It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why does George Bush look demonic/evil but Bin Laden nice/peaceful?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:26 PM
Have any of you noticed that George W Bush's facial features look totally demonic, evil, sociopathic, and fake? There's nothing genuine, authentic or down to earth in his personality or expression at all. He doesn't even look serious, more like a total joke and insult. And if you look at his facial features carefully, you will notice that they look a lot like that of a demon or gargoyle. Ever notice that? Nothing in him looks good or honest at all. His face looks like that of a devious vulture with demonic features (see images below).

Not only does he look like an obvious sociopath and con-man, even at first glance, but he cannot even act. When he talks, he looks like a bad actor who is trying to act but can't. Even his father, George Bush senior, looks more authentic and down-to-earth than he does.

No one would even buy a used car from someone like that, let alone elect him to be President of the United States! WTF?! That is so bizarre beyond comprehension. I mean, the guy looks sooo evil! Bush would not even succeed as a used car salesman. Nothing about him looks credible or authentic at all. Yet he's elected President of the US? Is that the biggest joke in the world or what?!

Why is it that when a President is much beloved, like Lincoln or Kennedy, they get assassinated. But when everyone hates a fake stooge President, like Bush, who is universally hated, he never gets assassinated? Isn't that so upside down? Shouldn't the collective will of the people have saved Kennedy or taken out Bush, according to the "thoughts create reality" principle of the Law of Attraction?

What's ironic is that if you look at images of Osama Bin Laden, he doesn't even look evil or violent at all. His face looks peaceful and calm, like he could be a spiritual or holy man. Compared to Bush, he looks far more natural and authentic. (see images below)

Is that odd or what? Were we told the truth about who the good guy and bad guy was? Why does Bush's face look evil, fake and inauthentic while Bin Laden's face looks calm, peaceful and authentic? Is that the ultimate irony or what? lol

Also, any of you notice how evil and sociopathic Dick Cheney's face looked too? Who would respect anyone who looked like that? (see images below)

Below are images of Bush. Doesn't his smile and expression look so authentic and genuine? (sarcastic)

Below are images of Bin Laden. Notice that he does not look evil or violent, nor does he look fake like Bush. Rather, he looks peaceful, calm, natural and authentic (at least compared to Bush) like he could be a spiritual or holy man.

Dick Cheney's face looks overtly evil, mean and nasty. These images of his face speak volumes. Does this look like a man that you'd trust? lol

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:28 PM
Sorry I disagree.
You are applying your perception of something so that makes it your reality.
Personally if I had no idea who either person was it would be easy to say they are just pictures people without either looking anything but average.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:32 PM
Social conditioning, perception, and what have you.

To the "good" guys, bad guys are evil.

To the "bad" guys, good guys are evil.

Up is down and down is up.

There is really no right answers.

Unless you want there to be.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:34 PM
Doesnt Cheney have a fake heart or something like that.. I dont think the dude can die.. SORCERY

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by Eurofile007

What's your point?

Every time I look at a picture of Mr. Obama, I see a liar. Do you really feel that's because of the way he looks?

See ya,

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by Eurofile007

they are both two sides of a coin.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:00 PM
Judging books by their covers and all that stuff.

It's a bad habit.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:03 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Eurofile007

I dont agree with your statement at all. George Bush doesn't look demonic if anything he looks like a lost puppy. That's basically all he really was, he was a patsy for the powers behind him.

Bin Laden might have dressed as a peasant but he had the look of evil in his eyes. Have you ever actually known anyone who was evil to the core? The only place evil shows itself outward is in the eyes, look at Ted Bundy. Handsome fella but there was something lacking in his eyes, they seemed void of emotion. Charles Manson, same thing void of emotion.

I think George Bush didn't know how to be the strong leader we needed but I dont think he was evil at all.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:15 PM
Bush doesn't come off to me as a person who is horny
The only ones who have to be afraid of Cheney are lawyers. Bin Laden looks peaceful because he took out his stress on a bunch of people in New York.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:18 PM
I don't think Bush looks "evil."
He does look like a total dip$h!t though.

exhibit A

Maybe... as an experiment, we should blend the two.

exhibit B

Well? Whaddaya think?

Yeah, he still looks like he rolled a couple dice to get his IQ.

Maybe you're injecting your personal views of each man into their images. I know that's what influences my opinion on GWB's appearance.

Now THIS @$$hole, on the other hand. I don't think I've ever seen a more evil looking human being, and I have no opinion on the man at all.

edit on 9-2-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:23 PM
I'm always weary of photo 'poses' because that means they are trying to 'look' a certain way.

Also, someone's predisposition towards someone affects their judgment and similarly tells other a lot about that someone and their 'ideals'.

And to paraphrase the oft mentioned cliché: don't judge a book by the cover.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:41 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:53 PM
Wow, talk about trying to revive the "It's Bush's Fault" syndrome.
Times must be getting even tougher than originally expected.

Bush is not evil.
I remember years ago when some crazy lunatic shot up a Bible study being attended by teenagers at a church in Fort Worh. Bush was then Governor at the time and quietly drove from Austin to attend the service.
... But of course the media never reported on it.

Like the other poster stated, it's all social conditioning by the media, to brain wash the weak minded with a entirely false narrative about certain individuals on one side of the political fence, while serving up FREE spiked KoolAid that only seems to affect low information voters.

So to answer the question, Why does George Bush look demonic/evil but Bin Laden nice/peaceful?
The same reason why certain people actually believe Obama is their God and saviour.

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by Eurofile007

the mind can make you see what you want?

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:26 PM
Well, I don't think the original post contains any errors in it's effort to convey a message but I do believe it will be difficult for a majority to grasp what most likely you meant here OP.

If I understand correctly, I would word it this way: The media is a known psychological conditioning program, essentially. The most known, even among non-conspiracy theorists, are biased point of view spins on facts meant to make nonsensical conclusions from factual information. These spins on things often lead the viewer into a desired conclusion from that information which on thier own with common sense and logic the viewer would have avoided. But one of the other mediums that media can use in a psychological effect other than language and printed word are actual images. An image that supports the spin on facts along with the article pushing the spin of facts will be more effective than just the article itself.

One of the things i've noticed is that the media is more often than not very consistent in supporting this tactic on photographs. If you go back to photos of Charles Manson, you can see the archetypical Manson photos are the ones with him WIDE EYED staring off, as if in a manic state of mind. Charles Manson to me was the introduction to the population of the "wildly insane, who can kill out of insanity not logic". If you go to Jared Loughner photos, the man who attempted to kill Gabrielle Giffords, you will see the photos choosen by media to represent him also contain this WIDE EYE expression. I have even heard of claims that there are evidence of digital photo manipulation but that isn't my expertise - what I can say though is that photo manipulation usually wouldn't be needed. I would garantee that 90 percent of ALL people probably have a photo somewhere from some point in their life where just by chance they were posing in such a way or for some odd reason had their eyes open larger than needed.
What I propose is that the agenda is to promote an 'archetype' of the 'crazy killer'. This archetype is reinforced through repetitive murderers, all of which have diagnosed 'mental illness' or are under 'psychiatric care'.. And finally this archetype is given a face: The WIDE EYED manic look. Take James Holmes, the photos choosen for him were also wide eyed, as well as I have also heard claims that they were manipulated - which again I cannot verify, nor does it realistically matter. He also is connected to psychiatric care. And finally Adam Lanza, the most widely used photo with him being WIDE EYED as well as him being under psychiatric influence.

Now, I know that is alot just to respond here but I think it's neccessary because I think I see what the original post is saying. I believe the original post is well aware that realistically people are born into and grow into their bodies, regardless of what they are like on the inside. I think we all are mature enough to realize unattractive people can have great personalities, people who look evil can be good and vice verse.. Etc.

I would consider the original post's content with the idea that it's not neccessarily Bush who is evil because he 'looks' evil, but rather there is a media agenda to push photos of him that unneccessarily make him look evil.

Bush has a characteristically hooked nose for example. In the right angle of photo and him making the right face a photographer can accentuate this hook in his nose. Generally a hooked nose will be devious looking.
Generally a large soft looking and round nose will be somewhat less devious looking, maybe those two comments on noses are correct or not.

Either way, just wanted to add my two cents here. I consider the original post worth thinknig about. hmmm,thanks OP very thought provoking.

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:29 AM
You make one post about GW Bush looking evil, and one shot Colin Powell looking equally as evil both within minutes of each other.

Agenda much?

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:52 AM

That is because George W.Bush IS a sociopath.
He also happens to be a born-again Christian. The media will not portray a born-again Christian as evil. And Christians will not realize a "born-again" Christian has the potential to be evil. They are oblivious to born-again Christian leaders who start wars and shed blood.... on a scale that would put hardcore Islamic terrorists to shame.

Bush and Christianity have killed more people than terrorists and Islam. And the best part is that he did it while coming across as the "good guy".

I have seen Christians posting on news websites mocking the deaths of Iraqis and Afghan civilians by dismissing them as "potential terrorists" etc. I have never seen Christians display even an ounce of remorse for the deaths of muslim civilians caused by American action.

I have also witnessed Christians claim regular muslims are wicked because they don't protest the deeds of muslim terrorists. But where are the christians protesting the deaths and maiming of muslim civilians caused by American bombs and bullets? Christianity only has the outward appearance of being "nice". But we all know the evil that is contained within.

Christianity is the embodiment of "wolf in sheeps clothing".

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I have also witnessed Christians claim regular muslims are wicked because they don't protest the deeds of muslim terrorists.

I wonder why I feel that I have just "witnessed" a Muslim claim that "regular" Christians are wicked "because they don't protest the deeds of" radical Christians. Though you may not be a Muslim, you strike me as being a hypocrite because: YOU ARE JUST AS FULL OF HATE, as you claim Christians are.

Get a grip!

See ya,
edit on 10-2-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:55 AM

Why does George Bush look demonic/evil but Bin Laden nice/peaceful?,

Charles Manson looked like a peaceful guy .. doesn't mean that he was.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Bush and Christianity have killed more people than terrorists and Islam.

Got any accurate statistics to back that up with? Nope. Didn't think so.

Christianity is the embodiment of "wolf in sheeps clothing".

Says the Muslim dude who refuses to acknowledge that the 'religion of peace' isn't so peaceful ...

Tears of Islam - Number of deaths of non-muslims killed by political jihad
And then there are the women who suffer from the misogyny every day in Islam.
Two of the latest examples -
Famous Egyptian Preacher - Raping Women in Tahrir Square is Justified
Famous Saudi Preacher Gets Away with Torture, Rape and Murder of 5 Year Old Girl.
I could easily dig up a few threads on the perils of being a woman living in Iran ...

edit on 2/10/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed link

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in