Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 9 of 18
Quote:Breathe deeply. In, out, in, out. Slow your breathing. Pay attention to the air filling your lungs. Pay attention to your lungs exhaling. Notice areas of tension - relax you face. Soften your brow. Relax your mouth. In, out. In, out.
At no time has my Gov't politicized the terror issue. To date, the jihadist have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US. But the same can't be said of Spain or England.
The threat is real. The thrust of those who want to kill us all isn't going away.
Why the FUCK can't you see that?
OK.
NOW GET THIS. WE KNOW THERE'S A THREAT. THAT'S WHY WE WANT SOMETHING REAL DONE.
"There are no published criteria for the threat levels, and thus no independent way to tell whether the current threat level is accurate. The evidence cited to justify changes in threat levels has been stated vaguely (see below) and its sources have seldom been revealed. This lack of disclosure makes the system vulnerable to manipulation by government officials. These attributes have been criticized by cartoonists,[6][7] journalists,[8] entertainers,[9] civil libertarians,[10] and security experts.[11]
The alert level was raised once in 2004, an election year, leading some critics to speculate that the Bush Administration used them for political rather than strictly security reasons.[12][13]"
It's not that we don't reconize the threat.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Time ... to go ...
bird flutters out of hands into the rain ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The emperor has no threat.
There I said it, and I'm proud. I'll say it again. As auraptor said, the jihadists have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US, zero meaning zero, as in none. Since they did not attack us on september 11th, which auraptor as a member of the MIC and the new crusaders knows, they have scored a some total of zero. This is not a very alarming threat.
In fact, the jihadists can't even defend themselves. Ideologically, the jihadists are nationalists, and they are religious fundamentalists, neither one of which is really a fatal flaw, in fact, they're perfectly within their rights to be both. They're also perfectly within their rights to defend themselves. They may get desperate and do stupid things, but I have no reason to think that they are evil, or in any way subhuman. They're not even an irreconsilable foe. If we just talked to them, considered not disassembling their govts., raping and torturing their children, killing their populations in genocidal slaughter and stealing their land and oil (sound like any past American policies towards some other ethnic group, say 170 years ago or so?)
But what we have here is a phantom menace. There is no foe. There are no terrorist except those we elected in washington dc. If bin laden shows up at your house, offer him potatoes, I hear he likes potatoes.
I don't recognize this threat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A few clarification points here, since there have been some mistatements:
1. the constitution is a document of process, it protects nothing.
2. The bill of rights stated purpose is to protect the citizens from unjust rule, and since the only rule that they have in the federal govt., then it's state purpose *is* to protect the people from their own govt. to prevent tyranny. ie. rue is right on this one.
3. The word that is used in the senate by both side to the exclusion of all other words on this topic of the rights of the people is "guarantees" the bill of rights within the constitution *guarantees* these rights. According to our senate, it does not protect them, grant them, give them, it guarantees them.
4. "Time to die." if you were intending to follow [All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.] sorry to be such a geek :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The emperor has no threat.
There I said it, and I'm proud. I'll say it again. As auraptor said, the jihadists have scored an absolute zero attacks on the US, zero meaning zero, as in none. Since they did not attack us on september 11th, which auraptor as a member of the MIC and the new crusaders knows, they have scored a some total of zero. This is not a very alarming threat.
In fact, the jihadists can't even defend themselves. Ideologically, the jihadists are nationalists, and they are religious fundamentalists, neither one of which is really a fatal flaw, in fact, they're perfectly within their rights to be both. They're also perfectly within their rights to defend themselves. They may get desperate and do stupid things, but I have no reason to think that they are evil, or in any way subhuman. They're not even an irreconsilable foe. If we just talked to them, considered not disassembling their govts., raping and torturing their children, killing their populations in genocidal slaughter and stealing their land and oil (sound like any past American policies towards some other ethnic group, say 170 years ago or so?)
But what we have here is a phantom menace. There is no foe. There are no terrorist except those we elected in washington dc. If bin laden shows up at your house, offer him potatoes, I hear he likes potatoes.
I don't recognize this threat.
You have eyes to see, yet you remain blind. Fine by me, just stay out of everyone's way when the NEXT attack happens.
Oh, and when that happpens, you do NOT get to criticize the Gov't for " not doing its job " in protecting its citizens. Your credability on that issue has sailed long ago, although I suspect you'd be the 1st one shouting tbat this too is Bush's fault.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor
You don't get to define my credibility.
When the next attack happens, I'll blame Hillary R. Clinton, who will be president of the united states, becaust she will have planned and executed it.
9-11, Osama Bin Laden didn't do it, a fact which has alrady been proven. I haven't yet determined who did, but I have a long list of suspects with a lot of americans on it.
considering that i consider your side as a chief suspect in the crime, not surprisingly, my attitude towards your camp (neocon) is exactly the same as your attitude towards the camp you suspect (al qaeda) no more strongly than I, and with no more evidence.
Considering that, consider this:
How convincing would a follower of osama bin laden be to you if he came on this forum and addressed you in the manner in which you and the other neocons address the rest of us here on the forum?
I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't make a dent. You should bear that in mind. You suspect them, what would it take them to convince you of their innocence. When I came this forum the time, I qas certain of bin laden's guilt. Something convinced me otherwise. persuasive arguments, loaded with facts, some words from the man himself, bin laden, whose writings I read some of in an effort to "know the enemy" and eventually I came to the conclusion that we have met the enemy and he is us.
Now, you find yourselves in the same position, some of us here suspect the people you have chosen to follow. This isn't about blaming bush because of an ideological difference, this is about suspecting his people of perpetrating the drime of the 21st century.
You have caught yourself in a debate where your competition for the truth is not me, and the other doubters and bush haters etc., but al qaeda, and they are winning. think about it.
ps. to the mole on this board, you know who you are, I don't support al qaeda, I'm simply saying, they make a more impressive case for their innocense than do the neocons for theirs, and their in less against them, in this crime. If people are going to continue, and they seem to not stop, to use 9-11 as a sole motivator of action, then that action must be directed at the perpetrators of the crime, and not at a suspect who happens not to be guilty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove..according to CNN yesterday, we share the same belief as the terrorists; apparently Hezbollah and Al-qaeda are taken by the 9/11 truth movement aswell.
so maybe theyre right, and we are the terrorists!...this could be why they dont want us to profile Muslims; otherwise we forget to suspect everday Americans too
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Auraptor
You don't get to define my credibility.
I just did define your credability. It's non-existant.
Quote:- Gee, like her hubby planned and executed the '93 WTC bombing ? Yep, you're a certified whacko
When the next attack happens, I'll blame Hillary R. Clinton, who will be president of the united states, becaust she will have planned and executed it.
Quote:OBL did it. Why am I even debating this point w/ you ?
9-11, Osama Bin Laden didn't do it, a fact which has alrady been proven. I haven't yet determined who did, but I have a long list of suspects with a lot of americans on it.
Quote:
considering that i consider your side as a chief suspect in the crime, not surprisingly, my attitude towards your camp (neocon) is exactly the same as your attitude towards the camp you suspect (al qaeda) no more strongly than I, and with no more evidence.
Actually, I'm not a 'neo-con', or code word for Jew. I'm a American, who is politically Conservative Libertarian. More times than not, I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.
Quote:I have no idea what you're rambling on about. The Islamo fascist have admitted to doing it, have said they'd do it again, what more do you want? I'm sorry you got conned into thinking they didn't do it, but that's not my problem. I'm sure you'd deny the Holocaust ever took place too. OBL declared war on the U.S. back in '98, or did you forget that? Did you forget also the training video of masked men shooting at a large photo of the President ? That would be Bill Cliton, fyi.
Considering that, consider this:
How convincing would a follower of osama bin laden be to you if he came on this forum and addressed you in the manner in which you and the other neocons address the rest of us here on the forum?
I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't make a dent. You should bear that in mind. You suspect them, what would it take them to convince you of their innocence. When I came this forum the time, I qas certain of bin laden's guilt. Something convinced me otherwise. persuasive arguments, loaded with facts, some words from the man himself, bin laden, whose writings I read some of in an effort to "know the enemy" and eventually I came to the conclusion that we have met the enemy and he is us.
Quote:No, I DON'T find myself in any such a position. That's simply you projecting your delusional view point onto others. Sorry, I'm not playing your game.
Now, you find yourselves in the same position, some of us here suspect the people you have chosen to follow. This isn't about blaming bush because of an ideological difference, this is about suspecting his people of perpetrating the drime of the 21st century.
Quote:Huh? You're not even remotely making sense now.
You have caught yourself in a debate where your competition for the truth is not me, and the other doubters and bush haters etc., but al qaeda, and they are winning. think about it.
Quote:Don't know who this mole is, but sounds as if you're paranoid. al Qaeda has never made ANY case for their innocence, and that's what makes me suspect you're nothing but a loser troll who doesn't have a life.
ps. to the mole on this board, you know who you are, I don't support al qaeda, I'm simply saying, they make a more impressive case for their innocense than do the neocons for theirs, and their in less against them, in this crime. If people are going to continue, and they seem to not stop, to use 9-11 as a sole motivator of action, then that action must be directed at the perpetrators of the crime, and not at a suspect who happens not to be guilty.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HEh, neocon is codeword for jew? Really? I've used it and that's the first I"ve heard of it. That's absolutely stupid dude.
Clicking around a little bit, i've run into the term being associated with jews, but only by republicans, who must really be desperate to make that racist card stick to all parties, since they know they can't shake it from theirs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
Give me a fucking Break. I only have to look to yesterday for their politicizing of it.
"A vote for Ned Lamont is a vote for the terrorists."
Let a story rest more than a week before you say it never happened...jesus.
added on edit -
to date more americans have died than Europeans to terrorists since this administration started its war against terror. And our government wasn't the one who foiled this attack either.
So let me get this straight. England foils the attack, and then our threat level goes up? Wow, we're really on top of shit.
Now you could argue that raising the threat level would have tipped off the terrorists. VERY GOOD ARGUMENT! So what the hell do we have a color coded threat level for at all then?
Scare tactics anyone?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME