Syfr Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Alright, this is going to be a bit of a debate. My guess is there aren't that many graffers that are pro-Bush, but yeah. Did you know that the casualty list runs these numbers: WTC: 2997 PEOPLE dead (Tourists, people from other companies in other areas. I.E. Japanese execs and so on.) This was supposidly an attack to America. This was a test to the will of one of the strongest nations, the dominant super power. However: In the war there have been 3414 AMERICAN soldiers dead. Not just allies, but AMERICAN. Casualties all rolled up? Probably around 10,000 in the War on Terror. Fucked up? I think so. My personal opinion: Junior is just finishing off his papi's work. Anyone remember that? An attempted assassination on Bush Senior? I love this line from Bill Hicks: "Clinton became one of the boys when after an attempted assassination on George Bush failed. He sent 20,000 bombs into Iraq, killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people. I think what would have been better is if WE killed Bush, and then just said "THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT TOWEL HEAD! NICE TRY!" That way, no innocent lives are lost." Hosnap. Also, what the fuck is up with arming 3rd world countries, then bombing them? Fucked up shit man. Fucked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Also, what the fuck is up with arming 3rd world countries, then bombing them? Fucked up shit man. Fucked up. put guns in their hands and opress them for decades,have relations with its leaders until u need them no more,then ull have your bad guy,ready to be attacked...these demons play with the people of the world,there is no such thing as coincidences in their actions.its all well planned. the war on terror is the consequence of 911,and if iraq was pre-arranged to be attacked why not 911 which is a smaller operation. connect the dots youll get the picture. no 911 = no iraq , no iraq = no war on terror , no war on terror = more muslim world , more muslim world = more obstacles , more obstacles = more time to make a new world order. these demons are risking it all very quick,thats why they have chilled out and u havent seen any attacks,wait until truth starts coming out more and they will use false flag terror,its their modus operandi. i hope God stops them before they do it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 juan summed it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 put guns in their hands and opress them for decades,have relations with its leaders until u need them no more,then ull have your bad guy,ready to be attacked...these demons play with the people of the world,there is no such thing as coincidences in their actions.its all well planned. the war on terror is the consequence of 911,and if iraq was pre-arranged to be attacked why not 911 which is a smaller operation. connect the dots youll get the picture. no 911 = no iraq , no iraq = no war on terror , no war on terror = more muslim world , more muslim world = more obstacles , more obstacles = more time to make a new world order. these demons are risking it all very quick,thats why they have chilled out and u havent seen any attacks,wait until truth starts coming out more and they will use false flag terror,its their modus operandi. i hope God stops them before they do it though. if there was "no iraq" there would still be the "war on terror," because the US entered afghanistan before iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 if there was "no iraq" there would still be the "war on terror," because the US entered afghanistan before iraq. but the plans to invade iraq were drawn up and ready to go before 9/11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 but the plans to invade iraq were drawn up and ready to go before 9/11 there's always plans "drawn up" as a precautionary measure. there are plans drawn up for north korea, china, russia, iran, etc. however, 9/11 was used as a leverage tool to make those iraq plans a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 there's always plans "drawn up" as a precautionary measure. there are plans drawn up for north korea, china, russia, iran, etc. however, 9/11 was used as a leverage tool to make those iraq plans a reality. of course there are those plans drawn up in the "war games" dept. of the DoD. however, these were passed around the CFR, whitehouse, etc. it was a "how do we get in there?" deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syfr Posted May 27, 2007 Author Share Posted May 27, 2007 I'm reminded of a picture. I can't find it, but it shows Iraq on a map with a big red circle, then it says "War check list" And it lists off "Troops, Guns, Bombs, Supporters, and A Reason" All of them are checked off except for a reason. The thing is: Saying what you said about "More Muslims" Juan, made it seem fairly racist. There are many muslims in my public school, and they're not in the way of anything, neither are their parents. Just because they might be a majority religion doesn't mean that they're going to Gihad your house. It doesn't work like that. For example: I'm not quite a christian, but I'm not punching a priest in the face. I'm not stopping him from doing his job. I have christian friends, hindu friends, muslim friends, buddhist friends. It doesn't matter your religion as long as you have an open mind. That stereotype of "Muslims are bad" Is what is leading to a lot of social termoil, and normally nice people buying guns, and going trigger happy cause some muslim went to their house to ask for some sugar for a cake they're baking or something. Same with how N.W.A. after they got really popular started to make people fear blacks. N.W.A. + Well planned release + L.A. riots = Fear of blacks in a lot of areas. Giving people that negative of a stereotype alienates not only them, but you as well. You're living in constant fear that one of these guys or girls is going to shoot you cause you put on a blue shirt, and walked through blood territory. Or that if you walk into Harlem, you're going to get the shit kicked out of you for no reason. It doesn't ACTUALLY work like that. There may be some instances where that's the case, but it wouldn't be like "That guy isn't from here! GET HIM!" It would be "I need the money. Next person around this corner gets fucked." It doesn't matter who, doesn't matter their skin color, doesn't matter their religion, doesn't matter where they descend. WE are a people. Humans should look at eachother as HUMANS and judge them based upon some bullshit stereotype. Making accusations and stereotypes just makes you look like a tool. I mean, look, there are graff artists that work 9 to 5 jobs, just your average joe, but even a business co-ordinator is seen as an evil violent gang member when they do something illegal like painting on a wall. Again, that's a negative stereotype. If I wouldn't get in shit, and people asked me if I was a graffer, I'd be like "Yeah, come with me sometime and check me out" I know my work isn't that good yet that I'd like to show it off =P But, it's the base point that matters. I'm done ranting now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 i consider myself a muslim,i didnt try to say what u heard syfr i said more muslim world in a sence that for them to have more control of the world(minds/people,resources,power) they need to take out people who think opposite of them,although the muslim world is not so righteous and obeying islam like it should, it still an obstacle in their way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 of course there are those plans drawn up in the "war games" dept. of the DoD. however, these were passed around the CFR, whitehouse, etc. it was a "how do we get in there?" deal. the one thing i don't get about these theories is this. if we had these plans so well drawn up, it was all planned except for the "how do we get in there", how has it gone oh so terribly wrong? you can't have it both ways. Either we didn't plan enough, and didn't recognize the plausibility of a Shi'a nationalist movement even though academics have been writing about it since 1993 at least (see TR Gurr's "Why Minorities Rebel"), OR we had it all planned out, that this current mess is exactly to plan. I'll play out the second possibility (one that Juan goes for completely, because he "connected the dots). These "power hungry, oil greedy" people, represented by the PNAC (aka those god-damn Zionists), really wanted to dramatically reduce America's relative power even though they are staunch Realists. They really want to reduce their party to tatters in their own country. They wanted to force out their number one intl ally in Tony Blair. They wanted to ensure that Iran would have the political capital necessary to ignore the UN. They reaaally wanted what went down in Lebanon last summer, where Hizballah is as strong as ever. I can go on and on about how none of this would benefit America in any way, not the rich, the poor (who are fighting for the rich), any particular race. If you're really going to try to plug some conspiracy bullshit, ask yourself a simple question: Cui bono? I suggest you guys do some hw before you go connecting the dots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 menino: check out greg palasts armed madhouse. he and the bbc got ahold of some serious documents that make the dots connect themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'd love to but im not trying to buy the book. Care to summarize? I checked out his wikipedia and looks as though he has specifically concerned with the 2000/2004 elections. furthermore, his main basis for the fraud of 2004 is exit polls in new mexico and ohio. exit polls survey at most 1 out of 20 people which also said kerry won. however, when the election is 51/49, isnt their a significant margin of error (i dont know how their calculated , but the margin of error would have to be bigger than the 2% difference between the two candidates). the 2000 election he points to overly aggressive voter fraud allegation on the republican side. thats no secret. i don't agree with the following but to play devil's advocate, the people are the dems base of support and money is the repubs base. when the dems enact campaign financing laws (who are they to violate my liberties by telling me where i can and can't spend my hard/easy earned money?), is that not similar to the repubs enacting tougher id/proof of address laws? again, i dont agree with this view, but it doesnt convince me of a conspiracy, it only convinces me of dirty politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 okay i started to find the stuff on the bbc website. looks like fahrenheit 911. alot of these high level bush/bin laden connections are one step away from a global masonic conspiracy. I dont deny that they exist, but pre911 business as usual seems a lot better than post-911. no? Again, cui bono? one of his guests appears to be the author of "a secret history of 911". hmm. also, look at this: "FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said: "There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no-one else ought to know." Am i the only person to find that oxymoronic? Either they commented or didn't. I love it when the commenters are anonymous. Leaves a lot of room for journalistic maneuvrability, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 palast is a great investigative reporter. the uk also has no freedom of speech, if he says something untrue, he can be sued. i will PM you about the book later. do you care for audio books much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 yeah for sure hit me up- rap is played out anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 good deal. i'll get to work on making it happen. (gotta shrink these files) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Also, if you'd like, I can forward you the bases from which my opinions are drawn. mainly academic journals etc., but also blogs, intl crisis group reports. none of it points to inside job or conspiracies though, most of it points to hastiness and bad preparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 that would be cool. i'm always interested in that junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Okay is this a SECRET history or a CYNICAL history. I'm gonna go into the stuff you just showed in that picture a little bit. Stuff i know off the top of my head: July 25th, 1990- You're right the United States said, we have no opinion on your border disagreement. the Iraqis INTERPRETED this as a greenlight to invade. THe americans claim they maent that they had no intention of facilitating consensus. Who knows. but If you look at the minutes from that meeting, its far from a clear go-ahead. Furthermore, even your quote says nothing about invasion. all it says is, we're not getting involved in the dispute. Then, once saddam invaded, the US said hold upppppp. Any analysis in intl affairs in post ww2 reveals that the US regarded any attack on sovereignty as unacceptable. coups were one thing, but the integrity of borders are a completely different thing. This is not an oil conspiracy, it is a defense of the status quo. ----Since when does a history of 17 years omit 10??------- Plan A- you're talking about the invasion of Iraq as if its unprecedented. We were in there all along. Why no mention of Clinton and the attacks? is it a "coincidence" that during those attacks we didn't hit the Oil Ministry. No, we were concerned with MILITARY targets. I would like to know if we hit the Ministry of Education, or Health etc....? Do you know? This meeting with teh Enronerz- I dont know anything about it. But I'd say that its far from unprecedented for a country to map out its energy sources. Imagine if we didn't know? Furthermore, this use of James Baker as the "dot connector" is misleading. Still though, the quote in that graphic shows something quite obvious: that the status quo was unacceptable. SURPRISE?? far from it. the sanctions werent working, the Sauds wanted regional power but was being overshadowed by Saddam's subsidizing of suicide bombers in the West Bank, the US were looking like enemies, half a million children were dead. Imagine the implications if they reached another conclusion that this was a good thing? Plan B- Neocons are highly idealistic, with a minimal grip on reality. SURPRISE?? and also, what they said is the line of thinking of every single Structural Adjustment Program that the World Bank advocates. Does this mean that theyre planning a conspiracy? nope. SEPT 2003- Don't confuse Ari Cohen with the govt. The govt was influenced by their Wilsonianism. This graphic contradicts itself. The meeting with the enroners was co sponsored by the Saudis. Your telling me that an open meeting here, with govt sanction, would be accepted by the Saudis without protest? please. Furthermore, overproduction is something that OPEC has dealt with time and time again. The other countries simply restrict output. Furthermore, there is the potential to ratchet up pressure significantly on ISrael by OPEC. theres no mention of protection for Israel. Considering the political pursuasions of PNAC etc. for Israel, do you erally think this was seirously contemplated? ----Don't speak about Chalabi. He is a chump, a criminal. He is the one who gave us much of the intelligence about WMDs. His exile organization really convinced our peopels that we would be greeted as liberators. LIES. When its all said and done, a lot of this will reflect on him. -------------- (note that the Sadrists reject any Iraqi in exile, no matter where) March 17 2003- So this war is secret, but they would blunder this up, and therefore the cover is blown? come on now. Stupidity yes, conspiracy, no. As to why the oil fields aren't sold off- No conspiracy here. Ask any investment company to invest in the anarchy of Iraq. Only cowboys would do so. This isn't the fulfillment of Plan A, as your graphic says. It reflects the lack of realization of the chaos that would succumb Iraq. Blame Chalabi. Your graphic notes that Chalabi is wanted for espionage, but not corruption. Thats because its not up to date. hes not the Oil Minister anymore. Last i checked he was living in London. Isn't that picture of Cheney slightly played out? we get it hes an animal... I could go on for days. WHy would they call Negroponte and Khalilzad "Viceroy". He's an ambassador, and the bias is reflected by alluding to colonialism. They can't privatize until there is sufficient protection of investment. This is what the guerillas in the Niger Delta know. If you want, i can keep on for days about how this graphic is misleading, inaccurate, biased, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 like i said, there is no freedom of speech in the UK. if palast was lying he would be sued. no one is suing him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heirkb Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 first off, bush aint the problem. capitalism is the problem for america and the poor world wide. why would i say this? because this "operation iraqi freedom", this "global struggle against extremism", this "war on terror" is based on capitalistic ambitions. listen to immortal technique. cheney had pipelines through afghanistan and the us invaded iraq when aiding sadaam no longer had capitalistic benefits. why doesnt america invade saudia arabia with their fuckin dictator ass shieks who give no rights to anyone? they go to afghanistan and "liberate" the women by getting them caught up in a chain of consumerist and euro-centric ideas of beauty. why doesnt america invade sudan? oh, cause theres no real profit. those 200 thousand iraqis, and the palestinians died and still die for these fuckers' capitalistic ambitions. same reason why america is trying so hard to get all the socialists out of the oil owning ( or resource owning) latin american countries (cuba, etc.).to quote king dream "fuck capitalism!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 casek just cuz palast isnt being sued doesnt mean for one second that what he said is true. could you imagine the political scandal if the CIA wasted tax payers money etc. in libel court? come on now. the CIA/USG has so much better things to worry about than the conspiracy nut jobs out there. For example- I'm sure that more than one JFK conspiracy theory has floated around the UK- thereby making sure that one or more is untrue. Yet none of them have been sued hmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 heirkb- listen to immortal technique? come on dude you really need to do some hw. do you live in a city? go to the public library: 1. Capitalism is not the problem. The fact that political systems such as America's does not represent the poor's interests necessary is the problem. In fact, it has been proven again and again by economists that capitalism the most productive system (i understand their protecting their bread source too, but the graphs make sense to me). Whether or not a country has a welfare system in place is a reflection of the country, not the economic system. 2. We don't invade Sudan because of much more than profit driven motives. Actually, if you were to do some actual research rather than quoting some yuppie ass socialist, you would realize that Sudan has among the largest untapped oil reserves in the world. Yet were still imposing sanctions on them. Hmmm... Definitely for capitalistic reasons, right? 3. Why not Saudi Arabia- They don't invade Saudi because of the regional outcry it would provoke. Let me indulge you on a "secret" reason why we invaded Iraq. The US, with our energy considerations, needs to have a military base in that region. This is not imperialistic, it is a realist line of thinking. We have troops in Saudi. That can't last forever, the region resents it, and we understand we can't be there forever. By deposing Saddam, we intended to have a presence in the region, act as a buffer against Iran for a region that seriously mistrusts Iran (remember at the start of the conflict with Lebanon last summer, when Egypt first supported Israel because they thought this was of Iranian hands). So in this sense, its not because of the money that we get from Saudi (in reality, they get our money), but because of its cultural significance. Read any statement from Al Qaida or the sort. please just read. 4. Women werent allowed to drive in Afghanistan. Don't tell me this isabout getting them hooked on Clinique. I don't think that this was really about women's rights though, as much as they say so. In any event, stop reading the Worker's Vanguard or wherever you get your info from. It's fundamentally flawed, that can't stand up to any scrutiny, which is why, many times, no even bothers to scrutinize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 We have sanctions on most of these 3rd world countries because it is in our best intrest that they stay 3rd world countries. It's pretty funny to me that a country that has the resources that Sudan does, stays as poor as they do. This is also the case with many other third would countries, and I'm not saying I agree with it. I know alot of poeple that are saying global warming is another way to keep 3rd world countries underdeveloped, and it is also a way to slow down China's and India's development into super powers, and why? Because it's in the West's best intrest's. As far as owning the Oil field's in Iraq, that isn't necessary, however the controlling of Iraq it self is the goal. We can set the prices, decide where they go, who get's it and who doesn't. You're numbers for the dead aren't accurate though. Privatized troop's death's and injuries aren't being taken into account, neither is who they kill or injure, and the numbers are being watered down all the way through on injuries and civilian deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 yeah, all this "listen to immortal technique for your political education" is fucking bumkiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 you shouldn't get any of you're information from just one source. let alone a rapper, regardless of how good he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mince Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 not really on topic, but hilarious nevertheless George Bush was scheduled to visit an Episcopal Church outside Washington DC as part of his campaign to restore his political agenda, his poll standings and to raise money for the GOP. Bush's campaign manager made a visit to the Bishop, and said to him, "We've been getting a lot of bad publicity because of the president's position on stem cell research, the Iraq war, Katrina, and everything else. We'd gladly make a contribution to the church of $100,000, if during your sermon you'd say the President is a saint." The Bishop thought it over for a few moments and finally said, "The Church is in desperate need of funds and I will agree to do this." Bush showed up for the sermon and the Bishop began, "I'd like to speak to you all this morning about our president. George Bush is a liar, a cheat, a crook and a low-intelligence weasel. He took the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and used it to frighten and manipulate the American people. He lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq for oil and money, causing the deaths of tens of thousands and making the United States the most hated country on earth. He appointed cronies to positions of power and influence, leading to widespread death and destruction during Hurricane Katrina. He awarded contracts and tax cuts to his rich friends, so that we now have more poverty in this country, and a greater gap between the rich and the poor, than we've had since the Depression. He instituted illegal wiretaps, when getting a warrant from a secret court would have been a mere administrative detail. He had his henchmen lie to Congress about it, then claim he is above the law. He has headed the most corrupt, bribe-inducing political party, the GOP (Greedy Old Perverts) since the Teapot Dome scandal. The national surplus has turned into a staggering national debt of 7.6 trillion dollars, gas prices are up over 130%, and vital research into global warming and stem cells has been impeded because he's afraid of losing votes from some religious kooks. He is the worst example of a true Christian I've ever seen. But compared to Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others in his administration and the GOP, George Bush is a saint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 ok. this whole thread has become invalid because someone just suggested, completely seriously as well, that i go listen to immortal technique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.