Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Slayer

Bush claims his actions were demanded by God

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dowdy
but either way this war was and still is justified. WMD's are out there. but of course, the media decides not to report it.

Yeah, they're out there just not in the country where your killing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
PadawanOsswe

Yeah, they're out there just not in the country where your killing people.

so little commen sense :rolleyes:

they had them in 94', who's to say the b****** still didnt have em? a b****** never changes his ways. if he had WMD's,had them taken away, he will get new WMD's.

not to mention the many Chemical weapons caches we have found in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy
so little commen sense

they had them in 94', who's to say the b****** still didnt have em? a b****** never changes his ways. if he had WMD's,had them taken away, he will get new WMD's.

not to mention the many Chemical weapons caches we have found in Iraq.

Jezz, how naive can you be. You must be the only one in the world who actually still think they have WMD. Even the US government admitted they were wrong...

here

Quoting two diplomats, USA Today says the report is a review of seven years of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq.

They were there for 7 years and found nothing. Does that tell you something... :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riotboy555

That's funny that he said such a thing. If someone off the street killed somebody else, and did it "because God told them to," he would most certainly be imprisoned and/or institutionalized. But of course, he's the President. And God only talks to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

ok guys, simple fact, anyone who believes in a creator God can technically argue that everything is a result of God. Why did i fall over just now? it was god! The issue isn't whether or not Bush believes God made him president (because thats somehow less irrational than thinking God created existence?)

What however should be looked at is whether or not what Bush said regarding his MOTIVATIONS for the Iraq war, these quotes have been presented in a way that it appears that his motivations are solely that of a crazy "god told me to do it", so lets establish whether or not this should be taken literally. The palestinian official who is sourced to this has said he didn't take it literally, why is everyone else?

re: electoral college

i don't care about its initial intentions, i'm discussing its use now in a country with disproportionate population centres and a vast geography. This isn't England or France or Sweden. The electoral college encourages candidates to consider the smaller states instead of pandering to the likes of California, Texas, New York, Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe

Jezz, how naive can you be. You must be the only one in the world who actually still think they have WMD. Even the US government admitted they were wrong...

here

They were there for 7 years and found nothing. Does that tell you something... :no:

naive, no

the average public gets so swayed by the biased media. the white house just say's they were wrong because they dont know what to say.

but from studying my enemy, I have been led me to belive that there are or were WMD's in Iraq.

a b****** never changes his way's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspiracy

hmm now if god told bush to jump off a bridge, i wonder if bush would do it o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

<.< of course, how silly of me, i shouldn't bother trying to understand the meaning of the statement, all i need to know is Bush is dumb and is trying to take over the world >.>

wtf are you talking about showed up as an apparent liar?

can you people at least research this stuff, AND then apply some critical thought and logic to what you have researched?

I'll happily critisize the media if it doesn't apply to 'me' if it gets something wrong

Hahaha...! Then please, where are the WOMD then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

artical = bull****

Dubya is a christian but in no way an extremist! you want extremists, go visit the KKK.

i'm sure he was just joking.

but either way this war was and still is justified. WMD's are out there. but of course, the media decides not to report it. :rolleyes:

BTW AshKatNa, next time you have a thought...let it go

your bigotry is hilarious.

On the contrary it is actually surprising that they never tried to manipulate the media to come up with a scam where they "find" the WOMD, i. e. when Bush saw that the WOMD never were to be found, I'm astonished he didn't bother planting "evidence" himself in Iraq.

So, instead of doing that, they've suppressed the somewhat shaky criticism that actually existed in the media a few years ago (about the "never- found- WOMD").

Today, that public criticism is gone. How?

And Bathory, yes, Bush IS trying to take over the world. How else can one explain the radical progress of the US in the world. I don't think you, living in the US, have a good view of the strong American medial and political presence in the rest of the world. To you, America is a gallant (and misunderstood) world- police.

Well, you're wrong.

Have you ever heard about the Monroe Doctrine? The Doctrine accepted by (among other) your government is pure contradiction to what happens today. Of course, the US is not pulling the strings openly, that would be idiotic.

What really is happening is that the great powers are once again dividing this planet between them as it were a big bag of candy.

Now we're really out of topic. I really think Bush hears God in his head- no joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

Bush God comments 'not literal'

A Palestinian official who said the US president had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan says he did not take George Bush's words literally.

Nabil Shaath said he and other world leaders at a Jordan summit two years ago did not believe Mr Bush thought God had given him a personal message.

Mr Bush's spokesman said the original allegation, which will appear in a BBC documentary next week, was absurd.

Scott McClellan said the comments had never been made.

The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs.

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

'Strong faith'

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

"President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said.

"We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted."

The TV series charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former US President Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year.

It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
Hahaha...! Then please, where are the WOMD then?

have you read the report by David Kay? they concluded that Saddam hadn't managed to reconstitute his stockpiles though as we knew back after the gulf war, a stack of stuff is unaccounted for. What happened to it? it could have been used, it could have been destroyed, it could be out in the desert somewhere. What Kay concluded was that Saddam was in a position to being fullscale production the moment sanctions were lifted, he had all the manufacturing systems in place. He had weaponry that exceed the ranges imposed by the UN. On top of that, he had been attempting to purchase Yellowcake from Africa (the Butler report confirms this, sorry but Ambassador Wilson has been caught out lying on numerous occasion and has demonstrated he isn't a particularly reliable source), as well as attempting to purchase new delivery systems from North Korea.

And Bathory, yes, Bush IS trying to take over the world. How else can one explain the radical progress of the US in the world. I don't think you, living in the US, have a good view of the strong American medial and political presence in the rest of the world. To you, America is a gallant (and misunderstood) world- police.

Well, you're wrong.

the radical progress? like what? removing troops from german bases? removing troops from south korean bases? removing troops from Saudi Arabia? Under Bush the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, this to you is global domination?

Please don't assume, it makes you look foolish. I'm not american, and i don't live in the US. The US is doing its best to get rid of islamic fascism in a higly volatile region that plays an important role globally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

I did assume, because of your stance. So, I was wrong. Where do you live, if I so may ask?

The removal of troops is official, even though they ARE building new bases in Europe and Asia (NATO). They are moving troops because the job is done. Planted puppet regimes in some of those countries (Iraq) make sure things run smoothly from afar.

And islamic fanaticism- that's is a relative subject. I mean, no country is insane and evil from start, they must have SOME other issues against the US that simply being "envious of their freedom and way of living", like Bush states.

Yes, fanatic islamists ARE evil and insane, but shouldn't the question really be why? What has made them this way? When? It really isn't their culture. It really isn't their religion. So, then what is it?

Is there perhaps something the US has done or is doing? It wouldn't surprise me. So far, I haven't read enough about the possibilities, I admit. But I don't believe the Islamists terrorism just "popped out" out of nowhere.

Politics are much deeper than just being black or white. The Holy war on West vs Bush's Holy war on them towelheads is a mutual insanity. But why? I really don't know.

I fear MORE the American imperialism with their neo-liberal media control and conglomerate powers promoting materialism to the extreme, slowly and right now actually taking over the world than suicide bombers from Middle East.

No, Saddam and alike should not have WOMD, even if I'm against US involvement in that matter. (WOMD monopoly is the ultimate goal for America, though).

But before starting to think about comparing mental stability of a nation (since Iraq and alike are stated "instable" countries), let me tell you the US wouldn't hesitate one second letting Cheney nuke North Corea if they hadn't bend for the American pressure on the Nuclear issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
bathory
The removal of troops is official, even though they ARE building new bases in Europe and Asia (NATO). They are moving troops because the job is done. Planted puppet regimes in some of those countries (Iraq) make sure things run smoothly from afar.

bahaha, planted puppet regimes in some of those regions? of all the areas mentioned the only two that could possibly be seen as puppet governments (ignoring the fact they were voted in by the populace) are Iraq and Afghanistan. That ignores places like SA, Germany and South Korea where the US is removing troops. Bush is sure doing a bang up job at taking over the world, he's removed troops from strategic locations in Europe and East Asia. GREAT STUFF :rolleyes:

And islamic fanaticism- that's is a relative subject. I mean, no country is insane and evil from start, they must have SOME other issues against the US that simply being "envious of their freedom and way of living", like Bush states.

shows how little you know about the ideology, these islamic groups are politically motivated islamic extremists, they are motivated through their religion, striving for political power of said religion. Its just like the Nazis or the Church back in the middle ages.

Yes, fanatic islamists ARE evil and insane, but shouldn't the question really be why? What has made them this way? When? It really isn't their culture. It really isn't their religion. So, then what is it?

It IS their culture, it IS their religion. Look at Wahhabism, look at the Taliban, look at Hamas etc are you honestly going to say they are motivated by their hatred for the US and not deeper spiritual reasons? reasons rooted in both culture and religion?

Is there perhaps something the US has done or is doing? It wouldn't surprise me. So far, I haven't read enough about the possibilities, I admit. But I don't believe the Islamists terrorism just "popped out" out of nowhere.

Sunni extremist hatred towards the west should never have existed, why? because the US has supported Sunni islam. Listen to Al Queda's rhetoric about how the Shiia and Palestinians are heretics that should be slaughtered, and then listen to them cry about American injustices against the very same people they despise. Its irrational, its illogical, and both sides of extremist islam scream the same old irrational rhetoric hoping gullible idiots lap it up in an attempt to justify and legitamise their cause which is ultimately the drive to push fundamental islam onto the region and in a perfect world, everyone else.

Explain the dark ages, thats the christian equivalent of what we are seeing now. The later crusades were a result of religious extremism (to be fair the first few were driven by Islamic aggression towards the west, coming up through spain into france was the closest the islamic armies got).

I fear MORE the American imperialism with their neo-liberal media control and conglomerate powers promoting materialism to the extreme, slowly and right now actually taking over the world than suicide bombers from Middle East.

of course, but you also content with a ****ty world so long as the US isn't the one to pull countries out of the holes they are in. How thoughtful.

No, Saddam and alike should not have WOMD, even if I'm against US involvement in that matter. (WOMD monopoly is the ultimate goal for America, though).

But before starting to think about comparing mental stability of a nation (since Iraq and alike are stated "instable" countries), let me tell you the US wouldn't hesitate one second letting Cheney nuke North Corea if they hadn't bend for the American pressure on the Nuclear issue.

puhlease, could you be any more ignorant? you sound like what you critisize bush of being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

No, I actually believe the world would be better off without the US pulling the strings and pulling countries out of holes. Come on, the US alone has started/helped to raise more wars since the 1950:s than the different conflict- nation altoghether (Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, Somalia, different South American Governments, etc etc.)

The Islamists are no angels, I never say they were, but I still think it's something more than them being primordial people.

And, well, those muslims that terrorize, they fight for "their religion" while Bush has the multinational conglomerates in his back waiting for him to pave the way for them.

Do you really think, when people chosed Bush, they voted for democracy?

I don't criticise Bush for his being, I say he and his underdogs are wqually fanatic and instable as the muslim extremists "over there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
I don't criticise Bush for his being, I say he and his underdogs are wqually fanatic and instable as the muslim extremists "over there".

oh come of it, there is no comparison between Bush and the likes of Osama, when you say ignorant things like this, it undermines any credibility that you may have. What next? are you going to claim Bush is as bad as Hitler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

i don't care about its initial intentions, i'm discussing its use now in a country with disproportionate population centres and a vast geography. This isn't England or France or Sweden. The electoral college encourages candidates to consider the smaller states instead of pandering to the likes of California, Texas, New York, Florida.

Since the electoral college members are proportional to the population of their state, what difference does it make? Instead of insuring a fair process, it disenfranchises voters just as it did in the three elections where presidents were "selected" without a majority vote. In fact, the electoral college has NEVER represented the popular vote:

Electoral % Popular %

1824 John Q. Adams 31.8% 29.8%

1844 James K. Polk (D) 61.8 49.3

1848 Zachary Taylor (W) 56.2 47.3

1856 James Buchanan (D) 58.7 45.3

1860 Abraham Lincoln ® 59.4 39.9

1876 Rutherford B. Hayes ® 50.1 47.9

1880 James A. Garfield ® 57.9 48.3

1884 Grover Cleveland (D) 54.6 48.8

1888 Benjamin Harrison ® 58.1 47.8

1892 Grover Cleveland (D) 62.4 46.0

1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) 81.9 41.8

1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 52.1 49.3

1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1 49.5

1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4 49.7

1968 Richard M. Nixon ® 56.1 43.4

1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 43.0

1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 49.0

2000 George W. Bush ® 50.3 47.8

There have, in fact, been countless cases where the delegate, sworn to represent the will of the voters, has voted in opposition to the voters.

This may not be England, France or Sweden, but none of those nations have ever had a minority vote prime minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
In fact, the electoral college has NEVER represented the popular vote

2004 Bush won both

what exactly are the English/French/Swedish systems? if its anything like the preferential voting system in Australia than its quite possible for something like you have described to happen.

Regardless, the reasons for why the electoral college is used are still perfectly legitamate

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

oh come of it, there is no comparison between Bush and the likes of Osama, when you say ignorant things like this, it undermines any credibility that you may have. What next? are you going to claim Bush is as bad as Hitler?

No, I don't find myself ignorant. You are obviously refusing to see the bad sides of Bush.

He is cutting fond to schools, hospitals, police, social-insurance rapidly. Why?

Because altruism and solidarity is for evil Communist pussies, right? Who cares about others? Why should my money go into the social security system, I'll pay when I get ill!

Privatisation and de-regulation seems to be the praise of tomorrow. Unchained free markets where remorseless competition and fusion build up the market forces hypocrisy.

More than 37% of all Americans live in severe poverty while 20% are considered upper-class. They all are ruled by the 5% ultra- richest of the richest.

Bush and his buddies are behind this. More money, more wealth, empty promises.

To actively and persitently make things worse for the million Americans even though the proof that America is a growing ghetto is right in your presidential face, doesn't make him better than Hitler, no matter how insane that sounds to you.

That's only for America. In the world, I can't believe you believe the picture painted by CNN every day, where brave marines fight against the dirty, evil terrorists.

You don't think this whole show was/is for the oil? Everything, all political little scams, all thousands of deaths.

Like I said, I say it once again. Terrorists are terrorists, but they've got to have been provoked somehow, no matter how primitive and perhaps aggressive their culture is, no one makes an enemy of America(specifically) because they're plainly "evil"!

Believing and supporting Bush and thinking that he is the Man, that the US are our saviours who police the world themselves and that we should be grateful (?!) to them is to live in the ****ing "Simpsons", if you understand the satirical humour there at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Slayer

2004 Bush won both

what exactly are the English/French/Swedish systems? if its anything like the preferential voting system in Australia than its quite possible for something like you have described to happen.

Regardless, the reasons for why the electoral college is used are still perfectly legitamate

He might have won the second one, but the first one he didn't. He actively excluded thousands of (black) people and then blamed it on "electrical failure" (regarding the electorial machines), whose major manufacturers- Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S— of touch screen voting machines and central tabulators—are owned and run by Bush Republicans. Just for information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

hehe nice one ashkat

seems like your posts are nothing more than an attempt to mention as many silly illogical talkingpoints at once in the hope of some sticking

please tell me how anything Bush has done is comparable to the extremely fascist reactionary political agenda of groups such as the Taliban and those who hold a similar ideology?

37% of americans? where did you pull that number from? the highest i can find is 12% of americans live under the poverty line, so this doesn't specifically refer to those living in severe poverty (however that may be defined), thanks for the obligatory rant about wealth distribution. Doesn't make him better than Hitler? you are hilarious

Seriously, can you at least make a post that at least has something factually correct in it? the whole black voters etc thing is completely retarded, seriously, i cant think of a nicer way to describe it.

If you represent the political opposition to Bush and the neocons, i don't know whether to laugh or cry:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

Since both of you live outside of the United States, as do I, then I think there should be some agreement about some of the negatives that can be attributed to George Bush.

The world recognizes that the U.S. is THE world power. Before Bush, however, that recognition was given with respect, not fear. Americans traveled abroud and were envied for their heritage and rights as a citizen. Now Americans are characterized by the actions of their government and are not welcomed or respected as before. Now it is the desire for their dollars, but not with the admiration of past years.

George Bush has diminished the reputation and principles of the United States. He has flaunted world opinion and asked his people to forget that they are citizens of this planet but only citizens of their nation. And that nation has diluted civil rights and intruded upon common privacy. It has defied the Constitution as well as it has defied the rest of the world and its governments and leaders.

It may be difficult to identify an action of Bush that can be compared to the Taliban but it is not an unfounded comparison that Hitler invaded Poland against world opinion and without evidences to support a cause just as GWB invaded Iraq against world opinion and without sufficient evidences to support his "cause."

No one can know the motives of this man and it isn't important that we do. But we can all see and recognize the damages he has done and should have the insight and courage to make him answerable for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
Since both of you live outside of the United States, as do I, then I think there should be some agreement about some of the negatives that can be attributed to George Bush.

of course, like there are negatives that can be conrtibuted to any political leader

i had a nice big response lined up, but the crux of it all was you are ideologically opposed to Bush, no matter what i say, you'll believe that he lied about Iraq, etc etc you'll refuse to see any of the positives regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and simply remain opposed to such actions because it reaffirms your political opposition to Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twpdyp
of course, like there are negatives that can be conrtibuted to any political leader

i had a nice big response lined up, but the crux of it all was you are ideologically opposed to Bush, no matter what i say, you'll believe that he lied about Iraq, etc etc you'll refuse to see any of the positives regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and simply remain opposed to such actions because it reaffirms your political opposition to Bush.

Well said and ohh so true!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

of course, like there are negatives that can be conrtibuted to any political leader

i had a nice big response lined up, but the crux of it all was you are ideologically opposed to Bush, no matter what i say, you'll believe that he lied about Iraq, etc etc you'll refuse to see any of the positives regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and simply remain opposed to such actions because it reaffirms your political opposition to Bush.

You're quite right. I doubt that anything you could say would change my opinion about Bush. But it is also fair to recognize that my opinion, and those of 57% of Americans who now oppose his form of leadership, was based upon evidences, not personal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.