The Dilemma that the US is in
Khubla
offensive....and Iran knows it. If we didn't Invade Iraq and stayed the
course in Afghanistan we would have had the military might to handle Iran
easily, but Iran would not have dared to confront us as they do now. North
Korea and China also know that we tied our own hands and are now just a
paper tiger for any type of land actions. We still have our Navy and big
bombers but this is only good for a major conflict which nobody anticipates
in the near future. Because of our Iraq mistake the radical Moslems feel
empowered and this unrest in Islamic countries will only increase. There
will be no "settling down" for the foreseeable future. Depending on what
Israel, North Korea and Iran does we could easily find ourselves in a world
war shortly. Unfortunally I see this happing and if it does it would be
much better that it happens before Iran has the bomb then after. To defuse
the issue we must address the Palestine problem, ...it won't go away
otherwise, and force Israel to return to the 1967 borders. U.N. troops will
need to secure the peace there as is done in South Korea. For any lasting
peace we must eliminate the source of radicalization and that is the Islamic
schools with their Imams preaching their firebrand form of religion. All
schools should be government run and government supervised with accredited
teachers. Second a way must be found to bring employment to these youths in
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the other Islamic countries. A working person
raising a family cares little for religious jihads. Civil laws is what
tamed Christianity and will be what tames Islam. Somewhere down the line
Western civilization needs to imitate a campaign against all religious
teaching through education. The world is too crowded and the weapons too
dangerous to allow this religious hatred to continue.
Khubla
DaveJr
"Khubla" <khu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:ptidnQEGPuIEznje...@adelphia.com...
We put all our eggs in one basket.
And in time(soon, I hope) people will start to
wise up about religion and what it leads to.
When I hear the christian, jewish and catholics
spewing their 'god' this and 'god' that, all I hear
is 'allah' this and 'allah' that. I read somewhere
a while ago that 'allah' translated to English is
'a god'.
But no matter how you slice it....well you know.
Desertphile
> The US does not have the manpower or logistics to mount another major
> offensive....and Iran knows it. If we didn't Invade Iraq and stayed the
> course in Afghanistan we would have had the military might to handle Iran
> easily, but Iran would not have dared to confront us as they do now. North
"We?" "Us?" Please keep your fascist alpha male homicidal fantasies to
yourself. *I* did not invade Iraq.
---
The last sane American
Khubla
You don't sound sane to me. I don't think anybody would want to include you
in their group anyway. Do you find this the case?
Khubla
..
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139105562....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert J. Kolker
> The US does not have the manpower or logistics to mount another major
> offensive....and Iran knows it.
So do we. If we have to we will use thermonuclear weapons. We have over
10,000 warheads in the inventory. The pinko stinko commie liberal
pacificists have be yelling for us to get rid of the. I cannot think of
a better place to start than Iran.
Bob Kolker
Khubla
Khubla
..
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:44l99uF...@individual.net...
Joe Cooper
Bethlehem being much to close to Israel to be safe to use without
collateral damage.
Joe Cooper
Lee Jay
Iraq out of the nuclear age quite easily. What makes you think our
ability to drop thousands of JDAMs from stealthy aircraft and launch
thousands of cruise-missles from sea couldn't do the same thing?
Lee Jay
Robert J. Kolker
> The problem is not where to start but where to stop?
When the Moslems are dead, we can stop. It is the only way I know of to
expunge the Jihad Meme.
Bob Kolker
Dan Luke
Desertphile
>From : Emmert Elsea <khu...@adelphia.net>
Sent : Saturday, February 4, 2006 7:56 PM
To : "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
Subject : Re: The Dilemma that the US is in
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mta10.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.202]) by
bay0-mc8-f13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);
Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:56:12 -0800
Received: from emmertnys90eaw ([69.170.0.123]) by mta10.adelphia.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id
<20060205025612.CTAB18877.mta10.adelphia.net@emmertnys90eaw> for
<deser...@hotmail.com>; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:56:12 -0500
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGPy82qtatJw773NE2ZV+42mC3LEQ+h7cM=
References: <ptidnQEGPuIEznje...@adelphia.com>
<1139105562....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Return-Path: khu...@adelphia.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2006 02:56:12.0689 (UTC)
FILETIME=[B92ED010:01C629FF]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View E-mail Message Source
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;charset=iso-8859-1;reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You don't sound sane to me. I don't think anybody would want to
include you
in their group anyway. Do you find this the case?
Khubla
----- Original Message ----- From: "Desertphile"
<deser...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins,alt.politics.usa.misc
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Dilemma that the US is in
Khubla wrote:
The US does not have the manpower or logistics to mount another
major
offensive....and Iran knows it. If we didn't Invade Iraq and stayed
the
course in Afghanistan we would have had the military might to handle
Iran
easily, but Iran would not have dared to confront us as they do now.
North
wf...@comcast.net
c'mon bob, don't be shy...tell us how you REALLY feel :-)
Brian Westley
>Khubla wrote:
The "Jihad Meme" meaning the urge to kill millions of people?
Not well thought out...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Dale
> Israel, North Korea and Iran does we could easily find ourselves in a
world
> war shortly. Unfortunally I see this happing and if it does it would be
> much better that it happens before Iran has the bomb then after.
What? Better to have a world war before Iran has the bomb and THEN have
another world war after? Why would two world wars be better THAN one?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
liberators. They should just have gone in there and occupy it as a
hostile country, and arrest anybody who so much as raises their voice
loudly. Then slap a one size fits all constitution on both Iraq and
Afghanistan, get out very quickly and leave the Afghans and Iragi's to
handle things for themselves right, under direct threat of military
assault if the leadership acts against peace.
Aside from that, the religious violence is a separate problem. It
should be adressed by verbal violence. You can actually destroy the
beliefs of a person by mere words alone. Especially the beliefs of
extremists are highly fragile, because they tend to be based on lust.
Verbal violence this way is allowed within Islam but only as an act of
war. So you may say things that apparently slander the prophet, if in
doing so you have the goal to destroy the beliefs of extremists, not if
you have the goal to slander the prophet. That way it is not slander
against the prophet, but merely an effective act of violence against an
extremist. The current propaganda is slander against the prophet, it is
mere bigotry, and can only encourage more religious extremism. So we
should produce massive ammounts of verbal violence crafted in a way to
destroy the beliefs of extremists, and secondly ostracize the bigots in
society, opinion manipulators, who use verbal violence as a normal part
of free speech.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> We put all our eggs in one basket.
> And in time(soon, I hope) people will start to
> wise up about religion and what it leads to.
> When I hear the christian, jewish and catholics
> spewing their 'god' this and 'god' that, all I hear
> is 'allah' this and 'allah' that.
I'd get your hearing checked
> I read somewhere
> a while ago that 'allah' translated to English is
> 'a god'.
"the God" I believe.
> But no matter how you slice it....well you know.
no not really.
--
Nick Keighley
William Wingstedt
wrote:
Manpower will present a problem, until they start up the draft.
Conscript another generation, put people to work building munitions,
and turn the crank on the war machine once again. it's all about the
economy. We are not free citizens, we are simply cogs in societies
economic wet dream. "We'll be needing your son, Ma'am. We've got a lot
of protectin' to do. Trust us."
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Manpower will present a problem, until they start up the draft.
> Conscript another generation, put people to work building munitions,
> and turn the crank on the war machine once again. it's all about the
> economy. We are not free citizens, we are simply cogs in societies
> economic wet dream. "We'll be needing your son, Ma'am. We've got a lot
> of protectin' to do. Trust us."
Or we can vaporize our enemies with nuclear weapons currently in stock.
Anyone who sends in a human to do what a machine can do better is a
criminal.
Bob Kolker
>
raven1
wrote:
> To defuse
>the issue we must address the Palestine problem, ...it won't go away
>otherwise, and force Israel to return to the 1967 borders.
One of the major problems is that the Palestinians, as well as most of
Israel's neighbors, won't be satisfied until Israel is returned to its
pre-1948 borders.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
DaveJr
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139151123.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All stooping to the same level of ignorance.
Stuart
Khubla wrote:
. To defuse
> the issue we must address the Palestine problem, ...it won't go away
> otherwise, and force Israel to return to the 1967 borders.
What utter crock. ANother idiot pipes up and thinks that jihad will go
away when Israel and the Pals sign a peace.
You haven't been paying attention.. have you?
STuart
Friar Broccoli
> When the Moslems are dead, we can stop. It is the only way I know of to
> expunge the Jihad Meme.
>
> Bob Kolker
And your recommended method for expunging the Crusade meme is?
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> And your recommended method for expunging the Crusade meme is?
We no longer do that shit. There is no viable crusade meme in the
non-Moslem world. The Crusades are a thing of the past. dead and gone
over 700 years. The seculorum now dominates the West. Christianity has
been detoxified.
Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>> When the Moslems are dead, we can stop. It is the only way I
>>> know of to expunge the Jihad Meme.
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>
>> And your recommended method for expunging the Crusade meme is?
>
> We no longer do that shit. There is no viable crusade meme in
> the non-Moslem world.
Well, I certainly don't believe that. The west has dominated
the moslem world for about 200 years by either direct rule or
by imposing our leaders on them. Do you remember the "white
man's burden"?
Now, the invasion of Iraq is explicitly an effort to impose a
western style secular (non-moslem) democracy on them, instead
of allowing them to sort things out for themselves.
George and the US army may have invaded with the best and
noblest of intentions, but that invasion has made the hatred of
the west far greater than it was. This hatred is quite normal
and understandable. Had the US invaded Canada to sort out our
problem with a separatist Quebec, almost all of us would hate
the US too and at least some of us would be bombing US
buildings and assassinating its politicians.
Why should moslems be the target of extermination for acting
exactly the same way Canadians would if we were in the same
situation?
Consider also the consequences of actually carrying out your
proposed course of action. Suppose the US was to turn the
middle-east from Egypt to Pakistan into a radioactive
wasteland. How would Russia, India, China, and Brazil react?
Everyone would feel compelled to arm themselves to the teeth
with a credible nuclear deterrent.
In short, your course of action would not make the US safer.
Inevitably somebody would launch a "defensive" preemptive
nuclear strike against the US to protect themselves from
yet another US attack.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> In short, your course of action would not make the US safer.
> Inevitably somebody would launch a "defensive" preemptive
> nuclear strike against the US to protect themselves from
> yet another US attack.
Somebody? Who. The French? The Brits? The Russians? The Chinese? The
Pakistanis? If they did we would destroy them. The Pakistanis are the
only ones I would worry about since the are Moslem and prone to
martyrdon. Fortunately they do not have the delivery system.
One thing is for sure. The U.S. will not be the sole looser. If we go,
they all go.
Bob Kolker
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> Now, the invasion of Iraq is explicitly an effort to impose a
> western style secular (non-moslem) democracy on them, instead
> of allowing them to sort things out for themselves.
>
The invasion of Iraq was carried out by coalition forces under the
direct authority of UN Security Council Resolution.
It was done to restor peace and security in the area and to save the
lived of Iraqi citizens.
Yes, a democratic government is now being formed - by Iraqis. Why not?
Don't you think they deserve democratic freedoms like we have?
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>>>> When the Moslems are dead, we can stop. It is the only way I
>>>>> know of to expunge the Jihad Meme.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Kolker
>>
>>>>
>>>> And your recommended method for expunging the Crusade meme is?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We no longer do that shit. There is no viable crusade meme in
>>> the non-Moslem world.
[...]
>> Consider also the consequences of actually carrying out your
>> proposed course of action. Suppose the US was to turn the
>> middle-east from Egypt to Pakistan into a radioactive
>> wasteland. How would Russia, India, China, and Brazil react?
>> Everyone would feel compelled to arm themselves to the teeth
>> with a credible nuclear deterrent.
>>
>> In short, your course of action would not make the US safer.
>> Inevitably somebody would launch a "defensive" preemptive
>> nuclear strike against the US to protect themselves from
>> yet another US attack.
>> In short, your course of action would not make the US safer.
>> Inevitably somebody would launch a "defensive" preemptive
>> nuclear strike against the US to protect themselves from
>> yet another US attack.
> Somebody? Who. The French? The Brits? The Russians? The
> Chinese? The Pakistanis?
You have just destroyed all Moslem's remember? If you didn't
include the Pakistanis they would be a real immediate threat, so
following your "logic" they must be destroyed too. You will
also need to "take-out" a few moslem central asian republics that
could seize old soviet ICBMs and preemptively remove that threat
as well. I imagine that asian moslems want to become martyrs as
much as the next guy.
Also you forgot India and North Korea.
> If they did we would destroy them.
Are you sure the nut now running North Korea is capable of thinking
that far ahead? Can you guarantee that someone equally as goofy
won't at least temporarily gain control of Russia or China?
Someone who thinks: "My God those American nuts just destroyed
the entire middle-east. We're next on the list. Maybe we won't
succeed, but if we don't act now we're doomed for sure."
> The Pakistanis are the only ones I would worry about since the
> are Moslem and prone to martyrdon. Fortunately they do not
> have the delivery system.
You don't need an advanced delivery system. All you need is 10
old submarines or an equal number of fishing boats towing
underwater barges containing large nuclear weapons. You
detonate five on each coast and the US threat is removed. The
US won't even know for sure who made the attack, but it won't
matter.
The US will suspect both the Russians and the Chinese, so both
countries will feel compelled to destroy the US arsenal before
the US decides to retaliate. Under those circumstances they
would be crazy not to attack first.
And here we are only considering the short term problems. After
the destruction of the middle-east by US nuclear weapons every
country in the world from Japan and Indonesia to Chili and
Brazil would feel compelled to build a credible nuclear
deterrent. Even if the US was not directly attacked there would
inevitably be local exchanges which would set off armageddon.
>
> One thing is for sure. The U.S. will not be the sole looser.
> If we go, they all go.
No argument about that.
>
> Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
I have a very strong opinion on the above, however, I really have no
interest in expressing it here. The ONLY reason I am in this thread is
the (probably vain) hope that I can convince Robert J. Kolker to think
his position through to its logical conclusion.
Cordially;
Joe Cooper
You are a wannabe mass murderer and evil
Joe Cooper
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On 5 Feb 2006 13:55:59 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> > Now, the invasion of Iraq is explicitly an effort to impose a
>> > western style secular (non-moslem) democracy on them, instead
>> > of allowing them to sort things out for themselves.
>> >
>>
>> The invasion of Iraq was carried out by coalition forces under the
>> direct authority of UN Security Council Resolution.
>>
>> It was done to restor peace and security in the area and to save the
>> lived of Iraqi citizens.
>>
>> Yes, a democratic government is now being formed - by Iraqis. Why not?
>> Don't you think they deserve democratic freedoms like we have?
>
>I have a very strong opinion on the above, however, I really have no
>interest in expressing it here. The ONLY reason I am in this thread is
>
>the (probably vain) hope that I can convince Robert J. Kolker to think
>his position through to its logical conclusion.
>
>Cordially;
>
You are welcome to your opinion, just as long as you remember the
facts given above.
--
Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> You don't need an advanced delivery system. All you need is 10
> old submarines or an equal number of fishing boats towing
> underwater barges containing large nuclear weapons. You
> detonate five on each coast and the US threat is removed. The
> US won't even know for sure who made the attack, but it won't
> matter.
Our missle force is in the heartland. Well away from oceans.
Also we have boomers plying the oceans. Each with 24 missles each with
ten warheads each.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> the (probably vain) hope that I can convince Robert J. Kolker to think
> his position through to its logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion: my enemies are dead and I and my family are safer.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off, then shit down
his neck. Then kill off his extended family and friends so they will not
take revenge. That is how you do it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You are a wannabe mass murderer and evil
Self defense is evil?
Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You don't need an advanced delivery system. All you need is 10
> > old submarines or an equal number of fishing boats towing
> > underwater barges containing large nuclear weapons. You
> > detonate five on each coast and the US threat is removed. The
> > US won't even know for sure who made the attack, but it won't
> > matter.
>
> Our missle force is in the heartland. Well away from oceans.
And exactly how will this protect the PEOPLE most of whom live
on the coasts?
> Also we have boomers plying the oceans. Each with 24 missles each with
> ten warheads each.
What good will this do AFTER the bombs have gone off, especially
since you won't know who sent the bombs?
Not only that but you didn't even deal with either the secondary
attacks or the long term scenarios I described. You seem to be
playing the creationist game now: snipping the inconvenient
arguments and hoping they will go away.
Think your position thru. The consequences are obvious,
predictable and suicidal.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> What good will this do AFTER the bombs have gone off, especially
> since you won't know who sent the bombs?
The communications centers in the heartland will still be operative. The
united states is 3300 miles wide. Attacking the coastal areas will not
affect the interior.
By a process of elimination if one of the "major" powers which are
always monitored even from satellites did not do the deed, then we know
it is a Moslem country. So we kill them all. Easy peazy.
Even if the coasts are wiped out the U.S. can launch 10,000 warheads
although not that many will be necessary.
Bob Kolker
mvil...@gmail.com
Lee Jay wrote:
> What makes you think invading Iran is the only solution? Israel bombed
> Iraq out of the nuclear age quite easily. What makes you think our
> ability to drop thousands of JDAMs from stealthy aircraft and launch
> thousands of cruise-missles from sea couldn't do the same thing?
>
> Lee Jay
Which is exactly the plan. The trick is getting a UN consensus on the
matter, which shouldn't really be too hard. (And in truth none of this
is that big of a deal).
The current Iranian leadership is not that much farther to the right
than the Neocons. They only seem further to the right simply because
they are taking advantage of the fact that the US has her hands tied up
in Iraq. Such a situation allows them to play a harder game of
brinksmanship than they normally could afford to.
Having said that no war will come out of this anytime soon. As loony
as the Iranian PM is making himself out to be, even HE is managing to
keep his hardliners under control, while at the same time keeping those
to the left of his position satisfied, or at least afraid to speak up.
Again, just a game of brinksmanship. And Condie's plan of backing them
slowly to a corner hoping they will flinch is rather stupid. You can't
make someone flinch when that someone knows your hands are tied up with
something else. But Condie really has no choice...cruise missiles and
surgical strikes are all she's got. But remember that air strikes
like that are only a token offense unless it's sustained over the long
term (over many months assuming very accurate intelligence, years if
not). Otherwise it's quite easy to keep your forbidden toys safe from
smart bombs and cruise missiles.
In other words, all in all expect Iran to come out with something to
their advantage out of this. They'll get something to tip the balance
of power their way, with or without nukes.
Robert J. Kolker
We have nukes. Who says our hands are tied? I wonder how well one of
their underground installations holds up to a ten megaton weapon.
Bob Kolker
Timberwoof
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> We have nukes. Who says our hands are tied? I wonder how well one of
> their underground installations holds up to a ten megaton weapon.
>
> Bob Kolker
I don't want anyone blowing any of those up in my ecosphere!
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
mvil...@gmail.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
[snip]
>
> We have nukes. Who says our hands are tied? I wonder how well one of
> their underground installations holds up to a ten megaton weapon.
>
Come on dude, what the hell kind of question is that, you know damn
well underground bunkers can easily withstand nuclear blasts. If they
didn't then we wouldn't have bothered building them ourselves. (And no
I'm not talking abou the backyard cinder-block bunkers.)
The only way to blow up bunkers like that is to use a bunker busting
bomb (preferably with a nuke warhead)...and/or sneak a nuke inside.
mvil...@gmail.com
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On 5 Feb 2006 13:55:59 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > > Now, the invasion of Iraq is explicitly an effort to impose a
> > > western style secular (non-moslem) democracy on them, instead
> > > of allowing them to sort things out for themselves.
> > >
> >
> > The invasion of Iraq was carried out by coalition forces under the
> > direct authority of UN Security Council Resolution.
> >
> > It was done to restor peace and security in the area and to save the
> > lived of Iraqi citizens.
> >
> > Yes, a democratic government is now being formed - by Iraqis. Why not?
> > Don't you think they deserve democratic freedoms like we have?
>
> I have a very strong opinion on the above, however, I really have no
> interest in expressing it here. The ONLY reason I am in this thread is
>
> the (probably vain) hope that I can convince Robert J. Kolker to think
> his position through to its logical conclusion.
>
> Cordially;
Dude, don't take Kolker too seriously. I was just like you before I
realized after reading so many of Kolker's statements that, as much as
I hate to admit it, he thinks just like me!!!
And what I mean by that is that my (personal) vewpoint is that concepts
such as "morality," "good," "bad," and "doing what's right" apply well
enough to the individual. But they apply so well only because the
social group the individual belongs to can overpower the individual.
Now when you get to the scale of superpowers, mega-corporations,
powerful despots, ideological demagogues, etc... big honking social
entities that can wield a lot of influence and power, all of that
"goody goody" crap doesn't apply. You don't get to that type of
position nor gain that type of power by being nice. You gain all of
that by being "bad" (for lack of a better term). The more conniving,
the more sneaky, the more underhanded, the more of an asshole you are,
the more powerful you will become and the more "bad" people you can
dominate. If you aren't willing to be any of those, then it is
guaranteed that someone else who IS willing to be that way will become
more powerful than you and you will then be at his mercy. This (IMO) is
the sad and simple fact of human nature. We have 3000+ years of
history to back this up, and in truth probably more than 3000 years but
we didn't write anything down back then so we don't know for sure.
People like religious fundies will blame such behaivior on homosexuals,
liberals, etc...and claim their own righteousness, without realizing
that they themselves are being manipulated by these "bad" people.
So back to Kolker...when others make statements about the underhanded
stuff the U.S. does in order to maintain her power, you get
right-wingers immediately on the defensive and saying stuff in defense
of these underhanded actions or even outright deny them. However I
noticed that Kolker's reaction would be along the lines of "Yeah yeah
underhanded stuff to maintain a position of power...and your point is?"
Which is the exact reaction I would have.
IMO the more people realize that second paragpraph (paragraph #2)
above, the more kindly we'll treat each other, but hey that's just my
dimwitted fantasy. Whatever Kolker's reasons may be, when says these
outrageous things, I think it's just his way of making people realize
paragraph #2 and I think he knows damn well what the "logical
conlusion" is. I also try to get the same realization out of people,
though I try to use a bit more tact while Kolker prefers a more direct
approach.
Of course I could be wrong about him and that he's ignorant of the
"logical conclusions" of the outrageous things he says...but you can't
be right all of the time =)
Harlequin
news:ptidnQEGPuIEznje...@adelphia.com:
> The US does not have the manpower or logistics to mount another major
> offensive....and Iran knows it. If we didn't Invade Iraq and stayed
> the course in Afghanistan we would have had the military might to
> handle Iran easily, but Iran would not have dared to confront us as
> they do now.
We would not have the manpower to invade Iran even if we
did not have one man in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a few other
places. Lets see: Iran has far more people than Iraq, Iran
has far greater area than Iraq, Iran has rougher terrain than
Iraq, Iran has not had a decade of crippling sanctions, and
Iran has more religious fanaticism than Iraq ever had.
In short, Iran would make Iraq seem little tea party.
Sure our military crush the Iranian army (though not nearly
as fast as Iraq was taken out), but the uniformed army
is not the main problem. Holding the country against
underground resistance will be. And Iran would be better
able to prepare for this. They would prepare for that
stage of the war far better than Saddam ever did.
Bush's worst error with respect to Iran was naming
them as part of the "Axis of Evil." Sure a great deal
of the Iranian regime qualifies as evil, but the
action greatly damaged the Iranian moderates. The
republicanism (small 'r') of Iran was never functional
in the Western sense, but they do have elections that
could have slowly evolved into a better system. Many
Iranians have been long fed up with the nuts that lead
them.
We can only hope that the nuts in Iran are not so nutty
as to not realize the fire which they are playing with. Because
if Iran continues towards nuclear weapons they might force a
nuclear response even from a Democratic administration let
alone the one that currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
[snip]
> Somewhere down the line
> Western civilization needs to imitate a campaign against all religious
> teaching through education. The world is too crowded and the weapons
> too dangerous to allow this religious hatred to continue.
You will not cure radicalism by introducing radicalism of your
own.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Any sufficiently badly-written science is indistinguishable from
magic."
- Aaron Allston
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>We have nukes. Who says our hands are tied? I wonder how well one of
>>their underground installations holds up to a ten megaton weapon.
>>
>
>
> Come on dude, what the hell kind of question is that, you know damn
> well underground bunkers can easily withstand nuclear blasts. If they
> didn't then we wouldn't have bothered building them ourselves. (And no
> I'm not talking abou the backyard cinder-block bunkers.)
The blast and electromagnetic effects will render the equipment
dysfunctional. To really bomb proof an installation (against a device up
to ten megatons) you have to build it under a mountain, like the NORAD
center just south of Colorado Springs.
In addition to having a weak infrastructure, even if the Iranians build
a few dozen bombs, how are they going to deliver them?
Even if they are delivered by ship to New York Harbor (say), our
military capability for retaliation is dispersed and decentralized and
mostly in the interious of the country. In short, they can't touch our
military centers.
The U.S. will bleed millions, no doubt, but our enemies will be totally
anihilated. The last one standing is the winner.
>
> The only way to blow up bunkers like that is to use a bunker busting
> bomb (preferably with a nuke warhead)...and/or sneak a nuke inside.
The bunker busters will do just fine, delivered within ten yards of
target. I just love the GPS.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Bush's worst error with respect to Iran was naming
> them as part of the "Axis of Evil."
For once, Shrubb was right.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> approach.
>
> Of course I could be wrong about him and that he's ignorant of the
> "logical conclusions" of the outrageous things he says...but you can't
> be right all of the time =)
Logical Conclusions? Like Rhett Butler famously said. "I don't give a
damn".
And apparently you do take me semi-seriously. And I appreciated that
because I am not kidding. About mortal matters and wiping out a sixth of
the human race, I do not joke.
Our enemies are counting on our decency. So the only course to follow is
to be indecent. We must not only lower ourselves to the level of our
enemies. We must go lower still so we can attack them from below.
Bob Kolker
mvil...@gmail.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > approach.
> >
> > Of course I could be wrong about him and that he's ignorant of the
> > "logical conclusions" of the outrageous things he says...but you can't
> > be right all of the time =)
>
> Logical Conclusions? Like Rhett Butler famously said. "I don't give a
> damn".
Oh come now...Of course you do. Everyone does at some point. Some
just start giving a damn at a higher threshold than others.
> And apparently you do take me semi-seriously.
Of course I do. I haven't run into many too people who sees the
workings of the world (and the workings of humans) in its true form.
You're definitely one of them and that's a great thing.
> And I appreciated that
> because I am not kidding. About mortal matters and wiping out a sixth of
> the human race, I do not joke.
So let's talk about it seriously then.
Even if you turn the entire surface of the middle east into glass,
which is impossible cause we don't have enough nukes for it, you STILL
need troops to march in. Nuclear fallout will take years to kill
everyone and even then some survivors will still remain. Killing off a
whole population of people is not trivial, even with all the nukes that
every country posseses dropping down on the Middle East. Guys with a
rifle on the ground are still needed to kill of the rest and/or make
sure they don't reorganize themselves.
Not to mention you'd still need to keep a lot more nukes and a good
portion of your military handy to handle the shit hitting the fan at
home and abroad in other countries. We don't even need to get into
that side of it, you know well what the repercussions are. And it's
not just diplomatic repercussions...we're very dependent on a lot of
trade and if that gets disrupted in anyway we suffer a bigger blow and
longer term damage than any "retaliatory" strike the suviving jihadists
can manage to muster.
What I'm saying is that taking into account all of the side effects and
"logical conclusions" you don't care about, we'll definitely ACHIEVE
the goal of wiping out the enemy, or at least wiping him out for the
next century or so...but we'll be so crippled afterwards that we'd be
just as fucked up as the middle east is fucked up today!
> Our enemies are counting on our decency. So the only course to follow is
> to be indecent. We must not only lower ourselves to the level of our
> enemies. We must go lower still so we can attack them from below.
I'm not saying what you're saying is an impossibility...it's just not
practical. Consider my way...
Pour a lot of money into research to the scale of the Manhattan
Project. The goal would be a Hydrogen Economy, or at least a 70%
hydrogen-30% fossil fuel economy, or it doesn't have to be a hydrogen
economy...just something less dependent on fossil fuels from the middle
east (renewable power, nuclear power, etc...). Keep this as secret as
the Manhattan Project, or at least as hidden as possible this day in
age. Don't involve Europe in it, but having China and Japan along with
you would be a big help (a good way to do this is to find a way for the
jihadists to start having an influence on china's muslim population).
And make damn sure the energy conglomerates do not sabotage it. Great
way to do it is to have them take up this business once it's getting
somewhere. The goal is to use less fossil fuels to the point where the
economic advantages of middle eastern oil is nullified.
During this time, continue consuming oil and buying oil from the Middle
East. We've been making them dependent on *selling* oil as much as
we've made ourselves dependent on using it. Continue to do so and do
what you can to make them even more dependent. Do what you can to keep
the jihadists in check, but you don't want to eliminate them completely
cause you'll need them later. Just keep them at bay but allow their
ideology to be heard. Also do what you can to stymie any effort the
Middle East makes in trying to diversify their economy. The jihadists
can be manipulated to do this quite easily.
Once the research has turned up something practical, begin the
conversion of infastructure. I admit this part will be the hardest,
but the trick is to do this quickly enough so that the Middle East
never saw it coming. Something to the span of 5-10 years or so. If
China and Japan were in it with you, even better. The more sudden the
drop in oil purchasing the better. A good way is to have the muslim
fundies attack you just as you transition to the "infastructure
conversion" phase. This will give you the excuse to tighten up and
start picking on muslims that are in your own soil...just to keep that
variable in check.
Now Middle East will have to work for a living. Sit back and watch
them implode. Makes for great TV. Oh and you can make extra money
selling weapons to the various factions trying to kill each other, and
a few bags of grain here and there. Keep the nukes handy just in case
one of them tries to get uppity and starts focusing on you. Before you
know it, they've turned into another Africa.
Now I admit this method will take (A LOT) longer and cost more money,
but at least you're not permanently crippling yourself.
Besides...think about it anyway. How much harm can a few terrorist
attacks do to us in the long run? Not like you can prevent 100% of
terrorist attacks anyway. And they can't permanently cripple our
infrastructure, not even with well placed nukes. The only way to knock
down a country is to have a guy with a rifle march into the country and
plant a flag. Their ideology will not allow the type of infrastructure
neccesary to build up that kind of military force. If you play the
game carefully and bide your time, you can set something up where
they'll be in such shock that they'll screw each other continously for
decades.
Then you can pull the same old tricks...lend them money to keep them in
debt, start faction wars to make money from weapons sales which keeps
them crippled at the same time, keep giving them free food so that
their own agricultural development is minimized...etc...
Mitch...@aol.com
Harlequin wrote:
> We would not have the manpower to invade Iran even if we
> did not have one man in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a few other
> places. Lets see: Iran has far more people than Iraq, Iran
> has far greater area than Iraq, Iran has rougher terrain than
> Iraq, Iran has not had a decade of crippling sanctions, and
> Iran has more religious fanaticism than Iraq ever had.
> In short, Iran would make Iraq seem little tea party.
Iran also has supersonic (and phalanx avoiding) cruise missles designed
to take out aircraft carriers.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> By a process of elimination if one of the "major" powers which are
> always monitored even from satellites did not do the deed, then we
> know it is a Moslem country. So we kill them all. Easy peazy.
Again, you have forgotten the context. You began by advocating
that we should kill all moslems with nuclear weapons. This
presumably with the objective of increasing US security and
protect its people.
If you did that (so now all moslems are dead and thus cannot be
killed a second time), you will create a climate of terror in
all the worlds' remaining countries of the "I could be next
variety". This will have two effects:
1) Cause almost all countries to actively develop a nuclear
deterrent of their own to protect themselves from the US.
2) Cause many countries to actively desire the destruction of
the US, to eliminate the threat. One method any country
with nuclear weapons could use would be to tow them near the
US coast with fishing boats in submerged barges. With this
method an enemy might be able to kill up to 80% of the US
population, leaving the US with no method of determining for
certain who attacked them.
In either of these scenarios the US is clearly much less secure
after killing all moslems with nuclear weapons.
Consequently, killing all moslems cannot achieve the intended
objective of making the US more secure and is for this reason
(among many others) a bad idea.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Then you can pull the same old tricks...lend them money to keep them in
> debt, start faction wars to make money from weapons sales which keeps
> them crippled at the same time, keep giving them free food so that
> their own agricultural development is minimized...etc...
You have outlined a great program but it is fifty years too late.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Iran also has supersonic (and phalanx avoiding) cruise missles designed
> to take out aircraft carriers.
The Boomers can handle Iran.
Bob Kolker
>
mvil...@gmail.com
Hah! Well then that's where we differ (^_^)
You say kill them all and then lick our wounds...the wounds will be
deep, but can be recovered from.
I say the wounds will be permanently crippling and years down the road
you have to worry about people complaining about what you did to them
in the past. So I say it's better to keep them (barely) alive and in
constant peril. You let them fight each other and they'll be too
distracted to fight you. And you can make money from them while they
fight. The trick is to make sure none of the factions gets the upper
hand.
Toh-may-toe, to-mah-to. Andre Roussimoff, Bruce Lee.
Greg G.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
<snippage>
>
> The U.S. will bleed millions, no doubt, but our enemies will be totally
> anihilated. The last one standing is the winner.
Last species to go extinct wins!
--
Greg G.
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!
Robert J. Kolker
>
> If you did that (so now all moslems are dead and thus cannot be
> killed a second time), you will create a climate of terror in
> all the worlds' remaining countries of the "I could be next
> variety". This will have two effects:
>
> 1) Cause almost all countries to actively develop a nuclear
> deterrent of their own to protect themselves from the US.
>
> 2) Cause many countries to actively desire the destruction of
> the US, to eliminate the threat. One method any country
> with nuclear weapons could use would be to tow them near the
> US coast with fishing boats in submerged barges. With this
> method an enemy might be able to kill up to 80% of the US
> population, leaving the US with no method of determining for
> certain who attacked them.
Our counterattack ability is placed in the interior of the U.S. First of
all, Command and Control. NORAD is buried under a mountain just south of
Colorado Springs and can take a direct hit from a ten megaton h-bomb.
Second the bulk of our land based missile force in the midwest, well
away from the coasts.
Third, our fleet of Boomers cannot be stopped.
Fourth, we always have squadrons of B-52 bombers aloft. I think this has
been disconued since the Soviet went belly up, but it can be restarted
swiftly.
Thus even if ALL of our costal cities took hits from ship carried nukes
the U.S. can launch massive and lethal attacks all over the world.
Ten Thousand warheads, ready to do their thing. Nothing would survive
such an attack.
As Herman Kahn pointed out many decades ago, we can loose fifty million
of our people and still prevail.
It works like this: If we go, so does everyone else. So rational enemies
will not attack us. Irrational enemies such as the Moslems may attack
us, but they cannot deliver enough destruction to signficantly dent our
military capabilities. If we act now, we are sure to win, even if we
bleed some.
Bob Kolker
Mitch...@aol.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Ten Thousand warheads, ready to do their thing. Nothing would survive
> such an attack.
Including us.
Joe Cooper
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
MR. Kolker
You are a truly evil man
Joe Cooper
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> MR. Kolker
>
> You are a truly evil man
As evil as the the evil world requires me to be.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Why?. Fallout is highly overrated. Even if there is a ten percent
increase in the cancer rate it will be well worth it to buy some peace
and quiet.
Bob Kolker
>
jony
莊邱碧梅 2003.1.12
經文：申命記六：4-9；箴言廿二：6
兒女是耶和華神所賞賜給我們的產業，每一個兒女都是父母親心頭上的一塊肉，所以天下父母心，誰不愛自己的兒女呢！但不可諱言的，有許多的父母親並不懂得甚麼叫做真正的愛的教育，所以在養育孩子的過程中，只有養而沒有育，常常是關愛孩子成了溺愛孩子，自由成了放縱，使孩子們無所適從，不知道甚麼是對的，甚麼是錯的，甚麼是該做的，甚麼是不該做的。
申命記第六章4-9節是神對以色列人的教導，也是對每一個做父母親的提醒，我們要用神的話語，來養育我們的孩子，使孩子可以從小就受到良好的宗教教育薰陶，而擁有正確的人生觀和天國價值觀，使他們一生可以活在上帝賜福的恩典中。所以為人父母親的，不能不謹慎，一定要用神給我們的“智慧”，來教育我們的孩子，不要等到孩子長大了，或許有很好的表現及成就了，但卻遠離了父母親的信仰了，到那時候才來後悔，後悔當初沒有將信仰傳承給我們的下一代。盼望我們每一位基督徒父母，要有智慧，更要把握機會，不要讓這樣的遺憾發生了，而成為我們心中永遠的痛，所以從小我們就要寶貝我們的孩子，我們更要好好的來教育我們的孩子。
大多數的父母在孩子的成長過程中，都會盡其所能的，無微不至的關心和照顧，總希望自己的孩子將來可以成龍、可以成鳳，所以會想盡辦法，提供最好最舒適的生活環境，來供孩子學習與成長，送他們到這個班、那個班，幫他們補英文、補中文，讓他們學鋼琴、學跳舞，父母親天天忙著接送孩子，忙著侍候孩子，忙得沒有時間，停下來看看孩子或教教孩子，許多為人父母的，做牛、做馬都心甘情願，為的只有一個目的，就是要讓孩子將來出人頭地，可以成龍，可以成鳳。但世上有許多的事情，卻不是我們心想就可以事成的，也因此有些孩子就養成了驕縱的心態，在生活中只知道茶來伸手、飯來張口，在人際關係裡，心中只有我，目中無他人，而在生命的過程中，不懂得感恩，更不知道要惜福，所以到頭來只有可憐天下父母心了，父母親心頭的痛，是永遠無法說出
口的。
馬可福音十：13說，有人帶著小孩來見耶穌，要耶穌摸他們，今天我們為人父母的，有沒有想帶孩子來見耶穌呢？也許我們會帶孩子去見他們的老師，去見他們的校長，但我們有沒有想要帶孩子來見耶穌呢？有些基督徒父母認為：我的孩子現在還小，現在他們最需要的就是多學一些才藝、多吸收一些新知，而至於屬靈的生命呢？等孩子長大了再說吧！也有些基督徒父母，會認為孩子現階段是學生，學生就應該以學業為重，等學業告一段落了，等考完了大考或修完了學位，再說吧！如果我們是這樣想的話，那麼有一天，我們會後悔的，因為等我們想帶他來見耶穌的時候，他們已經不願意來了。
所以，基督徒父母，不要把孩子追求功課可以名列前茅，或事業可以成功發達，擺在第一位，求神幫助我們每一位為人父母的，都要有智慧，知道甚麼是孩子生命中最重要的、最急迫的事，我們要把握住先後的順序，將重要的天國價值觀，優先的來教導我們的孩子，這樣的話，為人父母的，將來才不會後悔，才不會為了我們的孩子，而使我們有了心中永遠的痛了。
父母親不但要優先的帶我們的孩子來見耶穌，讓耶穌來改變他而已，很重要的第二點，就是父母親自己要有好的生活榜樣，孩子們從父母親生活中的點點滴滴，所學習到的，遠比我們口頭上所教他的，還來得有效。所以自古以來，我們的教育強調的，就是身教重於言教，做的絕對比說的來得好，父母親是孩子最直接的學習榜樣，所以身為父母親的，將來你要你的孩子成為怎樣子的人，現在你就要有怎麼樣的生活表現，種瓜得瓜、種豆得豆，要怎麼收就得怎麼種，父母親要謹慎，小心的撒種，將來才能歡呼收割。
第三，基督徒父母，要以神的教訓和誡命來養育孩子，過去的教育也許是“棒下出孝子”、“不打不成器”，但今天的教育，我們看見已經不能打，不能罵了，但是絕對可以“說”，可以“教”。父母親教導孩子一定要有原則，不要出爾反爾，說話要算話，說了就要做到，不要隨便縱容孩子，該糾正、該管教的時候，就要即時、就要立刻，申命記第六章說，不論何時何地、坐在家裡、行在路上，都要殷勤教導、隨時管教。父母親教育孩子，要像園丁在栽培花木一樣，必須每天去修它、去剪它、去導正它，這樣孩子長大了，才能成為我們所要的形狀的。
今天的社會千變萬化，社會就是一個大染缸，而我們的孩子就像海棉一樣，不管好的、壞的、對的、錯的，照單全收。所以我們身為父母親的，絕對有責任來保護他們、來教育他們、來影響他們，不要讓他們完全的，被這個社會的大染缸給污染了，給影響了。
所以除了家庭教育很重要之外，另外我們一定要看重宗教教育，要用宗教教育，來彌補整個大環境，社會教育的不足。馬太福音十九章14節，耶穌說，讓小孩子到我這裡來，不要禁止他們。可是當小孩子真正來到了神的面前，來到屬靈的家──教會了，我們是否有用全心的來照顧這些孩子呢？
通常一般的教會在各樣的事工上，都會積極且快速的進行與推展，可是卻往往忽略了兒童和青少年的事工，今天神的恩典，建立了這間南澳華人基督教會，一年來我們享受主的賜福滿滿，我們有豐富的講台供應，我們有溫馨親密的團契，但想想這幾個團契：長青喜樂團契、廣東話團契、普通話團契、潮語以勒團契，各個團契都有許多的同工配搭服事，從信息的安排到活動的內容都很豐富，但我們有沒有為小孩、我們的下一代，就是兒童主日學和青年團契付出更多的關心呢？在神給我們教會恩典滿滿的賜福當中，我們可不要只顧我們這些大人了。年青人的生活、學業，我們都要關心、照顧、扶持和教導的，為他們尋找適當的同工，為他們安排理想的團契，讓他們感受到愛的關懷，這是給我們每一個弟兄姊妹的提醒，更是給牧師、執事們的挑戰。盼望在新的一年裡，我
們樂見這些年青人都投入教會，都溶入在弟兄姊妹當中，來連於基督耶穌元首，使他們的信仰、生活和學業都蒙福，這些都需要我們這些大人們付出心力的。
另外就是兒童主日學的孩子，當我們在這一年裡，坐在這裡，享受每個主日豐富的講台信息的同時，您知不知道有兒童主日學的老師們，正默默地不發怨言、不怕辛苦、不為人知的，付出在這最微小的孩子身上呢！他們很辛苦的要教、要帶這些主日學的孩子，可不是一件容易的事啊！以前我自己當過老師，深知其中的甘苦，孩子是活的個體，不是你叫他不要動，他就不動，你叫他坐好
他就肯坐好的，孩子不好教的、很辛苦的。
如果不是他們有愛神，和願意事奉神的心的話，誰肯做這份苦差事呢？所以今天我們不但要感謝神，我們更要向這些兒童主日學的老師們致敬，他們的愛心、耐心、事奉的心，絕對是我們學習的榜樣。不要說他們都很有經驗，都很有恩賜，沒有的！他們跟你我一樣，是那麼的普通，是那麼的平凡，只要你有一顆願意事奉，且可以不為人知的心的話，那麼你也可以參與兒童主日學的事奉工作的，不在乎經驗，只在乎你的一顆心。
盼望在新的一年裡，我們有更多願意在兒童主日學事工中擺上的同工，當然，為長遠之計，而且是刻不容緩的事，就是要求神，給我們每一個人有一個共同的異象，要為這些我們的寶貝、就是孩子和年青人，尋求一位有負擔且可以專職在兒童跟青少年的教導上的同工，因為我們知道，小孩子的學習力是最好的，所以如果我們在他們還小、還年輕的時候，就將正確的天國道理來教導他們，那麼他們一輩子也不容易走錯或迷失的。箴廿二：6就說，教導孩童使他走當行的道，就是到老他也不偏離的。
所以，我們要寶貝我們的孩子，我們就要看重我們的下一代，使他們不但從小可以扎根在正確的信仰上，更可以一生一世活在神的恩典中，來事奉祂和榮耀祂。
Friar Broccoli
> Our counterattack ability is placed in the interior of the U.S. First of
> all, Command and Control. NORAD is buried under a mountain just south of
> Colorado Springs and can take a direct hit from a ten megaton h-bomb.
>
> Second the bulk of our land based missile force in the midwest, well
> away from the coasts.
>
> Third, our fleet of Boomers cannot be stopped.
>
> Fourth, we always have squadrons of B-52 bombers aloft. I think this has
> been disconued since the Soviet went belly up, but it can be restarted
> swiftly.
I am puzzled by your continued refusal to even discuss my
points.
> Thus even if ALL of our costal cities took hits from ship
> carried nukes the U.S. can launch massive and lethal attacks
> all over the world.
Quite true, but in the scenario I layed out the US wouldn't
have the slightest idea who to retaliate against. How could
the US know who detonated undersea nuclear weapons along
its coast?
If the US did commit nuclear genocide against moslem arabs,
many other nations would be highly motivated to do just this to
prevent the US from doing the same to them.
Exterminating all moslems would cause the US to be feared and
hated by EVERY nation on the planet, greatly decreasing its
safety and security. Exterminating the moslems is clearly
stupid and counter productive. Please deal with the points I
am making.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Exterminating all moslems would cause the US to be feared and
> hated by EVERY nation on the planet, greatly decreasing its
> safety and security. Exterminating the moslems is clearly
> stupid and counter productive. Please deal with the points I
> am making.
If we cannot be both loved and feared it is better to be feared.
I have answered your points. If we don't destroy them, they will destroy
us. Now which do you prefer?
Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>> Exterminating all moslems would cause the US to be feared and
>> hated by EVERY nation on the planet, greatly decreasing its
>> safety and security. Exterminating the moslems is clearly
>> stupid and counter productive. Please deal with the points I
>> am making.
>
> If we cannot be both loved and feared it is better to be feared.
OK, lets look at that. In another post to me you said:
> If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off, then
> shit down his neck. Then kill off his extended family and
> friends so they will not take revenge. That is how you do it.
Suppose you lived in a society without police and your
neighbour got into a dispute with another neighbour and acted
as you describe. You would know that a neighbour who could
behave that way is also likely to be a real danger to you and
your family. In that situation you and I both know what you
would do: You would wait till it was safe, and then you would
kill him to protect yourself and your family. (You might also
do your best to hide any evidence that you did it.)
Why should others behave differently toward you or toward the
US if they exterminate all moslems?
Looking again at your dictum note that it begins:
"If we cannot be BOTH loved and feared ...". The author of
that dictum knew it is best to be loved AND feared.
Being HATED and feared is far more dangerous. The US is
already feared. Exterminating the moslems would cause everyone
to hate them, greatly increasing the danger to the US.
> I have answered your points.
Not as far as I can tell. And you still haven't explained how
the US could retaliate against an underwater nuclear attack
if it didn't know the source. Clearly the best defence here is
being loved (or at least not hated).
> If we don't destroy them, they
> will destroy us. Now which do you prefer?
A completely false dichotomy. As I recall, something
like 25,000 US citizens die in traffic accidents each year.
alqaeda will probably never even come close to killing that
many people. Objectively they are nothing but a nuisance.
Also I very well remember that many people said the Russians
would destroy us if we didn't destroy them. Are you old
enough to remember that? If so, are you worried about the
Russians today?
In summary, exterminating all moslems will convert a minor
nuisance into a series of long term threats to the US, so it is
clearly counter productive.
Harlequin
@individual.net:
Oklahoma vs. Iran?
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1139267536.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
And blitheringly stupid, as well as dangerously ignorant.
Kolker would make an ideal president of the USA.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> Our counterattack ability is placed in the interior of the U.S. First of
>> all, Command and Control. NORAD is buried under a mountain just south of
>> Colorado Springs and can take a direct hit from a ten megaton h-bomb.
>>
>> Second the bulk of our land based missile force in the midwest, well
>> away from the coasts.
>>
>> Third, our fleet of Boomers cannot be stopped.
>>
>> Fourth, we always have squadrons of B-52 bombers aloft. I think this has
>> been disconued since the Soviet went belly up, but it can be restarted
>> swiftly.
>
> I am puzzled by your continued refusal to even discuss my
> points.
>
>> Thus even if ALL of our costal cities took hits from ship
>> carried nukes the U.S. can launch massive and lethal attacks
>> all over the world.
>
> Quite true, but in the scenario I layed out the US wouldn't
> have the slightest idea who to retaliate against. How could
> the US know who detonated undersea nuclear weapons along
> its coast?
Quite easy - backtrack the ships.
Of course, in reality, the ships would not make it to the states in
the first place.
--
Bob.
Dan Luke
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we don't destroy them, they
>> will destroy us. Now which do you prefer?
>
> A completely false dichotomy.
Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
In either case, what is the point of arguing with him about nuking every
Muslim country in the world?
Themudo
Lee Jay escreveu:
> What makes you think invading Iran is the only solution?
His couch, his fridge and waaay too much tv
Chico
Robert J. Kolker
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:44pmqnF391jlU9
> @individual.net:
>
>
>>Mitch...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>Iran also has supersonic (and phalanx avoiding) cruise missles designed
>>>to take out aircraft carriers.
>>
>>The Boomers can handle Iran.
>
>
> Oklahoma vs. Iran?
>
Oklahoma with nukes and three ways of delivering them world wide.
I put my money on Oklahoma.
By the way a Boomer is a submarine capable of launching 24 nuclear
missles each with up to ten independently aimable warheads.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
> "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>If we don't destroy them, they
>>>will destroy us. Now which do you prefer?
>>
>>A completely false dichotomy.
>
>
> Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
Consider the possibility that I am not trolling, not an idiot (which I
am certainly not) and that I might be right.
>
> In either case, what is the point of arguing with him about nuking every
> Muslim country in the world?
Arguing is a waste of time. We should just do it.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Quite easy - backtrack the ships.
>
> Of course, in reality, the ships would not make it to the states in
> the first place.
If every major costal city in the u.s. is attacked with hiroshima class
nukes (20 kt) it would not reduce our ability to retaliated one iota.
Our retaliatory capability was honed against a REAL opponent, the Soviet
Union, now dead and gone.
The Wogs do not have a chance if we go on the rampage -- now!
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Invading Iran is suicidal. It should be thoroughly nuked and gassed. Not
a single soldier need set foot in Iran, except to bury the corposes
(when the fall out has settled) and to take the oil.
Bob Kolker
Themudo
Go ahead. Just grab your playstation
Chico
>
> Bob Kolker
>
> >
> >
Themudo
Forget that! Send John Wayne instead.
And what about all the mouslims in the u.s. ? Should the u.s.
government send John Wayne after them too?
Chico
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Forget that! Send John Wayne instead.
> And what about all the mouslims in the u.s. ? Should the u.s.
> government send John Wayne after them too?
Too late. The Duke died a long time ago.
Bob Kolker
Steve Schaffner
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>If we don't destroy them, they
> >>>will destroy us. Now which do you prefer?
> >>
> >>A completely false dichotomy.
> >
> >
> > Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
>
> Consider the possibility that I am not trolling, not an idiot (which I
> am certainly not) and that I might be right.
I have considered seriously the possibility that you might be right.
I have, however, been forced to the conclusion that you are wrong: you
are in fact an idiot.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Themudo
That didn't stop Jesus. It shouldn't be much of a problem for The Duke
>
> Bob Kolker
Ken Shackleton
And we know the Duke really existed too...
> >
> > Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
> Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
Kolker has already responded to you with:
Consider the possibility that
- I am not trolling,
- not an idiot (which I am certainly not)
- and that I might be right.
On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
what that definition is.
On the third point, given that he has not responded to my last
post (that I can see), I am hopeful that it is beginning to sink
in that his position is logically incoherent and internally
inconsistent. He is unconcerned by ethical considerations which
is why I am not making use of such arguments here.
> In either case, what is the point of arguing with him
> about nuking every Muslim country in the world?
I have two clear motives:
1.There is a non-zero chance that I may contribute to saving
one or more lives. I have watched in the past as monsters
like Kolker convince other weak minded individuals to accept
part or all of their beliefs. While Kolker's position is
effectively abstract, his views might influence someone to go
out and kill a real person. For this reason I have a clear
moral imperative to do what I can to stop him from posting
his hatred.
2.I participate intermittently in the discussions on
Talk.Origins, in the group effort to convince people in
general and fundamentalist christians in particular that
the Theory Of Evolution (TOE) is factually correct. I also
believe it gives rise to more moral behavior (acceptance of
other animals and minority groups like homosexuals etc.)
Kolker also participates in those discussions on the TOE
side. When a TOE supporter presents ideas as obscene as his
they can become associated with TOE. Since most Christians
(outside Washington DC) take their ethics seriously he
undermines support for TOE, and may have actually caused
people to reject it as morally abhorrent.
Finally, I believe that Kolker has sufficient intellectual
integrity to be influenced by logical argument.
Cordially;
Nicholas
>>Quite true, but in the scenario I layed out the US wouldn't
>>have the slightest idea who to retaliate against. How could
>>the US know who detonated undersea nuclear weapons along
>>its coast?
>
>
> Quite easy - backtrack the ships.
>
> Of course, in reality, the ships would not make it to the states in
> the first place.
It's an overly complicated scenario. All it needs is a transport
container on a cargo ship with a nuke, a private yacht, even a private
plane (and the plane gets you inland). It's a suicide trip whichever
way, but that isn't an issue for this kind of attack. It would be hardr
to get a enough material for a cordinated large scale attack, but
delivery really isn;t a problem.
Nicholas
eyelessgame
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> We no longer do that shit.
Utterly amazing. He's willing to commit genocide -- but crusades are
part of our immoral past.
You people are dangerous animals.
eyelessgame
Dan Luke
"Friar Broccoli" wrote:
[snip]
> Finally, I believe that Kolker has sufficient intellectual
> integrity to be influenced by logical argument.
Hard to see how you can believe that, "based on a bit more than a year's
observation of his posts in Talk.Origins."
But by all means, tilt away, Don Quixote.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
mvil...@gmail.com
Friar Broccoli wrote:
[snip]
> On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
> more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
> the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
> the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
> what that definition is.
Not that I'm defending him. But did you happen to read my reply to you
from a few days ago. I was trying to help you understand what (I
think) is going on in his head when he says these things. I'm curious
as to as to what you think about my views.
It's at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/c90ab2b2835a680b
I think it went only to alt.atheism and probably not to talk.origins,
which is maybe why you didn't see it.
[snip]
>
> I have two clear motives:
>
> 1.There is a non-zero chance that I may contribute to saving
> one or more lives. I have watched in the past as monsters
> like Kolker convince other weak minded individuals to accept
> part or all of their beliefs. While Kolker's position is
> effectively abstract, his views might influence someone to go
> out and kill a real person. For this reason I have a clear
> moral imperative to do what I can to stop him from posting
> his hatred.
[snip]
Also did you happen to read my "alternative" to kolker's proposal. I
didn't expect kolker to agree with it and of course he didn't.
Maybe it only wound up on alt.atheism...but here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/baf86c3ae99023f4
Your thoughts? Would this make me a monster also?
I hope you reply.
Shane
[...]
> Finally, I believe that Kolker has sufficient intellectual
> integrity to be influenced by logical argument.
I think your belief would be correct for any subject other than this
one. Bob has a blind spot in this area that is astounding, in fact I
would suggest he could give creationists lessons in all those attributes
that allow rational people to believe the most incredible nonsense about
the world and other people, while denying their own history and
culpability.
Bob also reminds me of the subject of a Roger Waters song;
"The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range"
You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home an the range
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gained terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
Robert J. Kolker
> On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
> more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
> the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
> the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
> what that definition is.
Let's see. I am a psychopath because I want to kill my enemies. Right?
>
> On the third point, given that he has not responded to my last
> post (that I can see), I am hopeful that it is beginning to sink
> in that his position is logically incoherent and internally
> inconsistent. He is unconcerned by ethical considerations which
> is why I am not making use of such arguments here.
My position follows from my premises. No internal inconsistencies. If
you don't agree with my assumptions, then so be it.
>
>
>>In either case, what is the point of arguing with him
>>about nuking every Muslim country in the world?
>
>
> I have two clear motives:
>
> 1.There is a non-zero chance that I may contribute to saving
> one or more lives. I have watched in the past as monsters
> like Kolker convince other weak minded individuals to accept
> part or all of their beliefs. While Kolker's position is
> effectively abstract, his views might influence someone to go
> out and kill a real person.
From your mouth to God's Ear.
For this reason I have a clear
> moral imperative to do what I can to stop him from posting
> his hatred.
No you don't and you can't anyway. If you don't like what I write, then
don't read it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Utterly amazing. He's willing to commit genocide -- but crusades are
> part of our immoral past.
Ethnocide. Islam is not a race.
Bob Kolker
James Burns
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>
>>On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
>>more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
>>the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
>>the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
>>what that definition is.
>
> Let's see. I am a psychopath because I want to kill my enemies.
> Right?
>
If it were as simple as that, then, yes, you would be a psychopath.
Someone cuts you off in traffic? They're the enemy: Put an
RPG in their SUV, then track down and kill all their relatives,
because, obviously, they're enemies now, too.
Maybe you wouldn't agree that that would be psychopathic. Maybe
you would agree, but consider being a psychopath a good thing.
It's hard to make a reasonable guess when I'm addressing
someone advocating snuffing out a large fraction of the
human race.
Of course, it's not quite that simple. Terrorism is more than bad
road manners. And genocide is more than mere mass murder, too.
But you're the one who wanted to boil it down to that level,
for some reason.
You are a funny man, in a sickening sort of way. You are like a
man standing in the middle of a crowd, all drenched in
gasoline, who is screaming that, in order to be safe, we
must light up those others. It would be funnier if I weren't
standing next to you while you strike matches.
Jim Burns
Robert J. Kolker
>
> If it were as simple as that, then, yes, you would be a psychopath.
> Someone cuts you off in traffic? They're the enemy:
Enemy: One who threatens one's life, limb, property and kin with
malicious intent or who takes over actions to those ends. People who cut
other people off in traffic are not enemies. They are just pains in the
arse.
By the way, has anyone told you that you are occasionally stupid? No?
O.K. You are occasionally stupid.
Bob Kolker
Joe Cooper
I have become aware of Mr. Kolker in the past two or three days. Ive
been at TO for about a month or so.
My impression is that Mr. Kolker is an intelligentm man, certainly
knows more than I in technical subjects.
He is an evil man.
He has the capability to influence others because of his intellignece.
He wishes to bloody his hands at third hand, which is a sign of his
intelligence.
Anyone advocateing mass murder and genocide like him is simply evil.
Period.
Joe Cooper
Wunderkind
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> hated by EVERY nation on the planet, greatly decreasing its
>> safety and security. Exterminating the moslems is clearly
>> stupid and counter productive. Please deal with the points I
>> am making.
>
>
> If we cannot be both loved and feared it is better to be feared.
>
> I have answered your points. If we don't destroy them, they will destroy
Even better if we *befriend* them - not on *our* terms, but on mutual
terms.
The lack of adult, mature behavior by the US will cause its destruction.
WK
Robert J. Kolker
>
> My impression is that Mr. Kolker is an intelligentm man, certainly
> knows more than I in technical subjects.
>
> He is an evil man.
I am whatever I must be to survive in an evil world. Good does not
triumph. It never will.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Even better if we *befriend* them - not on *our* terms, but on mutual
> terms.
>
> The lack of adult, mature behavior by the US will cause its destruction.
Right. We will be goody two shoes and go to destruction full of our own
virtue.
No good deed shall go unpunished -- Oscar Wilde.
Bob Kolker
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
> > more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
> > the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
> > the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
> > what that definition is.
>
> Let's see. I am a psychopath because I want to kill my enemies. Right?
Thank you for returning to the discussion with me.
If my understanding is correct, the above statement makes sense to you
because you have no idea and can have no idea what motivates other
people.
To the best of my understanding the inability to empathize with and
understand
the motives of others is the essence of being a psychopath.
I want to make some extended arguments on this point, leading back to
the main issue. Unfortunately, right now I am just too tired to start.
I'll try tomorrow evening, but I don't think I'll be able to manage
anything till the weekend, but I will get back to you.
Michael Gray
<c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
- Refer: <11uh3ut...@news.supernews.com>
>
>"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If we don't destroy them, they
>>> will destroy us. Now which do you prefer?
>>
>
>Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
That is not a dichotomy.
Kolker is both a troll, and an idiot.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That is not a dichotomy.
> Kolker is both a troll, and an idiot.
Neither. I see the future and it is grim. Lets see what kind of a tune
you will whistle when Achemd, Faisil, Ali and Ibrihim drive an 18
wheeler loaded with high explosive into one of the tunnels in NYC (where
the Jews live). Or when a dirty bomb goes off in lower Manhattan (where
the Jews work).
Bob Kolker
>
bitbu...@hotmail.com
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >
> > > On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
> > > more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
> > > the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
> > > the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
> > > what that definition is.
> >
> > Let's see. I am a psychopath because I want to kill my enemies. Right?
>
> Thank you for returning to the discussion with me.
>
> If my understanding is correct, the above statement makes sense to you
> because you have no idea and can have no idea what motivates other
> people.
> To the best of my understanding the inability to empathize with and
> understand
> the motives of others is the essence of being a psychopath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#What_is_a_psychopath.3F
Bob may show a numer of the traits of a psychopath,
but I think he's not quite one.
He simply has incredibly low empathy levels, and is
a black and white thinker - i.e. has limited capacity
for abstract thought.
This is demonstrated in his apparent inability to perceive
the flaws in his "ethnocide" idea, and also his quite
limited sense of humour.
Either that or he's an attention seeking blowhard.
<snip>
--
John Drayton
bitbu...@hotmail.com
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > Consider this dichotomy: Kolker is trolling or Kolker is an idiot.
>
> Kolker has already responded to you with:
>
> Consider the possibility that
> - I am not trolling,
> - not an idiot (which I am certainly not)
> - and that I might be right.
>
> On the first two points he is definitely correct based on a bit
> more than a year's observation of his posts in Talk.Origins. On
> the other hand he is clearly mentally ill, and probably meets
> the formal definition of psychopath, although I have no idea
> what that definition is.
>
> On the third point, given that he has not responded to my last
> post (that I can see), I am hopeful that it is beginning to sink
> in that his position is logically incoherent and internally
> inconsistent. He is unconcerned by ethical considerations which
> is why I am not making use of such arguments here.
He's also never made it clear what his plans would be for
the 5 million odd muslims in the USA.
That's a sizeable force of internal insurgents. And they'd
have little choice but to become insurgents, with their own
government out to kill them.
What's he going to do, nuke half the USA as well?
<snip>
--
John Drayton
thissteve
James Burns wrote:
>
> Someone cuts you off in traffic? They're the enemy: Put an
> RPG in their SUV, then track down and kill all their relatives,
> because, obviously, they're enemies now, too.
He would also have to kill the relatives of the relatives, and then the
relatives of the relatives of the relatives.
I wonder how many people are friends with someone in soon-to-be-glassed
Iran? How many are friends with someone with friends in Iran? How
many are friends of those friends? They all must die, because they all
will be seeking revenge. Then you gotta kill their friends...
thissteve
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> I am whatever I must be to survive in an evil world.
First, we goody-goodies will survive as long as you. Second, the world
didn't seem so evil back when we had an adult for a president.
The Muslims haven't changed much in 10 years. They weren't too tough
to handle with routine security. Only when they were up against an
administration whose "terrorism task force" never held a meeting did
they actually get much done.
> Good does not
> triumph. It never will.
Competent leadership triumphs.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Bob may show a numer of the traits of a psychopath,
> but I think he's not quite one.
Fucking A! I am quite sane. I simply have given up hope on a kinder
gentler world. The human race is a nasty bunch. We are the meanest,
baddest, smartest Apes in The Monkey House.
>
> He simply has incredibly low empathy levels, and is
> a black and white thinker - i.e. has limited capacity
> for abstract thought.
Wrong. I have mastered Category Theory and Topology which are very
abstract. What I have done is bit by bit, piece by piece made myself
discompassionate. Compassion is a rotting wasting disease. To survive in
an evil world (such as we live in) one must be very very tough and hard
hearted. I have now worked myself down to at most two or three decent
impulses a year. I think that is as far as I can go on my own efforts.
>
> This is demonstrated in his apparent inability to perceive
> the flaws in his "ethnocide" idea, and also his quite
> limited sense of humour.
Show me a workable alternative and I will laughingly accept it. The
parsimonious me finds killing Moslem babies to be wasteful. They are
perfectly good specimens and also the seed of Abraham. But there is no
practical way of separating the bibies (who are innocent) and the
parents (who are guilty) so when the bombs fly, they all will die. We
did that in WW2 in both Europe and Japan. Collateral damage is one of
the infellicities of modern war.
I am motivated to speak and write what I believe to be true. Perhaps
someone will listen and think about what I say. One alone cannot do
much, but before the many see, one must.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I wonder how many people are friends with someone in soon-to-be-glassed
> Iran? How many are friends with someone with friends in Iran? How
> many are friends of those friends? They all must die, because they all
> will be seeking revenge. Then you gotta kill their friends...
Either that or scare them sane.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> He's also never made it clear what his plans would be for
> the 5 million odd muslims in the USA.
Deportation or death camps. Are you happy now? We might be able to get a
number of them corrected and re-educated. That might be worth the
effort. If we can get the kids away from their parents they might be
reclaimed for sane humanity. If we can get the luekwarm Moslems who are
only religious in the social sense to seek a more sensible way they too
might be reclaimed for sane humanity. But the devout must be other
driven out or killed. They harbor and host the Jihad Meme.
The problem with Islam is NOT genetic. It has to do with ideas and some
very bad ideas at that.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>I am whatever I must be to survive in an evil world.
>
>
> First, we goody-goodies will survive as long as you. Second, the world
> didn't seem so evil back when we had an adult for a president.
You mean that adult (or is it adulterous) Bill Clinton whose only
decoration is the Order of The Open Fly?
After a tunnel or bridge is blown in New York City (where the Jews are)
or the subways blown up or a dirty bomb set off in Manhatten (where the
Jews work) we will listen carefully for the tune you will sing.
Bob Kolker