Is this Occultic Imagery at Guantanamo Bay (aka Camp Delta?)

[Great Spirit]

I have been meaning to post this on here for a bit, but SINCE I WAS ON A LITTLE VACATION I COULDN'T!

Check out this picture of Guantanamo Bay aka Camp Delta (sounds fascist right there!). In the center of the picture, it has the Pentagon with an interesting Pentagram inside with 5 circles on each point which looks like occultic imagery. This is very interesting to me as I like to study the occult.
I have heard though that this is just a seal of the Military Police, but correct me if I am wrong.

Also in the picture besides the Pentagon on each side looks like the seal of the US Department of Defense. I can't make it out completely because the picture is so small. There is a fascist type eagle on the US Dept of Defense seal which looks like the Great Seal of Nazi Germany. Scary stuff.

Plus it has the phony "HONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOM". Sorry, but no Muslim ever legislated my rights away!

Also, why are these prisoners of war wearing those ridiculous outfits and have crap covering their face? Reminds me of the beginning of Nazi death camps! History does repeat!

[Breukelen advocaat]

I have a solution. Put the prisoners in the top of a luxury building 90 stories high, for "humanitarian" reasons, and fly an unmanned plane smack into it. Then claim that it was Islamic terrorist leaders in foreign lands that did it for sympathy. We then issue a statement, "Well, you wanted better conditions, now look what they went and did. This is a terrible tragedy." :thumbsup:

[Great Spirit]

I have a good solution. Put the prisoners in the top of building 90 stories high, and fly an unmanned plane smack into it. Then claim that it was Islamic terrorist leaders in foreign lands that did it for sympathy. :thumbsup:Your solution sucks. How about we take all the warmongering ignorant Amerikans and put chains around their necks and make them sink into the Mariana Trench!? Doesn't sound good does it!

Hey we have to stop a warmongering nation somehow! It's called population control of Amerika! I'm sure Hitler would have done a ludicrous act like that as an alternative to the ovens.

Bush's America is the number 1 threat to world peace!

[antikoala]

personal opinion:I honestly hope your interest in the occult is based on educational purposes only,which would be a good thing since there is no such thing as useless knowledge. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time which could have been used in more realistic ways (like continuing to develop as the person who is not afraid to speak his own mind you seem to be)

[Breukelen advocaat]

Sam Harris on the Reality of Islam
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

Posted on Feb 7, 2006

By Sam Harris

In recent days, crowds of thousands have gathered throughout the Muslim worldâ??burning European embassies, issuing threats, and even taking hostagesâ??in protest over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper last September. The problem is not merely that the cartoons were mildly derogatory. The furor primarily erupted over the fact that the Prophet had been depicted at all. Many Muslims consider any physical rendering of Muhammad to be an act of idolatry. And idolatry is punishable by death. Criticism of Muhammad or his teachingâ??which was also implicit in the cartoonsâ??is considered blasphemy. As it turns out, blasphemy is also punishable by death. So pious Muslims have two reasons to â??not accept less than a severing of the heads of those responsible,â?� as was recently elucidated by a preacher at the Al Omari mosque in Gaza.

The religious hysteria has not been confined to the â??extremistsâ?� of the Muslim world. Seventeen Arab governments issued a joint statement of protest, calling for the punishment of those responsible. Pakistanâ??s parliament unanimously condemned the drawings as a â??vicious, outrageous and provocative campaignâ?� that has â??hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world.â?� Turkeyâ??s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while still seeking his nationâ??s entry into the European Union, nevertheless declared that the cartoons were an attack upon the â??spiritual valuesâ?� of Muslims everywhere. The leader of Lebanonâ??s governing Hezbollah faction observed that the whole episode could have been avoided if only the novelist Salman Rushdie had been properly slaughtered for writing â??The Satanic Verses.â?�

Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated â??in defense of Islam.â?� But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.

It is time we recognizedâ??and obliged the Muslim world to recognizeâ??that â??Muslim extremismâ?� is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmostâ??demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques. Political correctness and fears of racism have rendered many secular Europeans incapable of opposing the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst. In an effort to appease the lunatic furor arising in the Muslim world in response to the publication of the Danish cartoons, many Western leaders have offered apologies for exercising the very freedoms that are constitutive of civil society in the 21st century. The U.S. and British governments have chastised Denmark and the other countries that published the cartoons for privileging freedom of speech over religious sensitivity. It is not often that one sees the most powerful countries on Earth achieve new depths of weakness, moral exhaustion and geopolitical stupidity with a single gesture. This was appeasement at its most abject.

The idea that Islam is a â??peaceful religion hijacked by extremistsâ?� is a dangerous fantasyâ??and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is soâ??it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: According to the United Nationsâ?? Arab Human Development Reports, less than 2% of Arabs have access to the Internet. Arabs represent 5% of the worldâ??s population and yet produce only 1% of the worldâ??s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century.

Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the seventh century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future. It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness. It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob. It is reason.

Sam Harris is the author of â??The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reasonâ?� (W.W. Norton). He can be reached through his website at www.samharris.org.



Sam Harris responds to comments and criticism

Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. I have argued that the religious dogmatism of the Jewish settlers could well be the cause of World War III. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now acknowledge the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim violence. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals. While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness. Rather than continue to squander precious time, energy, and good will by denying the role that Islam now plays in perpetuating Muslim violence, we should urge Muslim communities, East and West, to reform the ideology of their religion. This will not be easy, as the Koran and hadith offer precious little basis for a Muslim Enlightenment, but it is necessary. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the worldâ??s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world. It should be clear that I am not speaking about a race or an ethnicity here; I am speaking about the logical consequences of specific ideas.

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. If you doubt whether the comparison is valid, ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are. Palestinian Christians also suffer the indignity of the Israeli occupation. This is practically a science experiment: take the same people, speaking the same language, put them in the same horrendous circumstance, but give them slightly different religious beliefs--and then watch what happens. What happens is, they behave differently.

While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the â??House of Islamâ?� and the â??House of War,â?� and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisageâ??as Muslimsâ??is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the â??enemies of God.â?� Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is, after all, little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the September 11th hijackers may one day get their hands on nuclear weaponry. As Martin Rees, Britainâ??s Royal astronomer, has pointed out, there is no reason to expect that we will be any more successful at stopping nuclear proliferation, in small quantities, than we have been with respect to illegal drugs. If this is true, weapons of mass destruction will eventually be available to anyone who wants them. It seems a truism to say that there is no possible future in which aspiring martyrs will make good


This fragment (below) of the Koran (Sura 33, Verse 73-74) translates in part as â??...That God may chastise the hypocrites, men and women alike, and the idolaters, men and women alike...â?� (A.J. Arberry translation). Idolatry is at the center of the Muslim outrage over the satirical Muhammad cartoons.

[Great Spirit]

I don't know why you go through the trouble of copying and pasting all that. I don't even read it.

You need to look past the literal interpretations of religion. Read their holy books with the Spirit! The Sufis are a mystical order of Muslims that do not practice "jihad" or holy war against "infidels".

I have taken the liberty of updating your picture too!

[Breukelen advocaat]

I don't know why you go through the trouble of copying and pasting all that. I don't even read it.

You need to look past the literal interpretations of religion. Read their holy books with the Spirit! The Sufis are a mystical order of Muslims that do not practice "jihad" or holy war against "infidels".

I have taken the liberty of updating your picture too!

Listen, they are insane. When I was a young person, and far less knowledgeable of the world, I read all kinds of crap from Sufis, yogis, mystics, swamis, moslems, jews, christians, hare krishnas, various "spiritualists", and other assorted nut jobs. It's a waste of time. In your case, it's worse than that - because you're obviously influenced by this garbage. Buddhism is about the only one I found that has a halfway decent basis to it, and that's stretching it some.

Religion is a fraud, and there's nothing to their claims of "special knowledge". It just does not exist, and never will. You can deny this, but it will hit you someday.

When you reach forty or so, youâ??ll be completely different. There is no way that youâ??ll still believe that Islam is â??beautifulâ?� - that is, unless you commit jihad first.

[antikoala]

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. If you doubt whether the comparison is valid, ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are. Palestinian Christians also suffer the indignity of the Israeli occupation. This is practically a science experiment: take the same people, speaking the same language, put them in the same horrendous circumstance, but give them slightly different religious beliefs--and then watch what happens. What happens is, they behave differently.

(I take it that you support the previous argument so I'm going to answer it as if it were yours)

Since you claim religion and the study of the Koran is everything Muslims' lives evolve around and that religion is about hatred, how come the globe isn't at a constant war with them during the past 15 centuries and in fact the first and last expansive "islamic holy war" ended with the conquering of spain more than 6-7 centuries ago?

Why had the cry for jihad not been heard until the late 1940's when the israeli military takeover of Palestine took place?Why did they not amass a huge army from every muslim state back then and move to strike back at the infidels?

Until the 90's why did every single muslim country have peaceful relationships with the west, including even the most authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia?

Last but not least why even in dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq were religious discriminations obsolete, allowing even a christian like Hussein's minister of foreign affairs Tarik Aziz assume government positions?

Wars and hostile situations are caused by people! And people in the scale of nations don't just wake up one day picking up their holy book and go "hey...this here says "kill". Never noticed it before..."

[Breukelen advocaat]

(I take it that you support the previous argument so I'm going to answer it as if it were yours)

Since you claim religion and the study of the Koran is everything Muslims' lives evolve around and that religion is about hatred, how come the globe isn't at a constant war with them during the past 15 centuries and in fact the first and last expansive "islamic holy war" ended with the conquering of spain more than 6-7 centuries ago?

Probably because they have been inundated with religion and ignorance. It's now that they are getting the technology to carry out their "destiny". Their societies have always been extremely unjust, and the religion and customs dictate this.

Why had the cry for jihad not been heard until the late 1940's when the Israeli military takeover of Palestine took place?Why did they not amass a huge army from every Muslim state back then and move to strike back at the infidels?

That's true - Israel should not be there. It was a bad move, I'll grant them that. We shouldn't send aid to Israel. It's the birthplace of the Christians' mythical savior god, so that's a big part of it, too.

Until the 90's why did every single Muslim country have peaceful relationships with the west, including even the most authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia?

Because the religious nuts took over in certain places and began preaching hatred, such as in Iran in the late 1970's. Then, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and we supported the radical religionists that opposed them.

Last but not least why even in dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq were religious discriminations obsolete, allowing even a christian like Hussein's minister of foreign affairs Tarik Aziz assume government positions?

Iraq is different - I wouldn't have gone there, because a secular dictatorship is better than a religious one. We should have learned that after the Shaw of Iran was deposed.

Wars and hostile situations are caused by people! And people in the scale of nations don't just wake up one day picking up their holy book and go "hey...this here says "kill". Never noticed it before..."

That's true, but the seed is there - and mistakes were made that helped them grow. It's time to do some pruning. I'd start with pulling out, and not buying oil from them - which is exactly what bin laden and his type want. If the Middle East (and other Moslem countries elsewhere) wants to have our business, they'll have to shape up - or become a third world entity.

[Great Spirit]

Listen, they are insane. When I was a young person, and far less knowledgeable of the world, I read all kinds of crap from Sufis, yogis, mystics, swamis, moslems, jews, christians, hare krishnas, various "spiritualists", and other assorted nut jobs. It's a waste of time. In your case, it's worse than that - because you're obviously influenced by this garbage. Buddhism is about the only one I found that has a halfway decent basis to it, and that's stretching it some.

Religion is a fraud, and there's nothing to their claims of "special knowledge". It just does not exist, and never will. You can deny this, but it will hit you someday.

When you reach forty or so, youâ??ll be completely different. There is no way that youâ??ll still believe that Islam is â??beautifulâ?� - that is, unless you commit jihad first.Remember how Hitler said that communists and Jews were behind the problems of Germany? Now Bush says that the "evil freedom hating Muslims" want to kill us. A lot of parallels here. Also, we have fundemental Christian preachers saying that the Anti-Christ will be a Muslim and all of this garbage and that Islam is one of Satan's handiworks.

The Bible has its fair share of violence and hatred in it, yet I do not see Bush or the media condemning that!!

As I have said before, you need to read these books with spiritual eyes and not literal ones as Jesus did.

Religion is like a door that only gives us a hint to the divine. It is the outward form of worship, as spirituality is the inward form of worship, as it accepts all religions as legitimate explainations of the Divine. No one religion is greater than another, but its what brings you closest to the Divine.

[graymatter]

I think the real enemy is hopelessness, fanaticism and militant behavior. Kind of tough when you live in a land of no options and plenty of enemies.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Remember how Hitler said that communists and Jews were behind the problems of Germany? Now Bush says that the "evil freedom hating Muslims" want to kill us. A lot of parallels here. Also, we have fundemental Christian preachers saying that the Anti-Christ will be a Muslim and all of this garbage and that Islam is one of Satan's handiworks.
The Bible has its fair share of violence and hatred in it, yet I do not see Bush or the media condemning that!!

I don't care what Bush and Christian Preachers say about anti-christs and Muslims. I am not a christian, and I think that it is one of the worst three religions in the world.

As I have said before, you need to read these books with spiritual eyes and not literal ones as Jesus did.

There was no "Jesus" - it's a myth.

Religion is like a door that only gives us a hint to the divine. It is the outward form of worship, as spirituality is the inward form of worship, as it accepts all religions as legitimate explainations of the Divine. No one religion is greater than another, but its what brings you closest to the Divine.

You'd do better to try reading the other side - that of Atheism. If you're going to tell me to read religion, which I have (as well as gone to their schools), then it is your turn to learn about Atheism - the thinking man's philosophy. Maybe you have not been personally hurt by religion yet, but I guarantee you that many folks have - and that gives people like myself the drive and desire to stomp it out.

The people that are killing in the name of the religions you revere are sick - and must be stopped. This includes Christians and Jews, and the Muslims are outdoing them both in terms of long-range destruction.

Religion is mental illness, and we have to come to terms with that. If we do not, the future will not be good - if there is any.

[Great Spirit]

You'd do better to try reading the other side - that of Atheism. If you're going to tell me to read religion, which I have (as well as gone to their schools), then it is your turn to learn about Atheism - the thinking man's philosophy. Maybe you have not been personally hurt by religion yet, but I guarantee you that many folks have - and that gives people like myself the drive and desire to stomp it out.

The people that are killing in the name of the religions you revere are sick - and must be stopped. This includes Christians and Jews, and the Muslims are outdoing them both in terms of long-range destruction.

Religion is mental illness, and we have to come to terms with that. If we do not, the future will not be good - if there is any.I do agree that religion can create harm, but you are missing the point. I have met the Creator and the love that was emanated from the Creator was something that just could not be described on this earthly plane.

You must see the other side of religion and look it from a spiritual perspective and not a literal one.

If you think that reality is just the material Universe, you are sadly mistaken my friend. I long for the day when I am out of this cruel and hateful world, but until then I will try to bring heaven down to Earth.

[Bong30]

I have a solution. Put the prisoners in the top of a luxury building 90 stories high, for "humanitarian" reasons, and fly an unmanned plane smack into it. Then claim that it was Islamic terrorist leaders in foreign lands that did it for sympathy. We then issue a statement, "Well, you wanted better conditions, now look what they went and did. This is a terrible tragedy." :thumbsup:
The best Idea I have Herd in a while BA.:thumbsup:

[antikoala]

You'd do better to try reading the other side - that of Atheism. If you're going to tell me to read religion, which I have (as well as gone to their schools), then it is your turn to learn about Atheism - the thinking man's philosophy. Maybe you have not been personally hurt by religion yet, but I guarantee you that many folks have - and that gives people like myself the drive and desire to stomp it out.

The people that are killing in the name of the religions you revere are sick - and must be stopped. This includes Christians and Jews, and the Muslims are outdoing them both in terms of long-range destruction.

Religion is mental illness, and we have to come to terms with that. If we do not, the future will not be good - if there is any.

I feel I need to say something here. I get the impression that your views on -and experiences with- religion are making you jump to generalized conclusions about -and partially cloud your judgement over- situations in which religion plays at least some part in, like the islamic factor in the current conflict between the west and the arab world.

Your stance is all but unknown to me, both in a personal and a third-person way. I too -like you I assume- have experienced and am still experiencing fierce suppressive acts by the organized religion in the fields of personal beliefs, ideas, expression,thought, and behaviour for being an atheist in the "wrong" society.For you it was the school, possibly the family and a portion of the surrounding world.

For me there was more!Living in a country of christian orthodox zealots that LEGISLATES religiously in matters concerning education,work and taxation, I had consequences on almost every part of my life.I had to obligatorily attend church along with my class on several occassions each year or be expelled when I was at school, I had to carry an ID that stated my religion, informing every civil servant I ever dealt with that I was to be treated in the worst possible way since I was an atheist, I couldn't get a job working for the state because non-orthodoxes are not allowed in and I had to win my teaching licence in court for the same reason.

But you see, I never saw the the civil servant who would profoundly ignore me and make me wait for 2 hours until I had a document signed as a willing member of the scheme, neither did I long-term dislike my class mates for rounding up on me after church was over cause I wouldn't kiss the icons or do my cross.Why?Because they were being manipulated -through religion,true! and they had their share of fault -definately. But overall, as a whole,as a sum could they help it? NO

Manipulation is easy when you have something of a method that can't be questioned, religion can be such a thing. When you put your axioms into it, shape it the way you want, there's no questiong it whatsoever in short-terms.
Simply physically hurting it's followers or it's leaders doesn't make it's form vanish -maybe it even enhances it,enhances it's control. Let alone the alone the fact that you're commiting a crime against a manipulated person still innocent up to a point however naive,uneducated or short-sighted it may be or you call it to be. The only way you can save yourself and himself the harmful effects when your worlds collide is show him reason, even when you feel you're wasting your breath. The other alternative is totally destructive for at least one of you and greatly damaging for the other

I left the top-dogs for last. Religious leaders are just like political ones:all they want is power. They ensure they support the politicians through the religious manipulation of the public and the politicians support them by making laws in their benefit. They need each other, they rely on each other, they're in love with each other

So, you see I think power can take up many forms. But in viewing just one side of the coin you are only distracted you from a great number of facts -and the picture as a whole

[halo]

GS you and i share many common ideas. But dammit you could show some compassion. You talk about all american people like we are the scum of the earth and deserve to die. Just because someone may believe a lie does not mean that person is evil. This is exactly what got you banned a while ago. Being an ignorant asshole. Try to introduce people to your ideas nicely not like some crazy son of a bitch bent on creating a civil war.

[Great Spirit]

GS you and i share many common ideas. But dammit you could show some compassion. You talk about all american people like we are the scum of the earth and deserve to die. Just because someone may believe a lie does not mean that person is evil. This is exactly what got you banned a while ago. Being an ignorant asshole. Try to introduce people to your ideas nicely not like some crazy son of a bitch bent on creating a civil war.I never said ALL Amerikans were ignorant sons of bitches....but I do hold them accountable if they refuse to question a faulty story and dont really do anything about it. Perhaps they dont want to know because they are too into their own lives.

The True Path is never the easiest.

And no...what got me banned is because I said *you know who* was an undercover NSA agent.

[Dutch Pimp]

GS you and i share many common ideas. But dammit you could show some compassion. You talk about all american people like we are the scum of the earth and deserve to die. Just because someone may believe a lie does not mean that person is evil. This is exactly what got you banned a while ago. Being an ignorant asshole. Try to introduce people to your ideas nicely not like some crazy son of a bitch bent on creating a civil war.
He's got a point, Dude!

[BloodAngel]

For the record, that's not a "nazi eagle"
Eagles are magestic symbols of power and nobility used in tons of different emblems and seals. You're ignorant.

[graymatter]

And no...what got me banned is because I said *you know who* was an undercover NSA agent.

Bond, James Bond... with a touch of Ghandi

[Binzhoubum]

Your solution sucks. How about we take all the warmongering ignorant Amerikans and put chains around their necks and make them sink into the Mariana Trench!? Doesn't sound good does it!

Hey we have to stop a warmongering nation somehow! It's called population control of Amerika! I'm sure Hitler would have done a ludicrous act like that as an alternative to the ovens.

Bush's America is the number 1 threat to world peace!


Great Spirit

It would be ignorant to believe that war is not necessary. Look at history. Although it is cruel, heartbreaking, and meaningless---it serves many purposes.

It is also funny that you seem to be for peace in one hand---e.g., "Hey we have to stop a warmongering nation somehow!"; yet, in the other hand you are preaching violence as a solution to violence---i.e., "How about we take all the warmongering ignorant Amerikans and put chains around their necks and make them sink into the Mariana Trench!?"

Perhaps I read that the wrong way, and, if so, I apologize. But another point still remains...

You constantly compare Bush to Hitler and America to some kind of new nazi regime. Besides the fact that the comparisons you make really don't compare at all with the atrocities Hitler was responsible for, Bush has completely different reasons for his actions than Hitler.

I really don't think that Bush is trying to execute some master plan to wipe out the Islamic people of the world no matter how idiotic and misguided his attempts to run a country are and have been. The world has changed ALOT since the 1940's. We are currently in a global race for resources. Resources that ARE needed,whether you want to admit it or not, to maintain the current living standards and lifestyles in our respective countries.

Which of the following options do you find to be more ethical or moral?

Option #1: The US withdraws all troops from foriegn countries and vows to never use military force again unless attacked. Bush is impeached and a new peaceful government is elected. Since the US economy is virtually built and maintained by the companies who profit from wars and military investment, the US suffers from high unemployment, inflation, deteriorating medical facilities and educational institutions, etc...

Option #2: The US continues to fight small wars around the globe for vital natural resources. American companies continue to thrive and the economy is able to maintain a STEADY rate of growth or lack thereof. American citizens continue to enjoy some of the best educational institutions, medical facilities, places to live in the world.

If you are a leader, what do you do? Sacrifice your own country's people for the better of the world? Or sacrifice the world for your own people?

:smokin:

[Binzhoubum]

Oh yeah, BTW...World peace is a completely idealistic, unrealisitc goal.

It's just not possible... :smokin:

[graymatter]

Great Spirit

It would be ignorant to believe that war is not necessary. Look at history. Although it is cruel, heartbreaking, and meaningless---it serves many purposes.

It is also funny that you seem to be for peace in one hand---e.g., "Hey we have to stop a warmongering nation somehow!"; yet, in the other hand you are preaching violence as a solution to violence---i.e., "How about we take all the warmongering ignorant Amerikans and put chains around their necks and make them sink into the Mariana Trench!?"

Perhaps I read that the wrong way, and, if so, I apologize. But another point still remains...

You constantly compare Bush to Hitler and America to some kind of new nazi regime. Besides the fact that the comparisons you make really don't compare at all with the atrocities Hitler was responsible for, Bush has completely different reasons for his actions than Hitler.

I really don't think that Bush is trying to execute some master plan to wipe out the Islamic people of the world no matter how idiotic and misguided his attempts to run a country are and have been. The world has changed ALOT since the 1940's. We are currently in a global race for resources. Resources that ARE needed,whether you want to admit it or not, to maintain the current living standards and lifestyles in our respective countries.

Which of the following options do you find to be more ethical or moral?

Option #1: The US withdraws all troops from foriegn countries and vows to never use military force again unless attacked. Bush is impeached and a new peaceful government is elected. Since the US economy is virtually built and maintained by the companies who profit from wars and military investment, the US suffers from high unemployment, inflation, deteriorating medical facilities and educational institutions, etc...

Option #2: The US continues to fight small wars around the globe for vital natural resources. American companies continue to thrive and the economy is able to maintain a STEADY rate of growth or lack thereof. American citizens continue to enjoy some of the best educational institutions, medical facilities, places to live in the world.

If you are a leader, what do you do? Sacrifice your own country's people for the better of the world? Or sacrifice the world for your own people?

:smokin:

I don't think it's an "either or" but your point is consistent with the U.S. policy of expansionism, which dates back to 1893 and the deal with Hawaii (land and port access for sugar trade). The only time the policy was in check was during the cold war, but the motivation, historically, was to control markets more than scramble for resources. I think this opens up a different set of questions around global cooperation, domestic research and development of alternative resources etc..

[activedenial]

I found more nazi imagry in the weathernet logo for HOMELAND SECURITY.. Now WTF is going on here??:what:

[activedenial]

Here is a better comparison between the two. MMMMM:eek:

[Miss Green]

So true Great Spirit I don't get it ethier truely why are they wearing the uniforms (Bloody bright orange),and your right to about the muslims not getting there rights to freedom. What a joke, truely a great solution would be to ethier let them go if they have no case or trial them under the proper court system not some Kangaroo court.What a waste of money and destroying peoples lifes.:confused: :mad:

[Breukelen advocaat]

Sorry, another cut and paste - but Ralph Peters' is right. We should have killed the al quada and taliban resistance in Afghanistan after 9/11. I've felt that way all along.


NEW YORK POST

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM


By RALPH PETERS

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please criticsNever Quit the Fight who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

Osama: Far better dead than on trial.

[Great Spirit]

Wow I never noticed that before! Thanks for the info man! The Illuminati love to put stuff "in plain site"...so I guess this is one of ther tricks.

[Torog]

I never said ALL Amerikans were ignorant sons of bitches....but I do hold them accountable if they refuse to question a faulty story and dont really do anything about it. Perhaps they dont want to know because they are too into their own lives.

The True Path is never the easiest.

And no...what got me banned is because I said *you know who* was an undercover NSA agent.

Howdy GS,

I presume that yer talkin about me..lol. My gittin busted for weed,when I was a youngun,dis-qualified me from ever gittin the security clearance to work for the NSA,but since I completed my probabtions successfully,back then,I was able to git into the Navy.

The article that BA posted,spoke the truth about muslims,I've seen it,felt it,heard it,touched it and tasted it,when I was livin in Saudi,drillin water wells for em. Who amongst y'all,in this thread,has ever experienced what it's like to live in a fundy muslim country ?

Until you do--y'all will never understand the muslim mind-set,like I do..or the nature of the enemy that we face.

BTW.if ya hate America so much..why don't ya just leave Her ? If ya say ya want to stay and fight for a better America,what are ya doing in that regard ? Are ya registered to vote ? Do ya vote ? Obviously,you'd never fulfill yer duty as an American citizen,and enter military service to defend America and it's citizens.

Have a good one ...

[Dutch Pimp]

...and whom ever put it out. Glad you made it, in the big time...Tex..despite your earlier problems.

[Great Spirit]

Howdy GS,

I presume that yer talkin about me..lol. My gittin busted for weed,when I was a youngun,dis-qualified me from ever gittin the security clearance to work for the NSA,but since I completed my probabtions successfully,back then,I was able to git into the Navy.

The article that BA posted,spoke the truth about muslims,I've seen it,felt it,heard it,touched it and tasted it,when I was livin in Saudi,drillin water wells for em. Who amongst y'all,in this thread,has ever experienced what it's like to live in a fundy muslim country ?

Until you do--y'all will never understand the muslim mind-set,like I do..or the nature of the enemy that we face.

BTW.if ya hate America so much..why don't ya just leave Her ? If ya say ya want to stay and fight for a better America,what are ya doing in that regard ? Are ya registered to vote ? Do ya vote ? Obviously,you'd never fulfill yer duty as an American citizen,and enter military service to defend America and it's citizens.

Have a good one ...Hello. Yes I would very much like to leave Amerika if I had the money. I am just telling people the stories and how it is. I am no figher in a physical regard. I like to attack psychologically :dance: Yes I vote and I voted Libertarian in the 2004 elections, but probably got switched over to Republican!! I would never go fight in a war based on a lie or for conquest such as Iraq. Wars are always meant to be defensive...never offensive.

Let me ask you this. If you survived post World War 1 Germany, would you have supported the Nazis and have fought with the Nazis??

Nationalism is a dangerous thing!!!

And why do you and Psycho4Bud have the same ending "Have a good one"? Hmm?? ;)

[Torog]

Hello. Yes I would very much like to leave Amerika if I had the money. I am just telling people the stories and how it is. I am no figher in a physical regard. I like to attack psychologically :dance: Yes I vote and I voted Libertarian in the 2004 elections, but probably got switched over to Republican!! I would never go fight in a war based on a lie or for conquest such as Iraq. Wars are always meant to be defensive...never offensive.

Let me ask you this. If you survived post World War 1 Germany, would you have supported the Nazis and have fought with the Nazis??

Nationalism is a dangerous thing!!!

And why do you and Psycho4Bud have the same ending "Have a good one"? Hmm?? ;)

Howdy GS,

Well ..I'm glad that yer at least honest about wanting to leave America,there's probably some work-shops in yer area,that help folks to become Canadian citizens,you should look into that. I'm also glad to hear that you vote,even I vote for libertarian judges these days,in an effort to end prohibition against marijuana and it's criminalization. As for Iraq,all 15 members of the Security Council,agreed unanimously to use force in order to git saddam to comply with numerous violations of UN resolutions,therefore,our invasion to do such,was legit,no matter how many times you say it wasn't or based on faulty intel. Also,we have an obligation to Israel,to aid them against our mutual enemies,and because saddam had previously attacked Israel. Rogue countries in the middle-east,are a threat to the Free World,and it was time to reform and re-shape the middle-east,because previous policies,all failed.

I'm not sure that I understand yer question,about supporting the nazi's..do ya mean if I was a german living there ? I don't support or condone,religious and ethnic cleansing,if that's what ya mean.

As for me and Psycho4Bud,saying the same thing..well..it's a Texas thing..you see..us Texans are just naturally friendly folks,un-like yankees,who'd just as sonn spit on ya,for saying Howdy to em.

Have a good one !:stoned:

[Breukelen advocaat]

As for me and Psycho4Bud,saying the same thing..well..it's a Texas thing..you see..us Texans are just naturally friendly folks, un-like yankees,who'd just as sonn spit on ya,for saying Howdy to em. Have a good one !:stoned:

Glad you have a sense of humor! :dance:

New York was recently found, through a Readers Digest study, to be the "politest" city in the world, and the only American city on the list.

NYC is 'world's friendliest city'

NEW YORK (AP) -- New Yorkers are the politest people in the world.

And before you say "fuhgetaboutit!" -- please read on.

In a city with a reputation for being rough 'n ready -- and, frankly, my dear, in-your-face -- residents seem to be expressing themselves with a new one-finger salute: a raised pinkie.

In fact, they seem to have even better manners than people in London, Toronto and Moscow.

That is the conclusion of Reader's Digest, which sent reporters "undercover" to 36 cities, in 35 countries, to measure courtesy. New York was the only American city on the list.

In its admittedly unscientific survey, the magazine's politeness-police gave three types of tests to more than 2,000 unwitting participants.

The reporters walked into buildings to see if the people in front of them would hold the door open; bought small items in stores and recorded whether the salespeople said "thank you"; and dropped a folder full of papers in busy locations to see if anyone would help pick them up.

New Yorkers turned out to be the best bunch: 90 percent held the door open, 19 out of 20 store clerks said "thank you," and 63 percent of men and 47 percent of women helped with the flying papers.

In short, four out of five New Yorkers passed the courtesy test.

For his part, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is not surprised.

He told reporters Tuesday that whenever he travels abroad, he hears nothing but praise for the Big Apple's good manners.

"They all tell you stories. They are standing on the corner with a map, and a New York City police officer walks up and says, 'Excuse me, may I help you?"' Bloomberg said. "We are so jaded. We want to think the worst of ourselves, and people from around this country and around the world think exactly the reverse."

And which city ranks last in the politeness poll?

We are sorry to report that it is Mumbai, India.

The rudest continent is Asia. Eight out of nine cities tested there, including Mumbai, finished in the bottom 11.

In Europe, Moscow and Bucharest ranked as the least polite.

Reader's Digest, which has readers in 21 languages, is publishing the results in its July issue.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/cities.friendly.ap/

[Great Spirit]

Howdy GS,

Well ..I'm glad that yer at least honest about wanting to leave America,there's probably some work-shops in yer area,that help folks to become Canadian citizens,you should look into that. I'm also glad to hear that you vote,even I vote for libertarian judges these days,in an effort to end prohibition against marijuana and it's criminalization. Shit I would love to leave Fascist Amerika! You can come too!



As for Iraq, all 15 members of the Security Council,agreed unanimously to use force in order to git saddam to comply with numerous violations of UN resolutions,therefore,our invasion to do such,was legit,no matter how many times you say it wasn't or based on faulty intel. I don't give a shit if 20 nations voted to use force! Show me where the weapons of mass destruction where...than I will support the war. But since there were no weapons because the whole case for war was PROPAGANDA, the war was illegal and George W. Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes. I must ask you though too...if you believe Osama Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks...why didn't Bush make capturing Osama his highest priority? Why did he switch to Iraq and Saddam? It was only after 9/11 that he said Saddam was enemy number 1! Bush said nothing about Bin Laden, Iraq, and terrorism during his campaign in 1999 and 2000! Something doesn't feel right there buddy!


Also,we have an obligation to Israel,to aid them against our mutual enemies,and because saddam had previously attacked Israel. Rogue countries in the middle-east,are a threat to the Free World,and it was time to reform and re-shape the middle-east,because previous policies,all failed. No. Amerika has no obligation to this "Israel". Modern Israel is simply a puppet state created by the Illuminati after WW2 to continue its plans of war. The true Israel is only spiritual!! The modern Israeli government should be wiped off the map! These "rouge" Muslim nations in the middle east are actually not a threat. AMERIKA AND ISRAEL ARE THE REAL THREAT! IT'S THE FOREIGN POLICY AND ZIONISM THAT ARE THE THREAT! How would you feel if your next door neighbor tried to control everything you did? I am sure you would be pissed. Even though I don't agree with it, but this "jihad" is actually saying "leave us alone! leave our women and children alone from your greedy materialistic lifestyle! we don't want anything to do with your lifestyle of greed!


I'm not sure that I understand yer question,about supporting the nazi's..do ya mean if I was a german living there ? I don't support or condone,religious and ethnic cleansing,if that's what ya mean.Well the Nazis never told the German people that they were sending the political opponents off the concentration camps and killing them! After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, communists were blamed for it and thus they were banned and arrested. Then the Jews became the scapegoat for Germany's problems, and then liberals, gypsies, and homosexuals. Interestingly, Jerry Falwell has blamed 9/11 on gays and feminists and Bush has blamed it on Muslims. Also, why would Bush try to ban gay marriage in the US Constitution after 9/11? Clearly this is discrimination and laughable for a country who claims to be the land of the free! You see my friend, Bush wants to please the Christian Right with his policies of Zionism so he can make fundemental Christianity his means of fascism. See the comparisons? History is repeating again! Remember, Hitler wanted to be seen as a strong conservative leader..not as a mass murderer!


As for me and Psycho4Bud,saying the same thing..well..it's a Texas thing..you see..us Texans are just naturally friendly folks,un-like yankees,who'd just as sonn spit on ya,for saying Howdy to em.Shit I don't even consider myself a Yankee anymore! I wanna go to Canada where its safe!