If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror)   Iraq insurgents taking substance that they believe will make them invincible before attacking foreign troops. And it's not beer   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 255
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

25227 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2005 at 1:48 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-02 10:35:58 AM
Wasn't the Nazis the first ones to come up with speed or meth? When the whole meth stuff starting making the paper here a few years back, they had a series of articles on the evils of the drug, one which claimed the Nazis came up with it. I think the paper was just saying that so they could call it "Nazi dope".
 
2005-12-02 10:37:39 AM
Did this remind anyone else of that French cartoon about the Gauls fighting off the Romans?
 
2005-12-02 10:39:09 AM
whorehopper

Where did all the goddamn bats come from!
 
2005-12-02 10:42:04 AM
What amazes me, is that even the President reported a few days ago that most of the Iraqi insurgents/rebels are Sunni. You know, the SECULAR people that nation. Heck for all you know some of them could be Christian, Jew or Athiest. So sayin this stuff is againsted their religion could be just a bunch of bushiat.

At this point, i'm in firm belief that Iraq is already in the midst of a civil war between the Sunni and Shia and we're aparently on the side of the Shia - AKA Iran style regime. (The Kurds already apparently already have their own state - they have their own economy and local government. They just don't have the autonomy.)
 
2005-12-02 10:42:25 AM
"Amphetamine is known on the street as copilots, speed, zip, dexies, bennies, crosstops, uppers and crank. It has also been called the poor mans cocaine."

 
2005-12-02 10:43:02 AM
whorehopper: The Billdozer: Far be it from me to correct a true Biblical scholar, but it is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

War is ordained by Jesus! You heard it here first folks.


Yes, that was exactly what I said. My post pin-pointed that was a evil neo-con that wanted to destroy the world and get teh oilz!!!1111eleventy1.

For your astute observational skillz, good sir:


 
2005-12-02 10:44:30 AM
bbcrackmonkey:

What is it with you and Saddam's trial, canyoneer? What the fark do you care happens to the guy? You're always posting articles about how unfair his trial is or about how he missed his tea time or other such claptrap, and now this new delaying tactic by his lawyers to try to get him to run for an elected office.

Seriously man, what is with your obsession with that hare-brained ex dictator? Were you shaking money off the Oil-For-Food scandal or something? You two soul-mates? You see the moon and the stars when you look into his big beautiful brown eyes?



Nice, heartfelt attempt to misdirect the conversation

B-
 
2005-12-02 10:45:31 AM
EnormousJuan: It's mostly Republican, Bush-supporters dying in this war. I guess as a hate-filled anti-life liberal this should make me happy.

And it does :) I like seeing idiots pay for their poor decisions.



So you are glad that troops are dying over in Iraq?
 
2005-12-02 10:45:50 AM
War is ordained by Jesus! You heard it here first folks.

Sadly, I've heard it before. And it's all in the translation (which version do you prefer?):

Thou shalt not kill OR
You shall not kill OR
Thou shalt not murder OR
Thou shalt not commit murder...

Killing in war is different though (the Vatican says). Just like some torture is just pyschological punishment...
 
2005-12-02 10:46:56 AM
Scotj: Where did all the goddamn bats come from!


You took too much man, you took too much.
 
2005-12-02 10:48:23 AM
canyoneer: Why don't you grow up and get a clue, dumbshiat?

I think your visceral hatred of Saddam clouds your perception of events. You're taking all of this waaaaaay too personally, buddy. Getting emotional makes you stupid.


You're the one shilling for the guy amigo, not me. And I like your little snipe about me being a dumbshiat but yet also taking all of this way too personally, because getting emotional makes you stupid. Right. I suppose you cutting and pasting anti-war stories in every Iraq thread you come across, and a lot of the time they're just repeats, isn't some kind of emotional investment.

Yeah I realize that the insurgency is largely composed of his old butt-boys, what I don't understand is the fact that you keep on complaining about how unfair his trial is and bringing it up every chance you get like you've got a crush on the guy.

But no, Saddam himself is not a potent political force in Iraq, he is a dead man walking who is going to be hanged after being found guilty of shiat he obviously did, the sooner the better.

And don't confuse me with those hacks that say "OMG insurgency is ovah!" every time we catch the local Baathist or Al-Qaeda minion. The Sunnis aren't going to give up until they've had the fight beaten out of them.

whorehopper: You really need to re-think that.

You do realize who you're talking to, right? EnormousJuan despises American soldiers and pretty much everyone else on this planet. You telling him to 'rethink' anything is like someone telling you that Bush is a great president (ie not gonna fly).
 
2005-12-02 10:49:09 AM
The Billdozer: So you are glad that troops are dying over in Iraq?

He would be if they didn't use up his tax dollars in the process. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.
 
2005-12-02 10:49:31 AM
Haraksha:

Did this remind anyone else of that French cartoon about the Gauls fighting off the Romans?

Asterix and Obelix!

Made far more sense than Cox and Forkum.

Jesus, political cartoons are for retards anyway. If you feel the need to express your opinion posting easy-to-digest political cartoons, go back to your south park dvds and let the adults discuss
 
2005-12-02 10:53:00 AM
Tatsuma: Nice, heartfelt attempt to misdirect the conversation

Oh cut me some slack jack, Canyoneer is always coming into these Iraqi War flames with his cut & paste anti-war stories, and all-too-often involving Saddam's trial which is one of his little pet stories.
 
2005-12-02 10:53:24 AM
Pollexabator:

Sadly, I've heard it before. And it's all in the translation (which version do you prefer?):

Thou shalt not kill OR
You shall not kill OR
Thou shalt not murder OR
Thou shalt not commit murder...

Killing in war is different though (the Vatican says). Just like some torture is just pyschological punishment...



It doesn't matter. In any case, they still do not condone wars like the Iraq war.

This was not a protection war. In fact, Jesus said that you should turn the other cheek.

Considering Paradise, eternal life & what-not, wouldn't the christian thing to do would be to.. not defend yourself? To let yourself be killed and get on with eternal life already? What's a few mortal years when eternity of bliss awaits you?

I might be wrong, but I thought Christ accepted death when it came, he didn't die a la Joseph Smith with guns a-blazin'

( *EVEN* if Christ condoned killing someone in self-defence, Iraq wasn't defence either. )
 
2005-12-02 10:55:50 AM
The Goblin King's strategy here seems to be:

1) Portray the terrorist 5-10% of the Sunni triangle insurgency as if it's the whole thing
2) ??????
3) Profit

If he'd RTFAed, he'd have seen the mention that there's significant concern that these are falling into the hands of the Mehdi army, which - while religious - is primarily a nationalist force.

This should get interesting after parliamentary elections. Al-Sistani is expected to issue a fatwa to Shia demanding the removal of foreign troops. If you thought the Sunni insurgency was bad, wait until you see the Shia one in full swing.
 
2005-12-02 10:56:33 AM
bbcrackmonkey:

Oh cut me some slack jack, Canyoneer is always coming into these Iraqi War flames with his cut & paste anti-war stories, and all-too-often involving Saddam's trial which is one of his little pet stories.

Hehe, I will cut you some jack since, as I said, it was nice and heartfelt. On the other hand, it was a bit too obvious and weak for you.. It went:

Him: Lots of people want saddam back
You: No they don't
Him: *brings out factual proofs*
You: Hmm, hmm, what is it with you? Is Saddam your loooover? Canyoner & Hussein sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. Dirty terrorist lover!

/commenting on this thread, hasn't really noticed him bringing up saddam's trial a lot
 
2005-12-02 10:57:52 AM
Tatsuma: It doesn't matter. In any case, they still do not condone wars like the Iraq war.

This was not a protection war. In fact, Jesus said that you should turn the other cheek.

Considering Paradise, eternal life & what-not, wouldn't the christian thing to do would be to.. not defend yourself? To let yourself be killed and get on with eternal life already? What's a few mortal years when eternity of bliss awaits you?

I might be wrong, but I thought Christ accepted death when it came


Pretty much correct on all counts, but thankfully our nation is founded on secular principles which, among other things, gives us the right to kill the fark out of people we dislike for some reason or another.
 
2005-12-02 11:00:39 AM
I might be wrong, but I thought Christ accepted death when it came, he didn't die a la Joseph Smith with guns a-blazin'

That's Christ -- New Testament. Ten Commandments are straight up old school Yaweh. You fark with the chosen people, you get war and death sanctioned in his name. It's all in the word used, as any biblical scholar will tell you. Yaweh uses different words for killing livestock or an enemy or a member of your own tribe (the one the 6th covers).

Yaweh's stance on the treatment of enemies is no different than Allah's. Perhaps because....they're the same God. At least we're fortunate enough to not live in a theocracy with one of these "history books" as it's cornerstone. Yet.

/many sons had father Abraham, I am one of them and so are you
 
2005-12-02 11:01:42 AM
Tatsuma: You: No they don't

I didn't say they didn't, I said his lawyers are primarily the ones pushing for the elected position, because they think it will delay the trial and possibly grant him immunity from prosecution if he actually takes a political office. You'll notice in his original post that all the comments about Iraqis wanting Saddam back were quotes from his lawyers about what other people had said to them.

I know lots of idiot Sunnis want him back. Sometimes I wish we could just take all his followers, split the country up, and let him rule over those fellars that want him back so bad.
 
2005-12-02 11:03:10 AM
bbcrackmonkey:

Pretty much correct on all counts, but thankfully our nation is founded on secular principles which, among other things, gives us the right to kill the fark out of people we dislike for some reason or another.

Of course..

Personally (well, I'm a libertarian), I think that our army should first & foremost be a force to defend us and our allies. When one of our allies is attacked: we go in! If we're attacked? We go in!

Other countries fighting each others? Meh, not our problem.
Other countries might maybe be thinking about attacking us? Meh, not our problem until they do start attacking us.

The only pre-emptive war I'll ever back will be the ones where we strike before their already launched missiles hit us

/afghanistan = justified
//iraq? never was
 
2005-12-02 11:05:07 AM
Tatsuma: The only pre-emptive war I'll ever back will be the ones where we strike before their already launched missiles hit us

So do you disagree with the use of US forces to stop genocides in places like, say, Kosovo?
 
2005-12-02 11:05:50 AM
bbcrackmonkey:"If he tries to run for so much as a dog-catcher, whatever political party he launches is going to be wiped out by Kurdish and Shiite paramilitary death squads faster than the one FARC briefly formed in Colombia."

Interesting that you mention that. All this recent news of death squads sounded familiar.

Then I remembered a spate of stories in January of this year about the Pentagon wanting to activate "The Salvador Option", using locally-trained death squads to kill suspected insurgents and insurgent sympathizers in the Sunni triangle, and that Allawi was a big supporter of this strategy.

I'd put real money that we're the ones training and organizing said death squads. We did it in Latin America, after all, mostly killing innocent peasants. If these death squads are evidence of an "incipient civil war", who wants to bet that it's not our presence that's stopping, it's our active interference that's inciting it.
 
2005-12-02 11:06:16 AM
SpamDog

Wait, wrong pic. That's a liberal.
 
2005-12-02 11:08:24 AM
Pollexabator:

That's Christ -- New Testament. Ten Commandments are straight up old school Yaweh. You fark with the chosen people, you get war and death sanctioned in his name. It's all in the word used, as any biblical scholar will tell you. Yaweh uses different words for killing livestock or an enemy or a member of your own tribe (the one the 6th covers).

Technically, I have nothing against old school new testament, when it comes to "don't fark with us, or we'll fark back", which is, in a very ironic sense, one of the basic tenets of modern satanism as well. It makes more sense than kneeling and accepting death

Yaweh's stance on the treatment of enemies is no different than Allah's. Perhaps because....they're the same God. At least we're fortunate enough to not live in a theocracy with one of these "history books" as it's cornerstone. Yet.

Yup, definitely..... Then again, Israel (agreed, not a theocracy) is doing quite well. I'm myself moving to Tel-Aviv next year. The problem with Islam (or religion in general) being mixed with State is because it's the fundies asking for it.

If the christians asking for a more christian government were the, you know, SANE ones, I would have way less problems with it. If it was all about helping each others, giving help to the needy, loving the sinner & hating the sin, respecting people's free will and trying to encourage people to learn about Christ rather than forcing him down everyone's throat, I'd have a better time discussing with them.

Then again, they'd be branded dirty pinko socialists


/many sons had father Abraham, I am one of them and so are you

Indeed
 
2005-12-02 11:08:43 AM
bbcrackmonkey: The Billdozer: So you are glad that troops are dying over in Iraq?

He would be if they didn't use up his tax dollars in the process. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.



I don't know whether I should be filled with rage or cry for his sorry ass.
 
2005-12-02 11:09:12 AM
Robobagpiper: I'd put real money that we're the ones training and organizing said death squads.

We're definitely the ones training them. They're off-duty police officers and off-duty soldiers from Kurdish and Shiite backrounds mostly. We don't have to organize them, they know how to do it themselves. All we have to do is look the other way.
 
2005-12-02 11:10:33 AM
The Billdozer: I don't know whether I should be filled with rage or cry for his sorry ass.

He wouldn't give two shiats either way. He's EnormousJuan. He hates all humans including you and me. I suspect some kind of nasty divorce and/or child molestation by his uncle in his past.
 
2005-12-02 11:12:33 AM
We're definitely the ones training them. They're off-duty police officers and off-duty soldiers from Kurdish and Shiite backrounds mostly. We don't have to organize them, they know how to do it themselves. All we have to do is look the other way.

That goes without saying. All I'm pointing out is that we had leaks about 11 months ago about the Pentagon considering actually organizing and directing them, and that the propposed policy had support in the puppet government we installed. This would be about the right time for them to become operational if the Pentagon went through with that plan, don't you think?
 
2005-12-02 11:13:41 AM


/god, i love it
 
2005-12-02 11:13:58 AM
Robobagpiper: That goes without saying. All I'm pointing out is that we had leaks about 11 months ago about the Pentagon considering actually organizing and directing them, and that the propposed policy had support in the puppet government we installed. This would be about the right time for them to become operational if the Pentagon went through with that plan, don't you think?

They've been 'operational' for quite some time, dude. I think the first I heard about them waltzing around Baghdad killing Sunni tribesmen thought to be insurgency sympathizers was last year.
 
2005-12-02 11:14:41 AM
Technically, I have nothing against old school new testament, when it comes to "don't fark with us, or we'll fark back", which is, in a very ironic sense, one of the basic tenets of modern satanism as well.

I thought old school New Testament was "turn the other cheek". You know, active non-violent resistance. Silly me.

It's Alvis, not Jesus, that said "Vengeance is mine" and then shot that dude right in the face.
 
2005-12-02 11:18:40 AM
I heard a pretty crazy story from a guy about what we do to captured Iraqis over there. Now keep in mind I have no way of verifying this, but it sounds pretty interesting, so bear with me here.

He said that when they capture an insurgent/foreign fighter, first they have the Iraqi interrogator come in and pump them for information as much as possible, then the Iraqi interrogator tells them that the Americans are going to torture and kill them in a gruesome and horrific manner once we get to them, and so the interrogator leaves the room and tosses a pistol loaded with one bullet in it as he is shutting the door, and over 50% of the time the prisoner blows his head off with it.

Remember, 2nd hand shiat but like I said, sounds interesting, although I imagine getting the pistol back from the ones who don't kill themselves would be rather comical.
 
2005-12-02 11:18:53 AM
bbcrackmonkey: "You're the one shilling for the guy amigo, not me...Yeah I realize that the insurgency is largely composed of his old butt-boys, what I don't understand is the fact that you keep on complaining about how unfair his trial is and bringing it up every chance you get like you've got a crush on the guy...But no, Saddam himself is not a potent political force in Iraq, he is a dead man walking who is going to be hanged after being found guilty of shiat he obviously did, the sooner the better...And don't confuse me with those hacks that say 'OMG insurgency is ovah!' every time we catch the local Baathist or Al-Qaeda minion. The Sunnis aren't going to give up until they've had the fight beaten out of them."

And where have I ever "shilled for the guy?" I bring these things up to add context to the Iraq War threads. I disdain the stupid partisanship and mindless obedience to the War Party on the one hand, and the brainless, ignorant pacifism of the antiwar "liberals" on the other hand. FYI, I was predicting this guerrilla war and the difficulties the U.S. would face in Iraq in Fark threads before the invasion, and not because I am a pacifist, but because I think fighting expensive unwinnable wars is very, very stupid.

That his trial is a kangaroo court is obvious and undeniable, as you so eloquently admitted yourself just a little while ago when you said: "No matter how long they delay the trial, Saddam is going to get sent to the chopping block..." IOW, the outcome is predetermined, thus a kangaroo court. When they chop off his head, the Sunnis will have a Great Martyr to inspire them, make no mistake.

As to "the fight being beaten out of the Sunnis," where exactly will that leave us, eh? With a Shiite theocracy ruling Iraq that is subservient to Tehran? How stupid is THAT? What exactly are we getting for our money and effort over there? What is the logical outcome of spreading "democracy" in the Arab world?

I'll tell you what the logical outcome is: Islamic republics stretching from Morocco to Pakistan. That's what the result of Bush's incredibly unbelievably stupid war will be. As a bonus, we'll be bankrupted in the process. Real smart.

* Who won the elections in Algeria in 1991? The Islamic Salvation Front.

* Who controls the government in Baghdad now? The Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq.

* Who is winning the elections in Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood.

* Who would take over in Syria if we bump off Bashar Assad and the Baathists there? The Muslim Brotherhood.

* Who is winning the elections in Gaza? Hamas.

* Who won overwhelmingly in Southern Lebanon? Hizbollah.

* Who would be elected president of (Saudi) Arabia if free elections were held today? Osama bin Laden.

You dumbasses better be very careful what you wish for, because everywhere Arabs are allowed to vote, they vote in gun-toting fundie Koran-thumpers. Invariably.

Mister Bush's war is a big, big mistake, my friend, and *is having and will have* the opposite effect from what is intended. But that's what happens when you combine utopianism with ignorance: Disaster.
 
2005-12-02 11:18:54 AM
bbcrackmonkey:

I didn't say they didn't, I said his lawyers are primarily the ones pushing for the elected position, because they think it will delay the trial and possibly grant him immunity from prosecution if he actually takes a political office. You'll notice in his original post that all the comments about Iraqis wanting Saddam back were quotes from his lawyers about what other people had said to them.

I know lots of idiot Sunnis want him back. Sometimes I wish we could just take all his followers, split the country up, and let him rule over those fellars that want him back so bad.



Ah, well yeah, then I agree with you. There's probably people who want Saddam to run as a president of Iraq again.

Give me enough time and money, I'll also find you people who'll want Fred Phelps as a president.

I was only saying:

I know you're intelligent, even if we disagree on a lot of subjects. I think that sometimes you're a bit too angsty for your own good, but I'm myself quite angsty from times to times, so i can hardly judge ye on that. People living in glass houses yadayadayada.


So do you disagree with the use of US forces to stop genocides in places like, say, Kosovo?

I'm against the US going in alone. If an international coalition of our allies want to stop genocide and that a population is requesting it directly to us, that we have suffisant data and proofs to go in, and the keyword is INTERNATIONAL coalition, not the US with two british boats and a polish cook, then I would be ok to it....

if the population votes on it.

In fact, I think that in the end, when Congress wants to declare war, they have to show the population all the info and intel they have and the public should be able to vote on it.

We should see pro and anti liberation wars for sudan on television. Some telling us why we should be involved to stop the conflict, some telling us why we shouldn't and have an healthy debate about it.


Again, I probably give far too much maturity to the voting public.


So, I would be for us participating in an operation to stop genocides if:

1. The population agreed (Our Soldiers, Our Money, Our Country)
2. The population suffering for genocide are asking for help (so we don't end up in the middle of a civil war and picking sides)
3. International and neutral coalition going in.


If you want the US to go in alone, I'd have to say no. Then again, my head is splitting open because it's such a heavy question and it's way too hard to

final answer? Probably not, it depends.

I mean, do we really want to be the world's policeman? Are we ready to go in and stop ALL the genocidal tyrants and maniacs? Would the people there even want it? I mean, Saddam was a dictator and 80%+ of Iraqis want us out, after all... they never wanted us there in the first place.

I think we could write a whole serie of books dedicated to that question alone
 
2005-12-02 11:20:26 AM
canyoneer: Meet the new boss, eh? What a great improvement this "new" Iraq is over the "old" Iraq!

They should have whacked him and simply displayed the body, and been done with it. Big mistake.


I am trying very hard to reconcile those two statements but have concluded that it is impossible.
 
2005-12-02 11:23:08 AM
bbcrackmonkey:

He said that when they capture an insurgent/foreign fighter, first they have the Iraqi interrogator come in and pump them for information as much as possible, then the Iraqi interrogator tells them that the Americans are going to torture and kill them in a gruesome and horrific manner once we get to them, and so the interrogator leaves the room and tosses a pistol loaded with one bullet in it as he is shutting the door, and over 50% of the time the prisoner blows his head off with it.

Remember, 2nd hand shiat but like I said, sounds interesting, although I imagine getting the pistol back from the ones who don't kill themselves would be rather comical.


Exactly. This is a false story. I've heard it about many wars/conflicts/dicatorships


Robobagpiper:

Then I remembered a spate of stories in January of this year about the Pentagon wanting to activate "The Salvador Option", using locally-trained death squads to kill suspected insurgents and insurgent sympathizers in the Sunni triangle, and that Allawi was a big supporter of this strategy.

I'd put real money that we're the ones training and organizing said death squads. We did it in Latin America, after all, mostly killing innocent peasants. If these death squads are evidence of an "incipient civil war", who wants to bet that it's not our presence that's stopping, it's our active interference that's inciting it.


Oh christ. I hope we're not doing the same right now, because I won't be pissed at my country like I am now, I'll be downright disgusted.


WAKE UP. WE'RE THE FARKING GOOD GUYS. GOOD GUYS DON'T USE OR TOLERATE DEATH SQUADS. THEY DON'T USE TORTURE. THEY DON'T INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES WITHOUT REASONS. THEY DON'T HAVE THINGS LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT.

Christ. America died on 9/11. We're living in Bizarro America right now.
 
2005-12-02 11:24:59 AM
Back to the whole thing about the exact ingredients being classified, I don't think there's a single amphetamine that's been under patent by the likes of DuPont, Merck, J. Random Big Drug company for decades. (Not counting all the extended release iterations of course, but that's the delivery mechanism not the amphetamines which is patented even in those cases). I'm guessing if you're planning to go charging into a wall of bullets like a madman screeming about Allah, only having to take your pills every 12 hours instead of every 6 hours probably isn't a big selling point one way or another. Besides, most time release formulations are sold in gelatin based capsules vs tablets which probably don't hold up so well in Iraq in the summertime.

Any nonsense that amphetamines are some vast governmentally backed scheme for making stupid amounts of money is just that, nonsense. Sure they're probably more profitable than making flu vaccine if you're a pharmaceutical company, but they're hardly a big margin item. They are pretty cheap to manufacture in volume, but they also don't sell for much per pill when sold as a legal pharmaceutical compared to a lot of other stuff.

That said, I like my Adderall (generic or not). It's like going from lazy bastard to workaholic in 45 minutes flat. It may be a band-aid approach to fixing ADHD, but fark it, it works. If it wasn't illegal, I'd just buy the stuff to make it myself and save the money and hassle, then again, if it wasn't a controlled substance thanks to Nixon, it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to get it even as a prescription and it wouldn't make me wish I could just make my own to avoid all the jumping through hoops required to get it filled as a prescription. It's all a rather nice catch-22 situation at work.

Of course if it wasn't illegal to make your own, most of the chemical base stocks used to make it that the pharmaceutical companies use could just be used by the average schmo and it wouldn't be the nasty toxic ordeal that you see depicted as meth labs, because people making it wouldn't have to use work-around methodology to get what they need as ingredients.

It's a fine example of where legalizing a drug would fix most of the problems associated with the drug. No more dangerous meth labs, no more kids of the dumbasses running the meth labs being exposed to hazardous chemicals, no more significant profit for people making it, and consequently not much incentive to make it for anything but your own use. Yeah I know the same argument works for other drugs too and they pretty much all have the potential for abuse every bit as much as amphetamines do, but it's amazing the power that the "forbidden fruits" have in attracting people. Reference US views on alcohol compared to places such as Europe and elsewhere that function quite happily with drinking ages well below 21 for a practical example of that phenomenon at work.

I'd also like to say that those pilots using the Dexedrine in their legal defense are completely full of shiat. They flat out farked up and they're just trying to dodge being responsible for their careless actions. The 5-10 mg doses they received are hardly enough to impair judgement even noticably. It might have made them chatty, anxious, and awake, but that's about it.

Oh well, at the very least, the surrounding inhabitants in Iraq on some sort of amphetamine should make the soldiers from the Meth belt feel like they're back home if nothing else.
 
2005-12-02 11:26:02 AM
bbcrackmonkey: The Billdozer: I don't know whether I should be filled with rage or cry for his sorry ass.

He wouldn't give two shiats either way. He's EnormousJuan. He hates all humans including you and me. I suspect some kind of nasty divorce and/or child molestation by his uncle in his past.



He is either a) a super leftist troll or b) a complete and utter douche that would fold like a shirt under any kind of real-life pressures.
 
2005-12-02 11:27:05 AM
The "freedom fighters" contradict themselves once again.

Drugs = Bad, unless you use them to kill people!
Nice philosophy.
 
2005-12-02 11:27:52 AM
With a Shiite theocracy ruling Iraq that is subservient to Tehran? How stupid is THAT? What exactly are we getting for our money and effort over there? What is the logical outcome of spreading "democracy" in the Arab world?

You're spot on, in my opinion canyoneer. Look at "democracy" we put in place in Afghanistan and who the people in some local regions have elected (psss...it's the Taliban)

In addition, the Tehran question keeps getting more frightening to me personally, as we go to the UN yet again to pretend we're gonna do something real soon about the uranium enrichment program. Just you watch.

We inserted ourselves in the middle of a region that always has, and always will be, a giant cluster fark...
 
2005-12-02 11:30:04 AM
The Billdozer: He is either a) a super leftist troll or b) a complete and utter douche that would fold like a shirt under any kind of real-life pressures.


Or both.
 
2005-12-02 11:30:58 AM
The Billdozer: He is either a) a super leftist troll or b) a complete and utter douche that would fold like a shirt under any kind of real-life pressures.

Like all completely insane people, he considers himself a libertarian.
 
2005-12-02 11:33:39 AM
When I was in Istanbul, about the same time as Billy "Midnight Express" Hayes, I went into a drug store, and this is what they offered:

"--------Ah yes, Sahib; here we have tablet methedrine, tablet dexedrine, liquid methedrine, syringes for injection, powdered methedrine-------BUT NO HASHIshiathat's against the law!"

True story, exact quote.
 
2005-12-02 11:34:38 AM
bbcrackmonkey: Like all completely insane people, he considers himself a libertarian.

Not very nice

on this, I'm out.
 
2005-12-02 11:35:11 AM
Tatsuma: WAKE UP. WE'RE THE FARKING GOOD GUYS. GOOD GUYS DON'T USE OR TOLERATE DEATH SQUADS. THEY DON'T USE TORTURE. THEY DON'T INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES WITHOUT REASONS. THEY DON'T HAVE THINGS LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT.

Christ. America died on 9/11. We're living in Bizarro America right now.



No, we are living in the grown up America where tough decisions have to be made or we directly suffer conquences.

Do you honestly think before 9/11 that we never did anything shady or deceptive to achive goals? I bet you were the same kind of moron that thought the CIA was putting crack in the inner cities to kill of blacks.

Ever since the Revolutionary War, we have planted propaganda, been decitiful towards the enemy and have fought dirty. You know why? Because we want to WIN, that's why! That's what makes the U.S.A. so freaking great: We can become the most "evil" s.o.b.'s in existance until the fight os over or the job is done, and then we become the most open and free country around. We held Japanese and Italian citizens in camps during WWII. Are we holding them now? Now, because there is no need to. The south profited off of slavery, do we have it now? No, as a result of the War Between the States, we freed the slaves and outlawed that henious system.

I want my country to win wars. I could care less if we fight fair. The enemies of this country are bound by one system: Win at all costs. We should take the fight to them and destroy them before they get a chance to mess with us. I want countries and people around the world to know that if you dick with U.S.A., you will get served.
 
2005-12-02 11:38:33 AM
Do you honestly think before 9/11 that we never did anything shady or deceptive to achive goals?

But whose goals? The citizenry's, or big business'?

Gen. Smedley Butler had rather definite opinions on that one.
 
2005-12-02 11:39:03 AM
bbcrackmonkey: Like all completely insane people, he considers himself a libertarian.

not all completely insane people

 
2005-12-02 11:40:41 AM
They're the Boxers of the 21st century!
 
2005-12-02 11:42:27 AM
Tatsuma

Christ. America died on 9/11. We're living in Bizarro America right now.

Yeah that pretty well sums it up.

Take air travel nowadays, all the fancy plasma screens showing propaganda about how the TSA is your friend (yeah, that's a drastically simplified version of the nonsense spewed from the monitors at the airport but no less true). I swear to God it's like a scene out of any number of mediocre Sci-Fi plots all of which seem to depict a less than pleasant future in which the government has far more say in people's lives than necessary. Dare I even say it's Orwellian? Yeah I think I do.

It just cracks me up whenever I fly although it amuses me far less than it utterly disgusts me that people are so complacent about just bending over and taking it en masse. Now lets think about it a bit more critically, what snowballs chance in hell do you think terrorists have of controlling the passengers on a domestic flight after 9/11? You'd honestly have to take a number and get in line to unleash a can of whup-ass on any terrorist on a domestic flight now, because the expectation post 9/11 is that the terrorists aren't going to let you go if you just smile, nod, and do what they say for a while. So what's the point with all the TSA bullshiat? Tin-foil hat crowd as it sounds, the cynical bastard in me can't think of many reasons other than it being an experiment in control of the masses. Given how easily the populace has been conditioned to bend over and take it in the ass at the airport, it does not speak well of the mindset of the average person in America these days. Maybe it's me but frankly, I'd rather take my chances that some jackass will try to blow the airplane up than live in the kind of society that is ok with being walked on by the government in the interest of "safety and security."

Ah well I better shut up before people start thinking I'm crazier than they probably already do. I prefer to think of it as eccentric myself.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report