Bush = Hitler!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
This is why Deano is the most intelligent poster I have ever come across before on these boards because unlike so many non intellectuals here such as you Ghost,he is capable of thinking for himself and is not afraid of the truth like people such as yourself are.

If you haven't noticed, Deano doesn't speak for himself. He copy and pastes articles from conspiracey sights. The quotes you post "by Deano" are not his words at all. He just posts the words of others. He has no voice of his own.

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

bush is just as bad as hitler. they both have kill many people. its simple.

Originally posted by Marcus4600
What the hell are you talking about? If you took the Venom thing as offensive, I'm sorry, but there's no need to act like a wimp about it. Just say not to post it. Also, I know my history, and what I was doing was poking fun at propaganda.

What the hell are you talking about? Recognize a joke when that's all it is.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If you haven't noticed, Deano doesn't speak for himself. He copy and pastes articles from conspiracey sights. The quotes you post "by Deano" are not his words at all. He just posts the words of others. He has no voice of his own.

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

yes I knew that want his own words that he just copied and pasted it.He probably doesnt bother to say where he got the source or who said it because he probably has the same experience with people such as yourself that I do who are too frightened to hear the truth.I just pointed out to ghost that you can go to infowars.com and click on the bottom left hand side the prior knowledge section and you can see for yourself there those are taken directly from major media newspapers such as the miami herald swith proof that the government had prior knowledge it would happen,that bush knew all about it,showing documentation of BUSH threatening FBI agents with arrest if they try and stop the attacks. 🙄

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
What the hell are you talking about? Recognize a joke when that's all it is.

Hey captain,dont waste your time with Marcus anymore.He's gotten his long over due permanent ban. 😄

LOL lets be gentle with the phrase "the truth" because if you think you have a monopoly on it you could be mistaken.

here look at protestwarrior.com for another view from the other side of the radical folks🙂

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yes I knew that want his own words that he just copied and pasted it.He probably doesnt bother to say where he got the source or who said it because he probably has the same experience with people such as yourself that I do who are too frightened to hear the truth.I just pointed out to ghost that you can go to infowars.com and click on the bottom left hand side the prior knowledge section and you can see for yourself there those are taken directly from major media newspapers such as the miami herald swith proof that the government had prior knowledge it would happen,that bush knew all about it,showing documentation of BUSH threatening FBI agents with arrest if they try and stop the attacks. 🙄

First of all, I keep hearing from you that I can't make my own opinions and I just use other people's evidence...thats got to be as far from the truth as you can go. If I was the one who based all my opinions off of your propaganda I wouldn't be supporting the minority opinion of Bush in America, I would have taken the easy way, read one of your stupid articles and said "yep, Bush was responsible for 9/11." ---I still cant get over how you support this childish idea about Bush and 9/11 because of some stupid site on the internet and a newspaper article from Florida. I can stand people who think Bush isnt the best president if they at least have good support for their opinions but this is just retarded , to say the least.

***********************************************

You say Im too frightened to hear the truth. Maybe I am just smart enough to seperate fact from fiction. The story is so pathetic I cant beleive it was even made. i just watched the preview for "Martial Law" and I have been laughing about it for the past hour. It is so ****ing phony- it reminds me of the moon hoax argument. You ARE retarded if you can listen to something like that and beleive it. It says how we are all being held in slavery and that martial law is going to 'shake the west' and some crap like that. I looked at countless other things concerning the topic of 9/11, Bush, and Iraq and I couldnt stand how stupid some of it was. Like, think realistically, do you honestly think Donald Rumsfeld really sold Saddam WMDs just to prove he had them? How can you trust ANYTHING on a site like this? Its probably run by terrrorists!

This whole arguement is bulls**t and some day when you grow up you should figure that out and learn to use LOGIC when making conclusions about things.

I forgot to ask one last question Parker: What would Bush gain from being responsible for 9/11? I encourage a well-supported, reasonable answer; if you can't do that then I suggest a trip back to the fifth grade.

snooze

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I forgot to ask one last question Parker: What would Bush gain from being responsible for 9/11? I encourage a well-supported, reasonable answer; if you can't do that then I suggest a trip back to the fifth grade.

lol fired up there 😉

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I forgot to ask one last question Parker: What would Bush gain from being responsible for 9/11? I encourage a well-supported, reasonable answer; if you can't do that then I suggest a trip back to the fifth grade.

Now that's even obvious for the most ignorant person, a strong backup of the citizens (got him the second term) and the possibhility to go to war (twice).

Bush is trying to Americanize the world just like Hitler tried to Germanize it.

Yes there are similarities but Bush is definitely not as bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now that's even obvious for the most ignorant person, a strong backup of the citizens (got him the second term) and the possibhility to go to war (twice).

Or maybe the ignorant people are the ones that think like that.

1)Considering our country was UNDER ATTACK, I'd say thats reason enough to go to war. And dont forget about Afghanistan. Did you see crowds of people in America protesting the war in Afghanistan? I didnt. What would have happened if we lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and not Iraq? Would people have gone against THAT war too, because there was an undeniable reason for the attack against Al-Queda and sadly I think people would care more about the lives lost than the people they died to protect, no matter who they may be.

2)When recently has going to war won a president a second term? Do you think Bush was expecting his polls to rise becuase we took over Afghanistan? If anything, they fell, though not very much for the first war.

3) As incredibly "evil" and self-centered as some people think Bush is, war is rarely an option that is sought out except with good reason and no other options. Considering what other people might have done if they had been president during this time, I dont think Bush did a bad job at all.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Or maybe the ignorant people are the ones that think like that.

1)Considering our country was UNDER ATTACK, I'd say thats reason enough to go to war. And dont forget about Afghanistan. Did you see crowds of people in America protesting the war in Afghanistan? I didnt. What would have happened if we lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and not Iraq? Would people have gone against THAT war too, because there was an undeniable reason for the attack against Al-Queda and sadly I think people would care more about the lives lost than the people they died to protect, no matter who they may be.

2)When recently has going to war won a president a second term? Do you think Bush was expecting his polls to rise becuase we took over Afghanistan? If anything, they fell, though not very much for the first war.

3) As incredibly "evil" and self-centered as some people think Bush is, war is rarely an option that is sought out except with good reason and no other options. Considering what other people might have done if they had been president during this time, I dont think Bush did a bad job at all.

a) That's not what I was claiming though, I didn'T say that his actions were wrong I said he got something out of it. And he undoubtedly did.

b)Well, how could it have bee worse than what he did?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Or maybe the ignorant people are the ones that think like that.

Nothing ignorant about it, though I don't support Deano or spiderboy's views, it is quite reasonable to see that by inciting conflct Busg would solidify is position. Rulers have been doing that through history.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
1)Considering our country was UNDER ATTACK, I'd say thats reason enough to go to war. And dont forget about Afghanistan. Did you see crowds of people in America protesting the war in Afghanistan? I didnt. What would have happened if we lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and not Iraq? Would people have gone against THAT war too, because there was an undeniable reason for the attack against Al-Queda and sadly I think people would care more about the lives lost than the people they died to protect, no matter who they may be.

What's your point here? Iraq did not attack the states, neither did Afghanistan. It was Al Queda.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
2)When recently has going to war won a president a second term? Do you think Bush was expecting his polls to rise becuase we took over Afghanistan? If anything, they fell, though not very much for the first war.

See my first post, and you did not take over Afghanistan.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
3) As incredibly "evil" and self-centered as some people think Bush is, war is rarely an option that is sought out except with good reason and no other options. Considering what other people might have done if they had been president during this time, I dont think Bush did a bad job at all.

Bush did want a war, and he got a war.

"What's your point here? Iraq did not attack the states, neither did Afghanistan. It was Al Queda."
--Al Queda basically controlled and based itself in Afghanistan with the Taliban. No duh they are our enemy.
--While Iraq did not attack us directly, it was probable that they had the chance to. Saddam's regime harbored, armed, and directly dealt with over three major terror groups including AL-queda. So they were dealing with the enemy which is bad enough during war. Not to mention Saddam was a political lunatic whose authority brought about the deaths of over 20,000 people or more in his OWN country. Maybe not a threat to America but thats a threat to the world at large.

"See my first post, and you did not take over Afghanistan."
---First of all, what do you mean by YOU did not take over Afghanistan? The U.S. did, not me, obviously. I dont know what your point is.

"Bush did want a war, and he got a war."

In what public announcement did he say he wanted a war? If Sept. 11 had never happened there never would have BEEN a war, and Iraq would have been obsolete.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Al Queda basically controlled and based itself in Afghanistan with the Taliban. No duh they are our enemy.

The Taliban was not responsible for the actions of Al Queda. The Taliban were attacked because they harbored Al Queda and the Coalition forces had to go through the Taliban to get to Al Queda.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
While Iraq did not attack us directly, it was probable that they had the chance to.

What the hell kind of logic is that? "it was probable that they had the chance to". Read that over and try and see how ridiculous that sounds. If you were going to attack a country based on a percieved threat, Iran or Korea would be who you would attack before Iraq. They possess a greater military threat than Iraq did. Iraq was NO threat to the US. They were not nuclear capable nor was there any ambition to start a conflict with a country that Sadam knew would kick his ass.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Saddam's regime harbored, armed, and directly dealt with over three major terror groups including AL-queda. So they were dealing with the enemy which is bad enough during war. Not to mention Saddam was a political lunatic whose authority brought about the deaths of over 20,000 people or more in his OWN country. Maybe not a threat to America but thats a threat to the world at large.

Saddam was a threat to the countries around him and his own people, but not the rest of the world. He was actually a stabilizing force in the region due to his stand against fundamentalist Islamic ideals. I would love to see the evidence that you have regarding his support of one terrorist group nevermind three. Because although terrorists did reside in Iraq, I have not seen any credible source link Saddam to known terrorist movements or anything at all to do with 9/11.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
First of all, what do you mean by YOU did not take over Afghanistan? The U.S. did, not me, obviously. I dont know what your point is.

Actually, the British and Canadians were in Afghanistan before any americans got there. It was also a coalitioin of forces not just the U.S. And Afghanistan was not taken over by the U.S.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
In what public announcement did he say he wanted a war?

Well if he didn't say it in public, then it must not have happened, even though multiple sources including american generals and british intelligence said that Bush actually said that he wanted to get into Iraq.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
If Sept. 11 had never happened there never would have BEEN a war, and Iraq would have been obsolete.

Once again. There is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. None, zip, zero, nada, goose egg.

"The Taliban was not responsible for the actions of Al Queda. The Taliban were attacked because they harbored Al Queda and the Coalition forces had to go through the Taliban to get to Al Queda."
---Uh, yeh they were. They supported and defied US orders to hand over Bin Laden and the terrorists and actually THREATENED to fight us if we went into their country to take out AL-Queda so I dont know where you are coming from. Its not like the Taliban were such great people themselves...

" What the hell kind of logic is that? "it was probable that they had the chance to". Read that over and try and see how ridiculous that sounds. If you were going to attack a country based on a percieved threat, Iran or Korea would be who you would attack before Iraq. They possess a greater military threat than Iraq did. Iraq was NO threat to the US. They were not nuclear capable nor was there any ambition to start a conflict with a country that Sadam knew would kick his ass."
--As i said they supported terrorists like the Taliban did before 9/11. They were asking to get their asses handed to them. And Saddam was crazy and hated us, what if, just before he was about to die, he cooked up a little gas bomb or two for major american cities? Just for a last laugh. Its been done before, more than once.

"Saddam was a threat to the countries around him and his own people, but not the rest of the world. He was actually a stabilizing force in the region due to his stand against fundamentalist Islamic ideals. I would love to see the evidence that you have regarding his support of one terrorist group nevermind three. Because although terrorists did reside in Iraq, I have not seen any credible source link Saddam to known terrorist movements or anything at all to do with 9/11."

------Saddam was by no means a "stabilizing force" in the middle east. he was just as radical as any other extremist leader. He invaded Kuwait, evidence enough to show he had more he wanted than just power in Iraq. Saddam was ruled by his own power and money, and that is just as bad if not worse than being against fundamental muslim beleifs.
Evidence of terror groups in Iraq? Here are some links to follow. I will only post one for each for now but if u want you can go find some more yourself.

AL-Queda:Al-Queada

Mujahadeen

PKK
--there are acutally a lot more than this but these are major ones.

"Actually, the British and Canadians were in Afghanistan before any americans got there. It was also a coalitioin of forces not just the U.S. And Afghanistan was not taken over by the U.S."

---Thats what I meant. And Canada doesnt really count. 🙂

"Well if he didn't say it in public, then it must not have happened, even though multiple sources including american generals and british intelligence said that Bush actually said that he wanted to get into Iraq."

---And an equal number could say otherwise. Why do we always go for the bad news over the good?

"Once again. There is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. None, zip, zero, nada, goose egg."

No duh. I already stated that was not the reason we attacked Iraq. Iraq harbored terrorists though so it is not beyond reason to think that those terrorists could have been in Iraq at one point.

OMG LOL!!! thats the best picture i have seen in a while!!!!! usaflagthanks for the laugh