Was the "ReichsWTCtagsbrand" the kickstart for your fascistic regime?

Why does it happen again and again?

Bush is the leader of the free world.
The US-american are the "supermen" the "superhuman", the "superior race".

And threat for this superhuman race comes from every country, people or organisation which is suitable for it at the time.

They *think* that a country, which was destroyed years ago, has the capability to destroy their country and its people.

And why do they think that way? Because the machine of propaganda tells them, as that machine told the world that the regime knows who was responsible for the 9/11-"attack".

And of course, an investigation is not necessary, because - you remember - "they already know"!!!

Why was the investigation of one of the biggest crime of the last years stopped?

"Because they already know"? Why do they?

And now the killing goes on, the furious american dog of war is unleashed and wants to "pacify" (=conquer) the rest of the world, which - of course - is inhabited by backward people. If these people are killed in our "holy war" - hmmmm - let's call them "collateral damage"!

Well, in fact it doesn't matter which name they get, because either they are inferiour to our god-blessed-superiour-superhuman-country or they are nameless.

And of course, the US-American need protection for theirselves!

Let's take that "Patriotic Act"-thing out of the drawer! (Everything is prepared, as it should be ) The pathetic name and the current situation will prevent people from declining it, because everyone who isn't for us is for the terrorists, remember?

YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS.

GOOD AND EVIL!!!! THE WILL OF GOD!!! RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE!!!

Is the USA a fundermentalistic state? What's the difference between Iran and the US? That the backward Iran-people don't drink coca cola? That there is no Mc Donald in Teheran?

But of course, the not-even-elected-government knows. Not even elected? That makes 'em a regime

And that Bush-Junta will go on that way as long as you believe 'em.

Last time I checked, there were quite a few free countries that didn't answer to Bush...Austria comes to mind.

Click to expand...

Answer to what question? "Are you with or against the "terrorists"?"

(I am not a patriot in any sense. The banner in my profile was a "mistake" when I signed up.  )

No, actually, it's not the country that is the threat. It's militant extremists with unlimited funds and an army of zealots willing to fly planes into buildings full of innocent people for them that are the threat.

Click to expand...

Good that YOU know that, but a lot people don't. On the other hand I am still waiting for the investigation on that subject.

Bin Laden said it wasn't him, I just can see a possible fake-video. Is that your overwhelming proof?

It was obviously that something like that would happen these years, but they way it actually DID HAPPEN - uh uh.

If you're referring to WTC, they know because Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. Not hard to investigate when a group admits guilt.

Click to expand...

Bin Laden didn't claim guilty (except in that video, see above), who else did?

(Not sure where the comparison to Iran came from, but...)

Click to expand...

USA = Fundamentalism = Iran

 

The difference is actually that in America, you can openly, publicly, and adamately disagree with "the regime" and not get thrown in prison indefinitely with no trial; tortured; or killed in a mass public slaughtering

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard about the "Patriot Act II"?

Even if it won't get through, it's horrible that they even had the idea.

Pretzel, when you walk outside today and aren't greeted by the SS patrolling to ensure no one is plotting against the Fuhrer, remember how evil the American dog of war is

Click to expand...

Oh no, the ultimate argument! 

Do you really believe that the US fought the NS-regime because they liked the Europeans so much?

Nobody acts without getting any reward, everyone is looking for it's benefit, "even" countries act that way.

Even the altruist gets something in reward: his "good deeds" make him feel better. But do you really think the US is an altruistic state?

The US took Germany as a hostage in the cold war against the sowjets. How heroic is that? 

Of course there are always several ways to look at history, but the winner always writes the history books (the history books for Iraq are already written and that is nothing I have "just made up".).

Today at 10:17 PM Michael0701 said this in Post #6

sniff.... sniff.... I smell a troll

Click to expand...

And why? Because you don't like my opinion?

Today at 11:17 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #8



Because you do not seem to have any real compassion for the Iraq people. You just want to use them to lash out at the American government.

Click to expand...

How an Iraqi man explained to my girlfriend before the war: "If a butcher could be a surgeon the war will be good for the iraq people".

I want to lash out at the American goverment? Oh these poor helpless people! It isn't like they are trying to conquer the world, beware!

Seems like Iraq is a key for the prolongation of the US-world subjugation:

(Source: Reuters)

<SPAN class=storyHeadline><B>U.S. Wants Long-Term Access to Iraqi Bases, Paper Says</B></SPAN>
<SPAN class=newsTimeStamp><I>Sat April 19, 2003 06:58 PM ET </I></SPAN>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the new government of Iraq that would give the Pentagon access to military bases in the region, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

A Pentagon spokesman told Reuters he had no information on the report. The Times online edition quoted U.S. military officials as saying they hoped to maintain four bases in Iraq -- one at the international airport near Baghdad, one at Tallil near Nassiriya in the south, one at an isolated airstrip in the western desert along an old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan, and one at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north. The U.S. military already uses the bases to support operations against remnants of the old government, to deliver supplies and relief aid, and for reconnaissance patrols. As the invasion force turns over control to a new Iraqi government, Pentagon officials expect to gain access to the bases in the event of a future crisis, the newspaper said. "There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan," it quoted a senior administration official as saying. "The scope of that has yet to be defined -- whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access." The United States is aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and might create new targets for terrorists, the newspaper said. And the Pentagon has begun to shrink its military presence in the region. But since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a concerted diplomatic and military effort to win permission for U.S. forces to operate from the formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, across the Mediterranean, throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and across Central Asia, from the periphery of Russia to Pakistan's ports on the Indian Ocean. "The attacks of Sept. 11 changed more than just the terrorism picture," the newspaper quoted a senior administration official as saying. "On Sept. 11, we woke up and found ourselves in Central Asia. We found ourselves in Eastern Europe as never before, as the gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East."

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Today at 06:31 PM cenimo said this in Post #11

The US doesn't conquer, it occupies, therein lies the difference.

Click to expand...

Right, there are no dead in US-wars, there&nbsp;are "collateral damages". Therein lies the difference.