Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cheney Gets Booed, Sheen Gets Applauded
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Pages: 1, 2
Sanjuro
Cheney Gets Booed, Sheen Gets Applauded

user posted image
owned..

An interesting contrast was provided last week with the American public's reaction to two very different high profile personalities, Charlie Sheen and Dick Cheney. Sheen appeared on a Friday night ABC talk show and Cheney threw the first pitch at a Washington Nationals baseball game.

Cheney was clearly booed by at least 80% of the attending fans at the RFK Memorial Stadium, yet the media reported a mixed reaction and the Washington Post went as far as to outright lie and claim the boos were a result of the bad pitch that bounced before the Nationals' Brian Schneider caught it, when in reality the cat-calls began as soon as Cheney's name was announced. The boos raged even though Cheney was accompanied by three injured US servicemen who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would the percentage have been if Cheney had walked out on his own?

Charlie Sheen told a Hollywood audience that he felt "the only real validation that I needed [for speaking out on 9/11] was being a tax paying citizen that loves my country."

For that he received warm applause and the audience did not react negatively at any point when Sheen discussed his stance on 9/11. Watch the video and check it out for yourself.

Baffled we were therefore to witness the same establishment mouthpieces that had previously slammed Sheen after his first appearance on The Alex Jones Show continue to erroneously report that Sheen's comments provoked a negative reaction from the American people.

The Slashfilm website stated, "The public attacked Sheen after asking questions about 9/11 on a national radio show. The general viewpoint being that he was just an actor, what right does he have to make such accusations."

The public did no such thing. The only people who attacked Sheen were rabid Neo-Con armchair columnists who threw their toys out of the pram and spit out vitriolic junior high mentality gossip about his private life.

The CNN poll which finished at 83% in support of Sheen and the popular website Bravo Charlie 9/11 go to prove that the majority of the American people were behind Sheen, just as an every increasing majority are against the anti-American agenda of Bush and his big government cronies.

The New York Post insulted over half of their readers when they called Sheen a part of the "9/11 gone-bonkers brigade," a Zogby poll showed half of New Yorkers believed the government were complicit in the attacks and 66% called for a new investigation.

Cheney was booed and Sheen was applauded, but the lapdog ministry of truth would try and flip reality 180 degrees in an attempt to offset their crumbling architecture of control and credibility.

Source

Time to wake up. thumbsup.gif
aquatus1
The power of propoganda.
Tengu
I just feel sorry for those injured soldiers. How rude was that to boo with them out there?!?! I do not agree with the war, or with what is going on at the White House at the moment but I am still behind what our soldiers are doing...which is what they are being told to do. Sad when I have more respect for out men in uniform than the men in the White House...
Sanjuro
QUOTE(Tengu @ Apr 20 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1156051[/snapback]

I just feel sorry for those injured soldiers. How rude was that to boo with them out there?!?! I do not agree with the war, or with what is going on at the White House at the moment but I am still behind what our soldiers are doing...which is what they are being told to do. Sad when I have more respect for out men in uniform than the men in the White House...

Its not about soldiers, its about bloody mass murder Cheney.
aquatus1
Mass murder? Oh, right, you're talking about the chemical gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, where Iraqi government forces loosed chemical agents and killed an estimated 7000 Kurds under their protection...
Snowball
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 20 2006, 02:04 PM) [snapback]1156078[/snapback]

Mass murder? Oh, right, you're talking about the chemical gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, where Iraqi government forces loosed chemical agents and killed an estimated 7000 Kurds under their protection...


There's quite an interesting article on Wiki about this :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Back on topic tho, I thinks it's sickening that Cheney would use injured soldiers to try to boost his own ailing popularity, if he had any balls he would have stood out there alone and taken the boo's he deserved, but as a known draft dodger I guess it's to be expected that he would hide behind those that had the courage to do what he never could.
Sanjuro
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 20 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]1156078[/snapback]

Mass murder? Oh, right, you're talking about the chemical gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, where Iraqi government forces loosed chemical agents and killed an estimated 7000 Kurds under their protection...

No I am not talking about That mass murder, I am talking about This mass murder, so dont detrail topics as well as dont talk random things out of your @$$.
aquatus1
What mass murder? The war?

Damn, talk about disrespect! The opposition soldiers fought bravely and well. Yes, we beat them soundly, but that is no reason to make it sound like they just threw away their weapons and waited to die. They earned their place in Valhalla.
Pax Unum
A few weeks before graduation, Sheen was expelled from the school for poor grades and bad attendance.

Sheen was married to Donna Peele from September 3, 1995 to November 19, 1996. He then married another actress, Denise Richards, on June 15, 2002. They had two daughters, Sam J. Estevez (born March 9, 2004), and Lola Rose Estevez (born June 1, 2005).

In March 2005, Richards filed for divorce, but the couple were able to reconcile briefly afterwards. In January 2006, Richards continued with the divorce. Sheen also has a daughter by former girlfriend Paula Profit, Cassandra Estevez (born 1985).

Though Sheen was involved with a number of Hollywood personalities, his long-term relationship with adult actress Ginger Lynn in the late 1990s garnered the most media attention. He was also involved for a time with retired porn actress Heather Hunter.

In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his then-fiancé, Kelly Preston. In 1993, his name was found among Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss' list of her most frequent customers, and it was revealed that Sheen hired top-class prostitutes from escort agencies. During this time, he was also addicted to cocaine.

Charlie Sheen
Sanjuro
QUOTE(Pax Unum @ Apr 20 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]1156160[/snapback]

A few weeks before graduation, Sheen was expelled from the school for poor grades and bad attendance.

Sheen was married to Donna Peele from September 3, 1995 to November 19, 1996. He then married another actress, Denise Richards, on June 15, 2002. They had two daughters, Sam J. Estevez (born March 9, 2004), and Lola Rose Estevez (born June 1, 2005).

In March 2005, Richards filed for divorce, but the couple were able to reconcile briefly afterwards. In January 2006, Richards continued with the divorce. Sheen also has a daughter by former girlfriend Paula Profit, Cassandra Estevez (born 1985).

Though Sheen was involved with a number of Hollywood personalities, his long-term relationship with adult actress Ginger Lynn in the late 1990s garnered the most media attention. He was also involved for a time with retired porn actress Heather Hunter.

In 1990, Sheen accidentally shot his then-fiancé, Kelly Preston. In 1993, his name was found among Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss' list of her most frequent customers, and it was revealed that Sheen hired top-class prostitutes from escort agencies. During this time, he was also addicted to cocaine.

Charlie Sheen


Personal attacks? That is a sign of weakness and proof of incapability to argue.
Malruhn
QUOTE(Sanjuro @ Apr 20 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]1156312[/snapback]

Personal attacks? That is a sign of weakness and proof of incapability to argue.

QUOTE
No I am not talking about That mass murder, I am talking about This mass murder, so dont detrail topics as well as dont talk random things out of your @$$.

Pot? Meet Kettle. I won't bother to go through and quote your personal attacks against Cheney.
bboy
QUOTE(Sanjuro @ Apr 20 2006, 04:20 AM) [snapback]1155956[/snapback]

Cheney Gets Booed, Sheen Gets Applauded

user posted image
owned..

An interesting contrast was provided last week with the American public's reaction to two very different high profile personalities, Charlie Sheen and Dick Cheney. Sheen appeared on a Friday night ABC talk show and Cheney threw the first pitch at a Washington Nationals baseball game.

Cheney was clearly booed by at least 80% of the attending fans at the RFK Memorial Stadium, yet the media reported a mixed reaction and the Washington Post went as far as to outright lie and claim the boos were a result of the bad pitch that bounced before the Nationals' Brian Schneider caught it, when in reality the cat-calls began as soon as Cheney's name was announced. The boos raged even though Cheney was accompanied by three injured US servicemen who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would the percentage have been if Cheney had walked out on his own?

Charlie Sheen told a Hollywood audience that he felt "the only real validation that I needed [for speaking out on 9/11] was being a tax paying citizen that loves my country."

For that he received warm applause and the audience did not react negatively at any point when Sheen discussed his stance on 9/11. Watch the video and check it out for yourself.

Baffled we were therefore to witness the same establishment mouthpieces that had previously slammed Sheen after his first appearance on The Alex Jones Show continue to erroneously report that Sheen's comments provoked a negative reaction from the American people.

The Slashfilm website stated, "The public attacked Sheen after asking questions about 9/11 on a national radio show. The general viewpoint being that he was just an actor, what right does he have to make such accusations."

The public did no such thing. The only people who attacked Sheen were rabid Neo-Con armchair columnists who threw their toys out of the pram and spit out vitriolic junior high mentality gossip about his private life.

The CNN poll which finished at 83% in support of Sheen and the popular website Bravo Charlie 9/11 go to prove that the majority of the American people were behind Sheen, just as an every increasing majority are against the anti-American agenda of Bush and his big government cronies.

The New York Post insulted over half of their readers when they called Sheen a part of the "9/11 gone-bonkers brigade," a Zogby poll showed half of New Yorkers believed the government were complicit in the attacks and 66% called for a new investigation.

Cheney was booed and Sheen was applauded, but the lapdog ministry of truth would try and flip reality 180 degrees in an attempt to offset their crumbling architecture of control and credibility.

Source

Time to wake up. thumbsup.gif


A hollywood audience? How many people do you suppose was in that audience? 100? At the game I'm guessing 10,000. So if you figure 80% booed, that would leave 20% who didn't. 2000 people who support him. Compared to 100 in an audience in Hollywood for Sheen. That's like saying Cheney got applause from all in attendance at a Republican fund raiser. Of course they are gonna get applauded when they are in a supporting environment.
Snowball
QUOTE(bboy @ Apr 20 2006, 05:45 PM) [snapback]1156465[/snapback]

A hollywood audience? How many people do you suppose was in that audience? 100? At the game I'm guessing 10,000. So if you figure 80% booed, that would leave 20% who didn't. 2000 people who support him. Compared to 100 in an audience in Hollywood for Sheen. That's like saying Cheney got applause from all in attendance at a Republican fund raiser. Of course they are gonna get applauded when they are in a supporting environment.


Good point, but I would also say that the 10,000 that you would find at a ball game are more likely to give you a cross section of society, therefore you are getting a less biased environment than a 'Hollywood' audience or a Republican fund raiser, we can further surmise that Cheney's approval rating across a broad cross section of american society is running at lower than 20%, taking into account the apathy of people who couldn't be bothered to boo are cheer eitherway (that doesn't include the people that would have booed if that chicken hawk hadn't flanked himself with true patriots willing to put their bodies in the line of fire for their own country)
artymoon
Where's the video from the game so people can judge for themselves. Or would that not help the propaganda matrix's cause.
A+Certified
well i hate the current leaders of america, but i feel sorry for cheney in that pic.


the one time he will get my pity.
tribalactivity
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 20 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]1156078[/snapback]

Mass murder? Oh, right, you're talking about the chemical gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, where Iraqi government forces loosed chemical agents and killed an estimated 7000 Kurds under their protection...


The U.S probably supplied the chemicals
fartmonkey65
QUOTE(Sanjuro @ Apr 20 2006, 05:20 AM) [snapback]1155956[/snapback]

Cheney Gets Booed, Sheen Gets Applauded

user posted image
owned..

An interesting contrast was provided last week with the American public's reaction to two very different high profile personalities, Charlie Sheen and Dick Cheney. Sheen appeared on a Friday night ABC talk show and Cheney threw the first pitch at a Washington Nationals baseball game.

Cheney was clearly booed by at least 80% of the attending fans at the RFK Memorial Stadium, yet the media reported a mixed reaction and the Washington Post went as far as to outright lie and claim the boos were a result of the bad pitch that bounced before the Nationals' Brian Schneider caught it, when in reality the cat-calls began as soon as Cheney's name was announced. The boos raged even though Cheney was accompanied by three injured US servicemen who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would the percentage have been if Cheney had walked out on his own?

Charlie Sheen told a Hollywood audience that he felt "the only real validation that I needed [for speaking out on 9/11] was being a tax paying citizen that loves my country."

For that he received warm applause and the audience did not react negatively at any point when Sheen discussed his stance on 9/11. Watch the video and check it out for yourself.

Baffled we were therefore to witness the same establishment mouthpieces that had previously slammed Sheen after his first appearance on The Alex Jones Show continue to erroneously report that Sheen's comments provoked a negative reaction from the American people.

The Slashfilm website stated, "The public attacked Sheen after asking questions about 9/11 on a national radio show. The general viewpoint being that he was just an actor, what right does he have to make such accusations."

The public did no such thing. The only people who attacked Sheen were rabid Neo-Con armchair columnists who threw their toys out of the pram and spit out vitriolic junior high mentality gossip about his private life.

The CNN poll which finished at 83% in support of Sheen and the popular website Bravo Charlie 9/11 go to prove that the majority of the American people were behind Sheen, just as an every increasing majority are against the anti-American agenda of Bush and his big government cronies.

The New York Post insulted over half of their readers when they called Sheen a part of the "9/11 gone-bonkers brigade," a Zogby poll showed half of New Yorkers believed the government were complicit in the attacks and 66% called for a new investigation.

Cheney was booed and Sheen was applauded, but the lapdog ministry of truth would try and flip reality 180 degrees in an attempt to offset their crumbling architecture of control and credibility.

Source

Time to wake up. thumbsup.gif

Dude seriously why do you hate our president so much i mean do you just browse the net searching for ways to put him down.
fartmonkey65
QUOTE(tribalactivity @ Apr 21 2006, 08:28 AM) [snapback]1157717[/snapback]

The U.S probably supplied the chemicals

And just where do you get that.
Fluffybunny
QUOTE(fartmonkey65 @ Apr 21 2006, 07:52 AM) [snapback]1157787[/snapback]

And just where do you get that.


Wishful thinking. As long as it puts the US in a bad light, it must be true.
louie
QUOTE(Snowball @ Apr 20 2006, 06:23 PM) [snapback]1156097[/snapback]

There's quite an interesting article on Wiki about this :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Back on topic tho, I thinks it's sickening that Cheney would use injured soldiers to try to boost his own ailing popularity, if he had any balls he would have stood out there alone and taken the boo's he deserved, but as a known draft dodger I guess it's to be expected that he would hide behind those that had the courage to do what he never could.


well said,, well said
louie
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 20 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]1156132[/snapback]

What mass murder? The war?

Damn, talk about disrespect! The opposition soldiers fought bravely and well. Yes, we beat them soundly, but that is no reason to make it sound like they just threw away their weapons and waited to die. They earned their place in Valhalla.



hhhhhmmmmmm those opposition soldiers u rekon surrendered,, have you been watching the news there has been no surrender an there will be no surrender for a very very very long time. the americans are in this for a long haul. you cant beat terriosts it always drags on
Reincarnated
QUOTE(Tengu @ Apr 20 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1156051[/snapback]

I just feel sorry for those injured soldiers. How rude was that to boo with them out there?!?! I do not agree with the war, or with what is going on at the White House at the moment but I am still behind what our soldiers are doing...which is what they are being told to do. Sad when I have more respect for out men in uniform than the men in the White House...
The boos weren't for them and if your soo sympathetic towards our soldiers, why do you not care that they are being used as trophies by the VP. That was a pathetic move on his part and he very well deserves the boo's! More and more people are waking up and realizing that the Bush administration is all about profits for the rich good ol' boys and not about ordinary American citizens. Theres only a very few left who continue to support these criminals such as some people on these forums. They are too afraid to admit they are wrong and continue to support the administration out of sheer ignorance. Someday they will build up enough courage to accept what is really going on here and come out of their world of denial.
aquatus1
QUOTE(louie @ Apr 21 2006, 03:44 PM) [snapback]1157846[/snapback]

hhhhhmmmmmm those opposition soldiers u rekon surrendered,, have you been watching the news there has been no surrender an there will be no surrender for a very very very long time. the americans are in this for a long haul. you cant beat terriosts it always drags on


Who the heck said anything about surrendering?

Sanjuro disrespected the Iraqi soldiers by implying the resistance they put up was so negligable as to be considered non-existant. I say the soldiers fought and died in the finest traditions of loyalty and honor to their country, and their deaths deserve to be remembered as such, not as if they were cowards hiding in holes and waiting to be mass murdered.

aquatus1
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 21 2006, 03:48 PM) [snapback]1157852[/snapback]

The boos weren't for them and if your soo sympathetic towards our soldiers, why do you not care that they are being used as trophies by the VP. That was a pathetic move on his part and he very well deserves the boo's! More and more people are waking up and realizing that the Bush administration is all about profits for the rich good ol' boys and not about ordinary American citizens. Theres only a very few left who continue to support these criminals such as some people on these forums. They are too afraid to admit they are wrong and continue to support the administration out of sheer ignorance. Someday they will build up enough courage to accept what is really going on here and come out of their world of denial.


Oh, now I get it! Wow I would never have realized all these terrible things were happening to us! It took you calling us doubters scaredy-cats, ignorant, in denial, and, once again, cowards, to get me to take your seriously. Shoot, I wish you had insulted me earlier for not agreeing with you, instead of trying to reason with me.
Reincarnated
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 21 2006, 03:52 PM) [snapback]1157860[/snapback]

Oh, now I get it! Wow I would never have realized all these terrible things were happening to us! It took you calling us doubters scaredy-cats, ignorant, in denial, and, once again, cowards, to get me to take your seriously. Shoot, I wish you had insulted me earlier for not agreeing with you, instead of trying to reason with me.
There are quite a few people here who try to reason with your types in polite ways and that never helped. Even when we are polite, we get hostility and insults from you people. I speak the truth, those who want to wake up and believe can, those who don't want to, don't have to. I'm not trying to get you republican/neocon's types to take me seriously because it's impossible. You won't believe anything that criticizes our president or doesn't support your beliefs. That defines ignorance, which you very well are. In valid arguments in which we have proved you wrong or shown our opinions hold more valibility, you continue to believe otherwise and insist we are wrong. Thats denial for you. I very well believe Bush supports are cowards and blind followers. Prove me wrong. How do you like it now?

Face it, you are a dying breed.
KingTomis
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 21 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]1157902[/snapback]

There are quite a few people here who try to reason with your types in polite ways and that never helped. Even when we are polite, we get hostility and insults from you people. I speak the truth, those who want to wake up and believe can, those who don't want to, don't have to. I'm not trying to get you republican/neocon's types to take me seriously because it's impossible. You won't believe anything that criticizes our president or doesn't support your beliefs. That defines ignorance, which you very well are. In valid arguments in which we have proved you wrong or shown our opinions hold more valibility, you continue to believe otherwise and insist we are wrong. Thats denial for you. I very well believe Bush supports are cowards and blind followers. Prove me wrong. How do you like it now?

Face it, you are a dying breed.



How bout you prove it to be true?

A dying breed?

By that you mean intelligent people who actually look at the facts, not some conspiracy movie on video Google and base our decisions on rational thoughts instead of the left wing propaganda people like you put out, then yes, we are a dying breed.


Many Americans are not all that bright, and you will find that it is they that believe your lies. why? because you can put out colorful flyer's, videos on the internet with a guy who sounds pretty darn smart, yet has no credibility and endless amounts of articles with no sources that paint the American administration and lying, murdering fascists.

If I'm in the minority for looking at facts, not half twisted truths, then I'm proud of that.
aquatus1
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 21 2006, 04:23 PM) [snapback]1157902[/snapback]

There are quite a few people here who try to reason with your types in polite ways and that never helped. Even when we are polite, we get hostility and insults from you people. I speak the truth, those who want to wake up and believe can, those who don't want to, don't have to. I'm not trying to get you republican/neocon's types to take me seriously because it's impossible. You won't believe anything that criticizes our president or doesn't support your beliefs. That defines ignorance, which you very well are. In valid arguments in which we have proved you wrong or shown our opinions hold more valibility, you continue to believe otherwise and insist we are wrong. Thats denial for you. I very well believe Bush supports are cowards and blind followers. Prove me wrong. How do you like it now?
Face it, you are a dying breed.


Please. You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. You don't post the way you do because you have tried being polite and rational. You post the way you do because you haven't the ability to post your arguments in a polite and rational way. You justify your lack of ability by claiming that your opposition isn't worthy of.

Your kind is, unfortunately, not a dying breed. They have been around forever, and will be around forever. A hundred years from now, people such as yourselves will be accusing others of being blind and of walking straight into the NWO with eyes wide shut, and will still be whining about not receiving any respect from the blind, ignorant, sheeple who don't believe in government conspiracies.
sidel
QUOTE(fartmonkey65 @ Apr 21 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]1157786[/snapback]

Dude seriously why do you hate our president so much i mean do you just browse the net searching for ways to put him down.



Taguba's report, April 2004

See also Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse for more details and more photos
A naked prisoner, two soldiers, and a military police dog
Enlarge
A naked prisoner, two soldiers, and a military police dog

Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib.[6] Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely. Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.

Taguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib. Reservists tasked with guarding the prison population were inadequately trained, and Taguba faulted senior commanders for failing to address these deficiencies. Specifically, intelligence officers and members of one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Maryland, in charge of security, took part in the documented abuses.

Taguba's report cited numerous examples of inmate abuse, including:

* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
* Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
* Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
* Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
* Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
* Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
* Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
Enlarge
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
* Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
* Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
* A male MP guard raping a female detainee.
* Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
* Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
* Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
* Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
* Threatening male detainees with rape.
* Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.







Thats why
aquatus1
QUOTE(sidel @ Apr 21 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]1158001[/snapback]

Thats why


Wow! blink.gif

Our president did all that?

Busy man. I didn't think he visited Iraq for that long.
PLO
ummm as for the wishful thinking, America, Britain, France and Russia were the govermetns who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, its a fact. Live in Denial all you like, Britain, america and russia still sell large quantities of chemical weapons.

"Dude seriously why do you hate our president so much"

Becuase he's one of the most dangerous, criminaly insane dictators in the world.
StalingradK
QUOTE
Becuase he's one of the most dangerous, criminaly insane dictators in the world.


I don't really expect anything less from someone who's username is PLO and neither should UM. So you would put Bush Jr up there with Hitler and Stalin? How uneducated is that. More people died under Reagan's hands than any president after him.
aquatus1
Reagan? I would have said Roosevelt. WWII had, what, a little over a million casualties?

Or even Lincoln. The Civil War was pretty close to a million casualties.
PLO
so your basicaly admitting your country has a long history of genocidal maniacs?
aquatus1
What country doesn't?
StalingradK
WTF, do you have any idea of what you're saying aguatus. And do you either PLO? WWII and the American Civil War were not genocides.

QUOTE
Reagan? I would have said Roosevelt. WWII had, what, a little over a million casualties?

Or even Lincoln. The Civil War was pretty close to a million casualties.


No, wrong, WWII resulted in around 480,000 American deaths and the Civil war resulted in around 650,000 deaths.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Reagan? I would have said Roosevelt.


Read it more carefully.
QUOTE
More people died under Reagan's hands than any president after him.
PLO
sorry stalingrad, but men responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions, are genocidal maniacs, they should be shot for their crimes so they cant cuase any more trouble for the poor people their using to make money off.
aquatus1
QUOTE(StalingradK @ Apr 22 2006, 02:06 AM) [snapback]1158469[/snapback]

WTF, do you have any idea of what you're saying aguatus. And do you either PLO? WWII and the American Civil War were not genocides.


Sorry, I didn't think we were being picky. I figured we could include everyone who died from either bullet or an infection while shaving. And I was kind of going with PLO's definition of genocide, which I gather to be basically, anything that could be considered a death, regardless of cause, intent, or reason.
PLO
btw a genocide is simply a killing of a large number of people. So i guess its how much you value human life, two people might seem like a lot og people but then six million might seem like hardly any. ITs a pretty subjective word to be honest.
StalingradK
No, definition of genocide:

Main Entry: geno·cide
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Just because someone kills many in a war does not mean it's genocide.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Genocide

So WWII and the Civil war were genocides by definition of the above? I think not. The USA has only commited an act of Genocide during the colonization of America, that's about it.
Snowball
QUOTE(PLO @ Apr 21 2006, 08:41 PM) [snapback]1158141[/snapback]

ummm as for the wishful thinking, America, Britain, France and Russia were the govermetns who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons


...and Germany.
dmgspycat
I hate to see a bunch of us get into arguments over small details and misunderstandings.

Im sure that crowd at RFK stadium were not booing those wounded soldiers w/ Cheney. Thse people are Americans too...and they obviously had a problem with Cheney over misleading the public and a plethora of other issues.

Another thing I notice....what Saddam did 20 years ago to the Kurds is irrelevant to this topic. The focus should be on US. This is the US's war. The reason they gave to us for entering that war is based on a fictitious lie we all know now. Even Powell said that there were untruths. This war has cost many lives to both sides...innocent lives!

Not only are we in there based on lies...but what happened at Abhu Gahraib is sickening to me as a human being....that we...the US... would stoop that low.

The leaders of this war are responsible...not the troops...we all know this.
PLO
genocide

/jennsid/

• noun the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.

— DERIVATIVES genocidal adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek genos ‘race’

sorry but using the oxford english dictionary, which i feel is more than adequate as an authority on the uses and definition of the english language. So by this definition any war is an act of genocide as it is a deliberate killing of a large number of persons.Anyway the fact is, the entire american goverment has basicaly been hood winking its populace for the last centuary into greivous act of treachery and war against foreign lands. And people beleive their lies. And saddly have to much pride to admit they were wrong for beleiving them becuase their in so deep now, why bother stop?. nonesense.
aquatus1
PLO, the word genocide is used for a specific purpose, and both the definitions presented support that. You are ignoring that specific purpose, and pretending that it can also mean, instead of a specific ethnic group, religion, or race, it means anything and anyone all the the same time. You are fooling no one,, nor ar you making yourself any more credible by trying to pass off such a stretch as a reasonable interpretation. If you do indeed consider it reasonable to define genocide as any sort of murder, then there is really nothing more to discuss with you, as you apperantly have no trouble changing the definition of any word to anything that you wish for it to become.
PLO
but your completely ignoring what the definition of the word means to suit yourself, as in it must be of a sufficiently large number of people in order to qualify as an act of genocide. This is not the case, its what the word has come to mean by people to denote a seriousness to an act of aggresion, but thats not what the definition states.

"instead of a specific ethnic group, religion, or race, it means anything and anyone all the the same time."

surely killing anyone is a genocidial act as any one persons qualifies to be of an ethinic, perhaps a religion and obviously they are of a race of peoples. I'm actually honestly not sure where the glass ceiling is to qualify murders as genocide came from, as that is not consistent with the actual meaning or definition of the word. Even from its greek root, race, it simply means a killing against a member of a paticular race.
aquatus1
QUOTE(PLO @ Apr 22 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]1158833[/snapback]

but your completely ignoring what the definition of the word means to suit yourself, as in it must be of a sufficiently large number of people in order to qualify as an act of genocide. This is not the case, its what the word has come to mean by people to denote a seriousness to an act of aggresion, but thats not what the definition states.

"instead of a specific ethnic group, religion, or race, it means anything and anyone all the the same time."

surely killing anyone is a genocidial act as any one persons qualifies to be of an ethinic, perhaps a religion and obviously they are of a race of peoples. I'm actually honestly not sure where the glass ceiling is to qualify murders as genocide came from, as that is not consistent with the actual meaning or definition of the word. Even from its greek root, race, it simply means a killing against a member of a paticular race.


No. It means the systematic wiping out of the entire race, ethnic group, or 'people'. Genocide is the word used when Hitler tried to destroy the Jews for no other reason than them being Jewish. Genocide is what Saddam did to the Kurds, simply because they were not 'his' people. Genocidedoes not mean killing a few people and then finding out they belonged to a particular group; it means that you intentionally set out to destroy that particular group. It has nothing to do with quantity, but rather intent. Quantity is only a by-product of the crime, not the definition of it.
PLO
So the Israelis are commting acts of genocide against the Plaestininans and vice versa?
aquatus1
Only if the intent is to systematically wipe out not just the soldiers, but every last man, woman, and child.
Stellar
QUOTE

btw a genocide is simply a killing of a large number of people.


No, genocide is killing a large group of people who belong to a certain race...

QUOTE

sorry but using the oxford english dictionary, which i feel is more than adequate as an authority on the uses and definition of the english language.


Alright, lets use the oxford dictionary if you trust it.

Race:
noun 1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. 2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race. 3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 4 a group of people or things with a common feature. 5 Biology a distinct population within a species; a subspecies.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/race_2?view=uk


QUOTE

So by this definition any war is an act of genocide as it is a deliberate killing of a large number of persons.


Read your definition again:

genocide

/jennsid/

• noun the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.

— DERIVATIVES genocidal adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek genos ‘race’

Snowball
We seem to be getting waylaid with semantics here, we've gone a long way off topic, lets try and get it back to the matter in point.
aquatus1
The original subject matter doesn't have a whole lot to it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.