Steps to becoming a GOOD Democrat

[Pop N Wood]

Let's just say I don't believe the propaganda. Rape rooms. "Shall I shave the fiery eyed maiden and bring her to rape room 1?" "no, Uday is using that. Bring her to rape room 2." And dragging out old iron maidens and saying that was used on Olymopic athletes. That would explain their lack of medals. But we only get one side as we are not even allowing defense lawyers to speak to Saddam as it might jeopardize national security. And now the Brits have confirmed abuses at our Cuba base as well as Abu Graib. If we are truly doing this for th egood of the people, why haven't we done anything about the genocide of over half a million in Africa and the starvation of 200,000 refugees? Oh yeah, they don't have any oil.

 

 

 

The rape rooms are not propaganda. They are an established fact. Do a little web research if you don't believe the common sources. Saddam would arrest the families of his adversaries and have their daughters repeatedly raped in front of them as a form of torture. And he video taped most of it, so you can't say it didn't happen. Then somewhere in this process he would immerse the adversary is a vat of acid, removing all of his skin, before letting him go. But please, don't believe me. Make an effort to verify these facts.

 

The history channel did a series on Saddam and his sons. All I can say is it lends new meaning to the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Those guys did what ever they wanted. They had no one to answer to. On the plus side, Uday had a warehouse with over a 1000 exotic cars. Most of them Ferrari's. Saddam got so mad at Uday that he had it burned to the ground. And all of this while the country was under “UN sanctionsâ€. Oh, and they talked about Uday heading up the Iraqi Olympic committee. Vince Lombardi should have had such motivational tools available to him.

 

But all this controversy about WMD just shows what sheeple most Americans are. If the only knowledge you have about the reasons for that war came out of the pre-war sound bites, then you are truly an ill informed individual who is overly susceptible to media manipulation.

 

If you read the newspapers in the 12 years between the two wars, you would realize we were bombing that country on almost a daily basis. This was done at the direction of the almighty UN to enforce the no fly zones. What was being done to the people of Iraq in that time was absolutely criminal. Totally indefensible. Saddam didn't care. He rebuilt the palaces, his sons bought Ferraris. The French and Russians did not care, because they were getting rich off the black market trading with Iraq. Remember the UN's oil for food program? Suppose to allow Iraq to sell oil for humanitarian needs? Ever hear about how much money was left in that account because Saddam had no desire to use it to mitigate his people's suffering.

 

To me that war was either "chit or get off the pot" time. There can be absolutely no question what an evil person Saddam was so don’t even try going there. Whether it was our place to remove him is just another instance of the age old question “Am I my brother’s keeper?â€. To say we went into Iraq for monetary gain is ludicrous give the current state of affairs. To say we went in there for oil is true to a degree in that oil is money and money is power. It can make a mad man a world menace.

 

And don’t even bring up the Africa issue. We left too many dead Americans in Somalia to say the US doesn't try to help the less fortunate. How much oil was in Bosnia? How many dead Marines did we lose in Lebanon, back when we thought our mere presence was all that was needed to make a difference. Look at the current events in Sudan. We are doing what we can but you have to be smart enough and learn from past mistakes TO KEEP FROM REPEATING THEM. There are some situations that not even the US military can fix.

 

And another thing. The US gets blasted at the world AIDS conference. Never mind the fact that US contributes more to international AIDS relief THEN ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!

 

If you are going to be critical of US policies and try to assign motives, then at least make some effort to intelligently research the issue first.

[Guest Phil1934]

So Uday had 1000 Ferraris and the only dates he could get had to be dragged into rape rooms? If violation of UN sanctions is enough reason to invade a country, then Israel has the most and they are only 100 miles away from our troops. The gassing of Kurds is also brought up as a reason, but THIS WAS 13 YEARS AGO. Africa is now, but we lost troops there. We lost a thousand in Iraq but we're going to stay the course, see it through, four more years, blah, blah.

[Pop N Wood]

So Uday had 1000 Ferraris and the only dates he could get had to be dragged into rape rooms? If violation of UN sanctions is enough reason to invade a country, then Israel has the most and they are only 100 miles away from our troops. The gassing of Kurds is also brought up as a reason, but THIS WAS 13 YEARS AGO. Africa is now, but we lost troops there. We lost a thousand in Iraq but we're going to stay the course, see it through, four more years, blah, blah.

 

Open your mind and actually research the issue. Uday pulled young girls off of school yards. His own teachers were afraid of him. He did what ever he wanted. One of the few times he saw any repercussions was the time he beat his father's food taster to death, and Daddy had him jailed and tortured.

 

My point about Africa isn't just that we lost troops there, it is that there is only so much we can do. The dead troops are just proof positive that we tried. Are you honestly saying we should invade half a dozen African nations? What is it you expect from the US?

 

And I will tell you again. Please, don't believe me in any of this. Look it all up for yourself.

[Mikelly]

Pop, My guess is you and I are wasting our time... Remember what I said about the extreme left... and the extreme right...

 

Baah Baah...

 

Like I said before.. SHEEOPLE... Follow the flocks... Funny thing is, and this WILL happen again and I WILL Pull this post up and reprint it... THERE WILL BE MORE ATTACKS on US SOIL... Mark my words... And guess what?

 

THEY DON'T CARE who YOU VOTE FOR!

 

Have a nice one... I'm done talking to the wall.

Mike 8)

[JMortensen]

So Uday had 1000 Ferraris and the only dates he could get had to be dragged into rape rooms? If violation of UN sanctions is enough reason to invade a country, then Israel has the most and they are only 100 miles away from our troops. The gassing of Kurds is also brought up as a reason, but THIS WAS 13 YEARS AGO. Africa is now, but we lost troops there. We lost a thousand in Iraq but we're going to stay the course, see it through, four more years, blah, blah.

 

The violations of the cease fire agreement occured as recently as the day before we invaded. If that's not "now" enough for you, then you're not dealing with reality.

 

Clinton RAN from Mogadishu, none of the troops wanted to pull out, but Clinton didn't know how to run a war, so he ran. Read some interviews with the soldiers who were there. They were PISSED.

 

Sure, he'll bomb Bosnia, and he was lucky that no ground troops were needed there, because as soon as Americans started getting shot up en masse, he would have pulled us out of there too. If Clinton had gone into Iraq in 1998, there would have been NO debate. It would have been the right thing to do, and no one would have complained (except maybe France). Instead he just fired a couple cruise missiles and called it a day. Also the same thing he did to Afghanistan.

 

I still think no matter what country we went to deal with as a result of UN sanctions or a direct attack on us or whatever, YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT. That's the impression I'm getting. So it's another one of those situations where people say "we should be somewhere else" which actually means that "we shouldn't meddling abroad" which actually means "terrorism is a law enforcement issue" which actually means "lets huddle in a corner and hope we don't get attacked again".

 

EDIT--If you are truly one of the few who believe we should have kept more troops in Afghanistan and kicked more ass there, I can appreciate that. Here in Seattle, with all the freaky left wing nut jobs, I saw protestors EVERY DAY who didn't want us in Afghanistan after 911. You can still see them EVERY WEEKEND protesting Iraq.

[pparaska]

Has there been any other proven justification for going into Iraq other than removing Saddam?

 

Are 1000 Iraqi's killed by Saddam's regime per month for decades not reason enough? On human rights horrors alone, the UN should have moved on Saddam's regime much sooner. Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be about?

 

Want to wait around for Saddam to actually develop (or more likely buy) WMDs and ICBMs to deliver them to us with?

 

We killed Iraqi's huh? Damned right. Terrorist Iraqi's, Saddam's torturous regime Iraqi's. Crazed idiots that listen to murderous clerics to kill all invading Americans, when we are there to HELP Iraq, not as invaders. Politics again, and used to send young men off to meet their death at the hands of Americans who are really there to help.

 

Is this a problem? Sure we killed Iraqi's. And 1000 dead US soldiers is a small price to pay. Yes, I feel sorry for them and their families. But they knew what they faced when they JOINED the armed forces or stayed in the reserves. SHAME on the dead soldier's families for disgracing their memory by saying the war is wrong, that we shouldn't be there, that somehow their son or daughter's life is worth more than the Iraqi's that have been freed by the coalition.

 

I mean have we found the weapons yet?

 

All I hear is people saying we needed to remove him from power, blah blah..... but is that why we went to war?

 

If Bush had to lie to the wussy UN and the weak-stomached American people and over-sell WMDs, when the actual reason was just as worthy, but somehow not as palettable to the UN and the weak-stomached US populace, I have little problem with it. IF that were the case.

 

I've seen enough games played with US intelligence to know that the games are necessary. Lying to the UN is easily forgivable by me. They deserved no real respect anyway. But I'm saying that that it would be forgivable - if

the WMDs were a lie. YOU will never know. Most people won't. And that's the way it HAS to be. The US, or any organization, must protect it's intelligence gathering methods and sources. And sometimes that means twisting the truth to do so. Maybe, just maybe, the US DID show the UN real proof that we had every reason to believe there were WMDs. The public will know that only in several decades when it is all declassified.

 

Lying to the US pulbic on TV only to save your marriage, and your shot at a second term in the presidency - that's unforgivable to me.

 

Cutting the CIA budget to the bone - so that we had no chance of infiltrating Islamic extremist groups or gathering other terrorism information. That's unforgivable as well.

 

My belief is that Kerry will go even farther to mess the terrorist thing up. Especially since he doesn't even acknowledge it's a war on terrorism.

 

I also believe that there will be terrorist attempts just prior to the November elections. I hope all are foiled. But the reason for the attacks are so strong and proven (thanks to the IDIOTS at the polls in Spain), that I believe they are inevitable. Al Qaieda knows that the terrorist tactics worked in Spain, and they read the media and probably believe that the weak-stomached US populace will vote Bush out if they believe Kerry will be their lap dog if they are successful.

 

I'm with Mike - close the borders to all but a select few foreigners with very well checked out paperwork, and to very well documented US citizens. That might help. But the sleepers are what we need to be worried about.

[JMortensen]

Hey Pete, have you seen this?

 

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_777476,00.html

 

Somehow I can't feel all that bad that some Germans might lose their jobs if we pull out our troops... After all we did protect them from communist Russia for 45 years. You'd figure there would be a little less bitching.

 

Is this a problem? Sure we killed Iraqi's. And 1000 dead US soldiers is a small price to pay. Yes, I feel sorry for them and their families. But they knew what they faced when they JOINED the armed forces or stayed in the reserves. SHAME on the dead soldier's families for disgracing their memory by saying the war is wrong, that we shouldn't be there, that somehow their son or daughter's life is worth more than the Iraqi's that have been freed by the coalition.

 

This is the least politically correct and TRUEST thing said on the loss of American soldiers. They are volunteer forces. What really gets me is the ones that deserted... Canada still giving them safe harbor?

[Brad-ManQ45]

To be a GOOD Democrat - DIE!

[blueovalz]

Of the 4 years I’ve been a member of this site, this string is the one I can say gives me the red-ass worse than any other I’ve ever read. It’s gravitated from making light of Democrats, to a debate on something seriously near and dear to me. We’ve got a nation (a forum) glaringly divided over a situation that our country is embroiled in. I’m a firm believer that if a nation is so polarized over a specific situation it’s in, then it shouldn’t be in that situation to begin with.

The “SHEEOPLE†(as defined earlier) that I saw 3 years ago (after the attack in NY) were the “flag on every car and on every home†sector, saying that “because we got our nose bloodied, we will stand together, regardless of the direction we are told to stand.†Basically, we were united, which gave us tremendous potential. But instead of taking that costly (very costly) potential, and directing it with unquestionable direction, we (someone) are squandering it in another country, a country that should have instead been placed at the top of a list of “grass fires to be pissed on.†If someone robs me and beats my wife in the process, I will not go and beat up on the first guy that looks cross-eyed at me. Instead, I’m going to go devastate the SOB that hurt my wife.

One very important test of whether a country should be involved in a situation (conflict, etc) is whether the country is united in that endeavor. Once united, we wouldn’t blink at ten thousand casualties lost over a “just causeâ€, but divided, we suffer for just a thousand. If the thousand lost, were lost hunting down the guy who attacked us, then let me be part of the next thousand, but don’t put me with the next 100 that are distracting me from hunting the one who attacked us.

 

Politics and Religion, liberal and conservative, I’m right, and everybody else is wrong (I’m sitting here shaking my head, and wondering…). Neither side sees the wrong that “their†side does, but never overlooks the wrong done by the other side.

 

I avoided this string for as long as I could, and I hope I can avoid looking at this string ever again. And to make matters worst, it took me 20 minutes to log in (Error message FW-1 at Frodo) just to post this reply (perhaps it’s not meant to be).

[Kevin Shasteen]

Nice post Terry..., I too resisted expressing my complete and entire thoughts on this thread for the exact same reasons you gave.

 

FWIW to anyone who cares: I have found that personally researching an issue prior to forming an opinion is the only way to truly form your own opinion w/o being manipulated by the social engineers.

 

W/o going into a diatribe I would have to say the three best books I've ever read about Politics, Religion, and Economics were

 

1) The Bible

2) Pawns in the Game, by Commander Williarm Carr

3) The Creature from Jekyl Island, by Edward Griffin

 

Okay, just one more book

 

4) Scarlet and the Beast, a three Volume set over 1200 pages in all

 

...another good book, and I dont remember the name -but it was a 300 page book on British Law and British History (Empire Building & Command & Control over the People thru the Rule of Law) which is no longer in print. Anyway - what America has turned into in the last century is the exact opposite of what our for-fathers inteded America to be. If you cant see this then you dont know your history...which means you are doomed to repeat it and we have only ourselves to thank for the mess we are in.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I dont claim to have all the answers...however, I would insist that the books listed above will give insight to those who wish to have another level of understanding on what is going on.

 

Just to tickle the curiosity of those who are interested...Commander Carr's book was written in 1954. In his introduction he claims that World War III will start (not including the Cold War). He claims that World War III will begin with an attack by the Arabs against the USA.

 

Now, if this "War" on Terror: which we are being led to believe was carried out by Arabs and was actually unpredictable...then how is it that Commander Carr predicted how this WWIII would begin over 50 years ago?

 

I would suggest reading his book as well as any other book that offers insight to the status quo we currently find ourselves in these days.

 

One thing I do agree on, and that is - things are only going to get worse for USA before they get better. If you understand politics (globalism) then you will see that things must get worse for USA otherwise globalism cant proceed forward.

 

I'm not saying Globalist carried out 9/11 which eventually brought about the war in the Middle East...where the line is drawn between the actions of golbalist, actual terrorism, and or an God-allowed act, is too fine of a line for me to draw: it is interesting nontheless that we are heading in the direction of the Middle East and it doesnt look like we will be leaving it any too soon.

 

America is the front line between what is left of the perception of freedom and the globalist that wish to sway the sheeople (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) into selling out America.

 

I said it a few days after 9/11 occurred on HybridZ, which preceeded the Norther Coalition's attack on Iraq, and I'll say it again, the paridigms of Politics, Religion, and Economics are colliding and will lead us to Jerusalem. The Globalist wont set up shop in Jerusalem until there is Peace in the Middle East..and there will never be real peace in the Middle East. We are on the slippery slope ride and wont get off until.., well either you know what comes next or you dont.

 

I dont have all the answers but I do know that I will never allow myself to form an oppinion unless I have researched an issue to death as opposed to someone spoon feeding me unsubstantiated allegations regardless of the labels and the demonizing of those labels.

 

.., funny isn't it: I was only going to respond to Terry's comment, simply by agreeing with him; and here I am writing a diatribe. It is a tangled web this world has weaved and we (America) are in the middle of it.

 

Again IMHO, this war is about many more things than simply terror and what took place on 9/11.

 

Dont believe what the Politicians say simply because they say it, dont believe what the Policing Dept's say simply because they say it, and dont believe what your Pastoral leaders say simply because they say it: research, research, research an issue - then form you opinions.

 

If and when you do disagree with someone do so w/o robbing that individual of their humility.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[JMortensen]

First off let me just say that I respect Terry both as a resource for Z stuff and as a person. He's been very helpful on a few occasions, and Terry - I appreciate ya!

 

One very important test of whether a country should be involved in a situation (conflict, etc) is whether the country is united in that endeavor.

 

It's a good thing Abe Lincoln didn't listen to this logic. Was the Civil War unjustified Terry? How about the Revolutionary War? Hardly unison there. Remember those other guys, the Tories? How about going into WWI, what was Wilson's reelection slogan? "He kept us out of war". Throughout our history we have been divided about war. We had an overwhelming majority in WWII, but I don't believe that WWII was the ONLY justified war in our history. I don't think it is common at all for there to be unanimity about the US getting into a war, which is why until recently a declaration from Congress was necessary...

 

Once united, we wouldn’t blink at ten thousand casualties lost over a “just causeâ€, but divided, we suffer for just a thousand. If the thousand lost, were lost hunting down the guy who attacked us, then let me be part of the next thousand, but don’t put me with the next 100 that are distracting me from hunting the one who attacked us.

 

I totally disagree. Couldn't possibly disagree more. I think that after Vietnam the average Joe was subjected to so many images of carnage that had previously been censored that a whole generation has lost their stomach for war entirely. This IMO is a BAD thing. I don't want to go out and start shit with every country on the planet, but it's looking like that is what is going to happen, and people are going to die. It doesn't always behoove us to try and ignore it or truce our way out of it. And that's just the "suffering for 1000" bit.

 

Assume for a moment that Bush, Putin, the 9/11 Commission, the British Intelligence, the CIA, and the UN WEREN'T LYING when they thought that Saddam had WMDs (which is still an unneccessary justification for the war) and that we went under at least at the time, pretenses that were thought to be correct. Once we took over Baghdad and realized that the WMDs weren't going to be found, what should we have done exactly? Just left? Reinstalled Saddam with a wholehearted "Sorry"?

 

Once the decision was made to go in (and the decision to give that power to Bush was given by a large majority, 98-0 with 2 not voting) I think we were stuck following that decision through. Any attempt to undercut our work towards getting Iraq stable and getting the hell out of there is the problem. That's where the uncertainty comes from. That is the type of uncertainty that brings about "graduated bombing" campaigns and "no fire" zones.

 

IMO if you wanna help our boys over there you have to give them what they need to win. Learn the lessons of history, and probably of chilhood too, if you're going to fight, fight to win. Linebacker II strategy wins in war, Rolling Thunder loses.

[Mikelly]

"Social Engineers"... Kevin, You get a gold star for that one!

 

The larger, further reaching issue, is the fact that for 12 years after the conclusion of the last war in Iraq, We walked down a path of tolerance for the tactics of the Hussein regime. Bush Senior (Total fool because of this in my opinion) was presured into stopping before the job was complete. Clinton's (Hey I'm guilty of voting him into office and I was a CIA staff employee at the time! ) international policy was horrible, from Haitie to Bosnia, Mogadishu, the constant fumblings in Iraq, and our less than ethical deals with China, one of the worlds absolute WORST human rights violators.

 

I don't disagree with Terry on a number of issues. However, based on the intelligence we had at the time, and the belief that Saddam had WMD and was tied strongly to 9/11 and BinLadden, It was very logical to A$$ume Saddam WAS a reasonable target in the war on terror. The problem now is, we are in to deep to just walk away, and we had ZERO support from the UN at large.

 

It is a volunteer army, and our enlisted probably don't think far enough ahead to deal with the what-ifs of real world politics and war. I had an employee of mine who was out-processing from the military when the Towers dropped on 9/11. His papers were stopped, and this inactive reservist was called up for a one year stint at SOCOM. He was pissed and very upset over the fact that he was going from making $65K per year, back to E-6 pay. And he had JUST closed on a house in Falls Church Va. $$$$ He was stressed, understandably so. But this is one of THOSE scenarios that CAN happen when you sign up. So is war and death. I do NOT make those statements lightly. There is a price we pay with every conflict we engage in. And again, I remind each of you that your ELECTED officials that WE put into office ALL agreed 100% to this war, and don't let ANY of them fool you. They wanted this war just as much as every one of the heard of Sheeople did after 9/11. They also had access to the SAME classified data the president has access to. They CHOSE not to research the data, or did read the data and listen to the analysis from all over the world and the intell community, and either MADE THEIR decisions to go to war, right along with Bush, based on an informed or uninformed mind. Think about that for a minute... Regardless of WHY Kerry voted for the war, he did it with access to the data and the community that was providing it. So regardless of if he was informed or not, he is in office to represent his state in the congress or the senate. Right along with all the other elected officials... They ALL (Except Dean and Kennedy) voted for the war, and they all voted for action in Afghanistan.

 

Terry, I've tried to play both sides of the fence, and to provide some insite from within government and policy. However, what I've tried the most to do is not pick a side. Demacrat nor republican will fix this situation properly. The reason being is that the solution is the least popular of all... It requires a leader who isn't worried about election, politics, or popular poles. That is the sad and unfortunate state we are in. This legacy was handed to us in 1991. It will remain a problem regardless of who wins in November. And regardless of who wins in November, we, the American people STILL LOSE!

 

Mike 8)

[johnc]

The context for this thread:

 

http://hybridz.org/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=36316

[Guest 2slo4u]

Good stuff. No contribution from me, I don't want to pollute.

 

81zxturbo

95slobaru

[SportZ2]

Thanks for the thread John, it took me a while but I read the whole article. Did anyone else take the time to read it? I thought it was very informative.

 

And Carr was a little late with his prediction. Didn't Nostradamus predict that back in the 17th century.

[pparaska]

That's a very interesting read - I just finished it. It also points to alot more reading in the references at the end.

 

I'd love to see a point-by-point counter to that article by a paleoconservative or hard or soft liberal (new terms for me!)

[Mikelly]

Read it... Good stuff to checw on...

 

Mike 8)

[Kevin Shasteen]

I read it when John posted it in the other forum. It is a good right up - yet IMHO I believe it is one dimensional in that it only sees things "currently" as in our Generation, and from the American's perspective only.

 

As we all know there is always two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

 

Once paragraph that was interesting was...,"To protect themselves against the taint of anti-Semitism, purveyors of this theory sometimes disingenuously continued to pretend that when they said neoconservatism the did not mean Jew. Yet the theory inescapably rested on all too familiar anti-Semitic canards - principillay that Jews were never reliably loyal to the country in which they lived, and that they were always conspiring behind the scenes, often successfully, to manipulate the world for their own nefarious purposes."

 

I think it is quite [Humerous] that people will always see historical jews as being nefarious and trying to manipulate the world as it is always "the other nations" as being politically motivated w/their own agendas and never "MY" nation that has an agenda to which the citizens of "My" nation rarely see this agenda come to light until decades or centuries later!

 

Do any of you here in America really believe that Washington DC is operating w/out any agendas of their own and that they have fully disclosed their agendas to its citizens? Pppplllleeeeaaaassssee!

 

This war is about much more than "Terrorism".

 

Another paragraph that caught my eye was...,

 

"Here we had a major development that slipped in under the radar of virtually all the pundits and the trend-spotters. How well I remember John Rouche, a political scientist then working in the Johnson White Housee, being quoted by the columnits Jimmy Breslin as having derisively labeled the radicals a bunch of Upper West Side jackal bins. As further investigation disclosed, Roche had actually said Jacobins, a word so unfamiliar to his interviewer that jackal-bins was the best Breslin could do in transcribing his notes.

 

Why would Roche use the word Jacobin? Does anyone know what this word means or do you read this and then think nothing of it? We have to not only know ourselves but we also need to know our oponents before we can make or form legitimate opinions.

 

...and now, a little trip back in time..,

 

Jacobin is a reference to those who were members of the Jacobin Clubs that espoused Jacobite (Templar) Freemasonry and "Templar" is a reference to the Knights Templar Freemasonry which was founded by the Order of Sion. The Cutting of a huge Elm tree in 1188 A.D. symbolised a permanent separation between the two Orders and a truce whereby each would be allowed to operate independently of each other.

 

History indicates that King Henry II of England and King Phillippe II of France engaged in a bloody battle (rumors indicate the battle was over the vast treasures found when Solomon's Mines were discovered). King Henry II brought the Order of Sion unto his protection, even though the Order of Sion is located in Northern France and to this day remain under the protection of London. The Templars remain in Southern France. This rift caused one Order to loose control of "Jerusalem" (yes - even back then England and France were fighting over control of Jerusalem). The wealth of the alleged treasures from Solomons Mines were hidden by the Templars...so the story goes. One order became English Freemasonry while the other order became French Freemasonry.

 

Meanwhile..., back to the point I was trying to make: the writer that used the term "Jacobins" used this term as a reference to the "Reign of Terror" brought about in 1793 by the members of the Jacobin Clubs which were controlled by Grand Orient Freemasonry. So what you say - and what does that have to do with anything?

 

Well Hitler and his top cabinet members were schooled and edjucated through the Thule Society. Interesting isnt it that George Bush's Grand daddy helped start up the Thule Society in Germany and good old Grand-daddy Bush was also a member to the Skull & Bones Society...the very same secret society that George Bush and Kerry are members to; but I'm sure there's no connection there even though the History Channel recently showed a series on "Nazis and their affiliation w/the Skull & Bones Society"...but I'm sure it is just a bunch of hooey.

 

Every nation of this world has these clubs of one nature or another. Even good ole Arafat of the PLO is a good Shriner (sorry to you good shriners out there, but it is true). I'm sure there are millions who belong to these societies that are actually good folks - its the society itself and the few who take the oaths serious that I dont trust...not the millions who think they are bascially a civic society of some sort.

 

The fight between these secret orders used to be King/Queen -vs- Common Folk in an attempt for the common folk to overcome the tryanny of which the kings/queens ruled the masses unfairly.

 

Who can argue that this political intrigue doesnt exists to this day?

 

According to the books I've read this battle between the common folk and the self proclaimed royalty of yester-years has changed. King's and Queens are no longer an issue with the advent of paper negotiable instruments (paper money). The battle has now turned to a meniacal "Total Control" of labor, resources, and political/military control. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable and make a perfect "bad guy" in some James Bond movie. But we all know this kind of stuff only happens in the movies and not in real life (r-i-g-h-t ).

 

Our stupid politicians whose allegiance is suppose to be to the people to protect the liberties and freedoms of those people belong to all these Spiritual, Political, and Economical secret societies: and they continually sell out America and have been doing so for the last 30 years...as our current President stood before a nation and the world as he announced "Outsourcing is good for America"...what a pathetic stinking liar! This parallels the comments by some Russian...was it Mikhail Gorbachev or someone else I dont remember, "We will take America w/out ever firing a shot!" I see now, globalist will not take over America by military take over - they will do it through economics (IMHO).

 

I'm not trying to put any of you down that belong to some order - that is between you and God or whomever you believe or dont beleive in.

 

Regardless of what you believe or dont believe, this rift between the two orders have been going on for centuries. The hate between the two groups are similar to the hate that followed the USA's Civil War between the North & South. Even though none of us were around during the Civil War you can still find remnants of unsubstantiated prejudice between the people of the North & Southern states. The difference between the common man hating the Norther or Souther states is basedin stupidity while the members to these secret societies take blood othes which is spiritually dangerous as it spirituall marks you and your children and clouds your allegiance to either God, family, or country.

 

I personally believe what we are experiencing now "Current Event-wise" is a culimination of events that have been unwinding for the last two-thousand years.

 

To simply say "Okay Iraqis - here we are; you can pat us on the back for making you free" after all these years of Financing your dictatorial leaders who have oppressed/murdered you and your families....here we are - and you are now free, IMHO is extremely naive!

 

For the last couple thousand years the Middle East has been the object of Imperialistic attacks: not only by Rome, but also by the Germans, English, French, and now us as in USA. Attempting to establish a Palestinian State is also a very old one and not something we Americans came up with.

 

For the last 30 years that I remember, I can recall hearing on the radio or on TV news where billions of dollars were being loaned to some 3rd world Middle East Country for whatever reasoning knowing full well the loans would never be paid back. Every president since I have kept up with current events has made one or more of these multi-billion dollar loans. The point is we gave billions to some 3rd world country that had fundamental enemies. When we gave these billions to a specific nation - their enemies at that point marked us as their enemy.

 

Then once we obtained what we wanted or needed from that nation we then thru them aside and went on to the next nation who had then also marked us as their enemy.

 

Imperializing, Christenizing, Democratizing, or Un-terrorizing....under any other name is going to foster enemies when innocent blood is spilled and financed by money that leads back to the lending nation. It appears our chickens have come home to roost.

 

The hate founded in the Middle East goes much farther back in time than the Gulf War or Jimmy Carter's fiasco w/the Hostages taken by Iranians.

 

Even if the Middle East does see "Perceived Peace" it will never be peasceful.

 

I dont have the answer and I dont know what the answer is other than to tell the truth and quit lieing. As long as politicians make their contrived plans behind closed doors to impose their will on others there will always be an enemy hell-bent on retaliation.

 

As I was finishing off the last few ounces of an ice cream container earlier this afternoon I was thinking about this thread. I too believe that anyone (Including Iraqis) should have the right to reach into their fridge and pull out their favorite ice cream container and enjoy it w/out fear that some wacko is going to crash in your door and kill you and your family (referencing what the terrorists might do to someone who challenges their authority).

 

All I'm attempting to get across w/my rant is that whomever says we can not question the motives of politicians and demand full disclosure to any action is "UnAmerican". As far as I know freedom of speech still exists...maybe not for long (hello Homeland Security & the Patriot Acts I and II) but for now it still exists.

 

The road to freedom is a very very bloody one. Who is suppose to pave that road and at what cost?

 

I believe we are entering an era where the perception of all that America is suppose to be is over...poor poor me, and all the other Americans who believe something is very wrong with the status quo.

 

BTW: I enjoyed the initial thread's intent about the democrats and the post that gave equal pot shots at the republicans.

 

Obviously this subject is close to everyone as this thread has been viewed nearly 1500 times, and as we individuals attempt to ponder at what is said...we can still exercise independant thought.

 

Hey, if we can talk about these controversial issues then we must be in..., Yea, I must be in America! 8)

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[johnc]

I personally believe what we are experiencing now "Current Event-wise" is a culimination of events that have been unwinding for the last two-thousand years.

 

I'm not picking on you specifically Kevin, but I always laugh when anyone says this (or something similar) as if its a new revelation. ANYTHING we are experiencing now is a culmination of events that have been unwinding for 5, 50, 500, 5,000, and 5 million years. Its something called: "History."

 

Regarding "Jacobins", I think its use in the article is a more common, recent reference. From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2001:

 

Jacobins

 

 

(jk´bnz) (KEY) , political club of the French Revolution. Formed in 1789 by the Breton deputies to the States-General, it was reconstituted as the Society of Friends of the Constitution after the revolutionary National Assembly moved (Oct., 1789) to Paris. The club derived its popular name from the monastery of the Jacobins (Parisian name of Dominicans), where the members met. Their chief purpose was to concert their activity and to secure support for the group from elements outside the Assembly. Patriotic societies were formed in most French cities in affiliation with the Parisian club. The members were, for the most part, bourgeois and at first included such moderates as Honoré de Mirabeau. The Jacobins exercised through their journals considerable pressure on the Legislative Assembly, in which they and the Feuillants were (1791–92) the chief factions. They sought to limit the powers of the king, and many of them had republican tendencies. The group split on the issue of war against Europe, which the majority, including the Brissotins (see under Brissot de Warville, Jacques Pierre) sought. A small minority opposed foreign war and insisted on reform. This group of Jacobins grew more radical, adopted republican ideas, and advocated universal manhood suffrage, popular education, and separation of church and state, although it adhered to orthodox economic principles. In the National Convention, which proclaimed the French republic, the Jacobins and other opponents of the Girondists sat in the raised seats and were called the Mountain. Their leaders—Maximilien Robespierre and Louis de Saint-Just, among others—relied mainly on the strength of the Paris commune and the Parisian sans-culottes. After the fall of the Girondists (June, 1793), for which the Jacobins were largely responsible, the Jacobin leaders instituted the Reign of Terror. Under Robespierre, who came to dominate the government, the Terror was used not only against counterrevolutionaries, but also against former allies of the Jacobins, such as the Cordeliers and the Dantonists (followers of Georges Danton). The fall of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor (July 27, 1794) meant the fall of the Jacobins, but their spirit lived on in revolutionary doctrine. The movement reappeared during the Directory and in altered form much later in the Revolution of 1848 and in the Paris Commune of 1871.

 

Its commonly used as an "intellectual" reference to a radical or extreme leftist. The ties to the Domincan Order and Knights Templar are an archaic reference.

 

But we all know this kind of stuff only happens in the movies and not in real life

 

Oliver Stone movies...

[Kevin Shasteen]

John I know you are not poking fun at me and you dont have to apologize for making any comment regardless of its content.

 

If you read that paragraph again where the word Jacobin is utilized - you will notice it to be a reference to "Radicals" which is not a reference to "intelectuals" rather a reference to extemism - hence Terrorists. It was an extreme verbal slam.

 

Websters Dictionary: Twentieth Century 1975 Unabridged edition

 

Terrorist = 1) a person who practices terrorism, 2) a person or agent of the revolutionary tribunal during the French Reign of Terror, a member of various extreme revolutionary societies in Russia

 

The very word "Terrorist" arose from the "Reign of Terror" which the history books have adamantly recorded.

 

The word Terrorist was coined in 1795 following the French Revolution. Prior to the French Revolution Terrorists, in France, were known as "Jacobins"!

 

Do a word study and you will see.

 

Terrorists never see themselves as criminals or outlaws but as Political Activists. About a hundred years after the French Revolution terrorist got relabeled as anarchists, nihilists, and communist.

 

John, you may be right as I'm not above being wrong - yet that is the intent I took the writer to mean..if I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong - but I dont think that I am.

 

Oliver Stone Movies (?), exactly what do you think Oliver Stone's movies are based on?

 

Truth is stranger than fiction...but then you would have to identify truth to be able to separate it from fiction!

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)