http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/
***WARNING "HEATHENISTIC TERRORIST LEFTIST DRIVIL AHEAD***
Discuss
Printable View
http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/
***WARNING "HEATHENISTIC TERRORIST LEFTIST DRIVIL AHEAD***
Discuss
i havent read most of it yet but i do notice one thing. this ramble is an expanded upon song. check out anti-flags, anatomy of your enemy, and you will notice something similar with the headers.
The creepiest thing happened to me while I was reading that... All the sudden my monitor went black. I still had power to my comp and everything, but my monitor just... went black.
This might sound paranoid delusional, but what if the government did that? They can trace all the pages everyone looks at... but again, I could just be paranoid. Or it could've just been some hacker kid...
your just paranoid, although im sure they wouldnt hesitate to do it if they could. actaully, believe it or not, one goal of the bush administration is to gain control over cyberspace. people really only know half of the story when they criticise bush. if you want to know bush's REAL agenda, check out the project for the new american century. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ that is the website, this is the actual document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
Ugh. I dislike Bush with a passion but he is not a Nazi. His words shouldn't be put next to Goering's. I also hope the author understands Orwell was not a pacifist. And I could go on... that whole piece was intellectually and historically disingenuous.
::sigh::
Um, nothing I hadn't read or thought before, but it's still a nice rant.
As for hte comparisons with Hitler, well, I think he's got a point. I don't mean Bush is going to conquer the world (Well, the corporations already do) or make an ethnic genocide, but his way of speaking is not that far, using always "evil", "god", "patriotism" and "national security". Of course, it's not like Bush and Hitler are the only ones to do that, fascistoid speeches are always the best in terms of war, just using abstract terms in the worse way as possible to take people to your side.
Uuuh....vulgar speeches.
This is a bit too "conspiracy theorist" for my tastes, but I though he did make some rather interesting points, and presented them quite well. Also, I found his use of Howard Zinn's material to be quite interesting, Zinn's books are usually extremely critical of America in general.
That's fairly close to my impression also, albeit minus the exaggeration. I didn't find much value in anything that was written. I guess it wasn't meant to convert new followers to that line of thinking as much as it was meant to make current followers grab a torch and a pitchfork and fight the establishment.Quote:
***WARNING "HEATHENISTIC TERRORIST LEFTIST DRIVIL AHEAD***
- Behold The Void
Probably, but the arguments are pretty well supported text-wise, though I'm sure that it'd be just as easy to find one's own texts to disprove it.Quote:
That's fairly close to my impression also, albeit minus the exaggeration. I didn't find much value in anything that was written. I guess it wasn't meant to convert new followers to that line of thinking as much as it was meant to make current followers grab a torch and a pitchfork and fight the establishment.
he's a watered down nazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by goyabean
Fair enough, but 'fascistoid speeches' are as old as civilization(or lack thereof) itself. The biggest difference between Bush and Hitler was that Hitler followed through on his rhetoric. He is probably the most honest leader of the 20th century. Bush is too much of a coward to follow through on his word. Don't misinterpert this, his honesty did rage the most murderous war in history and significantly accelerated the symbiosis of the state and the industrial military complex throughout the world. Bush will never be that horrible. In terms of actual damage done, Reagan would be closer and, ideology aside, he is damn near Stalin.
Look at all the world leaders today and in some ways most are watered down Nazis.
(Here's a real ass-kicker: the Democrats have killed way more people than the Republicans during the last 100 yrs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyabean
thats because they have been in power longer.
Not true. It's been virtually even since 1900. In fact, I count 52 years Republican, 52 years Democratic, but I could be slightly off.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
I don't see the conspiracy theory anywhere. Conspiracy theory is "OMG BUSH IS MOHAMMED ATTA'S DAD". TYhe information provided on that web is of popular knowledge, nothing we didn't know before.Quote:
This is a bit too "conspiracy theorist" for my tastes
Yeah, they have. The bad part is people actually believe them.Quote:
Fair enough, but 'fascistoid speeches' are as old as civilization(or lack thereof) itself.
By "conspiracy theorist" I mean more the portrayal of Bush's motives as downright, well, for lack of a better term, evil. I can't quite bring myself to think of Bush as evil at the moment, though if he keeps going the way he's going...
No, no, not evil, just plain imperialistic and etnocentric. If that is evil depends on your outlook on things. I certainly don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Oh I don't like it, of that there's no doubt. I just can't bring myself to say that the war is completely about oil. Yet, anyways.
Of course not. There's more than just oil. I bet some people at the Bush administration really try to believe the liberation thing, more to keep their conscience clean than anything else. Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
You're in a bit different situation Shadow, you don't live here. I HAVE to believe that there's some sort of insane justification behind this foolishness or I might go insane.
Oh, you don't need to find any justification, you just need to realise your country is ruled by a bunch of assholes. But thats not a problem, most countries are ruled by a bunch of assholes. Well, wait, it is a problem, but thats why being critical with stuff helps.
OK, I think the people who declared this war did it for interest, but attempt to justify it by saying "well, Saddam was evil, the world is safer now". But the world is not safer.
Oh, and if you ever feel bad, listen to "The Future" by Leonard Cohen. Then you'll know there's always someone more negative than you ^^
this war is not about getting rich, contrary to what opponents of the war believe. its really about preserving the american superpower for as long as possible. its not about getting rich from oil profits (although that is a plus side for the bush adminsitration) its about controling middle easter oil, and also about moving away from the european theatre and towards the asian theatre. Iraq is in the middle of the middle east. in other words, the unietd states can attack virtually ANY middle easter country from iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
the Bush administrations goal is to be able to succesfully wage two largescale wars at one time. looking at this geographically, they may be talking about fighting in china AND europe at the same time. i know i have said this a MILLION times, but the project for the new american century is the plan that the bush administration is following. (some of the people who wrote it are donald rumsfeld, d=paul wolfowitz, and dick cheney.) these people are insane, and if this plan is followed into the future by many other different administrations it could mean the death of this country in my opinion. if you want to know george bush's next move, check out this document, as well as its official website. i could get into my conspiracy theory here, but ive yet to get anyone to believe me lol.
"OK, I think the people who declared this war did it for interest, but attempt to justify it by saying "well, Saddam was evil, the world is safer now". But the world is not safer."
that argument DOES NOT HOLD! if memory serves me, in the project for the new american century (PNAC) it states that the united states should invade iraq REGARDLESS of whether or not saddam hussein is in power.
also, right after 9/11 the PNAC sent the bush administration a letter saying they should use 9/11 as an excuse to invade iraq even though they had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. and what did the bush administration do? they made plans to do just that. invade iraq and they used 'terrorism' to help justify it. there is no bigger lie than that. these people disgust me.
Um...no, this war is a reafirmation of US power to regain the respect it lost after 9-11. In other words, it is saying "we are the best, don't mess with us". Also, it is a strategic position, having a friendly (puppet) goverment in the Middle East is very helpful. Then there's the economic colonialism: Installing the US multinationals in Iraq with the excuse of reconstruction. Then there's oil. And then is freedom and democracy among other lies.
...eh...no, no, I seriously doubt the US will declare war on Europe and China. It is plain absurd, completly stupid. Who would declare war on China anyway? It's digging your own grave. It's like...attacking Russia in winter! Like Napoleon and Hitler :pQuote:
the Bush administrations goal is to be able to succesfully wage two largescale wars at one time. looking at this geographically, they may be talking about fighting in china AND europe at the same time.
Yes, it is their idea.Quote:
. i know i have said this a MILLION times, but the project for the new american century is the plan that the bush administration is following. (some of the people who wrote it are donald rumsfeld, d=paul wolfowitz, and dick cheney.) these people are insane, and if this plan is followed into the future by many other different administrations it could mean the death of this country in my opinion. if you want to know george bush's next move, check out this document, as well as its official website.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
This web site is done by many members at the Bush administration, I recommend everyone to look through it, it's like an online Mein Kampff capitalist style. Basically the idea is for the US leadership to be more powerful than it is now, in other words, pure imperialism, but done in the "nice" way, meaning "friendly" (puppet) goverments and free market with wonderful economic deals NAFTA style, not puting the US flag in the goverment buildings of other countries.
You're right. I would not believe you.Quote:
i could get into my conspiracy theory here, but ive yet to get anyone to believe me lol.
Are you sure? It dosen't sound very logical they would say that knowing Saddam would probably still be in power for years without an attack. What I mean is that it sounds foolish to say in a web site your true intentions for doing this or that political movement that will kill thousands. Everyone knows they did it for the Al Quaeda ties to Saddam! Oh, wait...it was the weapons of mass destruction! No, wait, damn it, it was the liberation! Oh...or was it to stop terrorism? :rolleyes2 Let's just said it was because God demanded.Quote:
that argument DOES NOT HOLD! if memory serves me, in the project for the new american century (PNAC) it states that the united states should invade iraq REGARDLESS of whether or not saddam hussein is in power.