Religiously fanatic leader. Iran? Saudi-Arabia? No - the USA!

Sim

Registered Member
#1
We've often heard that Iran is a threat to world peace -- because they are religious fanatics. They would even use their nukes (once they have them) on Israel, if that meant being annihilated by retaliation, because their leaders are religious fanatics who believe in fulfilling God's plan.

So we should really keep religious fanatics away from too much power, from WMD and especially from nukes. Because religious fanatics are not rational and thus cannot be deterred.

But apparently, the problem that religiously fanatic leaders have access to large armies and even nuclear weapons is not at all limited to Iran:

(...) In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated. (...)

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.
There can be little doubt now that President Bush's reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.
Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam.
(...)
http://www.alternet.org/news/140221/bush%27s_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges:_god_wants_to_"%3Berase"%3B_mid-east_enemies_"%3Bbefore_a_new_age_begins"%3B/

Yikes!

A President starting wars because he believes he is doing God's will. Nice!

I guess we can be glad that we've made it through his presidency without Bush starting a large nuclear first strike to bring about the End Times. Because, you know, you never know what's going on in the heads of these religious fanatics.

But don't be disappointed. We may get another chance at a nice little armageddon if Palin (or a similarly religiously nutty Republican) is elected President in 2012. Maybe she (or he) could then secretly conspire with Ahmadinejad and Netanjahu to stage a nice little armageddon. It's in the interest of all three of them, after all -- it would bring mankind closer to heaven.

So if you want salvation and Jesus to return, vote Republican! They will make it happen! :sick:
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#2
I haven't properly studied the passages that mention Gog/Magog, but looking them over, I see nothing that Bush could have tried to do to affect the situation.

And trying to prevent the Apocalypse seems a bit odd, considering God's declared that it's GOING to happen.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#3
I haven't properly studied the passages that mention Gog/Magog, but looking them over, I see nothing that Bush could have tried to do to affect the situation.

And trying to prevent the Apocalypse seems a bit odd, considering God's declared that it's GOING to happen.
Agreed. I guess once you believe in the Biblical prophecy, there is not much you can do to prevent it. Except maybe fulfilling it.

It's pretty eerie, when you think about it.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#4

Sim

Registered Member
#5
Would that be the work of Clive Hamilton? The global warming alarmist that encourages children to tell their fathers to quit their jobs to save the planet from global warming (which would also seem to be telling children that their fathers are responsible for the destruction of the earth as we know it). Yep, I'll be hanging on that guys every word. LOL

Al Gore Follows Disgraceful Lead of Clive Hamilton And Tells Children They Know More Than Their Parents | How Can People Be So Stupid?
I don't see how one is related to the other.

Besides, I think there are more scientific facts proving global warming, than there are supporting the claim Israel's threat by Gog and Magog is to bring about the end times. :lol: And then, no person mentioned in the article (a rabid, factually bankrupt opinion piece/typical FOX News crap) has ever been American President with access to nuclear weapons.

That you even have the nerve to compare concern about man made global warming (which is scientifically proven fact 97% of all experts agree on, yet ignored by the right, because these days, the right invents a new reality when the actual one doesn't suit their partisan interests) and teaching children responsible behavior, with religious nuttyness at the top of the government is quite telling, by the way.

Except playing the failed attempt of a "look over there! your man did ..."-routine, do you have anything to say to the topic of this thread?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#6
They are related by the author of those opinions. I am attacking the credibility of your source. Clive Hamilton has a history of using questionable tactics to make his point. I believe the credibility of the source cited is a legitmate issue pertinent to the discussion. You may find him credible, I don't.

I'm not trying to discuss global warming here, just providing context to the source of the OP.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#7
God help us, not Palin! Although, I don't think that'll happen anyways.


But as for Bush... Well, this article really skimps on the evidence. There's one singular supposed quote of between 10 - 20 words, and then a rush of wild interpretation without sources. And I could understand the PotUS speaking like so to Palestinian leaders; he'd be trying to speak with them on their own terms.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#8
They are related by the author of those opinions. I am attacking the credibility of your source. Clive Hamilton has a history of using questionable tactics to make his point. I believe the credibility of the source cited is a legitmate issue pertinent to the discussion. You may find him credible, I don't.

I'm not trying to discuss global warming here, just providing context to the source of the OP.
Well, I don't necessarily find the source I quoted here beyond suspicion, but it was just one of the first matches I found when googling it. I had heard of this story before, because the source (as the article mentions) is former French President Chirac. He claimed Bush indeed said that to him (it had been well documented and covered in the news, so there is no doubt that Chirac said it, the site did not make it up).

Now of course Chirac may be lying, for whatever reason, or he did not get Bush was making a joke. But a short internet search will reveal to you that Chirac indeed made this statement.

So assuming Chirac did not make it up, and Bush actually said that and was not joking, it's pretty frightening. Don't you think?
------
God help us, not Palin! Although, I don't think that'll happen anyways.


But as for Bush... Well, this article really skimps on the evidence. There's one singular supposed quote of between 10 - 20 words, and then a rush of wild interpretation without sources. And I could understand the PotUS speaking like so to Palestinian leaders; he'd be trying to speak with them on their own terms.
Agreed. And I also agree that the situation may be less sinister than this article suggests. As I said, I just posted it because it was one of the first matches when googling the incident -- but the Chirac quote was not made up.

Assuming Chirac did not lie, it may all be less sinister, maybe he just didn't get Bush was joking. Could be either way -- I have neither trouble believing it was Bush's failed attempt at being funny (his humor indeed was weird sometimes), nor that he actually meant it (his religious background is well known, so is the degree of fanatism you find among reborn circles).
 
Last edited:

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#9
Well you have heard that world is about to end anyway in 2012. :lol:

I think the difference between the countries we mostly fear and the USA...even if the latter has a very fanatic leader, I'm not sure their system allow much for that person to be a dictator. There are still "checks". Or I hope it's that way. :)
 

Sim

Registered Member
#10
Well you have heard that world is about to end anyway in 2012. :lol:
That means Obama will likely still be in power then. So it all makes sense: Obama is the anti-Christ! :shifteyes:

I think the difference between the countries we mostly fear and the USA...even if the latter has a very fanatic leader, I'm not sure their system allow much for that person to be a dictator. There are still "checks". Or I hope it's that way. :)
Yes. But still, in extreme crisis situations, quite a lot depends on the character of the President. For example, if JFK had believed he was fulfulling God's will to bring about the end times during the Cuban Missile Crisis might have easily meant the difference between peaceful solution and global nuclear annihilation ... there would not have been much the Congress could have done about it.