whateverdude Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 How nice for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1Hffm5oRa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, been that way through history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, been that way through history. We don't have to help them cut our throats http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1Hffm5oRa It just keeps getting better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 AQ is a beneficiary of the resentment of the "masses" against these dictators. AQ originates in Saudi, one of the worst. We, the United States, should mean what our words tell us, that freedom and democracy are for all, not just some. We should not be in bed with these dictators. We should support democracy and freedom. Those same anti-Kadaffi people helped and returned our F=15 pilots. That not a story that originates with whispers in Chad... AQ is against all these dictators. Hitler was against the flu bug. So what. None of that changes the fact that the dictator is bad and not something the US should embrace. We should embrace those fighting the dictator, and when we do, and our plane falls, we found allies on the ground in Libya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 We don't have to help them cut our throats It just keeps getting better We aren't helping them cut our throats, there is no we in this, we are not represented, there is no we, there is only the government transnational corporation cabal so this should be expressed as "They don't have to help them cut our throats" and the answer to that is it is very profitable for them to help those who would cut our throats. The money that has bought our government is globalist money. in the era of the Robber Barron at least the the people buying our government were in the most part nationalists that is not the case today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 We aren't helping them cut our throats, there is no we in this, we are not represented, there is no we, there is only the government transnational corporation cabal so this should be expressed as "They don't have to help them cut our throats" and the answer to that is it is very profitable for them to help those who would cut our throats. The money that has bought our government is globalist money. in the era of the Robber Barron at least the the people buying our government were in the most part nationalists that is not the case today. The cabal is in Obama's pants, he has a hardon for the 2012 election. Its getting away from him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 The cabal is in Obama's pants, he has a hardon for the 2012 election. Its getting away from him now. Obama is in the Cabal's pants, I'm all for getting rid of Obama, the problem is finding someone who isn't a whore- almost impossible to find a smart guy who can't be bought, bullied or blackmailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Obama is in the Cabal's pants, I'm all for getting rid of Obama, the problem is finding someone who isn't a whore- almost impossible to find a smart guy who can't be bought, bullied or blackmailed. Don't take this the wrong way but someday when you experienced a little more life you will realize that there is not a conspiracy around every comer controlled by invisible intentional agents. The world is not as well thought out as you think it is. The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true. Unless you got real hard proof like a wire tap or videos with high level officials plotting a conspiracy, I don't want to hear it cause all it is, is noise in an already noisy world. Edited March 26, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Don't take this the wrong way but someday when you experienced a little more life you will realize that there is not a conspiracy around every comer controlled by invisible intentional agents. The world is not as well thought out as you think it is. The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true. Unless you got real hard proof like a wire tap or videos with high level officials plotting a conspiracy, I don't want to hear it cause all it is, is noise in an already noisy world. It's not a secret Cabal it's a right in the open Cabal- you don't have to keep things secret, you just throw out enough conflicting information to create confusion- there's a reason 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11 in 2003 and why 35% of Americans still believe it today (check out Agnotological war)- it's not a secrete that the majority of our politician are beholden to the people who finance their campaigns, give jobs to their family members,or provide other methods of financial remuneration when they leave office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 AQ is a beneficiary of the resentment of the "masses" against these dictators. AQ originates in Saudi, one of the worst. We, the United States, should mean what our words tell us, that freedom and democracy are for all, not just some. We should not be in bed with these dictators. We should support democracy and freedom. Those same anti-Kadaffi people helped and returned our F=15 pilots. That not a story that originates with whispers in Chad... AQ is against all these dictators. Hitler was against the flu bug. So what. None of that changes the fact that the dictator is bad and not something the US should embrace. We should embrace those fighting the dictator, and when we do, and our plane falls, we found allies on the ground in Libya... Congratulations on your first ever post not blaming the Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Congratulations on your first ever post not blaming the Jews. Does Hitler count...he was a jew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Obama is in the Cabal's pants, I'm all for getting rid of Obama, the problem is finding someone who isn't a whore- almost impossible to find a smart guy who can't be bought, bullied or blackmailed. I nominate you for the job. You seem to have all the answers. I'm sure you'd be great at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 It's not a secret Cabal it's a right in the open Cabal- you don't have to keep things secret, you just throw out enough conflicting information to create confusion- there's a reason 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was involved with 9/11 in 2003 and why 35% of Americans still believe it today (check out Agnotological war)- it's not a secrete that the majority of our politician are beholden to the people who finance their campaigns, give jobs to their family members,or provide other methods of financial remuneration when they leave office. Are you hiding something or is your crap just oozing out again? BTW, what is you expertise in the mortgage or real estate industries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) AQ is a beneficiary of the resentment of the "masses" against these dictators. AQ originates in Saudi, one of the worst. We, the United States, should mean what our words tell us, that freedom and democracy are for all, not just some. We should not be in bed with these dictators. We should support democracy and freedom. Those same anti-Kadaffi people helped and returned our F=15 pilots. That not a story that originates with whispers in Chad... AQ is against all these dictators. Hitler was against the flu bug. So what. None of that changes the fact that the dictator is bad and not something the US should embrace. We should embrace those fighting the dictator, and when we do, and our plane falls, we found allies on the ground in Libya... So.....bombing Iraq and taking out Saddam was treason, but bombing Libya and taking out Kadaffi is 'supporting democracy'? Got it. Where is the "it doesn't matter what your motives are, the masses on the ground only know that the US is bombing Arabs again" crowd that we used to hear from so often? Edited March 28, 2011 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 So.....bombing Iraq and taking out Saddam was treason, but bombing Libya and taking out Kadaffi is 'supporting democracy'? Got it. Y'know...I'd have been for "bombing and taking out" either one. But we invaded and took out Saddam. And now we're bombing and not taking out Qadaffi (as a matter of stated policy, no less). I'm still kind-of on the fence over which policy has been more ill-formulated - think I have to go with the Libya policy, to be honest. As ill-conceived as the invasion of Iraq was, at least it had an identifiable frickin' goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Are you hiding something or is your crap just oozing out again? BTW, what is you expertise in the mortgage or real estate industries? You won't get an answer. I would ask creationists what their scientific education was and would get replies on how I'm not a Christian (I'm a Catlick ) and then they would ask for mine, requiring me to give out my real name to track down my papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 You won't get an answer. I would ask creationists what their scientific education was and would get replies on how I'm not a Christian (I'm a Catlick ) and then they would ask for mine, requiring me to give out my real name to track down my papers. lyrbob got into a discussion about real estate and the mortgage industry. He made a critical error in a statement that someone with any knowledge of the industry plain flat out would not make. I'm sure he suspected that I was going to nail him on something so he's hiding out like the coward that he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Y'know...I'd have been for "bombing and taking out" either one. But we invaded and took out Saddam. And now we're bombing and not taking out Qadaffi (as a matter of stated policy, no less). I'm still kind-of on the fence over which policy has been more ill-formulated - think I have to go with the Libya policy, to be honest. As ill-conceived as the invasion of Iraq was, at least it had an identifiable frickin' goal. Yeah, that's really what I've been waiting for someone smart to comment on. What exactly triggers an end to this process? Are we: A) Waiting for the insurgents to get tired of playing revolution and go home? B) Waiting for Col G to press a reset button and promise not to bomb anyone else? C) Hoping to facilitate the always popular stalemate and split Libya in two; one side with a government and the other as basically lawless tribal lands? That always seems to work out well the US. D) Hoping the insurgents eventually kill Col G and win, but just hoping to make that be as long and destructive process as possible? And I'm still not real clear on where the support is for this policy -- but it sure is funny to watch all the Obamaphiles temper their disdain for war after screaming their heads off about it for the past 8 years. p.s. Just for Dexter's benefit, didn't Saddam kill far more civilians than Gaddafi ever did, and so wasn't the Iraq war basically a humanitarian mission too? That George Bush sure was dreamy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yeah, that's really what I've been waiting for someone smart to comment on. What exactly triggers an end to this process? Are we: A) Waiting for the insurgents to get tired of playing revolution and go home? B) Waiting for Col G to press a reset button and promise not to bomb anyone else? C) Hoping to facilitate the always popular stalemate and split Libya in two; one side with a government and the other as basically lawless tribal lands? That always seems to work out well the US. D) Hoping the insurgents eventually kill Col G and win, but just hoping to make that be as long and destructive process as possible? And I'm still not real clear on where the support is for this policy -- but it sure is funny to watch all the Obamaphiles temper their disdain for war after screaming their heads off about it for the past 8 years. p.s. Just for Dexter's benefit, didn't Saddam kill far more civilians than Gaddafi ever did, and so wasn't the Iraq war basically a humanitarian mission too? That George Bush sure was dreamy! Umm...He's handing over control to NATO, so problem solved. I mean we did say that Gadhafi didn't have the right to rule, And we did bomb the country to save lives, But we didn't target Gadhafi because that would be wrong, And we are handing over control to a Canadaian General, Although we'll likely still be using American pilots, planes, and bombs, To continue to drop bombs to save lives, But not directly target the guy we've said forfeited his right to lead, But it will hopefully allow the rebels to do something, Although we haven't really said who these rebels are, and whether we're really sure we want them to win, But the President had the right to drop bombs this time, Unlike last time, We talked this whole plan over with the rest of the world first, Just not with the American people, And the whole world agreed, Except those that are now complaining and backing out, But they still probably like us more than they used to. So I think it's safe to say that we've accomplished our mission and Libya is now a better place as a result. Ta-mother-!@#$in-da Bitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts