lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 theo: it meant alot. i'm not so much an asshole about it as i once was. check this out: only a couple of months ago was it reported that the bush admin. is funding al qaeda related groups to go into iran and fuck them up (bombings, etc) then the bush admin. has the gall to say that al qaeda is coming from iran to fuck up our forces in iraq. iranians are shia. shia's are against al qaeda and their hardline mentality. the bush admin. regularly uses word play and double speak to confuse the populous. it really is no wonder that america seems so dumbed down. i don't think we as a whole are dumb, just confused by the whole situation. i think people are waking up to the fact that something is very wrong, but they ahve no idea what it is. let me back up what i just said http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh http://countrystudies.us/iran/54.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 it's a complex situation. which is just another reason the US should've never invaded iraq. you've got sunni groups in iraq mad at iran for funding the mahdi army and instigating attacks against sunnis. you've got the US mad at iran for instigating attacks against US troops. you've got sunni iraqis fighting alongside US troops now against the sunni al qaeda and other foreign fighters. it just doesn't make sense anymore. to me it's fucking stupid how these two sects of islam hate each other and show such bias. the sunni saudi arabian government condemns hezbollah's terrorist attacks, but doesn't condemn hamas for doing the same thing. simply because hezbollah is shia and hamas is sunni. stupid shit. bush should've just stayed focus on afghanistan and bin laden/pakistan. iraq just further destabilized the middle east and shifted resources and focus away from getting those responsible for 9/11. bush had his sights on hussein and iraq before 9/11. he had a personal vendetta because of saddam's rivalry with his dad, and the attempted assasination on his dad. he used 9/11 as leverage to invade iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i agree. it is stupid. but it's really only stupid to outsiders. to fully grasp the situation in the middle east, you have to go as far back as the human history allows. that is how far back they remember. it all goes back to tribes fighting each other. i think iran is disliked alot these days by the fundamentalists because they are more westernized than alot of the region. of course, that is only one reason out of many. it's just fucked for the administration to fund sunni al qaeda groups to go in and fuck iran up, and then claim that iran (remember, they are anti-al qaeda shia) is sending al qaeda groups over to iraq to fuck us up. double speak in its finest. anyhow, this is a very complicated thing, as you said. good discussion material, though. the free flow of information in crossfire is sometimes pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 video 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=badnarik&total=50&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 video 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 video3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5 video 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 video 5 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 video 6 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 video 7 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421&q=constitution+class&total=439&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 Something every American should watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 damn skippy. if you don't know about it, you can't use it as intended by our forefathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 You people are fucking retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 You people are fucking retarded. and you are an unpatriotic piece of filth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 its extremely gay to use unpatriotic as an insult ps we've all heard the democracy vs republic debate a million times lets get back to why Obama is a slimebag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10273.htm its kinda old.. but does the trick! the war on terrorism is dumb. making your country to not be a target of terrorism is mad simple. just look at the countries that dont get attacked, they're doing something right and the u.s. gov knows that. so why dont they follow the countries that dont get attacked? because thats not their goal. u.s. gov is not dumb, they're just controlled by the nwo and wanna take over the world.. or something like that. ^ that should be enough proof that u.s. doesnt care about the people. srsly. they dont piss of 'terrorist' countries without knowing that they do. they're not dumb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 what fuckign terrorist attacked iceland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Your telling me there is no terrorism or data from eastern europe?? Bosnia or Kosovo ring a fuckin bell? Shut The Fuck Up with your NWO claims homo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 im not sure about the accuracy of that map, its cause of the year i think? but thaats not my point. im just tryna say that stopping terrorism is easy.. and it has nothing to do with invading another country. whatever. i guess the nwo stuff might be dumb. but i dont wanna rule anything out.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_news_corp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 as far as bush's "tyranny", bush has actually veto'd legislation far less than most presidents. i believe he didn't veto one piece of legislation in his first term, which is exceptionally rare for a president. his first veto was of the bill regarding the lifting of federal restrictions on stem-cell research, i believe, which came in his second term. I can't be invested enough to talk about the nature of democracy, but this stood out as a statement worthy response for its absurdity. Bush didn't need to veto anything when Republicans controlled everything, and when he wanted to work against a law he just added a signing statement. Here are clear examples of how ridiculous this practice became under this tyrant: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/ ***************************************** ...In response to the original article here, I have to say his statement makes sense (though I fully recognize this is politics). The reason we are dumping billions of dollars into this thing was supposed to protect us right? So he's saying, he'll go to the actual terrorists, over the heads of other leaders IF NECESSARY - what a remarkably novel idea. Further, Musharraf is a military dictator and is currently in "secret" talks to arrange to power share with a former Prime Minister (I think that's what they were) to try to maintain his rule in a power share arrangement. He isn't stable, those nukes aren't stable, so while I'm not informed enough to know which is best for the people of that country, I'm pretty sure I know what is best for our country. I've never been sold on the terrorist thing in the first place, but if we're using main stream politics as the frame work, why would anyone talk shit about someone who wants to attack the actual terrorists and stop spending money on controlling a civil war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 I've never been sold on the terrorist thing in the first place, but if we're using main stream politics as the frame work, why would anyone talk shit about someone who wants to attack the actual terrorists and stop spending money on controlling a civil war? What is so stupid about the stuff that Obama said is that he wants us to pretty much invade another country, not a poor little country that can not defend it self, but one with nuc's. He might want to attack terrorists, but that for sure is not the way to do it. I have seen terrorists come and go over the pakistan border personnaly. I know they are there, but to go over into another country without their permission is not a good idea. What if Pakistan who is a somewhat friendly to us right now decided to become our enemy because we do not respect their borders? Would we attack them? What do you think they will use as a weapon when we have them on the verge of defeat? What do you think that will do to the region? to the US? What would the US do if another country came on our borders without permission? Bottom line is that going into any country without permission is the beginning of war with that country. Something like that will only make more terrorist's and people who hate the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Obama is the farthest from a slimebagbag. I swear Jesus Christ himself could return to Earth and you people would call him a childmolesting Nazi scumbag Antichrist. Mother Terresa could return to vouche for him and yall would call her a lieing whore. You people are fucking rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 I do not think he is bad, but he damn sure is not getting my vote. I put him right up there with that guy on fresh prince. Will smiths characters brother. What's his name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 carlton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 top 3 i hope to win ron paul hillary clinton barack obama in that order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 What is so stupid about the stuff that Obama said is that he wants us to pretty much invade another country, not a poor little country that can not defend it self, but one with nuc's. He might want to attack terrorists, but that for sure is not the way to do it. I have seen terrorists come and go over the pakistan border personnaly. I know they are there, but to go over into another country without their permission is not a good idea. What if Pakistan who is a somewhat friendly to us right now decided to become our enemy because we do not respect their borders? Would we attack them? What do you think they will use as a weapon when we have them on the verge of defeat? What do you think that will do to the region? to the US? What would the US do if another country came on our borders without permission? Bottom line is that going into any country without permission is the beginning of war with that country. Something like that will only make more terrorist's and people who hate the US. The US has already conducted military operations within Pakistan. If he has to take out a safe-haven that includes leadership like Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden; and the leaders of the nation are not acting -- then I'm all for it. The first step though would be to negotiate with Pakistan in getting them granting permission. If they don't -- strike them anyway. A nation has a right to defend itself. Hiding as a stateless regime within other sovereign states is a thing of the past... especially if that sovereign state either harbors the terrorists or is unwilling to apprehend the terrorists within their borders. Trust me, nothing would be better than to avoid conflict and simply have Pakistan authorities capture these Al Qaeda leaders and transfer them over to US custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Feast Island Man Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 top 3 i hope to win ron paul hillary clinton barack obama in that order why hilary over barack? just out of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 she has political experience over obama, as well as white house experience. also, hilary clinton as president is essentially bill clinton as president for a 3rd term, since he will be her closest advisor and consolidator. to me he was a great president, especially in contrast to the one in office now. many of hillary's public policies and addresses may be engineered, orchestrated, and puppeteered by bill clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 4, 2007 Author Share Posted August 4, 2007 Theo, pakistan is trying to control their country. there is alot more to just going to that part of the country then you would think. It really is the wild west out there. I know we have gone into pakistan before, but never a full military op. It has always been limited. What obama is saying will take a whole lot of troops and will require alot of fighting. I do not see pakistan sitting by and letting us do it without going to them first. It will make them look bad to their people and will destabilize the country. Also, nuclear weapons change the whole playing field. They will always be overshadowing the whole thing if we ever attempt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted August 4, 2007 Author Share Posted August 4, 2007 Current Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_as/obama_pakistan;_ylt=AlUUqNiW9VDpRh80HlVo56Ks0NUE I have to agree with bush no matter how much I hate to say that Check out what pakistan has said. They are being very calm about it and recognizing that it is only US politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Obama is the farthest from a slimebagbag. I swear Jesus Christ himself could return to Earth and you people would call him a childmolesting Nazi scumbag Antichrist. Mother Terresa could return to vouche for him and yall would call her a lieing whore. You people are fucking rediculous. you're right i guess i was a bit harsh. I just fucking can't stand seeing politicians pandering to religion to try to garner votes, never happens where i'm from so when i see it i can't believe how disgusting it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Every single candidate in the election is pandering to religion. And another thing, you people would probably vote for Hitler and site "political experience" as your reason for doing so. Some of you people have your heads up your asses. Some of you people I would actually not expect this from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 And fuck Ron Paul. He's against socialized healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 And Hillary's just out to do it just to do it. Because she can. And the bitch just exhudes shadiness. I don't trust her as far as I could throw her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 top 3 i hope to win ron paul hillary clinton barack obama in that order didn't know you supported dr. paul. good deal, theo. DAO: ron paul knows what is constitutional and what isn't. socialized health care is not the answer. making the economy better and limiting big pharma's power is. get your head right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts