Discussion:
Should Jessica Lynch be charged for cowardice?
(too old to reply)
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-07 17:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
pug
2003-11-07 19:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
Just because you'd be willing does not mean she was.
Chas
2003-11-07 20:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying?
She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not inconceivable even
with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed weapon is
a skill, and she may not have had it taught- or freaked in a combat
situation and had no supervision still alive. If she was carrying the weapon
without a round in the chamber, she may have failed to charge it correctly
as she prepared to engage; hesitated, or not operated smoothly.

Chas
Cindi
2003-11-08 07:10:26 UTC
Permalink
"Chas" <***@chasclements.com> wrote in message news:5dWdnfdw_-ImnjGiRVn-***@comcast.com...
|
| She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not inconceivable
even
| with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed weapon
is
| a skill, and she may not have had it taught- or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.

Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely familiar
with what American basic training entails.

Cindi
Zippy the Pinhead
2003-11-08 14:14:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 02:10:26 -0500, "Cindi"
Post by Cindi
|
| She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not inconceivable
even
| with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed weapon
is
| a skill, and she may not have had it taught- or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.
Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely familiar
with what American basic training entails.
SPORTS
Ken Smith
2003-11-08 14:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cindi
|
| She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not inconceivable
even
| with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed weapon
is
| a skill, and she may not have had it taught-
If we're not training 'em to use a friggin' gun, what are we teaching
them to do? If that gun is my life, I'm sure as hell going to want to
know how to fix the damn thing.
Post by Cindi
or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.
This sounds more likely.
Post by Cindi
Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely familiar
with what American basic training entails.
Cindi
Mark A
2003-11-08 15:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
If we're not training 'em to use a friggin' gun, what are we teaching
them to do? If that gun is my life, I'm sure as hell going to want to
know how to fix the damn thing.
Post by Chas
or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.
This sounds more likely.
Jessica was a logistics soldier who was trained to bring supplies to the
troops. She had only limited training to use weapons, probably only during
basic training..
Paul J. Adam
2003-11-08 22:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
Jessica was a logistics soldier who was trained to bring supplies to the
troops. She had only limited training to use weapons, probably only during
basic training..
She's a prime target (frontline troops don't fight for long without
beans, bullets, batteries, and fuel - it's the RLC or equivalent who
delivers them) and needs to be able to at least offer a more credible
defence than a jammed rifle and prayer to an enemy attack.

Serious system problem if "supply troops" don't believe that their lives
may depend on their ability to (a) maintain their weapons in firing
condition, (b) use them effectively when necessary.

Nobody's expecting logistics troops to be ready to swap places with
Delta, SAS, Rangers or Paras... but if they can't offer credible
resistance, why not just subcontract their jobs to cheaper civilians?
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
cornytheclown
2003-11-13 13:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
Post by Ken Smith
If we're not training 'em to use a friggin' gun, what are we teaching
them to do? If that gun is my life, I'm sure as hell going to want to
know how to fix the damn thing.
Post by Chas
or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.
This sounds more likely.
Jessica was a logistics soldier who was trained to bring supplies to the
troops. She had only limited training to use weapons, probably only during
basic training..
Her hand was mangled , her leg crushed , she suffered internal damage
to her body during the wreck......

How could she be expeced to fight........she passed out from her
injuries....

Americas hero is now turned on by he very same americans who called
her a hero...because she told the truth of her experience.

The sad thing about this whole situation is that america was basically
lied to by the administration and are too stupid to realize
this........also there were other people who died fighting all around
jessica and no one can name these people.....these soldiers who died
fighting have not even recieved any recognition from the government.

Jessica Lynch went to Iraq knowing she could die there just like all
the others who went and are there........she did not ask for the
government to make up all the bullshit surrounding her and the so
called "rescue".

The whole story was concocted by the government knowing that they
could rally america around a blond doe eyed soldier and make them
forget the raping of the american taxpayer... which is precisely what
happened.

Jessica Lynch along with all the others over there should be respected
for doing their duty.

I knew the minute she started to clear her concscience and told the
truth that america would begin to crucify her....americans would
rather have sugar coated lies than the truth......
Fred the Red Shirt
2003-11-08 19:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cindi
|
| She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not inconceivable
even
Post by Cindi
| with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed weapon
is
Post by Cindi
| a skill, and she may not have had it taught-
If we're not training 'em to use a friggin' gun, what are we teaching
them to do? If that gun is my life, I'm sure as hell going to want to
know how to fix the damn thing.
According to the Post, only half the troops in Iraq have been issued
rifles. It may be the case that a typical tank crew in a typical tank
battle doesn't need any M-16s but now they are armed with 9 mm pistols
while chasing guys on foot in the streets of Bagdad.
--
FF
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cindi
or freaked in a combat
| situation and had no supervision still alive.
This sounds more likely.
Post by Cindi
Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely familiar
with what American basic training entails.
Cindi
belt
2003-11-09 16:49:07 UTC
Permalink
to: FF

As a former tanker, I can tell you that they DO NOT go chasing through the
streets for anyone. Its not in the ROE for the given arms. M9 is standard
issue for every single tanker..then the loader also has an M16/M4.

If it came to chasing in the streets and door to door hunting, they would
dismount the coax and loaders m249. Ive fired it from the hip--not really
hard, just have to get used to the lack of full grip.

our standard idea was that if we had to dismount....we'd shoot the person
giving that order.(and that was from basic training)

--belt
ZZBunker
2003-11-09 22:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by belt
to: FF
As a former tanker, I can tell you that they DO NOT go chasing through the
streets for anyone. Its not in the ROE for the given arms. M9 is standard
issue for every single tanker..then the loader also has an M16/M4.
Former tankers always say that though. But, they have to be reminded
day every though, that you can't even fit *1* tank, nevermind a
battalion of tanks on a street. You can fit a few on the
French things called boulevards. But since boulevards
usually have embassys and Generals on them, rather than
handgrenades, the CIA needs to reminded that their tanks and
missles are somewhat irrelevent to police work. Given that we don't
have to know where they live, we know where
their boss lives. And more importantly since streets come with
white lines rather than lane dividers, you need a cheap
hooker and his lawyer rather than a tank to patrol a street.
Post by belt
If it came to chasing in the streets and door to door hunting, they would
dismount the coax and loaders m249. Ive fired it from the hip--not really
hard, just have to get used to the lack of full grip.
our standard idea was that if we had to dismount....we'd shoot the person
giving that order.(and that was from basic training)
--belt
Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman
2003-11-09 18:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Chas
Post by Chas
She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not
inconceivable
even
Post by Chas
with the assist on the newer models of the M-16. Clearing a jammed
weapon
is
Post by Chas
a skill, and she may not have had it taught-
If we're not training 'em to use a friggin' gun, what are we
teaching them to do? If that gun is my life, I'm sure as hell going
to want to know how to fix the damn thing.
Post by Chas
or freaked in a combat
Post by Chas
situation and had no supervision still alive.
This sounds more likely.
Post by Chas
Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely
familiar with what American basic training entails.
Cindi
A rifle is a rifle, a side arm is a side arm, a gun is a toy or a shotgun.
The M-16 is a rifle. Doubt that, spend a day on the firing range with a DI
and call it a gun where he can hear you. Your arms will be hurting after
you had to hold your *rifle* strait out parallel to the ground and arms
fully extended for about the next 4 to 6 hours. And that is if he liked
you. If he did not, you would run around a field doing that right through
till 15 minutes before retreat.

--
MattA
mailto:***@comcast.net?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/
Chas
2003-11-09 18:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman
A rifle is a rifle, a side arm is a side arm, a gun is a toy or a shotgun.
Except when it's mounted. An aircraft rifle is a gun; a ship's rifle is
called a gun, a pintle mount on a jeep is for a 'gun'. All firearms can be
called a gun, but not all individual arms are referred to that way.
Post by Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman
The M-16 is a rifle. Doubt that, spend a day on the firing range with a DI
and call it a gun where he can hear you.
don't take off your 'hat' either; go down a 'ladder', or 'mop' the 'floor'.

Chas
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-12 17:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman
A rifle is a rifle, a side arm is a side arm, a gun is a toy or a shotgun.
Except when it's mounted. An aircraft rifle is a gun; a ship's rifle
is called a gun, a pintle mount on a jeep is for a 'gun'. All
firearms can be called a gun, but not all individual arms are
referred to that way.
Well then Johnny, Get Your Gun ...
Post by Chas
Post by Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman
The M-16 is a rifle. Doubt that, spend a day on the firing range
with a DI and call it a gun where he can hear you.
don't take off your 'hat' either; go down a 'ladder', or 'mop' the 'floor'.
Chas
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-08 17:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cindi
Post by Chas
She said her weapon jammed before she got off a shot; not
inconceivable even with the assist on the newer models of the M-16.
Clearing a jammed weapon is a skill, and she may not have had it
taught- or freaked in a combat situation and had no supervision
still alive.
Is it possible that there are US military personnel who have not been
taught IA drills??? I'm in the Army in Canada, so am not entirely
familiar with what American basic training entails.
The usual ...
They have friendly fire drills, using Canadian troops as targets.
They have civilian straifing and bombing runs, using Italian Tourists as
targets.
They have advanced smart-targeting drills, using Journalists and Chinese
Embassies as targets.
They have advanced tank retreat drills, using Panamanian civilians as roadways.
Plus the basics looting, lying, lynching and raping ...
Post by Cindi
Cindi
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
NoGoals
2003-11-07 22:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Colin Campbell
2003-11-08 01:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoGoals
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Vox is a troll. His only purpose is to get you to respond to his
posts. If you really want to punish him - ignore him.




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-08 03:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by NoGoals
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi
captors ...
You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Vox is a troll. His only purpose is to get you to respond to his
posts. If you really want to punish him - ignore him.
Colin is a coward, arm-chair chickenhawk and troll-baiter. His only
purpose is to label those he disagrees with and can't out argue as trolls.
If you really want to punish Colin, flush him down the toilet like the
turd that he is.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-08 03:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoGoals
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Eat shit you gutless California dope smoker ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Fred J. McCall
2003-11-08 03:11:18 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (NoGoals) wrote:

:"=> Vox Populi ©" <***@popu.li> wrote in message news:<%dQqb.962$***@news.uswest.net>...
:> mail wrote:
:>
:> The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
:
:You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
:hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
:remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.

And so you give him the very attention his pathetic little ego craves
in order to validate his own meaningless existence to himself.

Killfile the cretin and have done with it.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-08 03:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by NoGoals
Post by => Vox Populi ©
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi
captors ...
You are a real fucking asshole. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of the
remote regions of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
And so you give him the very attention his pathetic little ego craves
in order to validate his own meaningless existence to himself.
Killfile the cretin and have done with it.
Why don't you go back to your private circle jerk with Colin ...
and if you ask him real nice, be might give you a reach around ...
you gutless chickenhawk ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-08 17:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoGoals
. I hope Ms. Lynch's family gets their
hands on you. Failing that I'd like to give you a private tour of
Truth often hurts eh?
Hurts like those Iraqi cocks penetrating Jessica's pink puckered anus ...
http://english.aljazeera.net
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
A. Dulles Soberes
2003-11-08 00:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
You guys are taking the wrong approach. It is not our little innocent
20 year old Jessica's fault that she was put in the situation she was
in. What infuriates most is that Georgie started a war that we didn't
have to fight.

(1) Iraq was not a threat. It has no readily deployable
biological/chemical weapons; otherwise, they would have used it during
the American invasion. What else do they get to lose? I mean,
Georgie has now killed Saddam's only two sons plus his favorite
grandchild. What else is he waiting for if he got any? I mean, there
were Iraqi people strapping themselves with bombs to do the kamakaze.
Why wouldn't they use it if they had bigger or more lethal weapons to
inflict maximum damage? Either that ALL these Iraqi suicide bombers
are stupid or ALL THOSE neo-cons still insisting about Iraqi WMD are
stupid.

(2) Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Forget about yellow cakes and the
ads popped by self-serving businessman like Ahmed Shalabi. What they
gave us is a scam, and they charged big bucks for it. We were stupid,
twice.

(3)The Iraqi regime _was_ not linked to Osama bin Laden and his
network "The Qaeda" to perpetuate terrorism against America before the
invasion. Despite how the Georgie/Cheney/Rummy crowd want to link the
two things in the same sentence, saying doesn't make it so.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
11." --Georgie, 9-17-2003, 181 days after the Invasion of Iraq began

(4) Georgie was offered the chance to dip his hand into the control of
Iraqi oil Plus American troops on ground to search for Weapons of Mass
Destructions. But he refused.

(5) Lastly, if getting back at Saddam was on top of the priority,
Georgie was offered the chance to fight Saddam, one-on-one,
mano-a-mano. But then he refused again. Being at least half a
generation younger, you'd expect Georgie to win if things got physical
and there was no gun involved. Any child can pull the trigger. Why
didn't Georgie take up on Saddam's offer? It is because deep inside,
Georgie is a coward and his color shows when it is his time to step up
to the plate.

Georgie showed his cowardice when he was asked on his National Guard
application whether he wanted to see action oversea. His decision to
forsake his duty to fulfill his obligation as a soldier further
demonstrates that getting into the Guard is just a ruse to dodge the
draft to Vietnam. I was more than willing to let him go even if he
cut in front of the line due to the courtesy of his father. Sigh...

Georgie showed his cowardice when he is the first and only one to
shrink from the shouting match after he started it with North Korea.
Abraham Lincoln once told a story about two dogs barking most
ferociously across the fence. When the two dogs discovered that there
was a hole in the fence, they both ran head first into the house.

Being cautious is a good thing, much better than being reckless with
emotions. But then, run that you may, I didn't expect Georgie to be
the first dog to run when a fight seemed imminent.

So, it all come down to why we are in Iraq and why we didn't support
our troops better when we got to Iraq. Frankly, Jessica Lynch is more
of a soldier than Georgie ever will be. Tragedies happened in war, as
it did to our pretty face yet so innocent little girl who didn't even
finish college.

Now the question is, what do we do about it? What did Georgie Bush do
to catch those perpetuators?!? Burn the whole village if that's what
it takes to get those war criminals, I don't care. Don't we have Iraq
under our control? Didn't the banner say "Mission Accomplished" when
Georgie was doing his photo ops on USS Abraham Lincoln? Isn't Georgie
going to right this wrong, especially it was he who sent our little
flower over there? Oh, the well-being of our troops was never his
responsibility, you'd say? BTW, Halloween happens only once a year, I
hope I'd never see Georgie dress like soldier when he isn't one.
Georgie would never redress justice for the rape of Jessica when his
daughter is having orgies in America? Sigh...
Post by => Vox Populi ©
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
--
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html?cnn=yes

Have you forgotten that invading Iraq has nothing to do with the
culprits who perpetuated 9/11?
=======================================================
ADS


"Yes, I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for
**90** days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I
know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of
instant--instant news... But it's going to take time for us to gather
the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles
of documents that we have uncovered."
-- Georgie, 7-30-2003 Rose Garden Press Conference, in response to the
question asking whether Georgie had "some definitive" links for the
Saddam-Al Qaeda claims before the Iraqi Invasion (apparantly, Georgie
was still on his fishing expedition 90 days after the invasion)


"Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of
great nations built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the
weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of
cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of
Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free
peoples.."
-- Georgie, SOTU 2003

"You know what I think about Saddam. [laughter in the audience]
Hahaha..."--Georgie

"I am a patient man, and when I say I am a patient, I means I am a
patient man."--Georgie
Ken Smith
2003-11-08 14:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss.
But her literary agent knows.... ;)
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Post by => Vox Populi ©
How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
You guys are taking the wrong approach. It is not our little innocent
20 year old Jessica's fault that she was put in the situation she was
in. What infuriates most is that Georgie started a war that we didn't
have to fight.
Moi, aussi. If we actually had a reason for going in there that passed
the smell test, I'd be behind Bush 100%. But I rather suspect that they
did know why they were going in there -- and it's not an answer that, if
they were candid, we would find even remotely palatable.
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
(1) Iraq was not a threat.
Indisputable. Al-Qaeda has the tools and the talent to make their
own WMD right here -- look at what Tim McVeigh did, and he was
a lot less capable. Most of the real nasty agents can be put together
by a Pharm.D. in his basement; the problem is in disseminating them.
For 9/11, they got their money from the Saudis and their training in
Florida. So, why did they need Saddam?
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
(2) Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
Nor were they likely to obtain them in the near future.
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
(3)The Iraqi regime _was_ not linked to Osama bin Laden and his
network
When Colon spewed that shit at the UN, I was stunned. The BBC
transcribed the tape, thereby outing him as the liar and whore he is.
I lost a lot of respect for him that day.
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
11." --Georgie, 9-17-2003, 181 days after the Invasion of Iraq began
[snip]
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Georgie showed his cowardice when he was asked on his National Guard
application whether he wanted to see action oversea. His decision to
forsake his duty to fulfill his obligation as a soldier further
demonstrates that getting into the Guard is just a ruse to dodge the
draft to Vietnam. I was more than willing to let him go even if he
cut in front of the line due to the courtesy of his father. Sigh...
Everybody did. If you had a father or uncle in the right place, you
avoided 'Nam. From Pat Robberson to G. Damnfool Quayle to the
Shrub, it all added up the same way.
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Georgie showed his cowardice when he is the first and only one to
shrink from the shouting match after he started it with North Korea.
Abraham Lincoln once told a story about two dogs barking most
ferociously across the fence. When the two dogs discovered that there
was a hole in the fence, they both ran head first into the house.
Being cautious is a good thing, much better than being reckless with
emotions. But then, run that you may, I didn't expect Georgie to be
the first dog to run when a fight seemed imminent.
So, it all come down to why we are in Iraq and why we didn't support
our troops better when we got to Iraq. Frankly, Jessica Lynch is more
of a soldier than Georgie ever will be. Tragedies happened in war, as
it did to our pretty face yet so innocent little girl who didn't even
finish college.
Now the question is, what do we do about it? What did Georgie Bush do
to catch those perpetuators?!? Burn the whole village if that's what
it takes to get those war criminals, I don't care. Don't we have Iraq
under our control? Didn't the banner say "Mission Accomplished" when
Georgie was doing his photo ops on USS Abraham Lincoln? Isn't Georgie
going to right this wrong, especially it was he who sent our little
flower over there? Oh, the well-being of our troops was never his
responsibility, you'd say? BTW, Halloween happens only once a year, I
hope I'd never see Georgie dress like soldier when he isn't one.
But he was absolutely right! Bush's mission WAS accomplished
-- wresting control of the Senate from those pesky Democrats!
Karl Rove sold that war like Goebbels sold the war with Poland.
Anyone with a lick of sense would have known that we'd be in
for what we're seeing right now: a guerilla war, which the Ba'ath
Party is prosecuting brilliantly. And of course, to the victors --
especially Halliburton, and all the other Bush 'Pioneers' who put
that toad into office -- go the spoils. Don't you suppose it would
have been better to just cut Halliburton a check and be done with
it?
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Georgie would never redress justice for the rape of Jessica when his
daughter is having orgies in America? Sigh...
Daughters. And what a terrible twosome they are.... :)
Post by A. Dulles Soberes
Post by => Vox Populi ©
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
--
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html?cnn=yes
Have you forgotten that invading Iraq has nothing to do with the
culprits who perpetuated 9/11?
=======================================================
ADS
"Yes, I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for
**90** days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I
know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of
instant--instant news... But it's going to take time for us to gather
the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles
of documents that we have uncovered."
-- Georgie, 7-30-2003 Rose Garden Press Conference, in response to the
question asking whether Georgie had "some definitive" links for the
Saddam-Al Qaeda claims before the Iraqi Invasion (apparantly, Georgie
was still on his fishing expedition 90 days after the invasion)
"Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of
great nations built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the
weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of
cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of
Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free
peoples.."
-- Georgie, SOTU 2003
"You know what I think about Saddam. [laughter in the audience]
Hahaha..."--Georgie
"I am a patient man, and when I say I am a patient, I means I am a
patient man."--Georgie
Spread Eagle
2003-11-09 01:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Both and each of you two nimrods need to go out into your yards, or in
to the streets near your homes, or, failing that, to the nearest Home
Depot, and obtain by whatever means a single cobblestone-style brick.
New or used, doesn't matter. Once obtained and accomplished, return to
your computer and then and there club yourself three times alongside
the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
prescribed doses.

The new mental outlook will include certain realizations, to-wit:
the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
not having so-called "WMDs" (actually should ought properly referred
to as "NBC" or "NBC devices" - the failure of which is your first clue
that the addressant or interlocutor using such term is possessed with
achieving a **political** objective and/or axe to grind, and NOT with
a mere genuine concern); and, that the invasion and toppling WAS
NEVER on account of any supposed DIRECT connection between al Qaeda
and Saddam or bin Laden and Saddam, or 9/11 and Saddam (and none were
ever actually and expressly alleged); you will also realize that it
doesn't hurt, and fact helps, if other people around the world believe
that so-called "WMDs" and 9/11 connections are the motivation, because
it camoflagues the **real** reasons for the invasion and toppling, and
Bush critics and naysayers will spend much energy and waste much time
chasing down those dead-end trails, having them thusly preoccupied
being a part of the plan; and, you'll be inclined to actually look at
and study maps of the region, and you'll be struck by the enormous
strategic location of Iraq, with Iran on one side, Syria on another
side, Kuwait on another side, Turkey to the north, which enormous
strategic location, it will dawn on you, comprises the **real**
reasons for the invasion and toppling; and then, yes, there's oil,
and it will all click into place. Iraq is the **perfect** platform
from which to wrench the middle east out of it 7th century mentality,
from which terrorism incubates and springs, and bring it and its
economy into the post-industial age. No small task, but it has to
start somewhere, and, as stated, Iraq is the perfect place to start.

Spread Eagle
John Mullen
2003-11-09 11:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
Both and each of you two nimrods need to go out into your yards, or in
to the streets near your homes, or, failing that, to the nearest Home
Depot, and obtain by whatever means a single cobblestone-style brick.
New or used, doesn't matter. Once obtained and accomplished, return to
your computer and then and there club yourself three times alongside
the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
prescribed doses.
the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
not having so-called "WMDs" (actually should ought properly referred
to as "NBC" or "NBC devices" - the failure of which is your first clue
that the addressant or interlocutor using such term is possessed with
achieving a **political** objective and/or axe to grind, and NOT with
a mere genuine concern); and, that the invasion and toppling WAS
NEVER on account of any supposed DIRECT connection between al Qaeda
and Saddam or bin Laden and Saddam, or 9/11 and Saddam (and none were
ever actually and expressly alleged); you will also realize that it
doesn't hurt, and fact helps, if other people around the world believe
that so-called "WMDs" and 9/11 connections are the motivation, because
it camoflagues the **real** reasons for the invasion and toppling, and
Bush critics and naysayers will spend much energy and waste much time
chasing down those dead-end trails, having them thusly preoccupied
being a part of the plan; and, you'll be inclined to actually look at
and study maps of the region, and you'll be struck by the enormous
strategic location of Iraq, with Iran on one side, Syria on another
side, Kuwait on another side, Turkey to the north, which enormous
strategic location, it will dawn on you, comprises the **real**
reasons for the invasion and toppling; and then, yes, there's oil,
and it will all click into place. Iraq is the **perfect** platform
from which to wrench the middle east out of it 7th century mentality,
from which terrorism incubates and springs, and bring it and its
economy into the post-industial age. No small task, but it has to
start somewhere, and, as stated, Iraq is the perfect place to start.
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?

John
Chas
2003-11-09 15:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
Great war so far!
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.

Chas
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-09 17:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the
regime changed with minimal upset to anything.
Great war so far!
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Well why stop there Chas, there are 100's of
Countries/Societies/Governments/Religions
that won't/don't support the USA, shouldn't they all be conquered for the sake
of your
fat lazy American ass ...?
Post by Chas
Chas
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Chas
2003-11-09 18:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Well why stop there Chas, there are 100's of
Countries/Societies/Governments/Religions
that won't/don't support the USA, shouldn't they all be conquered for the sake
of your
fat lazy American ass ...?
If they declare us the enemy and attack us where they find us, sure.
Particularly when they have a 1300 year history of ruthless conquering to
run the world's slave trade.

Chas
Tom May
2003-11-09 18:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
In touch with reality then I guess? ;-)
Post by Chas
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; it's been like a breeze in the
park... images of G.W. Bush sipping tea with the Queen of England are
so much more palatable than images of Tikrit, Baghdad etc. today...
and the cold facts that at least between 4000-6000 civilians were
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.

Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far; particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
Post by Chas
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Oh, and I guess you cheered the casualties of Iraqis during the war...
(irony)
*Grow up please*; that you think these people could cheer deaths says
a lot about your negative, *think the worst of people* attitude. You
avoid debate and civilised discourse through impugning your opponents'
motives. All a very pointless way of 'engaging' with politics.

Tom
Chas
2003-11-09 18:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
In touch with reality then I guess? ;-)
absolutely.
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; .....> and the cold facts that at least
between 4000-6000 civilians were
Post by Tom May
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
You've never been to a war, have you?
During WWII, casualties for the US hit 7,000 a *day*; total casualties could
hit multiples of that number- per *day*.
This has been a (relatively) easy war for everybody- as wars go.
Post by Tom May
Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far; particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
How about in comparison to what went on before? How about a comparison to
the adminstration by the muslims of their conquered lands?
To what standard of performance do you compare, besides some hypothetical
fantasy of perfection?
Post by Tom May
*Grow up please*; that you think these people could cheer deaths says
a lot about your negative, *think the worst of people* attitude.
Who was dancing in the streets and cheering at the act of war on 9/11?
Who in America took joy in the deaths of non-combatants; as contrasted with
the Muslims that funded the attacks and mounted the operators?
Post by Tom May
You
avoid debate and civilised discourse through impugning your opponents'
motives. All a very pointless way of 'engaging' with politics.
Of course I impugn their motives.
When the object of the exercise is my destruction, I don't much care what
your motivation might be- nor your justification nor rationale.
Why would you find that surprising, or improper/inappropriate?

Chas
John Mullen
2003-11-09 18:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
In touch with reality then I guess? ;-)
absolutely.
I don't agree.
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; .....> and the cold facts that at least
between 4000-6000 civilians were
Post by Tom May
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
You've never been to a war, have you?
During WWII, casualties for the US hit 7,000 a *day*; total casualties could
hit multiples of that number- per *day*.
Rubbish! There weren't 7000 US civilians killed in the whole of WW2.
Post by Chas
This has been a (relatively) easy war for everybody- as wars go.
That must be some definition of 'everybody' which excludes Iraqi civilians
and US service personnel. I wouldn't bet many of either group would consider
it a '(relatively) easy war'
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far; particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
How about in comparison to what went on before? How about a comparison to
the adminstration by the muslims of their conquered lands?
Which conquered lands would these be, O wise one?
Post by Chas
To what standard of performance do you compare, besides some hypothetical
fantasy of perfection?
Post by Tom May
*Grow up please*; that you think these people could cheer deaths says
a lot about your negative, *think the worst of people* attitude.
Who was dancing in the streets and cheering at the act of war on 9/11?
Not me. I was genuinely shocked and distressed by it. But a lot of that
sympathy has evaporated since, due mainly to Bush2's moronic behaviour.
Post by Chas
Who in America took joy in the deaths of non-combatants; as contrasted with
the Muslims that funded the attacks and mounted the operators?
Post by Tom May
You
avoid debate and civilised discourse through impugning your opponents'
motives. All a very pointless way of 'engaging' with politics.
Of course I impugn their motives.
When the object of the exercise is my destruction, I don't much care what
your motivation might be- nor your justification nor rationale.
Relax. Nobody's trying to kill you. This is just a thread on Usenet.
Post by Chas
Why would you find that surprising, or improper/inappropriate?
Insane be a better word?

John
Chas
2003-11-09 23:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Rubbish! There weren't 7000 US civilians killed in the whole of WW2.
Who said the casualties were 'civilians'- particularly, US citizens?
Post by John Mullen
That must be some definition of 'everybody' which excludes Iraqi civilians
and US service personnel. I wouldn't bet many of either group would consider
it a '(relatively) easy war'
Have the Iraqi's compare it to their war with Iraq- have the US servicemen
compare the war to Viet Nam.
This is 25 million Iraqi's, 150,000 troops, and the casualties are about on
par with a major training exercise.
Post by John Mullen
Which conquered lands would these be, O wise one?
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits, marauders,
thieves and invaders, don't you?

Chas
John Mullen
2003-11-10 01:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Rubbish! There weren't 7000 US civilians killed in the whole of WW2.
Who said the casualties were 'civilians'- particularly, US citizens?
You did, or at least implied it.

'
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; .....> and the cold facts that at least
between 4000-6000 civilians were
Post by Chas
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
You've never been to a war, have you?
During WWII, casualties for the US hit 7,000 a *day*; total casualties could
hit multiples of that number- per *day*.
This has been a (relatively) easy war for everybody- as wars go.'

By replying to the poster who said 4000-6000 civilians in this war with your
figure, and by saying 'everybody', you imply a comparison.
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
That must be some definition of 'everybody' which excludes Iraqi civilians
and US service personnel. I wouldn't bet many of either group would
consider
Post by John Mullen
it a '(relatively) easy war'
Have the Iraqi's compare it to their war with Iraq- have the US servicemen
compare the war to Viet Nam.
This is 25 million Iraqi's, 150,000 troops, and the casualties are about on
par with a major training exercise.
Post by John Mullen
Which conquered lands would these be, O wise one?
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits, marauders,
thieves and invaders, don't you?
That was some time ago you know. Weak comparison with the events of 2003
IMO.

(They also invented a hell of a lot of science, pretty much every scientific
word starting in al-)

John
Josh
2003-11-10 04:09:37 UTC
Permalink
I don't believe she should be charged for cowardince. She did more than the
average american her age. I repsect her bravery to join the u.s. armed
forces.
--
Josh Bunton
Standing Up For What's Right!
http://conservativeissues.com
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Rubbish! There weren't 7000 US civilians killed in the whole of WW2.
Who said the casualties were 'civilians'- particularly, US citizens?
You did, or at least implied it.
'
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; .....> and the cold facts that at least
between 4000-6000 civilians were
Post by Chas
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
You've never been to a war, have you?
During WWII, casualties for the US hit 7,000 a *day*; total casualties could
hit multiples of that number- per *day*.
This has been a (relatively) easy war for everybody- as wars go.'
By replying to the poster who said 4000-6000 civilians in this war with your
figure, and by saying 'everybody', you imply a comparison.
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
That must be some definition of 'everybody' which excludes Iraqi
civilians
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
and US service personnel. I wouldn't bet many of either group would
consider
Post by John Mullen
it a '(relatively) easy war'
Have the Iraqi's compare it to their war with Iraq- have the US servicemen
compare the war to Viet Nam.
This is 25 million Iraqi's, 150,000 troops, and the casualties are about
on
Post by Chas
par with a major training exercise.
Post by John Mullen
Which conquered lands would these be, O wise one?
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits, marauders,
thieves and invaders, don't you?
That was some time ago you know. Weak comparison with the events of 2003
IMO.
(They also invented a hell of a lot of science, pretty much every scientific
word starting in al-)
John
Chas
2003-11-10 16:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits, marauders,
thieves and invaders, don't you?
That was some time ago you know. Weak comparison with the events of 2003
IMO.
Actually, it's not.
Conquering is a tenet of the religion, John. The word 'Islam' means
'submission', and submission doesn't have to be voluntary at all.
Islam first either killed or converted all their neighbors on the Arabian
Peninsula, then moved in invasion to the East, West and North. They've been
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
Nothing oldfashioned about it at all; they're right up to date with an
unbroken history of attack, enslave or murder.

Chas
John Mullen
2003-11-10 18:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits,
marauders,
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
thieves and invaders, don't you?
That was some time ago you know. Weak comparison with the events of 2003
IMO.
Actually, it's not.
Conquering is a tenet of the religion, John. The word 'Islam' means
'submission', and submission doesn't have to be voluntary at all.
Islam first either killed or converted all their neighbors on the Arabian
Peninsula, then moved in invasion to the East, West and North. They've been
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.

You might as well say that 'Christianity' was responsible for killing or
enslaving everyone it came in contact with, and over a far longer time and a
*far* bigger part of the world. Think: Europe, the Americas, most of Asia,
Australasia and Polynesia.
Post by Chas
Nothing oldfashioned about it at all; they're right up to date with an
unbroken history of attack, enslave or murder.
Unbroken? Please...

John
Chas
2003-11-10 18:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
.......They've
been
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.
Tell that to the Buddhists at Bamiyan, the Hindus in Northern India, the
Copts in Egypt, the Jews anywhere, the Christians in Indonesia, the
Confucians in the western provinces of China, the atheists in the former
SovUn- and that's just presently- and an incomplete list at that.
Post by John Mullen
You might as well say that 'Christianity' was responsible for killing or
enslaving everyone it came in contact with, and over a far longer time and a
*far* bigger part of the world. Think: Europe, the Americas, most of Asia,
Australasia and Polynesia.
Think the expansion of the Roman Empire with subject Kings in Europe- they
were expansionist and exploitative long before they co-opted Christianity.
Show me the passages/tenets in Christianity that require conquering,
enslaving and sending the booty back to Rome.
The comparable tenets in Islam are profoundly evident.
Post by John Mullen
Nothing oldfashioned about it at all; they're right up to date with an
unbroken history of attack, enslave or murder.
Unbroken? Please...
Unbroken.
The slave trade is still muslim; the religious motivation to kill those who
refuse to submit is still going on; the desire to expand and conquer is
still strong. You just don't understand that the only reason we've had it so
easy with them is that they've been busy in Asia- from Persia to the
Filipines.
I know that belies the expected ideals of religion in many ways, but it's
just, unfortunately, true.

Chas
John Mullen
2003-11-11 18:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
.......They've
been
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.
Tell that to the Buddhists at Bamiyan, the Hindus in Northern India, the
Copts in Egypt, the Jews anywhere, the Christians in Indonesia, the
Confucians in the western provinces of China, the atheists in the former
SovUn- and that's just presently- and an incomplete list at that.
OTOH the 'Christian' US is doing some pretty awful things at the moment.
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
You might as well say that 'Christianity' was responsible for killing or
enslaving everyone it came in contact with, and over a far longer time
and
Post by Chas
a
Post by John Mullen
*far* bigger part of the world. Think: Europe, the Americas, most of Asia,
Australasia and Polynesia.
Think the expansion of the Roman Empire with subject Kings in Europe- they
were expansionist and exploitative long before they co-opted Christianity.
Doesn't alter my point. The 'Christians' did some pretty awful things too.
IMO worse than the Romans.
Post by Chas
Show me the passages/tenets in Christianity that require conquering,
enslaving and sending the booty back to Rome.
The comparable tenets in Islam are profoundly evident.
Well, I'll bow to your superior knowledge here, assuming you have some! I'm
not an expert on Islam. But I'm very aware that evil people are very adept
at twisting more or less any belief-system to support their aims.
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Nothing oldfashioned about it at all; they're right up to date with an
unbroken history of attack, enslave or murder.
Unbroken? Please...
Unbroken.
The slave trade is still muslim;
So you think they set up the African-American slave trade as well?
Post by Chas
the religious motivation to kill those who
refuse to submit is still going on;
Spanish Inquisition ring any bells with you? (Other than Mony Python?!)
Post by Chas
the desire to expand and conquer is
still strong.
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't? Thought
so.
Post by Chas
You just don't understand that the only reason we've had it so
easy with them is that they've been busy in Asia- from Persia to the
Filipines.
You're right, I don't understand that. Perhaps because it isn't true!
Post by Chas
I know that belies the expected ideals of religion in many ways, but it's
just, unfortunately, true.
Human nature.

I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than anybody else.
Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate a group to generalise
this way about. The facts don't support your assertion.

John
Chas
2003-11-12 02:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
OTOH the 'Christian' US is doing some pretty awful things at the moment.
What seems to be the trouble, buddy?
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Think the expansion of the Roman Empire with subject Kings in Europe- they
were expansionist and exploitative long before they co-opted
Christianity.
Post by John Mullen
Doesn't alter my point. The 'Christians' did some pretty awful things too.
IMO worse than the Romans.
The Catholics *are* the Romans.
Post by John Mullen
So you think they set up the African-American slave trade as well?
Pretty much; between the Zulus and the Muslims.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
the religious motivation to kill those who
refuse to submit is still going on;
Spanish Inquisition ring any bells with you? (Other than Mony Python?!)
Yeah; got anything newer than 500 years?
The Muslims are doing it *today*
Post by John Mullen
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't? Thought
so.
E. Timor- and that only a smidge on what's happening along the entire
Indonesian Archipelago and up into the Filipines. One might consider the
border states of India in the same light- the Western Provinces of China,
the 'stans of the former SovUn, the North East Coast of Africa; Sudan,
Ethiopia, Eritrea-
The list is longer, but there's a start for you.
Post by John Mullen
I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than anybody else.
Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate a group to generalise
this way about. The facts don't support your assertion.
Then you need to get some more facts, John- you're batting about zip.shit
right now.

Chas
John Mullen
2003-11-12 17:15:57 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
So you think they set up the African-American slave trade as well?
Pretty much; between the Zulus and the Muslims.
This, I'm afraid, makes you an ignorant racist tosser. There is no hope for
you. I am sorry not to have been able to have helped educate you, but you
are beyond that kind of help. Don't feel the need to reply to this as I
won't see it. Good bye and good luck.

John
Chas
2003-11-12 18:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
So you think they set up the African-American slave trade as well?
Pretty much; between the Zulus and the Muslims.
This, I'm afraid, makes you an ignorant racist tosser.
What does?
Calling attention to the facts of the slave trade?
You do remember that our first official war was with the slavers/pirates of
North Africa, the Barbary Coast- 'shores of Tripoli' thingie?
They were 'equal opportunity' entrepreneurs.
And still.
Post by John Mullen
There is no hope for
you. I am sorry not to have been able to have helped educate you, but you
are beyond that kind of help. Don't feel the need to reply to this as I
won't see it. Good bye and good luck.
And to you; I'm sure ignorance must generate it's own light, or I'd fear you
lost in the darkness.

Chas
ZZBunker
2003-11-12 03:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
.......They've
been
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.
Tell that to the Buddhists at Bamiyan, the Hindus in Northern India, the
Copts in Egypt, the Jews anywhere, the Christians in Indonesia, the
Confucians in the western provinces of China, the atheists in the former
SovUn- and that's just presently- and an incomplete list at that.
OTOH the 'Christian' US is doing some pretty awful things at the moment.
On both hands, since there is no 'Christian' US,
the US has always ignored those remarks from 'Jeruselem'.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
You might as well say that 'Christianity' was responsible for killing or
enslaving everyone it came in contact with, and over a far longer time
and
a
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
*far* bigger part of the world. Think: Europe, the Americas, most of
Asia,
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Australasia and Polynesia.
Think the expansion of the Roman Empire with subject Kings in Europe- they
were expansionist and exploitative long before they co-opted Christianity.
Doesn't alter my point. The 'Christians' did some pretty awful things too.
IMO worse than the Romans.
The only thing Christians ever did more
aweful than the Romans was claim
Spartacus was a Christian.
He was a Christian only in the sense that
the Greeks were anything other than wino tax
lawyers with a taste for loosing.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Show me the passages/tenets in Christianity that require conquering,
enslaving and sending the booty back to Rome.
The comparable tenets in Islam are profoundly evident.
Well, I'll bow to your superior knowledge here, assuming you have some! I'm
not an expert on Islam. But I'm very aware that evil people are very adept
at twisting more or less any belief-system to support their aims.
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Nothing oldfashioned about it at all; they're right up to date with an
unbroken history of attack, enslave or murder.
Unbroken? Please...
Unbroken.
The slave trade is still muslim;
So you think they set up the African-American slave trade as well?
No, they enslaved whoever they got their hands on.
Africa or America had nothing to with it.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
the religious motivation to kill those who
refuse to submit is still going on;
Spanish Inquisition ring any bells with you? (Other than Mony Python?!)
It does, but since the Spanish Inquisition concerned
*religous* testimony, and the prisoners we're holding
are being questioned about *Bin Laden*, it's irrelevent.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
the desire to expand and conquer is
still strong.
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't? Thought
so.
Don't Iraq and Kuwait count as Muslim nations?
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
You just don't understand that the only reason we've had it so
easy with them is that they've been busy in Asia- from Persia to the
Filipines.
You're right, I don't understand that. Perhaps because it isn't true!
Post by Chas
I know that belies the expected ideals of religion in many ways, but it's
just, unfortunately, true.
Human nature.
I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than anybody else.
Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate a group to generalise
this way about. The facts don't support your assertion.
Nobody ever said they were. Given that the
Mosques in Kuwait are open, and the
Mosques in Afghanistan are still run by
Bin Laden look-a-alikes.
Al Lewis
2003-11-16 21:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZZBunker
Post by John Mullen
I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than anybody else.
Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate a group to generalise
this way about. The facts don't support your assertion.
Nobody ever said they were.
except Chas, and a few other ignorant bigots
Post by ZZBunker
Given that the
Mosques in Kuwait are open, and the
Mosques in Afghanistan are still run by
Bin Laden look-a-alikes.
Robert
2003-11-12 22:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Post by John Mullen
.......They've
been
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.
[trim]
Post by John Mullen
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't? Thought
so.
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30 years, not
listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.

India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be the
Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)


[trim]
Colin Campbell
2003-11-13 01:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30 years, not
listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be the
Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Add:

Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)

<newsgroups trimmed>



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-13 02:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30
years, not listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be the
Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)
<newsgroups trimmed>
Don't forget these:
--
US Foreign Interventions, Attacks and Invasions since Vietnam

Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous assassination
attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned by Human Rights Groups and
the United Nations General Assembly.

Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.

Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs military Gen.
Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.

Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.

Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.

Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels including
rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.

El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human rights
violations.

Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war, mines harbor.
Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions condemned by the United
Nations World Court.

Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported secret police
kill and torture tens of thousands.

Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.

Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports and supplies
government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.

Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO from
territory.

Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians killed. "Gross
violation" of international law condemned by United Nations.

Philippines 1986 - US supports corrupt despotic govt of Ferdinand Marcos in
spite of popular citizen uprising.

Iraq 1987-88 - US supports, supplies and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq in war
against Iran.

Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290 civilians.
Claims it was an "accident".

Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it "collateral
damage".

Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+ Panamanians, kidnaps
it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA asset, Noriega. Illegal US
actions condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of
American States.

Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by intervening
in inter-Arab affairs. Returns tyrannical Kuwaiti Monarchy accused of human
right abuses to absolute power.

Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades Iraqi ports,
allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000 Iraqi's starve/die monthly as
result.

Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first freely
elected governments.

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war,
takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt
Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while
serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary
aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.

Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in
drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden
inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US
supported military and para-military so far.

Bosnia 1993 - U.S. naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to
remove elected President Aristide, kidnaps him to the USA, then forcibly
re-installs Aristide as President of Haiti after he agrees to US conditions of
rule.

Sudan 1998 - Unprovoked US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.

Afghanistan 1998 - Unprovoked US missile attack kill 28 innocent civilians

Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
killing three innocent civilians.

Afghanistan 2001 - US bombs and invades against U.N. law, destroying Taliban
Gov't while looking for Al Qaida. Fails to find Osama bin Laden. Abandons the
country in shambles, leaving the pieces to the vicious murderous warlords.

Iraq 2003 - US bombs and invades against the will of the UN, using lies and
deception as pretense. Kills 10,000s of
innocent Iraqi civilians, forcibly occupies Iraq, denies Iraqi people democratic
representation, begins a campaign of
extra-judicial assassination and murder of opposition leaders. To be continued
...
wrann
2003-11-13 02:49:03 UTC
Permalink
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30
years, not listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be the
Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)
<newsgroups trimmed>
--
US Foreign Interventions, Attacks and Invasions since Vietnam
Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous
assassination
Post by => Vox Populi ©
attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned by Human Rights Groups and
the United Nations General Assembly.
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs military Gen.
Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.
Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.
Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.
Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels including
rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.
El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human rights
violations.
Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war, mines harbor.
Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions condemned by the United
Nations World Court.
Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported secret police
kill and torture tens of thousands.
Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.
Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports and supplies
government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.
Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO from
territory.
Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians killed. "Gross
violation" of international law condemned by United Nations.
Philippines 1986 - US supports corrupt despotic govt of Ferdinand Marcos in
spite of popular citizen uprising.
Iraq 1987-88 - US supports, supplies and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq in war
against Iran.
Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290 civilians.
Claims it was an "accident".
Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it "collateral
damage".
Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+ Panamanians, kidnaps
it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA asset, Noriega. Illegal US
actions condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of
American States.
Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by intervening
in inter-Arab affairs. Returns tyrannical Kuwaiti Monarchy accused of human
right abuses to absolute power.
Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades Iraqi ports,
allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000 Iraqi's starve/die monthly as
result.
Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first freely
elected governments.
Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war,
takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.
Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt
Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while
serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary
aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.
Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in
drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden
inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US
supported military and para-military so far.
Bosnia 1993 - U.S. naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to
remove elected President Aristide, kidnaps him to the USA, then forcibly
re-installs Aristide as President of Haiti after he agrees to US conditions of
rule.
Sudan 1998 - Unprovoked US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.
Afghanistan 1998 - Unprovoked US missile attack kill 28 innocent civilians
Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
killing three innocent civilians.
Afghanistan 2001 - US bombs and invades against U.N. law, destroying Taliban
Gov't while looking for Al Qaida. Fails to find Osama bin Laden. Abandons the
country in shambles, leaving the pieces to the vicious murderous warlords.
Iraq 2003 - US bombs and invades against the will of the UN, using lies and
deception as pretense. Kills 10,000s of
innocent Iraqi civilians, forcibly occupies Iraq, denies Iraqi people democratic
representation, begins a campaign of
extra-judicial assassination and murder of opposition leaders. To be continued
...
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-13 02:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
As you avoid the "justifications" for all the Muslim countries
invasions, attacks and occupations ...
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30
years, not listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be
the Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)
<newsgroups trimmed>
--
US Foreign Interventions, Attacks and Invasions since Vietnam
Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous
assassination attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned
by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs
military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.
Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.
Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.
Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels
including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.
El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human
rights violations.
Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war,
mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions
condemned by the United Nations World Court.
Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported
secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.
Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.
Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports and
supplies government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.
Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO
from territory.
Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians
killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United
Nations.
Philippines 1986 - US supports corrupt despotic govt of Ferdinand
Marcos in spite of popular citizen uprising.
Iraq 1987-88 - US supports, supplies and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq
in war against Iran.
Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290
civilians. Claims it was an "accident".
Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it
"collateral damage".
Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+
Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA
asset, Noriega. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous
United Nations and Organization of American States.
Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by
intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns tyrannical Kuwaiti
Monarchy accused of human right abuses to absolute power.
Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades
Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000
Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result.
Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first
freely elected governments.
Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in
Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+
Somalis.
Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars
to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on
CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly
in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her
infant child.
Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily
involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft.
Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane.
Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and
para-military so far.
Bosnia 1993 - U.S. naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military
coup to remove elected President Aristide, kidnaps him to the USA,
then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President of Haiti after he
agrees to US conditions of rule.
Sudan 1998 - Unprovoked US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.
Afghanistan 1998 - Unprovoked US missile attack kill 28 innocent civilians
Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade killing three innocent civilians.
Afghanistan 2001 - US bombs and invades against U.N. law, destroying
Taliban Gov't while looking for Al Qaida. Fails to find Osama bin
Laden. Abandons the country in shambles, leaving the pieces to the
vicious murderous warlords.
Iraq 2003 - US bombs and invades against the will of the UN, using
lies and deception as pretense. Kills 10,000s of
innocent Iraqi civilians, forcibly occupies Iraq, denies Iraqi
people democratic representation, begins a campaign of
extra-judicial assassination and murder of opposition leaders. To be
continued ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
wrann
2003-11-13 02:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Avoid? How can I avoid to justify what I never wrote about in the first
place?
"..avoid the 'justifications' for all the Muslim countries invasions,
attacks, and occupations.." I have no idea of what you're talking about
because of the grammar. Are you wondering about their '..invasions, etc..'
of other countries or other countries invasions of them?
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
As you avoid the "justifications" for all the Muslim countries
invasions, attacks and occupations ...
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30
years, not listing any of the ones in Africa or the south pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be
the Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)
<newsgroups trimmed>
--
US Foreign Interventions, Attacks and Invasions since Vietnam
Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous
assassination attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned
by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs
military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.
Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.
Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.
Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels
including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.
El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human
rights violations.
Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war,
mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions
condemned by the United Nations World Court.
Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported
secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.
Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.
Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports and
supplies government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.
Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO
from territory.
Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians
killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United
Nations.
Philippines 1986 - US supports corrupt despotic govt of Ferdinand
Marcos in spite of popular citizen uprising.
Iraq 1987-88 - US supports, supplies and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq
in war against Iran.
Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290
civilians. Claims it was an "accident".
Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it
"collateral damage".
Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+
Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA
asset, Noriega. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous
United Nations and Organization of American States.
Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by
intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns tyrannical Kuwaiti
Monarchy accused of human right abuses to absolute power.
Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades
Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000
Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result.
Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first
freely elected governments.
Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in
Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+
Somalis.
Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars
to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on
CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly
in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her
infant child.
Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily
involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft.
Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane.
Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and
para-military so far.
Bosnia 1993 - U.S. naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military
coup to remove elected President Aristide, kidnaps him to the USA,
then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President of Haiti after he
agrees to US conditions of rule.
Sudan 1998 - Unprovoked US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.
Afghanistan 1998 - Unprovoked US missile attack kill 28 innocent civilians
Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade killing three innocent civilians.
Afghanistan 2001 - US bombs and invades against U.N. law, destroying
Taliban Gov't while looking for Al Qaida. Fails to find Osama bin
Laden. Abandons the country in shambles, leaving the pieces to the
vicious murderous warlords.
Iraq 2003 - US bombs and invades against the will of the UN, using
lies and deception as pretense. Kills 10,000s of
innocent Iraqi civilians, forcibly occupies Iraq, denies Iraqi
people democratic representation, begins a campaign of
extra-judicial assassination and murder of opposition leaders. To be
continued ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-13 03:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by wrann
Avoid? How can I avoid to justify what I never wrote about in the
first place?
It's the topic of the thread you jumped into numbnuts.
Post by wrann
"..avoid the 'justifications' for all the Muslim countries invasions,
attacks, and occupations.." I have no idea of what you're talking
about because of the grammar.
Oh My. A Grammar flame ... how trite.
Post by wrann
Are you wondering about their
'..invasions, etc..' of other countries or other countries invasions
of them?
As you avoid the "justifications" for all the Muslim countries'
invasions, attacks and occupations ...
There slimeball, read it and weep.
Post by wrann
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
As you avoid the "justifications" for all the Muslim countries
invasions, attacks and occupations ...
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Robert
Just off the top of my head I come up with these in the last 30
years, not listing any of the ones in Africa or the south
pacific.
India (by Pakistan)
Israel (by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt - Lebanon was supposed to be
the Christian have of the Syria/Lebanon split so I wont list it)
Iran (by Iraq)
Kuwait (by Iraq)
Chad - by Libya
Libya - by Egypt
Egypt - by Libya
Yemen - by Saudi Arabia
Lebanon - by Syria (Invasion and conquest)
Timor - by Indonesia (Invasion and conquest)
<newsgroups trimmed>
--
US Foreign Interventions, Attacks and Invasions since Vietnam
Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous
assassination attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned
by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs
military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.
Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.
Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.
Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels
including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.
El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human
rights violations.
Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war,
mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions
condemned by the United Nations World Court.
Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported
secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.
Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.
Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports and
supplies government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.
Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO
from territory.
Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians
killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United
Nations.
Philippines 1986 - US supports corrupt despotic govt of Ferdinand
Marcos in spite of popular citizen uprising.
Iraq 1987-88 - US supports, supplies and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq
in war against Iran.
Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290
civilians. Claims it was an "accident".
Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls
it "collateral damage".
Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+
Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA
asset, Noriega. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous
United Nations and Organization of American States.
Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by
intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns tyrannical Kuwaiti
Monarchy accused of human right abuses to absolute power.
Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades
Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000
Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result.
Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the
first freely elected governments.
Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in
Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+
Somalis.
Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars
to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on
CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly
in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and
her infant child.
Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily
involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft.
Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane.
Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and
para-military so far.
Bosnia 1993 - U.S. naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military
coup to remove elected President Aristide, kidnaps him to the USA,
then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President of Haiti after he
agrees to US conditions of rule.
Sudan 1998 - Unprovoked US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.
Afghanistan 1998 - Unprovoked US missile attack kill 28 innocent civilians
Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade killing three innocent civilians.
Afghanistan 2001 - US bombs and invades against U.N. law,
destroying Taliban Gov't while looking for Al Qaida. Fails to find
Osama bin Laden. Abandons the country in shambles, leaving the
pieces to the vicious murderous warlords.
Iraq 2003 - US bombs and invades against the will of the UN, using
lies and deception as pretense. Kills 10,000s of
innocent Iraqi civilians, forcibly occupies Iraq, denies Iraqi
people democratic representation, begins a campaign of
extra-judicial assassination and murder of opposition leaders. To
be continued ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
John Penta
2003-11-13 03:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
[kernsip]
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
[kersnip]

Never mind all that...what the hell is he talking about here???

John
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-13 03:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Penta
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
[kernsip]
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election
process. [kersnip]
Never mind all that...what the hell is he talking about here???
Do some research ... and see the light.
Post by John Penta
John
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Colin Campbell
2003-11-13 05:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Penta
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
[kernsip]
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.
[kersnip]
Never mind all that...what the hell is he talking about here???
Vox is a troll. He is not posting out of any form of belief but out
of an immature attempt to get attention.

Ignore him.

Do not respond to any of his posts.

Otherwise, all you are doing is encouraging him.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-13 06:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by John Penta
Post by wrann
You conspicously avoid the justifications for all these.
[kernsip]
Post by wrann
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election
process. [kersnip]
Never mind all that...what the hell is he talking about here???
Vox is a troll. He is not posting out of any form of belief but out
of an immature attempt to get attention.
Colin is jealous, he only post out of ignorance and dogma, the need
to be told what to think and how to live. He's a mindless rightwing
fucknut.
Post by Colin Campbell
Ignore him.
Ignore him.
Post by Colin Campbell
Do not respond to any of his posts.
As if I care what slimey nutsuckers like you do or don't do ...?
Post by Colin Campbell
Otherwise, all you are doing is encouraging him.
Sure, I've been posting for years and 10,000s of posts, and
if it weren't for your pathetic responses, I'd have quite ages ago ...
eh? You blithering imbecile.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Al Lewis
2003-11-16 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Spanish Inquisition ring any bells with you? (Other than Mony Python?!)
Well, there was Mel Brooks take on it as well.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
the desire to expand and conquer is
still strong.
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't? Thought
so.
Post by Chas
You just don't understand that the only reason we've had it so
easy with them is that they've been busy in Asia- from Persia to the
Filipines.
You're right, I don't understand that. Perhaps because it isn't true!
Post by Chas
I know that belies the expected ideals of religion in many ways, but it's
just, unfortunately, true.
Human nature.
I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than anybody else.
Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate a group to generalise
this way about. The facts don't support your assertion.
Do the facts ever support the demonization of an entire group of people
based upon the acts of a few?
Post by John Mullen
John
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-17 00:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Lewis
Post by John Mullen
Spanish Inquisition ring any bells with you? (Other than Mony
Python?!)
Well, there was Mel Brooks take on it as well.
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
the desire to expand and conquer is
still strong.
Name a country invaded in recent history by a Muslim nation. Can't?
Thought so.
Post by Chas
You just don't understand that the only reason we've had it so
easy with them is that they've been busy in Asia- from Persia to the
Filipines.
You're right, I don't understand that. Perhaps because it isn't true!
Post by Chas
I know that belies the expected ideals of religion in many ways,
but it's just, unfortunately, true.
Human nature.
I still don't agree the Muslims are in general any worse than
anybody else. Apart froom anything else, they're just too disparate
a group to generalise this way about. The facts don't support your
assertion.
Do the facts ever support the demonization of an entire group of
people based upon the acts of a few?
Satanists?
Nazis?
Fascists?
Baath Party?
Taliban?
Post by Al Lewis
Post by John Mullen
John
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Robert
2003-11-12 21:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
Everything out from Medina, oh ill-informed one.
You do remember that Mohammed and his Companions were bandits,
marauders,
Post by John Mullen
Post by Chas
thieves and invaders, don't you?
That was some time ago you know. Weak comparison with the events of 2003
IMO.
Actually, it's not.
Conquering is a tenet of the religion, John. The word 'Islam' means
'submission', and submission doesn't have to be voluntary at all.
Islam first either killed or converted all their neighbors on the Arabian
Peninsula, then moved in invasion to the East, West and North. They've
been
Post by Chas
at war with virtually everybody with whom they share a border for 1300
years, buddy.
That's rubbish, and dangerous rubbish at that, 'buddy'.
You might as well say that 'Christianity' was responsible for killing or
enslaving everyone it came in contact with, and over a far longer time and a
*far* bigger part of the world. Think: Europe, the Americas, most of Asia,
Australasia and Polynesia.
That almost sounds like you don't believe it.

Well the time line is off a little, the Christians didn't convert from an
"insurrection" religion aimed at passively converting the lower and slave
class in to a "state" religion enforced with a bronze fist until the 5th or
6th century. So 1500 vs. 1300 is not "far longer". Other than that it's a
fair analysis.

"Roman" Christianity was one of the worst things that every happened to
western civilization. And since they killed off all the other flavors of
Christianity for about a 1000 of those years they were responsible for most
of the atrocities committed in the name of Jesus.

Note that they bear little religious resemblance to the fanatical christens
pushing the "religious right wing" of the US except in their desire to kill
off all the heathen nonbelievers who wont convert to the "right" religion.

In general ALL monotheistic state religions have been "evil" in their acts
and implementation. It's a natural side affect of believing you have GOD on
your side so everyone else must be stupid or in league with the devil.

[trim]
Al Lewis
2003-11-16 21:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
In touch with reality then I guess? ;-)
absolutely.
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; .....> and the cold facts that at least
between 4000-6000 civilians were
Post by Tom May
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
You've never been to a war, have you?
During WWII, casualties for the US hit 7,000 a *day*; total casualties could
hit multiples of that number- per *day*.
This has been a (relatively) easy war for everybody- as wars go.
Big difference - Congress actually declared war back then.

More casualties in less than 1 year than in the 1st 3 years of
Vietnam....and counting.

Total cost? Incalculable, but astronomical.
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far; particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
How about in comparison to what went on before?
You mean when we were actually looking for OBL?
Post by Chas
How about a comparison to
the adminstration by the muslims of their conquered lands?
Not relevant. If it were, how come we're not in North Korea?
Post by Chas
To what standard of performance do you compare, besides some hypothetical
fantasy of perfection?
How about a standard of performance that the US (the public) is willing
to accept?
Post by Chas
Post by Tom May
*Grow up please*; that you think these people could cheer deaths says
a lot about your negative, *think the worst of people* attitude.
Who was dancing in the streets and cheering at the act of war on 9/11?
Who was responsible for 9/11?
Post by Chas
Who in America took joy in the deaths of non-combatants; as contrasted with
the Muslims that funded the attacks and mounted the operators?
Post by Tom May
You
avoid debate and civilised discourse through impugning your opponents'
motives. All a very pointless way of 'engaging' with politics.
Of course I impugn their motives.
When the object of the exercise is my destruction, I don't much care what
your motivation might be- nor your justification nor rationale.
Why would you find that surprising, or improper/inappropriate?
Bush is running around like a chicken with his head cut off.
Post by Chas
Chas
Spread Eagle
2003-11-10 03:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom May
Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far;
What peace? WWIII (or IV, depending on how you count) is only 7
months old. It's going to take **years.**
Post by Tom May
particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
Nah. The British have had their own problems. Add to that their
involvement is only a fraction of that of the US, so that's like
saying the Poles have done best of all.
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Oh, and I guess you cheered the casualties of Iraqis during the war...
(irony)
*Grow up please*;
You miss the point. The naysayers **do** cheer US failure, and,
derivatively, casualties, because they believe that it gives them
license to say, "See, we told you so!" To them it's all about doing
or saying whatever possible so as to be able to bleat to themselves
and to each other that they are right.

Spread Eagle
ZZBunker
2003-11-10 04:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
In touch with reality then I guess? ;-)
Post by Chas
Great war so far!
Oh, a jolly good show old sport; it's been like a breeze in the
park... images of G.W. Bush sipping tea with the Queen of England are
so much more palatable than images of Tikrit, Baghdad etc. today...
and the cold facts that at least between 4000-6000 civilians were
killed during (and how many since then?) the war. You put your head in
the sand and applaud trivialities & Bush propaganda.
Even the most blinkered supporter of the war has admitted that the
peace has been a disaster so far; particularly the US-run aspects of
it in comparison to the British.
But, since the US-run aspects are the ones in Bagdad
rather the surburbs of Bagdad, that's obviously
why Londoners need to be reminded
that blinkers have nothing to with the war.
The war's all done with parachutes.
The cat and mouse game of protecting the U.N.
embassy and the French oil rags is up to the British.
Post by Tom May
Post by Chas
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Oh, and I guess you cheered the casualties of Iraqis during the war...
(irony)
*Grow up please*; that you think these people could cheer deaths says
a lot about your negative, *think the worst of people* attitude. You
avoid debate and civilised discourse through impugning your opponents'
motives. All a very pointless way of 'engaging' with politics.
Tom
Spread Eagle
2003-11-09 19:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
Great war so far!
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Add to that: in 12 months the American people will be asked to either
ratify or reject Bush. The Dems are in the process of establishing
his opponent, and their clear front runner is a decided critic and
anti-war candidate, Howard Dean. Right there in lock-step with the
naysayers. If Iraq is going so poorly the majority of people would be
**lining up** to support Dean. But in point of fact Dean vs. Bush
poses only one unanswered question: will Dean even manage to take
Vermont? Who knows? Maybe he can, but it's a big maybe. It's clear
that he won't take much else. So to all you little malcontents,
enjoy! Four more years! Heh.

Spread Eagle
Al Lewis
2003-11-16 22:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
Great war so far!
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
Add to that: in 12 months the American people will be asked to either
ratify or reject Bush. The Dems are in the process of establishing
his opponent, and their clear front runner is a decided critic and
anti-war candidate, Howard Dean. Right there in lock-step with the
naysayers. If Iraq is going so poorly the majority of people would be
**lining up** to support Dean. But in point of fact Dean vs. Bush
poses only one unanswered question: will Dean even manage to take
Vermont? Who knows? Maybe he can, but it's a big maybe. It's clear
that he won't take much else. So to all you little malcontents,
enjoy! Four more years! Heh.
4 more years of oppression on the home front....4 more years of
increasing isolationism....4 more years of a sagging economy.

It's way too early to call the '04 election, buddy.

Howard Dean is hardly a "liberal", and if our troops are still in Iraq
next fall, he will win easily. Of course, if Bush ducks and runs in
Iraq, he won't fare any better than his father did in '92.

51% of the US disapproves of the job Bush is doing in Iraq.

I'm not going to say "heh", because unlike most extremist Bush fanatics,
I support our troops.

I'll probably be accused of being "un-American" for saying this, but I
think Bush is doing a crappy job as President, but just to remind you
free speech is what made this country great.
Post by Spread Eagle
Spread Eagle
Al Lewis
2003-11-16 21:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chas
Post by John Mullen
And it's certainly all going terribly well so far, isn't it?
Yes; it is.
No resistance to speak of, minimal casualties on both sides, the regime
changed with minimal upset to anything.
Great war so far!
No doubt you yearn for higher casualties for your delectation from the
couch.
More casualties than in the first 3 years of Vietnam? Yup, that's what
we have....so far.

Losing choppers regularly is "no resistance to speak of"?

The "regime changed?" Who's in charge now?

51% of the US disapproves of the way Bush is handling Iraq?

Yeah, "great war so far!" <sarcasm>
Post by Chas
Chas
Ken Smith
2003-11-09 11:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
Both and each of you two nimrods need to go out into your yards, or in
to the streets near your homes, or, failing that, to the nearest Home
Depot, and obtain by whatever means a single cobblestone-style brick.
New or used, doesn't matter. Once obtained and accomplished, return to
your computer and then and there club yourself three times alongside
the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
prescribed doses.
IOW, after self-infliction of an appropriate level of brain damage,
we'll think exactly like you. It is amusing to see how you confess
as to how you got the way you are, and I certainly can't speak for
ADS, but I'd just as soon not accept your gracious invitation.

ObL is the war on terror. Iraq is about oil, Israel, and 2004 --
which comes first depends on what you care the most about.
Post by Spread Eagle
the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
not having so-called "WMDs"
IOW, we had no proper legal justification for invading an essentially
defenseless country which posed no credible threat. I've been saying
that all along. And, as military professionals far more capable than I
in such matters (e.g., Scott Ritter, Wes Clark) have been saying, this
was an extracurricular war and generally, a bad idea.
Post by Spread Eagle
(actually should ought properly referred
to as "NBC" or "NBC devices" - the failure of which is your first clue
that the addressant or interlocutor using such term is possessed with
achieving a **political** objective and/or axe to grind, and NOT with
a mere genuine concern);
Bush has been using that mantra for months -- it's obvious that he
has a **political** objective....
Post by Spread Eagle
and, that the invasion and toppling WAS
NEVER on account of any supposed DIRECT connection between al Qaeda
and Saddam or bin Laden and Saddam, or 9/11 and Saddam (and none were
ever actually and expressly alleged); you will also realize that it
doesn't hurt, and fact helps, if other people around the world believe
that so-called "WMDs" and 9/11 connections are the motivation, because
it camoflagues the **real** reasons for the invasion and toppling,
I've *read* the neo-con-artists' plans for conquest of the region.
Would it be surprising, considering that the plans were ALREADY
on the table, for the Bush Administration to have let 9/11 happen?
Seems that they needed a catalyst, and ObL provided them one in
spades -- and one which, quite frankly, they could have prevented.
Not scrambling jets from Andrews in time was inconceivable.
Post by Spread Eagle
and Bush critics and naysayers will spend much energy and waste much time
chasing down those dead-end trails, having them thusly preoccupied
being a part of the plan;
No, we know what "the plan" is -- it's not like they didn't put it in
black and white. It's rather that we find this kind of arrogant imper-
ialistic meddling repulsive, and in all likelihood, a primary source of
the Islamic terrorism we see today.
Post by Spread Eagle
and, you'll be inclined to actually look at
and study maps of the region, and you'll be struck by the enormous
strategic location of Iraq, with Iran on one side, Syria on another
side, Kuwait on another side, Turkey to the north, which enormous
strategic location, it will dawn on you, comprises the **real**
reasons for the invasion and toppling; and then, yes, there's oil,
and it will all click into place.
Yep. It's all about the oil. The world's largest untapped reserves
of natural gas lie in the 'Stans, and we were trying to cut a deal with
the Taliban to run a pipeline to Karachi. And of course, Iraq has
the second-largest light crude oil reserve in the world (Venezuela
is supposed to have enormous heavy crude reserves, but it's tough
to recover and/or work with). Let's just be honest: it's a resource
grab. I'd rather we spent the $87B on hybrid cars, not to mention
the untold billions we piss away on Israel.
Post by Spread Eagle
Iraq is the **perfect** platform
from which to wrench the middle east out of it 7th century mentality,
from which terrorism incubates and springs,
You mean, like the 7th century mentality that permeated that Third
World country of Northern Ireland? Injustice breeds terrorism, and
the only reason it is terrorism is that the 'terrorists' don't have means
to fight a proper first-class war.
Post by Spread Eagle
and bring it and its
economy into the post-industial age. No small task, but it has to
start somewhere, and, as stated, Iraq is the perfect place to start.
IOW, imperialist expansionism and forced imposition of a Christian
religious hegemony. Terrorism springs from what we've needed to
do to get the oil on our terms, and enable another religious group to
wrest control of Palestine from its rightful owners.
A. Dulles Soberes
2003-11-11 01:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
prescribed doses.
"It's a war on terror, stupid"--That's the propaganda, repeted left
and right by mindless 'I can do no wrong' losers. To THESE people,
being a "good" guy doesn't involve doing good deeds indeed, but
rather, staying on the "good side." Saddam was Ronald Reagan's good
guys to gas the Iranians. That's why Donald Rumsfeld GAVE him the
Weapons of Mass Destruction, free of charge.

You've got to admit, we wouldn't be in Iraq if not for 911. And
Georgie is milking every ounces of decency from the families of the
victims of 911. If Bush is about protecting America, he would
actually spend some money in Homeland security instead of on his
war-profiteering buddies. There is a reason why New York City firemen
refused to pose with Georgie as the first anniversity of September 11
came.

As the piece of last night's 60 Minutes says, Arafat saw himself as
the embodiment of the Palestinians. Therefore, in this view, what is
good for Arafat was equated as also good for the Palestinians.
Likewise for America.
Georgie saw himself as the embodiment of America; therefore, getting
rid of what scared Georgie personally is equated with his so-called
"war on terror."
Georgie is the alpha and omega. And the Republican bunch is the same.
Post by Spread Eagle
the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
not having so-called "WMDs" (actually should ought properly referred
to as "NBC" or "NBC devices" - the failure of which is your first clue
that the addressant or interlocutor using such term is possessed with
achieving a **political** objective and/or axe to grind, and NOT with
If it weren't about Weapons of Mass Destruction, you've got to admit
that Georgie was spewing nonsense, again and again, about "mushroom
clouds" ending up in Manhattan. Why Manhattan, no allusion to do with
911? Why mentioning the nuclear threat? No other weapons can conjure
up the image of Armaggeddon perhaps?
Post by Spread Eagle
a mere genuine concern); and, that the invasion and toppling WAS
NEVER on account of any supposed DIRECT connection between al Qaeda
and Saddam or bin Laden and Saddam, or 9/11 and Saddam (and none were
ever actually and expressly alleged);
Oh, I get it, after the war with Iraq has begun, Georgie changed his
soundbite to Al Qaeda-like, 911-like, Saddam-like, whatever-like.
Maybe somebody got to remind him that his behavior and tactics

Just ask the American people in the poll, if Georgie
conveyed/implied/or wink-winked the image that Saddam was behind
September 11? Why would 7 out of 10 Americans "think" that Saddam was
behind September 11, when there is no evidence to say that. All due
to the subliminal advertising of this administration?
Post by Spread Eagle
you will also realize that it
doesn't hurt, and fact helps, if other people around the world believe
that so-called "WMDs" and 9/11 connections are the motivation, because
it camoflagues the **real** reasons for the invasion and toppling, and
and study maps of the region, and you'll be struck by the enormous
strategic location of Iraq, with Iran on one side, Syria on another
side, Kuwait on another side, Turkey to the north, which enormous
strategic location, it will dawn on you, comprises the **real**
reasons for the invasion and toppling; and then, yes, there's oil,
Assuming that we will stick there long enough to create a base and
that the Iraqi people will worship our puppet government. That's the
neo-con's standard wishful thinking. BTW, Wolfowitz says that we can
get the oil running pretty soon and that its revenue will finance this
project. How is this finanical prediction panning out? There should
be a law to state that those neo-cons who stand to profit the most
from this venture should shell out a dime from their own pockets, for
every dollar over-run according to their own projection. And isn't it
Bush who said that there would be a million jobs creation after his
first tax-cut???

Those who wrecked the economy of our posterity should have decency
enough to commit harikari if reality fell short of HALF their
projection. Didn't the Japanese CEOs jumped off buildings during the
80s when they failed their companies? That's integrity. That's
taking responsiblity.
Post by Spread Eagle
and it will all click into place. Iraq is the **perfect** platform
from which to wrench the middle east out of it 7th century mentality,
from which terrorism incubates and springs, and bring it and its
economy into the post-industial age. No small task, but it has to
start somewhere, and, as stated, Iraq is the perfect place to start.
Spread Eagle
This thread was about Jessica Lynch and how Bush treated her in the
aftermath. Sending those boys and girls into Iraq to exact Bush's
personal vendetta is like
someone sending a troop of boy and girl scouts into an expedition. If
anyone got hurt, it is all the troop leader's fault for he is
responsible for everyone's safety. If someone from the girlscout got
raped as a result, we all wish that the perpetuators be brought to
justice. And how did the Pentagon and Bush cronies administer this
justice after "Mission Accomplished."

The Jessica story is a few months old and the US military has been in
control of Iraq since March, so, how is the investigation about which
Iraqi Battalion did this dastardly act going?



http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html?cnn=yes

Have you forgotten that invading Iraq has nothing to do with the
culprits who perpetuated 9/11?
=======================================================
ADS

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
11." --Georgie, 9-17-2003, 181 days after the Invasion of Iraq began

"Yes, I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for
**90** days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I
know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of
instant--instant news... But it's going to take time for us to gather
the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles
of documents that we have uncovered."
-- Georgie, 7-30-2003 Rose Garden Press Conference, in response to the
question asking whether Georgie had "some definitive" links for the
Saddam-Al Qaeda claims before the Iraqi Invasion (apparantly, Georgie
was still on his fishing expedition 90 days after the invasion)


"Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of
great nations built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the
weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of
cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of
Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free
peoples.."
-- Georgie, SOTU 2003

"You know what I think about Saddam. [laughter in the audience]
Hahaha..."--Georgie

"I am a patient man, and when I say I am a patient, I means I am a
patient man."--Georgie
Kenneth Almquist
2003-11-12 19:08:11 UTC
Permalink
***@virtualhosts.net (Spread Eagle) wrote:
] Both and each of you two nimrods need to go out into your yards, or in
] to the streets near your homes, or, failing that, to the nearest Home
] Depot, and obtain by whatever means a single cobblestone-style brick.
] New or used, doesn't matter. Once obtained and accomplished, return to
] your computer and then and there club yourself three times alongside
] the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
] Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
] mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
] prescribed doses.

Hey, it worked! Just a few smacks on the head and I saw that the
purpose of the "War on Terror" is obvious once you understand the
Bush administration's naming scheme. The "Clear Skies" initiative is
about allowing power plants to produce more air polution; the "Healthy
Forests" initiative is about expanding logging operations in national
forests; the "War on Terrorism" is about encouraging terrorism. The
attempts to go after Al Qaeda are just a bone thrown to the opposition.
Seymour Hersh notes that Bush made his true priorities clear to the
intelligence community in 2002:

By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it
was understood by many in the White House that the President had
decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision
had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against
terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence
operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist
groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf.
Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and
several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.

] The new mental outlook will include certain realizations, to-wit:
] the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
] as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
] not having so-called "WMDs"...

Actually, that's not much of a realization; people have been saying
for months that Bush lied.
Kenneth Almquist
ZZBunker
2003-11-13 00:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Almquist
] Both and each of you two nimrods need to go out into your yards, or in
] to the streets near your homes, or, failing that, to the nearest Home
] Depot, and obtain by whatever means a single cobblestone-style brick.
] New or used, doesn't matter. Once obtained and accomplished, return to
] your computer and then and there club yourself three times alongside
] the head, repeating after each blow, "It's the war on terror, stupid."
] Repeat the three-blow sequence daily or more often, as needed. A new
] mental outlook will emerge after one or more administration of
] prescribed doses.
Hey, it worked! Just a few smacks on the head and I saw that the
purpose of the "War on Terror" is obvious once you understand the
Bush administration's naming scheme. The "Clear Skies" initiative is
about allowing power plants to produce more air polution; the "Healthy
Forests" initiative is about expanding logging operations in national
forests; the "War on Terrorism" is about encouraging terrorism. The
attempts to go after Al Qaeda are just a bone thrown to the opposition.
Seymour Hersh notes that Bush made his true priorities clear to the
By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it
was understood by many in the White House that the President had
decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision
had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against
terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence
operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist
groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf.
Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and
several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.
Well, it's simple to understand why.
Since when the CIA morons were asked if Hussein
had any chemical weapons facilities left,
what did the idiots say other than:
"Let me check out Hussein's Frenchy Caves".


And, since Al Qauda is not a terrorist group,
but a bridge demolition group, it's simple to
understand why Bush might have told
Hersh to find somebody at the
New York Times or a Democrat to publish
that stuff. Since we got real
jobs to worry about moron.
Post by Kenneth Almquist
] the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam (hereinafter referred to
] as "invasion and toppling") was **never** on account of him having or
] not having so-called "WMDs"...
Actually, that's not much of a realization; people have been saying
for months that Bush lied.
Well if anything he didn't lie, since he ran on
a campaign of restructuring the US intelligence community.
So the only thing Middle East wankers can
be advised about Democracy is that you
get what you ask for MORONS.
G***@whithouse.gov
2003-11-08 22:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
The usual ...
They have friendly fire drills, using Canadian troops as
targets.
They have civilian straifing and bombing runs, using
Italian Tourists as
targets.
They have advanced smart-targeting drills, using
Journalists and Chinese
Embassies as targets.
They have advanced tank retreat drills, using Panamanian
civilians as roadways.
Plus the basics looting, lying, lynching and raping ...
So where did she learn the Anal?
BigRedWingsFan
2003-11-08 23:25:06 UTC
Permalink
<***@whithouse.gov> wrote in message news:BBD2DEB7-***@64.56.244.31...
: >The usual ...
: >They have friendly fire drills, using Canadian troops as
: >targets.
: >They have civilian straifing and bombing runs, using
: >Italian Tourists as
: >targets.
: >They have advanced smart-targeting drills, using
: >Journalists and Chinese
: >Embassies as targets.
: >They have advanced tank retreat drills, using Panamanian
: >civilians as roadways.
: >Plus the basics looting, lying, lynching and raping ...
: >
: >
:
: So where did she learn the Anal?

Did you forget she's from West, by God, Virginia?

:
:
:
:
Chas
2003-11-08 23:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigRedWingsFan
: So where did she learn the Anal?
Did you forget she's from West, by God, Virginia?
nah; you're thinking of your Mom.

Chas
Wizard of Ozz
2003-11-09 00:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
Oh, cmon, if she did the Iraqis it would already be all over the
internet: "Jessy does Basra".
George W Bush
2003-11-09 04:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Is it true? Do you have a video? I like to watch.
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
=> Vox Populi ©
2003-11-09 18:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by George W Bush
Is it true? Do you have a video? I like to watch.
Watch for a xxx webcast from you favorite pornhaus ...
Post by George W Bush
Post by => Vox Populi ©
Now she claims that she never even fired her weapon, she said she was
on her knees praying? Either that is cowardice or stupidity for
kneeling during a battle and not firing back. But I don't believe
that she is a coward but I do wonder how she knows what she did when
she is claiming memory loss. How was she kneeling anyway when she
was supposed to be all broken up from the wreck or knocked silly.
Makes you wonder if we will ever know the truth.
The truth could be she willingly had anal sex with her Iraqi captors ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...