Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Bomb attacks in London England
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55764 is a reply to message #55761] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 16:59   |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
's pretty impressive"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d70073$1@linux...
woah you type pretty fast...
> Ok, I believe you. I am neither a drunk nor a pothead BTW, and
> lived through the 60's as a teenager, and used no drugs at all.
Thats truly impressive, although I'm curious about the ambuity of the 'no
drugs' thing whether that includes alcohol or not. To me alcohol is a much
more powerful drug than reefer. I cant even drink anymore because during
the work day I'll just be thinking "I cant wait to get out of work and have
a drink". I haven't had a drink since my 20s....
> That doesn't make me better, it just shows that it can be done.
> And, there's a lot more of us than Rolling Stone mag would have you
> believe. My dad hung with Frank Sinatra before the famous
> Paramount show that launched his career. I was not raised by
> prudes or victorians. He told me that dope makes you stupid, and
> I have never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
Fair enough... especially if you think I'm stupid.
> There's a whole underground of people who just love the music,
> not the drugs, not the bling, not the pussy, just the music.
>
> You should join us.
But I need ONE crutch... I have reduced my smoking from daily to once a week
or so, and am pretty much just addicted to lifting weights.
>>Regarding 'figger[ing] out how the world
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55765 is a reply to message #55764] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:16 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
actually works', I truly believe
>
>>that Bush and associates are profiting heavily off the war, and I think
> it's
>>one of the main factors in going to war. While you guys are making
>>jokes,
>
>>I'm actually trying to learn, and the more I learn the more outraged I am.
>
>
>
> Ok, here's the short version. Most business people are the salt
> of the earth. They work harder, live more ethically, give more, and
> do more for others than any 100 rock stars. There are scumbags,
> just like in the music biz, but they almost always get caught and pay
> for it, as the line of scumbags from Enron and Worldcom who are
> stocking up on prison lube shows.
I believe you're definitely right... especially people who are truly
successful... 3% of the population type rarity. I dont believe Bush Jr
falls in that category, however.
> 2. Bush is who he appears to be, and he believes what he says, and
> does things for the reasons he says he does them. You don't have
> to agree with him, but he is too stubborn and convinced of his
> beliefs to start wars from greed. He believes in freedom, and
> intends to leave Iraq a functioning democracy.
I wish I could believe that... I really do.
> 3. Halliburton and other contractors are risking an enormous amount
> and the lives of their people, to help rebuild Iraq. They should make
> good money at it. if they are cheating we will probably catch them
> at it.
True... it is dangerous as hell. Even the US soldiers resent the
contractors because of the compensation. I'd tell you that Halliburton
'misplaced' NINE BILLION dollars, but you would probably think I'm out to
lunch.
> 4. Conspiracies are damn hard to keep hidden for any long period
> of time. This is why I believe Oswald killed Kennedy, despite the
> fact that I bought the Oliver Stone version many years ago.
> Something would have come out by now if it was a big conspiracy.
> Oswald was a communist sympathizer who, probably with some
> help from cuba, took revenge for the Bay of Pigs. Bill Clinton swore
> to get to the bottom of the Kennedy asassination, and found
> nothing.
That could support or invalidate your premise. I think Oswald killed him
too.
> There are conspiracies, but without evidence, they are just
> silliness and hallucinogenic party chatter.
No, they're either not a conspiracy or a secret. I have no doubt
conspiracies can exist through. Sometimes you only get tidbits like World
Trade Center 7, but unless it hits Fox News, most people wont pay attention,
so it's ALMOST like theres no conspiracy.Cute. Take an account of an observation about behavior of a bunch of folks
from different countries th
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55767 is a reply to message #55753] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:23 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t. i can
> only recommend visiting other countries cause its very
> interesting and broadens the horizon. alas, i feel with
> your set-in-stone picture of europe, europe probably wont
> look very attractive to you for now. i suggest japan then.
>
>
>
>
> >As for your apparent unwillingness to accept what I have seen with my own
> >eyes after it was pointed out to me by a bunch of people who had
absolutely
> >no preconceptions about the cultural proclivities of these individuals
who
> >happened to be Euopeans and Americans all I can say is believe what you
> >want.
>
>
> a nice long sentence. you want the right to make assumptions
> about countries youve never been to even for 5 minutes.
> heck, screw that, assumptions is too soft a word, you think
> thats enough knowledge so that you can come up with
> cool catchy terms like "those hypocrite euro socialist jerks".
>
> well then, my diagnosis stays the same. you have changed. mr simplicity
indeed.
> if it makes you feel better.I think you guys are right. This computer is way to lame. I need to build a
new one.
So can you guys give me a list of components that work well with Paris, I
can have it built but I need a list of components.
Like Mother Board... etc
I plan to use a a wave terminal 192x for sound as I have many virtual
instruments.
Spappy"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Regarding 'figger[ing] out how the world actually works', I truly believe
>that Bush and associates are profiting heavily off the war, and I think
it's
>one of the main factors in going to war.
So If I'm doing well, and most of the pople I know are doing
well... is it because of the war, and therefore we are evil
(even though we have nothing to do with military or oil
contracts)?
And if a few of the people I know aren't doing so well, is that
because of the war too? Which is it? If the war is bankrupting
the country apart from Bush cronies, then everyone would have
to be doing poorly except for those people... I mean, c'mon
now, the war's been going on for long enough to where we ALL
should be feeling it if that were the case, right?
I think it's simply that one tends to know more people that are
in similar economic situations to what they're in, than they
know those that are in different ones. If you yourself aren't
doing too well, then yeah it's going to seem to you like the
majority of people are not, because you know more people that
are in the same situation as yourself. That ain't class
warfare, that's what you call "neighbors".
My personal point of view is skwed too - in my case towards
people who are in similar situations as mine, so let's look at
the facts & stats instead:
*** Retail sales are up compared to last year - in June:
*Wal-Mart (lets start with the biggest retailer, right?) had a
4.6% gain & their Sam's Club division had a 4.0% gain.
*Target was up even higher... +9.0%
*Kohl's came in at +14.4% over the same month last year.
*Federated (as a group) +2.9%
*Nordstroms = +8.1%
*JC Penney was up by 7.4%
*TJX
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55769 is a reply to message #55765] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:31 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
That list encompassed a good combination of high-end and
discount retailers alike... so it's not just certain sectors
that are doing well, either.
>While you guys are making jokes,
>I'm actually trying to learn, and the more I learn the more outraged I am.
Well, then BE outraged! But DO something about it... get out
there & make something happen for Justin Cron... nobody's
holding you back! Don't rely on the goverment, or wait until
they solve your problems, because it's never gonna happen. The
best we can hope for is that they don't throw too many
obstacles in our way, and at least so far, that hasn't occurred
yet with this administration.
Neil
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d7090e@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>Regarding 'figger[ing] out how the world actually works', I truly believe
>
>>that Bush and associates are profiting heavily off the war, and I think
> it's
>>one of the main factors in going to war.
>
> So If I'm doing well, and most of the pople I know are doing
> well... is it because of the war, and therefore we are evil
> (even though we have nothing to do with military or oil
> contracts)?
> And if a few of the people I know aren't doing so well, is that
> because of the war too? Which is it? If the war is bankrupting
> the country apart from Bush cronies, then everyone would have
> to be doing poorly except for those people... I mean, c'mon
> now, the war's been going on for long enough to where we ALL
> should be feeling it if that were the case, right?
wow you really are a fucking comedian today.
> I think it's simply that one tends to know more people that are
> in similar economic situations to what they're in, than they
> know those that are in different ones. If you yourself aren't
> doing too well, then yeah it's going to seem to you like the
> majority of people are not, because you know more people that
> are in the same situation as yourself. That ain't class
> warfare, that's what you call "neighbors".
>
> My personal point of view is skwed too - in my case towards
> people who are in similar situations as mine, so let's look at
> the facts & stats instead:
> *** Retail sales are up compared to last year - in June:
> *Wal-Mart (lets start with the biggest retailer, right?) had a
> 4.6% gain & their Sam's Club division had a 4.0% gain.
> *Target was up even higher... +9.0%
> *Kohl's came in at +14.4% over the same month last year.
> *Federated (as a group) +2.9%
> *Nordstroms = +8.1%
> *JC Penney was up by 7.4%
> *TJX (TJ Maxx, Marshalls) +3%
> *Ross stores +6.0%
> *And General Motors - finally having discovered a way to price
> their vehicles at a fair value for the product (the 'employee
> pricing' plan) sold FOURTY-ONE FREAKIN' PERCENT more cars &
> trucks than in June of last year. Now some may say this just
> pushed some cars that would have been sold later on in the year
> into June, but even if that's the case... IF THE ECONOMY IS
> GOING BANKRUPT, HOW ARE PEOPLE BUYING ALL THESE CARS???
Are you nuts. People are up to their eyeballs in DEBT. The banks have
totally taken over! most people have no wealth, although fewer and fewer
have more and more. Theres economic reasons for that, and I'm not
advocating some communist/socialist bullshit, but at the same time we are a
society in addition to being an economy.
> That list encompassed a good combination of high-end and
> discount retailers alike... so it's not just certain sectors
> that are doing well, either.
>
>>While you guys are making jokes,
>>I'm actually trying to learn, and the more I learn the more outraged I am.
>
> Well, then BE outraged! But DO something about it... get out
> there & make something happen for Justin Cron... nobody's
> holding you back! Don't rely on the goverment,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55770 is a reply to message #55760] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:30 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
or wait until
> they solve your problems, because it's never gonna happen. The
> best we can hope for is that they don't throw too many
> obstacles in our way, and at least so far, that hasn't occurred
> yet with this administration.
Gimme a break... I've been publishing news articles since November on all
this stuff:
http://scamusa.com"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>I received a mix from a local AE a few days ago and I'm totally mind
>boggled.
>
>There are instruments and vocls placed outside the normal stereo
>image...like 12" outside of the speakers.
>
>I was wondering if any of you might know how this was done...he swears no
>esoteric plugins were used in the creation of this effect.
Perhaps a Bedini Audio-Spatial Environment?
Please post it if you are able to do so. I wanna hear!
Neil"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>>right Derek. Everyone misses the point except you...
what a stupid start for an actually very constructive and good post ;-)
seriously, thanks for the post (which i really liked).
im not saying that everyone misses the point. but everyone
was avoiding this point like the plague, just until now. thanks
for breaking with that tradition.
>The only problem with your theory is the fact that Arafat was one of
>the chief terrorists, utterly corrupt, and a major part of the problem.
absolutely right. arafat was a terrorist. PLO *leader*.
he was that conflicts osama bin laden, if you want.
it makes rabins experiment to reach out for this guy all
the more scary and unreal in a way, huh? so youre absolutely right
about this, and i completely agree with you.
>Doesn't your point rely on Arafat not being a terrorist
>himself? Evidence?
no, my point doesnt rely on arafat being not a terrorist.
he was a terrorist. my point relies on *snare roll* the selfish nature
of man. the whole trick was to give arafat a scenario that was
more attractive to him than the current situation. works like
a charm, every time.
arafat, at that time the closest thing there was to
"leader of palaestina", did gain (even more) popularity and power through
the peace process. as long as he could come to his people
and show them negotiation results, they followed him.
rabin was VERY c
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55772 is a reply to message #55764] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:53 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the same
time giving arafat enough to present a negotiation path to
his people that seemed promising enough to keep the power,
which was also the power to at least mostly keep the terror
under control. of course, that was when the terror really
was still mostly PLO business.
it looked all very promising. PLO was da shit, hamas was
not, and arafat was powerful (and even determined) enough
to just chase and kill hamas people. it was the last
time arafat could actually claim to have an influence on
whether there would be terror or not, at least a very very
big influence on how much terror there would be.
i was very impressed by rabin. of course, the timing
and surrounding was right, and its very ironic but also
absolutely true that only an ex general on the one side
and the terrorist leader on the other side had enough credit
from their people to go through with this, since the
people would only trust guys like these to be acting
in their own countrys interest.
enter religious idiot stage right - boom. oh man.
>What was wrong, exactly with the plan proposed by Clinton?
>Ok, so what were the substantive differences between what Rabin
>was offering, and what Clinton brokered? Were they not nearly
>identical?
the problem was not with clinton. clinton didnt do much
more or much less than what george bush (the father) did before.
dont overestimate the role of the US here (more on that later). the
course of the peace process didnt change with clinton,
it of course changed when rabin was gone and benjamin netanyahu
followed. and boy did he change course. it had been rougher times
after rabin had been killed, and from the two options
of quickly going back to deescalation or make some
"flex muscle" type gestures, he chose the latter, hardly
a surprise, that was what he was voted for.
in terms of monopoly,
what followed with netanyahu was more or less a "go back
to start" (locate 0 for the tape machine operators).
it took a loong time, a way to long time, until the peace
process even restarted.
only this time arafat didnt have the same power.
his people didnt have the same trust. his position was
not nearly the same - where before he was more or less
the ultimate extremist and head of terror, he now
was more or less the "diplomat who didnt get us anywhere",
and definetly NOT the leading terrorist anymore,
PLO? hamas is where the terror came from.
so, since arafat always was a selfish asshole,
he went back to selfish asshole mode and the following
years, the whole sad struggle began with clinton going in and out and
in and out and in and out, ultimately ending in arafat
denying a peace plan he would have agreed on only years before.
it was all some stupid theather play, that was now
doomed right from the start.
especially considering that arafat was negotiating something he had
no influence anymore, the amount of terror. what a joke.
was he head of hamas or something? of course he wasnt.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55773 is a reply to message #55772] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:58 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
so, whose fault was it? was it the religious idiot that shot
the man that was close to write history? (and, one cant
stress that enough, since this is basically the heart and
center of the giant cultural and religious conflict were currently facing,
this could have changed history with a lot more being affected
than that ridiculously small piece of oh so sacred land down there).
was it netanyahu who failed to smell the historical opportunity?
was it the people in israel who were stupid enough to
vote for that guy, even though they were as close to actual
peace as never before? (note that voting for netanyahu
was basically a vote for at least a gradual return to the
politic concept of showing force and strengh - did it pay off?
i dont think it did)
was it the palaestinian people that didnt take long to
go back into full terror mode?
i think theres a little of it all in it (surprise surprise). allthough my
personal number one definetly goes to the religious idiot who
shot rabin. boy did that guy change the entire world
with that one shot. a perfect, allthough very sad example of the "butterfly
effect".
and about clinton and what i said about not overestimating
the influence of america - well, to judge the influence
america really has on israel, just look at how they
constantly give the US the finger when the US start
to really talk into their politics. that actually has been
worse now with george bush junior than it has been with
clinton, even though george bush junior, when making and
threat, is probably more believeable than clinton is
(for better or worse). the US dont reign over israel - theyll
do what THEY think is best for them. another sad irony
here is that a lot of hatred that comes from the islamic
world towards the US is based on the overestimated influence
the US supposedly has on israel.
so, thats my take on the whole story. i dont claim i have
the perfect solution. i dont say that deescalation is
always the best option. i guess, i HOPE were all grown
up enough to know that there is no such thing as a standard
solution that fits for everything.
but i DO think that this story is
- a proof at how promising deescalation politics actually is.
dozens of years with nothing but terror, along comes the
only time where someone has the courage to try a deescalation
strategy for real, and thats the time where theres the least
terror? i say thats not a coincidence.
- a very important example because it is the very heart
of the conflict (see above).
- also, while i.e. WWII is a good example that brute
force can lead to peace, i personally believe the closer
and more logical place to look at is the israel conflict.
its not 60 years ago but today, and its the same "enemy"
situation, not entire nations and classical struggle over
territory with classic military tactics, but a war of
cultures, islamic terrorists, no easy targets, no absolute
security. its just the more logical comparison. state vs terror.
unclear enemys. an incredibly complex situation.
that is why i believe the whole approach is wrong.
is there any less terror since this george bush practices
this new policy? no theres not. so at least for now,
i can only conclude that he failed, at least thats how
it looks so far. whats the title of the thread again?
netanyahu, scharon, and yes, since he went back to
the politics of force (in his case meaning terror), also
arafat, they failed. theyre back at zero. they were so close.
what i find so incredible is that ultimately, they all know it.
fascinating how blind people can become when theres also
always this goddamn religious aspect to it.
to give you a comparison, i though the attack on serbia,
also a policy of showing force, was the right way to go.
same goes for "iraq part one". im not against this
approach by principle. im a pacifist, but im not a
dogmatic pacifist thats blind on both eyes. yet stil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55775 is a reply to message #55754] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:01 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
as it stays within this general discussion
ill find that actually interesting."justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Thats truly impressive, although I'm curious about the ambuity of the 'no
>drugs' thing whether that includes alcohol or not. To me alcohol is a much
>more powerful drug than reefer.
Took my first drink at the age of 29. Today, I drink about 3 beers
a year. My experience is that there is nothing, and I mean nothing
that screws up the brain worse tham regular pot use. Yeah, drunks
are bad too. I've certainly seen that.
I can name names of friends who have been there, and one that
completely recovered. The good news is that you can recover a
lot by getting off it. My buddy used every day for probably 15
years, and yet today, he is pretty sharp. Other friends are walking
zombies with 1/4 of the brains they had at the age of 16, instead
of the middle-aged, wise old lions they would have become.
>> That doesn't make me better, it just shows that it can be done.
>> And, there's a lot more of us than Rolling Stone mag would have you
>> believe. My dad hung with Frank Sinatra before the famous
>> Paramount show that launched his career. I was not raised by
>> prudes or victorians. He told me that dope makes you stupid, and
>> I have never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
>
>Fair enough... especially if you think I'm stupid.
That's the POINT dammit. I DON'T think you're stupid. I see a
strong intelligence at work in all the stuff you think about. You
would be Yoda without the dope. Sorry. Just my opinion.
>> There's a whole underground of people who just love the music,
>> not the drugs, not the bling, not the pussy, just the music.
>>
>> You should join us.
>
>But I need ONE crutch... I have reduced my smoking from daily to once a
week
>or so, and am pretty much just addicted to lifting weights.
And I eat too much, so I can't judge others.
>True... it is dangerous as hell. Even the US soldiers resent the
>contractors because of the compensation. I'd tell you that Halliburton
>'misplaced' NINE BILLION dollars, but you would probably think I'm out to
>lunch.
I don't have the facts to discuss it. But I do not believe that Bush
is padding his buddies pockets on the blood of this war, at least
not as an intention.
>No, they're either not a conspiracy or a secret. I have no doubt
>conspiracies can exist through. Sometimes you only get tidbits like World
>Trade Center 7, but unless it hits Fox News, most people wont pay attention,
>so it's ALMOST like theres no conspiracy.
My buddy's brother worked in WTC7 and he can tell you there
was none of the nonsense prattled on about in the conspiracy
theories because he was there. (The CIA had an office there,
so that makes it a hotbed for theories) There was 40,000 gallons
of diesel in there for electricity backup in a tank near the top
of WTC7; the wreckage from the towers set it off and the
resulting firestorm brought down the building. That's the facts,
from someone who was there. He's getting me more
documentation, if you are interested.
DC"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>Gimme a break... I've been publishing news articles since November on all
>this stuff:
>http://scamusa.com
Well, that was a bunch of good typing wasted on someone who
wouldn't believe the facts if said facts could sing & dance &
put on a broadway musical to better get your attention &
illustrate their point.
Yes, Cron, everything's a scam... everything that keeps you
down, anyway. Keep looking at the world through those shit-
colored glasses of yours... if Alexander Graham Bell, Bill
Gates, and Thomas Edison had your attitude, we wouldn't have the
landlines, the computers, or the electricity to run them in
order for you to ignore the very relveant shit I just typed for
your benefit.
Neilyeah, germany supported "clinton sitting on his ass".
as well as they supported clinton during the fights in
serbien and kroatien (as i said i unfortunately dont
know the english terms), as well as they supported
bush senior during the first iraq war and bush junior
during the afghanistan war.
of course you know that,
but for the sake of making it look like the only time you got
support was when there was nothing to support, you forget
all that, just like neil. how convenient. how cheap.
ill go and continue my discussion with don, this is just
a pile of shit not worth discussing.
oh, and its SCHROEDER.
g-e-r-h-a-r-d s-c-h-r-o-e-d-e-r.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>(sigh)............and furthermore, whether you want it to be about
>Iraq........everything is about Iraq.........and was for a long time before
>we took Sadaam out if the premise of the United Nations being a viable
>entity has any validity at all. I appreciate that Germany supported the
US
>during the time that Bill Clinton was sitting on his ass"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d70b9b$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
>
>>Thats truly impressive, although I'm curious about the ambuity of the 'no
>
>>drugs' thing whether that includes alcohol or not. To me alcohol is a
>>much
>
>>more powerful drug than reefer.
>
>
> Took my first drink at the age of 29. Today, I drink about 3 beers
> a year. My experience is that there is nothing, and I mean nothing
> that screws up the brain worse tham regular pot use.
I know what you mean... however you should be aware of the hard drug
epidemic sweeping the nation. Oxycontin is the same as heroin. Crystal
Meth is truly an epidemic. That shit will kill you. Dumb 15 year old kids
are DYING all the time from this crap, but at the same time I hear people
saying reefer is the REAL problem. Its interesting.
>>> That doesn't make me better, it just shows that it can be done.
>>> And, there's a lot more of us than Rolling Stone mag would have you
>>> believe. My dad hung with Frank Sinatra before the famous
>>> Paramount show that launched his career. I was not raised by
>>> prudes or victorians. He told me that dope makes you stupid, and
>>> I have never seen any evidence to prove otherwise.
>>
>>Fair enough... especially if you think I'm stupid.
>
> That's the POINT dammit. I DON'T think you're stupid. I see a
> strong intelligence at work in all the stuff you think about. You
> would be Yoda without the dope. Sorry. Just my opinion.
Actually I'd be in jail for beating the shit out of people without the
reefer.
>>> There's a whole underground of people who just love the music,
>>> not the drugs, not the bling, not the pussy, just the music.
>>>
>>> You should join us.
>>
>>But I need ONE crutch... I have reduced my smoking from daily to once a
> week
>>or so, and am pretty much just addicted to lifting weights.
>
>
> And I eat too much, so I can't judge others.
Pretty much everyone thats quit drugs and booze have universally turned into
food addicts. My buddy who quit smoking now eats Krispy Kremes by the
DOZEN.
> I don't have the facts to discuss it. But I do not believe that Bush
> is padding his buddies pockets on the blood of this war, at least
> not as an intention.
I strongly disagree with that.
This is worth reading as one example of what I'm referring to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050627/pl_nm/iraq_halliburton_d c_3
If its a choice between incompetence and intention, I'd have to go with
intention, because I dont believe they're stupid one bit.
>
> My buddy's brother worked in WTC7 and he can tell you there
> was none of the nonsense prattled on about in the conspiracy
> theories because he was there. (The CIA had an office there,
> so that makes it a hotbed for theories) There was 40,000 gallons
> of diesel in there for electricity backup in a tank near the top
> of WTC7; the wreckage from the towers set it off and the
> resulting firestorm brought down the building. That's the facts,
> from someone who was there. He's getting me more
> documentation, if you are interested.
I know you've said that before, however the evidence is totally straight
forward. The entire federal government had offices in that building. The
building was demolished by controlled demolition. I would be very
interested in actual documentation. All the documentation I've seen is
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55776 is a reply to message #55769] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:04 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
videos from every angle with the building coming down as smooth as silk.
Silverstein himself said the building was brought down by controlled
demolition. I'll consider hearsay from you from your buddys brother, but
only in the context of the complete body of evidence. I'm not saying there
might not have been a legitimate reason for bringing down the building, but
it WAS brought down by someone that wasn't Osama."Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d70cad$1@linux...
> Well, that was a bunch of good typing wasted on someone who
> wouldn't believe the facts if said facts could sing & dance &
> put on a broadway musical to better get your attention &
> illustrate their point.
You're way off base.... Not that I really care, but you said something
about how I should get off my ass, based on some bizarre assumption. I post
that I do try to be active on the issues, and you reply with what?
> Yes, Cron, everything's a scam... everything that keeps you
> down, anyway. Keep looking at the world through those shit-
> colored glasses of yours... if Alexander Graham Bell, Bill
> Gates, and Thomas Edison had your attitude, we wouldn't have the
> landlines, the computers, or the electricity to run them in
> order for you to ignore the very relveant shit I just typed for
> your benefit.
You didn't type shit for my benefit. I didn't make scamusa.com because I
wanted to, I made it because I had to.
If you're going to continue with the inane bullshit, I'd suggest you just
not waste your time. You haven't added a damn thing to this conversation.
I've partied with Bill Gates, walked the same hallways as Thomas Edison, and
I share the same middle name as Alexander Graham Bell.you know, somehow this all feels much better to me than
the stuff ive read the past days about the hippocrite europe
(the fact that europe is dealt with as a whole is already
a joke, considering that europe currently is divided like
never before and the european union faces one of
the biggest crisis (whats the plural for crisis anyway)
in quite some time)
its also not like this discussion is new. weve had the
"patriotic derek comes to the rescue when people start
with the simplified generalizations about the area he lives in"
routine before. i kinda wonder why the game repeats itself,
but alas, thats the way it is, and its probably the last
time ill do it anyway (thats what i told myself the last time,
it actually really was just the shock about the way doug talks
these days that drew me back here, and i stand by that)
as to the thank you part, well, i did thank you, didnt i?
but i you want it worded as "thanks for the tanks", here
it is, "thanks for the tanks". better?
but in return i ask for the wording "thanks for the incredible
amounts of money as well as your ridiculous military forces,
in that order. we appreciate the help (item 1) and the
gesture (item 2)".
i know its not as catchy as "thanks for the tanks", but i
couldnt think of anything better ;-)
as to the israel part, you more or less crossposted with
my longish reply to don - consider that my statement to the
general discussion about for
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55777 is a reply to message #55773] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:09 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ce vs deescalation and my take
on israel, palaestina and What We Can Learn From It.
i hope you guys tear it into pieces. that should be interesting.
"Neil" <OIUUI@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"derek" <derekvonkrogh@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>nah, i didnt ignore it.
>>just as you i said that i believe that its a little of everything. of course
>>that includes, on behalf of all american
>>forces, you. thank you neil. your partially responsible for
>>the end of the cold war. since i, on behalf of the deescalation
>>politics of willy brandt, am also responsible and
>>the US also wanted the cold war to end, will you thank
>>me too now?
>
>Yes, in fact, I will... thank you & your countrymen for your
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55778 is a reply to message #55752] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:12 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
>hospitality while I was over there. Most of the Germans I met
>were pretty cool folks - some were total shitheads & hated
>Americans.. I choose not to stereotype the entire population
>based on those few. Thanks for putting up with our lame
>attempts to gain at least some semblance of fluency in your
>language. LOL At least I got good enough at it so that
>when I was in New York about a year ago & sitting in the hotel
>bar wating to meet someone, two ladies were speaking in German
>at the table next to me, I was able to recognize the particular
>accent/dialect & I said: "You're from Mainz, aren't you?" and
>they said: "Wiesbaden" (which for those of you who don't know,
>but may be reading this, is right across the river from Mainz).
>And thanks also for the great beer, and the eiswein, and the
>kick-ass trains that get you nearly anywhere you want to go
>quite easily, and thanks for the C-class coupe that I drive
>right now... we don't build cars that are that good here.
>
>All I wanted was "thanks for no tanks!", and you're still
>missing that point... I never said it was America alone that
>was responsible
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55779 is a reply to message #55776] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:21 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
for ending the cold war. Our presence on your
>border was 100% responsible for the Soviets staying closer to
>Halberstadt than Herzberg, and closer to Bad Langensalza than
>Bad Kissingen before said cold war came to a close... that's
>all I was saying.
>
>
>>
>>
>>as to the rest, whats there to say when you completely
>>ignore all of my points...
>>
>>- about germany and the possibility that it might NOT have
>>been a case of complete sucky ungratefulness but a case
>>of strong disagreement about the second iraq war (even more
>>likely since germany wasnt exactly the only nation that
>>didnt agree)? nothing.
>>
>>- the stuff i say that im interested in instead of
>>the useless standard bullshit? israel, rabin anyone? anyone
>>care to loose a word about the only man that ever effectively
>>reduced terror in israel? nada.
>
>I said I'd talk about Israel when I had time... I have posted a new thread
>on that... so have at it.
>
>
>>instead, theres this:
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <>Derek: "Hello, you've reached Derek the Psychic - I know what
>>>you're thinking before you even think it, how may I help you?"
>>>Caller: "If you know what I'm thinking, why do you need to ask
>>>how you may help me?"
>>
>>
>>hahaha. i didnt get it, but im sure it was funny. funny is good. thanks.
>
>You didn't get it? It was a refence to your statement "i knew
>that was coming" or whatever the exact verbage was.
>
>Neil"derek" <derekvonkrogh@gmx.net> wrote:
you forget
>all that, just like neil. how convenient.
ill take neil out of this because he now seems to remember,
for which ill be forever thankful
*cue romantic string quartet*"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
My buddy who quit smoking now eats Krispy Kremes by the
>DOZEN.
i can SO relate to that *sigh*as well as they supported clinton during the fights in
serbien and kroatien
So you think this is some kind of favor you did us when another fucking
GENOCIDE was happening in your OWN BACK YARD?????????
Dude..........we should have never had to be there in the first place and
this is EXACTLY the SHIT that I've been talking about all along.
Good riddance to this crap.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d6ed96@linux...
> No.........that's not what I said and you're obviously not getting this at
> all. Let's return to the original disagreement about stereotypes. Like it
or
> not, they exist. they are the detrius of our respective cultural heritage.
> Whether this is considered to be good or bad is not even an issue. It just
> is reality. I'kll guarantee you that the French have cultural differences
> and that b\ased on those differences, certain assumptions can be made. Are
> you denying this?
>
> I think they are pretty damned handy as I would certainly like to know a
bit
> about the cultural background of person if he or she is Jewish or Muslim
and
> I'm planning a dinner party with suckling pig as the main course.
>
> As for your apparent unwillingness to accept what I have seen with my own
> eyes after it was pointed out to me by a bunch of people who had
absolutely
> no preconceptions about the cultural proclivities of these individuals who
> happened to be Euopeans and Americans all I can say is believe what you
> want.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "derek" <derekvonkrogh@gmx.net> wrote in message news:42d6d324@linux...
> >
> > or, in short: "i know europe - cause i know some europeans
> > that live here in the US".
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55781 is a reply to message #55767] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:30 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
l to better get your attention &
>> illustrate their point.
>
>You're way off base.... Not that I really care, but you said something
>about how I should get off my ass, based on some bizarre assumption. I
post
>that I do try to be active on the issues, and you reply with what?
It' wasn't a matter of you getting of your ass, it was a
question of you feeling like the government is keeping you
down, fucking you over, preventing you from achieving your
goals - that seems to be an underlying thread to everything you
post when this sort of subject matter comes up. Being active on
the issues is NOT the same as taking the attitude of: "Dammit,
I'm going to get where I want to be, and I'm going to overcome
every obstacle in order to get there" not everyone gets where
they want to go, but you sure get a lot further with that
approach than one of: "Oh woe is me, I'm constantly getting
fucked over by everyone & everything - how will I ever survive?"; and frankly,
that's the way you come across. If
that's not really the case, then I apologize for misreading
your intent.
>> Yes, Cron, everything's a scam... everything that keeps you
>> down, anyway. Keep looking at the world through those shit-
>> colored glasses of yours... if Alexander Graham Bell, Bill
>> Gates, and Thomas Edison had your attitude, we wouldn't have the
>> landlines, the computers, or the electricity to run them in
>> order for you to ignore the very relveant shit I just typed for
>> your benefit.
>
>You didn't type shit for my benefit. I didn't make scamusa.com because
I
>wanted to, I made it because I had to.
You didn't have to, you felt compelled to... what has it gotten
you? Not materially even, but has it been a POSITIVE rewarding
experience, or has posting every conspiracy or scam you come
across simply served to make you more bitter & jaded? If it's
the latter, then I would offer that it is nothing but a
negative influence in your life.
>If you're going to continue with the inane bullshit, I'd suggest you just
>not waste your time. You haven't added a damn thing to this conversation.
Well if you think I'm inane, I'll definitely quit now... I was
trying to give you some encouragement, not more frustration.
>I've partied with Bill Gates, walked the same hallways as Thomas Edison,
and
>I share the same middle name as Alexander Graham Bell.
And that has gotten you......?
Neil"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>If you're going to continue with the inane bullshit, I'd suggest you just
>not waste your time. You haven't added a damn thing to this conversation.
Forgot to mention... the completely verifiable statistics that
I posted, rebutting your position that the economy is going
down the toilet represented which one of the following:
a.) Inane bullshit? or:
b.) Me not adding a damn thing to the conversation?
Neilyou single out whatever suits you in the particular sentence,
dont you.
yeah were oh so ungrateful bastards. you must know,
cause youre the guy that has some europeans in his neighbourhood.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>
>as well as they supported clinton during the fights in
>serbien and kroatien
>
>So you think this is some kind of favor you did us when another fucking
>GENOCIDE was happening in your OWN BACK YARD?????????
>
>Dude..........we should have never had to be there in the first place and
>this is EXACTLY the SHIT that I've been talking about all along.
>
>Good riddance to this crap.
>
>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:42d6ed96@linux...
>> No.........that's not what I said and you're obviously not getting this
at
>> all. Let's return to the original disagreement about stereotypes. Like
it
>or
>> not, they exist. they are the detrius of our respective cultural heritage.
>> Whether this is considered to be good or bad is not even an issue. It
just
>> is reality. I'kll guarantee you that the French have cultural differences
>> and that b\ased on those differences, certain assumptions can be made.
Are
>> you denying this?
>>
>> I think they are pretty damned handy as I would certainly like to know
a
>bit
>> about the cultural background of person if he or she is Jewish or Muslim
>and
>> I'm planning a dinner party with suckling pig as the main course.
>>
>> As for your apparent unwillingness to accept what I have seen with my
own
>> eyes after it was pointed out to me by a bunch of people who had
>absolutely
>> no preconceptions about the cultural proclivities of these individuals
who
>> happened to be Euopeans and Americans all I can say is believe what you
&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55784 is a reply to message #55743] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:27 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> > >Well........you may assume that my impressions of Europe are wrong,
but
>> > >these impressions were of Europeans who were *from Europe*
>>
>>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d71940$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>
>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d70cad$1@linux...
>>
>>> Well, that was a bunch of good typing wasted on someone who
>>> wouldn't believe the facts if said facts could sing & dance &
>>> put on a broadway musical to better get your attention &
>>> illustrate their point.
>>
>>You're way off base.... Not that I really care, but you said something
>
>>about how I should get off my ass, based on some bizarre assumption. I
> post
>>that I do try to be active on the issues, and you reply with what?
>
> It' wasn't a matter of you getting of your ass, it was a
> question of you feeling like the government is keeping you
> down, fucking you over, preventing you from achieving your
> goals - that seems to be an underlying thread to everything you
> post when this sort of subject matter comes up.
I never said that... I think the current administration is corrupt. I
think the military industrial complex is profiting off the war. How do you
extend that to me saying the government is keeping me down?
>Being active on
> the issues is NOT the same as taking the attitude of: "Dammit,
> I'm going to get where I want to be, and I'm going to overcome
> every obstacle in order to get there" not everyone gets where
> they want to go, but you sure get a lot further with that
> approach than one of: "Oh woe is me, I'm constantly getting
> fucked over by everyone & everything - how will I ever survive?"; and
> frankly,
> that's the way you come across. If
> that's not really the case, then I apologize for mi
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55786 is a reply to message #55780] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
your benefit.
>>
>>You didn't type shit for my benefit. I didn't make scamusa.com because
> I
>>wanted to, I made it because I had to.
>
> You didn't have to, you felt compelled to... what has it gotten
> you? Not materially even, but has it been a POSITIVE rewarding
> experience, or has posting every conspiracy or scam you come
> across simply served to make you more bitter & jaded? If it's
> the latter, then I would offer that it is nothing but a
> negative influence in your life.
Honestly I feel like a true Patriot.
>>If you're going to continue with the inane bullshit, I'd suggest you just
>
>>not waste your time. You haven't added a damn thing to this
>>conversation.
>
> Well if you think I'm inane, I'll definitely quit now... I was
> trying to give you some encouragement, not more frustration.
Thank you.
>>I've partied with Bill Gates, walked the same hallways as Thomas Edison,
> and
>>I share the same middle name as Alexander Graham Bell.
>
> And that has gotten you......?
Excuse me?.............and you haven't been singling out things to suit your particular
predjudices? Sorry, but you have and you made my point for me better than I
did so thank you. The point is, and my point all along has been that while
the really bad shit is building up, we have all been content to sit around
and watch it until people start getting killed.........don't you think it
would be better to stop it first and ask questions later? If that would
have happened with Sadaam (yeah,........that guy again) right after the
first time he violated the UN sanctions instead of waiting 10
years...............and if it would have happened in Rwanda and if it could
happen in North Korea and Iran and Sudan/Darfur I think I could support the
UN.
We seem to be pretty pissed off at each other right now and probably we have
lost mutual respect or maybe it was a friendship. It is what it is and
that's sad...........and I'm sitting here just like you wondering if we are
even on the same planet.
I didn't post my experiences to make you mad, but they were very real. I
think it's great that folks in Europe don't behave in the way that I
experienced and though you, for some reason, don't want to believe me, that
doesn't change the fact that it happened and and probably still is.....but I
hope not. I am, OTOH, happy to believe you when you say that things aren't
like this in Europe. That's good.
I'm tired of being mad Derek. You carry on if you want.
Best,
Deej
"derek" <derekvonkrogh@gmx.net> wrote in message news:42d71a75$1@linux...
>
> you single out whatever suits you in the particular sentence,
> dont you.
>
>
> yeah were oh so ungrateful bastards. you must know,
> cause youre the guy that has some europeans in his
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55789 is a reply to message #55786] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:19 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>>not waste your time. You haven't added a damn thing to this
>>conversation.
>
> Forgot to mention... the completely verifiable statistics that
> I posted, rebutting your position that the economy is going
> down the toilet represented which one of the following:
your statistics prove that people are taking on more DEBT.. did you miss
that part?
> a.) Inane bullshit? or:
> b.) Me not adding a damn thing to the conversation?
Both.Usually I just feel like I'm banging my head against the wall trying to make
a point... I still do to a certain extent, but I think we might have made
progress. I kinda understand more where people are coming from. Its
admirable to think the best about humans and believe the government is
acting in our best interest. I know people are ultimately concerned with
their own security and survival.
The politicalcompass thing was helpful to show that political beliefs are
really a complex combination of issues, at the very least needing 2 axes...
liberal/conservative context is hardly useful to categorize people.
Some people say you shouldn't catch feelings over a message board, but I
can't help it when we're talking about life and death. If anyone is still
heated... I know I've been disrespectful probably a hundred times over the
years... I'm sorry.
Anyway, I thought it was a good discussion.Man, I haven't been this addicted to an internet saga since the Mixerman
Diaries! Great discussions! Great drama! Hell, even some name calling!
Really people, I'm not being sarcastic. Good stuff.
Tony
PS - What's the record posts for an unbroken thread here on our little
group? This one has to be close.
On 7/7/05 7:14 AM, in article 42cd1ca4$1@linux, "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca>
wrote:
> Just hear about it...check your news
>
> don
>
>"derek" <derekvonkrogh@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote:
>>>right Derek. Everyone misses the point except you...
>
>
>what a stupid start for an actually very constructive and good post ;-)
Sorry you didn't like it, but I find that you are not listening either.
>absolutely right. arafat was a terrorist. PLO *leader*.
>he was that conflicts osama bin laden, if you want.
>it makes rabins experiment to reach out for this guy all
>the more scary and unreal in a way, huh? so youre absolutely right
>about this, and i completely agree with you.
So, do you think that Rabin had any more hope of success with these
people than did Clinton or anyone else? Could the drop in terrorism
be explained in some other way? Do you really think this can be
solved by negotiation?
>no, my point doesnt rely on arafat being not a terrorist.
>he was a terrorist. my point relies on *snare roll* the selfish nature
>of man. the whole trick was to give arafat a scenario that was
>more attractive to him than the current situation. works like
>a charm, every time.
No it doesn't, or it would have worked with Hussein, Kim Il Sung,
Hitler and the Branch Davidians. You are not allowing for insanity
and evil in the world and you are assuming that a rational person's
version of a more attractive situation will always be accepted.
I can tell you that this is not the case.
>arafat, at that time the closest thing there was to
>"leader of palaestina", did gain (even more) popularity and power through
>the peace process. as long as he could come t
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55790 is a reply to message #55788] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:17 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
o his people
>and show them negotiation results, they followed him.
>rabin was VERY clever about the way he did this. it was just
>enough, never too much, and he had a very precise feel about
>the tempo in which to go.
Which is like trying to conduct an orchestra without the score, on
a piece you do not know. You are bound to be made a fool of
sooner or later.
>this must have been to incredibly hard, its unbelievable, i
>really admire than man. he had to keep the fine balance
>about not asking too much from his own people (the seddlers
>and religious extremists in particular), while at the same
>time giving arafat enough to present a negotiation path to
>his people that seemed promising enough to keep the power,
>which was also the power to at least mostly keep the terror
>under control. of course, that was when the terror really
>was still mostly PLO business.
>it looked all very promising. PLO was da shit, hamas was
>not, and arafat was powerful (and even determined) enough
>to just chase and kill hamas people. it was the last
>time arafat could actually claim to have an influence on
>whether there would be terror or not, at least a very very
>big influence on how much terror there would be.
And what could you possibly dislike about the present Israeli
leadership? Draggin settlers out by the scruff of the neck,
responding to the worst terrorism with measured and rational
responses, and showing great restraint. See, this is the problem
with europe. In your arrogance, because of living in a land that
cannot envision war, you assume all violence is failure, and that
there must be a way to negotiate and finess this stuff.
Suppose there isn't? You haven't convinced me that Rabin could
have pulled it off.
>the problem was not with clinton. clinton didnt do much
>more or much less than what george bush (the father) did before.
He sure tried. And he felt very strongly about it, and intended it to
be one of his legacies.
>dont overestimate the role of the US here (more on that later).
Really, suppose we:
A. stop sending israel any money
or
B. Tell Israel to do any damn thing they want.
Think those choices might have an impact?
Here's how the palestinians could have peace in a week:
Go Ghandi on them. Sit down, inb the streets, renounce violence forever.
Ask the world for justice. They would get their demands in a week
or less, and if israel didn't like it, the american people would force it
on them by witholding any more aid.
They don't do this because of who they are. They hate israel, they
hate jews, and they intend to kill them all and throw them into the
sea. If this were not the case, they would have had peace decades
ago. Why do you euros never demand a DAMN THING from the
arabs and the palestinians, you hypocritical, arrogant fools?
Why do you not rise up in horror and demand that these acts stop?
Answer this one Derek, if you can.
Instead you speak of "root causes" and criticize Bush. It's wrong, and
foolish.
I cannot support the euro position on this, because I NEVER hear
any demands for change, or criticism of moslems coming from
europe. Just of the jews and america. Until I see otherwise,
we must stay the course.
>it of course changed when rabin was gone and benjamin netanyahu
>followed. and boy did he change course. it had been rougher times
>after rabin had been killed, and from the two options
>of quickly going back to deescalation or make some
>"flex muscle" type gestures, he chose the latter, hardly
>a surprise, that was what he was voted for.
See, any response to terrorism besides negotiation is either
"muscle flexing" or "cowboys" or "macho". And you cannot
see how america might see europe as so arrogant and sefl-absorbed
that your views are not important to us?
Until you can see the possibility that there is no other way, besides
war, to deal with these people, we cannot see that you have any
points worth listening to.
I am not evening saying that war is the only answer, just that if
you have an ideology that precludes it, and you see it always as a
failure, do not expect us to listen since you care more for your
ideology than you apparently care for our lives.
>in terms of monopoly,
>what followed with netanyahu was more or less a "go back
>to start" (locate 0 for the tape machine operators).
>it took a loong time, a way to long time, until the peace
>process even restarted.
"Peace process" what a f**king joke that term is. It is the words
that ideologues use to comfort themselves in the face of not only
failure, but the continuing loss of innocent lives.
Tell you what. You tell me that you would take a knife, and jam it
in the back of the next ghoul with a bomb, and you say thanks
to the soldiers who have saved so many lives, and we'll talk about
"peace processes". Until you allow for the full range of responses,
you are acting as an advocate for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55794 is a reply to message #55775] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 20:31 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s renounced violence? An american
president who did not force them to accept peace in this scenario
would be voted out or even impeached.
You criticize Bush, but he blasts Israel every single time they
respond to terrorism as we have. What hypocrisy!
>that actually has been
>worse now with george bush junior than it has been with
>clinton, even though george bush junior, when making and
>threat, is probably more believeable than clinton is
>(for better or worse). the US dont reign over israel - theyll
>do what THEY think is best for them. another sad irony
>here is that a lot of hatred that comes from the islamic
>world towards the US is based on the overestimated influence
>the US supposedly has on israel.
Like I said, our lack of influence on Israel is directly related to
the righteousness of their cause. The palestinians can have peace
any time they want it. They dont't want it.
>so, thats my take on the whole story. i dont claim i have
>the perfect solution. i dont say that deescalation is
>always the best option. i guess, i HOPE were all grown
>up enough to know that there is no such thing as a standard
>solution that fits for everything.
>
>but i DO think that this story is
>
>- a proof at how promising deescalation politics actually is.
>dozens of years with nothing but terror, along comes the
>only time where someone has the courage to try a deescalation
>strategy for real, and thats the time where theres the least
>terror? i say thats not a coincidence.
It's an interestng point, but I cannot see that it would have
produced a lasting peace.
>- also, while i.e. WWII is a good example that brute
>force can lead to peace, i personally believe the closer
>and more logical place to look at is the israel conflict.
>its not 60 years ago but today, and its the same "enemy"
>situation, not entire nations and classical struggle over
>territory with classic military tactics, but a war of
>cultures, islamic terrorists, no easy targets, no absolute
>security. its just the more logical comparison. state vs terror.
>unclear enemys. an incredibly complex situation.
So we eliminate leaders that sponsor terrorism, and provide hiding
places for them, we kill them, without mercy, wherever we can find,
them, and we spread modernity and democracy, and we stay at
it until we win. I believe this is the only solution and that negotiation
is impossible with islamofascists. Read the statement
of the murderer of Theo Van Gogh if you want to see the face of
the enemy.
>that is why i believe the whole approach is wrong.
>is there any less terror since this george bush practices
>this new policy?
DAMMIT, how can you repeat lies like that? WE were attacked on
911, and 3000 died. Since then, no attacks on the US, and the
attacks in europe are much less deadly than was 911.
>no theres not. so at least for now,
>i can only conclude that he failed, at least thats how
>it looks so far. whats the title of the thread again?
And if we stay the course, we can win this. If we cave, it is the
end of western civilisation and all future dealings with the islamic
world will be under threat of bombings of innocents. (until a new
great leader arises in germany perhaps, and promise to throw
off the yoke of islamofascism and pute ALL the lights out...)
>netanyahu, scharon, and yes, since he went back to
>the politics of force (in his case meaning terror), also
>arafat, they failed. theyre back at zero. they were so close.
>what i find so incredible is that ultimately, they all know it.
>fascinating how blind people can become when theres also
>always this goddamn religious aspect to it.
And what do you offer in place of this accursed religion?
Darwin? Pacifism? An enlightened social contract between
free moral people? Think these things will sell to the islamofascists?
Me neither. These are weak ideas and subject to the opinions of whoever
offers them.
Meaningless phrases full of intent, signifying nothing.
Perhaps they do not serve God at all. Perhaps at minimum they
have perverted Islam? Your hatred of religion will not offer an
alternative.
DCRandy Newman wrote a satire (tinyurl.com/d83pb) many years ago, the tagline
of which, best expresses my current view on the best solution to the
unceasing problem of terrorism emanating from middle east command and
means.... which is to say "most" terrorism.
I really am there. This is THE one way to ratt out the enemy and
simultaneously send the message to any further suiters: "Step right up for
your one-way bullet train to Allah, no purchase necessary, see fineprint on
tip of warhead for details."
The thing that put me over the edge was the piece of human waste that blew
up the little kids a couple of days ago while one of our guys was handing
out candy to them.
Anybody brave enough to say they think the same thing or have we all cowed
down to international version of the old Rodney King mantra, "Can't we all
just get long." Is there some plausible notion or a reason to believe that
eventually, if we just keep doing what we're doing, the extremist followers
of Bin ladin will just all of a sudden see it our way and fold up the biz
and integrate into peaceful society???
Dubya Mark Wilson
"Neil" <OIUIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d6fc20$1@linux...
>
> In a nutshell...
> I think if there's room & resources enough for both Israelis &
> Palestinians in the region they want to live in, I think they
> should quit fighting & come up with a plan. HOWEVER... this is
> essentially a 3,000 year-old family feud we're looking at over
> there, and my point of view may be a little too simplistic to
> deal with the situation. I am not very familiar with the
> condition of the agricultural situation there, but I understand
> it's not the best in the world - in that case, both sides
> should realize that there may not be enough resources in that
> immediate area to provide for as many peple as want to live
> there... that's a problem, because you can't import everything
> food-wise. Israel is our ally, and we should stand by them, but
> I also hold the position that some kind of solution could be
> arrived at if both sides want peace more than war. OK, now
> this is the part where you rebut & tell me what a narrow-minded
> American I am, and how wrong my opinion is because you're
> Eurosuperior to me and have a much better world view because
> you read about cowboys & rodeos in Oklahoma & the drug problems
> in Miami in Der Spiegel & had a US soldier live next door to
> you & he was a dick, and of course, all Americans are exactly
> like he was.
>
> BTW, the Israeli thing is VERY different than the situation we
> face with radical Islam... they do NOT want peace more than
> war, they only want to kill all the "infidels" and sing praise
> & glory to their blood-soaked god Allah, while trying to knock
> the rest of the world back into the 12th century, economically,
> societally, and politically. So, knowing this, and seeing what
> they've done beginning on 9/11 and continuing to this day, I
> think a slightly "different" approach is what's called for.
>
> Neil
>"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>I know what you mean... however you should be aware of the hard drug
>epidemic sweeping the nation. Oxycontin is the same as heroin.
My mom and my sister, both addicted to it. It's shit.
Crystal
>Meth is truly an epidemic. That shit will kill you. Dumb 15 year old
kids
>are DYING all the time from this crap, but at the same time I hear people
>saying reefer is the REAL problem. Its interesting.
I never compared them I said that reefer makes you dull in the mind.
It does, and you know it.
>Actually I'd be in jail for beating the shit out of people without the
>reefer.
Is that why the Jamaicans are so peaceful? heh
>> My buddy's brother worked in WTC7 and he can tell you there
>> was none of the nonsense prattled on about in the conspiracy
>> theories because he was there. (The CIA had an office there,
>> so that makes it a hotbed for theories) There was 40,000 gallons
>> of diesel in there for electricity backup in a tank near the top
>> of WTC7; the wreckage from the towers set it off and the
>> resulting firestorm brought down the building. That's the facts,
>> from someone who was there. He's getting me more
>> documentation, if you are interested.
>I know you've said that before, however the evidence is totally straight
>forward. The entire federal government had offices in that building. The
>building was demolished by controlled demolition. I would be very
>interested in actual documentation. All the documentation I've seen is
>videos from every angle with the building coming down as smooth as silk.
Well, my firend's brother was there. I will send you what he
gives me.
DC"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d72f42$1@linux...
>
> Well, my firend's brother was there. I will send you what he
> gives me.
much appreciated"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d72f42$1@linux...
re: the personal info you shared... :(
>>Meth is truly an epidemic. That shit will kill you. Dumb 15 year old
> kids
>>are DYING all the time from this crap, but at the same time I hear people
>
>>saying reefer is the REAL problem. Its interesting.
>
> I never compared them I said that reefer makes you dull in the mind.
>
> It does, and you know it.
definitely... I hear that mj is the REAL problem from people like the US
drug czar. I saw him give a speech where he says everything comes down to
marijuana. "You want to fix the meth problem, you fix the marijuana
problem" "You want to fix the heroin problem, you fix the marijuana
problem" Thats what I find interesting... I mean if there is anything I
actually do know a little about its the black market, and mj world and the
hard drug world are separate, so I really dont get the logic, but it seems
to be some type of talking point.
>>Actually I'd be in jail for beating the shit out of people without the
>>reefer.
>
> Is that why the Jamaicans are so peaceful? heh
jah mon! u want your hair braided mon?Justin,
I think the problem with these topics is that everyone seems pretty hell
bent on changing somebody else's politics in the course of a few news group
posts. That isn't ever going to happen. It takes years for each of us to
develop our various points of view. The best we can do is try to understand
each other and live with the fact that everyone doesn't share the same view.
I'm confident that if we all were to meet somewhere, with no discussion of
our personal politics, we would get along famously. Don't get me wrong, this
kind of discourse is good. It helps us understand each other better, if even
just a little. My wish is that we can all have these discussions, and even
when they've been heated, at the end still be the great international
community of PARIS people. That's it, the ICPP! Well, er...maybe a different
acronym would be better. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I
respect you all, weather we share the same view or not.
Tony
On 7/14/05 10:05 PM, in article 42d7280a$1@linux, "justcron"
<justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
> Usually I just feel like I'm banging my head against the wall trying to make
> a point... I still do to a certain extent, but I think we might have made
> progress. I kinda understand more where people are coming from. Its
> admirable to think the best about humans and believe the government is
> acting in our best interest. I know people are ultimately concerned with
> their own security and survival.
>
> The politicalcompass thing was helpful to show that political beliefs are
> really a complex combination of issues, at the very least needing 2 axes...
> liberal/conservative context is hardly useful to categorize people.
>
> Some people say you shouldn't catch feelings over a message board, but I
> can't help it when we're talking about life and death. If anyone is still
> heated... I know I've been disrespectful probably a hundred times over the
> years... I'm sorry.
>
> Anyway, I thought it was a good discussion.
>
>> My mom and my sister, both addicted to it. It's shit.
Man, that's too bad Cron..........but you know that. I'm really sorry to
hear this.
Deej
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d72f42$Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anyone feel like we might have made some progress with the [message #55799 is a reply to message #55792] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:12 |
Tony
Messages: 7
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
r, both addicted to it. It's shit.
>>
>>Man, that's too bad Cron..........but you know that. I'm really sorry to
>>hear this.
>>
>>Deej
>
>Sorry Don,
I've lost friends to this too. I agree with you about drugs.
Deej
"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d73dcb$1@linux...
>
> It was my mom and sister, not Cron's.
>
> My sister is dead now, and mom is ailing. There is no getting off
> that stuff once you become really hooked, when you are physically
> ill as well. They both ended up in wheelchairs. One died.
>
> F**k drugs.
>
> DC
>
>
> Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >> My mom and my sister, both addicted to it. It's shit.
> >
> >Man, that's too bad Cron..........but you know that. I'm really sorry to
> >hear this.
> >
> >Deej
>
>Sorry man,
Overwhelmed by the numbers.
;o)
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42d73d88@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42d73aae@linux...
> >> My mom and my sister, both addicted to it. It's shit.
> >
> > Man, that's too bad Cron..........but you know that. I'm really sorry to
> > hear this.
>
> hey man check who you're quoting...
>
> > "DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> wrote in message news:42d72f42$1@linux...
> >>
> >> &qu
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55800 is a reply to message #55796] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:09 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ot;justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I know what you mean... however you should be aware of the hard drug
> >> >epidemic sweeping the nation. Oxycontin is the same as heroin.
> >>
> >> My mom and my sister, both addicted to it. It's shit.
> >>
> >>
> >> Crystal
> >> >Meth is truly an epidemic. That shit will kill you. Dumb 15 year
old
> >> kids
> >> >are DYING all the time from this crap, but at the same time I hear
> >> >people
> >>
> >> >saying reefer is the REAL problem. Its interesting.
> >>
> >> I never compared them I said that reefer makes you dull in the mind.
> >>
> >> It does, and you know it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Actually I'd be in jail for beating the shit out of people without the
> >> >reefer.
> >>
> >> Is that why the Jamaicans are so peaceful? heh
> >>
> >>
> >> >> My buddy's brother worked in WTC7 and he can tell you there
> >> >> was none of the nonsense prattled on about in the conspiracy
> >> >> theories because he was there. (The CIA had an office there,
> >> >> so that makes it a hotbed for theories) There was 40,000 gallons
> >> >> of diesel in there for electricity backup in a tank near the top
> >> >> of WTC7; the wreckage from the towers set it off and the
> >> >> resulting firestorm brought down the building. That's the facts,
> >> >> from someone who was there. He's getting me more
> >> >> documentation, if you are interested.
> >>
> >>
> >> >I know you've said that before, however the evidence is totally
straight
> >>
> >> >forward. The entire federal government had offices in that building.
> > The
> >>
> >> >building was demolished by controlled demolition. I would be very
> >> >interested in actual documentation. All the documentation I've seen
is
> >>
> >> >videos from every angle with the building coming down as smooth as
silk.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, my firend's brother was there. I
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55801 is a reply to message #55800] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:37 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
will send you what he
> >> gives me.
> >>
> >> DC
> >
> >
>
>Sounds like Haas panning -- trick with doubled track, slightly delayed
and panned the other way... Was discussed hear a few months back --
you might try a search--
Chas.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:30:46 -0400, "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>I received a mix from a local AE a few days ago and I'm totally mind
>boggled.
>
>There are instruments and vocls placed outside the normal stereo
>image...like 12" outside of the speakers.
>
>I was wondering if any of you might know how this was done...he swears no
>esoteric plugins were used in the creation of this effect.
>
>Don
>
>ps. I'll try to get permission to post the song so you can hear what I'm
>talking about...it's pretty impressive
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d74105@linux...
> Sorry man,
>
> Overwhelmed by the numbers.
>
thought maybe it was the beers... hehe just jokin...
its been real... my brain is about to go into standbyNot that every question can be "perfect" but if the outset of this test is
to determine or assist in determining the political locale of an individual
or group, "better" questions would be best whereas "imperfect" presumptuous
ones, it could be said, are clandestine at worst, indiscriminate at best.
Case in point, when I tested, I found myself feeling a little tweaked that
almost every question, for me, was answered with "disagree" when, in fact,
changing or adding or subtracting just one word from the question could have
and would have yielded an "agree" response to an identical question.
Is it therefore not implausible to think that the formulations of these
questions intentionally poses an emotional sub-plot to cause a more liberal
respondent to think or feel he is an agreeable person, to continue answering
emotionally whereas, a more conservative thinker, by same questions, could
reasonably be made to feel out of step and highly disagreeable with his/her
repetitive "disagree" responses. An easily predictable downside being; the
common desire to "fit in" skews the response data by emotionally
manipulating the respondent.
Believe me, it aint the first or last time this has been done.
Then you get to Deej's concern where the question takes a position, which
position, when the question is answered, is assumed to be an agreed upon
position by both questioner and respondent when, in fact, that is not the
case at all. How reliable is an answer to such a question and if not
reliable, what use can it possible serve? And how reliable are the answers
to a series of questions, of which questions it can
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55805 is a reply to message #55801] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:36 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
alks
about that for decades, but no action was taken before because
no one wanted to piss off America. Once the cold war was over &
Fulda looked like that picture I posted instead of acres &
acres of Soviet armor, then no one gave a shit what America
thought... irnic, innit? That's partly what I meant earlier
with the "Fuck the Americans" comment". Before it was all about
doing good business with us, and supporting us politically as
allies... now it's all about hammering our companies that try
to do business over there, and politically it's more & more
about taking sides with anyone BUT America, because we're no
longer as important to you as your Europartners.
Keep in mind, I'm not singling out Germany, OK? I'm talking
about Europe in general here. That's the American point of view
for the large part... so you can see where we're coming from,
yes?
>as to the thank you part, well, i did thank you, didnt i?
>but i you want it worded as "thanks for the tanks", here
>it is, "thanks for the tanks". better?
No, no, no... it was: "Thanks for NO tanks" (meaning no SOVIET
tanks) :)
>but in return i ask for the wording "thanks for the incredible
>amounts of money as well as your ridiculous military forces,
>in that order. we appreciate the help (item 1) and the
>gesture (item 2)".
OK, not sure what you mean here... do you mean the incredible
amounts of money that your country contributed to the NATO
alliance? Not to belittle that - you guys did what you could,
and you were our best partner from everything I can tell, but
that money didn't go to us, it went to the whole European
defense package. You guys contributed a lot, but that makes
sense because you stood to lose the most - your country would
have been the first to be overrun if we couldn't turn the enemy
back, and would have suffered the most potential for damage
since that's where all the first-strike fighting would have
occurred.
On the other hand, we would have lost the most lives... if I
remember correctly, when our Army was at it's peak, we had
about 800,000 troops total - over 400,000 of them were in
Europe, with most of the ground forces stationed in Germany.
You probably don't know this part, but a big deterrent to the
Soviets was our Pershing missiles (tactical nukes); when your
Grunen Party forced their hand in Parliament & made us take
them out of there, that left us with ony conventional forces
to repel an attack that certainly would have been preceded by
Russian nukes winging their way to our bases (and your soil)
there... here's part two coming up:
You probably realize that the advance of the Red Army would have
had to have come from two points... one was the Fulda/Bad
Hersfeld area (commonly known as the Fulda Gap), and the other
was straight down the autobahn the comes out of Berlin, through
Potsdam, and straight on towards Wittenburg, then Hannover
(I think it's A-24, but check me on that). In both cases, we
had rivers in our way, fucking up our maneuvering
capabilites... in the first instance, it was the Fulda River;
in the 2nd area, it was the Leine... how many bridges over the
Leine are there in or near Hannover? Is it still just four? So,
we'd have been toast once we got backed up to the river there.
I can't remember how many bridges there are around Fulda, but
again, we would have been toast if the Russians struck first...
very little maneuvering room to defend - if you've never been
out to that area, you ought to go & see what I'm talking about.
It's more or less an open-air museum now.
It was definitely a first-strike scenario if there were no
nukes involved... whoever would have hi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 19:47:12 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03302 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
