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.

 

Why would you vote for a "relative" of Saddam Hussein? [HOAX]

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon


I agree with you on this. This is a good thread for the jokes forum.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Jesus, I am at a loss. You know I would really have to debate if I would choose sadam over either hilary, let alone obama. Both Hilary and Sadam, are frigging evil, plain and damn simple. Obama seriously makes me ill, he is more like a rock star then a politician, change we can believe in, WTF ever.

Jedi, dude seriously, you should probably stay away from politics and stick to seeing if you can send a hot dog back in time in a microwave, or whatever in the fark it was you were doing. They make meds to help people with "issues" you may want to talk to your doctor about writing you a script, um k!



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
He's a muslim, and a direct ancestor to the Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein.


This is what you said. Obviously Barack Obama is no an ancestor of Saddam Hussein- clearly you stated that backwards.

But Hussein cannot be a "direct ancestor" (meaning that he is a father or grandfather etc) because your paternal grandpa can't possibly be younger than younger than your father.

Last but not least, Saddam Hussein's family name is not Hussein. Allow me to explain Arab naming conventions to you (which, incidentally, are not ISLAMIC, but Arabic, meaning that while the names sound similar throughout the Muslim world, the construction of the full chain of names is not.

Saddam's given name, or ism, is Saddam.

Saddam's father's name, or nasab, is Hussein abd al-Majid

Saddam's nisba tells where he is from- Tikrit.

His name, essentially, is Saddam, Son of Hussein abd al-Majid, From Tikrit.

To trace Saddam's ancestors you would look at the abd al-Majids and Tikritis, not the the Husseins.

Also of note:
en.wikipedia.org...

Muslims also do not, in general name a child the full and exact name of the parent or the full exact name of a relative, deceased or living. Nor do they give the child the first name of a parent or living relative. Both are considered a form of ancestral worship forbidden by the Qu’ran. As a rule one will rarely, if ever find a “senior,” “junior,” designation in Muslim nomenclature or a designation of "I." "II," "III," etc.
It is often seen as a sign of a non religous Muslim parent, who names a child the exact name, in the exact order as the parent. This can be seen in the naming of Senator Barrack Hussein Obama. Until the death of his father Senator Obama carried the designation of "Jr." This is a rare, to almost nonexistent, occurrence in the Muslim culture and further suggests that the father was not only non-religious, as has been asserted, but also very westernized adopting a very western nomenclature of naming his son after him.


Obama, on he other hand, has a somewhat westernized name form now, in that he is a junior, and if you wanted to trace his family, you would trace the Obamas.


Hussein is Obama's middle name, and the first name of Saddam's father.

My middle name is Ryan. Does that make me family to Ryan Seacrest or Nolan Ryan?



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Thanks Vagabond, that was a very informative and educational post. It will also provide background when discussing the topic of Obama supposedly being muslim.Once again, very nice.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
its quite obvious what's going on here.

Jedi Miller = Jedi Clinton Miller, a direct relative of Hilary!



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Holy crap you figured it out, it just has to be, he has the same middle name.

Vagabond, I would check into the whole nolan ryan thing, he is a relative, has to be, so you are loaded. Not only loaded but as with Obama being the same murderous bastard as Sadam was, you should be able to go out and throw a 90 mile an hour fast ball, and a wicked curve ball. We all know when you are related to someone, because they have the same middle name as your last name, you do everythign like they did. Sadam killed people, so Obama has the same capacity, that is what you do when you are related to someone, you posses the same skills they do.

(Personal attack removed) I am just trying to get an idea of the logic of some of your threads, or lack there of.

Mod note: Please disagree without being disagreeable.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 






Alias "Windy" Miller..Same dress sense and suspiciously not unlike witchunting attire... also closely related to muppets

[edit on 3-3-2008 by AGENT_T]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I truly believe Barack Hussein Obama has been chosen to lead the next Great Jihad against America.

No major attacks on American soil since 9/11/01. We can't give credit to George Walker Bush for that.

Only a genuis like Barack Hussein Obama could be behind this.

Think about it Barack Hussein Obama wants to immediately pull out of Iraq.

Why would any logical leader want this to happen?

I'll tell you...he wants his Muslim buddies to gain great strength in this region, regroup, and terrorize America like we have never seen before. That's why.

Save America, vote Hillary for the Democrat Party nominee!



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I'm really disappointed in this site. You hear a lot of people say "deny ignorance" and this and that, but it seems that more and more ignorant people are flooding this place with uneducated narrow-minded idiocy. I use to actually think this place was different because of the people. Now I am proven that I was completely wrong.

Very very disappointing. Yea, I'm sure Obama is going to bring in the next jihad to america (excuse me while I roll my eyes for about twenty years). That type of thinking is what is hurting people rather than helping them. Some of you forget that. Some people should take their head out of the sand and look around at what is going on around them. Just because someone has a funny name and the fact that you do not under stand them, doesn't automatically mean that they're out to get you. Jesus.

[Snip]

-Droops

[edit on 3-3-2008 by DrOOpieS]



 

[Mod Edit: Edited for Civility & Decorum. - Jak]

[edit on 4/3/08 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Level with me RR, are you saying that because you know that Hillary would serve to mobilize the Republican base and in any other year would be completely unelectable, or do you believe that Obama is a Muslim who intends to act as an "inside man"?

Now, I happen to agree that Obama's success is in some degree a symptom of a problem in America (given the relatively shallow nature of his appeal to many of the groups he is winning with), even though he is the candidate I favor most in this election (from either party). But this stuff about him being dangerous is a little much.

A large minority of the senate (including plenty of elderly white people, for the benefit of those who believe in profiling) would have to be working for Al Qaida too if the simplest explanation for a Democrat wanting to end the war was that he was a Muslim terrorist.

Beyond that- getting elected president wouldn't help him undermine America. Do you know why? Because the president can do essentially squat without the cooperation of the legislature and the cabinet. In fact, the cabinet can declare him incompetent and remove him from power. So not only would Obama have to be a Muslim, but there would have to be a dozen plus other al qaida operatives who had been in this country for decades building resumes that could get them through a senate confirmation, all while avoiding any dealings that would raise a red flag in said confirmation.

A president can certainly hurt America, but he needs the support of quite a few carefully screened people to do so, and that puts a certain minimum standard of quality on our leadership- the kind of stupidity that creates moderate-sized problems in the long term can get through (as most of us know all too well at this point) as can popular forms of corruption, but the kind of malice that would bring America down in one fell stroke- no way. Hypothetically, we could do an Executive Swap with Russia for a year and the only harm done would be that it would compromise secrets which are only relevant to wars that will probably never happen anyway (Russia, on the other hand, would be screwed with G-dub at the helm- they don't have quite the same kind of checks on the executive).

Last but certainly not least, suppose that Barack Obama is a Muslim and will do everything he can to get American troops killed and to compromise America's strategic interests. Let's grant that, for the sake of argument.
Then it would be just like the Bush administration- just at a lower cost to the taxpayers!



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I'm just not voting for anyone!
I never have, never will!
I don't trust anyone in the government!
(enough said)



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

I'll tell you...he wants his Muslim buddies to gain great strength in this region, regroup, and terrorize America like we have never seen before. That's why.

Save America, vote Hillary for the Democrat Party nominee!



RR I applaud you. That's my exact theory, just didn't want to say it. this guy is a working muslim out to take the US from within. If we make this guy a president we are in poodo! It's like giving power to saddam Hussein but in american and surely but slowly, his terror will strike us. I'm with you 100%.



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Well in my personal opinion rules are made to be broken free the prisoners!

Obama and Hillary can both graciously embrace one another in unity.

The Future

Sit back and enjoy the ride, it only gets better



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 



Then it would be just like the Bush administration- just at a lower cost to the taxpayers!


The only thing funnier than that, was the OP...




Semper







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join