GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.

[zomgwtf]

I am honestly shocked at how much credit is being given to this article.

You don't find it interesting Pattonias? Or you don't mind claims of the most powerful man in the world, of a supposed secular nation following biblical prophecy bringing the most powerful nation in the world to war against an arbitrary and weaker nation?

IF these claims are true, then GW is in my books certainly certifiably insane.

 

[Passionflower]

Your idea of fabricated reason in the case of war in Iraq would be more akin to GW using forged documents or his complete ignorance of the truth (as shown by the intelligence at the time) in order to serve his cause.

Of course, in my mind this was obvious from the start. One just has to study military history to understand what nations are willing to do server their cause. But he might have thought: two lies are better than one.

However the story of Gog and Magog does not serve his cause in anyway, in fact he MADE it his cause. He specfically and arbitrarily applied a biblical prophecy to a nation state and gave that as a cheif reason to attack. This is completely insane behaviour, far from norm.

Although I stayed a considerable time in America I do not claim to know America inside out, but I would not be surprised that those from the "bible belt" and the fundamentalist protestants get many warm feelings for such rhetoric.

In your opinion, on what foundation rests the believe of many Americans that "Israel has to be supported in whatever situation and regardless of consequences"? Is it not based on a biblical belief?

GW Bush is a very religious man, and remember we are talking about a country where a significant % of people have trouble with evolution and think it is perfectly alright to teach creationism as if it was some kind of science.

I don't really see any need to respect persons who follow conspiracy theory and invent their own. They definitely indeed in my mind are sad, sad persons. So I don't find this an ad hominen at all

Well, an ad hominem is a rather technical term that, to say it in the most neutral tones, pertains to the an irrelevance brought into the discussion. But it is alright with me, as I really do not feel very sad at all. :)

 

[BobG]

I myself am an atheist but I would not call a person insane just because he has a religious belief or because his ideas and thoughts differed from mine.

If you tell me that a person isn't insane to allow a biblical story of prophecy to do with Apocalypse on Earth to influence their decision in going to war with a much weaker nation, then you are a very sad, sad individual.

IF these claims are true, then GW is in my books certainly certifiably insane.

Wow! I agree with the last post. I'm stunned by how you made the jump from Passionflower's post to your reply. While you may say "IF these claims are true", your previous two posts clearly imply the claims as so true that anyone denying their truth, or even denying the evilness of religion, must be a "very sad, sad individual".

I think the issue is that there just isn't enough substantiating evidence to accept those claims as true.

 

[zomgwtf]

Although I stayed a considerable time in America I do not claim to know America inside out, but I would not be surprised that those from the "bible belt" and the fundamentalist protestants get many warm feelings for such rhetoric.

In your opinion, on what foundation rests the believe of many Americans that "Israel has to be supported in whatever situation and regardless of consequences"? Is it not based on a biblical belief?

GW Bush is a very religious man, and remember we are talking about a country where a significant % of people have trouble with evolution and think it is perfectly all right to teach creationism as if it was some kind of science.

I would tell you, without a doubt, that the majority of fundamentalist christians found in America are definitely insane. It has nothing really to do with their beliefs being counter to mine, it has to do with how they arrive at those beliefs and how far they take them.

Talkin with god, holy spirit takin over your body, hidden messages in songs from the devil, talking to snakes, speaking in tongues, healings, growing limbs, they are all delusions. They are exposed as such under rigorous experiments (a few I've conducted myself at my ex-girlfriends church :rofl:)

Now I'm not going to go around calling every fundamental religious person I meet insane. Just out of respect, I probably would think they were though. However once you start using these crazy beliefs as yours as justification to lynch people, or even cause discomfort to people (in the case of gays) then I'm no longer going to keep my thoughts to myself in order to respect your beliefs. They do not deserve my respect any longer.

If the OP is true then I believe GW Bush to be insane.

 

[zomgwtf]

Wow! I agree with the last post. I'm stunned by how you made the jump from Passionflower's post to your reply. While you may say "IF these claims are true", your previous two posts clearly imply the claims as so true that anyone denying their truth, or even denying the evilness of religion, must be a "very sad, sad individual".

I think the issue is that there just isn't enough substantiating evidence to accept those claims as true.

I agree.

The 'sad, sad' indvidual was mostly just targetted at him though. I'm not sure if you've read his other posts but I believe I am going to make a habit of making comments like this when I reply to his posts. Maybe that makes me a sad, sad individual. Oh well, still find it slightly funny.

Of course in this thread though I will be assuming that any person aruging against or for the insanity of Bush will be based on accepting that the story is true. It'd be slightly pointless to say: "GW isn't insane!" and expect people to assume you mean to imply that the story is false. Likewise I am accepting the story as true when I argue in favour of his insanity (I think that's clear from my posts) however I accept that it is conditional on the truth value of the story.

 

[Passionflower]

I would tell you, without a doubt, that the majority of fundamentalist christians found in America are definitely insane. It has nothing really to do with their beliefs being counter to mine, it has to do with how they arrive at those beliefs and how far they take them.

Talkin with god, holy spirit takin over your body, hidden messages in songs from the devil, talking to snakes, speaking in tongues, healings, growing limbs, they are all delusions. They are exposed as such under rigorous experiments (a few I've conducted myself at my ex-girlfriends church :rofl:)

Well you are kind of speaking to the choir. But generally it does not bother me in the least what people believe.

The same reason we support Taiwan; it is strategically valuable. I think you can appreciate that, can you not?

Sure it is all "in the game".

But conversely, I suppose, you would not mind if China in the near future would put some army bases in Africa and South America, after all, China got a lot of contracts with those nations and for sure they want to be a big friend of China. Tit for tat or does it then become suddenly "wrong!"?

 

[zomgwtf]

As an aside I think that the forums should set up a formal debate area. We could give it the same rules as the forums and go in a post-by-post debate style up to a maximum amount of posts. It would be limited to post only from those people involved... maybe separate discussions would come of it though. Then maybe afterwards we could have a vote or something to see who 'best presented/debated their ideas'.

From getting to know people on these forums over the last little while I think there would be interest in this. No?

 

[Pattonias]

It just doesn't seem to me that there is a discussion about the validity of the paper. It seems more like everyone is leaning back going "Oh, that explains it. He was just a religious wacko."

I would def. find this article of grave importance, but all evidence points to it being false. Mainstream media wasn't exactly friendly toward the guy so if they could have verified the facts it would have created a massive scandal. The "reliable" source we have is the former French President and nothing else.

I just feel like we are buying giving credence to the paper out of bias against the former President instead of looking to see if the paper itself is anything more than someone trying to sell their book by taking another stab an a popular target. It seems that so far this is a very un-PF discussion.

 

[Passionflower]

I am not speaking to right and wrong, just geopolitics. China has more to be concerned with than foreign bases at this point, such as figuring out how to feed your growing population without western aid.

You got some good points here! Not only that, China's insatiable need for raw materials is becoming a problem as well since it influences the trade balance.

 

[zomgwtf]

I just feel like we are buying giving credence to the paper out of bias against the former President instead of looking to see if the paper itself is anything more than someone trying to sell their book by taking another stab an a popular target. It seems that so far this is a very un-PF discussion.

I'm pretty sure most people have admitted that they are only giving the story truth value as far as this discussion is concerned. They accept that it is not determined but the thread is ABOUT GW Bush being borderline insane?... that means the topic is: Given this article, and accepting it as true, would you consider GW to be borderline insane? It's not really a discussion about the validity of said argument. It's all hypothetical, and we accept that. If you can't then don't par-take in discussion?

 

[Passionflower]

I'm pretty sure most people have admitted that they are only giving the story truth value as far as this discussion is concerned. They accept that it is not determined but the thread is ABOUT GW Bush being borderline insane?... that means the topic is: Given this article, and accepting it as true, would you consider GW to be borderline insane? It's not really a discussion about the validity of said argument. It's all hypothetical, and we accept that. If you can't then don't par-take in discussion?

It is interesting, how much power do you think the US president really has? Or is he simply a puppet? Perhaps he was given marching orders so he was just trying to sell it in many different ways to different people (or nations).

Look at Obama, before he was elected he promised to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, look now there is more military presence as under Bush.

I think to know where the real power in America is you have to use the simple rule: Follow The Money!

 

[Pattonias]

Oh, well in that case, I agree that if this article about George W. Bush being insane is true; then George W. Bush is insane.

I'll take my need to validate things elseware and let you continue.

 

[Passionflower]

Indeed, meanwhile we (the USA) need to do pretty much the same thing, and stabilize our economy.

Although I think the USA is making a critical mistake, all the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries is only good for the Wall Street crooks, but for the American nation I think it is a disaster. India and China are the winners here. Do you have any idea how fast the middle class is growing here in China? Domestic consumption of luxury goods is rising very fast.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is interesting, how much power do you think the US president really has? Or is he simply a puppet? Perhaps he was given marching orders so he was just trying to sell it in many different ways to different people (or nations).

Look at Obama, before he was elected he promised to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, look now there is more military presence as under Bush.

I think to know where the real power in America is you have to use the simple rule: Follow The Money!

Well I wouldn't consider the president a puppet, they have the final say in pretty much everything. Obviously money and big names influence decisions but the decision ultimately is the presidents.

As for Obama I don't recall him saying he would get America out of Afghanistan, if I recall correctly he said he was going to get the troops out of Iraq and bump up the amount of American participation in Afghanistan. Now of course there are problems associated with just leaving a country your military has destroyed so I don't expect American troops to be completely out of Iraq for a little while, still. However the amount has been significantly reduced. There are what 80k troops in Iraq right now?

@Pattonias,What's being called into question is if GW is insane, that's not 'part' of the story. The story is that he called the French president and pleaded for assistance in the war to thwart Gog and Magog. From your post it would seem you believe such a story confirms GWs insanity, given it's true. (although its not implied in the story as you are trying to make it seem... like some sort of circular reasoning) then thanks for your vote!

 

[mheslep]

This thread would not meet the standards of a You Tube comments page. Please close.

 

[Proton Soup]

This thread would not meet the standards of a You Tube comments page. Please close.

it is little more than gossip. is Chirac still on trial for embezzlement?

 

[BobG]

I'm pretty sure most people have admitted that they are only giving the story truth value as far as this discussion is concerned. They accept that it is not determined but the thread is ABOUT GW Bush being borderline insane?... that means the topic is: Given this article, and accepting it as true, would you consider GW to be borderline insane? It's not really a discussion about the validity of said argument. It's all hypothetical, and we accept that. If you can't then don't par-take in discussion?

That's a bizarre premise for a discussion. If that's the ground rules, the thread should be moved from Politics & World Affairs to the Fantasy subforum.

While I doubt the story is true, could it at least be possible?

Sure. Congress is easy to manipulate. Public opinion is easy enough to manipulate. The only real question is whether a religious group would really try to gain control of the President.

There's certainly theocratic governments in the world. More importantly, there's even recent history of church groups making an organized effort to gain influence with American leaders.

In 2004, more than a dozen US lawmakers gathered to coronate Sun Myung Moon as "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent", complete with Rep (Ill) Danny K Davis presenting Moon's crown. (The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception - Washington Post). Granted, the lawmakers all claimed that they were duped into participating in the ceremony, but, given Moon's history, all of those lawmakers should fire their entire staff for missing those kind of red flags.

The church was founded in 1961 by a director of Korea's Central Intelligence Agency, Kim Chong Pil, with Sun Myung Moon established as the third coming of Adam (with Jesus being the unsuccessful second coming of Adam). The core of the church's belief was that Korea was the new chosen nation of God, much as Israel was the old chosen nation of God (in fact, Moon blames things such as the holocaust on crucifying Jesus before he had a chance to fulfill his Messianic goals, which have subsequently been placed on Moon). As the chosen nation of God, a major battle between Satan (Communist N Korea, Soviet Union, and China) and God (Democratic S Korea, Japan, and the US) would play out in Korea. (The Moonies - Napa Sentinel, March 1992)

So perhaps the idea of a religious cult taking over the US government is slightly inaccurate, since the religious beliefs of the Unification Church mainly have to do with S Korean national security.

In the 70's, the church basically conducted a propaganda campaign for the Republic of Korea, supplied volunteers to work in Congressional offices, and were also associated with Tongsun Park, the Korean businessman that bribed US Congressmen. Supposedly, up to 115 Congressmen were involved in some way with Tongsun Park, but only 10 Democratic Congressmen were seriously implicated, with only one actually being convicted and serving time. (Koreagate and the Fraser Committee).

After Koreagate, the Fraser Committee, and the assassination of S Korea's President, most serious efforts petered out and Moon mainly used his church as a tax free method of enriching his personal wealth.

So, while efforts of a "religious" organization, and a foreign religious organization at that, to influence US leaders was unsuccessful, the idea that a religious organization could attempt to run US foreign policy is far from preposterous.

And, even after the ties back to the S Korean government were exposed, the Unification Church was still able to maintain close ties with US leaders such as George HW Bush, who accepted millions from the Unification Church in speaking fees in the 90's after leaving office, and with George W Bush, sponsoring his Inaugural Prayer Luncheon for Unity and Renewal in 2001, and a close enough relationship with other national leaders to dupe them into participating in his coronation ceremony.

Many national leaders just ain't all that smart when it comes to whom they maintain relationships with.

 

[drankin]

Why would an evangelical want to stop a biblical prophecy? Doesn't make any sense. Most that I know can't wait till everything prophecied happens.

 

[Gokul43201]

It just doesn't seem to me that there is a discussion about the validity of the paper. It seems more like everyone is leaning back going "Oh, that explains it. He was just a religious wacko."

I would def. find this article of grave importance, but all evidence points to it being false. Mainstream media wasn't exactly friendly toward the guy so if they could have verified the facts it would have created a massive scandal. The "reliable" source we have is the former French President and nothing else.

I just feel like we are buying giving credence to the paper out of bias against the former President instead of looking to see if the paper itself is anything more than someone trying to sell their book by taking another stab an a popular target. It seems that so far this is a very un-PF discussion.

I agree with most of this. Given the seemingly bizarre nature of the claim, there is relatively little to support it, and that most definitely warrants a healthy serving of skepticism.

However, upon further inspection (which, I believe, is what you are calling for as a minimum requirement for meaningful discussion), I note the following:

1. In order for this to be an outright fabrication, it requires more than just Chirac fibbing to the author of a book. It in fact requires a mini-conspiracy of sorts involving Chirac, the French Federation of Protestants (or some contact person within the Federation) and Prof Thomas Römer. That anyone of these three would go to such lengths to conjure up a wildly bizarre story involving Bush, Gog & Magog seems unlikely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

2. More likely, there was a conversation involving some mention of Gog & Magog, and Chirac may be embellishing it for effect. This requires no conspiracy, as he may have still wanted to find out more about the 'ogs and the other players in the incident will confirm that they were queried about said 'ogs, but can profess no direct knowledge of the contents of the alleged conversation.

3. Also, given other incidents of a similar nature^[i,ii], it is not inconceivable the Bush might in fact, have had a conversation exactly along the lines that it is reported in the OP. There is some weakly reported precedent that makes this not as bizarre an anecdote as it seems at first glance. Whether these are the earnest thoughts of a borderline delusional person or simply part of a political calculation (hard to see what that may be) are at a level of speculation that becomes worthwhile entering into only after the facts of the conversation are established with a lot more certainty.

i. The conversation with Palestinian leaders (and the various translations that were borne of it) in which Bush mentioned either being inspired or instructed by God to attack the Taliban and Saddam;

ii. The conversation with an Amish group near Lancaster, PA, during a campaign stop for his second term, where he is reported to have more bluntly expressed his belief that God spoke through him (according to an article by Jack Brubaker, in the Lancaster New Era).

http://butterflyredux.com/bushchannelsgod.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would an evangelical want to stop a biblical prophecy? Doesn't make any sense. Most that I know can't wait till everything prophecied happens.

Rent http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096073/" - if you dare...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

2. More likely, there was a conversation involving some mention of Gog & Magog, and Chirac may be embellishing it for effect. This requires no conspiracy, as he may have still wanted to find out more about the 'ogs and the other players in the incident will confirm that they were queried about said 'ogs, but can profess no direct knowledge of the contents of the alleged conversation.

This was my impression. Bush seemed to favour religious symbolism in his rhetoric. That he may have drawn parallels with biblical incidents when attempting to communicate his thoughts does not seem so very out of left field. That a person who does not like Bush, looking back on such a conversation in the context of years of theories about Bush being a religious nut, might misrepresent or misremember the conversation in such a way seems quite likely.

I do not know how many times I have heard people describe conversations, which I was present for myself, and blow them all out of proportion even only minutes after it took place. I tend not to trust many people's recollections of conversations.

 

[Proton Soup]

What is interesting, is that if this were confirmed, how many people would be shocked? Certainly it would be unusual, but not out of character, and that alone says a great deal about the man, and how he presented himself and ideas.

Shaka, when the walls fell.