Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
this is what bush spent money on
    #13792422 - 01/15/11 05:47 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Arrest_of_Bradley_Manning


with crap like that you can't even nail enough people to end the war, and we spent our tax money on it. to be honest who cares how much obama sucks, we had a murdering murderer tax spending piece of crap in office for eight years.

but to tell you the truth i guess anyone made president is a murderer if they watch this and don't have those responsible put in jail


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13792492 - 01/15/11 06:01 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

That is one of my favorite videos.  A bunch of terrorist scum taken out. 

Bradley is gonna get 50 years.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledespisedicon
Stranger

Registered: 06/16/06
Posts: 8,361
Loc: Flag
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #13792686 - 01/15/11 06:52 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

1.) Don't bring your children to a war zone.
2.) Looks like that Rueters employee missed his deadline, Laugh Out Loud.  Hang out with terrorists you might get killed.
3.) This is such an old current event, although quite amusing that out of nowhere you would bring up Bush and call him a "murdering murderer tax spending piece of crap" without the slightest hint of irony that Obama is spending money on the exact same thing.


But.....but.......Bush.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: despisedicon]
    #13792887 - 01/15/11 07:34 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

dude, that guy pulled over in a van to help some guy who was crawling

"he's crawling, he's wounded, is he picking up a weapon?"


did the guy look like he could pick up a weapon?


"a van just pulled up, the van is full of weapons, he is helping that guy up"


they shot the van and killed those surviving 2 kids brothers and mother and father in front of his face. then the pilots went and shot a building and killed 3 more families.


at least obama got the troops who aren't training out of the middle east, well... no he didn't. well obama is full of shit, but bush... i hate bush



would you want someone to help you out if you were shot in the street? could you imagine someone shooting up the ambulance?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline4896744
Small Town Girl
Female User Gallery
Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 12 years, 6 days
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #13796151 - 01/16/11 10:49 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

OMG bUsH is so effin gay! He is totally like evil and dumb and stupid and im smarter than him! Hes Dumb! All oter presidents arent evils like bUsh. Hes different cuz hes dumb! Obama is awesome! At least hes not bUsH. he does same things but liek w/e cuz he haz cool PoSTERzzz.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: 4896744]
    #13796400 - 01/16/11 11:49 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

i love those posterzzz of obama

it's time for change:shrug:



it's going to be the same way when Obama leaves. when bush was in office all people did was complain about him, now that he is gone everyone is bitching about Obama saying that at least bush cared to an extent. now when Obama leaves the next president will inherit HIS mess, if the economy is in great shape by then, it will be 'oh what's his name is so awesome thank god obama is gone, this guy fixed everything' or it'll be 'omg this guy fucked up everything, you know at least obama cared and tried to give us free health care blah blah'


i don't know i say we knock 2 years off high school and have everyone graduate 2 years earlier, have the legal voting age changed to 16, the legal drinking age changed to 19, and then imagine this.....


with all the younger voters, people will just third party, since they always have some 'legalize cannabis' act included, of course obama did also, which is why I voted for him
:shrug:
:whocares:



































































:nothingtoadd:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (01/16/11 11:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13796416 - 01/16/11 11:53 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Keep the change.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13796444 - 01/16/11 11:59 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Keep the change.



:laugh2::lol:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel] * 1
    #13797563 - 01/16/11 03:39 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13797586 - 01/16/11 03:45 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
with all the younger voters, people will just third party, since they always have some 'legalize cannabis' act included, of course obama did also, which is why I voted for him




I'm pretty sure that's not accurate

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13797723 - 01/16/11 04:20 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
He started senseless wars to enrich his family & friends, while doing next to nothing for the hundreds of thousands of injured, widowed, & orphaned, as well as millions of refugees & others displaced, from two wars of imperialist American aggression. As such, the vast majority of the Muslim world (and the majority of the world, as well) deplores his criminal regime (not that they like the current one of Uncle Tom) & don't believe American lies & propaganda for one second. Amerika will bankrupt itself trying in vain to hold onto a crumbling & decaying empire for which the sun is quickly setting, ignoring the urgency of drastically cutting (i.e several hundred billion dollars annually) its excessive military spending abroad & instead focusing only within it own borders.

"Today's empire is tomorrow's ashes." - Mumia Abu-Jamal



Fry Mumia in 2011!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13798287 - 01/16/11 06:14 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
dude, that guy pulled over in a van to help some guy who was crawling




how often do you drive into a place where a gunfight just went down and
a dozen or so bodies are sprawled in the streets full of bullet holes,
do you jump out of your car and help? do you take your kids in there?

I know my ass would be getting the fuck out of there because I dont know
the situation as to why those men are dead, all I know is the shooter
may still be in the area and I could be his next target, I need to get
my kids to safety


they shot up insurgents

ak47s


Saab at4, that shit wasnt a fucking camera






Quote:

could you imagine someone shooting up the ambulance?





what ambulance takes a couple of kids into a hot zone as a family outing, wheres the identifying markings and the lights? no, that was another insurgent using his kids as cover for his true motives, collect the weapons and the wounded and GTFO so they can claim it was a massacre of civilians by the US...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13798762 - 01/16/11 07:42 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13799031 - 01/16/11 08:30 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

too many people to reply to, entheogenicpeace, i agree

prisoner #1, good point, but those WERE cameras, if that guy was an insurgent helping his friend, he wasn't about to hand him weapons, the guy was crawling on the floor, when someone is running and crawling on the floor, there is no point continuing to shoot them, that guy HAD no rocket launcher.


also, in the beginning of the video, you see the men shaking hands and one guy throws up a geeky peace sign, if those were insurgents they sure were cocky that day.

anyway you have a good point


chesperito, i meant the younger people would probably vote for pro marijuana candidates if they let the voting age decrease to 16, hope you read the entire thing



also, you swear the u.s. was fair about that, there was another incident where they shot a car full of people, then a crowd of 200 people came over to pull dead bodies out of the car, and the helicopter returned, shot at the car with 200 people crowded around to 'make sure the insurgents were dead'

in a war killing civilians to get to who you need to is never right, other wise why are we waging war against people who toppled our towers on 9-11? are we better than them somehow






please note THIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Leaked_video_footage


contains the correct facts, they were indeed cameras, but to make prisoner #1 point more correct, that team was there to support a team who had been under fire all morning, so really why civilians were walking around, i don't know. those reporters have always been crazy, i guess they finally paid for it.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Edited by imachavel (01/16/11 08:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13799143 - 01/16/11 08:47 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Didn't you claim that Obama wanted to legalize marijuana?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13800172 - 01/17/11 12:05 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
too many people to reply to, entheogenicpeace, i agree

prisoner #1, good point, but those WERE cameras





really, then please show us a similar camera, lengthy lens with a short
shade, nice straight tube like camera about 16" or longer

Quote:

if that guy was an insurgent helping his friend, he wasn't about to hand him weapons, the guy was crawling on the floor, when someone is running and crawling on the floor, there is no point continuing to shoot them, that guy HAD no rocket launcher.




no one hands the dying man a weapon, the insurgents collect survivors and weapons in order to make it look like the coalition forces have killed civilians, anyway, why are the 'reporters' hanging out with insurgents, didnt they expect the end up in a fire fight?


Quote:

also, in the beginning of the video, you see the men shaking hands and one guy throws up a geeky peace sign, if those were insurgents they sure were cocky that day.




they seem to be cocky most days, up until 22mm rounds start shredding them








Quote:

in a war killing civilians to get to who you need to is never right, other wise why are we waging war against people who toppled our towers on 9-11? are we better than them somehow




collateral damage, civilians are informed not to fuck with any bodies
and to clear the area, common sense says clear  the area when the
military is shooting live ammo into a vehicle, common sense says take
cover and dont poke your head out until you know the area is clear,
start collecting bodies and you're asking to be shot, let the marked
medics attend to the wounded

it's pretty simple, cant understand simple, maybe death is best





Quote:

please note THIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Leaked_video_footage


contains the correct facts, they were indeed cameras, but to make prisoner #1 point more correct, that team was there to support a team who had been under fire all morning, so really why civilians were walking around, i don't know. those reporters have always been crazy, i guess they finally paid for it.




armed civilians, outside, walking into an area where active and ongoing
battles were being fought and 2 reporters happened to be with them?
there were at least 3 AKs in the video, I showed images with 2, and just
because the video was confirmed as authentic doesnt mean that the
'camera' was a camera or the 'reporter' carrying it was a reporter, the
profile of the device certainly fits the profile of an anti tank weapon
and the actions of th man carrying it in conjunction with the fact that
he was running around with insurgents, it sure makes it look suspicious

maybe you can selsect the professional video camera that fits the
profile of that saab at4

here's one with a long lens, doesnt quote look the same



here's one that kinda tube shaped, doesnt really fit the profile though




this


certainly is longer than Noor-Eldeen's camera and the shade doesnt match the profile


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13800198 - 01/17/11 12:08 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
The quote in your sig, while apparently based in an actual quote, has been embellished to the point that it is now a fabrication.





right, I took the liberty of using the liberal version, you know, altered beyond recognition

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13809325 - 01/18/11 04:56 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

The Dims are the war mongers.  They figured out how to trick the Republicans into making themselves look like they're the one's that started the war and then the Dims blame the Republicans for it.  Kennedy (Democrat) started the Vietnam war and Nixon (Republican) stopped it.  FDR was a Democrat and he was president during WWII.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Poison gas and biological weapons were found in Iraq. Sadam used poison gas on the Kurds and against Iran."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13811971 - 01/19/11 12:33 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
The quote in your sig, while apparently based in an actual quote, has been embellished to the point that it is now a fabrication.





right, I took the liberty of using the liberal version, you know, altered beyond recognition





i really don't know how from that distance you can tell. maybe there is no 'confirmed' report, considering that in the report they say they killed 2 reuters reporters but then the no one is denying the army found them with rocket launchers.

i think i can safely say i wasn't there and from that distance can't confirm what they were holding, they sure did look cocky though, for people who got shredded, i'll tell you that.


but if you watch the video of of them shooting the missile at the building, you see these people holding SOME thing in their hand, and you can see it swing back and forth, like it's a dog leash or something. i mean to be honest you have to watch the 39 minute version. then these people just 'holding something' run into a building, and the helicopter levels the building and jeez it's like a condo complex could have 20 rooms inside and just why not fucking level the whole thing.


i guess the truth is war sucks. if I was watching someone get their head cut off on t.v. I'd want to fly through in a helicopter and fucking blow up every house, cuz who would care. those insurgents are piece of shit fuckers.


but when you watch a video of a guy crawling around and the helicopter circles back around to blow the guy to bits, you know the dudes in the cock pit are cold as shit and there is no doubt about that.


so maybe the moral is: WAR IS WRONG. and to end it, you gotta do some wrong ass stuff.

hey, I could live without war. as a matter of fact, I probably live BECAUSE I DON'T experience it. If I had, I probably wouldn't be here, isn't that kind of how it goes?


nuff said


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
    #13811991 - 01/19/11 12:37 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

GI_Luvmoney said:
The Dims are the war mongers.  They figured out how to trick the Republicans into making themselves look like they're the one's that started the war and then the Dims blame the Republicans for it.  Kennedy (Democrat) started the Vietnam war and Nixon (Republican) stopped it.  FDR was a Democrat and he was president during WWII.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Poison gas and biological weapons were found in Iraq. Sadam used poison gas on the Kurds and against Iran."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002





i don't care about dems and really could care less about clinton. But because I want to see your point magnified, I'd like it if you could exemplify it with some quotes showing obama supports the war. I'm not saying he does, I'm not saying he doesn't, I just want to see it quoted, thank you


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13812967 - 01/19/11 08:32 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

:facepalm:What the fuck are you talking about?  He could pull us out tomorrow if he wanted to.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13813322 - 01/19/11 10:29 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

well, yeah


fuck Obama also....

:stonedjerk:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13813429 - 01/19/11 10:54 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
:facepalm:What the fuck are you talking about?  He could pull us out tomorrow if he wanted to.





oh...

Wait, is that what being President means?  You mean he doesn't need to ask for Bush's permission first? 

I thought it was all Bush's fault and Obama was just stuck there because of Bush?  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13817729 - 01/19/11 10:45 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

no, but why does every one care now?

i've heard 2 billion complaints about obama since he stepped in, people didn't LIKE bush....


but who really gave a shit? that was 8 years of him not pulling the troops out, 8 years of him destroying the economy. now obama is satan?


obama sent in an extra 50,000 troops, then pulled out like 50,000 troops. obama is stupid. but at least obama can ball :afro:


but bush was a fucking red neck. now if people go and vote in obama second term are going to ream them or if the economy is better will it be alright like when bush got a second term?


I HOPE you guys were complaining when Bush was around. I don't think now just because I have only $10 in my wallet that obama ruined my financial dreams, i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck


how am I wrong?


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13819538 - 01/20/11 10:11 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck





I wouldn't use that as a criterion for determining the quality of a president.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: pothead_bob]
    #13819552 - 01/20/11 10:16 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

i only had $10 in my wallet when bush was around also. They BOTH suck





I wouldn't use that as a criterion for determining the quality of a president.



:rofl2:Indeed.  Whose suckitude is that more a testament to?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13819631 - 01/20/11 10:37 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That is one of my favorite videos.  A bunch of terrorist scum taken out. 

Bradley is gonna get 50 years.




Yup, I don't see what is wrong at all with this video. This is a WAR. You may not agree with the reasons for going to war or the target country for the war, but I am glad to see the enemy in this instance taken out from afar rather than our troops being deployed to the scene and possibly risking American fatalities on the ground.

Troops were/are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs because of 'Just War Theory'. Any 'innocents' in the enemy territory should be taken as the enemy as it is impossible for soldiers to distinguish between enemy and civilian.

Let me also add that I am against these particular wars but I am for the troops, especially when the government sacrifices their lives for 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such nonsense in these instances.

Edited by RationalEgo (01/20/11 01:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13821704 - 01/20/11 04:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

It is not uncommon for news organizations like the BBC to have armed escorts through warzones, including Iraq. Are you saying this should get them killed?

Anyway, the alleged weapons have been confirmed by other sources to be tripod are consistent with the shapes of a tripod. The part that you are mistaking for a clip is consistent with a bar often used to control the angulation of the camera.

I don't even know why you are grasping at straws with this one


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13822059 - 01/20/11 06:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
i really don't know how from that distance you can tell. maybe there is no 'confirmed' report, considering that in the report they say they killed 2 reuters reporters but then the no one is denying the army found them with rocket launchers.

i think i can safely say i wasn't there and from that distance can't confirm what they were holding, they sure did look cocky though, for people who got shredded, i'll tell you that.




the people that were shot looked mostly dead, maybe that one survivor
looked a little cocky for a couple of minutes but large caliber rounds
changed that in a hurry... now maybe you cant tell what you're seeing
because you're unobservant, maybe I can because I was trained to look at
details. when this video was released people were claiming that the AKs
were tripods but I've never seen a combat photographer that used a
tripod, seems counter productive... I did on the other hand see an AK
sight profile and a banana magazine and what looked like the business
end of a Saab AT4, anti tank weapon


Quote:

but if you watch the video of of them shooting the missile at the building, you see these people holding SOME thing in their hand, and you can see it swing back and forth, like it's a dog leash or something. i mean to be honest you have to watch the 39 minute version.





you really sure you want me watching that, you sent me a link a few days
ago but since you posted the link in the title of the PM it was
truncated so all I got was a 404 message on some muslim martyr website



Quote:

when you watch a video of a guy crawling around and the helicopter circles back around to blow the guy to bits, you know the dudes in the cock pit are cold as shit and there is no doubt about that.





it didnt appear the fired until the guy in the van showed up an started
dragging 'evidence' from the battle scene


Quote:

so maybe the moral is: WAR IS WRONG.




well, that's just like... your opinion man

sometimes war is necessary, it's still a dirty business but still, it
sometimes has to be done, without it there's no telling how many
countless lives would be lost, look at WWII, 6 million dead jews that
were not involved in the war, a million were children

was it wrong to fight against germany in that war?

central and eastern europe through the 90s was heading in the same
direction, the US stepped in under the UN banner and put an end to
the 'ethnic cleansing' hat was taking place

again, was that wrong?





Quote:

hey, I could live without war.





so dont go to war but dont ask anyone to defend you if someone wages war on you

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13822142 - 01/20/11 06:28 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
It is not uncommon for news organizations like the BBC to have armed escorts through warzones, including Iraq. Are you saying this should get them killed?





armed escorts are typically in convoys of reporters traveling from place
to place, when you learn that combat photographers are typically
following troops, traveling light, you'll see just how wrong you are

Quote:

Anyway, the alleged weapons have been confirmed by other sources to be tripod are consistent with the shapes of a tripod. The part that you are mistaking for a clip is consistent with a bar often used to control the angulation of the camera.




bullshit, prove to me that the magazine was part of a tripod by posting
a picture of a tripod with a head actuating arm that's wider than your
hand... I know an AK profile when I see it... hell, show me a combat
photographer that takes the time to set up a tripod, mount the camera
and then take pictures, what kind of camera was the guy using and what
lens/hood combo was used

this is a heavy duty video tripod, no wide magazine looking arm, no AK
sights poking out of the end






Quote:

I don't even know why you are grasping at straws with this one





post some photographic evidence to show I'm wrong

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13825129 - 01/21/11 09:50 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think that it is ole Pris who is grasping at straws.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13825526 - 01/21/11 11:40 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Obviously you don't know an ak-47 profile when you see one. Because for the sake of argument if that were a gun I can tell for fucking sure it's not a Kalashnikov. For one, I don't know how much crank you've had with your bowl of fruit-loops today (it could be none I just can't be sure), but that "magazine" is not angled right and is too straight. It does look slightly banana-ed if you  squint at it and hope it's a weapon long enough, but it only looks banana-ed slightly toward the individual who is holding it in his hand.

Now I'll leave you some time to figure out if you can spot what is inconsistent in these images of actual Kalashnikovs and your phantom weapon picture. If it were a weapon it has a very long and thin magazine more characteristic of a small caliber semi-automatic weapon, though the shape looks nothing like any such weapon I'm familiar with. None of the people in the video have any apparent ammo clips on them.
So even if it were a weapon, it is not an ak-47 and I'm not even going to bother with your ridiculous anti-tank weapon story, which is ridiculously stupid because it doesn't look like an RPG at all and could easily be a bulky old camera, despite that you were able to cherry-pick some pictures of some newer cameras and say it looks nothing like one.

I can show you pictures of bulky tripods that look similar on the internet, but I don't think it will appease you anyway. Something tells me you will still grasp at these straws.

Anyway, armed escorts are more common than you make it sound. I doubt seriously that you watch much if any international news. I on the other hand do and can distinctly remember some journalists heading into hotspots having armed escorts. Locations like the Congo and Darfur come to mind. Given the possibility of being kidnapped, it is not out of the question that these people would need armed guards. Not that I think this is what happened, I just think you are making culturally supremacist insinuations about what kinds of reporters are allowed to have armed escorts and not be shot down without any question or investigation.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Quote:

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".




So do you think that the journalistic organization investigating what happened to their journalists is proof enough that they weren't actually terrorist militants? Or do you have another crazy conspiracy theory?

This is not the first time Reuters staff have been killed by US forces.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case
Quote:

We were in the balcony. We were living in that hotel, approximately 200 journalists, Europeans, American journalists. And that day before the attack, we said even hello to the troops. They were in the other side of the river, Tigris River, and they were there looking around as military people.



Edited by ScavengerType (01/21/11 07:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13826424 - 01/21/11 02:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13826911 - 01/21/11 03:45 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

More bullshit from the deranged left telling us what we are saying.  It is the height (depth?) of stupidity.  Neither the right wing, the Tea Party nor libertarians are anarchists.  Military is by all accounts a legitimate function of the federal government.  Just fucking stop.  You don't know what you are talking about.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13827000 - 01/21/11 03:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:42 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13827464 - 01/21/11 05:57 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

More bullshit from the deranged left telling us what we are saying.  It is the height (depth?) of stupidity.  Neither the right wing, the Tea Party nor libertarians are anarchists.  Military is by all accounts a legitimate function of the federal government.  Just fucking stop.  You don't know what you are talking about.




Wrong. Libertarians (i.e. not fascists like the Tea Party) do not support war (in almost all cases except in response to an unprovoked attack) & foreign imperialism. They support closing down the several hundreds bases the U.S. has around the world, withdrawing from Iraq & Afghanistan (and everywhere else), & greatly cutting the military budget (as they do cutting other areas of government), which is the largest & most unsustainable expenditure.

Further, they do not have blind, religious faith in big government on issues of life & death, & volunteer to submit their lives (and any ability to think for themselves and intelligently) for the sake of expanding big government. It is far more authoritarian to put one's life blindly in the hand of big government than it is one's money, & libertarians support neither



There is nothing either blind nor religious in supporting the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.  That's other bullshit by you.  Also an insult to every person who joins the military.

L. Ron Paul is not the arbiter of libertarianism.  In fact, he is an isolationist jackass.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13827954 - 01/21/11 07:29 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

In fact actually a new poll was released by the new york times which even showed a strong bi-partisan support for reduction of military spending to reduce the deficit. The poll contained 3 other options; reduce medicare, reduce social security and no opinion. Overwhelmingly 55% of all people surveyed chose a reduction of military spending including 42% of republicans which made it the most popular method of spending reduction among republicans and all others in the survey.

Though seldom as popular among self ascribed libertarians today as previously, non-interventionist foreign policy is not just popular among the die-hard libertarians but looking more appealing to the broader right-wing, notably among economists/economically-minded people and fiscal conservatives. However that never seems to make the war hawks happy and as others have pointed out this support which extends to leftists and democrats never seems to change the stance of democratic administrations on war and military spending.


Anyway, I couldn't help but notice somebody had earlier claimed that the people the man in the van was picking up were dead. This is false they were quite clearly living and injured, I'm not a doctor but usually in instances of non-zombie humanoids movement = living. Any decent human being tries to help an injured person when they see them, particularly if there is no readily apparent danger (the shots came from a helicopter). It's completely despicable to say that if you saw someone on the street who was shot and crying for help that you would just speed away afraid for your life even if you saw no apparent danger in helping. What kind of person does that make you?

If you support the killing of innocent people for political aims, you support terrorists. Plain as that.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13828028 - 01/21/11 07:41 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Yep. It's getting to be time to slow that spending a bit. 

But this is utter bullshit
"If you support the killing of innocent people for political aims, you support terrorists. Plain as that."

To what does that refer?  What do you mean, precisely, by "political aims"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13828060 - 01/21/11 07:49 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13828554 - 01/21/11 09:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Obviously you don't know an ak-47 profile when you see one.





as I stated, provide photographic evidence

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13829263 - 01/21/11 11:36 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I did I used photographs to illustrate how the clip on AK-47s is turned out the opposite way from the alleged one in the photograph (which is actually possibly entirely straight). I really thought you would catch that and no further elaboration would be required. I pretty much all but said explicitly that and left it for you to connect the dots. Perhaps it would have helped if I posted the picture you posted along side the Kalashnikovs it would have been much clearer. Obviously I overestimated your powers of deduction. I'll simplify:

=/=
Because the part which is supposed to be the clip is tilted or banana-ed in the opposite direction as those of an actual Kalashnikov.

Even if he was holding the gun in some sort of odd backwards fashion (which is the furthest stretch I'm even willing to humor you for), the only models that have a flat and long enough mag also have long buts which don't fit the picture.

This is what you get when you get your info from FNC.

So you had no other comments about the things I posted in reply to you?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13830704 - 01/22/11 09:42 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

those arent photos of a tripod from the video

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13830739 - 01/22/11 09:54 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13830857 - 01/22/11 10:28 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.





Evidence?

There is NO evidence to my knowledge that he 'fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers'. That by all accounts was a neo-con lie.

Also, war should have nothing directly to do with law enforcement. It should have has to do with eradicating sworn enemies in order to protect citizens at home. Marines are not police, they are trained killers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13830959 - 01/22/11 10:52 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I can't see how anyone can say that these wars are 'just', in any way shape or form. They sacrifice American lives for NOTHING. If you want to kill the enemy, you have to take off the head and that target is Iran! You don't get into altruistic wars, nation building, long, drawn out expensive occupations......NO. You take out foreign enemies as quickly as possible with a minimum loss of American lives.



How is it not "just" to eliminate a regime that fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers or another regime that had failed to adhere to  the terms of its surrender after it invaded another country?  Either you enforce law or you have no law.





Evidence?

There is NO evidence to my knowledge that he 'fostered, nurtured and protected the 9/11 attackers'. That by all accounts was a neo-con lie.




That would be Afghanistan, and no, the neo-cons never said Saddam did that.  That is a leftist lie.
Quote:



Also, war should have nothing directly to do with law enforcement. It should have has to do with eradicating sworn enemies in order to protect citizens at home. Marines are not police, they are trained killers.




How sweetly quaint.  What do you think a cease fire agreement is?  Terms of surrender?  You don't want to call them "Laws"?  Fine.  You can call them whatever you want.  But without enforcement they are bullshit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13831532 - 01/22/11 01:12 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Well maybe they aren't because you asked for proof it wasn't an AK-47 in your post instead of asking for proof it was a tripod.
:urstupid:
Frankly the odds of finding the tripod on the internet if it is one are quite slim since most tripod photos you can find on an image search are quite new. If you can't be bothered to write more than one single line with enough clarity to express your questions to another human being, why the fuck should I be expected to look for a needle in a haystack?

It's not like you couldn't be looking for a gun that actually fits the profile to fit your lame ass claim.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (01/22/11 01:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 7 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13832674 - 01/22/11 05:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:



the people that were shot looked mostly dead, maybe that one survivor
looked a little cocky for a couple of minutes but large caliber rounds
changed that in a hurry... now maybe you cant tell what you're seeing
because you're unobservant, maybe I can because I was trained to look at
details. when this video was released people were claiming that the AKs
were tripods but I've never seen a combat photographer that used a
tripod, seems counter productive... I did on the other hand see an AK
sight profile and a banana magazine and what looked like the business
end of a Saab AT4, anti tank weapon





Sounds like a wedding.


--------------------
This space for rent

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFlop Johnson
Praise Skatballah
Male

Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 13,789
Loc: TX
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13832684 - 01/22/11 05:25 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That is one of my favorite videos.  A bunch of terrorist scum taken out. 

Bradley is gonna get 50 years.




they still can't establish a plausible connection b/w him and Assange :haha:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Flop Johnson]
    #13832961 - 01/22/11 06:19 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

That's why they subpoenaed his twitter and internet accounts.  Assange's that is.  They got Manning.  He's fucked.  And if they can establish a connection with Assange before Assange will be fucked too.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13833141 - 01/22/11 06:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/05/22 05:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13833178 - 01/22/11 06:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #13833211 - 01/22/11 07:06 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?




You?  Please find a quote from a neo-con that alleging that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.  I've been trying to get one of you guys to do that for several years now.  Bupkiss every time.
Quote:



As for religion having nothing to do with the wars, keep pretending that >90% who supported them aren't from the flat-earth religious right, & that right-wing preachers weren't talking about a religious imperative to go to war in Iraq.



Lots of people said lots of things.  In fact, you could probably find somebody who said just about anything.  Including people who said Bush and/or the Jews did it.  Or we can look at Fred Phelps, who said it was because we are too tolerant of fags.  So what?  I'm not responsible for their bullshit.  But you are responsible for yours.  Perhaps you could enlighten us on just what you think the reasons were.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833226 - 01/22/11 07:09 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).



Bush linked Saddam Hussein to terrorism because he was linked to terrorism.  9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack in history.  Not that year, not that month, possibly not even that day.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833263 - 01/22/11 07:16 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Actually Cheney explicitly made claims about the links between Iraq and Al Queda. I think we already brought this up at the beginning of the bush lie denial thread. There were members of the admin that had explicitly claimed the two were working together because at some point historically they had discussed having peaceful relations for about a month which was ended when hostilities between the two sides opened up again.

It doesn't really matter if you say that they did this or did that if you are deliberately cultivating that impression at every turn. It's just a mater of semantics. There is no denying that bush's addresses intended to link the two even if he may not have explicitly said so. This becomes especially disingenuous with information we now have that the evidence they had for a link made a stronger case against than for.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13833309 - 01/22/11 07:23 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Actually Cheney explicitly made claims about the links between Iraq and Al Queda. I think we already brought this up at the beginning of the bush lie denial thread. There were members of the admin that had explicitly claimed the two were working together because at some point historically they had discussed having peaceful relations for about a month which was ended when hostilities between the two sides opened up again.




So.  They did have contact and Cheney was correct.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:



It doesn't really matter if you say that they did this or did that if you are deliberately cultivating that impression at every turn. It's just a mater of semantics. There is no denying that bush's addresses intended to link the two even if he may not have explicitly said so. This becomes especially disingenuous with information we now have that the evidence they had for a link made a stronger case against than for.




This is pretty funny since the people who thought that certainly never actually heard it from Bush or any other official.  They heard it from the press.  The blatantly liberal press eager to spread lies about Bush.  See Frank Rich's entire career.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13833346 - 01/22/11 07:27 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:

the neo-cons never said Saddam did that. That is a leftist lie.




Lol, you clearly can't accept reality. 52% of those who re-elected Bush thought he helped plan 9-11. Where did they get that from?





Probably from all the rhetoric trying to link emotional convictions and animus against terrorists, arabs, and so forth, against Saddam.  Bush would discuss Saddam and the regime and mention "terror" and so forth, in the same speeches and statements where he was talking about 9/11 and Afghanistan.  He seemed to do everything possible to get people to emotionally understand Iraq and Afghanistan as a common fight against the 9/11 hijackers and their sponsoring regimes, except come outright and say it.

The reason all those people had that confusion though is because they're ignorant and were either manipulated or made assumptions.  Bush's linking of the two constantly for political ends wasn't cool, but the people who are voting for a candidate have a responsibility to do so on an informed basis, and it is there own fault if they don't.  The level of ignorance and stupidity in the 2004 election was just ridiculous on these points. 

I really wonder if the 24 hour news cycle that people seem to likek to blame for everything isn't somewhat responsible for that as well?  They need something to talk about, so they wax on about the same old crap with a tiny snippet of factual data and then get pundits and various 'experts' to make wild speculations and so forth.  I can see how someone without the ability to critically appraise information and who is perhaps a bit slow and lacks observation and thinking skills helpful in objectively analyzing the information they recieve could easily conflate the two wars due to the nature of the talk shows and news shows- the same vehicles disseminating bush's constant maneuvering to link the two wars with 9/11 (as everything seemed to be during that time).



Bush linked Saddam Hussein to terrorism because he was linked to terrorism.  9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack in history.  Not that year, not that month, possibly not even that day.




Yeah, no kidding, though Saddam's actions domestically which were often cited as terroist-style actions seem outside the typical bounds of terrorism- generally defined as perpetrated by non-state entities.

Either way, all that nonsense was to create justification for the war and bypassing the UN and not trying to resolve the inspection issues.

Even the most innocent of views still leaves you with Bush using emotional appeals to 9/11 and terrorism to argue for war- similar to how Giuliani used 9/11 to justify everything he ever did or proposed.

I happen to not view it so innocently, and think it was a calculated campaign to foster the emotional link between 9/11, al qaeida, Iraq, and link the Afghani war with the proposed action in Iraq.  Not that presidential speaches are ever worth a damn, but Bush's were especially targeted towards emotionalism rather than facts, and seemed to take every chance they could to create a link between 9/11 and 'terror' (which seemed synonymous with 9/11 as people seem to have had no knowledge of the embassy bombings, USS Cole, et cet and regarded 9/11 as the first serious terror attack against the US for some reason) and Iraq/Saddam.

I could respect Bush on that issue if he made an honest case, but he did everything but in the public discourse, and seemed to reduce the national debate to a game of poisoning the well and guilt by association.  Maybe its only because the issues were so critical, but I had a hard time swallowing the crap he was pushing out daily.  That people held those false beliefs and reelected him in 2004 on easily-discredited assumptions didn't speak to well for the country and the electorate, in my opinion.

bleh, I wonder if we'll ever get a president who will forgo emotionalism, fallacy, and crap like that, and just speak in plain rational and persuasive manners to people when advocating something or other?  Will we every be spoken to as adults with a brain?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13833391 - 01/22/11 07:33 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

The UN was not bypassed, dozens of other nations were involved and the American people never had a say.  Their duly elected representatives did which included most of the Democrats and I believe every single member of the Intelligence Committees of both branches of Congress.

What morons think was of no concern to anyone.  How you can simultaneously say he never said those things attributed to him by morons and liars and then blame him for speaking truthfully is ludicrous and, rather, nuts.  You have a narrative of Bush sucks in your head and that's all you see.  Sad. I expected more of you.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13835114 - 01/23/11 12:48 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Well maybe they aren't because you asked for proof it wasn't an AK-47 in your post instead of asking for proof it was a tripod.






http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13822142#13822142

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13835340 - 01/23/11 02:03 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I already told you why I'm not even looking for a picture for you. Now if your going to try spewing your FNC recycled nonsense back it up. I already proved to you that it was not an AK. You have no fucking idea what it is any more than I do. If it's an armed escort with a gun or a tripod, is not clear from the video. You've proved this by claiming it was the most common gun in Iraq even though it clearly isn't, can you even find a gun that matches that profile, never-mind one that does and is actually likely to be found in Iraq? I'm not your dog, I don't owe you shit to disprove your ridiculous right-wing nonsense conspiracy theories. So grow a pair and you actually prove they are weapons rather than making false claims on what they are (which I did prove were false).

Also I might add that the image that you claimed looks like the RPG looks a lot like a camera man holding his camera around the corner as is a common filming technique used to film action in active fire zones. If you watch it on the film, you can see it as he turns the corner. It's quite clearly barely half long enough to be the RPG that you are claiming it is and it actually appears to be thicker at the base where he is holding it than at the end, with a narrow point where perhaps a lens might begin. Very suspiciously like a camera.

You wana fucking spout this retarded nonsense? Go ahead, but don't fucking post blatantly inconsistent bullshit like that as proof and expect me to look through pages of Google images looking for a specific image of an old tripod, something which is a one in a million or more shot of actually turning up on search functions that would normally turn up pictures of tripods. That's bullshit, I don't have to, I already proved you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So if these inconsistencies in your story aren't proof enough that this FNC story you are parroting is a bunch of crap, what about the fact that Reuters actually prompted a military investigation into this incident because it's journalists were killed?

I mean fucking hell
:urreallydumb:
What a bunch of fucking nonsense.

If your reply is shorter than 2 paragraphs and doesn't have any photos of guns that do match those pictures don't bother posting it, because your just wasting my fucking time.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (01/23/11 02:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType] * 1
    #13835481 - 01/23/11 04:05 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

> I already proved to you that it was not an AK.

You didn't prove a damn thing.  As you say, "What a bunch of fucking nonsense."


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13835803 - 01/23/11 08:03 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Also I might add that the image that you claimed looks like the RPG looks a lot like a camera man holding his camera around the corner as is a common filming technique used to film action in active fire zones.




care to show us a picture of his camera looking like the anti tank weapon,
what happened to his tripod, as a combat photographer with a driver that
carries his tripod why wasnt he using it? he wasnt in a combat situation
so the tripod should have been in use... unless of course it wasnt a tripod
which you cant find a picture of either in the video or online

Quote:

If you watch it on the film, you can see it as he turns the corner.It's quite clearly barely half long enough to be the RPG that you are claiming it is and it actually appears to be thicker at the base where he is holding it than at the end,




can you show us that picture from the video? your description sounds very
unlike a telephoto lens because typically they're either consistent in
size throughout the length or they taper toward the base and are wider at
the objective lens, you're welcome to show us a lens that tapers toward the objective though

did these look like the lenses with the hood that looks like a Saab AT4





Quote:

You wana fucking spout this retarded nonsense? Go ahead, but don't fucking post blatantly inconsistent bullshit like that as proof and expect me to look through pages of Google images looking for a specific image of an old tripod,




I understand, you prefer to work on assupmtions and post crap and demand
you're right but you've yet to show anything that proves your case

really though, since the basic design of a tripod hasnt changed in a
hundred years, just how hard could it be to fine the one he used

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShr00m0fD00m
Ancient Astronaut
Male


Registered: 12/23/10
Posts: 521
Loc: The intergalactic, transd...
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Chespirito]
    #13836010 - 01/23/11 09:42 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Quote:

imachavel said:
with all the younger voters, people will just third party, since they always have some 'legalize cannabis' act included, of course obama did also, which is why I voted for him




I'm pretty sure that's not accurate




Yeah, Obama only eluded to decriminalization. He never said he'd actually do it.

But that's the brilliance behind it. You can get thousands of votes based on a false idea as long as you have corporate media backing you up to reinforce the idea into peoples' brains.

Ahhhh, Capitalistic Democracy in action.


USA, USA, USA!



But anyway, yeah, Bush and Obama's policies are virtually identical. Obviously there are some subtle differences, but the same fundamentally flawed idealistic bullshittery that causes the national debt to rise, senseless war to spread and the government to tighten it's bloody grip on your rights.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Shr00m0fD00m] * 1
    #13836099 - 01/23/11 10:11 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

He didn't even elude to it.

There was no reason to presume he would support lessening prohibition and so forth at the time of the election.  While in the past he had taken various positions (as is usual for Obama) he changed his stance and was pretty clearly a drug-warrier right up there with Biden.  They were pretty much the DEA's "Dream Team" ticket to quote somebody who I can't recall (might have been for Reason magazine).

Here's an amalgamation of prior posts I was going to make earlier but held off on due to length.  I'm posting it now as there seems to be some confusion.  Ches is absolutely right that Obama was always very pro-drug war during his presidential bid- the few points he actually made that were somewhat more nuanced were cloaked in the misleading, deceptive, double-speak that has come to define his campaign (i.e. discussing stopping the feds from raiding sick people for smoking medical marijuana, which wasn't happening anyways; discussing the possibility of some federal tolerance of medical marijuana legal by state law if its administered by doctors via prescription, which it isn't)


copy paste job:




This was one of the most ridiculous reasons people were voting for Obama.  It completely defied all logic: the man who has admitted recreational use of marijuana and cocaine, continues to not only fail to support legalizing cannabis" (as imachavel said) but actively promotes jailing people for this and other victimless crimes and using violent force to send people to 'reeducation camps', i.e. marijauna rehabilitation programs with jail waiting for those who resist.

It is amazing that people still believe this guy is at all equivocal on marijuana or victimless crimes.  (hell, he wants feds seizing you and your property if you don't buy health insurance of his liking- you think this is the kind of guy who would let it slide when kids are messing around with drugs like he has and centuries of people have before him?)


I really think its just proof that these campaign slogans and the overall tone of the ad campaign works in conveying messages without the need for the politician to actually say them and risk criticism.  (how else do you get people who think Obama was for ending the wars when he funded them every chance he had and didn't even try to change from the Bush administration's timetable in Iraq while increasing the commitment in Afghanistan?)


So, what does Obama think about people like our President who mess around with substances in the privacy of their own home while harming nobody?

We have many proven methods for reducing the demand for drugs  Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them  That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug  Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use  Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects, and legalization would only exacerbate these problems
          -White House National Drug Control Strategy 2010, pg 8
            http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf


Even the limited and contradictory statements he made during his campaign that expressed even the slightest change in treatment of victimless crimes such as marijuana use appear to be just bullshit, as Obama picked a drug czar to speak for him who has said: “Legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary, and it’s not in mine,” who cites the rising death toll in the Mexican drug war as evidence of prohibition's success (lol), and who expressly contradicts Obama's campaign pledges:

In a townhall meeting Obama said:

"The Justice Department going after sick individuals using this as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense."

- 7/21/07, NH

Now, once he gets into power, he handpicks a Drug Czar who explains the President's position as:


"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit"
- Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, 7/22/09
  http://reason.com/blog/2009/07/23/legalization-is-not-in-the-pre


I mean, that's just unequivocally false and totally ridiculous.  Either this guy is purposely lieing, or he really doesn't know what he's talking about and has confused the misleading bullshit policy statements that they put out with reality i.e.:  'marijuana is associated with schizophrenia', which of course is true just like its true to say wearing lipstick is associated with dieing of ovarian cancer but purposely deceptive and designed to convey a false meaning to those not familiar with the subject or statistics/science.  Not even those opposed to medical marijuana would say something as ridiculous as this, rather; they speak of balancing the harms and benefit and 'better options'.

Add to this clown the fact that Obama's DEA chief is another committed prohibitionist who further sticks his nose into the medical issue, preventing FDA approved studies of medical marijuana, but this guy actually overruled the Justice Dept's own ruling to allow limited medical marijuana research in the past (before Obama nominated him).


Obama didn't even pretend to support repealing prohibition or victimless crimes at any time during his campaign with the sole exception that I know of being his indecipherable and inconsistent allusions to stopping medical marijuana raids of state-legal operations and of patients who have prescriptions.  Of course this, then, revealed he didn't even know that marijuana isn't prescribed as it isn't FDA approved, and put forth the straw man argument that Bush was raiding patients for using marijuana, which he wasn't, and acting like his position is somehow different than McCain or Bush's on that point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: johnm214]
    #13836270 - 01/23/11 11:00 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry I haven't replied in awhile, seems like all relevent points have been stated.

No one could identify what was used in those videos, prisoner 1 if you aren't going to take the time to find the 39 minute video thenaybe you shouldn't reply. From what it looked like to me there was no confirmation that the small arms fire came from that direction. I guess it was war and everyone was paranoid. Any way there is a good chance that 40 civilians were shot that day needlessly. I wasn't there and glad I wasn't. I think I want to be done speaking of this. Hope this shit ends one day.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13836306 - 01/23/11 11:11 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
Sorry I haven't replied in awhile, seems like all relevent points have been stated.

No one could identify what was used in those videos, prisoner 1 if you aren't going to take the time to find the 39 minute video thenaybe you shouldn't reply. From what it looked like to me there was no confirmation that the small arms fire came from that direction. I guess it was war and everyone was paranoid. Any way there is a good chance that 40 civilians were shot that day needlessly. I wasn't there and glad I wasn't. I think I want to be done speaking of this. Hope this shit ends one day.



I saw the whole video.  Let's examine it.  A helicopter crew sees a group of men moving about the streets surreptitiously, carrying some long metal objects that don't look anything at all like any cameras I ever saw, and not trying to get inside in an area that is already involved in a firefight.  Helicopter crew blows them up.  Yay.

Fast forward a few months and some anti-American jackholes get hold of the tape and seize upon the nebulous quality of the video and somehow declare the whole group was a bunch of innocent little petunias out for a leisurely stroll just a few hundred yards from an active firefight.

You have to be either an idiot, an asshole or an enemy to accept the latter narrative as fact.  I don't think it's even possible and if it was accurate they deserved their Darwin Award.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13837115 - 01/23/11 02:20 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Now this may shock you as well, but camera men do not use their tripods in areas of active fire, the use them in cases when they are conducting interviews. When some live fire crosses their way they like to keep a little more mobile. I suppose being a person who watches international news including pieces from conflict zones much more frequently than you. I have seen this sort of thing much more often, but I don't think that it should be necessary to explain why the camera man trying to film a gunfight isn't using a tripod.

:crazy2:

Prisoner, the lens is not wider at the base. It's the camera. He's holding the entire thing around the corner, watch the video to see it clearly. The thing that is wide after the narrow end of a lenses is the body of the camera. :facepalm:

But if you want more:

Look at the end of this image, it's square. It's not round like the RPG you posted. It looks more like a lens with one of these on it.


Also, if it is an RPG he's doing it wrong. The technique that he is using of holding a camera around a corner works for video cameras because using them does not produce a knock-back. However for RPGs holding a camera like that would not work. Using an RPG like that would lead to an epic terrorist fail.

Here's the kicker though. At around 47 seconds into the video posted by the OP you can see the camera man points the camera at the helicopter. There is glare coming from the clearly circular lens of the camera. Go and check that out (:47). Unless your going to try to claim that they put a piece of glass on the end of the RPG to fool everyone, this proves it's a camera. (please don't, I don't think I could help myself I'd have to call you some sort of name)
:kingtard:

Hey check this out, this camera looks even more like the rocket launcher you put up than the one in the video. Not related to the discussion I'm just pointing it out.


I almost feel like my IQ is being dragged down by even participating in this conversation. Suffice it to say, prisoner that your title there is quite fitting. But if you really want to engage the point why don't you try addressing the fact that Reuters actually demanded to know what happened to their journalists in this instance? I mean if the news agency asking what happened to their reporters isn't proof enough, what is?

Also Seuss, can you not understand that the gun in the photo does not match those guns which he claimed it was. I made it pretty visually obvious, did I not explain the angle of the clip issue clearly enough to you guys? Do I need to use simpler language or is it just your world-view of the US military and right-wing media that covers for it is always right no mater what evidence is presented that is preventing you from seeing that the so called gun is clearly not an AK-47?

Like I said I don't know if those guys are an armed escort or if they are support staff. I did show clearly that the gun prisoner was calling an AK-47 wasn't and the so called rocket launcher was in fact a camera.

Edit: also the long and short versions that were released by wikileaks were on the http://www.collateralmurder.com/ website I posted earlier.

Edit2: Oh and on the Obama issue, the DEA raids on medical facilities were a big issue for people in California and could have been a big issue in states that followed a similar path in subsequent years. Not that I think his drug policy was adequately liberal at all, or that I recall him making any other promises related to marijuana.

Edited by ScavengerType (01/23/11 02:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13837251 - 01/23/11 02:48 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

You can tell that's square from a profile?  Are you not well?  Why is he hiding?  In a free fire zone?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: imachavel]
    #13837552 - 01/23/11 03:45 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
From what it looked like to me there was no confirmation that the small arms fire came from that direction.




no one is claiming otherwise, the claim is that small arms were present


if you want me to see the 39 minute video the post the link somewhere other
than in the title of a thread or PM, if it's in the body of that message it
wont be truncated and it'll be easily clicked

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13837600 - 01/23/11 03:57 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Prisoner, the lens is not wider at the base. It's the camera. He's holding the entire thing around the corner, watch the video to see it clearly. The thing that is wide after the narrow end of a lenses is the body of the camera. :facepalm:

But if you want more:

Look at the end of this image, it's square. It's not round like the RPG you posted. It looks more like a lens with one of these on it.







I see no similarity, especially since he was using a cannon and you cant
tell the shape of his supposed lense hood, certainl not when he's not
using a video camera, if he were, where's the microphone... why are you
comparing apples to oranges

anyway, where's the picture of the tripod with the 4 inch wide head actuator?

Quote:

Also, if it is an RPG he's doing it wrong




what ever do you mean

I see lots of things that could lead you to believe it's a camera


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13837768 - 01/23/11 04:29 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

> Also Seuss, can you not understand that the gun in the photo does not match those guns which he claimed it was.

To me, the guns are irrelevant.  Pretty much everybody that is anybody in Iraq owns a gun.  RPGs are a different matter.  They are used by terrorists, insurgents, and "evil doers" and are not common among other groups... certainly not among reporters and body guards.  It is quite clear that at least one RPG was found in the rubble after the attack.  Even Julian admits to this tidbit, though he tries to gloss it over.  But getting back to your gun issue... what does it matter if it was a .308, a .223, an ak47, a Chinese knock off, etc... armed men, with at least one RPG, lurking around a war zone shouldn't be surprised if they get attacked.  This is why war sucks.  People die.  It is pointless to point fingers and play the blame game.  As the debate here demonstrates, from the vantage of the helicopters, it appears that the men were armed terrorists.  Even if they were not, they appeared to be so from the distance that they were engaged.  Again, war sucks because people die from it and sometimes they are innocent.  If you want to vent, write Obama a letter letting him know how you feel about his escalating the war on terror rather than ending it as he promised in his campaign.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13837784 - 01/23/11 04:32 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I wasn't saying he was using that camera, just that the square lens hood or whatever it was you called it was clearly visible on the camera that he was holding. I didn't know that Reuters released information about the camera he was carrying. Is this what you are implying? I've seen no reference anywhere that the camera was a cannon and had no idea cannon made commercial quality video cameras.

Why don't you find a photo of someone holding an RPG like that. Nobody does, they all hold it like the person in your picture from your last post. The reason they don't do that is because it is real important to have a good aim and solid support of the weapon, particularly with walls near you. He clearly doesn't as he moves his camera from pointing across and down the street to just down the street in the video, right before looking up at the helicopter as it flew over the building revealing the glare on the lense at :47. All the while handling it suspiciously like a cameraman would. Damn these terrorists are clever!

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
I see lots of things that could lead you to believe it's a camera




At least you've finally admitted that one of your ridiculous claims seem like they look possibly wrong. That's at least something sane from you in this thread.
:congrats:

Why do you ignore the rest of my points like the one I had consistently been making in the thread that Reuters had pestered the US about the death of it's journalists in this instance to the point that they had to do an internal investigation? Which I may add you've been ignoring since it was initially brought up. Let me guess Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere didn't cover that angle of the incident? They just pointed at the pictures and said "thems there is gunz!!!1!" and you believed them without asking those sort of questions right?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Seuss]
    #13837808 - 01/23/11 04:35 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
It is quite clear that at least one RPG was found in the rubble after the attack.




source?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13837852 - 01/23/11 04:43 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Will you please explain to us all how the side view of a square is different from the side view of a circle.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13838208 - 01/23/11 05:50 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

> source?

Julian Assange:
Quote:

"it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons"

...

"based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG"




Along with the military report from Bravo Company which claims to have found "two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM" along with "two Canon EOS digital cameras with telephoto lenses" it would seem a pretty valid claim.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13839230 - 01/23/11 09:01 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
I wasn't saying he was using that camera, just that the square lens hood or whatever it was you called it was clearly visible on the camera that he was holding.




he was shooting with a canon SLR camera, can you show us a picture of a canon lens with a square hood?


Quote:

I didn't know that Reuters released information about the camera he was carrying. Is this what you are implying? I've seen no reference anywhere that the camera was a cannon and had no idea cannon made commercial quality video cameras.





he did still photography, wasnt a videographer

I see no square lens hood here
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html


Quote:

Why don't you find a photo of someone holding an RPG like that. Nobody does,




I'm still waiting on you to show us something conclusive about a real
oddball tripod and a strange lens hood on an SLR camera

Quote:

they all hold it like the person in your picture from your last post. The reason they don't do that is because it is real important to have a good aim and solid support of the weapon




no one said he was firing it from that position, it's not uncommon to take
cover and wait for a target, I guess you wouldnt know that since you're
desperately grasping at straws... which support is solid? I know one looks
like a crouching position that our anti tank weapon guy was in, he just
didnt get the chance to shoulder the weapon and take aim at a target, he
got his ass shot off








Quote:

particularly with walls near you. He clearly doesn't as he moves his camera from pointing across and down the street to just down the street in the video, right before looking up at the helicopter as it flew over the building revealing the glare on the lense at :47.




you mean the helicopter that was 2 miles away...

what's the proximity of the wall have to do with anything, it's not like his back was to a wall, he was poking his head around a corner

Quote:

All the while handling it suspiciously like a cameraman would. Damn these terrorists are clever!




or an insurgent







it's so very unlike an insurgent to squat to take a shot with a shoulder
fired rocket, they always stand straight and tall like in that picture I
posted, making themselves a larger target and providing a less steady
platform





Quote:

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
I see lots of things that could lead you to believe it's a camera




At least you've finally admitted that one of your ridiculous claims seem like they look possibly wrong. That's at least something sane from you in this thread.




lol

:congrats:

Quote:

Why do you ignore the rest of my points




why dont you simply post up a picture of Nadir with his camera that looks
like an RPG, post a picture of a tripod that looks like an AK


I bet no one would ever hold an RPG or other anti tank weapon like in that
picture, you know, pointing toward the ground, in close proximity to a wall

















Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13839302 - 01/23/11 09:15 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Well that should take care of this particular round of bullshit.  Note that I said "should".


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShr00m0fD00m
Ancient Astronaut
Male


Registered: 12/23/10
Posts: 521
Loc: The intergalactic, transd...
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13839340 - 01/23/11 09:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

No matter what the "insurgent" was holding, the senseless killing over there has to stop.

Can we not agree on that?

These people are joining terrorist cells because they see an outside force dominating their land and diluting their culture. They live every fucking day in a war torn country with just enough water and just enough food to survive. We fail to understand this most basic aspect of the War on Terror; these aren't all psychotic mass murderers, they're desperate people in a desperate situation.

Their religious leaders on the other hand, in the pockets of the western corporations and governments no less, stand the most to gain from open market bombings and IEDs going off every day because it pushes the population closer to fundamentalism, which in turn, provides said religious leaders with immense power, influence and plenty of concubines.

"Al Qaeda", as our government describes it, is spread of 90 countries. How long can we keep this charade going? Because, I'm telling you now, they're not just going to drop their weapons if they think they're fighting for God.

That applies to both sides......

We're fucked if this continues to spread.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13839343 - 01/23/11 09:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

it's ScavengerType you're talking about... in case you forgot

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13841066 - 01/24/11 08:42 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I know, I know. :weary sigh:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13842692 - 01/24/11 03:13 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Are you Kidding me? Your claim is that:

doesn't look like this

It's about 1 and a half length of the dudes forearm the same as the camera in the video (That RPG you posted is over an entire arms length, probibly 1 1/4). I can't believe you knew this was the camera used and still maintained your nonsense! I suppose it is partly my fault for not properly investigating the source claims or I could have snuffed this out earlier instead of engaging you in your speculative nonsense. I assumed video camera because I did not think that you could do the same technique with a photo-camera and the video specifies that it was a shoulder mounted camera. However clearly they meant it has a shoulder strap.

Also, you seem to have missed the point. Prisoner, yes people fire RPGs when crouched down, but they always do it holding them over their shoddier never holding it near the ground. The person in this video doesn't put the thing anywhere near his shoulder except until the part where he points it at the helicopter and you can see the glare on the lens.

=====
Seuss, I meant source for the allegation that an RPG was found. It is possible that it was an RPG that the guy in the back with the guy accused of holding an AK-47 (which it was definitely not, though it may have been a gun) was holding one. It also could have been some other equipment. However given the fact that this was a photojournalist and not a video-journalist I speculate that it was probibly a weapon like an RPG (the only equipment I can think of that would look like that is a microphone). Though it is possible it was a fully extended, but unopened tripod. Neither of these people were pointing their alleged weapons at anything and looked much like they were acting in an escort capacity. Are you saying that journalists should be made to walk around dangerous areas unprotected with cameras worth more than most civilian automobiles in the country, in a place where journalist kidnaps and killings are rampant? In a country where the US refuses to protect the citizens from extremists it is unreasonable to expect that everyone with arms is one.

I don't think that having a security detail with an RPG proves that these people are "up to no good" any more than most of the US ordinance proves the same thing. Given the fact that there are only two of them who are possibly armed, it is likely that an RPG would have been the only deterrent/effective counter to a kidnapping type scenario. These people have these alleged weapons mostly pointing at the ground (which is more than you can say for a lot of the american forces and contractors) and are not threatening or menacing anyone, they mostly seem to be watching the road that they are standing on at a distance from the camera man. Hell, as others have pointed out these could just be people in the neighborhood who came by to see what was going on with the nearby gunshots which the reporter was trying to photo about. Either way these people fired without any context as to what was going on.

Why is there no obligation on the part of the US to not fire on civilians or to even inquire if the person is an enemy or a civilian? This is the problem not just with this incident but is endemic to most all civilian deaths at the hands of US forces, which I may add are all too common.


It is also notable that the pilot lied to command in seeking permission to engage.
Quote:

Crazyhorse: "Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage."



There was clearly not 5-6 people holding alleged guns of any variety even if you include the camera in this video. At max 3. Only one even looked remotely like a gun. It is possible a more accurate description may not have prompted permission to engage. Was this intentional on the part of the helicopter crew? However, for some reason this lie did not elicit any response from the military when an investigation was done.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13842750 - 01/24/11 03:22 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

No it doesn't look like that and why are you only posting a picture that obscures most of the object?  Because there are a lot better screen shots you could have taken showing it to be quite a bit longer than that camera.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13843459 - 01/24/11 05:35 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Are you Kidding me?






are you kidding me, where's the picture of the camera lens with the
flared lens shade and the picture of the tripod with a head actuator
that looks like and AK-47 magazine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13844535 - 01/24/11 08:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

go stare at some pixelated war photos and come up with some other wack-job conspiracy theories. Maybe you'll find them.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13849811 - 01/25/11 07:01 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I'm not claiming an AK to be a tripod with a super wide actuator arm on the
head or claiming that a canon lens has a square lens shade... you've provided
nothing at all to support your opinion, I've provided facts with photos

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrazyshroomhead
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/11
Posts: 7
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13850558 - 01/25/11 08:49 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Any country or state that harbors and trains terrorists should be indiscriminately bombed!!! What's fucking sick is how the terrorist state that trained some of the hijackers is protected by pussy liberals. Come on fellow hawks, you know the the place Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah received their flight training: Florida. That fucking place should be wiped off the face of the earth for training terrorists, to think otherwise is un American.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #13850605 - 01/25/11 08:55 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I never said it was, I said it could have been, though I'm 100% that this:

is the same camera from this:

It looks the same. You were the one who claimed that it was a particular type of RPG. After looking at those pics, are you still maintaining that?

You will note that I did not just talk to you I also responded to Seuss on the hypothetical possibility that these men in the back were armed and what that implies for the incident. You haven't participated in any of that part of the conversation or the one related to how the dude with the camera was obviously a journalist because his death was investigated by the news company he worked for.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,122
Loc: Boston
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13850965 - 01/25/11 09:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Wow, arguing over a fucking shadow is seriously lame guys. Just to let you know.....

:lame:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrazyshroomhead
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/11
Posts: 7
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: RationalEgo]
    #13851735 - 01/26/11 12:22 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Wow, arguing over a fucking shadow is seriously lame guys. Just to let you know.....

:lame:




Apparently some people are scared of shadows and that's why they want to bomb the shit out of reporters, good Samaritans and children. Very logical behavior for a groundhog.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShr00m0fD00m
Ancient Astronaut
Male


Registered: 12/23/10
Posts: 521
Loc: The intergalactic, transd...
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: crazyshroomhead]
    #13852360 - 01/26/11 06:21 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Don't forget coke.

Bush spent money on LOTS of coke.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: this is what bush spent money on [Re: ScavengerType]
    #13871118 - 01/29/11 01:40 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
I never said it was, I said it could have been, though I'm 100% that this:

is the same camera from this:

It looks the same. You were the one who claimed that it was a particular type of RPG. After looking at those pics, are you still maintaining that?

You will note that I did not just talk to you I also responded to Seuss on the hypothetical possibility that these men in the back were armed and what that implies for the incident. You haven't participated in any of that part of the conversation or the one related to how the dude with the camera was obviously a journalist because his death was investigated by the news company he worked for.



From Sunday's NY Times:

Quote:

WikiLeaks biggest coup to that point was the release, last April, of video footage taken from one of two U.S. helicopters involved in firing down on a crowd and a building in Baghdad in 2007, killing at least 18 people.  While some of the people in the video were armed, others gave no indication of menace; two were in fact journalists for the news agency Reuters.  The video, with its soundtrack of callous banter, was horrifying to watch and was an embarrassment to the U.S. military.  But in its zeal to make the video a work of anti-war propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn't call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric "Collateral Murder."




There are several parts of this I find objectionable:
1.  "Crowd"?  Really?  A bunch of guys sneaking around with weapons isn't what I consider a crowd.  More like a "Patrol".  Don't forget there was a military unit nearby that was under fire already.
2.  "Callous banter".  Fuck you Keller, did you expect somber funeral rites for the enemy, you slug?
3.  It was most certainly not "horrifying" to watch a helicopter crew kill the enemy.  In fact, it was uplifting and inspiring.
4.  The military has nothing to be "embarrassed" for regarding this.

But those are mere quibbles that serve to establish the fact that the writer of this piece is a liberal faggot wimp who has zero understanding of the exigencies of warfare.  Now to the facts as revealed in this piece.

1.  There were several armed members of the group.
2.  At least one of the armed members was "toting" an RPG.
3.  Assange released an edited version to support a false narrative.
4.  That Assange is, in fact, a propagandist.

Hopefully this will put to rest forever this idiotic camera, unarmed innocent schmucks meme.  If you chose to travel with an armed enemy patrol you have zero expectation of any safety beyond which your escorts can provide for themselves.  Which, for Iraqi insurgents  with guns, isn't much.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush, Israel and "Insurgents" Swami 493 6 04/15/04 02:24 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* Is George W. Bush insane? ekomstop 1,799 12 09/24/04 10:17 AM
by Learyfan
* Bush's World Edame 358 0 10/27/03 01:08 PM
by Edame
* Bush to ask UN to help support postwar Iraq...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
RonoS 8,264 136 09/26/03 01:38 PM
by silversoul7
* Another 4 years, destruction and economic loss fft2 1,062 7 08/25/04 03:10 AM
by fft2
* "May God keep Bush and Allawi" st0nedphucker 647 2 07/01/04 09:55 AM
by GernBlanston
* Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues Phred 1,777 18 10/04/04 05:30 AM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* Weapons of Minimum Destruction Ravus 886 6 08/23/04 01:55 PM
by retread

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,467 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.059 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.