It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Global Poll: Planet More Dangerous With Bush Re-Election

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
NO, i never said they HAD to be destroyed, mearly that they were.
In similar fashions, a changing world, where a more "advanced" culture and mind set was overwhelming a "lesser" culture thru many forms both physically and ideoligically, both native Americans and fundamentalist Islamisists are suffering from a cultural squeeze brought on by the "demands" of the worlds predominant cultural ideologies and needs.


You are right to put "advanced" in parentheses. Because IMO there were highly advanced Native American cultures who were eradicated by Europeans that were hungry for land and riches.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by TheBandit795]




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Just a reminder:

Being "anti-Bush" is not being "anti-American." Most people are smart enough to see the difference between a person and a nation. ...Whatever the Bush propaganda tries to say.



You got to love it. This phrase is always used by the neocons as an effort to slice our throats. I beg to differ, we are the ones who love and respect our country and do not want to see it overun by the Nazis.
You cant get more patriotic than that.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I beg to differ, we are the ones who love and respect our country and do not want to see it overun by the Nazis.
You cant get more patriotic than that.


Excuse me. I beg to differ. It is the liberals of this nation who would embrace the Nazis (e.g., the ACLU for one) to take over it while the consevatives are out to conserve our liberties!

Back to the topic!

I would welcome the world's hatred for us! Let them come out of the woodwork like a bunch of cockroaches they are and meet their demise!

There are also many within this country that would love to see this country fall! Lucky for us, Kerry and his supporters didn't win!

As for the world, there are also many out there that love this country and what it stands for.

May the Lord continue to bless them also!

To everyone else: shut up, leave us alone or face destruction!

In other words, give us your hearts and minds or we'll burn your damned huts down!


[edit on 20/1/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Excuse me. I beg to differ. It is the liberals of this nation who would embrace the Nazis (e.g., the ACLU for one) to take over it while the consevatives are out to conserve our liberties!



IMO, it's the conservative agenda that allows the exchange of populace fear for further restrictions on our liberties. Their morals, although for the most part right on with good intention, I have consistently found to be narrow-minded(LA amendment against homo-sexual marriage), ignorant(Intelligent Design?!?), and frankly, not my own!
!

As for the nazis, the liberal nagging at the inconsistency and inadequecy of their program would be more than enough to doom them!!



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
You got to love it. This phrase is always used by the neocons as an effort to slice our throats. I beg to differ, we are the ones who love and respect our country and do not want to see it overun by the Nazis.
You cant get more patriotic than that.


No, no, no.....anyone that votes their conscience rather than the lesser of an evil is patriotic. Those that follow party lines for the sake of it can move to Canada or California or Beirut, whichever is worse.
Just kiddin, I love y'all.

The phrase "neo-con" is always being used to describe anyone that doesn't agree with a conservative. Some of the least Republican Presidents of America were quite fascist. If someone where to say that Bush were a shapeshifting Reptilian that feasted on the blood of babies the person that disagrees would be called a flippin' Neo-Con. Even if a Republican were a Ron Paul styled conservative they're called a Neo-Con. The "Republican" lable is evil - no matter what. Even though most of the higher leadership of the Democratic party holds for the most part fascist "Neo Con" ideals, and vote as such, only the Bush administration is Neo Conservative.

How many sovereign nations did the previous administration bomb for no real good reason? Ya, let's just forget about that.

The freakin two-party system is going to destroy the country before any "Neo Con" (or Massachusettes liberal) will.

PS - What Really is a Neo-Con?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a bush re-election because you think he's a loose cannon?

Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a bush re-election because the Bush Doctrine advocates actions over inaction?

Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a Bush re-election because true enemies of America might think they must act up and cause strife?

Do you think the world is more dangerous because your countries are not seemingly willing to take a stand and put yourselves to the task of dealing with despotism, and radical ideologies?

Do you think the world is more dangerous with a Bush re-election because is affirms that America is a superpower and you feel threatend by this stature as this seemingly lessens your stature?

What exactly is it that you feel makes the world more dangerous with a Bush re-election?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
How about the danger of an impoverished United States, which is a real threat to the economy of the caribbean islands of which I'm from.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a bush re-election because you think he's a loose cannon?

Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a bush re-election because the Bush Doctrine advocates actions over inaction?

Do you feel the world is more dangerous with a Bush re-election because true enemies of America might think they must act up and cause strife?

Do you think the world is more dangerous because your countries are not seemingly willing to take a stand and put yourselves to the task of dealing with despotism, and radical ideologies?

Do you think the world is more dangerous with a Bush re-election because is affirms that America is a superpower and you feel threatend by this stature as this seemingly lessens your stature?

What exactly is it that you feel makes the world more dangerous with a Bush re-election?


Do you think the world is more dangerous because BushCo used 9/11 to pursue an agenda of lies, deceptions and exaggerated threats of WMD in Iraq and used that excuse to invade a sovereign nation, predominantly Muslim, and once there oust Saddam Hussein, thereby infuriating the majority of the Muslim world who saw it as an attack on Islam, and increasing the membership base world wide of fundamentalist Islamic groups?

That would be a yes.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
As a member of the mainstream media you so quickly condem,
I dont see no stinkin psyops/gov officials around here!!!
Have you ever really got to sit in a major newsroom, where EVERYTHING is questioned? where producers drool at the chance to bring down "the man"....ANY man?

I agree with much of what you have to say, but I find your assessment somewhat myopic on the topic of Information Warfare.

To paraphrase your argument: “I don't see any elephants around here, so obviously they don't exist.”

Speaking from a news-merchant's perspective, you must know that although you get to select what news gets reported and point the all-too-important “media spotlight” on it, that doesn't mean you make this stuff up -- unless you're unethical, which I will assume is not the case for the sake of argument.

Thus, everything you report comes from somewhere else.

I advise against making assumptions about your sources. Just because Joe Schmuckatello is the guy you interviewed for a piece doesn't mean he is the original source of whatever he told you. In practice, very few people used as sources by commercial media are the actual originators of the information.

The fact that few people in commercial media even realize that Information Warfare exists is one of the reasons the battle is going so well.

Once journalists discover how extensively they are manipulated – and not just by the U.S. Government, but by other governments, private corporations and political organizations – Information Warfare specialists will have to become more resourceful with their methods.

Essentially, what you are saying by pooh-poohing my claim about psyops is that you are not only unaware of their very real existence, but that you are a soldier in an ongoing war and you don't even know it.

I find that highly ironic – particularly for someone whose business is information.

Cynics But Not Skeptics


Originally posted by CazMedia
Where cynicism runs fast and deep and no one is safe from being probed?

I'm familiar with the mentality, and consider it indispensable to good journalism. However, it is not universal, nor is this attitude supreme even in the minds of its most ardent proponents.

Stories editors don't like get spiked all the time, and this is by no means kept a secret. How about sitting on a Bin Laden video for fear of its possible “political effects”?

Gimme a break.

The Definition Of “Hubris”


Originally posted by CazMedia
If there was a spook around here, someone from this diverse and often conflicting opinionated newsroom would have sniffed them out by now.

The fashionable word floating around among the talking heads for this these days is “hubris”, I believe. Pot, meet kettle.

And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily condemn “mainstream media”. I am skeptical of it. There's a difference.

I strongly recommend that you read the links I included in this post. You may find them edifying (check out Public Diplomacy while you're at it) – and perhaps the beginning of a new phase of your career.

But whatever direction your career may take, I advise against projecting the idea that you and your colleagues are somehow infallible in matters of information as you appear to do in this particular case.

You are not omniscient. You can be fooled, and there are a lot more people than you could ever imagine who spend their time and devote an incredible amount of resources to doing precisely that.

I recommend making their jobs as difficult as possible if you would seek to do yours better.

Through the manipulation of media, billions of people are being controlled. That's not conspiracy theory or paranoia, it's a simple fact whether you choose to believe it or not.

Your call, my opinion.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Well it sure looks like the US thouroughly nailed down the phillipines when it invaded in 1890 something. All nessesary consent was manufactured successfully then it seems ;p

Mission successfull!

As for the rest of the figures.. they are not surprising. People are starting to hae enough of the distain with with the US treats the international community and they are saying it.

The biggest allies in the war on terror (uK, italy, spains old guy befroe the bombings) were all praised by america for their great leadership etc. while they were BLATANLTY IGNORING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION!

Well we all know what democracy means to Washington when you get statements like (about hugo chaves in venezuela) "Getting a majority of the votes does't make your government legitimate".



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
AlwaysLearning seeks an education here,
Quote:
Do you think the world is more dangerous because BushCo used 9/11(oh you mean the wake up call to action?) to pursue an agenda of lies (Sadam was a good guy?), deceptions (which deceptions, where?) and exaggerated threats of WMD (poor/faulty intelligence, despite threats to make and use WMD) in Iraq and used that excuse to invade a sovereign nation,(As UN sacntions and the cease fire were violated by Sadam, we technically were STILL at war) predominantly Muslim, and once there oust Saddam Hussein (a good thing), thereby infuriating the majority of the Muslim world(sadam was NOT a religious leader of Islam) who saw it as an attack on Islam (they can see it like they want, but weve said many times we're not there because of warring on Islam), and increasing the membership base world wide of fundamentalist Islamic groups? (How many were there before the war, how many are there now These FANTASY #'s would be a guess at best...like NONE have been deterred because they dont want to face the USA forces?)

Now aside from some of the questionable things in your question, my answer would be....only slightly for the reasons you stated.
Your reasons hold NOONE from Osama on down for the radical islamist extremist movement or their ESCALATION of rhetoric and attacks against western style targets over the past 25 years for ANYTHING?

Making and carrying out threats against the west by these groups was going on LONG before Bush got here, so no, his re-election only makes the world slightly more dangerous because the danger has been STALKING US for a long time. Bush mearly increases the probabillity that some danger will occur as he is only responding to the pile of threats that you would hold noone accountable for.

Majic,
i get what your saying, agreeing that "we get our info somewhere" implying questioning the source credibillity. Certantly lots of info from the FEDs and the Millitary IS censored...heck lots of info is censured from the local COPS i deal with (they cant risk blowing cases by allowing all info out before prosecutors can make the case)

Ill certantly agree that psyops can and are going on, including feeding info (true or not) to/thru the media. But this is not for lack of trying on the media's part or from willing compliance with said scheme.
What you call an "information warefare specialist" i call a Public Relations Professional...LMAO! Or mabey "lobbyist".

Majic says,


Through the manipulation of media, billions of people are being controlled. That's not conspiracy theory or paranoia, it's a simple fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
Why do you think I got into this career to start with? Of course i believe it....soo many couch potato minds, soo willing to be manipulated...how could i pass that kind of power up?


Majic advises,


I recommend making their jobs as difficult as possible if you would seek to do yours better.

I live this creedo everyday, which is probably why im not getting too far ahead...
See my thread CBS MEMOGATE: what can we learn
for more of my media take, you'll like it i think.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

While the media isnt infallible of omniciant....we arent the lapdogs of anyone, and if we can verify the dirt on anyone, we'll spread it out for all to see!




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join