2006-01-10

British MPs Leaked Bush Plan to Bomb al-Jazeera

"He mentioned that the document was a transcript of a meeting in Washington DC between Bush and Blair. There had been a proposal to take military action against al-Jazeera at their headquarters in Qatar. This was defused by Colin Powell, US secretary of state, and Tony Blair."

Your president is a maniac.

15 comments:

sixstringslinger said...

Just who is your President by the way?

Nadir said...

Well, it isn't the punk who stole the last two presidential elections.

sixstringslinger said...

Do you ever venture outside of conspiracy theory world? Right now I can't think of one thing, or issue, or event we've discussed which you haven't attributed to some sort of conspiracy.

Nadir said...

"But the man say,

Ain't nothin' but the blues doin' the talkin, baby.

Conspiracy's all up inside your mind, but I,

I find it don't get better for my people.

It's just a theory, but Conspiracy keeps F*ck!n' with me all the time."

- "Conspiracy" by Nadir (feat. Rev) from Distorted Soul
http://www.distortedsoul.net/nadir_conspiracy.mp3

Nadir said...

I can show you evidence that the 2004 election was tainted. I can also show evidence that the Supreme Court selected Bush president in 2000 against the will of the people.

Call it a conspiracy if you like, but a logical mind will see the evidence and ask questions. A sheep will accept what his leaders tell him even if his mind tells him something is wrong with this picture.

Nadir said...

You see evidence that Bush wanted to bomb a news network and all you can do is attack me?

Shouldn't you be questioning your leaders? I haven't killed anyone. I haven't even plotted to kill anyone.

sixstringslinger said...

Brilliant observation. Of course the 2000 election was tainted!

I can’t believe we’re going over this again:

In an election that close you could have counted all the votes in Florida 50 times and come up with a different result every time. But the Gore camp only wanted to recount the votes from certain precincts. Gore’s the one who chose to take the election to the courts, not Bush. As far as I’m concerned, if anyone tried to “steal” the 2000 Election, it was Al Gorge, not Bush.

The Supreme Court ruled the way did. Done deal. Move On, .org.

The only election in 2004 that was stolen was the Washington State gubernatorial election, stolen by Christine Gregoire, a Democrat…

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006139


I’m not attacking you I’m simply making an observation. And if anyone were the sheep here, I would contend it’s you. You for buying hook, line and sinker all the Anti-American, blame-America crap you’ve been spoon-fed your entire life.

sixstringslinger said...

Oh, and by the way, they didn't bomb al-Jazeera, did they? After meeting with his advisors he decided against it, didn't he?

And what if they had? You think the Allies wouldn't have taken out Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally if they'd had the chance?

Paul Hue said...

Six is mathimatically correct about the 2000 election. It was so close statistically that fell within the margin of error of the technology used to count votes. I agree with Six also that Gore petitioned only to recount Gore-heavy counties, and petitioned to exclude absentee military votes; however, didn't Bush play similar games?

I agree with Nadir that three of the Supreme Court justices had vested interests in the oucome, and should have recused themselves. However, one of these three, O'Conner, has disqualified her vested interest by not retiring until after the 2004 election (her vested interest was a statement she made about wanting to retire after a republican one).

Furthermore I call for both sides to admit that the demos and repos both play dirty, and must stop. The Demos pay bums to vote, lobby against requiring photo ID cards and citizenship to vote, and fillout absentee voting forms for infirm people in homes.

As for bombing al-Jazeera, I oppose this, and like Six pointed out, our president proposed it, but didn't do it. Though I oppose it, am glad he didn't do it, and think that it would have harmed the advance of liberty/prosperity, it would have been less attrocious than many of the wicked acts that Lincoln used in his great war.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: Six and I don't understand why you (and your blasted wife) refer to Bush as "your president" rather than "our president". When Clinton was president, though I opposed his election (I think I was a reformed leftist at least in time for the second election), I considered him to be "my" president. And by the way, I am sure you realize that he never won a majority of the popular vote. If Kerry or Gore had won, I would have considered him to me "my president", and if I lived in Detroit, I would consider the crook Kwame to be "my major". I don't understand y'all's use of language here, and am genuinely interested in doing so.

sixstringslinger said...

Precisely Paul. I concur.

I didn't vote for Clinton either the first time around in 92, but I still considered him to be "my" President. And as much as I dread the thought of Hillary in the White House, I would consider her to be "my" President as well.

Carl Levin would never get my vote and I consider him to be a disgusting, lying, hypocritical blowhard, yet as much as I hate to admit it, I still consider him to be "my" Senator, because he was elected by my fellow Michiganians.

To use the term "your President" is just childish. It's nothing but a sore-loser, sour-grapes mentality.

Paul Hue said...

Mild correction, Six: Your fellow Michiganders didn't elect Levin. Rather, they and you together did. We all had a meeting, with agreed-upon rules for a collective decision, and we as a group chose him. This happens all the time in Nadir and my Ben Carson program. Five of us go into a room, a three-two or four-one vote ensues, and what emerges is a group decision, owned equally by us all. Nadir can say, "You idiots voted for Bush", just as he might say, "Paul, your one of the idiots who voted for that new BCLS rule." But he cannot logically deny electing Bush.

Nadir participated in a process. He utilized many options, such as talking to all his friends and issuing lots of emails, urging people to vote a certain way. In our electoral process, his side even won in Michigan, and the electoral votes all went to Kerry. I cannot logically claim that "Nadir's Michigan electoral votes went to Kerry." Those votes belong to me just as much as they do Nadir, and they represent me as much as they do Nadir. We Michiganders elected to give our electoral votes to Kerry, just as we elected Carl Leven.

I know plenty of Detroit voters who voted for Kwame the first time. They came to regret their decision. When they switched their opinion of Kwame, he did not cease being their mayor.

sixstringslinger said...

I stand corrected.

Nadir said...

You guys are ignoring the fact that evidence shows the president of the United States plotted to bomb a television network in a neutral country and you're harping on an insignificant comment I made.

No wonder you both voted for Bush. This thread shows just how much thought you guys really put into these issues. It is more important for you that I demonstrate a sense of unity with my fellow citizens than for the president to stop killing innocent people.

That's why I call him "your president". You guys are just as backward and brainwashed as he wants you to be.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: Did you read where I agreed with you on this topic? Would you feel better if Six had created a new thread devoted to you preposterously calling but "your" president? I do not think it is more important for you to speak logically than it is for Bush to not kill innocent people. But I have no argument with you over Bush killing innocent people; I agree that he should not. But you confuse me be calling Westland "your" city when we both live there.