Do Americans Know What Happened in Iraq?
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
The US still has the death penalty. Is hanging, electrocuting or lethal injection any less barbaric than beheading? The religious right in the US is one of the biggest supporters of the "crusade" against the Muslim world. The US believes god is on their side so they feel perfectly comfortable with bombing whole countries back to the stone age just because they won't cow tow to their wishes. Suicide bombers that kill a few dozen people at a time is no comparison to the hundreds of thousand bombed or shot simply because they wear a turban or burqa. The self righteous are the most dangerous people on the planet, no matter what religion thy espouse to.
Well, I'm not a fan of the death pnalty.....but you are missing the point. The USA does not execute people for homosexuality, adultery, changing their mind about religion, or proclaiming their religion.
And the accused get a trial before their peers.........not simply a sentence from some fanatic Islamic cleric.
As for war, it is not, and never has been fair. And democracies do NOT go to war on a whim.
I beg to differ. Iraq and Afghanistan were a whim. The people were not consulted. Democracy is a fallacy (show me one that represents the people) which is why the US feels it can do what it wants, whenever it wants, and world opinion be damned.
Since when do we take a vote as to who and when we go to war, going to war is not done by a popular vote. People are never consulted, they can react after the fact. Why does the U.S. have to listen to world opinion, Canada, Great Briton, France etc. do not. We are not The United Federation of Earth yet. All we all have to do is learn how to politically get out of a war. No one complained when we bombed the heck out of Bosnia/Serbia.
False flag operations are there to sway the people's opinions. Bush would not have been able to go into Iraq or Afghanistan if he (or more correctly, his puppet masters) could create a situation that would sway public opinion. You would never have got into the WW11 if Roosevelt had not let Pearl Harbour happen.
It is not what he could have done, it is what he did. They knew the fleet was headed their way. The orders came to shut down the radar and took away their air support. In other words, he let it happen to sway the people to support entering the war.
You will also notice, that on 911, one of the star reporters on network TV called the attack on the twin towers a modern day Pearl Harbour. Never repeated it though as the gag order came before the end of the day.
I just did a brief check of two separate accounts of Pearl Harbour on line. One agrees with what you said, but the other is completely different. I think you may have happened on to the "crackpot" version. U.S. had put santions on Japan and I think it was retalliation by Japan against the U.S. is more likely. The advantage with your version is it would sell more newspapers.
So what was done that no other country does when something has to be done. Is there any country that takes a public vote before going to war. What would have happened if Roosevelt had caught the Japanese fleet out at sea before the attack. Lots of if's in what you say, if everyone just got along. Not in our lifetime. In answer to the topic, no one does and not just Americans.
There is more radicale christians like colpy in United states than there is in muslim world, actually the radicale christians are plainly stupid and on top of it they have enough nuclear weapons to destroy 10 planete like we have.
"There is 2 kind of people in the world, those who loves jesus and those who don't"
This is the stupidiest thought i ever heard in my entire life.
YouTube - jesus camp trailer
Hard to beat, recognized yourself colpy?
Damn I hate historical revisionism aimed only at siupporting a particular world view.
You have raised by blood pressure to dangerous levels, now answer for it...
Give me ONE, just one, CREDIBLE bit of evidence that President Roosevelt knew specifically that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour.
The fact that the Japanese fleet was somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, perhaps sailing east................don't cut it. Not even close.
Oh, and I am ignoring Logic 7, the guy is a psychotic moron..........and I think he wants me.
Credible is a matter of opinion, isn't it. No matter how much evidence of false flag ops could be presented, deniers would still say it isn't credible because they have already bought the official story and don't want to be bothered with asking for a refund. That's OK because I don't either. My world view has taken me 50 years to develop from thousands of bits of information over that time. I can't put my finger on every piece.Damn I hate historical revisionism aimed only at siupporting a particular world view.
You have raised by blood pressure to dangerous levels, now answer for it...
Give me ONE, just one, CREDIBLE bit of evidence that President Roosevelt knew specifically that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour.
The fact that the Japanese fleet was somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, perhaps sailing east................don't cut it. Not even close.
Oh, and I am ignoring Logic 7, the guy is a psychotic moron..........and I think he wants me.
By the way, history is just his story. The victor gets to write it. Go and read the history books of different cultures and you will see that there is very little agreement between them. History is just someone's opinion.
Epic fail.
Thank you.
You have no evidence.
History as written can certainly be revised, and constantly is revised, but it requires much, much more than a gut feeling.
To be taken seriously, you need to be able to counter the accepted history, and the onus is on you to show what is false in the accepted history.
Otherwise, in serious debate, conventional wisdom wins.
Actually there are several parallels in Christian history - There were for example the Albigensian Crusades in which one group of fanatical Christians exterminated another group of Christians. There was the Thirty Years War in Germany in which Catholics and Protestants merrily murdered one another. And there were the Crusades and before that the wars waged by Charlemagne to eliminate non-Christians in eastern Germany. I have only bothered to mention a few, but wars of religions are nothing new and groups of religious fanatics claiming their religion to be the only true religion and waging war on their neighbours are all too common in Christian history.
As for the Jews, much of the Old Testament can be read as a story of the invading Israelites wiping out and enslaving the original inhabitants of the so called "Promised Land." Of course, the Jews wrote the history of those wars and depicted themselves as a small band of valiant warriors defeating decadent devil-worshippers, rather than the ravening desert barbarians they more closely resembled.
So far as "nuts" taking over the Islamic nuthouse there are several examples of Muslim nations that are fairly secular in nature. Indonesia, for example, which is the largest Muslim nation in the world has a fairly secular government. Religious fanatics in this country have only localized support and the country in general does not support radical Islam. The same can be said of Egypt as well. Even in nations like Iran the government does not have the full support of the population as the most recent election showed.