Osama sends the president a message
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Saturday, February 4, 2006 06:35
VIEWED: 4383
PAGE 6 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
perhaps if these are the standard which conduct is judged, those at Fox news better start running scared...
The most heinous crime is 'being on the other side'.
Now if the people at Fox worked for Al-Jazeera...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
Which is a good point, while I would disagree that
Al-Jazeera is on anyone's side... since Bush set the precedent, would the right wing media in the US now be a legitimate target ?
Mind you since the USAF levelled the Yugo car works in their Serbian campaign.... does that make
GM a target ?
food for thought
Don't think they give a shit
I'm with Signy and Rue
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Al-Jazeera is on the 'other side' because they aren't on the 'right side' if you see what I mean?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since OBL's name is written in arabic, Osama is no less correct than Usama. The latter is used by the CIA.
Quote:
Bush Sr ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait.
Um. No. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this isn't what happened. I was not only paying attention, but I read this conspiracy theory already. Saddam was off on some bogus kick about he had a right to that oil because of some ancient empire, so he would go destroy a culture society and people to get it. Bush Sr. courageously swooped down and saved the say, a fact some people are still angry about. No, I don't want to agrue the point, just wanted to state a position that some folk are bound to take issue to.
Quote:
Bush Sr set the oil wells on fire under United Nations Corporation command, to blame Saddam and jack up oil prices, as confessed by US troops.
We did set fire to these and blame Saddam, but it wasn't planned, it was a result of our technology being more destructive and less accurate than it had been advertised by the manufacturers and the pentagon. It wasn't an elaborate ploy to raise oil prices, since Iraq at war was not really in a position to sell oil, as it would have to send tankers through hostil waters to do so, so that oil was already off the market.
Quote:
Bush Sr set the oil wells on fire under United Nations Corporation command, to blame Saddam and jack up oil prices, as confessed by US troops.
I read this one too, but I doubt it. Where did the Iranians get the gas from? Saddam has it. I think he was aiming for Iranian insurgents if it helps, but he also made other attacks on the Kurds. He's not the good guy.
Quote:
Yes, and vaccines are by far the most deadly method of genocide
Sure. But overall, I really don't think you're crediting incompetence and stupidity enough as destructive forms.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nuremberg was a bad precedent. I think there was an effort there to spread the blame, but it's hard to say. Many people may have actually not known, and others had little to no involvement. Sure, Nazis genocided jews and many other. But the US has done similar things, and never really been held accountable. If, after the civil war, the south had hanged everyone for the crimes of slavery, we wouldn't be on speaking terms. As it was, the punishments made a serious estrangement. As for the indians, well, you get the point. I think if someone has evidence that a corporate conspired to commit genocide, they should be tried, but not because they had a contract with the govt. in a state where the govt. did bad. In Nazi Germany it was illegal not to have a contract with the govt. as it was a socialist state. Increased govt. control had gotten to the point where the govt. was often majority shareholder, and could basically tell the company what to do.
A more serious trial would have looked outside Germany more. Swiss banks in particular stood to gain tremendously financially by the holocaust, and may have even ordered its execution. One of our gop ex-senators here, d'amato lead the inquiry on this matter, and it came to light that switzerland catapulted to richest from back/middle of the pack economically as a result of the holocaust, and when the trials were over and nazis were also dead or fled, the total swiss wealth may have increased tenfold.
I guess what I'm saying is that the main issue has to be not participation but intent. Soldiers follow orders to invade Iraq. It's possible that the point of such an operation was to embezzle oil, but that doesn't make the soldiars guilty of embezzlement.
I don't think Fox News is to blame. Even if you take their declaration of Bush victory, that's scarecely surprising, they're republicans. No one commented that the network anchors call florida for gore were democrats. But seriously, whether or not Bush stole the election, if he did, he was determined to anyway, the use of Fox News to that end was really more or less irrelevent. Bush was more aggressive in pressing his victory claim, so he won. Just like Kennedy was more agressive than Nixon in 1960. The truth is, no one will ever know, because no one knows yet who won in 1960. Some people said, well, should've gone Gore because of the popular vote, but the law doesn't say that, if someone wants to, they can make that law. My gut says in these situations there should be a revote or runoff.
But overall, I think Fox is a pretty fair and balanced news source, and not a tool of the administration. I think CNN may be more of a tool, but I don't think it will ever come to that. ABC is the most administration tool, CBS is a democrat tool I don't know about NBC. MSNBC is the most fair and balanced, and I believe they openly supported Bush for years. For them it was Cheney who they increasingly had problems with.
But anyway, yes, I agree this is not an ideal state, but I don't think Bush supporters will be subject to Nuremburg. I think that realistically, the GOP will attempt to cleanse itself after this administration leaves office, which means lots of people losing their jobs, and maybe a few going to jail. But I don't expect it to be a govt. sponsored operation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Al-Jazeera is on the muslim side, on any issue that the muslims are united. They're usually reasonably fair, except on issues of Israel. I think they think Bin Laden is as legitamate a leader as Bush, which is their call to make. I don't think that call makes them on Bin Laden's side.
GM is already a target of the Bush admin. He wants it gone. I think the neocon goal in all fields of business is for their to be a one company monopoly in each field, where they control the one company. Bush's strangely friendly relationship to the Clinton creation of Daimler-Chrysler contrasts markedly with his blatantly hostile attitude towards "American" car makers. Obviously, while it is still true that "what's good for general motors is good for america" that it is also true "what's bad for america is good for bush" So, all in all, I don't see there's much to discuss on this impeachment issue, except:
1. Which and how many crimes to impeach him on.
2. Whether or not to try him criminally.
3. How to remove Cheney first so he doesn't become president.
I vote Cheney should be subpoenaed and then force to retire for health reasons or be arrested, and then Bush should be forced to nominate someone supported by the majority of the GOP elected federal officials to replace him, and then play nice or be impeached.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with you on many points...
except maybe Al-Jazeera.... even on stories they cover involving Israel I think they go out of their way to be unbiased in a way the Western, particularly US media has not.
They seem to have almost a template
What Happened
What the Israeli gov has said about it
What the P.A. has said
What other groups, Hamas, etc has said
What the International community has said...
no editorials, no attacks.....
for example :
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D088C7E-367B-4333-B13E-DCE1FA5
43E86.htm
Don't think they give a shit
I'm with Signy and Rue
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Al Jazeera is blatantly anti-semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They're formerly the BBC, so they're sophisticated about it, but it's still there. You can see them spin any story to the point where the evil jew is at fault, whether it's Wolfowitz or Perle or a western media figure. They seem more likely to do that than to spin anti-christian, which they also do. They've rarely been as hard historically on Cheney and Rummy and the secular aryan evil as they deserve. I know that to some extent, AL Jazeera is doing this because the audience eats it up, but to some extent they believe it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't see there's much to discuss on this impeachment issue, except:
1. Which and how many crimes to impeach him on.
2. Whether or not to try him criminally.
3. How to remove Cheney first so he doesn't become president.
I vote Cheney should be subpoenaed and then force to retire for health reasons or be arrested, and then Bush should be forced to nominate someone supported by the majority of the GOP elected federal officials to replace him, and then play nice or be impeached.
This is the delusinoal stuff I make mention of, and then get grilled for name calling because I point out that it's delusional. Neither Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes so therefore no impeachment will come. The Dems are simply hate filled and wanting quid pro quo per the Clinton impeachment, and they don't give a damn how they go about getting it. Bush got up on the wrong side of the bed ? IMPEACH! Bush chose a man instead of a woman for the US Supreme Court? IMPEACH! It's so blatently obvious that the Dems are playing politics here, and some useful idiots are falling right into their gameplan.
So, put away your little day dreams and fantasies where all the big bad meannie Republicans are sent to jail and the rightful heirs of Gov't, the Democrats, are rushed back into power under a rainbow sky, as cute little bunnies and squirrels frolic on the green grasses of freedom and liberty!!
It ain't gonna happen. Not by a long shot. To continue such nonsensical talk only paints you into the idiot corner.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, speaking of projection! Aside from the Plame Afair (which is still under investigation and may be a matter of treason) there is that little matter of NSA wiretapping w/o even a application for a retroactive surveillance order from FISA. I guess he never read the Fourth Ammendment. Also that Bush was either seriously stupid or lying when he stampeded everyone into invading Iraq on the basis of WMD. And then there is that minor matter of detaining US citizens ad infinitum w/o charges; habeus corpus seems to have slipped his mind. Of course, there is the Abramoff Affair, whom Bush claims not to have known despite Abramoff having raised more than $100,000 for his campaign.
This is the delusinoal stuff I make mention of, and then get grilled for name calling because I point out that it's delusional. Neither Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable crimes so therefore no impeachment will come.
Seems to me like the President is wiping his *ss with the Constitution. Of course, he did say that things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, and that the Constitution is just a g*damn piece of paper. Since his job IS to protect and defend the Consitution... well, his Overall Performance Rating would be....
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Al Jazeera is blatantly anti-semitic, not just anti-Zionist. They're formerly the BBC, so they're sophisticated about it, but it's still there. You can see them spin any story to the point where the evil jew is at fault, whether it's Wolfowitz or Perle or a western media figure. They seem more likely to do that than to spin anti-christian, which they also do. They've rarely been as hard historically on Cheney and Rummy and the secular aryan evil as they deserve. I know that to some extent, AL Jazeera is doing this because the audience eats it up, but to some extent they believe it.
Not really seeing that when I read it online myself...
Mind you I do see it the other way when I read the
US media.....
The only place I have seen anything remotely like what you are talking about is in there opinion section where some of the articles are marked " Not the opinion of Al Jazeera " abd are usually written by some local acedemic.
Do you have an example ?
Don't think they give a shit
I'm with Signy and Rue
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME