Moonbat... Guffaw.....what a fucking chump you are. As always.
Remember...they hate us for our freedom. Your Butt Boy Bush says so.
Remember...they hate us for our freedom. Your Butt Boy Bush says so.
A new low in Iraq (Warning Unsightly Picture)
- Thread starter Mvic
- Start date
You have a good point here.
I advocate changing one's mind about the world because the world represents what is going on in one's mind.
It does not seem so because the power of the mind has been obscured...and seems no longer accessible.
But when you access it, you realize that you've tuned your perceptive sight to see and hear about these kinds of things.
It seems that the world came first, and you were born into it, and must see and hear what it offers.
Not so.
You see exactly what you came to see and hear.
It remains then, a matter of changing the channel.
You will see what you want to see.
In this case, you see only the past.
This means you must be seeing a recording of sorts...a trick of memory.
Again, you need to fathom the power of mind to be able to grasp these principles.
Baghdad does not exist but in the memory of a mind that has tuned to these scenes.
The question then becomes, why are you tuning to it?
The reason is relative to erroneous feelings of guilt that are so intense that a whole world of "bad guys" is made up to shift blame away from you onto them by comparison.
This is to say that it is always necessary that there be bad guys for others to appear relatively innocent.
I'm talking about deep psychosis here that you would not understand until you start to respect the power of your God-given mind.
The goal is personal innocence at the expense of others.
The bad guys look more guilty when they attack the more obviously innocent.
This serves the purpose of the observers.
The reporters dish it out for American consumption because it makes Americans feel good to be so innocent by comparison.
The way to turn the channel is to look squarely at the concept of guilt, and see it for what it is...nothing.
It is imperative that guilt neither be accepted personally, nor projected upon what seems to be outside you.
There is nothing in this world that is outside your mind.
When you blame anyone or anything out there, you are still blaming yourself...and the message is sent right back to your deep subconscious merely to be recycled in another form later.
The world reflects the thoughts in the mind that is seeing it. It sees it because it wants to see it.
If you want to see another world, decide that this is not what you want to see anymore.
By accessing the loving thoughts that still abide at deeper levels of your powerful mind, you will literally look upon a world where love is reflected.
Because these loving thoughts do still exist in your mind, it is only a matter of desiring to see by them.
The world they reveal to you I call the "real world".
However, it is still a world of symbols seen through perception.
But by seeing loves reflection ubiquitously, you will be led to return to the natural home of the mind, where it abides with spirit.
Spirit is the realm of knowledge, not perception. When perception is dismissed as no longer wanted, you will return to knowledge.
And you will know that you are Heaven...the Kingdom of God.
This is your home and your natural state.
Meanwhile, you are Heaven looking at a hell that is long gone.
Jesus
Bush is more evil than Hitler, Butt Boy Bush, ask Bush, etc., etc. Like a broken record. So pathetic....you can't even address the subject of this thread in a rational manner without blaming Bush.
Clearly, everything that is wrong with the world you believe to be Bush's fault. As with most moonbats, this probably spills over into your personal life, too.
Yep, spoken like a true moonbat.
best economy in 40 yrs.......lowest interest rates in 40 yrs.....lowest unemployment in 40 yrs.......highest black home ownership in history.......Texas executing more and more....gas prices not bad at all..........Why do ragheads they raise their butts to Allah instead of their hands to the real God as Christians do?
Since you brought up what in your imagination might be my personal life....allow me to do the same.
You're a cop. HDPS or HPD. You damn sure ain't a trader.
You're a cop. HDPS or HPD. You damn sure ain't a trader.
Actually, who knows or cares where you work/worked.
You are over 50 yrs old and may in fact be over retirement age. But one thing is for sure you're/were most definitely a cop. Speak, think and post like a fascist....oh yeah you're a cop alright.
Definitely NOT a trader...that's for fucking damn sure.
You are over 50 yrs old and may in fact be over retirement age. But one thing is for sure you're/were most definitely a cop. Speak, think and post like a fascist....oh yeah you're a cop alright.
Definitely NOT a trader...that's for fucking damn sure.
Yup a new low from these animals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://communities.canada.com/natio.../22/charles-adler-who-let-the-humans-out.aspx
Charles Adler:
Warning: Some of the content of the this post is graphic and may offend some readers.
While everyone on the planet knows Michael Vick, how many of you can honestly tell me you have ever heard of Paul Cortez? He is a U.S. soldier who was the central figure of a court martial. We have learned that Sgt. Paul Cortez broke down in tears in a Kentucky military court room as he testified that he and others planned the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, murdered along with her family. The twenty-four-year-old pleaded guilty to raping the girl and killing her and her family in an Iraqi village just a short drive from Baghdad in March of last year. He testified to pouring kerosene on the girl's body and lighting her on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime. He and his fellow soldiers planned the attack over liquor and a game of cards.
Now some quotes from the testimony that you have never heard about until now.
"While we were playing cards Barker and Green started talking about having sex with an Iraqi female.
"Barker and Green had already known what, um, house they wanted to go to ... knew only one male was in the house, and knew it would be an easy target."
As reported by Reuters, once at the house, Cortez's colleague in arms took the girl's mother, father and little sister into a bedroom, Cortez said, while he and another soldier took the teenager to the living room.
"She kept squirming and trying to keep her legs closed and saying stuff in Arabic." Just in case anyone cares, the girl's name
was Abeer Qassim al-Janabi.
And now back to the testimony from Private Cortez. "During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom. After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead," Cortez said.
"Green then placed himself between Abeer's legs to rape her," Cortez said, sniffing audibly. When Green was finished, he "stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times." The entire crime took about five minutes to carry out, he added.
Cortez said the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped. He said she screamed and cried throughout the assault.
Want proof that Paul Cortez will never become a household name like Michael Vick? This court martial took place six months ago. It never got front-page headlines or lead story spots on t.v. or news
radio or talk radio or morning FM radio.
But why should that surprise anybody? After all Sgt. Cortez and his
buds never raped or tortured or killed a family of dogs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://communities.canada.com/natio.../22/charles-adler-who-let-the-humans-out.aspx
Charles Adler:
Warning: Some of the content of the this post is graphic and may offend some readers.
While everyone on the planet knows Michael Vick, how many of you can honestly tell me you have ever heard of Paul Cortez? He is a U.S. soldier who was the central figure of a court martial. We have learned that Sgt. Paul Cortez broke down in tears in a Kentucky military court room as he testified that he and others planned the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, murdered along with her family. The twenty-four-year-old pleaded guilty to raping the girl and killing her and her family in an Iraqi village just a short drive from Baghdad in March of last year. He testified to pouring kerosene on the girl's body and lighting her on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime. He and his fellow soldiers planned the attack over liquor and a game of cards.
Now some quotes from the testimony that you have never heard about until now.
"While we were playing cards Barker and Green started talking about having sex with an Iraqi female.
"Barker and Green had already known what, um, house they wanted to go to ... knew only one male was in the house, and knew it would be an easy target."
As reported by Reuters, once at the house, Cortez's colleague in arms took the girl's mother, father and little sister into a bedroom, Cortez said, while he and another soldier took the teenager to the living room.
"She kept squirming and trying to keep her legs closed and saying stuff in Arabic." Just in case anyone cares, the girl's name
was Abeer Qassim al-Janabi.
And now back to the testimony from Private Cortez. "During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom. After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead," Cortez said.
"Green then placed himself between Abeer's legs to rape her," Cortez said, sniffing audibly. When Green was finished, he "stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times." The entire crime took about five minutes to carry out, he added.
Cortez said the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped. He said she screamed and cried throughout the assault.
Want proof that Paul Cortez will never become a household name like Michael Vick? This court martial took place six months ago. It never got front-page headlines or lead story spots on t.v. or news
radio or talk radio or morning FM radio.
But why should that surprise anybody? After all Sgt. Cortez and his
buds never raped or tortured or killed a family of dogs
Apparently you do, given the rest of your post. ROFLMAO!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! You're so off-base it's hilarious!
LOL! Not even close. Have never been a cop or aspired to be one, although I do respect them very much. Wrong again, Einstein.
Given your emotional outburst, I think it's fair to ask - do you have something against cops?
I speak, think, and post like a fascist on the basis, obviously, that I do not share your moonbat philosophies. Too bad, so sad.
Cops are fascists you say - now there's a sweeping statement! What a knucklehead you are. What happened to you, Doc? Did some cop kick your ass once because you were DUI or something? C'mon, fess up why you have this rage against cops.
Uh, given that you are wrong on ALL counts, it is obvious that you have the instincts and intellect of a retarded child. Therefore it is you that shouldn't be a trader, because your powers of deduction are worse than lousy, they're abominable.
Typical moonbat - wrong on all counts and so predictable.
The Troops Donât Defend Our Freedoms
by Jacob G. Hornberger
How often do we hear the claim that American troops âdefend our freedomsâ? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. Itâs even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isnât so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite â the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Letâs examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and âpacifyâ the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and âpacifyâ a country as large and well-armed as the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
2. Terrorists
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us from âthe terrorists,â it is the troops themselves â or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out â that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following â when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didnât know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old âofficial enemyâ was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been Americaâs âallyâ that had âliberatedâ Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence?
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. âWe can be a big help in the war on drugs,â the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican border. âWeâll help American businesses compete in the world.â âWeâll readjust NATOâs mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.â âWeâll protect us from an unsafe world.â
Then along came the Pentagonâs old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave Americaâs standing army a new raison dâêtre. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraqâs water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated â spreading deadly infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were âworth it.â Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal âno-fly zonesâ over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis â that is, people whose worst âcrimeâ was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
All that death and destruction â both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 â have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces today.
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president â that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for its âfreedom and values.â
If the American people had dismantled the nationâs standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a âwar on terrorismâ for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target â the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then again in 2001.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
How often do we hear the claim that American troops âdefend our freedomsâ? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. Itâs even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isnât so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite â the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Letâs examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and âpacifyâ the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and âpacifyâ a country as large and well-armed as the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
2. Terrorists
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us from âthe terrorists,â it is the troops themselves â or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out â that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following â when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didnât know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old âofficial enemyâ was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been Americaâs âallyâ that had âliberatedâ Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence?
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. âWe can be a big help in the war on drugs,â the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican border. âWeâll help American businesses compete in the world.â âWeâll readjust NATOâs mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.â âWeâll protect us from an unsafe world.â
Then along came the Pentagonâs old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave Americaâs standing army a new raison dâêtre. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraqâs water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated â spreading deadly infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were âworth it.â Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal âno-fly zonesâ over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis â that is, people whose worst âcrimeâ was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
All that death and destruction â both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 â have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces today.
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president â that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for its âfreedom and values.â
If the American people had dismantled the nationâs standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a âwar on terrorismâ for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target â the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then again in 2001.