iraq would lower the value of the dollar in reference to favoring of the Euro. and thus hurt our economy. The other underlying reason, was deftly laid out by the PNAC, O'Neil's book, Clarke's book, and Kwiatkowski's essays, that the aim and goal of this administration from day 1 was to establish a base in Iraq (power) and have direct and sole access to the oil reserves. It's called hegemony -- a larger nation taking over a smaller one in order to secure its resources. Even Condi Rice's testimony today proves that they ignored warnings of Al Queda and looked the other way when intelligence and individuals were pounding on their doors to be vigilent. They weren't. And many documents attest to this fact including John Ashcroft's list of priorities.
THE ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE
To underline shatoga's theory, those who questioned the administration's concentration and stated goals toward Iraq in the face of information pointing to Al Queda were called "traitors." Instead of answering the questions and responding to criticisms openly and honestly they continued to try to ostrasize and demonize those who in our free country, would even question their claims and goals! This is not freedom! Now, even peace protestors are being targeted for investigation on the democratic principle of dissent. Is this Democracy and freedom?
When you consider the fact that Saddam Hussein was given weapons of mass destruction by our government back in the late eighties in order to fight Iran, it was amazing what a great clean up job the Iraqi's performed. However, they were sanctioned and watched for many years after Bush I's war and hadn't the infrastructure to sustain any kind of science in that regard. Most of Hussein's money was spent on building underground palaces.
THERE WAS NO CASE AGAINST HUSSEIN IN REGARD TO WMD OR 9/11
Yes, Saddam was a mean and cruel dictator. But so is Korea's head of state. And why didn't Bush attack Korea under the same premise that they then adopted for justification of invasion -- crimes against humanity? Korea starves its people, kills them, and threatens us and their neighbors and definately HAS WMD in the form of nuclear weapons! Answer that!
WHERE'S OSAMA BIN LADEN?
Now, as far as God? God does not condone killing. Period. Anyone who thinks God is on anyone's side who kills another human being, whether Islamic or Christian is sorely deluded.
Many Iraqis are, of course, thankful Hussein is gone. But HOW could Hussein have been ousted without damaging Iraq's infrastructure (more than it was already damaged through sanctions) and killing and wounding thousands of its people and killing and wounding hundreds of our own wonderful people (which continues) ? HOW could the world have controlled this cruel dictator without one country, and one country only paying for the bill? Think. Just a handful of countries helped us and are in Iraq still, and some of those are leaving. Most of the Western world turned against America, also, because of this administration. Is that not a sign that something was wrong? Was this advantageous for America in the global world of alliances and trust?
ARE WE SAFER NOW?
NO.
Those of you who feel the invasion of Iraq was justified and somehow a great act of humanitarianism have not read enough nor informed yourself enough on the administration's reasons for such a hasty and violent act. FBI and CIA information, afterall, said that Hussein would not be a REAL threat to America for at least five or six years.
Now, when I refer to Bush, I am also referring to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle (at the time), Rice, and Rumsfeld as well as Ashcroft (domestically). Bush lacks true leadership and independence of thought.
You who think this administration is beyond scrutiny, need to read and read and read!
Don't be a dittohead! Think for yourself!
==========================
"A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?":
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
=
"Dress it as we may, feather it, daub it with gold, huzza it, and sing swaggering songs about it, what is war, nine times out of ten, but murder in uniform?":
Douglas Jerrold
=
"War hath no fury like a noncombatant":
Charles Edward Montague, Disenchantment
===
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Boomer Chick on 04-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:42 pm
|
|
|
My apology for going off on a tangent.
Circumstances required I put the information somewhere fast.
My posts will be edited to move all off topic comments to an appropriate thread within the next day.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 10:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
