GostHacked

Wholy crap, this forum is chock full of stuff like that. Muslims, Catholics, Christians, Bhuddists, Jews, Iraqis, Americans, Canadians, Europeaons, Ethiopians, blah blah blah. There is lots of hate on this board for all sorts of peoples. The biggest groups that are talked about here are Muslims and Jews (christians and catholics get a secondary nod). People made a huge stink when that US soldier used the Qu'ran for target practice. So to single out the Jews is shortsightedness. And to get my story straight right now, cause I know some of you will bastardize what people say... I am anti-organized-religion. I don't mind religion, but that should be a personal thing. What most people do for their religion is noble. But you have certain people in high ranking places within the organized religion that will dictate policy of all the followers (I call them sheep). Most people will not confront their democraticly elected government officials, so I don't see anyone calling out a Rabbi, or a Pastor or a Preist anytime soon. Unless molestation of little boys is on the table, not many will complain. What a world this would be without organized religion. Kuzzad Indeed, when my Oma and Opa came over just after WWII, they found a good german community in Sudbury in which they could feel comfortable. My Oma was quickly learning English during that time. That opened doors for her and the better life they wanted for my parents and grandkids. This is the only way they will assimilate into the local culture. If they just get slammed into it, you may find more people being isolationists than what you see now. I am proud of my German heritage and proud to carry on some of those traditions in my life now as a Canadian. Just try to take my sauerkraut If I was to move to another country where english is not the major language, then it would be easier for me to find english speaking people to help me out with learning the language of the country. Or at least learn what you can before you get there. This is all a matter of being prepared and expecting anything. If one is not prepared or willing to compromise, then you have conflict.

Well we know they cannot be politicians, some people might question their religion and such. And to tell you the truth, the cabbies I encounter here in Ottawa are a majority ofLebanese and Sihk. Wait.. it is part of their plan to infiltrate the US. No one suspects the cabbie. But there is a mentality in the US of supporting Israel right from the earliest part of the 1900's, even before Israel was 'founded' again. http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9257001.php Epic Encounters I read this book in about a months time, was a very good read, plenty of references. Shows a history of how media/news/governments can shape the way people think.

The defending lawyers do not even have the option to view the evidence against them. Hard to defend someone when you have nothing to back you up. And the evidence against them cannot even be viewed. I understand some of this is TOP SECRET, But I think people would want closure about 9/11.

Well you make then go away for you, and that does not mean they are gone for good. Not all use the ignore feature. Sure, the more that put one person on ignore the better, they might just go away for they don't have a forum *snicker* to speak. You'd have to ignore the users who would quote him as well. It is best to take these kinds of people head on. It's tough sure. If you put him on ignore, you can no longer confront his rhetoric. So, we all must put him on ignore OR all confront him head on to resolve that issue. Easier said than done though. We have seen similar incidents with another poster, Monty Burns?? BTW, have not seen much of him around as of late. Topaz I recall that kind of thing happening. Must have happened in Afghanistan as well. Poor people will turn in their best neighbour in order to feed their family.

The shining beacon of Freedom right? Come on dude. You know as well as I do that Bush and his cohorts played with the 'intelligence' to make it seem like a bigger threat than what it actually was. Sure regime change was on the list, but if the Bush administration had said .. well we are doing it just for Regime Change... to get someone in there that will be sympathetic to the United States, it would have failed miserably. Even with 9/11 it would have been a near impossible sell to the american population. But you needed to word it in a way to pull the fast one over the american population to support something that was never the case. Polls near the beginning of the invasion showed that there was a majority support of the invasion by the american people. Now since all the facts and f*ckups regarding intelligence, those polls are split down the middle .... Scenario 1 No 9/11. No anger from within the US. No real scapegoat like reason for aggression. Scenario 2 9/11 happened, and the real reasons for aggression were stated. Scenario 3 9/11 happened, chicken little and little boy cried loudly, but once the soother was in their mouths, they said those reasons never really mattered. Well they did but you know, lies. But then again, those reasons still might change. Which scenario will be easier to dupe the public into a false sense of what the war is about. If the real reasons were touted on the MSM the populous would not have supported the war. Then you would have had a big civil problem in the US AND Iraq. So the claims about weapons of mass descruction was false but yet Bush shouted it from the rooftops. "Don't want to wait for the smoking gun to appear in a mushroom cloud" .. but again, you fail to see this. I know it does not matter to Bush or his band of criminals. Polls don't matter, what your own citizens say don't matter. "Things would be alot easier if there was a dictator, as long as I am the dictator." Bush. Eventhough you support them BC, they really don't care even what you say. I see that as a problem. You will support them, but they will not support you back. Leaders you can trust? Say one thing, do another. I will do one thing, but say something different and then change up the reasons later on. Nothing but pure deception to attain those goals. Those are the leaders you should not trust, but you are putting a lot of faith in them. ---- Hopefully you can be honest for this one question. Do you think the way the Bush administration put forth the evidence regarding Iraq and the way it was tied into 9/11.. do you think the way they did it was upfront or was it deceitful in any way? I don't suspect it, but I would like an honest answer.

Well once you found out the Muslim bit was false, you switched it up to pick on being black. And wow he supports black concerns? Who would have thought that? So if he was sympathetic to white/christians, would your view change? BC This seems backwards to me. During this time both Dem and Rep can switch up the nominiees? So it's possible that McCain will not be the choice from the Reps? Obama of Dems??

Well, I have been a witness to how you have portrayed Obama in other threads. Like the terrorist muslim he isn't. And this is what you really mean by Pandora's Box. His Muslimlessness is still questioned in your mind. So you think the terrorists have won. Or is it because he is black? On that note, I am surprised to see him get the nomination from the Democratic Party. I really thought Clinton would win. Obama's experience was my only concern, did he have enough? But I guess those delegates saw something in Obama to make him the nominated candidate. As for chosing Clinton as a VP, it seems almost impossible to battle against someone for so long and have many different views, and then to choose that loser as your running mate. Obama needs someone else on the ticket to beat McCain. With Hillary, he would be giving it to McCain. American Woman He got the nomination. He claimed it the night before, because well, he is the nominated leader. They would have told Obama before any of us. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/oba...inee/index.html

Ignoring them won't make them go away. Confronting them will.

So, there was a similar incident during the first gulf war where Iraq sent fighters to Iran. Or were those people defecting seeking asylum.? Why would I send my planes to the guy who I have been fighting with for decades? Why would I send my planes to my enemy when another stonger enemy is at my doorstep. Not like Saddam threw up a white flag at all. You do realize this is lunacy. So Iraq had sent planes to Iran on two different occasions with a timespan of more than 10 years. The US already knew the planes were in Iran because Saddam did not want to hide them. Huh? Like BD said, there is no evidence of the manufacturing of chemial weapons, along with the absense of the chemical weapons. But the US knew they had them? And to this day cannot deliver any solid evidence to support their claims. Wonder why Saddam did not use the chem weapons to stave off the invading force. He was more than happy to lay the chemical weapons on Kurds in his own country. So why not use them on the infidels?? I think this is something that could be discussed more.

Well, no need to continue with this thread. Clearly BC has shown us our downfalls.

BC, Was never mine to begin with. But that does not mean I cannot make it mine. And it does not mean I cannot change it. Well if my truths hurt you, then .. actually I don't really care, just because of the level of concern you have displayed. Most elections around the globe are pure farces anyways, so I will insult everyone else at the same time... will that make you feel better? OH better lump Canada in there (eventhough this thread is not about Canada). This is the only way you will feel better. About the MSM, they are the most widely available news source around. So yes, if they don't tell the truth, they are part of the problem. Not the solution. The joke is a long running one. Bush's father was a part of it. You won't even admit that there was deceit in how the whole current administration carried out its plans. You won't even admit the MSM made false claims, and that is one of the reasons why it is a joke. You clearly say that whatever is on the MSM is not what the real plan was. So how else am I to take this? Pure and simple it is a joke, albeit a bad one. The joke is that Iraq was a threat. You know it wasn't I know it wasn't. So why did the MSM along with the talking points from the Bush Administration show us a different picture. Maybe you are having problems with the definition of some of the words.

Sharkman Well here is the thing, it all fell under the catagory of WMDs. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear and chemical weapons fall under this category, so If you realized you were going to be invaded because of the WMDs, don't you think he would have just simply stopped them? Or was all this bungled up on purpose to go forth with the invasion? Or could he have possibly ramped up the production in preperation for the invasion? But we now know in retrospect that this was never the case. I wonder why he never used them.

Here are a couple sources you can check out. We can trust "Curveball" or we can trust the words of Imad Khadduri. http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/index_en.php Iraq simply could not revive the nuclear program after the US led coallition took out Iraq. All the facilities were destroyed by the coalition. Sharkman And the reason was because the coalition was blocking the path to Jordan. It was thought that Saddam would ship the planes to friendly Jordan, not the enemy Iran. So it does not make sense. So if they can detect the planes being shipped, why could they not detect the material being shipped on the ground? BC You always say the plan was in place. So the plan was to keep Bush in office. The elections were a joke and a farce. And the issue I am not dodging, but your boys Bush and Cheney do it all the time. So your relevations of them being just are false. Simply because they said one thing did another. That is lying and hypocracy. Bush barley got into office both times. First a court said he was pres, then another very narrow victory. It does not matter what your real plan is, it was never displayed out in the open for everyone to see. The MSM never said boo about it. So how can I take you seriously when you say one thing but do another. Bush's legacy will not be ignored. It wil be looked on as a large black stain on the so called 'Freedom' image they put forth. It is a joke. Right wing smear character assasinations. But then again, there is the fallacy of Left and Right. They are both the same. Even your own rules are irrelevant to you. Peanut.

So it depends on context on how you label the combatant?? Cake eat it too? Peter F, you probably have summed it up the best so far. It reflects exactly what many people are starting to see. They were simply duped. BC Again, it seems like it is not even living up to it's own expectations. Rue points this out quite well.

Simple, they were lied to. I thought we went over this.

Only the blind are to beleive that Saddam had the WMDs before the invasion. But this invasion is not about freedom, or anything noble. It is a fallacal nobility that is spewed forth. But the hypocracy of presenting this fallacy, is that the real intentions are about resources and full spectrum dominance. And some people don't have a problem with lying. (edited for grammar) http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/06/nyt.kristof/ Posted in May 6 2008. But to some this means nothing. If the real reasons were touted on MSM and the web and without deceit, you may have less people on board with the invasion. Where are those labs now? Where are those WMDs now? Yes we know there was a plan in place. But would that plan be accepted by the populous to accomplish this goal if the real reasons were shouted from the rooftops?? Nope instead Chicken Little and the The Little Boy are running the show.

Why would Saddam fly his planes to Iran? Since Iran is now supplying all those weapons to Iraqi insurgents, and after Iran and Iraq waring with each other for decades, I do not see any benefit of flying those planes to Iran. Once in Iran, they would never leave again. I don't think they had left Iran. If the US and allies can trace so called weapons back to Iran and the Iranian National Guard, why can't they figure out with at least greater accuracy of where Saddam had shuffled off the toys? They waited so long because they did not have the catalyst that was 9/11. Once that happened, it opened up the US+allies to point fingers , cry wolf a few times before dropping bombs.

This sounds like an advertizement for the party. This reads like spam. Like another left-right party will actually get in the mix enough.

DUI shells used in A-10 Warthogs. Bunker busters. Tacital nukes (small ones not ICBMs) Why would you need a recent example? The old examples are no longer valid?? The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. And there are many different types of nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy This was the atomic/nuclear bomb that was dropped on Japan.

I don't understand the difference between a bad choice and a wrong answer. They are the same to be. I made a bad choice, which means I was wrong.

Actually I am familiar with another Bush that happened to invade Iraq the first time. You recall that whole Kuwait thing right? I have been paying attention for some time. One of the few.

Never trust a former alcoholic? Born again Christian? That type of thing?

That would about sum it up for me. Corrupt leading parties should not posess them as well. This is why Canada does not have nukes. We'd have blown ourselves up long before anyone else got a chance to. You know, beer, donuts, Tim Horton's coffee, maple syrop on snow n all. Quebec would have held the rest of the freakin country hostage. The Maritimes would have said, screw it. Formed their own nation. BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NT would break off. Manitoba and Ontario would form. Who knows about Nunavut.

The US has plenty of untapped fields in the US itself. And what companies are investing in the Iraqi oil fields?? I was not aware Iraq had any oil companies, or the money to invest in rebuilding their infrastructure after 2 invasions, ten years of sanctions blah blah blah. Big oil baby, Big freakin oil.

So, where are they spending it?