When it is related to the OP it definately okay to bring it forth, and it is indeed very related to the topic at hand ...usmarine wrote:
YOU two are talking about it, not the OP. but apparently you and a mod cannot stick to that.
If you think his Chauffeur was, then sure, why not?usmarine wrote:
so osamas family are terrorists?
well what terrorists have bush been linked to? braddock said osamas family. god follow along will ya.Uzique wrote:
What?usmarine wrote:
so osamas family are terrorists?
You think the only (possibly) terrorist organisation you have directly funded and been involved with since WWII are the Bin Ladens?
Haha!
Excellent point, there are some serious double standards being shown yet again in this thread. As Uzique points out too, it was a long time ago... when Obama was no doubt young and full of fire in his belly. People's political opinions are often more hardcore in youth... and he himself never actively took part in this terrorist group's activities. I don't see a problem in him agreeing with the anti-Vietnam war views of this group so long as he never actively supported the group's militancy.Uzique wrote:
I think your last sentence highlights Braddock's point. Why is this any more scary or conspicuous than Cheney-Halliburton?DBBrinson1 wrote:
See, that's the problem. The media is looking the other way. These actual NEWS stories are being swept aside or given minimal coverage. Everyone seems too concerned with Palin becoming a grandma....deeznutz1245 wrote:
Im not digging, I just think its worth a lokk eh?
Obama calls those people friends. It's kinda scary.
The American people and government have been openly dealing with terrorist organisations and cells since WWII. In fact it would probably be harder to find a President in US history that hasn't had links or dealt with a terrorist group. Why is everyone getting so suspicious of Obama because of a friend and associate he met long ago in the past? People weren't bothered when the CIA and President were openly funding and supporting terrorist groups that were killing thousands of innocent people... why have standards changed now?
Every high-ranking US politician has had "links to terrorists"... why the "Hmmmm"?
Edit: Oh and my 'this has been discussed before' point meant that this Obama-link has been mentioned and discussed very recently in more than one thread about said individual. It's not quite the same as repeated discussions on Israel, religion and Iraq that crop up every 2-3 weeks or so. How do you get away with being such a rude cunt on these Forums? It's a tiresome troll-persona.
USMARINE is not a troll.Uzique wrote:
I think your last sentence highlights Braddock's point. Why is this any more scary or conspicuous than Cheney-Halliburton?
The American people and government have been openly dealing with terrorist organisations and cells since WWII. In fact it would probably be harder to find a President in US history that hasn't had links or dealt with a terrorist group. Why is everyone getting so suspicious of Obama because of a friend and associate he met long ago in the past? People weren't bothered when the CIA and President were openly funding and supporting terrorist groups that were killing thousands of innocent people... why have standards changed now?
Every high-ranking US politician has had "links to terrorists"... why the "Hmmmm"?
Edit: Oh and Usmarine; my 'this has been discussed before' point meant that this Obama-link has been mentioned and discussed very recently in more than one thread about said individual. It's not quite the same as repeated discussions on Israel, religion and Iraq that crop up every 2-3 weeks or so. How do you get away with being such a rude cunt on these Forums? It's a tiresome troll-persona.
you gave nukes to israel. infidelsMek-Stizzle wrote:
Are we surprised that politicians, especially US politicians have links or former links to terrorist groups. No. I'm not one bit. Enjoy your government.
i guess you can call me a cunt because you are a euro and the euro mod will allow it. iraq is mentioned in EVERY thread. and you know it. keep on denying it.Uzique wrote:
It's not quite the same as repeated discussions on Israel, religion and Iraq that crop up every 2-3 weeks or so. How do you get away with being such a rude cunt on these Forums? It's a tiresome troll-persona.
What would you have thought if Timothy McVeigh's family had been flown away to safety while the rest of America was on lockdown following the Oklahoma bombing?usmarine wrote:
so osamas family are terrorists?
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.usmarine wrote:
you gave nukes to israel. infidelsMek-Stizzle wrote:
Are we surprised that politicians, especially US politicians have links or former links to terrorist groups. No. I'm not one bit. Enjoy your government.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-03 06:59:55)
But they wear wigs so they are not cleaner, they are just queerer.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.usmarine wrote:
you gave nukes to israel. infidelsMek-Stizzle wrote:
Are we surprised that politicians, especially US politicians have links or former links to terrorist groups. No. I'm not one bit. Enjoy your government.
I've said in the past that both the Dems and Reps are full of cock smokers. People outside the US tend to favour the Dems more because their foreign policy tends to be less severe on those of us in the outside world... but they're still both corrupt cock smokers.deeznutz1245 wrote:
@ Braddock
If you find it relevant to bring up Bush's ties with Haliburton, which it is. Then I think it is fair to bring up Obama's ties with Exelon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/1 … 86722.html
They are all corrupt, imo. However, mt point is to bring to light that he (Obama) is equally as corrupt but the leftists in this forum are very quick to defend him. That shows me all the guys here on the left are no better than your "neo" counterparts. The only difference is, nobody is man enough to admit it. They would rather throw out little sarcastic quips about him being muslim, and thats why we hate him.
lewl........................Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.usmarine wrote:
you gave nukes to israel. infidelsMek-Stizzle wrote:
Are we surprised that politicians, especially US politicians have links or former links to terrorist groups. No. I'm not one bit. Enjoy your government.
Haha touche!deeznutz1245 wrote:
But they wear wigs so they are not cleaner, they are just queerer.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.usmarine wrote:
you gave nukes to israel. infidels
Yeah ok, you can take you crappy US macho shit and shove it up your fuckin arse. I'm not the one who's insecure here.deeznutz1245 wrote:
But they wear wigs so they are not cleaner, they are just queerer.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.usmarine wrote:
you gave nukes to israel. infidels
Perhaps, and I am not denying any of that nor justifying it. But the topic at hand is Obama, not Bush(s). Stop bringing him up because that is also a beaten trail of topic, more so than Obama. I openly admit I am a Republican. Not for international policy stances, but for fiscal ones and the right's stance on welfare reform. I am not a big fan of Sheniqua and her illegitimate kids receiving most of my salary so she can use it on bigger rims for her SUV that is parked outside of the public housing that I pay for. I openly admit when it comes to shadyness, both parties have their fair share and I beleive most would agree. However, lets discuss Obama here and if we are going to defend him don't drag an old topic through the mud.Uzique wrote:
Bush Snr. still considered Saddam a friend whilst he was killing off thousands of Kurds... what's the biggie with Obama having links to some crazy hippie that poses no threat whatsoever? Even when the 'terrorist cell' was active they caused minimal damage, it's hardly as if Obama spent his radical childhood years training with AQ.
Usmarine I wasn't following suit with Braddock's exclusive example of Bush. If you read my post I said "since World War II". You've been funding and directly promoting subversive terrorism in Central/South America non-stop for the last 50 years. You supported subversion and sabotage in Italy and the south of France straight after WWII to prevent the Italian anti-Fascist (Communist) party from taking power and to reestablish the 'French Connection' heroin trade. You sold technology and weapons to countless factions and terrorist groups that then used them to kill hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the 20th century; you don't need examples of these because they're the exact same people you've been killing yourself during your military career. Some other notable examples though are the Indonesian government that had 90% American arms to conduct a genocidal campaign against East Timor. I could just go on and on...
I don't hold any of it against America. I just don't understand why everyone is crying foul and denigrating Obama for a link he had to a very small and low-key terrorist organisation, when terrorism and subversion has been the modus operandi of the CIA and American foreign-policy for the last 100 years. I guess the American public don't realize that your government differentiates between good terrorists (of strategic or financial benefit to your own interests) and bad terrorists (you know, those guys out in the middle of the desert with 7 AK47's and a camcorder between them that pose a great 'national danger').
You know that's not strictly true; don't you Americans just love bragging in all the other threads how it just has to concern us because you're the major world superpower, and whoever you elect has such great consequence on our everyday lives? You love the fact really that Europe has its big socialist nose in your electoral campaigns because all of our states know that the next corporation-owned asshole you vote in will have serious ramifications on our next 4-5 years also.usmarine wrote:
once again, pls leave the thread euros. doesnt concern you until someone is elected. kthx.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-03 07:08:34)
Hey, ours are homos too. And Im not insecure about much especially my sexuality. I am insecure about my fantasy fotball team this year though, if that counts for anything.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah ok, you can take you crappy US macho shit and shove it up your fuckin arse. I'm not the one who's insecure here.deeznutz1245 wrote:
But they wear wigs so they are not cleaner, they are just queerer.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah, not denying our politicians are clean. Just that they're cleaner.
actually, I read that more from you euros as a justification to bash the United States.Uzique wrote:
You know that's not strictly true; don't you Americans just love bragging in all the other threads how it just has to concern us because you're the major world superpower, and whoever you elect has such great consequence on our everyday lives? You love the fact really that Europe has its big socialist nose in your electoral campaigns because all of our states know that the next corporation-owned asshole you vote in will have serious ramifications on our next 4-5 years also.usmarine wrote:
once again, pls leave the thread euros. doesnt concern you until someone is elected. kthx.
Exactly the same sentiment was felt here during the last US elections. We've finally lost the United States Deputy Sheriff tag as a consequence.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I only give a shit because right now we have a Labour government that follows your stupid government everywhere they go and follow their stupid rhetoric too. And it matters because our election is in 2009 so we will have around half a year more of stupid US following before we can kick Labour out for a good amount of time and get some independence. So for that half a year or so, it matters who's in charge.