TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- saddam not caught?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Aidonis Two months after Bush's reelection, Syria and Saudi Arabia get a dose of US foot-in-ass. Pray that I'm wrong.

Of course you are correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Aidonis SuperFarStucker, wow. Your blind trust in the US is a tad scary, I hope their aren't 100 million more of you here......

How is this "blind trust?"

Ugh, the only thing worse than a moron is a moron trying to prove how smart he is.

Look, I'll spell it out for you - trying to prove how smart you are by proving how skeptical you are about the mass media, while at the same time showing how gullible you are by believing every bullshit conspiracy theory you hear in every whacko Usenet thread, does not make you look smart. IF you want to look smart, then show us how you've done your research and actually know what you're talking about - don't quote totally groundless theories and pull statistics out of your asses as your own lukewarm form of "proof."

Once again, knowing that the media lies or "spins" stories does not make you look smart. Of course they spin. Everybody knows this. Intelligence comes from knowing who to believe, not who not to believe, and this knowledge comes from a good understanding of logic and reason, not from instantly believing that the entire thing was a hoax solely because you hate bush and know how "corrupt" his government is.

That is all.

quote:

Originally posted by Aidonis SuperFarStucker, wow. Your blind trust in the US is a tad scary, I hope their aren't 100 million more of you here...... Personally, this wouldn't suprise me at all, but, the point is moot because none of us will EVER know the truth. If you trust the US media with anything, you are a complete moron, end of story. Search the internet, find some truly free press, and enlighten your damn self. The San Fransico Chronicle is one of the LAST remaining news publications that is "liberal." And even it isn't all that great. News feeds people the medicine they require to remain complacent, so that we can continue with our empire building. Two months after Bush's reelection, Syria and Saudi Arabia get a dose of US foot-in-ass. Pray that I'm wrong.

You're equating the U.S. government with the U.S. media, which is a huge error. Please tell me if I need to explain this to you, otherwise I don't want to waste the time typing.

Furthermore, I don't know where you got the idea that SuperFarStucker has blind trust in America, it's not as if he has the nicest things to say about it. He's being rational. Try it.

Also, the media is always being indicted for being so flamingly liberal. Journalists are just about the only people in this country who grow up to be liberals (everyone is liberal when they're young, for the most part).

What do you think the news needs to do? I think you're looking at CNN, MSNBC and Fox and thinking that's the American media. That's all most people look at, but I won't get started on that because it's a topic I've addressed ad nausem in other threads. The people who watch these shows aren't interested in the news or critical thought anyway, they just want to say they watched the news while cooking dinner. If you took the shows away, I highly doubt these people would go to a newspaper.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut How is this "blind trust?" That is all.

DigiNut comes through again

Forgot this earlier...
For the edited tape, here's something that may shock y'all: News segments are EDITED. All of them, always. Particularly with TV news, where you just want the viewer to hear a few catchy things. The whole interview is too boring and mostly irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil there always has to be a conspiracy theory.

uhhhh.... isn't elvis still alive?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut How is this "blind trust?" Ugh, the only thing worse than a moron is a moron trying to prove how smart he is. Look, I'll spell it out for you - trying to prove how smart you are by proving how skeptical you are about the mass media, while at the same time showing how gullible you are by believing every bullshit conspiracy theory you hear in every whacko Usenet thread, does not make you look smart. IF you want to look smart, then show us how you've done your research and actually know what you're talking about - don't quote totally groundless theories and pull statistics out of your asses as your own lukewarm form of "proof." Once again, knowing that the media lies or "spins" stories does not make you look smart. Of course they spin. Everybody knows this. Intelligence comes from knowing who to believe, not who not to believe, and this knowledge comes from a good understanding of logic and reason, not from instantly believing that the entire thing was a hoax solely because you hate bush and know how "corrupt" his government is. That is all.

Your text color is very beautiful

This is possibly even stupider than the moon conspiracy theory. First of all, now is NOT a good time for this to happen for Bush to win the election ... why? Becase the election is 11 MONTHS AWAY. If this were some sort of plot, then he would have been found in say 9 or 10 months when it's still fresh in people's minds. What's going to be fresh in people's minds 9 to 10 months from now? A) The current state of the war in Iraq and B) The economy. So if from now, A is still going badly, than it doesn't matter if Saddam is captured. It doesn't matter if freaking Hitler gets captured, the sad fact remains that there is no stability and people are still dying DESPITE these occurrences. So tell me, if Bush is this cunning mastermind as many of you seem to depict, why is he such a retard that he can't keep a proper time table???? Which is it? Criminal genious, or idiot? Criminal genious, or idiot? I know it might be difficult to use logic to figure out that there are only so much time that you can hide in a country where 80% of the people hate you and there are 125,000 troops looking for you, but please, try.

Second of all, from a sheer strategic, tactical standpoint, the whole concept of even "waiting" to show the world you captured him is rediculous since during that time you are waiting, you have organized resistances building up in strength anticipating his return or fighting for his cause. Do you think that people are going to organize as strong resistances knowing that their former baathist government is completely gone for good? Of course not, but NOW they have the organized structure in place to effectively continue resistance. The whole theory is stupid on so many levels that it's mindboggling.

Look there are two kinds of sheep in the world, those that blindly follow authority in the face of logic and those that blindly disbelieve in authority in the face of logic. Use some fucking common sense and be neither.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil You're equating the U.S. government with the U.S. media, which is a huge error. Please tell me if I need to explain this to you, otherwise I don't want to waste the time typing. Furthermore, I don't know where you got the idea that SuperFarStucker has blind trust in America, it's not as if he has the nicest things to say about it. He's being rational. Try it. Also, the media is always being indicted for being so flamingly liberal. Journalists are just about the only people in this country who grow up to be liberals (everyone is liberal when they're young, for the most part). What do you think the news needs to do? I think you're looking at CNN, MSNBC and Fox and thinking that's the American media. That's all most people look at, but I won't get started on that because it's a topic I've addressed ad nausem in other threads. The people who watch these shows aren't interested in the news or critical thought anyway, they just want to say they watched the news while cooking dinner. If you took the shows away, I highly doubt these people would go to a newspaper.

Furthermore, to expand on Daffodil's statement, there is NO SUCH THING as isolated media. Even in China nowadays. So where there are CNN reporters, there are bbc, reuters, guardian, independant, etc., reporters. So IF there were a huge massive cover up by american media ... than YOU WOULD HEAR ABOUT IT ON BBC. That's it, I'm giving everybody a jar of cents for christmas. Everbody needs a whole fucking jar of common sense.

and i'm elvis

IMO saddam's capture is another winning election for bush...

quote:

Look there are two kinds of sheep in the world, those that blindly follow authority in the face of logic and those that blindly disbelieve in authority in the face of logic. Use some fucking common sense and be neither.

Be the super 1337 sheep instead?

quote:

You're equating the U.S. government with the U.S. media, which is a huge error. Please tell me if I need to explain this to you, otherwise I don't want to waste the time typing.

I'm fine thanks. While different, I don't think it's a huge error. Both mislead the public.

And yes, I was a bit irrational with Super...the price I pay for posting drunk. My only point is you shouldn't believe everything you read. Whether it's the Chicago Tribune or a Usenet post. Flame away I guess, seems to be a trademark here.

I don't knoe guys.
Clark is making some big waves, and he still has time to make more. not only that, but he's made one good point throughout his campain


Bush still hasn't caught Osama. And I personally think that's why he went after suddam, to take everyone eyes off his failure.
I mean let's face it, if the U.S. wanted Suddam out, they would have done it in 1991.


Am I right?

There is some truth to it... politics is very dirty, if u dont know that then u dont know politics. Just check up on what the word politics itself means. The CIA is one one of the most ruthless agencies, and their role isnt to sit in front of computers and tap people's phones.

If the Bush campaign by election time sees popularity not as high as they wish then they will bring out either Osama or some fabricated chemical claiming Iraq had WMD.

quote:

Originally posted by Hami I don't knoe guys. Clark is making some big waves, and he still has time to make more. not only that, but he's made one good point throughout his campain Bush still hasn't caught Osama. And I personally think that's why he went after suddam, to take everyone eyes off his failure. I mean let's face it, if the U.S. wanted Suddam out, they would have done it in 1991. Am I right?

No, I think you're completely wrong. Instead of reposting things that are all of the debate forum, I suggest that you go READ some stuff in there. This thread is just a pathetic reiteration of some of the more moronic points made in those threads. There are more threads i the debate forum about Hussein's capture than you can shake a stick at, you'll find your answers there.

ok this idea needs an argument that can actually steer ppl to think about the theory in a reasonable way - after thinking about it... and with a lot more structure it is entirely possible that this has happened

Seeing that - yes, all forms of us media are pretty much screened, censored, approved by - yes the US government. it is well known that the american media have a habit of generating its own form of propaganda to make americans think that their cause is right, i mean - why else would they randomly start wars without 90% of the population saying "why the fuck are we doing this - killing is a sin". Because the government gives viewers (thru media) the idea that they NEED to kill people in order to find peace... go figure

OK that pretty well covers the whole media censorship stuff... lets move onto the more controversial parts. I mean.... putting Saddam into power isnt reason enough for America to take him out of power with his cooperation. Obviously, there is a lot to be obtained, as iraq is a very oil-rich country, and america doesnt exactly need money.... i mean - mints can fucking make it... if bush retires and lives like a king we'll know i'm wrong . but money isnt the issue - its the stuff that they normally PAY for from iraq - oil. Hence why australia decided to get into the whole "War against terrorism - not because John Howard wanted to lick Bush's bush, moreso because he wanted to get his hands on some cheap-ass sticky-stylez oil. (My fellow australians will note the sudden decrease in the price of fuel from 104 cents a litre to 85 - again, go figure.

So there we have a reason for the US to benefit. On top of this they would have also generated a lot of patriotism (thru the media, of course) that the war on terrorism is still rocking - Saddam that ugly old sonofabitch is going down! (which is an entirely reasonable cause for starting war - saddam did "reportedly" (~CNN) have lots of nuclear warheads) so uhh.... lets get him, he's a threat and MAY HELP BIN LADEN... even though america put him in power so he kinda owed them big time, anyways, despite desert storm . However, Saddam this time may have realised that this war wont be able to be defended because america gots power and allies etc etc etc. so what does a VERY rich dictator do when its obvious that he's gonna get his army's ass kicked? hide like bin laden and get the shit bombed out of him? NO - make a deal with america? yes! "i give your troops minimal resistance along with movies of my ministers telling our random citizens to fight. Dont worry, the citizens wont be much of a risk to your troops, they cant shoot for shit and will die easily or simply surrender and defect " so america thinks - damn man this is win-win! you get the world off ur ass, get some plastic surgery, go live with your boys over in the aussie outback (dont worry i got Howard eating from my a-hole) and just to blend in more you can get a job as a taxi driver! then we get oil, popularity, and i get to stay in this presidency longer, even though i pretty much stole it in the first place! (see Stupid White Men, the novel... if americans bother to read) THIS ROCKS...

So what do they do? months after the war has obviously been won they "uncover" a place where he's hiding, take a few photos of him in front of a blue screen so they can play, and there you go! corruption within the higher ranks of the US, non-official international "trade" agreements, and a keep it to yaself policy.... i mean this can all be easily faked with the control over the media.

EG - CNN broadcast "WE GOT HIM!".... yet only the american media broadcasters have their own original footage - just check out the watermarks you internationals (i did ) then when they say we got him to the american troops in tikrit, the troops believe it - "its our own media, it must be true" from their belief he's been caught, the iraqis find out, go nuts, give the media a field day taking shots of randoms firing their weapons in the streets and there's your international conspiracy





2 extra notes:

1) i'm not saying i neccessarily believe in this theory, i was just saying it was entirely possible

and

2) free glitter pens to whoever read my entire post

quote:

Originally posted by -=M=- ok this idea needs an argument that can actually steer ppl to think about the theory in a reasonable way - after thinking about it... and with a lot more structure it is entirely possible that this has happened Seeing that - yes, all forms of us media are pretty much screened, censored, approved by - yes the US government. it is well known that the american media have a habit of generating its own form of propaganda to make americans think that their cause is right, i mean - why else would they randomly start wars without 90% of the population saying "why the fuck are we doing this - killing is a sin". Because the government gives viewers (thru media) the idea that they NEED to kill people in order to find peace... go figure

Yea I guess you're right, Nixon must have been really kicking himself in the ass for approving that investigation by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

quote:

OK that pretty well covers the whole media censorship stuff... lets move onto the more controversial parts. I mean.... putting Saddam into power isnt reason enough for America to take him out of power with his cooperation. Obviously, there is a lot to be obtained, as iraq is a very oil-rich country, and america doesnt exactly need money.... i mean - mints can fucking make it... if bush retires and lives like a king we'll know i'm wrong . but money isnt the issue - its the stuff that they normally PAY for from iraq - oil. Hence why australia decided to get into the whole "War against terrorism - not because John Howard wanted to lick Bush's bush, moreso because he wanted to get his hands on some cheap-ass sticky-stylez oil. (My fellow australians will note the sudden decrease in the price of fuel from 104 cents a litre to 85 - again, go figure.

Incorrect, your recent drop in oil prices having nothing to do with Iraq. Prices are set by OPEC. And if you research the cyclical trend in oil prices, you would note that prices always rise during the summer driving months, peak, and then drop during the winter. And as a matter of fact Iraq still hasn't reached pre-war production levels. Fear not, however, OPEC shall see to it to raise prices again.

quote:

Oil Rebounds to Near 9-Month High Thu December 18, 2003 01:30 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices rebounded to nine-month highs Thursday amid a rally in heating oil prices on cold weather forecasts in the U.S. Weather forecaster Meteorlogix predicted "a pattern featuring more persistent cold weather over the central and eastern United States" for Dec. 25-31. New York crude futures (CLc1: Quote, Profile, Research) rose 23 cents to $33.58 a barrel after hitting $33.80, the highest front month level since March 18. London Brent (LCOc1: Quote, Profile, Research) was up 15 cents at $30.74 a barrel. Oil has jumped around $3 in barely three weeks on falls in U.S. crude and natural gas stocks and colder-than-normal weather in the U.S. Northeast -- the world's biggest consumer of heating oil. U.S. crude inventories have fallen for the last four weeks to drop 11.6 million below levels a year ago and the lowest December level since the government began tracking the data in 1982. Distillates stocks, including heating oil, have dropped too, sharpening fears over fuel supplies with more U.S. cold weather forecast for the second half of this month. Oil prices have risen nearly $6 a barrel, or more than 20 percent, since OPEC's September decision to cut supply by 3.5 percent. Some OPEC ministers warn the cartel may cut supply again in February on fears of a surplus once demand declines after the northern winter. OPEC's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, has said current prices were justified by the weakness of the dollar against major currencies, which reduced oil producers' purchasing power. The dollar has declined by around 15.5 percent against the euro this year and Thursday set at a life low at $1.2436 per euro (EUR=: Quote, Profile, Research) . It set a three-year low against the yen (JPY=: Quote, Profile, Research) earlier this month. "Given that the Fed will not be raising interest rates any time soon ... we would not be surprised to see coordinated central bank intervention to prop up the beleaguered greenback," said Edward Meir of Man Financial in a report. "If we do get some intervention, expect to see a broad retracement in many commodity complexes, including oil." Prices have been supported by strong fuel demand growth in China and by repeated sabotage against Iraq's oil facilities, which has delayed a return to prewar export levels. A senior Iraqi oil official said Wednesday Iraq's northern export pipeline, running from the Kirkuk oilfields to the Mediterranean oil export port of Ceyhan, had come under fresh attacks on the day the U.S. announced the weekend capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=4017057

quote:

So there we have a reason for the US to benefit. On top of this they would have also generated a lot of patriotism (thru the media, of course) that the war on terrorism is still rocking - Saddam that ugly old sonofabitch is going down! (which is an entirely reasonable cause for starting war - saddam did "reportedly" (~CNN) have lots of nuclear warheads) so uhh.... lets get him, he's a threat and MAY HELP BIN LADEN... even though america put him in power so he kinda owed them big time, anyways, despite desert storm . However, Saddam this time may have realised that this war wont be able to be defended because america gots power and allies etc etc etc. so what does a VERY rich dictator do when its obvious that he's gonna get his army's ass kicked? hide like bin laden and get the shit bombed out of him? NO - make a deal with america? yes! "i give your troops minimal resistance along with movies of my ministers telling our random citizens to fight. Dont worry, the citizens wont be much of a risk to your troops, they cant shoot for shit and will die easily or simply surrender and defect " so america thinks - damn man this is win-win! you get the world off ur ass, get some plastic surgery, go live with your boys over in the aussie outback (dont worry i got Howard eating from my a-hole) and just to blend in more you can get a job as a taxi driver! then we get oil, popularity, and i get to stay in this presidency longer, even though i pretty much stole it in the first place! (see Stupid White Men, the novel... if americans bother to read) THIS ROCKS...

I'm not sure how to begin with this ... so how does the daily death in US troops fit in to this master plan? Is that to provide amusement for our troops? Something to allieviate the boredom? Sounds like a great plan!

quote:

So what do they do? months after the war has obviously been won they "uncover" a place where he's hiding, take a few photos of him in front of a blue screen so they can play, and there you go! corruption within the higher ranks of the US, non-official international "trade" agreements, and a keep it to yaself policy.... i mean this can all be easily faked with the control over the media.

And what of footage taken by the INTERNATIONAL media? When the trial starts, I suppose all the world media will be in on the gag by that point.

quote:

1) i'm not saying i neccessarily believe in this theory, i was just saying it was entirely possible

Stick with the former ...

quote:

Originally posted by -=M=- ok this idea needs an argument that can actually steer ppl to think about the theory in a reasonable way - after thinking about it... and with a lot more structure it is entirely possible that this has happened

I guess you consider this argument reasonable. I'm scared.

quote:

Seeing that - yes, all forms of us media are pretty much screened, censored, approved by - yes the US government.

I want evidence, and your interpretation of the American media is not going to cut it. I work as a journalist and I don't see this. Yes, I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory involving, "Of COURSE you don't know, they'd kill you if you knew!" but I'm not buying it. The American media has a history of publishing embarrassing information about the government.

quote:

it is well known that the american media have a habit of generating its own form of propaganda to make americans think that their cause is right, i mean - why else would they randomly start wars without 90% of the population saying "why the fuck are we doing this - killing is a sin". Because the government gives viewers (thru media) the idea that they NEED to kill people in order to find peace... go figure

You're contradicting yourself. How can this propaganda be effective if 90% of the population is opposed to the war? Why does the American media want a war? Don't say it's so they have something to cover, because if you know the American media as well as you claim, you know that they will find something to cover. I realize your argument is that the government controls the media, but you're wrong.

quote:

america doesnt exactly need money.... i mean - mints can fucking make it... if bush retires and lives like a king we'll know i'm wrong

Bush does not get the country's money. He's a kerbillionaire anyway. Furthermore, printing money does make you rich, it just causes insane inflation because there's nothing to back it. Russia tried to do this sometime after they overthrew the czars (I may have my timeline wrong). It because cheaper to wipe your ass with rubels than to buy toilet paper.

quote:

but money isnt the issue - its the stuff that they normally PAY for from iraq - oil. Hence why australia decided to get into the whole "War against terrorism - not because John Howard wanted to lick Bush's bush, moreso because he wanted to get his hands on some cheap-ass sticky-stylez oil. (My fellow australians will note the sudden decrease in the price of fuel from 104 cents a litre to 85 - again, go figure.

relevance... where? I'm not going to respond the rest of the irrelevant stuff, I'm just going to delete it.

quote:

However, Saddam this time may have realised that this war wont be able to be defended because america gots power and allies etc etc etc. so what does a VERY rich dictator do when its obvious that he's gonna get his army's ass kicked? hide like bin laden and get the shit bombed out of him? NO - make a deal with america? yes!

But still hide like bin Laden in the desert for half a year?

quote:

"i give your troops minimal resistance along with movies of my ministers telling our random citizens to fight. Dont worry, the citizens wont be much of a risk to your troops, they cant shoot for shit and will die easily or simply surrender and defect "

Yeah, that happened Your "movies" theory is completely irrational and counter-productive. A simple cost/benefit analysis would stop the U.S. from agreeing to this.

quote:

then we get oil, popularity, and i get to stay in this presidency longer, even though i pretty much stole it in the first place!

Did you read occrider's post? There is no election advantage to Bush at this time. Oil? Probably. Popularity? Please. America doesn't care if it's popular, it doesn't need to be popular. It's not trying to be prom queen. I don't make this point because I think it's a good thing, but facts are facts. If you can tell me why America needs to be liked, do so.

quote:

(see Stupid White Men, the novel... if americans bother to read) THIS ROCKS...

Each of your generalizations and stereotypical insults just keeps making you less intelligent. The "stupid American" bit is old and has little foundation. There are stupid people everywhere.

quote:

So what do they do? months after the war has obviously been won they "uncover" a place where he's hiding, take a few photos of him in front of a blue screen so they can play, and there you go!

as occrider said, "Look there are two kinds of sheep in the world, those that blindly follow authority in the face of logic and those that blindly disbelieve in authority in the face of logic. Use some fucking common sense and be neither."

quote:

corruption within the higher ranks of the US, non-official international "trade" agreements, and a keep it to yaself policy.... i mean this can all be easily faked with the control over the media.

You have provided no evidence of this absurd conspiracy theory, and neither has anyone else. All of these constructions have amounted to a chain of "ifs," easily broken at just about ever link b/c y'all are so obsessed with the idea of a conspiracy theory that you haven't even bothered with rationality.

quote:

EG - CNN broadcast "WE GOT HIM!".... yet only the american media broadcasters have their own original footage - just check out the watermarks you internationals (i did )

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about because I don't watch television news, but I don't see where it's a problem for only Americans to have original footage. Footage of the raid? Of them pulling Hussein out of the spider hole?

quote:

then when they say we got him to the american troops in tikrit, the troops believe it - "its our own media, it must be true"

Do you think there's any chance that because the American troops were IN Tikrit, that they were, well, there? I don't see much American media broadcast in Iraq, something's telling me these soldiers got their information first-hand.

quote:

1) i'm not saying i neccessarily believe in this theory

Then why did you bother? It shows.

quote:

2) free glitter pens to whoever read my entire post

I want them now.

quote:

Originally posted by -=M=- ok this idea needs an argument that can actually steer ppl to think about the theory in a reasonable way - after thinking about it... and with a lot more structure it is entirely possible that this has happened Seeing that - yes, all forms of us media are pretty much screened, censored, approved by - yes the US government. it is well known that the american media have a habit of generating its own form of propaganda to make americans think that their cause is right, i mean - why else would they randomly start wars without 90% of the population saying "why the fuck are we doing this - killing is a sin". Because the government gives viewers (thru media) the idea that they NEED to kill people in order to find peace... go figure OK that pretty well covers the whole media censorship stuff... lets move onto the more controversial parts. I mean.... putting Saddam into power isnt reason enough for America to take him out of power with his cooperation. Obviously, there is a lot to be obtained, as iraq is a very oil-rich country, and america doesnt exactly need money.... i mean - mints can fucking make it... if bush retires and lives like a king we'll know i'm wrong . but money isnt the issue - its the stuff that they normally PAY for from iraq - oil. Hence why australia decided to get into the whole "War against terrorism - not because John Howard wanted to lick Bush's bush, moreso because he wanted to get his hands on some cheap-ass sticky-stylez oil. (My fellow australians will note the sudden decrease in the price of fuel from 104 cents a litre to 85 - again, go figure. So there we have a reason for the US to benefit. On top of this they would have also generated a lot of patriotism (thru the media, of course) that the war on terrorism is still rocking - Saddam that ugly old sonofabitch is going down! (which is an entirely reasonable cause for starting war - saddam did "reportedly" (~CNN) have lots of nuclear warheads) so uhh.... lets get him, he's a threat and MAY HELP BIN LADEN... even though america put him in power so he kinda owed them big time, anyways, despite desert storm . However, Saddam this time may have realised that this war wont be able to be defended because america gots power and allies etc etc etc. so what does a VERY rich dictator do when its obvious that he's gonna get his army's ass kicked? hide like bin laden and get the shit bombed out of him? NO - make a deal with america? yes! "i give your troops minimal resistance along with movies of my ministers telling our random citizens to fight. Dont worry, the citizens wont be much of a risk to your troops, they cant shoot for shit and will die easily or simply surrender and defect " so america thinks - damn man this is win-win! you get the world off ur ass, get some plastic surgery, go live with your boys over in the aussie outback (dont worry i got Howard eating from my a-hole) and just to blend in more you can get a job as a taxi driver! then we get oil, popularity, and i get to stay in this presidency longer, even though i pretty much stole it in the first place! (see Stupid White Men, the novel... if americans bother to read) THIS ROCKS... So what do they do? months after the war has obviously been won they "uncover" a place where he's hiding, take a few photos of him in front of a blue screen so they can play, and there you go! corruption within the higher ranks of the US, non-official international "trade" agreements, and a keep it to yaself policy.... i mean this can all be easily faked with the control over the media. EG - CNN broadcast "WE GOT HIM!".... yet only the american media broadcasters have their own original footage - just check out the watermarks you internationals (i did ) then when they say we got him to the american troops in tikrit, the troops believe it - "its our own media, it must be true" from their belief he's been caught, the iraqis find out, go nuts, give the media a field day taking shots of randoms firing their weapons in the streets and there's your international conspiracy 2 extra notes: 1) i'm not saying i neccessarily believe in this theory, i was just saying it was entirely possible and 2) free glitter pens to whoever read my entire post

I read your entire post, and it's ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Look there are two kinds of sheep in the world, those that blindly follow authority in the face of logic and those that blindly disbelieve in authority in the face of logic. Use some fucking common sense and be neither.

That's golden. Finally, someone understands what I'm trying to say!

Believing everything the media tells you and believing nothing the media tells you are polar opposites, both with an abundance of icy cold ignorance.

*hi-fives to daff and occrider!*

i still think your text color is beautiful. Methinks it is periwinkle.

Hehehe Moorbox

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax i still think your text color is beautiful. Methinks it is periwinkle.

Not half as beautiful as the T-shirt wrapped around your head.

Thread moved to this forum

get ur asbestos suits on

Perhaps they should rename this forum to the trashbin? Or the receptacle for unwanted threads?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps they should rename this forum to the trashbin? Or the receptacle for unwanted threads?

Threads have been getting moved here like crazy, along with unwanted people.

Then again, I don't even know if I'm wanted?

*frankly, I don't care. I'll post my opinions anyway*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.