[RooneyX]

Well, sad to hear this really, but the Dail Mail just ran an excerpt from the book Bible Code II by quack scientist Michael Drosnin who has claimed for several years now that the Torah contains a code that when decrypted using a computer program predicts the future of the world leading up to Armageddon.

That's not the sad thing, that's just a bogues theory. A program can extract whatever you are looking for from a large volume of words. The sad thing is that Drosnin is claiming that the Pentagon and the White House called him in before the Iraq war and asked him to find the outcome of the war using the Bible Code. And they actually followed the advice.

if this story is true then whoever consulted this quack theory to pursue a war that has led to the deaths of Iraqis, Americans and has fuelled more terrorism should not only lose their jobs but also be placed under supervisional care, either a mental asylum or high security prison.

And for those waiting for Armageddon or actively working towards its achievement, the word derives from 'Har Megiddo', a table top mountain in ancient Israel around which many battles were fought since Assyrian times. People would flee to the top of the mountain as it provided excellent defense. Over time myths evolved around it that the final battle (of the area of course) would occur there.

Very sadly, some insane and influential people are pursuing an ideologically driven war in order to prove their religion is true, literal. And in the mean time they profit from the oil and arms dealing that goes along with it, because privately it's the money that interests them.

[Superchicken]

My goodness do you ever talk with any understanding of everything? There are lots of people who are looking at the times and thinking if the end may be near, but arn't trying to force armageton into occuring. Seriously what the heck is your problem?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
There are lots of people who are looking at the times and thinking if the end may be near...

i seriously hope the end is near, - for the bush administration and the american taliban that is!

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by deekay1:
i seriously hope the end is near, - for the bush administration and the american taliban that is!

Riiiight cause that's what I was talking about...

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
My goodness do you ever talk with any understanding of everything? There are lots of people who are looking at the times and thinking if the end may be near, but arn't trying to force armageton into occuring. Seriously what the heck is your problem?

Tolerance, my friend, tolerance. Here, have some confetti

......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Tolerance, my friend, tolerance. Here, have some confetti

......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................

The thing thst scares me the most... is that you might actually believe that you're a tolerant person...

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
The thing thst scares me the most... is that you might actually believe that you're a tolerant person...

Manipulation and assasination of character won't work here I'm afraid. There's a search feature and polls to back me up - I'm straight forward, shoot from the hip, and stand up against tyranny and fanaticism.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Manipulation and assasination of character won't work here I'm afraid. There's a search feature and polls to back me up - I'm straight forward, shoot from the hip, and stand up against tyranny and fanaticism.

Might wanna add deluded to that. But then again so are the rest of those who feel the need to rip my religion from me because of their insecurities.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
if this story is true then whoever consulted this quack theory to pursue a war that has led to the deaths of Iraqis, Americans and has fuelled more terrorism should not only lose their jobs but also be placed under supervisional care, either a mental asylum or high security prison.

And if he hadn't been consulted, you'd just post a thread bitching about the Bush Adminstration.

Have you read either book?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Misanthrope:
And if he hadn't been consulted, you'd just post a thread bitching about the Bush Adminstration.

Have you read either book?

I read the first one. It was a joke.

And I don't need to post Bush threads, there are enough of those already.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I read the first one. It was a joke.

And I don't need to post Bush threads, there are enough of those already.

Hey didn't need to, but just as his other flame bait threads... HE WANTED TO

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Hey didn't need to, but just as his other flame bait threads... HE WANTED TO

Again, show tolerance. Don't call me a flamer. If you want to, tell the mods. I started the other poill in response to a claim that non-religious people are intolerant. I proved that to the contrary that the non-religious here are a silent majority. Now I've started a poll so people can vote an important issue - quack leaders following quack theories that result in death. That's a crime. If you want to support the insane simply because they held the same religious text as you a few times in their lives, go ahead. I wouldn't support a secular humanist who steered people to war.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Again, show tolerance. Don't call me a flamer. If you want to, tell the mods. I started the other poill in response to a claim that non-religious people are intolerant. I proved that to the contrary that the non-religious here are a silent majority. Now I've started a poll so people can vote an important issue - quack leaders following quack theories that result in death. That's a crime. If you want to support the insane simply because they held the same religious text as you a few times in their lives, go ahead. I wouldn't support a secular humanist who steered people to war.

Interesting quote from proverbs "the ways of a man always seem right to him in his own eyes."

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Interesting quote from proverbs "the ways of a man always seem right to him in his own eyes."

Learn from it then.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Learn from it then.

Oooo good one... seriously though, how old are you? For anyone out of grade 8 that isn't an acceptable comeback... how old are you man?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Oooo good one... seriously though, how old are you? For anyone out of grade 8 that isn't an acceptable comeback... how old are you man?

30. But please, show tolerance against young men like me.

[Millennium]

The Pentagon is reputed to have plans for every possible eventuality, no matter how far-fetched. If the US government hired this kind of consultant to plan for a Bible-Code-qesue apocalypse, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, though I doubt they'd do it specifically for the Iraq war. I mean, this guy is on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe; even most Christian fundamentalists don't believe a word of this Bible-code crap.

The US wouldn't even be the first government, even in modern times, to get into stuff like this. Many governments dabble in -or at least consider- occult practices of one sort or another. More as a case of covering all the bases than actual belief that these things would actually occur.

[ironknee]

and btw, 12 more american solders were killed today in iraq...good work bush

[jckalen]

Oooo good one... seriously though, how old are you?

Actually, superchic[k]en, he got you pretty good with that one. I also think it is a proverb you could learn from.

Additionally, in re-reading your posts, you imply that your religion is based on Bible Code II. There was no direct mention of christianity, Catholics or any writings other than the Torah. Was this book recommended in the Pope's book-of-the-month club? Does your preacher quote from it?

Also, since you misspelled Armageddon, one could question your age, education and devotion to the bible. And finally, you come across as less tolerant of Rooney's opinion than he is of yours. All you forgot to do is point out that Rooney has fewer posts than you so what could he know?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ironknee:
and btw, 12 more american solders were killed today in iraq...good work bush

I love how people like to blame Bush. And not the pig dog terrorists that are doing this.

Or are you one of the people that claim we shouldn't have went in there? You know, those people live far away, if they are getting tortured raped and murdered who cares right?

And as far as the topic goes. Blown out of proportion.

Rooney is still on his anti-God zealot kick.

[wataru]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Also, since you misspelled Armageddon, one could question your age, education and devotion to the bible. And finally, you come across as less tolerant of Rooney's opinion than he is of yours. All you forgot to do is point out that Rooney has fewer posts than you so what could he know?

Superchicken is just a junior Jesus wannabe with little actual knowledge of anything. You can safely add him to your ignore list without missing anything of interest.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wataru:
Superchicken is just a junior Jesus wannabe with little actual knowledge of anything. You can safely add him to your ignore list without missing anything of interest.

Yeah adding anyone else is a dangerous sport.

SILENCE HIMM!!

[jckalen]

yeah, but where's the fun in that?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah adding anyone else is a dangerous sport.

SILENCE HIMM!!

Well, if he's not willing to treat other people with respect, why does he deserve to be heard?

[ironknee]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I love how people like to blame Bush. And not the pig dog terrorists that are doing this.

Or are you one of the people that claim we shouldn't have went in there? You know, those people live far away, if they are getting tortured raped and murdered who cares right?

And as far as the topic goes. Blown out of proportion.

Rooney is still on his anti-God zealot kick.

woa...insecure are we? i saw 911 first hand here in nyc, and still wonders why we are in iraq, and not in say, n korea...arn't they being tortured, raped, murdered? and umm where are the womd?

bush 1: let sadam go
quayle er i mean bush 2: let osama go and let sadam go oops oops

as far as the bible code, didn't reagan consult a pychic?

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Actually, superchic[k]en, he got you pretty good with that one. I also think it is a proverb you could learn from.

Additionally, in re-reading your posts, you imply that your religion is based on Bible Code II. There was no direct mention of christianity, Catholics or any writings other than the Torah. Was this book recommended in the Pope's book-of-the-month club? Does your preacher quote from it?

Also, since you misspelled Armageddon, one could question your age, education and devotion to the bible. And finally, you come across as less tolerant of Rooney's opinion than he is of yours. All you forgot to do is point out that Rooney has fewer posts than you so what could he know?

Hey I'm on windows, because the net here at my campus is down in the dorm, I've never been able to spell, but if I make a point of editing my stuff with a spell checker it works out fine. And uhh no I didn't put my religion in with the bible code, I have heard about it and I think it's wack. The problem is that he's lumping all Christian fundamentalists, which right now for some reason holds a conotation that it doesn't deserve. All fundamental means is we're not trying to change everything to suit our own ideals!

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
30. But please, show tolerance against young men like me.

You are the most intolerant person here. You attack everyone who disagrees with you.

Learn a little tolerance for those who are different and think different than you.

Anyone who tells someone to be more tolerant is themselves intolerant.

I, myself, never claimed to be tolerant.

Personally, I could never be tolerant of Hussein's torture and massacre of the Iraqi people.

Maybe you are?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You are the most intolerant person here. You attack everyone who disagrees with you.

Learn a little tolerance for those who are different and think different than you.

Anyone who tells someone to be more tolerant is themselves intolerant.

I, myself, never claimed to be tolerant.

Personally, I could never be tolerant of Hussein's torture and massacre of the Iraqi people.

Maybe you are?

Huh? Sorry, confused. Superchicken is 'everyone' and suddenly Saddam Hussein is justification for using quack theories to send the world to war without UN backing and increase the chance of terrorist attacks.

I think I'll see if the words 'bullshit' and 'theory' appear close together in the Bible Code.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Huh? Sorry, confused. Superchicken is 'everyone' and suddenly Saddam Hussein is justification for using quack theories to send the world to war without UN backing and increase the chance of terrorist attacks.

I think I'll see if the words 'bullshit' and 'theory' appear close together in the Bible Code.

Look for RooneyX and Intolerant while you're at it.

I was speaking about your tolerance of people who disagree with you. I was not speaking about the Bush/Bible Code stuff. Because if you believe this story then you are the quack.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to add, RooneyX, YOU NEED TO BE MORE TOLERANT!!!

[willed]

Originally posted by ironknee:
woa...insecure are we? i saw 911 first hand here in nyc, and still wonders why we are in iraq, and not in say, n korea...arn't they being tortured, raped, murdered? and umm where are the womd?

bush 1: let sadam go
quayle er i mean bush 2: let osama go and let sadam go oops oops

as far as the bible code, didn't reagan consult a pychic?

Yeah, I love the way we are not in N. Korea, as they might actually HAVE WOMD that they can use, or maybe Zimbabwe, where British ex-pats are getting thrown off their property, even killed; but no, we go for Iraq... where the oil lives.

RooneyX - I agree with you
Super[C]unt - you know what I think of you.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by ironknee:
.....and still wonders why we are in iraq, and not in say, n korea...arn't they being tortured, raped, murdered? and umm where are the womd?

That's the same thing we're asking, and why we are in Iraq and not any of the other places. In order to end the Gulf War, Iraq promised to remove all their known WOMD, cease their research/design programs, AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.

The last condition is the most important, because without it, it could never be assumed that the first two condittions where met. The problem is that they never provided the documentation or proof to show that they dismantled what they did have (that was documented) and there was evidence that they didn't completely cease research/design efforts. Either they still had stuff that they weren't supposed to, or they wanted us to believe that they did (so we would be more afraid of them).

Regardless of whether WOMD are EVER found, Sadaam Hussein and Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of the end of the first Gulf War after GHWB left office, and until GWB started pushing wasn't about to.

If Sadaam wanted to stay in office, all he had to do was ensure that he complied with the terms of the end of the Gulf War. He didn't, and in fact his people did everything they could to ensure that the terms weren't complied with. Not even taking into account the terrorism against his own people, he got what he deserved.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Well, if he's not willing to treat other people with respect, why does he deserve to be heard?

He isn't the only one doing it.

I don't know how many times catsank has called anyone with faith in religious matters idiots.

And so on.

Originally posted by ironknee:
woa...insecure are we?

No, not at all.

i saw 911 first hand here in nyc, and still wonders why we are in iraq, and not in say, n korea...arn't they being tortured, raped, murdered? and umm where are the womd?

bush 1: let sadam go
quayle er i mean bush 2: let osama go and let sadam go oops oops

as far as the bible code, didn't reagan consult a pychic?

But still do you think we should have just did nothing?

[ZackS]

Someone please save my soul from searching for the ethereal within the mundane confines of what is little more than a perfunctory existence.

[Zimphire]

Refrain from using big words when diminutive words will suffice.

It's makes you look like you are trying TOO hard to "impress" people.

This is a internet forum.

[MorningStar]

Clinton used to come to me for help.

Of course I was the one that told him to let Monica go down on him. I told him "I swear, she wont tell anyone!'

AAAAHahahhahahahhaha!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MorningStar:
Clinton used to come to me for help.

Of course I was the one that told him to let Monica go down on him. I told him "I swear, she wont tell anyone!'

AAAAHahahhahahahhaha!!!

Now that I believe.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Refrain from using big words when diminutive words will suffice.

It's makes you look like you are trying TOO hard to "impress" people.

This is a internet forum.

I said I don't like looking for good stuff in a bad and pointless world.

But I was not trying to impress anyone, just confuse them with bizarre language. (Also, I was bored with this thread, its contents and participants)

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He isn't the only one doing it.

I don't know how many times catsank has called anyone with faith in religious matters idiots.

And so on.

That's true, but the fact that other people are behaving poorly is not an excuse for poor behavior. Rampant, insulting arrogance is not a useful tool in demonstrating your correctness, if anything it hurts your cause.

This applies to other people as well but, probably because I generally don't agree with his views, I notice Superchicken doing it more than anyone else.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
This applies to other people as well but, probably because I generally don't agree with his views, I notice Superchicken doing it more than anyone else.

Well at least you are honest.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
That's the same thing we're asking, and why we are in Iraq and not any of the other places. In order to end the Gulf War, Iraq promised to remove all their known WOMD, cease their research/design programs, AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO.

The last condition is the most important, because without it, it could never be assumed that the first two condittions where met. The problem is that they never provided the documentation or proof to show that they dismantled what they did have (that was documented) and there was evidence that they didn't completely cease research/design efforts. Either they still had stuff that they weren't supposed to, or they wanted us to believe that they did (so we would be more afraid of them).

Regardless of whether WOMD are EVER found, Sadaam Hussein and Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of the end of the first Gulf War after GHWB left office, and until GWB started pushing wasn't about to.

If Sadaam wanted to stay in office, all he had to do was ensure that he complied with the terms of the end of the Gulf War. He didn't, and in fact his people did everything they could to ensure that the terms weren't complied with. Not even taking into account the terrorism against his own people, he got what he deserved.

And that's the main reason we went to war. Over WOMD. But that changed over the course of the war as we weren't finding any. Rather than let the American public get all bent out of shape for a perceivably worthless war, we changed it so that we're "liberating Iraqis." Listen to Zimphire, for example. He justifies the war because he believes they are helping him. But where's the justification in the start of the war? It wasn't started to liberate anyone. It was started because Saddam had WOMD... but did he? It's just crap. Whatever, this isn't the political lounge so I'll just stop now. This is just something that irks me.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Refrain from using big words when diminutive words will suffice.

It's makes you look like you are trying TOO hard to "impress" people.

This is a internet forum.

Stop making 50 posts when one will suffice.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Xeo:
And that's the main reason we went to war. Over WOMD.

Yes, the fact that Iraq refused to provide documentation that they rid themselves of WOMD, as they agreed to per the end of the Gulf War.

But that changed over the course of the war as we weren't finding any.

Whether we were "finding any" or not is irrelevant. For all we know, they had tons and just hid/burried them well. The fact that they could not/would not provide evidence that the rid themselves of them (the ones we had evidence of) is what was and continues to be the reason why Sadaam was removed from power.

Rather than let the American public get all bent out of shape for a perceivably worthless war, we changed it so that we're "liberating Iraqis." Listen to Zimphire, for example. He justifies the war because he believes they are helping him. But where's the justification in the start of the war?

See above. The "liberating Iraquis" reasoning is simply "icing on the cake". The fact that we have now enforced the dicates of the end of the Gulf War AND freed Iraquis from the fear of being fed to human wood chippers, is more than ample justification for removing a tirant from power.

t wasn't started to liberate anyone. It was started because Saddam had WOMD... but did he? It's just crap. Whatever, this isn't the political lounge so I'll just stop now. This is just something that irks me.

Don't be irked. If Saddam DIDN'T have something to hid in regards to WOMD..why didn't he just provide documentation to show that all the stuff that was done prior to the Gulf War was disposed of? Either he was hiding something, or was simply trying to be too clever. This was of course AFTER he'd already tried to overtake another soveriegn county by force. Either way, he refused to comply and was removed. It's not such a hard thing to understand.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Stop making 50 posts when one will suffice.

I wouldn't have to if people would stop making petty posts like this one.

And yes, we didn't know if Saddam had WMD for sure or not.

It was on HIM to provide proof on having or not having them. He didn't comply, he showed nothing.

Had he shown proof there would have been no WMD hunt.

That was all on Saddam.

[- - e r i k - -]

Move to politics / war forum now.

Oh, and could the four who voted no please stand up so they can be auto-ignored?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[B It was on HIM to provide proof on having or not having them. He didn't comply, he showed nothing. [/B]

nope. innocent until PROVEN guilty. no matter what your beliefs!!!!! are!

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was on HIM to provide proof on having or not having them. He didn't comply, he showed nothing.

Had he shown proof there would have been no WMD hunt.

That was all on Saddam.

So, to be consistent, it's up to Bush to prove that his government hasn't been hijacked by the neocons? You are being lied to by that administration, and you just roll over to have your tummy tickled. Shame, USA, shame.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by gadster:
So, to be consistent, it's up to Bush to prove that his government hasn't been hijacked by the neocons?

Define "hijacked" first. Once you've got a solid definition, then yes, should Bush be in a position where he was on some sort of trial for this, the burden of proof would be on him.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by deekay1:
nope. innocent until PROVEN guilty. no matter what your beliefs!!!!! are!

Iraq was given deadline, after deadline, after deadline to provide the documentation to show that it destroyed it's WOMD (by the UN no less) and they didn't. The fact that they did not comply with the UN mandates and the ground rules set by the US which ended the Gulf War, is not in dispute and is the reason why Saddam was removed from control.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Define "hijacked" first. Once you've got a solid definition, then yes, should Bush be in a position where he was on some sort of trial for this, the burden of proof would be on him.

Regardless of the definition, the onus would not be on Bush. This administration has been 'hijacked' in the same way Islam was 'hijacked' on September 11, 2001. It wasn't just the planes that got hijacked on that day, it was extremists taking control of one of the world's great religions.

Bush has always been a spokesmodel, a cheerleader. Look at how he surrounded himself with the old guard upon taking power. The neocons ( a sinister bunch of reconstituted Trotskyists ) have infiltrated Bush's administration. That it happened under his stewardship of the Republican Party is hardly a crime. Let alone a crime that is guilty until proven innocent, as your post seems to suggest.

[mitchell_pgh]

People have been saying "THE END IS NEAR" since the dawn of man.

People that think that the end is near usually are of the religious type. From a scientific standpoint, even if we launched every nuclear weapon in the world, there is little or no guarantee that the world would end.

The idea of an all knowing, all loving, invisible man that lives in the clouds and has plans to destroy the world is borderline insane.