Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Springtime in Islamberg.
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85181 is a reply to message #85159] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 18:19   |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"We should blow up less and build more."
This is why I'll always have a soft spot for you tank.
Chuck
BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>The US submarine contingent may not be 90% of the world, but it's still
>well over 50% of the world's total combat capability. Chinese subs are
>largely ineffective, at least currently, by comparison. And the Russian
>submarine force is now a far cry from it's former USSR glory. Look here
>for comparisons, and there are other sites as well:
>
>http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
>
>I'd say our submarine dominance is undisputed.
>
>Subs are most useful in a full-on "official" war between belligerent
>nations. OTOH, carriers project power that can be employed in many
>different ways and scenarios, in peacetime/almost-wartime/wartime....
>that transient state the world exists in now.
>
>Carriers also pack far more psychological impact. A show of force rarely
>involves submarines....not much to see. It usually involves parading a
>couple of carriers back and forth with dozens and dozens of high
>performance attack planes flying about as they please. Carriers make for
>far more impressive dog 'n pony shows and can sometimes forestall the
>need to actually use force.
>
>Also keep in mind, the subs that sink the carriers in the war games are
>*our* subs. I don't think their subs are going to fare as well, overall.
>
>Back to the main point. America's mistakes, and their are plenty of
>them, are highly amplified in both their impact and their scrutinization
> by the inordinately broad influence our country wields. I wish we
>made better and more benevolent use of that power.
>
>We should blow up less and build more.
>
>
>Regards,
>Brian T
>
>TCB wrote:
>> This stat distorts things a bit, because after WW II the US Navy decided
that
>> the aircraft carrier was the primary weapon to have in the closet. The
Russians
>> then, and the Chinese now, have decided that the submarine is the crucial
>> link, and the US has nowhere near 90% of the subs in the world. This makes
>> sense because the sub navies meet a largely defensive/deterrent goal while
>> carrier navies are about projecting power overseas. Since the US has zero
>> fear of anyone sailing over here and invading the continental US, we built
>> a navy that can be used to attack, or at least threaten, other countries.
>> All of which is to say that 80/90/100 percent of carriers does not equal
>> a similar percentage of naval power. Oh, one more thing. In war games
the
>> subs almost always sink the carriers, so the carrier navy is really only
>> useful against countries without powerful sub navies. So if Iran were
smart
>> they'd be buying subs instead of trying to acquire a nuke.
>>
>> Second, your argument is correct, to an extent. However, if the War Minister
>> of Lichtenstein does something stupid, say, manipulates his country into
>> war with known faulty intelligence, it doesn't matter. When the US does
that
>> a few hundred thousand people, almost all of them civilians, wind up dead.
>> The dead people are no less dead because we possess roughly average wisdom.
>> Which means we need to wise up.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>>> given day.
>>>
>>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>>
>>> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>>
>>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so
of
>>
>>> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>>
>>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>>
>>> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>>
>>> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>>> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian T
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85193 is a reply to message #85115] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 20:07 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Like I said, there are almost infinite viewpoints and each is valid to
the person who has it. If we understand the reasons a person has a
particular viewpoint, we increase our love for each other and our
willingness to communicate one to another.
Do you love God for what he does for you?
I love my wife for what she does for me.
I love George Benson for what his music does for me.
We all have some "god" in us - some more than others, but it's always there.
Bill
DC wrote:
> The God I know is not a metaphor and does not get quotes around
> his name.
>
> So there you have it.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>> Something I realized about "god" a while back is: god is relative. The
>> way George Benson plays guitar makes him a god to me. I think any of us
>
>> can be gods when we do something truly spectacular.
>>
>> I would judge a being's godliness by the beneficial effect they create.
>
>> If it is so amazingly wonderful that billions of people's lives are
>> improved by it, then they are gods. Buddha's message would probably have
>
>> to stand above all others in the "quantity of good influence" category.
>
>> Probably Jesus next. The thing they had in common was they gave people
>> hope of a better world to come.
>>
>> There are billions of viewpoints out there and more coming every day.
>> They all see something that's real to them. It's a trip learning what
>> other beings perceive and it makes one wiser and more able to help.
>>
>> Bill L
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
>
>>>> the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
>>>> These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages we
>
>>>> must follow.
>>>
>>> And all of them were just people, with one exception.
>>>
>>> He was, and is, God. So I think we have some differences in basic worldview.
>>>
>>> take care
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85195 is a reply to message #85141] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 20:37 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad you said a mouthful about "wising up". If Shak walks around bumping
into people they fall down hard. If Larry Seinfeld walks into somebody
they just kind of shift a little. We should be a wise and gentle giant,
not a clumsy, stupid troll.
Someone else made the comparison between these recent wars and WWI and
II. The obvious difference is in those wars we new exactly who, what and
where the enemy was, so we could accurately target them. After 9/11, we
didn't have a clue where the target was except we knew for sure they
were Muslims somewhere in the Middle East - probably.
Bill
TCB wrote:
> This stat distorts things a bit, because after WW II the US Navy decided that
> the aircraft carrier was the primary weapon to have in the closet. The Russians
> then, and the Chinese now, have decided that the submarine is the crucial
> link, and the US has nowhere near 90% of the subs in the world. This makes
> sense because the sub navies meet a largely defensive/deterrent goal while
> carrier navies are about projecting power overseas. Since the US has zero
> fear of anyone sailing over here and invading the continental US, we built
> a navy that can be used to attack, or at least threaten, other countries.
> All of which is to say that 80/90/100 percent of carriers does not equal
> a similar percentage of naval power. Oh, one more thing. In war games the
> subs almost always sink the carriers, so the carrier navy is really only
> useful against countries without powerful sub navies. So if Iran were smart
> they'd be buying subs instead of trying to acquire a nuke.
>
> Second, your argument is correct, to an extent. However, if the War Minister
> of Lichtenstein does something stupid, say, manipulates his country into
> war with known faulty intelligence, it doesn't matter. When the US does that
> a few hundred thousand people, almost all of them civilians, wind up dead.
> The dead people are no less dead because we possess roughly average wisdom.
> Which means we need to wise up.
>
> TCB
>
> BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>> given day.
>>
>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>
>> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>
>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
>
>> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>
>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>
>> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>
>> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian T
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85201 is a reply to message #85193] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 22:15 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill, these things are truth claims. At least mine sure is.
Your truth claim is the assertion that all beliefs are personal ones.
I claim mine to be objectively true. We were created, we fell from
grace by sinning, and Jesus Christ came to earth to save us from
our sins and offer us a new life in relationship with him.
If this is true, then it makes claims on each of us and has import
despite our opinions. It also means some beliefs are simply wrong.
Factually wrong. It is clear you do not agree.
That is why your "god" has quotes around his name and mine does not.
I wish you well.
DC
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>Like I said, there are almost infinite viewpoints and each is valid to
>the person who has it. If we understand the reasons a person has a
>particular viewpoint, we increase our love for each other and our
>willingness to communicate one to another.
>
>Do you love God for what he does for you?
>
>I love my wife for what she does for me.
>
>I love George Benson for what his music does for me.
>
>We all have some "god" in us - some more than others, but it's always there.
>
>Bill
>
>
>DC wrote:
>> The God I know is not a metaphor and does not get quotes around
>> his name.
>>
>> So there you have it.
>>
>> best wishes,
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>> Something I realized about "god" a while back is: god is relative. The
>>> way George Benson plays guitar makes him a god to me. I think any of
us
>>
>>> can be gods when we do something truly spectacular.
>>>
>>> I would judge a being's godliness by the beneficial effect they create.
>>
>>> If it is so amazingly wonderful that billions of people's lives are
>>> improved by it, then they are gods. Buddha's message would probably have
>>
>>> to stand above all others in the "quantity of good influence" category.
>>
>>> Probably Jesus next. The thing they had in common was they gave people
>>> hope of a better world to come.
>>>
>>> There are billions of viewpoints out there and more coming every day.
>>> They all see something that's real to them. It's a trip learning what
>>> other beings perceive and it makes one wiser and more able to help.
>>>
>>> Bill L
>>>
>>>
>>> DC wrote:
>>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
>>
>>>>> the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
>>>>> These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages
we
>>
>>>>> must follow.
>>>>
>>>> And all of them were just people, with one exception.
>>>>
>>>> He was, and is, God. So I think we have some differences in basic worldview.
>>>>
>>>> take care
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85204 is a reply to message #85157] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 01:44 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
exactly, and let's not forget who propped up saddam to begin with. oh
yeah, who gave bin laden et al the weapons to fight the russians.
man, our asses have so many bite marks it's easy to understand how
difficult we find it to sit down and stop doing the same stupid things
over and over again.
On 25 May 2007 07:28:42 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>You certainly blow to bits that stereotype of Apple users as Birkenstock wearing,
>muesli chewing, wheatgrass swilling hippies.
>
>TCB
>
>P.S. Al-Queda is in Iraq NOW, but wasn't before the US invaded and destroyed
>the state of Iraq. An admittedly brutal dictatorship of a state, but a state
>nonetheless. The final 'break' bin Laden had with the moneyed Gulf potentates
>(esp. the Saudi royal family) was when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden wanted
>to take his jihadis and roll Saddam back, while the Saudis wanted to invite
>in the Americans. In other words, Saddam and bin Laden were sworn enemies,
>and I doubt Saddam tolerated a lot of his sworn enemies lolling about in
>Baghdad.
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>sane
>>
>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>
>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>>
>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>>
>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>>
>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
>>
>>There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
>>damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
>>no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>>removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out invading?
>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>
>>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>>about
>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>>
>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>
>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>
>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>you
>>
>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
>>
>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>of
>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
>>
>>It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>>attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>people
>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
>>weasel.
>>
>>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>
>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>>
>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>
>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>
>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>a
>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
>>
>>Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
>>not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>being
>>in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
>>and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>What
>>do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>They
>>keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
>Qaeda
>>aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always wrong.
>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>>
>>
>>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>
>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>>
>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
>>
>>
>>Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>is
>>so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
>>stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at will
>>and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>is
>>wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of rotten,
>>stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>
>>Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
>>the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you with
>>an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river, that's
>>why not!
>>
>>It's you that doesn't get it!
>>
>>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
>should
>>
>>be dealt with as such.
>>
>>Sarah<<
>>
>>Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>
>>
>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>sane
>>
>>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>
>>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>>
>>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>>
>>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>>
>>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>>>
>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>about
>>
>>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>>
>>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>
>>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>
>>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>>you
>>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
>"Bomb
>>
>>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>of
>>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>>>
>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>
>>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>>
>>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>
>>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>
>>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>a
>>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>>>
>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>
>>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>>
>>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>>>
>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
>>
>>>be dealt with as such.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>they
>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>
>>>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many
>more,
>>>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>>>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What
>>
>>>> the
>>>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
>>are
>>>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
>>>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look
>>at
>>>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
>>the
>>>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
>>read
>>>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>>>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
>>and
>>>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>>>> kill
>>>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>>>
>>>>> S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46537917@linux...
>>>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
>>>> whole
>>>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
>hero
>>>> ...
>>>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
>>>> even
>>>>> >> greater instability."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the
>one
>>>> that
>>>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>>
>>>>> >> (how
>>>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>>>> there
>>>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>>kind
>>>> of
>>>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do
>>
>>>>> > this
>>>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
>blood
>>>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>>>>> > easlily
>>>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>>
>>>>> > while
>>>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
>>were
>>>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
>>who
>>>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>>>> Sadaam
>>>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>>>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to
>deify
>>>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
>>to
>>>> kill
>>>>> > people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>>>> >> "collateral
>>>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
>>>> why
>>>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to
>>be
>>>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
>>just
>>>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are
>>a
>>>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>>
>>>>> >> when
>>>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It's only logical.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>they
>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>>>> aisle,
>>>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>>>> > cretins.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
>>take
>>>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with
>them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ;o)
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85228 is a reply to message #85154] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 07:11 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post is
so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating down
the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
and it was always interesting to me how condescending
retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough to
know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
to them, they think you're the idiot.
I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap, why
is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read this
.. . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
Sarah
PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now. I
think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>
>
> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
> collateral
> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
> invading?
> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>
> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
> people
> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
> weasel.
> >
> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
> being
> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
> fighting
> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
> What
> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
> They
> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
> Qaeda
> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
> wrong.
> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
> media!
>
> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That is
> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
> will
> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that is
> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
> rotten,
> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>
> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
> with
> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
> that's
> why not!
>
> It's you that doesn't get it!
>
> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85240 is a reply to message #85228] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 10:28 |
duncan
Messages: 123
Registered: November 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don't know the guy, except by the evidence of his own words on this
forum, but on that basis I'd say you have him measured, right down to
the molecule.
-- Chas
On Fri, 25 May 2007 07:11:14 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
wrote:
>I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post is
>so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
>individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
>with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
>stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating down
>the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
>bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
>
>Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
>morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
>the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
>
>I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
>and it was always interesting to me how condescending
>retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough to
>know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
>to them, they think you're the idiot.
>
>I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap, why
>is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read this
>. . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
>
>Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
>
>Sarah
>
>PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
>endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
>me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now. I
>think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
>
>PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
>an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
>> collateral
>> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
>> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
>> invading?
>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>
>> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>> people
>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
>> weasel.
>> >
>> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
>> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>> being
>> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
>> fighting
>> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>> What
>> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>> They
>> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
>> Qaeda
>> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>> wrong.
>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
>> media!
>>
>> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That is
>> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
>> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
>> will
>> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that is
>> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
>> rotten,
>> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>
>> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
>> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>> with
>> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>> that's
>> why not!
>>
>> It's you that doesn't get it!
>>
>> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85250 is a reply to message #85228] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 11:17 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I said your liberal thinking was stupid, but it's Ok, take it anyway you want
to. I guess radical muslins are not hateful, violent people? It's only
the US that is wrong. right? Will we deserve it when the take out one of
our cities? If it is your city they pick will it be Ok?
It's the insurgents and Al Qaeda that are intentionally killing innocent
people in Iraq, not the US. It's a war, there are going to be casualties.
Casualties are unfortunate. Do you believe in killing? How about when
it's convenient? DO YOU BELIEVE IN ABORTION? Do you conveniently put a
title on it and make excuses for killing like, a women's right to choose?
It's still human, it's still alive, it's still killing! Is that Ok? From
what I've read, around 47 million babies have been killed by abortion in
the US over the years, is that Ok?
Do you think your freedom here in America was won with out blood shed? If
you do, I have a special announcement, Your freedom was won at the end of
a gun barrel. I'll bet your anti gun to. It's funny how liberals do not
want honest decent law abiding citizens to have guns, but the liberals will
be the first to defend criminals, and get laws legislated for criminals rights.
Kind of like you advocating for all of those nice peaceful innocent people
in Guantanamo. I think your thinking is a bit mixed up. The US has maid
a lot of mistakes, but we, the US are not the bad guys!
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post
is
>so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
>individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
>with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
>stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating down
>the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
>bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
>
>Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
>morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
>the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
>
>I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
>and it was always interesting to me how condescending
>retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough to
>know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
>to them, they think you're the idiot.
>
>I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap,
why
>is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read
this
>. . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
>
>Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
>
>Sarah
>
>PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
>endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
>me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now.
I
>think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
>
>PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
>an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
>> collateral
>> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
is
>> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
>> invading?
>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>
>> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>> people
>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
a
>> weasel.
>> >
>> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We
are
>> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>> being
>> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
>> fighting
>> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>> What
>> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>> They
>> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
>> Qaeda
>> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>> wrong.
>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
>> media!
>>
>> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
is
>> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to
you
>> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
>> will
>> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
is
>> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
>> rotten,
>> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>
>> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make
sure
>> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>> with
>> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>> that's
>> why not!
>>
>> It's you that doesn't get it!
>>
>> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85255 is a reply to message #85250] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 11:26 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi James,
Now that you are winding down, re-visiting, and re-casting your own words,
take a moment to calm down and consider what Sarah found objectionable in
your post. It's the human thing to do.
Chuck
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I said your liberal thinking was stupid, but it's Ok, take it anyway you
want
>to. I guess radical muslins are not hateful, violent people? It's only
>the US that is wrong. right? Will we deserve it when the take out one of
>our cities? If it is your city they pick will it be Ok?
>
>It's the insurgents and Al Qaeda that are intentionally killing innocent
>people in Iraq, not the US. It's a war, there are going to be casualties.
> Casualties are unfortunate. Do you believe in killing? How about when
>it's convenient? DO YOU BELIEVE IN ABORTION? Do you conveniently put a
>title on it and make excuses for killing like, a women's right to choose?
> It's still human, it's still alive, it's still killing! Is that Ok? From
>what I've read, around 47 million babies have been killed by abortion in
>the US over the years, is that Ok?
>
>
>Do you think your freedom here in America was won with out blood shed?
If
>you do, I have a special announcement, Your freedom was won at the end of
>a gun barrel. I'll bet your anti gun to. It's funny how liberals do not
>want honest decent law abiding citizens to have guns, but the liberals will
>be the first to defend criminals, and get laws legislated for criminals
rights.
> Kind of like you advocating for all of those nice peaceful innocent people
>in Guantanamo. I think your thinking is a bit mixed up. The US has maid
>a lot of mistakes, but we, the US are not the bad guys!
>
>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post
>is
>>so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
>>individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
>
>>with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
>
>>stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating
down
>
>>the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
>
>>bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
>>
>>Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
>
>>morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
>
>>the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
>>
>>I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
>
>>and it was always interesting to me how condescending
>>retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough
to
>
>>know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
>
>>to them, they think you're the idiot.
>>
>>I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap,
>why
>>is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read
>this
>>. . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
>>
>>Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
>
>>endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
>
>>me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now.
> I
>>think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
>>
>>PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
>
>>an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>>>
>>>
>>> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
>>> collateral
>>> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
>is
>>> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we
have
>>> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
>
>>> invading?
>>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>>
>>> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>>> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>
>>> people
>>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
>a
>>> weasel.
>>> >
>>> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We
>are
>>> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>
>>> being
>>> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
>>> fighting
>>> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>
>>> What
>>> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>
>>> They
>>> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around
Al
>
>>> Qaeda
>>> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>
>>> wrong.
>>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
>>> media!
>>>
>>> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>is
>>> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to
>you
>>> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
>
>>> will
>>> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>is
>>> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
>
>>> rotten,
>>> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>>
>>> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make
>sure
>>> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>
>>> with
>>> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>
>>> that's
>>> why not!
>>>
>>> It's you that doesn't get it!
>>>
>>> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85259 is a reply to message #85255] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 11:42 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chuck, I am calm. Go reread her post, I find it objectionable that she is
blaming the United States for everything. She is also saying that the prisoners
in Guantanamo are innocent. These people are terrorist and killed Americans.
One stupid rant deserved another. I'm just sick of hearing all the anti
American stuff.
The Bush administration and their cronies have terribly mismanaged this war,
to a point that I think it is criminal. However, I'm not going to jump on
the liberal bandwagon with all of their twisting of the truth and their lies.
I don't blame the troops or the US then there is collateral damage. As
an American, I find her rant offensive.
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Hi James,
>
>Now that you are winding down, re-visiting, and re-casting your own words,
>take a moment to calm down and consider what Sarah found objectionable in
>your post. It's the human thing to do.
>
>Chuck
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I said your liberal thinking was stupid, but it's Ok, take it anyway you
>want
>>to. I guess radical muslins are not hateful, violent people? It's only
>>the US that is wrong. right? Will we deserve it when the take out one
of
>>our cities? If it is your city they pick will it be Ok?
>>
>>It's the insurgents and Al Qaeda that are intentionally killing innocent
>>people in Iraq, not the US. It's a war, there are going to be casualties.
>> Casualties are unfortunate. Do you believe in killing? How about when
>>it's convenient? DO YOU BELIEVE IN ABORTION? Do you conveniently put
a
>>title on it and make excuses for killing like, a women's right to choose?
>> It's still human, it's still alive, it's still killing! Is that Ok?
From
>>what I've read, around 47 million babies have been killed by abortion in
>>the US over the years, is that Ok?
>>
>>
>>Do you think your freedom here in America was won with out blood shed?
>If
>>you do, I have a special announcement, Your freedom was won at the end
of
>>a gun barrel. I'll bet your anti gun to. It's funny how liberals do not
>>want honest decent law abiding citizens to have guns, but the liberals
will
>>be the first to defend criminals, and get laws legislated for criminals
>rights.
>> Kind of like you advocating for all of those nice peaceful innocent people
>>in Guantanamo. I think your thinking is a bit mixed up. The US has maid
>>a lot of mistakes, but we, the US are not the bad guys!
>>
>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post
>>is
>>>so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
>>>individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
>>
>>>with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
>>
>>>stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating
>down
>>
>>>the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
>>
>>>bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
>>>
>>>Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
>>
>>>morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
>>
>>>the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
>>>
>>>I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
>>
>>>and it was always interesting to me how condescending
>>>retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough
>to
>>
>>>know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
>>
>>>to them, they think you're the idiot.
>>>
>>>I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap,
>>why
>>>is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read
>>this
>>>. . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
>>>
>>>Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
>>
>>>endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
>>
>>>me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now.
>> I
>>>think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
>>>
>>>PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
>>
>>>an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
>>>> collateral
>>>> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
>>is
>>>> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we
>have
>>>> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
>>
>>>> invading?
>>>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>>>
>>>> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims
that
>>>> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about
the
>>
>>>> people
>>>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>>> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>>>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
>>a
>>>> weasel.
>>>> >
>>>> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We
>>are
>>>> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>>
>>>> being
>>>> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
>
>>>> fighting
>>>> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>>
>>>> What
>>>> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>>
>>>> They
>>>> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around
>Al
>>
>>>> Qaeda
>>>> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>>
>>>> wrong.
>>>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>>> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
>
>>>> media!
>>>>
>>>> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>>is
>>>> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>>> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to
>>you
>>>> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own
at
>>
>>>> will
>>>> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>>is
>>>> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile
of
>>
>>>> rotten,
>>>> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make
>>sure
>>>> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>>
>>>> with
>>>> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>>> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>>
>>>> that's
>>>> why not!
>>>>
>>>> It's you that doesn't get it!
>>>>
>>>> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85261 is a reply to message #85258] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 11:57 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I hope you are wrong, but I cannot swear that you are...
What gives me some hope is that there is a pretty significant
number of Iraqis who don't want to be governed by Mullahs,
or Baathists.
But our biggest mistake of the last 50 years was not seeing
the geopolitical significance of our energy policies...
No doubt about it.
Now name me a candidate, of either party who is standing up
and promising to drill everywhere and build more refineries
while at the same time developing alternatives... Name one who
is taking this seriously!
meet the new boss...
DC
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Don,
>
>I don't pretend to know what will happen, but I stick with the following
>idea, one that I came to circa 1992. There will be no fundamental change
>in the arab world until the last drop of oil is extracted from the desert.
>
>Chuck
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>This whole thing boils down to one question:
>>
>>Do the Iraqi's want democracy? Do they know what to do with it?
>>
>>When we leave will they slide into a theocracy dominated by
>>mullahs, or will they slide back into a corrupt and brutal Baathism,
>>or will they constitute a robust and free country?
>>
>>Either of the former means we will have failed in a most large
>>and tragic manner. The latter will mean success and a greater
>>chance for peace.
>>
>>Anyone who says they know which will happen is a liar.
>>There is plenty of evidence for either position.
>>
>>Anyone who isn't scared about the possibilites for failure is
>>not paying attention.
>>
>>This is what you see when you strip away both the flag-waving
>>from some folks, and the campaign of the left to make us lose
>>this war.
>>
>>I'm nervous but hopeful. Others are just nervous.
>>
>>We will know soon, won't we?
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85262 is a reply to message #85154] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 12:12 |
Gene Lennon[6]
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
“I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
They're damned lucky I'm not in charge.
That’s just it James, YOU HAVE BEEN in charge.
The last six years have been a great American experiment. At no time in our
history have we been so controlled by a single philosophy. The Bush doctrine
has been pushed into every nook and cranny of our government, national and
international policies. It’s not just the complete insistence that everyone
in the world that gets any financial assistance or incentive from US dollars
goes along. The Bush administration has actually placed cronies in every
spot they can. Both important positions and less important positions. From
the key leaders of or country, our military, our Supreme Court, the UN, all
the way down to who runs Public Radio and ten thousand other examples. Who
filters the science coming from NASA, NOAA etc? The civilian staffing in
Iraq is a perfect example. Bush loyalist got all the key positions. Why bring
in someone with knowledge and experience when you can bring in a crony? Our
handling of Katrina, …the list goes on-and-on. People who share your/Bush’s
politics are in charge of everything. That’s exactly why we had Abu-Grae.
Sure other administrations, both republican and democrat, have tried to extend
their sphere of influence, but at no time in American history has one administration
been so successful at achieving near 100 percent control. The fact that the
republicans controlled both houses of congress combined with the post 9/11
fear that questioning the administration could be interpreted and being un-patriotic
gave Bush “cart blanch”, Boy did he run with it.
So congratulations James. You have been in charge and you should be very
proud of what you have achieved.
Gene
>
>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
sane
>
>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>
>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>
>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>
>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>
>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
>
>There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
>damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
>no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out invading?
> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>
>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>about
>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>
>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>
>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>
>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
you
>
>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
>
>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>of
>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
>
>It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
people
> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
>weasel.
>
>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>
>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>
>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>
>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>
>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>a
>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
>
>Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
>not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
being
>in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
>and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
What
>do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
They
>keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
Qaeda
>aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always wrong.
> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>
>
>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>
>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>
>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
>
>
>Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
is
>so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
>stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at will
>and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
is
>wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of rotten,
>stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>
>Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
>the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you with
>an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river, that's
>why not!
>
>It's you that doesn't get it!
>
>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
should
>
>be dealt with as such.
>
>Sarah<<
>
>Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>
>
>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
sane
>
>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>
>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>
>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>
>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>
>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>>
>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
about
>
>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>
>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>
>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>
>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>you
>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
"Bomb
>
>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>of
>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>>
>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>
>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>
>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>
>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>
>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>a
>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>>
>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>
>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>
>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>>
>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
>
>>be dealt with as such.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
they
>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>
>>>> > would
>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>
>>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many
more,
>>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What
>
>>> the
>>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
>are
>>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
>>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look
>at
>>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
>the
>>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
>read
>>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
>and
>>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>>
>>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>>
>>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>>
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>>> kill
>>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46537917@linux...
>>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
>>> whole
>>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
hero
>>> ...
>>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
>>> even
>>>> >> greater instability."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>>> >
>>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the
one
>>> that
>>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>
>>>> >> (how
>>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>>> >
>>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>>> there
>>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>kind
>>> of
>>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do
>
>>>> > this
>>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
blood
>>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>>>> > easlily
>>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>
>>>> > while
>>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
>were
>>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
>who
>>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>>> Sadaam
>>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to
deify
>>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
>to
>>> kill
>>>> > people.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>>> >> "collateral
>>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
>>> why
>>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to
>be
>>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
>just
>>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are
>a
>>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>
>>>> >> when
>>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's only logical.
>>>> >
>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
they
>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>
>>>> > would
>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>> >
>>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>>> aisle,
>>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>>> > cretins.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>>> >
>>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
>take
>>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with
them.
>>>> >
>>>> > ;o)
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85265 is a reply to message #85259] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 12:24 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James, one reason you find Sarah's thoughts offensive, I wager, is
because you are not really hearing what she is saying. Using a black and
white interpretation is causing you to overreact, IMO.
She actually didn't make the claim that all prisoners at Gitmo are
innocent, for example.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> Chuck, I am calm. Go reread her post, I find it objectionable that she is
> blaming the United States for everything. She is also saying that the prisoners
> in Guantanamo are innocent. These people are terrorist and killed Americans.
> One stupid rant deserved another. I'm just sick of hearing all the anti
> American stuff.
>
> The Bush administration and their cronies have terribly mismanaged this war,
> to a point that I think it is criminal. However, I'm not going to jump on
> the liberal bandwagon with all of their twisting of the truth and their lies.
> I don't blame the troops or the US then there is collateral damage. As
> an American, I find her rant offensive.
>
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Now that you are winding down, re-visiting, and re-casting your own words,
>> take a moment to calm down and consider what Sarah found objectionable in
>> your post. It's the human thing to do.
>>
>> Chuck
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I said your liberal thinking was stupid, but it's Ok, take it anyway you
>> want
>>> to. I guess radical muslins are not hateful, violent people? It's only
>>> the US that is wrong. right? Will we deserve it when the take out one
> of
>>> our cities? If it is your city they pick will it be Ok?
>>>
>>> It's the insurgents and Al Qaeda that are intentionally killing innocent
>>> people in Iraq, not the US. It's a war, there are going to be casualties.
>>> Casualties are unfortunate. Do you believe in killing? How about when
>>> it's convenient? DO YOU BELIEVE IN ABORTION? Do you conveniently put
> a
>>> title on it and make excuses for killing like, a women's right to choose?
>>> It's still human, it's still alive, it's still killing! Is that Ok?
> From
>>> what I've read, around 47 million babies have been killed by abortion in
>>> the US over the years, is that Ok?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think your freedom here in America was won with out blood shed?
>
>> If
>>> you do, I have a special announcement, Your freedom was won at the end
> of
>>> a gun barrel. I'll bet your anti gun to. It's funny how liberals do not
>>> want honest decent law abiding citizens to have guns, but the liberals
> will
>>> be the first to defend criminals, and get laws legislated for criminals
>> rights.
>>> Kind of like you advocating for all of those nice peaceful innocent people
>>> in Guantanamo. I think your thinking is a bit mixed up. The US has maid
>>> a lot of mistakes, but we, the US are not the bad guys!
>>>
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>> I was just going to take a deep breath and let this go, because your post
>>> is
>>>> so full of defective logic that it would take a week to address each
>>>> individual "point." But . . . being called stupid by an adult (assuming)
>>>> with the reasoning ability of a 5-year-old was a little more than I could
>>>> stand to let slide. The closing scene with my rotting corpse floating
>> down
>>>> the river, minus its "silly head," was icing on the cake, and a particularly
>>>> bright passage, I must say. A little wishful thinking there?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, we're all "damned lucky" you're not in charge. Unfortunately, the
>>>> morons in who are in charge could not have stayed in power this long without
>>>> the support of hateful, violent people who "think" like you.
>>>>
>>>> I worked for a long time in a state hospital for the mentally "challenged,"
>>>> and it was always interesting to me how condescending
>>>> retarded people can be. I think it's because they're not smart enough
>> to
>>>> know that they don't know, so when they can't comprehend what you're saying
>>>> to them, they think you're the idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saving your post so when I hear people say things like, "Holy crap,
>>> why
>>>> is the world such an ugly, violent place?" I can say, "Well, here, read
>>> this
>>>> . . . and then imagine how many millions of others are similarly limited."
>>>>
>>>> Go play now, James . . . this is big people talk.
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>> PS: My apologies to the other, more rational participants in this seemingly
>>>> endless discussion. I usually refrain from personal attacks, but he pissed
>>>> me off, and I gave in to a moment of weakness. Sorry. I'll shut up now.
>>> I
>>>> think I've said enough on this particular topic anyway.
>>>>
>>>> PPS: Anybody know this McCloskey guy? Is he gonna rape me, beat me "with
>>>> an inch" of my life, and cut my head off now? (No! No! Not the inch again!)
>>>>
>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4655f94e$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on
>
>>>>> collateral
>>>>> damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
>>> is
>>>>> no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we
>> have
>>>>> removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
>>>>> invading?
>>>>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims
> that
>>>>> attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about
> the
>>>>> people
>>>>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>>>> in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>>>>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
>>> a
>>>>> weasel.
>>>>> Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We
>>> are
>>>>> not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>>>>> being
>>>>> in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop
>>>>> fighting
>>>>> and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>>>>> What
>>>>> do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>>>>> They
>>>>> keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around
>> Al
>>>>> Qaeda
>>>>> aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>>>> party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal
>>>>> media!
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>>> is
>>>>> so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>>>> count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to
>>> you
>>>>> stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own
> at
>>>>> will
>>>>> and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>>> is
>>>>> wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile
> of
>>>>> rotten,
>>>>> stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make
>>> sure
>>>>> the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>>>>> with
>>>>> an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>>>> and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>>>>> that's
>>>>> why not!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's you that doesn't get it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>>>>
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85270 is a reply to message #85261] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 12:59 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Now name me a candidate, of either party who is standing up
and promising to drill everywhere and build more refineries
while at the same time developing alternatives... Name one who
is taking this seriously!"
Well, let me run it down,
Select * from
candidates
where
drillEverywhere = 1 AND
developAlternatives = 1
"Query returned no rows"
But anyhooo.. That wasn't the point. To find our way out of the dependency
pickle requires a different level of thinking than was used to create the
problem (thanks Albert:-). We have that covered. I don't think that politicians
will provide the answer, the answer will come from this centuries Edison.
I am eternally hopeful that there will be an energy 'aha' moment, the tipping
point where our collective ingenuity comes through, as it always does.
AFAIK The September 11 attack on the US required planning and funding. Unless
I am completely misunderstanding the events, I believe that a group of suicidal,
well funded, saudi citizens attacked the US.
The money is vanishing with the oil. Forward thinking arab nations are in
a mad scramble to find an income replacement. Look what's going on in DXB
(Dubai). This is crazy and ridiculous, but think about it - why did they
build the worlds largest indoor ski slope? They are building an air traffic
hub, where the worlds elite can stop and ski, shop and relax between connecting
flights. What else are they gonna sell, the raw material for glass?
Chuck
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>I hope you are wrong, but I cannot swear that you are...
>
>What gives me some hope is that there is a pretty significant
>number of Iraqis who don't want to be governed by Mullahs,
>or Baathists.
>
>But our biggest mistake of the last 50 years was not seeing
>the geopolitical significance of our energy policies...
>No doubt about it.
>
>Now name me a candidate, of either party who is standing up
>and promising to drill everywhere and build more refineries
>while at the same time developing alternatives... Name one who
>is taking this seriously!
>
>meet the new boss...
>
>DC
>
>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Don,
>>
>>I don't pretend to know what will happen, but I stick with the following
>>idea, one that I came to circa 1992. There will be no fundamental change
>>in the arab world until the last drop of oil is extracted from the desert.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>This whole thing boils down to one question:
>>>
>>>Do the Iraqi's want democracy? Do they know what to do with it?
>>>
>>>When we leave will they slide into a theocracy dominated by
>>>mullahs, or will they slide back into a corrupt and brutal Baathism,
>>>or will they constitute a robust and free country?
>>>
>>>Either of the former means we will have failed in a most large
>>>and tragic manner. The latter will mean success and a greater
>>>chance for peace.
>>>
>>>Anyone who says they know which will happen is a liar.
>>>There is plenty of evidence for either position.
>>>
>>>Anyone who isn't scared about the possibilites for failure is
>>>not paying attention.
>>>
>>>This is what you see when you strip away both the flag-waving
>>>from some folks, and the campaign of the left to make us lose
>>>this war.
>>>
>>>I'm nervous but hopeful. Others are just nervous.
>>>
>>>We will know soon, won't we?
>>>
>>>DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85271 is a reply to message #85270] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 13:08 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>But anyhooo.. That wasn't the point. To find our way out of the dependency
>pickle requires a different level of thinking than was used to create the
>problem (thanks Albert:-). We have that covered. I don't think that politicians
>will provide the answer, the answer will come from this centuries Edison.
>I am eternally hopeful that there will be an energy 'aha' moment, the tipping
>point where our collective ingenuity comes through, as it always does.
I think it's a Hail Mary perspective. I hope it happens, but
we need our own oil in the meantime.
>AFAIK The September 11 attack on the US required planning and funding. Unless
>I am completely misunderstanding the events, I believe that a group of suicidal,
>well funded, saudi citizens attacked the US.
>
>The money is vanishing with the oil. Forward thinking arab nations are
in
>a mad scramble to find an income replacement. Look what's going on in DXB
>(Dubai). This is crazy and ridiculous, but think about it - why did they
>build the worlds largest indoor ski slope? They are building an air traffic
>hub, where the worlds elite can stop and ski, shop and relax between connecting
>flights. What else are they gonna sell, the raw material for glass?
Good point. And if the oil really runs out (I don't think that
will happen for a long time) this culture will certainly find
something else. You are right.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85275 is a reply to message #85262] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 13:22 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well Gene, you obviously don't know me! I've never liked Bush or his trilateralist
family. When he ran for the nomination for the Republican party, I said
he is an oil man, If he gets elected our standard of living will drop and
will be paying through the nose for gas and oil.
His father is a card holding member of the CFR and the Trilateral commission,
and don't kid you self for a minute that it doesn't exist. At the end of
George Bush the first's term, he invaded Rwanda and Somalia. The bullshit
excuse was that we wanted to go in to stabilize and play Santa to all the
poor children. We were lied to. Americans died for oil companies. The
truth was, their leader was assassinated and two warlords were fighting for
control. The oil companies lost their on shore and off shore oil leases.
It was about oil! That's why we went, not playing santa to poor people.
There has been blood shed and unrest in Africa for thousands of years.
We don't go in to straiten things out unless there is oil at stake. I don't
like the Bush family.
You've got it wrong, it's not the Bush's that have control of the world and
have their people running things in every nook and cranny. It's a particular
group of people that are running everything. The bush's are just helping
them and appointing their people to all of those positions you speak of.
Funny thing is, they have even gotten in to china, but they haven't been
able to control the arab countries of the middle east. These people are
never happy unless they are taking advantage of some body. I'm not going
to say who these people are but you can find them through out world history.
"Gene Lennon" <g@mail.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>“I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge.
>
>
>
>That’s just it James, YOU HAVE BEEN in charge.
>
>The last six years have been a great American experiment. At no time in
our
>history have we been so controlled by a single philosophy. The Bush doctrine
>has been pushed into every nook and cranny of our government, national and
>international policies. It’s not just the complete insistence that everyone
>in the world that gets any financial assistance or incentive from US dollars
>goes along. The Bush administration has actually placed cronies in every
>spot they can. Both important positions and less important positions. From
>the key leaders of or country, our military, our Supreme Court, the UN,
all
>the way down to who runs Public Radio and ten thousand other examples. Who
>filters the science coming from NASA, NOAA etc? The civilian staffing in
>Iraq is a perfect example. Bush loyalist got all the key positions. Why
bring
>in someone with knowledge and experience when you can bring in a crony?
Our
>handling of Katrina, …the list goes on-and-on. People who share your/Bush’s
>politics are in charge of everything. That’s exactly why we had Abu-Grae.
>
>Sure other administrations, both republican and democrat, have tried to
extend
>their sphere of influence, but at no time in American history has one administration
>been so successful at achieving near 100 percent control. The fact that
the
>republicans controlled both houses of congress combined with the post 9/11
>fear that questioning the administration could be interpreted and being
un-patriotic
>gave Bush “cart blanch”, Boy did he run with it.
>
>So congratulations James. You have been in charge and you should be very
>proud of what you have achieved.
>
>Gene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>sane
>>
>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>
>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>>
>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>>
>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>>
>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
>>
>>There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
>>damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
is
>>no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>>removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out invading?
>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>
>>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>>about
>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>>
>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>
>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>
>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>you
>>
>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
"Bomb
>>
>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>of
>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
>>
>>It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>>attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>people
>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
a
>>weasel.
>>
>>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>
>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>>
>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>
>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>
>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>a
>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
>>
>>Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
>>not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>being
>>in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
>>and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>What
>>do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>They
>>keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
>Qaeda
>>aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
wrong.
>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>>
>>
>>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>
>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>>
>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
>>
>>
>>Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>is
>>so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
>>stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
will
>>and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>is
>>wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
rotten,
>>stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>
>>Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
>>the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
with
>>an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
that's
>>why not!
>>
>>It's you that doesn't get it!
>>
>>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
>should
>>
>>be dealt with as such.
>>
>>Sarah<<
>>
>>Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>
>>
>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>sane
>>
>>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>
>>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation
seem
>>
>>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>>
>>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>>
>>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>>>
>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>about
>>
>>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking
about
>>
>>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>
>>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>
>>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>>you
>>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
>"Bomb
>>
>>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>of
>>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>>>
>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>
>>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>>
>>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>
>>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>
>>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>a
>>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>>>
>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>
>>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>>
>>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>>>
>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
should
>>
>>>be dealt with as such.
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>
>>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>they
>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in
this
>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>
>>>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many
>more,
>>>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>>>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy.
What
>>
>>>> the
>>>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
>>are
>>>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
>>>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look
>>at
>>>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
>>the
>>>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
>>read
>>>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>>>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
>>and
>>>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>>>> kill
>>>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>>>
>>>>> S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46537917@linux...
>>>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
>>>> whole
>>>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
>hero
>>>> ...
>>>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world
into
>>>> even
>>>>> >> greater instability."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the
>one
>>>> that
>>>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>>
>>>>> >> (how
>>>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>>>> there
>>>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>>kind
>>>> of
>>>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to
do
>>
>>>>> > this
>>>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
>blood
>>>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>>>>> > easlily
>>>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>>
>>>>> > while
>>>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
>>were
>>>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
>>who
>>>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>>>> Sadaam
>>>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>>>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to
>deify
>>>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
>>to
>>>> kill
>>>>> > people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>>>> >> "collateral
>>>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far,
then
>>>> why
>>>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way
to
>>be
>>>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
>>just
>>>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists
are
>>a
>>>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>>
>>>>> >> when
>>>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It's only logical.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>they
>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in
this
>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>>>> aisle,
>>>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>>>> > cretins.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
>>take
>>>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with
>them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ;o)
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85279 is a reply to message #85275] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 13:46 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"The bush's are just helping them and appointing their people to all of those
positions you speak of. Funny thing is, they have even gotten in to china,
but they haven't been able to control the arab countries of the middle east.
These people are
never happy unless they are taking advantage of some body. I'm not going
to say who these people are but you can find them through out world history."
When I read intentionally vague stuff like this, I start to think that you
are referring to [JEWS]. Of course everyone knows that [JEWS] rule the world,
pulling the puppet strings from behind the scenes, hording capital, and sucking
the life out of innocent communities with their rapier sharp, blood sucking
vampire teeth.
In DC it's impossible to walk down the street without a [JEW] trying to lend
me money at usorious rates, so I TOTALLY GET IT. If only someone could come
up with a viable plan to eradicate the [JEWS]!
Chuck
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well Gene, you obviously don't know me! I've never liked Bush or his trilateralist
>family. When he ran for the nomination for the Republican party, I said
>he is an oil man, If he gets elected our standard of living will drop and
>will be paying through the nose for gas and oil.
>
>His father is a card holding member of the CFR and the Trilateral commission,
>and don't kid you self for a minute that it doesn't exist. At the end of
>George Bush the first's term, he invaded Rwanda and Somalia. The bullshit
>excuse was that we wanted to go in to stabilize and play Santa to all the
>poor children. We were lied to. Americans died for oil companies. The
>truth was, their leader was assassinated and two warlords were fighting
for
>control. The oil companies lost their on shore and off shore oil leases.
> It was about oil! That's why we went, not playing santa to poor people.
> There has been blood shed and unrest in Africa for thousands of years.
>We don't go in to straiten things out unless there is oil at stake. I don't
>like the Bush family.
>
>You've got it wrong, it's not the Bush's that have control of the world
and
>have their people running things in every nook and cranny. It's a particular
>group of people that are running everything. The bush's are just helping
>them and appointing their people to all of those positions you speak of.
> Funny thing is, they have even gotten in to china, but they haven't been
>able to control the arab countries of the middle east. These people are
>never happy unless they are taking advantage of some body. I'm not going
>to say who these people are but you can find them through out world history.
>
>
>
>"Gene Lennon" <g@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>“I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge.
>>
>>
>>
>>That’s just it James, YOU HAVE BEEN in charge.
>>
>>The last six years have been a great American experiment. At no time in
>our
>>history have we been so controlled by a single philosophy. The Bush doctrine
>>has been pushed into every nook and cranny of our government, national
and
>>international policies. It’s not just the complete insistence that everyone
>>in the world that gets any financial assistance or incentive from US dollars
>>goes along. The Bush administration has actually placed cronies in every
>>spot they can. Both important positions and less important positions. From
>>the key leaders of or country, our military, our Supreme Court, the UN,
>all
>>the way down to who runs Public Radio and ten thousand other examples.
Who
>>filters the science coming from NASA, NOAA etc? The civilian staffing
in
>>Iraq is a perfect example. Bush loyalist got all the key positions. Why
>bring
>>in someone with knowledge and experience when you can bring in a crony?
>Our
>>handling of Katrina, …the list goes on-and-on. People who share your/Bush’s
>>politics are in charge of everything. That’s exactly why we had Abu-Grae.
>>
>>Sure other administrations, both republican and democrat, have tried to
>extend
>>their sphere of influence, but at no time in American history has one administration
>>been so successful at achieving near 100 percent control. The fact that
>the
>>republicans controlled both houses of congress combined with the post 9/11
>>fear that questioning the administration could be interpreted and being
>un-patriotic
>>gave Bush “cart blanch”, Boy did he run with it.
>>
>>So congratulations James. You have been in charge and you should be very
>>proud of what you have achieved.
>>
>>Gene
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>>sane
>>>
>>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>>
>>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation
seem
>>>
>>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>>>
>>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>>>
>>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
>>>
>>>There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
>>>damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There
>is
>>>no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>>>removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out
invading?
>>> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>>
>>>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>>>about
>>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking
about
>>>
>>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>>
>>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>>
>>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>>you
>>>
>>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
>"Bomb
>>>
>>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>>of
>>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
>>>
>>>It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>>>attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
>>people
>>> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>>>in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
>>> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is
>a
>>>weasel.
>>>
>>>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>>
>>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>>>
>>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>>
>>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>>
>>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>>a
>>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
>>>
>>>Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We
are
>>>not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
>>being
>>>in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
>>>and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
>
>>What
>>>do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
>
>>They
>>>keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
>>Qaeda
>>>aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always
>wrong.
>>> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>>>party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>>
>>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>>>
>>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
>>>
>>>
>>>Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
>>is
>>>so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>>>count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to
you
>>>stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at
>will
>>>and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
>>is
>>>wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of
>rotten,
>>>stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>>>
>>>Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make
sure
>>>the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you
>with
>>>an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>>>and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river,
>that's
>>>why not!
>>>
>>>It's you that doesn't get it!
>>>
>>>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
>>should
>>>
>>>be dealt with as such.
>>>
>>>Sarah<<
>>>
>>>Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>>>
>>>
>>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
>>sane
>>>
>>>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>>>
>>>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>
>>>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation
>seem
>>>
>>>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for
what
>>>
>>>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've
been
>>>
>>>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>>>>
>>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>>about
>>>
>>>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking
>about
>>>
>>>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>>>
>>>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>>>
>>>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>>>you
>>>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
>
>>"Bomb
>>>
>>>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>>>of
>>>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>>>>
>>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>>>
>>>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war!
We're
>>>
>>>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>>>
>>>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>>>
>>>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>>>a
>>>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>>>>
>>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>>>
>>>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're
trying
>>>
>>>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>>>>
>>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
>should
>>>
>>>>be dealt with as such.
>>>>
>>>>Sarah
>>>>
>>>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>>they
>>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in
>this
>>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>>
>>>>>> > would
>>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many
>>more,
>>>>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>>>>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy.
>What
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
>>>are
>>>>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by
more
>>>>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you
look
>>>at
>>>>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
>>>the
>>>>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
>>>read
>>>>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>>>>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
>>>and
>>>>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>>>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>>>>> kill
>>>>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46537917@linux...
>>>>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning
the
>>>>> whole
>>>>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
>>hero
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>>>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>>>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world
>into
>>>>> even
>>>>>> >> greater instability."
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the
>>one
>>>>> that
>>>>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>>>
>>>>>> >> (how
>>>>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>>>>> there
>>>>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>>>kind
>>>>> of
>>>>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to
>do
>>>
>>>>>> > this
>>>>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
>>blood
>>>>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>
>>>>>> > easlily
>>>>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>>>
>>>>>> > while
>>>>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
>>>were
>>>>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
>>>who
>>>>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>>>>> Sadaam
>>>>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and
every
>>>>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to
>>deify
>>>>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
>>>to
>>>>> kill
>>>>>> > people.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>>>>> >> "collateral
>>>>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far,
>then
>>>>> why
>>>>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>>>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way
>to
>>>be
>>>>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
>>>just
>>>>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>>>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists
>are
>>>a
>>>>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>>>
>>>>>> >> when
>>>>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It's only logical.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
>>they
>>>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in
>this
>>>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>>
>>>>>> > would
>>>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>>>>> aisle,
>>>>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>>>>> > cretins.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
>>>take
>>>>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with
>>them.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > ;o)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85303 is a reply to message #85201] |
Fri, 25 May 2007 19:43 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the thoughtful dialog. I wish you well too.
Bill
DC wrote:
> Bill, these things are truth claims. At least mine sure is.
>
> Your truth claim is the assertion that all beliefs are personal ones.
>
> I claim mine to be objectively true. We were created, we fell from
> grace by sinning, and Jesus Christ came to earth to save us from
> our sins and offer us a new life in relationship with him.
>
> If this is true, then it makes claims on each of us and has import
> despite our opinions. It also means some beliefs are simply wrong.
> Factually wrong. It is clear you do not agree.
>
> That is why your "god" has quotes around his name and mine does not.
>
> I wish you well.
>
> DC
>
> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>> Like I said, there are almost infinite viewpoints and each is valid to
>> the person who has it. If we understand the reasons a person has a
>> particular viewpoint, we increase our love for each other and our
>> willingness to communicate one to another.
>>
>> Do you love God for what he does for you?
>>
>> I love my wife for what she does for me.
>>
>> I love George Benson for what his music does for me.
>>
>> We all have some "god" in us - some more than others, but it's always there.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> DC wrote:
>>> The God I know is not a metaphor and does not get quotes around
>>> his name.
>>>
>>> So there you have it.
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>> Something I realized about "god" a while back is: god is relative. The
>
>>>> way George Benson plays guitar makes him a god to me. I think any of
> us
>>>> can be gods when we do something truly spectacular.
>>>>
>>>> I would judge a being's godliness by the beneficial effect they create.
>>>> If it is so amazingly wonderful that billions of people's lives are
>>>> improved by it, then they are gods. Buddha's message would probably have
>>>> to stand above all others in the "quantity of good influence" category.
>>>> Probably Jesus next. The thing they had in common was they gave people
>
>>>> hope of a better world to come.
>>>>
>>>> There are billions of viewpoints out there and more coming every day.
>
>>>> They all see something that's real to them. It's a trip learning what
>
>>>> other beings perceive and it makes one wiser and more able to help.
>>>>
>>>> Bill L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
>>>>>> the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
>
>>>>>> These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages
> we
>>>>>> must follow.
>>>>> And all of them were just people, with one exception.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was, and is, God. So I think we have some differences in basic worldview.
>>>>>
>>>>> take care
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85975 is a reply to message #85201] |
Mon, 04 June 2007 09:31 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I came back from holidays in Creece today after 2 weeks with nearly 70
Scandinavian folksingers, families and friends, that's loving the atmosphere
in the land and islands that's starting our democracy-form for thousands of
years ago. With us, we had an old, danish priest full of experiences with
the life that I talked much with on this tour. We were often talking about
wars, other cultures and problems this old nation have had in thousands of
years with both Europe, Asia and Africa. We were just talking about life as
humans in the world have done in generations before us. One of the evenings,
we were sitting on a taverna, eating what the ocean had offered for the day
to the owner of the taverna. I came to say to Freddy when eating fish, that
the world have only had one real communist and it was the first, the only
and last one. Freddy saw me deep into my eyes, with his old face smiling up
over it all. He knew at once who the man I mean was and said: "It was Jesus,
with the way he was living."
In deep honour and respect for Freddy and Jesus.
Erling
"DC" <dc@spammersinNYC.org> skrev i en meddelelse news:46567107$1@linux...
>
> I claim mine to be objectively true. We were created, we fell from
> grace by sinning, and Jesus Christ came to earth to save us from
> our sins and offer us a new life in relationship with him.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85978 is a reply to message #85085] |
Mon, 04 June 2007 09:39 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7A6D7.AF340570
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can it be the same way the Bible have started to be written, that =
someone heard someone saying something about wise words someone had =
heard that some wise persons had said, that someone so wanted to write =
about???
Erling
"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse =
news:4654ceab@linux...
Jamie, picky, picky, picky :-) Well, all it says on that site is, =
"there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this", possibly he =
didn't say it, possibly he did. Somebody obviously attributed it to him. =
Wonder who that was? The liberals of yesteryear are today's =
conservatives anyway.
Thanks for the edification,
Rich
=20
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message =
news:4652677b@linux...
>=20
> > 'Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> > and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a =
brain.' -
> > Winston Churchill
>=20
> Fact check:
>=20
> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112
>=20
> Quotes Falsely Attributed:
> These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has =
falsely=20
> attributed them to Churchill.
>=20
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >> To react to that, to conduct a "War Against Terrorism" is
> >> about as desperate and pathetic IMHO.
> >=20
> > Bill, it's not a war against terrorism, this is a misnomer. It is =
a war
> > against "Radical Islamic Extremism" and their desire to impose an =
Islamic
> > theocratic caliphate on the free world.
> >=20
> >> And it's so uncreative and historically repetitive as to be a big =
dumb
> >> bore.
> >=20
> > We defeated Japan and Germany and they're not the worst allies. =
Come to
> > think of it, we bailed out the French in WW2 and what the hell did =
we get in
> > return, Chirac? Maybe now, however, with Nicolas Sarkozy we'll be =
better
> > thought of.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
>=20
> >=20
> > "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message =
news:464e6433@linux...
> >> It was too early when I wrote that.
> >>
> >> Look, it's a thorny issue. The point I was trying to make is I =
support
> >> the freedom of those religions that grant others the same =
freedom. I
> >> don't support freedom of a religion that is trying to curtail =
freedom,
> >> you dig?
> >>
> >> We have to take responsibility for mis-guided people just the way =
one
> >> does for a child. With a small child, you don't get angry and =
punish him
> >> or her for making a bad choice. You exert calm, confident control =
and
> >> direct it towards the right choice. We have to be bigger than =
them, and
> >> not react angrily to their desperate attempts to cause an effect =
on us.
> >> Think how pathetically desperate a group must be if the only way =
they
> >> can dream up to communicate is through terrorism. That is quite
> >> pathetic.>
> > Just think how much more effective and creative it would have been
> >> to spend a few billion dollars to simply buy access to the =
terrorists
> >> and then put them away. Very little collateral damage. The people =
who
> >> stand up for freedom by denouncing the terrorists get rich as =
they
> >> deserve for their bravery and everybody else lives happier, =
free-er lives.
> >>
> >> I know some will say it would never work like that, but did =
anyone ever
> > try?
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >>> Bill, I have no problem with freedom, you infidel :-) I am a
> >>> constitutionalist and believe strongly in the 1st amendment.
> > Unfortunately
> >>> the radical Islamic doesn't cherish those same freedoms you and =
I hold
> >>> dearly. They are willing to die to impose their fascism and =
intolerant
> >>> theocratic rubbish upon us.
> >>>
> >>> Remember Waco. The ATF, under the administration of Clinton and =
Janet
> >>> Sterno, stormed the Branch Davidian home, in Rambo fashion, to =
serve a
> >>> search warrant issued on the suspicion that the group was =
stockpiling
> >>> automatic weapons, massacring almost 100 hundred men, women, and
> > children.
> >>> But I doubt that the FBI or ATF would ever raid these holy men, =
oh God
> > no,
> >>> despite the fact that they are irrefutably armed to the teeth =
and
> > practicing
> >>> for violent Jihad.
> >>>
> >>> Did you read the article dude? Did you read the part about the =
violent
> >>> incidents involving Jamaat Ul Fuora in the US?
> >>> "By 2004 federal investigators uncovered evidence that linked =
both the
> > DC
> >>> "sniper killer" John Allen Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard =
Reid to
> > the
> >>> group and reports surfaced that Wall Street Journal reporter =
Daniel
> > Pearl
> >>> was captured and beheaded in the process of attempting to obtain =
an
> >>> interview with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan."
> >>>
> >>> =
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jpg
> >>>
> >>> What were Koresh and the Davidians guilty of? Maybe of being =
Christians.
> >>> Nothing compared to this group. Wake up man, this is not about =
freedom
> > of
> >>> religion this is about a Jihad threatening our existence and the =
choice
> > to
> >>> exercise any freedoms let alone freedom of religion. We had =
better keep
> > an
> >>> eye on these guys.
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> From my cold dead hands - Charlton Heston
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message
> > news:464d8d4f@linux...
> >>>> I strongly support freedom, especially freedom of religion. =
Part of
> >>>> religious freedom is the freedom of religious choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> A religion worthy of freedom would increase individual freedom.
> >>>>
> >>>> With freedom comes increased responsibility; with increased
> >>>> responsibility comes increased freedom. By increasing freedoms =
for all
> >>>> one's own freedoms are increased.
> >>>>
> >>>> =93Constant and continual alertness is the price of freedom.
> >>>> Constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.
> >>>> There is no other price actually.=94
> >>>> =97 L. RON HUBBARD
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >>>>> You can thank me for lighting the fire, you can all fan the =
flames.
> > Why
> >>> the
> >>>>> heck not welcome some more illegals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell =
Phillips
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be =
vigilant
> > in
> >>> its
> >>>>> preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an announcement =
outside a
> >>>>> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, 2001
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and =
brave,
> >>> and
> >>>>> hated
> >>>>> and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for =
then it
> >>> costs
> >>>>> nothing
> >>>>> to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the =
weak or the
> >>>>> timid."
> >>>>> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, =
1953
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs =
to the
> >>> brave."
> >>>>> -- Ronald Reagan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the =
vigilant,
> > the
> >>>>> active,
> >>>>> the brave." -- Patrick Henry
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The land of the free will cease to be when it's no longer the =
home of
> >>>>> the brave."-- Rick Gaber
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> >>>>> and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a =
brain." --=20
> >>>>> Winston Churchill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guidance,
> >>>>> Rich
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >=20
> >
------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7A6D7.AF340570
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Can it be the same way the Bible have =
started to be=20
written, that someone heard someone saying something about wise=20
words someone had heard that some wise persons had said, that =
someone so=20
wanted to write about???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Erling</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich Lamanna" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:richard.lamanna@verizon.net">richard.lamanna@verizon.net</=
A>>=20
skrev i en meddelelse <A=20
href=3D"news:4654ceab@linux">news:4654ceab@linux</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Jamie, picky, picky, picky :-) Well, all it says =
on that=20
site is, "there is no record of anyone =
<EM><STRONG>hearing</STRONG></EM>=20
Churchill say this", possibly he didn't say it, possibly he did. =
Somebody=20
obviously attributed it to him. Wonder who that =
was? The liberals of=20
yesteryear are today's conservatives anyway.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for the edification,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>"Jamie K" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:Meta@Dimensional.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Meta@Dimensional.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in =
message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:4652677b@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:4652677b@linux</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
size=3D2>> <BR>> > 'Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal =
doesn't=20
have a heart,<BR>> > and any 40 year-old who isn't a =
conservative=20
doesn't have a brain.' -<BR>> > Winston Churchill<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Fact check:<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A=20
=
href=3D" http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112"=
><FONT=20
=
size=3D2> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112=
</FONT></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> <BR>> Quotes Falsely Attributed:<BR>> These quotes =
make for=20
good story-telling but popular myth has falsely <BR>> attributed =
them to=20
Churchill.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers,<BR>> -Jamie<BR>> =
=20
</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.JamieKrutz.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>www.JamieKrutz.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> Rich Lamanna wrote:<BR>> >> To react to that, to =
conduct a=20
"War Against Terrorism" is<BR>> >> about as desperate and =
pathetic=20
IMHO.<BR>> > <BR>> > Bill, it's not a war against =
terrorism, this=20
is a misnomer. It is a war<BR>> > against "Radical Islamic =
Extremism"=20
and their desire to impose an Islamic<BR>> > theocratic =
caliphate on the=20
free world.<BR>> > <BR>> >> And it's so uncreative and=20
historically repetitive as to be a big dumb<BR>> >> =
bore.<BR>>=20
> <BR>> > We defeated Japan and Germany and they're not the =
worst=20
allies. Come to<BR>> > think of it, we bailed out the French in =
WW2 and=20
what the hell did we get in<BR>> > return, Chirac? Maybe now, =
however,=20
with Nicolas Sarkozy we'll be better<BR>> > thought of.<BR>> =
>=20
<BR>> > Rich<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > =
"Bill L"=20
<</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>bill@billlorentzen.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in =
message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:464e6433@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:464e6433@linux</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>...<BR>> =
>> It was=20
too early when I wrote that.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Look, =
it's a=20
thorny issue. The point I was trying to make is I support<BR>> =
>> the=20
freedom of those religions that grant others the same freedom. =
I<BR>>=20
>> don't support freedom of a religion that is trying to curtail =
freedom,<BR>> >> you dig?<BR>> >><BR>> >> =
We have=20
to take responsibility for mis-guided people just the way one<BR>> =
>>=20
does for a child. With a small child, you don't get angry and punish=20
him<BR>> >> or her for making a bad choice. You exert calm, =
confident=20
control and<BR>> >> direct it towards the right choice. We =
have to be=20
bigger than them, and<BR>> >> not react angrily to their =
desperate=20
attempts to cause an effect on us.<BR>> >> Think how =
pathetically=20
desperate a group must be if the only way they<BR>> >> can =
dream up=20
to communicate is through terrorism. That is quite<BR>> >>=20
pathetic.><BR>> > Just think how much more effective and =
creative it=20
would have been<BR>> >> to spend a few billion dollars to =
simply buy=20
access to the terrorists<BR>> >> and then put them away. Very =
little=20
collateral damage. The people who<BR>> >> stand up for =
freedom by=20
denouncing the terrorists get rich as they<BR>> >> deserve =
for their=20
bravery and everybody else lives happier, free-er lives.<BR>>=20
>><BR>> >> I know some will say it would never work =
like that,=20
but did anyone ever<BR>> > try?<BR>> >> Bill<BR>>=20
>><BR>> >><BR>> >> Rich Lamanna wrote:<BR>> =
>>> Bill, I have no problem with freedom, you infidel :-) I =
am=20
a<BR>> >>> constitutionalist and believe strongly in the =
1st=20
amendment.<BR>> > Unfortunately<BR>> >>> the radical =
Islamic=20
doesn't cherish those same freedoms you and I hold<BR>> =
>>>=20
dearly. They are willing to die to impose their fascism and =
intolerant<BR>>=20
>>> theocratic rubbish upon us.<BR>> >>><BR>>=20
>>> Remember Waco. The ATF, under the administration of =
Clinton and=20
Janet<BR>> >>> Sterno, stormed the Branch Davidian home, =
in Rambo=20
fashion, to serve a<BR>> >>> search warrant issued on the=20
suspicion that the group was stockpiling<BR>> >>> =
automatic=20
weapons, massacring almost 100 hundred men, women, and<BR>> >=20
children.<BR>> >>> But I doubt that the FBI or ATF would =
ever raid=20
these holy men, oh God<BR>> > no,<BR>> >>> despite =
the fact=20
that they are irrefutably armed to the teeth and<BR>> >=20
practicing<BR>> >>> for violent Jihad.<BR>>=20
>>><BR>> >>> Did you read the article dude? Did =
you read=20
the part about the violent<BR>> >>> incidents involving =
Jamaat Ul=20
Fuora in the US?<BR>> >>> "By 2004 federal investigators =
uncovered=20
evidence that linked both the<BR>> > DC<BR>> >>> =
"sniper=20
killer" John Allen Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid to<BR>> =
>=20
the<BR>> >>> group and reports surfaced that Wall Street =
Journal=20
reporter Daniel<BR>> > Pearl<BR>> >>> was captured =
and=20
beheaded in the process of attempting to obtain an<BR>> =
>>>=20
interview with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan."<BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
>>> </FONT><A=20
=
href=3D" http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jpg=
"><FONT=20
=
size=3D2> http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jp=
g</FONT></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> >>><BR>> >>> What were Koresh and =
the=20
Davidians guilty of? Maybe of being Christians.<BR>> >>> =
Nothing=20
compared to this group. Wake up man, this is not about freedom<BR>> =
>=20
of<BR>> >>> religion this is about a Jihad threatening our =
existence and the choice<BR>> > to<BR>> >>> exercise =
any=20
freedoms let alone freedom of religion. We had better keep<BR>> =
>=20
an<BR>> >>> eye on these guys.<BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
>>> Rich<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> From my =
cold dead=20
hands - Charlton Heston<BR>> >>><BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
>>> "Bill L" <</FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>bill@billlorentzen.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in =
message<BR>> > </FONT><A href=3D"news:464d8d4f@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:464d8d4f@linux</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>...<BR>> =
>>>>=20
I strongly support freedom, especially freedom of religion. Part =
of<BR>>=20
>>>> religious freedom is the freedom of religious =
choice.<BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>> A religion worthy of freedom =
would=20
increase individual freedom.<BR>> >>>><BR>> =
>>>>=20
With freedom comes increased responsibility; with increased<BR>>=20
>>>> responsibility comes increased freedom. By increasing =
freedoms for all<BR>> >>>> one's own freedoms are=20
increased.<BR>> >>>><BR>> >>>> =
=93Constant and=20
continual alertness is the price of freedom.<BR>> >>>> =
Constant=20
willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.<BR>> =
>>>>=20
There is no other price actually.=94<BR>> >>>> =97 L. =
RON=20
HUBBARD<BR>> >>>><BR>> >>>><BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>><BR>> >>>> =
Rich=20
Lamanna wrote:<BR>> >>>>> You can thank me for =
lighting the=20
fire, you can all fan the flames.<BR>> > Why<BR>> =
>>>=20
the<BR>> >>>>> heck not welcome some more =
illegals.<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> </FONT><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm"><FON=
T=20
=
size=3D2>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm</FON=
T></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> =
"Eternal=20
vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "No man is entitled =
to the=20
blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant<BR>> > in<BR>>=20
>>> its<BR>> >>>>> preservation." -- =
General=20
Douglas MacArthur<BR>> >>>>><BR>> =
>>>>>=20
"FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an announcement outside =
a<BR>>=20
>>>>> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, =
2001<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "In the beginning of =
a=20
change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave,<BR>> >>>=20
and<BR>> >>>>> hated<BR>> >>>>> =
and=20
scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then =
it<BR>>=20
>>> costs<BR>> >>>>> nothing<BR>>=20
>>>>> to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "History does =
not long=20
entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the<BR>> =
>>>>>=20
timid."<BR>> >>>>> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First =
Inaugural=20
Address, Jan. 20, 1953<BR>> >>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>> "The future doesn't belong to the =
faint-hearted. It=20
belongs to the<BR>> >>> brave."<BR>> =
>>>>> --=20
Ronald Reagan<BR>> >>>>><BR>> =
>>>>> "The=20
battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the =
vigilant,<BR>> >=20
the<BR>> >>>>> active,<BR>> >>>>> =
the=20
brave." -- Patrick Henry<BR>> >>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>> "The land of the free will cease to be when it's =
no=20
longer the home of<BR>> >>>>> the brave."-- Rick=20
Gaber<BR>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> "Any =
20=20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,<BR>>=20
>>>>> and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative =
doesn't have=20
a brain." -- <BR>> >>>>> Winston Churchill<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> Guidance,<BR>>=20
>>>>> Rich<BR>> >>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>><BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
> <BR>> ></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C7A6D7.AF340570--
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 11 09:15:27 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02324 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
