For all you Bush Supporters out there

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
That could happen hitler dressed his own people up like the polish army and had them attack his troops for the excuse to move in . But the world won't stand by idle. The troops by the border scare me to. Don't you find it strange we have some 1 million people in the armed forces or more. Yet 130 thousand are over in Iraq and they are calling up the national gaurd where are the other 800,000?

the aim of all this is to possibly get at the ultimate enemy...the U.S.S.R, who has many a time objected to the U.S'es movements.
think the U.S is trying to smother the U.S.S.R in an ultimate defeat program.
the other 800,000??? they have a million???

omg, we are well and truly f-u-c-k-e-d if that is the case..(we ie: the ukraine, the U.S.S.R, and post soviet countries):bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::shk:

Originally posted by earthtone
Great finds Ocelot. Reading about Patriot II is especially worrying... after another few 9/11 style attacks, under a President like Bush, could America become a police state? 9/11 was allowed to happen so that the ball could get rolling: WAR FOR OIL! TAKING AWAY PEOPLES FREEDOMS! STRIKING FEAR AND PATRIOTISM INTO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ( the ignorant ones) Everyone needs to wake up and see that Bush is helping to severely # our world up. Ignore the media and understand what is happening! Bush is not helping anyone.

Finally. Someone who actually read the articles before criticizing or posting. I agree with you earthtone. People need to stop getting their brains washed by fox news and start using some common sense.

You really need to expand your horizons a bit beyond "whatreallyhappened.com", and "fromthewilderness.com". While I know these are two sites that really present the viewpoint you want to get across, the proble with them is that they are 100% fabrication! If you want people to listen to you, to have a shot at making them believe what you are slinging, you have to have one thing....credibility...these sites lend you none, they simply make you look foolish for posting them in the first place.

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
You really need to expand your horizons a bit beyond "whatreallyhappened.com", and "fromthewilderness.com". While I know these are two sites that really present the viewpoint you want to get across, the proble with them is that they are 100% fabrication! If you want people to listen to you, to have a shot at making them believe what you are slinging, you have to have one thing....credibility...these sites lend you none, they simply make you look foolish for posting them in the first place.

"fabrication"? OK you throw around words like fabrication without even bothering to point out what is "fabricted" about the info I posted. I bet a million that you didnt bother even reading the articles much less checking out the information contained within them for yourself. Do me a favor next time you wish to reply to a topic at least read the information before posting. Because if you dont read the info... I really dont care what you have to say about it in the first place.

I took the time to read all those articles, and id have to agree with affirmitive reactions opinion....those arcticles are very tenuious at best...i started to take notes to nit pick them apart, but it became to much work to point out every point where the speculative conclusions these articles drew. There are really no "facts" to speak of, mostly a LOT of conclusions that COULD be interpreted in that fashion, but with no "somking guns", other conclusions could also be reached including that these conclusions are CRAP.
a few points:

article#1
MOAB's are not nukes

talks about bush's motives but thats an assumption drawn by trying to link quasi related things.

bush's acts "bear the hallmarks of revelations" whos interpretation of scripture are we using now?

uses unnamed journalistic sources to prop up the "vatican/Pope's" point of view. I think they can speak for themselves thru more legitimate means. why use an unnamed source?

article#2
the big conclusion of this article was that wealthy influential families/people have long histories of interaction...and that these type of families stand to have a lot to gain/loose in matters of state and international business....
DUH!!!! tell me something i didnt already know!! both bush jr and osama werent even around when their families were gaining influence and wealth/power...
my only gripe is that im never gonna be at the level to get to be that involved.

the drug trade article...
again duh!!! of course the drug trade and underworld influence things, and of course our government has to play in that environment, otherwise their at more of a disadvantage from an intelligence/covert ops standpoint.
im not suprised that governments play both in the open and with the underworld youd have to in order to not be blindsided like we were with middle eastern intelligence. (no interpreters, no entrenched operatives ect

the fake terror
while this was the best written piece...and it draws reasonable paralells...there is still no evidence that any of the examples are related to one another, except that they have similarities. and yes the idea of creating an "enemy" for the masses is a long known tactic....sometimes theenemey is really the one you see too.

PS, im not nessisarily voting for bush, however, i can definatly see where those articles were written from a decidedly and thinly veiled, anti bush point of view.
As a professional journalist, none of those articles would have ever passed by any editors i know in main stream media...not only because of their total slant, but more so for their overall LACK of credibility.
But hey, this is a conspiracy web site eh? so these articles seem to be in the right place.

PS, im not nessisarily voting for bush, however, i can definatly see where those articles were written from a decidedly and thinly veiled, anti bush point of view.
As a professional journalist, none of those articles would have ever passed by any editors i know in main stream media...not only because of their total slant, but more so for their overall LACK of credibility.
But hey, this is a conspiracy web site eh? so these articles seem to be in the right place.