Another attack on US soil today

Can't be...

Obama says that Al Qaeda is "on it's heels".

Must have been someone else.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...fter-successful-terrorist-attacks_654000.html

 

Another sign that we have no business having a presence in Muslim countries. What is it we think we are going to accomplish? No amount of American tax dollars and power is going to counter pure hate and evil.

 

I concur :thumbs: (Too bad the power elites that run this nation don't agree with us)

 

I'm more concerned about the attacks from over the Mexican border.

 

War on terror? I'm surprised to see people still using that term today.

In Afghanistan we pay the Taliban not to attack our convoys while we guard the poppy fields.

In Libya we flew air cover for the same "insurgents" that were fighting our troops in Iraq.

In Egypt we support Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Syria we've been busy supporting the FSA which is for all intents and purposes the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

Just lately we delisted the MEK for two reasons. One it became apparent that our government "officails" were breaking our own as well as international law by acting as lobbyists for a known terrorist group (oops) being paid large sums of money to speak on the MEK's behalf and two so we could openly fund them so they can carry out terrorist attacks in Iran. No I don't think Obama and the democrats forced John McCain and other republicans into supporting a known terrorist group. They did it for the love of big money and attending the big parties.

Americans must be the last people on earth that can't see the total hypocrisy and lawlessness of the whole thing.

War on terror indeed. We cannot fight a war against terror and be one of it's biggest supporters at the same time. One doesn't have to be a foreign policy "expert" to figure that out.

The "war on terror" would have been all wrapped up by now if it weren't for all the monetary and military support we have been giving the terrorists.

At this point after all the evidence of our continued support for the terrorists has been laid on the table either we are insane or just plain stupid to believe the "war on terror" is anything but a hoax.

And yes my first clue that it was a hoax came right after 9/11 when the government refused to secure our borders. If we were in a real war against international terrorism that would have been the first thing to have been done. Instead we started treating Americans like criminals and would be terrorists for speaking out and protesting the rampant corruption and lawlessness of the government and Wall Street.

If we are in a war against international terrorists why are all the laws and guns aimed directly at us? Why are we citizens being treated like terrorists? We can illegally detain an ex marine for making "anti government" remarks on Facebook but we can't arrest John McCain and others for openly supporting a known terrorist group?

Something isn't right with this picture.

 

We are painfully made aware of "The War on Terror" every time our right to privacy is violated and an illegal search and seizure of property is perpetrated at the airport in order to "protect" these very rights.

doublethink- Reality Control. The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

Reality:who are the actual terrorists?

HankD

 

Using the same standards, the US is a terrorist nation. But we do our killing by remote control.

 

You actually have some good points in your post. No doubt you remember that during the Iran-Iraq war our nation was backing Saddam Hussein because they were the lesser of two evils. (How many times have we heard that phrase lately?) A few years later, at the start of the first Gulf War, this guy is Hitler the Second. Also, several decades before that, we supported a government in Iran, headed by the Shah of Iran. He was a weak leader, and the United States used him like a puppet. As the years went by, his government became increasingly corrupt and brutal. The Iranians by 1979 were sick of it, and the regime changed. We shoved our values down their throats for decades, for our purposes. Many people died under his regime. Once the United States told the Shah (1953), its our way or the highway. He chose our way. We also have the same pattern in Chile and Argentina in the 70s.

The point is, we do not influence countries for high moral principles or freedom and liberty, but for our own self serving interests at the expense of other states. It is like a politician who leads by polls instead of conviction. How many Americans, and for that matter, citizens of these other states, have died because of our misguided policies.

On this I give you credit where credit is due. We would be much better off having honest relationships with nations that are mutually beneficial, not a forced situation, for lack of a better term. The Constitution describes relations with other states as bilateral treaties, or treaties with a few nations, not a UN concept. If I had my way, we would be out of the UN, and the UN would be out of the United States.

Here is a quaint picture that speaks a thousand words about this game being played for decades.

 

I can't figure you out man. In another thread you for all intents and purposes accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories but in this one you are the one spreading conspiracy theories.

 

No body asked you to figure me out.

 

I thought conspiracies were secret? The American Empire has been public policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

 

If all my time here on Baptist Board has taught me anything it's what a conspiracy theory is.

A conspiracy theory is any set of events that is based on fact, follows an accurate historical timeline, and is well documented.

Take SN's conspiracy theory above. It fits all the criteria. It's based on fact, it follows an accurate historical timeline and it's well documented.

Therefore no one that thinks of themselves as being a rational critical thinking person would ever believe it.

I know that. I was just wondering what would make a patriot turn his back on the constitution and the republic. I can understand all the other people here who have. They'll easily fall for any lie and be swept up in the whirlwind of the corporate financier hijacked government and it's controlled corporate media's fearmongering and hype. They have little to no grounding or faith in our founding principles so it's easier for them to discard them for a false sense of security.

For awhile there I thought you were different though.

My mistake.

Don't take it personal that we die hard American patriots will continue the struggle to save the republic from the likes of Obama, Romney and the rest of the globalist scum they serve without you. :wavey:

 

Well, I guess in a sense I do take it personal. Other than post thoughts that insult everyone from liberal to moderately conservative, what have you done to prevent a combination like Obama and Romney to be nominated?

During the period since the last election and before, have you worked anywhere to stop such an event? Look at things from my perspective. IMO, instead of me being like everyone else, you are like everyone else in the sense that all that ever gets done is posts on the internet.

Were you an elected delegate to the Constitution Party's nominating convention? Have you worked to organize and elect candidates who feel as you do? Have you ever served this nation one day? Or, are you like everyone else, just talk? I can answer that, and I have never set eyes on you.

You are right. When the Constitution Party became a dead end, you bet I supported Romney. Not that there is a big difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but there is a difference. On abortion and gay rights, saying that one has changed to a Christian view is better than someone who actively pursues the agenda. At least there is a chance for a slowing down of the deficit or maybe even a reversal. There is a chance that health care can be reformed in a common sense way.

I am not saying the difference is as great as the difference between establishment Washington and the Constitution, but there is a difference. I can give you an illustration. Our two Senators from Kentucky are both Republican but vastly different. McConnell is an establishment stooge. I would not vote for him for dog catcher. Paul is a Constitutional supporter, and McConnell tried to prevent him from being elected. This guy could make a difference.

Now, Mr. Self Righteous, what have you done? I gave you pretty much the details of what I have done over the last four years, now, what have you done to effect a Constitutional change? You have called me every name in the book from traitor, to a person without conviction. Now, put up or shut up.

 

And all from your keyboard while sitting in your mom's basement munching on Cheetos. :laugh:

Seriously, dude, your self importance has become a caricature of itself. :laugh:

 

The whole end of conspiracies is to one day become public and take control.

As the conspiratorial aspirations of the conspirators become realised (as are the current neo-socialists goal of world domination and human secularism), the players become more bold, vocal and arrogant.

I believe we are seeing this phase of one-worldism playing out before our very eyes.

If Obama wins we will enter into a new chapter, maybe the final one.
If Romney, it will be temporarily postponed.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

Thank you targus, and want to apologize for past misunderstandings.

 

Is there a difference between conspiring and doing what comes naturally? Do dogs conspire to chase cats or do they simply chase cats?

If many businesses conclude they can make more money by sending jobs off shore are they conspiring or doing what comes naturally.

Say a business owner goes to a NAM convention and says,"I can make more money by sending jobs off shore" and others follow his recommendation, is it a conspiracy?

Is a treaty between two nations a conspiracy or simply a treaty?

My point? When lots of rich people decide to get richer and support legislation which helps them all it not a conspiracy . . . unless they are paying bribes under the table.

 

Good point, most of the world is driven by the sin nature and its manifestation - the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

And yes sometimes definitions become blurred (e.g."traitor" vs "secret agent") especially when these definitions depend on who ultimately wins the conflict.

HankD