GW Bush was in the Saudi's pockets, so George had to go. Obama is disloyal to McChrystal; so goodbye, Barack Hussein Obama.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,26320275-2761,00.html ``The jihadist movement, has been financed largely by (people in) Saudi Arabia. In order to get peace inside Saudi Arabia, they give huge amounts of money to this education system which sets up madrasah around the world to brainwash people to do these things.
``Their idea is to take over the world and you and I are going to be treated as infidels. It is the world's fight. You watch. It is on their target list to have a real go at China and when China gets dragged into this they won't mess around.
``It's about much more than Afghanistan. It's also Pakistan and that whole area. That means India and nuclear powers getting involved. I think we have got no choice, but to stand and fight it out.
``But Obama's taking a long time _ though he campaigned on it for two years _ to give this great general (Stanley) McChrystal what he is asking for.''
What are the odds the new USAn president will be anti Saudi?
Bob wrote: > GW Bush was in the Saudi's pockets, so George had to go. Obama is > disloyal to McChrystal; so goodbye, Barack Hussein Obama.
> http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,26320275-2761,00.html > ``The jihadist movement, has been financed largely by (people in) Saudi > Arabia. In order to get peace inside Saudi Arabia, they give huge > amounts of money to this education system which sets up madrasah around > the world to brainwash people to do these things.
> ``Their idea is to take over the world and you and I are going to be > treated as infidels. It is the world's fight. You watch. It is on their > target list to have a real go at China and when China gets dragged into > this they won't mess around.
> ``It's about much more than Afghanistan. It's also Pakistan and that > whole area. That means India and nuclear powers getting involved. I > think we have got no choice, but to stand and fight it out.
> ``But Obama's taking a long time _ though he campaigned on it for two > years _ to give this great general (Stanley) McChrystal what he is > asking for.''
> What are the odds the new USAn president will be anti Saudi?
I like this: "Mr Murdoch criticised some of the NATO nations for their "useless" contribution to the war."
"Apart from the Dutch and the Poles and one or two honourable exceptions," he said.
"The big ones _ the Germans and the French _ their forces are under order not to shoot first and (not to) go out in the dark. It's a joke." [end quotes]
Heh, little Napoleon wimp is all for war. Considering these proposals and that the next link speaks of his impending end, Becker, were he still alive, would no doubt raise an eyebrow.
"News Corp. President Peter Chernin stepped down this year as the company’s second-in-command, and Murdoch said in the interview that he won’t “keep going and going.” The choice of successor may determine the political stance of the group and whether it keeps running newspapers in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, said media analyst Ken Doctor. “Does a post-Rupert News Corp. hold on to the newspapers or say, ‘that’s really not a business we want to be in?’” said Doctor, who leads news publishing analysis and research at Outsell Inc. in Burlingame, California. “Any successor will take a fresh look. Economically, he or she would get advice: ‘Get out of the news business." [end quotes]
Very revealing, eh? Goz, who really hates it when reporters show prejudice would jump on this, right?: "The choice of successor may determine the political stance of the group." "News Corp" indeed.
F.H., 11/7/2009,2:40:05 PM, wrote: > Very revealing, eh? Goz, who really hates it when reporters show > prejudice would jump on this, right?: "The choice of successor may > determine the political stance of the group." "News Corp" indeed.
Yes, it means no one from MSNBCCNNABCNBCCBSNYT or as we call it "government-controlled media" will be allowed to ruin the sole remaining large-scale news organization.
>> Very revealing, eh? Goz, who really hates it when reporters show >> prejudice would jump on this, right?: "The choice of successor may >> determine the political stance of the group." "News Corp" indeed.
> Yes, it means no one from MSNBCCNNABCNBCCBSNYT or as we call it > "government-controlled media" will be allowed to ruin the sole > remaining large-scale news organization.
Hey Queek Draw, I think you may have missed the key line, the one with the quotation marks around it: "The choice of successor may determine *the* *political* *stance* *of* *the* *group*." ("The group", being *News* Corp.
>> Very revealing, eh? Goz, who really hates it when reporters show >> prejudice would jump on this, right?: "The choice of successor may >> determine the political stance of the group." "News Corp" indeed.
> Yes, it means no one from MSNBCCNNABCNBCCBSNYT or as we call it > "government-controlled media" will be allowed to ruin the sole > remaining large-scale news organization.
Nothing like a healthy dose of "Us vs THEM" paranoia, eh Mike?
|
