On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:36:05 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the > TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I'm talking about no ordinary bridges, but the longest bridge in the >>world made in China...
> Yeah, you could save the money of the war and build bridges, but just > because you don't go kick the enemy's ass, doesn't mean he isn't still > the enemy, and will travel to your new bridge and blow it up, or knock > it down, or whatever else... because he's still your enemy.
> You have to kick his ass to convince him that attacking the USA is a > really bad idea. If you don't do it, then he just keeps attacking.
So who is this enemy that keeps blowing up your bridges, chuckles?
And what makes him so scary we have to blow over a trillion a year on him?
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:37:09 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since
1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote: >On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:36:05 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> Yeah, you could save the money of the war and build bridges, but just >> because you don't go kick the enemy's ass, doesn't mean he isn't still >> the enemy, and will travel to your new bridge and blow it up, or knock >> it down, or whatever else... because he's still your enemy.
>> You have to kick his ass to convince him that attacking the USA is a >> really bad idea. If you don't do it, then he just keeps attacking.
>So who is this enemy that keeps blowing up your bridges, chuckles?
AQ.
>And what makes him so scary we have to blow over a trillion a year on him?
'Cuz if he gets hold of the right weapons, or comes up with the right plan to use "everyday household materials", he could possibly kill vast numbers of people in a single attack. Or... damage vital infrastructure. How would you like to lose maybe 5 - 10 underwater tunnels in major cities via a truckload of Ammonium Nitrate and Fertilzer? It could happen. The Brits were the ones that found and foiled the simultaneous attacks on 10 airliners that were to headed for the US, which, had the attack succeeded, could have killed 3000 more Americans.
A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:55 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:37:09 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:36:05 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >>> Yeah, you could save the money of the war and build bridges, but just >>> because you don't go kick the enemy's ass, doesn't mean he isn't >>> still the enemy, and will travel to your new bridge and blow it up, or >>> knock it down, or whatever else... because he's still your enemy.
>>> You have to kick his ass to convince him that attacking the USA is a >>> really bad idea. If you don't do it, then he just keeps attacking.
>>So who is this enemy that keeps blowing up your bridges, chuckles?
> AQ.
AQ, eh. So which bridges have they blown up? Be specific, now.
>>And what makes him so scary we have to blow over a trillion a year on >>him?
> 'Cuz if he gets hold of the right weapons, or comes up with the right > plan to use "everyday household materials", he could possibly kill vast > numbers of people in a single attack. Or... damage vital > infrastructure. How would you like to lose maybe 5 - 10 underwater > tunnels in major cities via a truckload of Ammonium Nitrate and > Fertilzer? It could happen. The Brits were the ones that found and > foiled the simultaneous attacks on 10 airliners that were to headed for > the US, which, had the attack succeeded, could have killed 3000 more > Americans.
The plans that never amounted to anything more than scribbles on the back of a napkin? Those plans?
If you want to worry about terrorists, worry about home-grown nazis with arsenals. What happened in Norway yesterday was the same as what happened in OKC and Columbine here. America has much more to worry about from native right wing fruit loops then it does from the thoroughly defanged al Qaida.
And you know what? All that money being spent on military shit won't do a damn bit of good against terrorists, whether they are al Qaida or local, because the entire PURPOSE of terrorist cabels is to nullify and even defeat vastly superior military forces.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:50:35 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since
1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote: >On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:55 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >AQ, eh. So which bridges have they blown up? Be specific, now.
They planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but were foild due to our depriving them of proper training facilities by going and kicking their asses in Afganistan, and waterboarding the hell out of KSM until he gave up the name of the guy that was going to do it. They interecepted him in I think it was either Columbus or Cincinnati, Ohio.
Had we NOT been in Afghanistan and Iraq we might not have gotten KSM and then we likely would NOT have known of this guy and the Brooklyn Bridge would likely be at the bottom of the river now.
>The plans that never amounted to anything more than scribbles on the back >of a napkin? Those plans?
Exactly. Those plans were prevented from coming to fruition due to our armed interference in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had never gone to the middle east, we likely would be witnessing these attacks succeed, and maybe you would even have to worry about getting blown up by an IED on your way to work.
>If you want to worry about terrorists, worry about home-grown nazis with >arsenals. What happened in Norway yesterday was the same as what >happened in OKC and Columbine here. America has much more to worry about >from native right wing fruit loops then it does from the thoroughly >defanged al Qaida.
We've only had one Timothy McVeigh over the years, just 1. And, if we don't worry about the foreign terorists, we'll have the domestic terrorist PLUS the foreign terrorists making this place a scary place to live. Wanna allow that to happen?
>And you know what? All that money being spent on military shit won't do >a damn bit of good against terrorists, whether they are al Qaida or >local, because the entire PURPOSE of terrorist cabels is to nullify and >even defeat vastly superior military forces.
Its not working out very well for them. They keep losing high-ranking SOB's one after the other to our troops and to our predator drones.
A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:52:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:50:35 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:55 -0400, Dave Head wrote: AQ, eh. So which >>bridges have they blown up? Be specific, now.
> They planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but were foild due to our > depriving them of proper training facilities by going and kicking their > asses in Afganistan, and waterboarding the hell out of KSM until he gave > up the name of the guy that was going to do it. They interecepted him > in I think it was either Columbus or Cincinnati, Ohio.
Somebody in Afghanistan was planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge? So who was the guy who was going to do it, and what evidence is there that information extorted under torture was legitimate?
> Had we NOT been in Afghanistan and Iraq we might not have gotten KSM and > then we likely would NOT have known of this guy and the Brooklyn Bridge > would likely be at the bottom of the river now.
Um, bubbles? Khalid was captured in Pakistan.
Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
I note that he also claimed under torture that if OBL were captured or killed, a massive nuclear explosion would go off in a major European city.
>>The plans that never amounted to anything more than scribbles on the >>back of a napkin? Those plans?
> Exactly. Those plans were prevented from coming to fruition due to our > armed interference in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had never gone to the > middle east, we likely would be witnessing these attacks succeed, and > maybe you would even have to worry about getting blown up by an IED on > your way to work.
>>If you want to worry about terrorists, worry about home-grown nazis with >>arsenals. What happened in Norway yesterday was the same as what >>happened in OKC and Columbine here. America has much more to worry >>about from native right wing fruit loops then it does from the >>thoroughly defanged al Qaida.
> We've only had one Timothy McVeigh over the years, just 1. And, if we > don't worry about the foreign terorists, we'll have the domestic > terrorist PLUS the foreign terrorists making this place a scary place to > live. Wanna allow that to happen?
>>And you know what? All that money being spent on military shit won't do >>a damn bit of good against terrorists, whether they are al Qaida or >>local, because the entire PURPOSE of terrorist cabels is to nullify and >>even defeat vastly superior military forces.
> Its not working out very well for them. They keep losing high-ranking > SOB's one after the other to our troops and to our predator drones.
> A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the > enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote: >On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:52:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:50:35 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since >> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:55 -0400, Dave Head wrote: AQ, eh. So which >>>bridges have they blown up? Be specific, now.
>> They planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but were foild due to our >> depriving them of proper training facilities by going and kicking their >> asses in Afganistan, and waterboarding the hell out of KSM until he gave >> up the name of the guy that was going to do it. They interecepted him >> in I think it was either Columbus or Cincinnati, Ohio.
>Somebody in Afghanistan was planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge? >So who was the guy who was going to do it, and what evidence is there >that information extorted under torture was legitimate?
>> Had we NOT been in Afghanistan and Iraq we might not have gotten KSM and >> then we likely would NOT have known of this guy and the Brooklyn Bridge >> would likely be at the bottom of the river now.
>Um, bubbles? Khalid was captured in Pakistan.
>Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
>I note that he also claimed under torture that if OBL were captured or >killed, a massive nuclear explosion would go off in a major European city.
>Care to tell us which city was destroyed?
>>>The plans that never amounted to anything more than scribbles on the >>>back of a napkin? Those plans?
>> Exactly. Those plans were prevented from coming to fruition due to our >> armed interference in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had never gone to the >> middle east, we likely would be witnessing these attacks succeed, and >> maybe you would even have to worry about getting blown up by an IED on >> your way to work.
>>>If you want to worry about terrorists, worry about home-grown nazis with >>>arsenals. What happened in Norway yesterday was the same as what >>>happened in OKC and Columbine here. America has much more to worry >>>about from native right wing fruit loops then it does from the >>>thoroughly defanged al Qaida.
>> We've only had one Timothy McVeigh over the years, just 1. And, if we >> don't worry about the foreign terorists, we'll have the domestic >> terrorist PLUS the foreign terrorists making this place a scary place to >> live. Wanna allow that to happen?
>>>And you know what? All that money being spent on military shit won't do >>>a damn bit of good against terrorists, whether they are al Qaida or >>>local, because the entire PURPOSE of terrorist cabels is to nullify and >>>even defeat vastly superior military forces.
>> Its not working out very well for them. They keep losing high-ranking >> SOB's one after the other to our troops and to our predator drones.
>> A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the >> enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
Look, bonehead, we're not getting the domestic attacks 'cuz we've disrupted their ability to do that by killing them a lot, and depriving them of the training areas they need to train people how to make bombs go boom. The NY Times Square bomber's stuff didn't go boom 'cuz his training sucked, and he didn't have a clue why his bomb didn't explode after it failed to do so.
Get a life. Your pacifist drivel would just lead to the war being fought here, every day, and maybe you'd die and may I'd die WITHOUT going to Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm 64 years old, I retire in 23 weeks and 6 days, and if I'm lucky, 12 of the weeks will be spent in Iraq assisting our troops in testing an anti-IED "device" which is all I'm going to say about it this publically. If its successful there, we'll save a lot of Americans. I imagine that doesn't mean much to you, but it does to me. But that's how we advance our abilities to protect this country, by taking the fight to the enemy. Why don't you grow a pair and get on board, and quit whining about the poor, downtrodden terrorists that we kill. They deserve it.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:31:15 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:14:50 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:52:44 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:50:35 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since >>> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:55 -0400, Dave Head wrote: AQ, eh. So which >>>>bridges have they blown up? Be specific, now.
>>> They planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but were foild due to our >>> depriving them of proper training facilities by going and kicking >>> their asses in Afganistan, and waterboarding the hell out of KSM until >>> he gave up the name of the guy that was going to do it. They >>> interecepted him in I think it was either Columbus or Cincinnati, >>> Ohio.
>>Somebody in Afghanistan was planning on blowing up the Brooklyn bridge? >>So who was the guy who was going to do it, and what evidence is there >>that information extorted under torture was legitimate?
>>> Had we NOT been in Afghanistan and Iraq we might not have gotten KSM >>> and then we likely would NOT have known of this guy and the Brooklyn >>> Bridge would likely be at the bottom of the river now.
>>Um, bubbles? Khalid was captured in Pakistan.
>>Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
>>I note that he also claimed under torture that if OBL were captured or >>killed, a massive nuclear explosion would go off in a major European >>city.
>>Care to tell us which city was destroyed?
>>>>The plans that never amounted to anything more than scribbles on the >>>>back of a napkin? Those plans?
>>> Exactly. Those plans were prevented from coming to fruition due to >>> our armed interference in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had never gone >>> to the middle east, we likely would be witnessing these attacks >>> succeed, and maybe you would even have to worry about getting blown up >>> by an IED on your way to work.
>>>>If you want to worry about terrorists, worry about home-grown nazis >>>>with arsenals. What happened in Norway yesterday was the same as what >>>>happened in OKC and Columbine here. America has much more to worry >>>>about from native right wing fruit loops then it does from the >>>>thoroughly defanged al Qaida.
>>> We've only had one Timothy McVeigh over the years, just 1. And, if we >>> don't worry about the foreign terorists, we'll have the domestic >>> terrorist PLUS the foreign terrorists making this place a scary place >>> to live. Wanna allow that to happen?
>>>>And you know what? All that money being spent on military shit won't >>>>do a damn bit of good against terrorists, whether they are al Qaida or >>>>local, because the entire PURPOSE of terrorist cabels is to nullify >>>>and even defeat vastly superior military forces.
>>> Its not working out very well for them. They keep losing high-ranking >>> SOB's one after the other to our troops and to our predator drones.
>>> A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the >>> enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
> Look, bonehead, we're not getting the domestic attacks 'cuz we've > disrupted their ability to do that by killing them a lot, and depriving > them of the training areas they need to train people how to make bombs > go boom. The NY Times Square bomber's stuff didn't go boom 'cuz his > training sucked, and he didn't have a clue why his bomb didn't explode > after it failed to do so.
Actually, the only effective weapon is good intelligence. As for bombing the shit out of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll bet that the next successful attack on America will come from someone whose daughter's weddig was bombed by Americans, or Pakistani family was wiped out by an American drone.
We're creating far more future enemies than we're eliminating.
> Get a life. Your pacifist drivel would just lead to the war being > fought here, every day, and maybe you'd die and may I'd die WITHOUT > going to Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm 64 years old, I retire in 23 weeks > and 6 days, and if I'm lucky, 12 of the weeks will be spent in Iraq > assisting our troops in testing an anti-IED "device" which is all I'm > going to say about it this publically. If its successful there, we'll > save a lot of Americans. I imagine that doesn't mean much to you, but > it does to me. But that's how we advance our abilities to protect this > country, by taking the fight to the enemy. Why don't you grow a pair > and get on board, and quit whining about the poor, downtrodden > terrorists that we kill. They deserve it.
64, and you're still a fucking imbecile. I very seriously doubt the veracity of any of your other claims.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:18:27 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since
1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote: >Actually, the only effective weapon is good intelligence.
Good grief, here's a obese, epileptic, diabetic adult diaper wearing alcoholic pretending he knows something about fighting terrorism...
It's clear that finance and economics will never be the strong suits of Jamieson or Shook. See below:
"companies are literally hoarding "cash." And by definition, if they have the cash, it's not in circulation. Money is zero-sum, which means, every dollar a company holds onto is a dollar that isn't in circulation. " --Milt Shook . http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a3be1dd3b08...
There's two kinds of cash... there's currency and then there's non-currency cash like your checking and saving's account, and the cash equivalents... only currency is what can be taken out of circulation, whle the noncurrency cash is only a reference to some unspecified currency, which, of course, is in circulation.
>> Look, bonehead, we're not getting the domestic attacks 'cuz we've >> disrupted their ability to do that by killing them a lot, and depriving >> them of the training areas they need to train people how to make bombs >> go boom. The NY Times Square bomber's stuff didn't go boom 'cuz his >> training sucked, and he didn't have a clue why his bomb didn't explode >> after it failed to do so.
>Actually, the only effective weapon is good intelligence. As for bombing >the shit out of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll bet that the next >successful attack on America will come from someone whose daughter's >weddig was bombed by Americans, or Pakistani family was wiped out by an >American drone.
We don't bomb weddings. We have software to be able to bomb targets and NOT damage nearby objects. You'd be amazed at what can be done, but its all classified, so I can't go into it.
>We're creating far more future enemies than we're eliminating.
You know nothing.
You should see the FRIENDS we created in Kuwait when we kicked the Iraqi's out.
>> Get a life. Your pacifist drivel would just lead to the war being >> fought here, every day, and maybe you'd die and may I'd die WITHOUT >> going to Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm 64 years old, I retire in 23 weeks >> and 6 days, and if I'm lucky, 12 of the weeks will be spent in Iraq >> assisting our troops in testing an anti-IED "device" which is all I'm >> going to say about it this publically. If its successful there, we'll >> save a lot of Americans. I imagine that doesn't mean much to you, but >> it does to me. But that's how we advance our abilities to protect this >> country, by taking the fight to the enemy. Why don't you grow a pair >> and get on board, and quit whining about the poor, downtrodden >> terrorists that we kill. They deserve it.
>64, and you're still a fucking imbecile. I very seriously doubt the >veracity of any of your other claims.
You can always rely on usenet for a personal insult, anytime, anywhere. As for the other, I'm a DoD civilian engineer, and yeah, we get opportunities to volunter to do such things in the war zones. Did so from 2007 - 2008, for 3 months, in Baghdad. This next duty, if I get it, will be all over Iraq. With any luck, I'll have a hand in saving some soldiers, always my main reason for doing it. There's lotsa reasons to do it, but that's the main one. Yeah, the money's good, which feels alright until you get hit by a sniper with a .50, so its a gamble to do it at all. But I read recently that they surveyed a bunch of really old people, 90+ years old and nearing the end of their lives, what their biggest regrets were. The most popular answer was, "The risks I didn't take." That's good enough for me.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:05:57 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:18:27 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>> Look, bonehead, we're not getting the domestic attacks 'cuz we've >>> disrupted their ability to do that by killing them a lot, and >>> depriving them of the training areas they need to train people how to >>> make bombs go boom. The NY Times Square bomber's stuff didn't go boom >>> 'cuz his training sucked, and he didn't have a clue why his bomb >>> didn't explode after it failed to do so.
>>Actually, the only effective weapon is good intelligence. As for >>bombing the shit out of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll bet that >>the next successful attack on America will come from someone whose >>daughter's weddig was bombed by Americans, or Pakistani family was wiped >>out by an American drone.
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:37:09 +0000 (UTC), "6139 Dead, 1282 since
> 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:36:05 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > >> Yeah, you could save the money of the war and build bridges, but just > >> because you don't go kick the enemy's ass, doesn't mean he isn't still > >> the enemy, and will travel to your new bridge and blow it up, or knock > >> it down, or whatever else... because he's still your enemy.
> >> You have to kick his ass to convince him that attacking the USA is a > >> really bad idea. If you don't do it, then he just keeps attacking.
> >So who is this enemy that keeps blowing up your bridges, chuckles?
> AQ.
> >And what makes him so scary we have to blow over a trillion a year on him?
> 'Cuz if he gets hold of the right weapons, or comes up with the right > plan to use "everyday household materials", he could possibly kill > vast numbers of people in a single attack. Or... damage vital > infrastructure. How would you like to lose maybe 5 - 10 underwater > tunnels in major cities via a truckload of Ammonium Nitrate and > Fertilzer? It could happen. The Brits were the ones that found and > foiled the simultaneous attacks on 10 airliners that were to headed > for the US, which, had the attack succeeded, could have killed 3000 > more Americans.
> A defensive war is not a war you can win. You have to go defeat the > enemy, or you will eventually lose. And you will suffer many dead.
Yeah, abandon the country and our own population will be crying for change, as when Rome fell in 410AD. It's not even that they don't spend the money, but they dump it down the drain such as around here... A million buck beach promenade. That's a conservative amount for a mile of asphalt.
Same in Afghanistan. CORRUPTION IS OUR MAIN ENEMY.
> >> Look, bonehead, we're not getting the domestic attacks 'cuz we've > >> disrupted their ability to do that by killing them a lot, and depriving > >> them of the training areas they need to train people how to make bombs > >> go boom. The NY Times Square bomber's stuff didn't go boom 'cuz his > >> training sucked, and he didn't have a clue why his bomb didn't explode > >> after it failed to do so.
> >Actually, the only effective weapon is good intelligence. As for bombing > >the shit out of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll bet that the next > >successful attack on America will come from someone whose daughter's > >weddig was bombed by Americans, or Pakistani family was wiped out by an > >American drone.
> We don't bomb weddings. We have software to be able to bomb targets > and NOT damage nearby objects. You'd be amazed at what can be done, > but its all classified, so I can't go into it.
> >We're creating far more future enemies than we're eliminating.
> You know nothing.
> You should see the FRIENDS we created in Kuwait when we kicked the > Iraqi's out.
> >> Get a life. Your pacifist drivel would just lead to the war being > >> fought here, every day, and maybe you'd die and may I'd die WITHOUT > >> going to Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm 64 years old, I retire in 23 weeks > >> and 6 days, and if I'm lucky, 12 of the weeks will be spent in Iraq > >> assisting our troops in testing an anti-IED "device" which is all I'm > >> going to say about it this publically. If its successful there, we'll > >> save a lot of Americans. I imagine that doesn't mean much to you, but > >> it does to me. But that's how we advance our abilities to protect this > >> country, by taking the fight to the enemy. Why don't you grow a pair > >> and get on board, and quit whining about the poor, downtrodden > >> terrorists that we kill. They deserve it.
> >64, and you're still a fucking imbecile. I very seriously doubt the > >veracity of any of your other claims.
> You can always rely on usenet for a personal insult, anytime, > anywhere. As for the other, I'm a DoD civilian engineer, and yeah, we > get opportunities to volunter to do such things in the war zones. Did > so from 2007 - 2008, for 3 months, in Baghdad. This next duty, if I > get it, will be all over Iraq. With any luck, I'll have a hand in > saving some soldiers, always my main reason for doing it. There's > lotsa reasons to do it, but that's the main one. Yeah, the money's > good, which feels alright until you get hit by a sniper with a .50, so > its a gamble to do it at all. But I read recently that they surveyed > a bunch of really old people, 90+ years old and nearing the end of > their lives, what their biggest regrets were. The most popular answer > was, "The risks I didn't take." That's good enough for me.
Didn't we agree before that that meant "RIDING A BICYCLE"?
I'm getting more and more aggressive at it. I just cut off a car turning with the green arrow. How much more suicidal you want me to get?
The police even followed and told me if I was rode as an idiot. But, under the law of the jungle you must make the first move.
