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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binzhoubum

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..

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

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

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:

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/op...lph_peters.htm

Osama: Far better dead than on trial.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

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 ...

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