and the beat goes on
JSM
—four times as many than in any single year since 9/11.
* A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
* Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
root in our military and law enforcement establishments.
* Just this past week David Headley, arrested in October in
Chicago, was charged with participation in last year’s terrorist
attack in Mumbai—an arrest that raised this question in a Time
magazine article: “Are Pakistani Jihadis Going Global?”
* Speaking of “going global,” five young American men, including a
dental student at DC’s Howard University, were recently captured in
Pakistan. They are suspected of going there to link up with jihadist
organizations.
Now we read in the story below what the leader of As-Sabiqun, “one of
America’s most openly radical Islamist organizations,” has been saying
about Nidal Hasan, Iran, and the demise of the United States.
The political climate in Washington is emboldening jihadists and other
radical Islamists in America and throughout the world. Clearly, the
acceleration of jihadist actions and words this year reflect that.
But as a result, the grassroots awareness in America is growing, as
evidenced by polls taken after the Ft. Hood jihadist attack.
So take heart—and take action! As Edmund Burke said, the only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Radical Movement's Leader Forecasts
America's Demise
IPT News
December 4, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1553/radical-movements-leader-forecasts-americas-demise
As the spotlight moves away from the Fort Hood massacre, one of
America's most openly radical Islamist organizations has taken to the
murderer's defense. As-Sabiqun, a Washington D.C.-based organization
with branches in four other major American cities, released a flyer
labeling shooter Nidal Malik Hasan as "victimized" and the "target of
psychological warfare." The handout also defended convicted terrorists
and suspects.
As-Sabiqun has repeatedly predicted the demise of the United States
and dreams of "the Islamic State of North America no later than 2050."
It has openly declared support for terrorist organizations like Hamas
and Hizbullah, and even claimed it funded anti-American militants.
With concerns growing over radical Islamist propaganda in the United
States, As-Sabiqun is one of the leading organizations building a
bridge between international Islamism and its developing American
counterpart.
As-Sabiqun is headquartered in Washington D.C., but has branches in
Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Philadelphia. Its
leader, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, is well-known in Islamist circles for
spreading anti-American propaganda and militancy. Last weekend, Musa
addressed the annual conference of the Muslim Students Association –
Persian Speaking group, a Shia branch of the national Muslim Students
Association primarily for Shia Muslims. There, Musa saluted the
Iranian Revolution as the "greatest epic in modern, even ancient
history" and urged the students to have patience as the United States
collapsed:
"Well I'm telling you, it's very simple. I think you got the message
now. We're in a big war brothers and sisters. This is as big as it
gets for the United States. We are just like it is during the 60s and
70s. So if you're gonna be Muslim, buckle down and be a tough one
because in the final analysis the U.S. is finished."
Curt
> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
> —four times as many than in any single year since 9/11.
>
> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>
> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
> root in our military
You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
wrong as usual.
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>
>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>
>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>> root in our military
>
> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
> wrong as usual.
>
> Curt
So Hasan wasn't committing terrorism?
He hadn't tipped his hand to it before?
He wasn't screaming Allah Akbar?
Why do you do this to yourself, dummy?
You know you're going to be eviscerated handily, again...
Curt
> Curt wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>
> >> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>
> >> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
> >> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
> >> root in our military
>
> > You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
> > between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
> > wrong as usual.
>
> > Curt
>
> So Hasan wasn't committing terrorism?
Well, the old-school official concept of terrism was violence (yeah
yeah, or the threat of) to achieve a political purpose. You know,
blowing up Israeli airliners to scare the Israelis out of Israel,
blowing up doctor offices to scare women away from medical care,
shooting up sharecroppers' houses to keep blacks from voting, you
know, that stuff.
I couldn't say what the Cowardsnweenies have recently done to screw up
the standard concept of terrorism. I mean, Jeebus, they call PETA
terrorists these days, y'know? But under the real-world "terrorism"
umbrella, no, bugfuck-crazy Hasan wasn't committing terrorism. He just
didn't want to go to war -- which, if you think about it, really
doesn't make him much different from most of the Weeniesncowards that
are now calling him a terrorist, yeah?
I mean, at least a liberal doesn't shoot a bunch of people to keep
from going to war. They just say they're COs or something.
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>>> four times as many than in any single year since 9/11.
>>>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>>>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>>>> root in our military
>>> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
>>> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
>>> wrong as usual.
>>> Curt
>> So Hasan wasn't committing terrorism?
>
> Well, the old-school official concept of terrism was violence (yeah
> yeah, or the threat of) to achieve a political purpose. You know,
> blowing up Israeli airliners to scare the Israelis out of Israel,
> blowing up doctor offices to scare women away from medical care,
> shooting up sharecroppers' houses to keep blacks from voting, you
> know, that stuff.
The new school includes outright claims of Jihad, killing for "Allah",
the radical muzzie agenda, 911, etc.
Yeah, he was committing terrorism.
> I couldn't say what the Cowardsnweenies have recently done to screw up
> the standard concept of terrorism.
The who?
What is that demographic, be precise.
> I mean, Jeebus, they call PETA
> terrorists these days, y'know?
I think that spattering animal blood on those who buy fur coats is a
form of terrorism, yes.
What's wrong with YOUR head, dummy?
> But under the real-world "terrorism"
> umbrella, no, bugfuck-crazy Hasan wasn't committing terrorism.
Oh?
Act of war then?
Treason maybe?
Outright Jihad?
Why did he yell Allah Akbar?
> He just
> didn't want to go to war --
So he killed his fellow soldiers?!?!?
Oh that's logical.
He could have given himself a section 8 or just reported to the stockade
you know.
> which, if you think about it, really
> doesn't make him much different from most of the Weeniesncowards that
> are now calling him a terrorist, yeah?
Wow, you're just wildly insane, have you been channeling traitor Shitzie?
> I mean, at least a liberal doesn't shoot a bunch of people to keep
> from going to war.
One just did, his name was Hasan!
> They just say they're COs or something.
>
> Curt
You really are a vile piece of shit to make excuses for this murdering
terrorist.
You have sunk so low here there is no hope for your soul.
Curt
Aaaaaah. "Terrorism" under the new-school definition -- not the
correct one. Okay, sure.
>
> > I couldn't say what the Cowardsnweenies have recently done to screw up
> > the standard concept of terrorism.
>
> The who?
> What is that demographic, be precise.
The cowards n weenies. Hello?
>
> > I mean, Jeebus, they call PETA
> > terrorists these days, y'know?
>
> I think that spattering animal blood on those who buy fur coats is a
> form of terrorism, yes.
Um.. quick quiz. You're on a plane, and things totally go gunnysack
and you're in the hands of "terrorists".
Would you rather it be the PLO or rather it be PETA?
There's only one smart answer to that question.
>
> What's wrong with YOUR head, dummy?
Don't call names, it will just come back to bite you.
>
> > But under the real-world "terrorism"
> > umbrella, no, bugfuck-crazy Hasan wasn't committing terrorism.
>
> Oh?
>
> Act of war then?
No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> Treason maybe?
No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> Outright Jihad?
No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> Why did he yell Allah Akbar?
Because he's bugfuck crazy and a Republican-style coward. Hello?
>
> > He just
> > didn't want to go to war --
>
> So he killed his fellow soldiers?!?!?
>
> Oh that's logical.
Yup. And now -- get this -- he doesn't have to go to war.
>
> He could have given himself a section 8 or just reported to the stockade
> you know.
>
> > which, if you think about it, really
> > doesn't make him much different from most of the Weeniesncowards that
> > are now calling him a terrorist, yeah?
>
> Wow, you're just wildly insane, have you been channeling traitor Shitzie?
>
> > I mean, at least a liberal doesn't shoot a bunch of people to keep
> > from going to war.
>
> One just did, his name was Hasan!
Naaah. He's not a liberal. One of the ways you can tell is, liberals
generally don't wind up shooting up a room full of defenseless
people..
>
> > They just say they're COs or something.
>
> > Curt
>
> You really are a vile piece of shit to make excuses for this murdering
> terrorist.
A)no one's making excuses and B)he's not a terrist -- just a criminal.
>
> You have sunk so low here there is no hope for your soul.
I'll worry about that later, okay?
Curt
dilecticon
Which would be?
Cite?
No, you never do.
You fucking sick scum-brained LIAR!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the
terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling
person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in
order to intimidate a population or government into granting their
demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
>>> I couldn't say what the Cowardsnweenies have recently done to screw up
>>> the standard concept of terrorism.
>> The who?
>> What is that demographic, be precise.
>
> The cowards n weenies. Hello?
That is apallingly non-descriptive demographically, so much so it is
instantly rejected as overly vague and useless.
>>> I mean, Jeebus, they call PETA
>>> terrorists these days, y'know?
>> I think that spattering animal blood on those who buy fur coats is a
>> form of terrorism, yes.
>
> Um.. quick quiz. You're on a plane, and things totally go gunnysack
> and you're in the hands of "terrorists".
>
> Would you rather it be the PLO or rather it be PETA?
>
> There's only one smart answer to that question.
WTF are you hallucinating on now?
I refer you back to the definition of terror, not some mincing red
herring as to which means it can be carried out in.
>
>> What's wrong with YOUR head, dummy?
>
> Don't call names, it will just come back to bite you.
Bring it on!
>>> But under the real-world "terrorism"
>>> umbrella, no, bugfuck-crazy Hasan wasn't committing terrorism.
>> Oh?
>>
>> Act of war then?
>
> No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
So it wasn't Jihad?
>> Treason maybe?
>
> No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
Oh always:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
It was not a treacherous attack on his own fellow soldiers?
You're going to BURN IN HELL for this bullshit Curt!
>> Outright Jihad?
>
> No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad
1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a
personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual
discipline
2 : a crusade for a principle or belief
>> Why did he yell Allah Akbar?
>
> Because he's bugfuck crazy and a Republican-style coward. Hello?
You really need your worthless face kicked in , you piece of shit.
For you to blame Republicans for this mad Jihadist is as low as you have
ever gone.
You piece of SHIT!
>>> He just
>>> didn't want to go to war --
>> So he killed his fellow soldiers?!?!?
>>
>> Oh that's logical.
>
> Yup. And now -- get this -- he doesn't have to go to war.
End justifies the means for you, eh scumbag?
You traitor to America.
I will dog you here FOR FUCKING EVER!!!!!
>> He could have given himself a section 8 or just reported to the stockade
>> you know.
>>
>>> which, if you think about it, really
>>> doesn't make him much different from most of the Weeniesncowards that
>>> are now calling him a terrorist, yeah?
>> Wow, you're just wildly insane, have you been channeling traitor Shitzie?
>>
>>> I mean, at least a liberal doesn't shoot a bunch of people to keep
>>> from going to war.
>> One just did, his name was Hasan!
>
> Naaah. He's not a liberal.
PROVE IT!
Cite.
Use Facts.
> One of the ways you can tell is, liberals
> generally don't wind up shooting up a room full of defenseless
> people..
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-1/
According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan �was very vocal about the
war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.� If
his being �vocal about the war� is not enough to demonstrate unwavering
loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim
is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him
�over the edge� was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country
(Afghanistan) � his �worst nightmare.�
According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke
with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims �weighed
heavily on him.� Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the
U.S. Army, since �Muslims shouldn�t kill Muslims,� again, showing where
his loyalty lies. Tabari�s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who
�allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers,
that same one is a member of their faith and community,� i.e., he too
becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).
Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that �in the Koran, you�re not
supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you
are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.�
>>> They just say they're COs or something.
>>> Curt
>> You really are a vile piece of shit to make excuses for this murdering
>> terrorist.
>
> A)no one's making excuses and B)he's not a terrist -- just a criminal.
You are a LIAR a TRAITOR and a PIECE OF SHIT!
>> You have sunk so low here there is no hope for your soul.
>
> I'll worry about that later, okay?
YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!
dilecticon
Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny.
and Sniff
Spammy Jeff becomes Curt's little bitch. He owns you, you know.
Ala
Can;t believe he finally found him
Curt
The use or threat of force and violence to achieve a political end,
silly. What do you think it is?
>
> Cite?
>
> No, you never do.
>
> You fucking sick scum-brained LIAR!
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
>
> Function: noun
> Date: 1795
> : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
>
> 1 : a state of intense fear
> 2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the
> terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling
> person or thing; especially : brat
> 3 : reign of terror
> 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in
> order to intimidate a population or government into granting their
> demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
And Nidal the Nutbag wasn't trying to "coerce" anyone into anything,
was he? Any more than the Columbine kids were trying to do.
>
> >>> I couldn't say what the Cowardsnweenies have recently done to screw up
> >>> the standard concept of terrorism.
> >> The who?
> >> What is that demographic, be precise.
>
> > The cowards n weenies. Hello?
>
> That is apallingly non-descriptive demographically, so much so it is
> instantly rejected as overly vague and useless.
And, yet, everyone instantly knows what I mean! Isn't that weird?
>
> >>> I mean, Jeebus, they call PETA
> >>> terrorists these days, y'know?
> >> I think that spattering animal blood on those who buy fur coats is a
> >> form of terrorism, yes.
>
> > Um.. quick quiz. You're on a plane, and things totally go gunnysack
> > and you're in the hands of "terrorists".
>
> > Would you rather it be the PLO or rather it be PETA?
>
> > There's only one smart answer to that question.
>
> WTF are you hallucinating on now?
>
> I refer you back to the definition of terror, not some mincing red
> herring as to which means it can be carried out in.
Naaah. I agreed with you re the blood on the fur coats -- it's a form
of terrism. I'm just saying it's not a particularly.. terrifying..
form. I'd personally rather be held hostage by PETA idiots than
beardie weirdies, and I think you would too.
>
>
>
> >> What's wrong with YOUR head, dummy?
>
> > Don't call names, it will just come back to bite you.
>
> Bring it on!
>
> >>> But under the real-world "terrorism"
> >>> umbrella, no, bugfuck-crazy Hasan wasn't committing terrorism.
> >> Oh?
>
> >> Act of war then?
>
> > No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> So it wasn't Jihad?
>
> >> Treason maybe?
>
> > No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> Oh always:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
>
> 1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
> 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
> of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
> personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
>
> It was not a treacherous attack on his own fellow soldiers?
His fellow soldiers weren't the state, nor the sovereign. He didn't
levy war against the state. He betrayed his friends -- which is
treacherous and vile, but no, he did not commit the crime of treason.
>
> You're going to BURN IN HELL for this bullshit Curt!
>
> >> Outright Jihad?
>
> > No. You could google the term to learn if you cared.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad
>
> 1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a
> personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual
> discipline
> 2 : a crusade for a principle or belief
>
> >> Why did he yell Allah Akbar?
>
> > Because he's bugfuck crazy and a Republican-style coward. Hello?
>
> You really need your worthless face kicked in , you piece of shit.
Like I say, I'm easy to get hold of off-list. Are you?
>
> For you to blame Republicans for this mad Jihadist is as low as you have
> ever gone.
I don't believe I did that, though. Can you point out where I did
that, and be specific? (No, you can't..)
>
> You piece of SHIT!
>
> >>> He just
> >>> didn't want to go to war --
> >> So he killed his fellow soldiers?!?!?
>
> >> Oh that's logical.
>
> > Yup. And now -- get this -- he doesn't have to go to war.
>
> End justifies the means for you, eh scumbag?
You're a very weird person. Who ever said the end justified the
means?
>
> You traitor to America.
>
> I will dog you here FOR FUCKING EVER!!!!!
Like you say earlier.. wossname.. "bring it on."
>
> >> He could have given himself a section 8 or just reported to the stockade
> >> you know.
>
> >>> which, if you think about it, really
> >>> doesn't make him much different from most of the Weeniesncowards that
> >>> are now calling him a terrorist, yeah?
> >> Wow, you're just wildly insane, have you been channeling traitor Shitzie?
>
> >>> I mean, at least a liberal doesn't shoot a bunch of people to keep
> >>> from going to war.
> >> One just did, his name was Hasan!
>
> > Naaah. He's not a liberal.
>
> PROVE IT!
>
> Cite.
>
> Use Facts.
How bout here where I point out that ----
>
> > One of the ways you can tell is, liberals
> > generally don't wind up shooting up a room full of defenseless
> > people..
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-mus...
>
> According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan “was very vocal about the
> war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.” If
> his being “vocal about the war” is not enough to demonstrate unwavering
> loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim
> is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him
> “over the edge” was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country
> (Afghanistan) — his “worst nightmare.”
I thought liberals were Godless atheists.. and yet this guy's a devout
Muslim. Weird. Maybe he wasn't a liberal after all!
>
> According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke
> with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed
> heavily on him.” Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the
> U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” again, showing where
> his loyalty lies. Tabari’s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who
> “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers,
> that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too
> becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).
>
> Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that “in the Koran, you’re not
> supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you
> are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”
>
Hmm. Not very liberal of Hasan, eh?
> >>> They just say they're COs or something.
> >>> Curt
> >> You really are a vile piece of shit to make excuses for this murdering
> >> terrorist.
>
> > A)no one's making excuses and B)he's not a terrist -- just a criminal.
>
> You are a LIAR a TRAITOR and a PIECE OF SHIT!
>
> >> You have sunk so low here there is no hope for your soul.
>
> > I'll worry about that later, okay?
>
> YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!-
Your caps key's stuck again.
Curt
dilecticon
Enjoy the bulk posts, they be coming, cunt.
dilecticon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
Bob LeChevalier
>Curt wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>
>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>
>"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
>cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
>Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
>frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
>the right roomie in college."
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>
>1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
"coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
I'm not sure that there is any particular evidence. However, the
military are disproportionately of that particular persuasion,
especially so, when one excludes the blacks and Hispanics in the
military.
>3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another. And
the nearly 100% lockstep of Congressional Republicans shows the
tendency towards mindless groupthink that makes that sort of thing
possible.
>4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
That is simple. It doesn't. It merely means "God is great" and it is
as standard in Islamic worship of all stripes as "Hear O Israel the
Lord your God is One" is standard in Jewish worship, and the symbol of
the cross in Catholic worship.
>And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
>redefine what terror is,
"Terror" and "terrorism" are not the same thing. "Terrorism" has a
specific legal definition.
>treason too
Treason against the US is defined in the US Constitution. No other
definition matters here.
>and even acts of war.
That is also defined under international law. Individuals cannot
commit them.
>All to defend
I see no sign of anyone defending anyone. He merely said that the
words used to condemn him were not the correct words.
>this slimeball
perhaps
>Jihadist
evidence is lacking
>sleeper cell
There is absolutely no evidence that I've seen that he was part of any
"cell", nor that he was a "sleeper agent" working on behalf of anyone
but himself.
>bastard
I haven't read anything about his parentage.
>who killed his own fellow soldiers.
Even you can actually get PART of a sentence correct.
>I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
>pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
>of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
It simply is NOT obvious that it was intended as an act of terror.
>Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
>DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
Probably because there is no resemblance between his behavior and that
of any member of that party.
>I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
>has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
I can only opine based on the postings I see, and those adjectives
seem to better apply to you than to him.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> <76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>
>> "Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
>> cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
>> Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
>> frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
>> the right roomie in college."
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>
>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>
> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
shit, I fucking LOATHE left wing rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING
DEAD!
His entire diatribe, right down to the crack about "roomies" was
intended as some sick display of partisan "humor"
Got it, asshole?
Good!
>> 2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
>
> I'm not sure that there is any particular evidence.
PRECISELY!
> However, the
> military are disproportionately of that particular persuasion,
The issue is NOT the military, the issue is MUZZIES in the military.
> especially so, when one excludes the blacks and Hispanics in the
> military.
Racist non sequitur.
>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>
> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
BULLSHIT LIE!!!
How many Jews or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
You vile piece of shit!
> And
> the nearly 100% lockstep of Congressional Republicans shows the
> tendency towards mindless groupthink that makes that sort of thing
> possible.
There have been no Congressional spree killers, and this man was not a
Congressman.
Why do all you libitards abandon logic so easily?
>> 4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
>
> That is simple. It doesn't.
YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!
> It merely means "God is great" and it is
> as standard in Islamic worship of all stripes as "Hear O Israel the
> Lord your God is One" is standard in Jewish worship, and the symbol of
> the cross in Catholic worship.
How many soldiers have spree-killed yelling "Hail Mary" or "Shalom"?
You scumsucking libitard net-carp are _always_ trying to draw an
equivalence between the Muzzies and the Christian faiths, and you ALWAYS
FAIL!
>> And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
>> redefine what terror is,
>
> "Terror" and "terrorism" are not the same thing. "Terrorism" has a
> specific legal definition.
Both definitions were posted, feel free to scroll back and refresh
yourself, asshole.
>> treason too
>
> Treason against the US is defined in the US Constitution. No other
> definition matters here.
Not one fucking word YOU say matters here, you ass-fucking klingon left
wing whore.
>> and even acts of war.
>
> That is also defined under international law. Individuals cannot
> commit them.
Oh I'm sorry, so 911 was not an act of "war"?
Fuck you.
Drop dead.
>> All to defend
>
> I see no sign of anyone defending anyone.
You're a lying vile pile of shit and ANYTHING you say is immediately
DISCOUNTED!
> He merely said that the
> words used to condemn him were not the correct words.
BULLSHIT!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> this slimeball
>
> perhaps
And you as well.
>> Jihadist
>
> evidence is lacking
LIAR!
He had been in contact with radical Islam abroad.
>> sleeper cell
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that I've seen that he was part of any
> "cell",
Like they'd release that now...
> nor that he was a "sleeper agent" working on behalf of anyone
> but himself.
Wake up, they're coming:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126058036714988243.html
U.S. counterterrorism officials say 2009 has turned into the year of
homegrown jihad, with the unmasking of the most serious suspected terror
plots involving Americans in about five years.
U.S. investigators are still trying to determine what drew five young
Americans to travel last month to Pakistan, where local authorities
allege they had sought to join extremist groups that have attacked U.S.
soldiers in Afghanistan. U.S. investigators have interviewed some of the
men, but haven't verified the information Pakistani officials have
released on the case.
The surge in alleged terror cases has raised concerns among
counterterrorism officials. Some officials say young men have been
swayed by the escalating war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as
intensifying Internet recruiting of Westerners by extremist groups.
At a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing
last month, experts on terrorism cited the recent cases as evidence that
the threat of radicalization, long an issue in Europe, has become a
major concern in the U.S.
>> bastard
>
> I haven't read anything about his parentage.
And yours as well.
>> who killed his own fellow soldiers.
>
> Even you can actually get PART of a sentence correct.
While you remain INCORRECT on all counts!
>
>> I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
>> pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
>> of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
>
> It simply is NOT obvious that it was intended as an act of terror.
LIAR!!!!
"ALLAH AKBAR!"
>> Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
>> DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
>
> Probably because there is no resemblance between his behavior and that
> of any member of that party.
Nor to any of the Republican party, you asshole.
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
>> has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
>
> I can only opine based on the postings I see, and those adjectives
> seem to better apply to you than to him.
You are a liar, a left wing cunt, and a piece of shit.
DROP FUCKING DEAD!
Sancho Panza
"Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f644b5b9-b83d-458c...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 4:37 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
> And Nidal the Nutbag wasn't trying to "coerce" anyone into anything,
> was he? Any more than the Columbine kids were trying to do.
The Columbine " students" did not go around counseling and giving lectures
and PowerPoint presentations to others undercutting the purpose and mission
of the group.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>>
>>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>>
>> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
>> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
>> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>
>Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
>shit, I fucking LOATHE
Do you really think anyone cares what you loathe?
>left wing
Not me. Quite the centrist.
>rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING DEAD!
Given that I don't care what you think, I am certainly not going to
follow your orders. Feel free to follow them yourself.
>His entire diatribe, right down to the crack about "roomies" was
>intended as some sick display of partisan "humor"
Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted, and worthless.
>Got it, asshole?
Go find a mirror to practice your language of self-abnegation in front
of, please.
>>> 2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
>>
>> I'm not sure that there is any particular evidence.
>
>PRECISELY!
Which makes his opinion as good as yours.
>> However, the
>> military are disproportionately of that particular persuasion,
>
>The issue is NOT the military, the issue is MUZZIES in the military.
Unless you have evidence that there is a statistical anomaly, I am
inclined to presume that they are just like most other members of the
military.
>> especially so, when one excludes the blacks and Hispanics in the
>> military.
>
>Racist non sequitur.
Not racist at all. Those ARE two groups which are known to have
strong statistical anomalies in party membership, and therefore would
be expected to skew the military statistics towards the Dems. But
despite this skewing, the military is heavily Republican, meaning that
those who aren't blacks and Hispanics are even more strongly
Republican than the overall military statistics reflect.
>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>
>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>
>BULLSHIT LIE!!!
Nope.
>How many Jews
I don't know any fundie Jews.
>or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
Christian fundies choose other methods to display their hatred for the
rest of humanity, since they live in a country where more
sophisticated means of doing so exist that suicide bombing. The
mentality is the same though. And it is just as deadly. (Bush's
bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
history).
Indeed, your "drop dead" rhetoric shows that you are of the same
stripe (whether you are fundie or not). I wouldn't put it past you to
bomb an abortion clinic, or shoot up a mosque (or even a church).
>You vile piece of shit!
You are the one spreading the foul language and hatred around.
>> And
>> the nearly 100% lockstep of Congressional Republicans shows the
>> tendency towards mindless groupthink that makes that sort of thing
>> possible.
>
>There have been no Congressional spree killers, and this man was not a
>Congressman.
It's the people who elect such Congressmen that are the issue.
>>> 4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
>>
>> That is simple. It doesn't.
>
>YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!
Nope.
>How many soldiers have spree-killed yelling "Hail Mary" or "Shalom"?
>
>You scumsucking libitard net-carp are _always_ trying to draw an
>equivalence between the Muzzies and the Christian faiths,
No. Only between the Islamic and Christian fundie extremists. Most
Moslems are quite normal and reasonable, and so are most Christians.
But religions have a tendency to produce extremist nutcases.
>Not one fucking word I say matters here
just correcting your typo.
>Oh I'm sorry, so 911 was not an act of "war"?
No. It was a criminal act of terror.
>>> All to defend
>>
>> I see no sign of anyone defending anyone.
>
>You're a lying vile pile of shit and ANYTHING you say is immediately
>DISCOUNTED!
Nobody cares what you discount.
>>> Jihadist
>>
>> evidence is lacking
>
>LIAR!
>
>He had been in contact with radical Islam abroad.
Alas, but "guilt by association" is not an argument.
>>> sleeper cell
>>
>> There is absolutely no evidence that I've seen that he was part of any
>> "cell",
>
>Like they'd release that now...
If you have no evidence, your accusation is without basis.
>U.S. counterterrorism officials say 2009 has turned into the year of
>homegrown jihad, with the unmasking of the most serious suspected terror
>plots involving Americans in about five years.
Good thing we've got law enforcement people who are at least as good
as the terrorists.
>U.S. investigators are still trying to determine what drew five young
>Americans to travel last month to Pakistan, where local authorities
>allege they had sought to join extremist groups that have attacked U.S.
>soldiers in Afghanistan. U.S. investigators have interviewed some of the
>men, but haven't verified the information Pakistani officials have
>released on the case.
Note that the investigation started when their families, who are just
as Moslem as they are, reported them missing.
>Some officials say
The standard rhetoric of the Glenn Beck crowd. These days, "some Xs
say" is a mark of an attempt to instigate a reaction, and not
reporting.
>At a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing
>last month, experts on terrorism cited the recent cases as evidence that
>the threat of radicalization, long an issue in Europe, has become a
>major concern in the U.S.
Yet Europe seems to be doing quite well, despite a higher percentage
of Moslems living there.
>> It simply is NOT obvious that it was intended as an act of terror.
>
>LIAR!!!!
>
>"ALLAH AKBAR!"
The phrase is actually "Allahu Akbar", by the way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6516570/Fort-Hood-shootings-the-meaning-of-Allahu-Akbar.html
http://www.thenewspk.com/2009/11/allahu-akbar-meaning/
<Allahu Akbar Meaning:Allahu Akbar is probably the most commonly spoken
< phrase today. There are over a billion Muslims out there and since
< this is said during each stage of prayer, which is supposed to be
< performed five times a day, it adds up to being spoken over a billion
< times a day worldwide, by a conservative estimate. This statement is
< said by Muslims numerous times; During the call for prayer, during
< prayer, when they are happy, and wish to express their approval of
< what they hear, when they slaughter an animal, and when they want to
< praise a speaker. Even if they don�t say it, they can also hear it,
< since it�s proclaimed loudly as part of the Azan at mosques.
<
<The phrase is actually short for �Allahu Akbar min kullisay� which
< means God is greater than everything.
<
<Allahu Akbar by itself translates to �God is greater.� (akbar is an
< elative form, meaning greater, greatest, or very great.) Muslims
< leave the phrase unfinished, with the implication that whatever you
< can think of, God is greater than that, too.
<
<The actual title of this phrase is Takbeer , while the phrase itself
< is �Allahu Akbar.� Instead of applause, it�s better to have someone
< yell �Takbeer� and the crowd to respond �Allahu Akbar� in chorus.
>DROP FUCKING DEAD!
[yawn] Boring!
Arabic speakers have much more interesting forms of insult. Look into
it sometime.
bobinNY
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b243c25$0$4976$607e...@cv.net...
the columbine kids wore black, liked trench coats, cut school, smoked pot,
they were classic examples of young upcoming Democrats.-
Osama- building a betta SHITHOLE.
Curt
>
> Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
> shit, I fucking LOATHE left wing rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING
> DEAD!
> Got it, asshole?
>
> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>
> You vile piece of shit!
> YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!
>
>
> You scumsucking libitard net-carp are _always_ trying to draw an
> equivalence between the Muzzies and the Christian faiths, and you ALWAYS
> FAIL!
> Both definitions were posted, feel free to scroll back and refresh
> yourself, asshole.
>
> Not one fucking word YOU say matters here, you ass-fucking klingon left
> wing whore.
>
> Fuck you.
>
> Drop dead.
>
> You're a lying vile pile of shit and ANYTHING you say is immediately
> DISCOUNTED!
>
> BULLSHIT!
>
> LIAR!
>
>
> LIAR!!!!
> Nor to any of the Republican party, you asshole.
>
>
> You are a liar, a left wing cunt, and a piece of shit.
>
> DROP FUCKING DEAD!-
Okay, that right there, that's funny -- I don't care who ya are.
That's funny.
Curt
Curt
> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
True -- for whatever significance that has.
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 12, 3:15 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Curt wrote:
>>> <76d314e9-e734-433d-baf2-7a93ef7f9...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>>> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>> "Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
>>> cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
>>> Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
>>> frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
>>> the right roomie in college."
>>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
>> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
>> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>
I think you're a scumsucking, partisan, lying UN_American hack.
Retract your lies:
dilecticon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dilecticon
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>>>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>>> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
>>> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
>>> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>> Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
>> shit, I fucking LOATHE
>
> Do you really think anyone cares what you loathe?
Die you scumbag!
>> left wing
>
> Not me. Quite the centrist.
Liar.
>> rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING DEAD!
>
> Given that I don't care what you think, I am
Back again to argue it and hypocrysize yourself, scumbag.
>
>> His entire diatribe, right down to the crack about "roomies" was
>> intended as some sick display of partisan "humor"
>
> Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted, and worthless.
Eat shit and die, hypocrite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Got it, asshole?
>
> Go find a mirror to practice
Go gargle with Drano.
>>>> 2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
>>> I'm not sure that there is any particular evidence.
>> PRECISELY!
>
> Which makes his opinion as good as yours.
Which makes his "opinion" an unfounded LIE, you miserable asslicker.
>>> However, the
>>> military are disproportionately of that particular persuasion,
>> The issue is NOT the military, the issue is MUZZIES in the military.
>
> Unless you have evidence that there is a statistical anomaly, I am
> inclined to presume that they are just like most other members of the
> military.
We just had one of those anomalies, asshole, a muzzie spree killing.
We had another muzzie who tossed a grenade in a tent over in Iraq, asshole.
You are a vile lying piece of SHIT!
>>> especially so, when one excludes the blacks and Hispanics in the
>>> military.
>> Racist non sequitur.
>
> Not racist at all.
I said "racist non sequitur", you asshole.
> Those ARE two groups which are known to have
> strong statistical anomalies in party membership, and therefore would
> be expected to skew the military statistics towards the Dems. But
> despite this skewing, the military is heavily Republican, meaning that
> those who aren't blacks and Hispanics are even more strongly
> Republican than the overall military statistics reflect.
Irrelevant, completely.
>>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>
> Nope.
Any Christian kids wearing bomb vests?
Women bagged in burkas?
>> How many Jews
>
> I don't know any fundie Jews.
It shows.
>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>
> Christian fundies choose other methods
So there is no similarity, thanks for admitting you LIED!
> to display their hatred for the
> rest of humanity, since they live in a country where more
> sophisticated means of doing so exist that suicide bombing. The
> mentality is the same though. And it is just as deadly.
That's ANOTHER lie.
> (Bush's
> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
> history).
He also liberated 26 million, you miserable cunt!
> Indeed, your "drop dead" rhetoric shows that you are of the same
> stripe (whether you are fundie or not). I wouldn't put it past you to
> bomb an abortion clinic, or shoot up a mosque (or even a church).
You are a vile liar and a continual misrepresenter, drop dead.
>> You vile piece of shit!
>
> You are the one spreading the foul language and hatred around.
You so RICHLY have earned it, asshole!
>>> And
>>> the nearly 100% lockstep of Congressional Republicans shows the
>>> tendency towards mindless groupthink that makes that sort of thing
>>> possible.
>> There have been no Congressional spree killers, and this man was not a
>> Congressman.
>
> It's the people who elect such Congressmen that are the issue.
Non sequitur, again!
>>>> 4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
>>> That is simple. It doesn't.
>> YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!
>
> Nope.
LIAR!
>> How many soldiers have spree-killed yelling "Hail Mary" or "Shalom"?
>>
>> You scumsucking libitard net-carp are _always_ trying to draw an
>> equivalence between the Muzzies and the Christian faiths,
>
> No.
Yes, LIAR!
> Only between the Islamic and Christian fundie extremists. Most
> Moslems are quite normal and reasonable, and so are most Christians.
Studies show that anywhere from 15-20% of Muslims worldwide SUPPORT
radical Jihad, you lying cunt.
> But religions have a tendency to produce extremist nutcases.
No Christians putting bomb v est son their children, asshole liar.
>> Not one fucking word I say matters here
>
> just correcting
LYING, again.
>> Oh I'm sorry, so 911 was not an act of "war"?
>
> No. It was a criminal act of terror.
L_I_A_R!
It was JIHAD!
>>>> All to defend
>>> I see no sign of anyone defending anyone.
>> You're a lying vile pile of shit and ANYTHING you say is immediately
>> DISCOUNTED!
>
> Nobody cares what you discount.
You do, hypocrite!
>>>> Jihadist
>>> evidence is lacking
>> LIAR!
>>
>> He had been in contact with radical Islam abroad.
>
> Alas, but "guilt by association" is not an argument.
It's called CONSPIRACY, you lying cunt!
>>>> sleeper cell
>>> There is absolutely no evidence that I've seen that he was part of any
>>> "cell",
>> Like they'd release that now...
>
> If you have no evidence, your accusation is without basis.
The systemic evidence is there, cunt.
>> U.S. counterterrorism officials say 2009 has turned into the year of
>> homegrown jihad, with the unmasking of the most serious suspected terror
>> plots involving Americans in about five years.
>
> Good thing we've got law enforcement people who are at least as good
> as the terrorists.
On that single thing we will agree.
>> U.S. investigators are still trying to determine what drew five young
>> Americans to travel last month to Pakistan, where local authorities
>> allege they had sought to join extremist groups that have attacked U.S.
>> soldiers in Afghanistan. U.S. investigators have interviewed some of the
>> men, but haven't verified the information Pakistani officials have
>> released on the case.
>
> Note that the investigation started when their families, who are just
> as Moslem as they are, reported them missing.
So?!?!?
>> Some officials say
>
> The standard rhetoric of the Glenn Beck crowd.
But this wasn't Glenn Beck, it was the Wall Street Journal, you lying
ASSHOLE!
> These days, "some Xs
> say" is a mark of an attempt to instigate a reaction, and not
> reporting.
LIAR!
>> At a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing
>> last month, experts on terrorism cited the recent cases as evidence that
>> the threat of radicalization, long an issue in Europe, has become a
>> major concern in the U.S.
>
> Yet Europe seems to be doing quite well, despite a higher percentage
> of Moslems living there.
No, they have not.
Did you miss the London subway bombing, cunt?
How about the riots and car burnings in France, cunt?
You're a vile ass-licking LIAR!
>>> It simply is NOT obvious that it was intended as an act of terror.
>> LIAR!!!!
>>
>> "ALLAH AKBAR!"
>
> The phrase is actually "Allahu Akbar", by the way.
I don't deign to give those rag-headed terrorists the benefit of their
verbiage, traitor.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6516570/Fort-Hood-shootings-the-meaning-of-Allahu-Akbar.html
>
> http://www.thenewspk.com/2009/11/allahu-akbar-meaning/
> <Allahu Akbar Meaning:Allahu Akbar is probably the most commonly spoken
> < phrase today. There are over a billion Muslims out there and since
> < this is said during each stage of prayer, which is supposed to be
> < performed five times a day, it adds up to being spoken over a billion
> < times a day worldwide, by a conservative estimate. This statement is
> < said by Muslims numerous times; During the call for prayer, during
> < prayer, when they are happy, and wish to express their approval of
> < what they hear, when they slaughter an animal, and when they want to
> < praise a speaker. Even if they don�t say it, they can also hear it,
> < since it�s proclaimed loudly as part of the Azan at mosques.
> <
> <The phrase is actually short for �Allahu Akbar min kullisay� which
> < means God is greater than everything.
> <
> <Allahu Akbar by itself translates to �God is greater.� (akbar is an
> < elative form, meaning greater, greatest, or very great.) Muslims
> < leave the phrase unfinished, with the implication that whatever you
> < can think of, God is greater than that, too.
> <
> <The actual title of this phrase is Takbeer , while the phrase itself
> < is �Allahu Akbar.� Instead of applause, it�s better to have someone
> < yell �Takbeer� and the crowd to respond �Allahu Akbar� in chorus.
>
>
>> DROP FUCKING DEAD!
>
> [yawn] Boring!
You are subhuman excrement.
> Arabic speakers have much more interesting forms of insult. Look into
> it sometime.
No surprise a left wing klingon ass-licker like you would know the
nuances of Arabic "culture", just none at all, cunt!
Moder@tor
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Curt wrote:
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> <76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>>
>>> "Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
>>> cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
>>> Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
>>> frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
>>> the right roomie in college."
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>>
>>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>>
>> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
>> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
>> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>
>Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
>shit, I fucking LOATHE left wing rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING
>DEAD!
Face it Spammy, you've become Curt's personal bitch as well. How many others
will own you?
Curt
>
> I think you're a scumsucking, partisan, lying UN_American hack.
This is me, not caring what you think.
>
> Retract your lies:
Since there were no lies, I can't do that.
And if I had lied, it's not like YOU could do anything about it
anyway.
I'm having fun. Are you?
Curt
dilecticon
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:30:55 -0700, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Curt wrote:
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> <76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>>>>
>>>> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>
>>>> "Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
>>>> cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
>>>> Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
>>>> frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
>>>> the right roomie in college."
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>>> I find no indication that he finds any slaughter "funny", as in
>>> humorous. It is clear in the above that he means "odd", or
>>> "coincidental", which are other perfectly valid meanings of "funny".
>> Let's get one thing straight from the get-go, you vile klingon piece of
>> shit, I fucking LOATHE left wing rationalizers like you, so DROP FUCKING
>> DEAD!
>
> Face it Spammy, you've become Curt's personal bitch
Face it "and sniff", you're a rudderless boat here.
Pwnd.
dilecticon
> On Dec 13, 10:23 am, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> I think you're a scumsucking, partisan, lying UN_American hack.
>
> This is me, not caring what you think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
>
>> Retract your lies:
>
> Since there were no lies, I can't do that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
>
> And if I had lied, it's not like YOU could do anything about it
> anyway.
>
> I'm having fun. Are you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
>
> Curt
Bob LeChevalier
>We just had one of those anomalies, asshole, a muzzie spree killing.
>
>We had another muzzie who tossed a grenade in a tent over in Iraq, asshole.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/10/soldiers.charged/index.html
<The U.S. military Monday released the names of five soldiers,
< including two sergeants, charged in connection with the alleged rape
< and murder of Iraqi civilians in Mahmoudiya, Iraq.
<
<The military said that Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Spc. James P. Barker, Pfc.
< Jesse V. Spielman, and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard were charged on Saturday
< in connection with their alleged participation in the rape and murder
< of an Iraqi female, and the murders of three other family members in
< March.
>>>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>>>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>>> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Any Christian kids wearing bomb vests?
Americans practice more secretive forms of murderous child abuse.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesCAN.htm
<It is reported that more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of child
< abuse and neglect each year, and the actual number of abuse and
< neglect deaths is estimated to be much higher than that reported by
< vital statistics data.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/christian-fundamentalist_b_209521.html
<When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian
< Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people
< and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal
< movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."
< He should have been charged with terrorism.
<
<Sunday George Tiller, a Wichita doctor, was killed INSIDE the lobby of
< his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene;
< fundamentalist terrorism.
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSAR.093.0301A
<On June 17, 1994, Paul Hill, a Christian anti-abortion extremist and
< former minister, was heard shouting �Mommy, mommy, don't kill me� and
< �God hates murders and murderers� outside The Ladies Center abortion
< clinic, Pensacola, Florida (Ladies Center, 2003). Six weeks later, on
< July 29, 1994, Hill killed Dr. John Britton, 69, and his volunteer
< clinic escort, James Barrett, 74, with a barrage of bullets, in the
< driveway of the clinic, since renamed Community Healthcare Center.
< The reason: Hill believed he had to take �all godly action necessary
< to defend innocent human life including the use of force� (Army of
< God, 1993).
<
<Hill, the first person in the United States executed, in 2003, for the
< killing of an abortion provider, became an icon for violent Christian
< fundamentalists bent on �restoring� the United States to a theocratic
< rule under God's law (Clarkson, 1997).
>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>
>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>
>So there is no similarity,
That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
tunnel vision.
>thanks for admitting you LIED!
I do not lie.
>> (Bush's
>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>> history).
>
>He also liberated 26 million,
Did he?
Has anyone asked THEM whether they felt "liberated", or even whether
they WANTED to be "liberated" at the cost of the lives of their loved
ones?
Alternatively, one take the same attitude you just expressed , and can
look at the US, and decide that a couple of dozen people or even a few
thousand people being murdered by strangers from a foreign land is
perfectly OK, so long as the rest of us are "liberated" from our
theocratic-fundie Christian rulership.
The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
"liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
Thanks for admitting my argument.
>>> At a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing
>>> last month, experts on terrorism cited the recent cases as evidence that
>>> the threat of radicalization, long an issue in Europe, has become a
>>> major concern in the U.S.
>>
>> Yet Europe seems to be doing quite well, despite a higher percentage
>> of Moslems living there.
>
>No, they have not.
>
>Did you miss the London subway bombing, cunt?
>
>How about the riots and car burnings in France, cunt?
London and France don't seem to be producing rabid sorts like
yourself. Instead most people just go on living their lives, and
admiring people like Obama who are turning down the rhetoric several
notches.
>> Arabic speakers have much more interesting forms of insult. Look into
>> it sometime.
>
>No surprise a left wing klingon ass-licker like you would know
... a lot more than a close-minded dim-bulb bigot like you.
Curt
> > Face it Spammy, you've become Curt's personal bitch
>
> Face it "and sniff", you're a rudderless boat here.
>
> Pwnd.
Indeed you were. But you're used to it.
Curt
Curt
> >> (Bush's
> >> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
> >> history).
A somewhat unfair comparison, to my mind..
>
> >He also liberated 26 million,
>
> Did he?
No. Do they look "liberated" to you?
>
> Has anyone asked THEM whether they felt "liberated", or even whether
> they WANTED to be "liberated" at the cost of the lives of their loved
> ones?
They wanted to be liberated. But they didn't know what to do with it
when it was handed to them. The US sacrificed -- greatly -- for a
people that ultimately turned out not to be worth the effort.
Curt
lein
> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
> > —four times as many than in any single year since 9/11.
>
> > * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>
> > * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
> > clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
> > root in our military
>
> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
> wrong as usual.
Was the Ok City bombing a bugfuck-crazy act or terrorism?
lein
Or Tim McVey
Curt
Guess you'd have to examine young mr McVeigh's motivations to decide,
wouldn't you?
What do you think those were?
Curt
lein
Clearly the same as Jihadist Nidal Hasan
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> We just had one of those anomalies, asshole, a muzzie spree killing.
>>
>> We had another muzzie who tossed a grenade in a tent over in Iraq, asshole.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/10/soldiers.charged/index.html
> <The U.S. military Monday released the names of five soldiers,
> < including two sergeants, charged in connection with the alleged rape
> < and murder of Iraqi civilians in Mahmoudiya, Iraq.
> <
> <The military said that Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Spc. James P. Barker, Pfc.
> < Jesse V. Spielman, and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard were charged on Saturday
> < in connection with their alleged participation in the rape and murder
> < of an Iraqi female, and the murders of three other family members in
> < March.
>
>
>
>>>>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>>>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>>>>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>>>> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>>> Nope.
>> Any Christian kids wearing bomb vests?
>
> Americans practice more secretive forms of murderous child abuse.
<off-point kookery deleted.>
But NO bomb vests, right???
Because that WAS what you were supposed to be responding to, right?
I mean if you HAVE to stray off-point I could refer to the shooting in
the Swiss Parliament as proof of Euro-whackery, couldn't I?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/27/newsid_2539000/2539769.stm
2001: Swiss man kills 14
A gunman has run amok in a central Switzerland government building,
killing at least 14 people before turning the gun on himself.
But it'd be just as IRRELEVANT as your Christian spite-list, you klingon
piece of shit.
>>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>> So there is no similarity,
>
> That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
> tunnel vision.
Christian Jihad?
Nope.
Christian international terrorism?
Nope.
You're a stupid lying fuck, klingon.
>> thanks for admitting you LIED!
>
> I do not lie.
Why yes you do, constantly.
>>> (Bush's
>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>> history).
>> He also liberated 26 million,
>
> Did he?
Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
Do they have FREE elections?
Their own constitution?
Well, do they, turd?
> Has anyone asked THEM whether they felt "liberated", or even whether
> they WANTED to be "liberated" at the cost of the lives of their loved
> ones?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
Iraq Poll February 2009
This survey was conducted for ABC News, the BBC and NHK by D3 Systems of
Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul, Turkey. Interviews were
conducted in person, in Arabic or Kurdish, among a random national
sample of 2,228 Iraqis aged 18 and up, from 17-25 February 2009.
Q1.Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days?
Would you say things are very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?
Feb09% Mar08% Aug07% Feb07% 2005% 2004%
Very Good 21 13 8 8 22 13
Quite Good 44 41 31 31 49 57
Q4 Do you think your children will have a better life than you, worse,
or about the same?
Feb09% Mar08% Aug07% Feb07%
Better 44 39 33 42
Worse 26 28 42 37
Q15. There can be differences between the way government is set up in a
country, called the political system. From the three options I am going
to read to you, which one do you think would be best for Iraq now?
Feb09% Feb07% 2005% 2004%
Strong leader: government headed by one man for life
14 34 26 28
Islamic state: where politicians rule according to religious principles
19 22 14 21
Democracy: government with a chance for the leader to be replaced from
time to time
64 43 57 49
> Alternatively, one take the same attitude you just expressed , and can
> look at the US, and decide that a couple of dozen people or even a few
> thousand people being murdered by strangers from a foreign land is
> perfectly OK, so long as the rest of us are "liberated" from our
> theocratic-fundie Christian rulership.
Wow, total non sequitur.
You couldn't stay on topic if your useless fucking life depended on it,
shitpile.
> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
> Thanks for admitting my argument.
I freely admit both YOU and your so-called "arguments" are off topic,
non sequitur, red herring SHIT!
>>>> At a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing
>>>> last month, experts on terrorism cited the recent cases as evidence that
>>>> the threat of radicalization, long an issue in Europe, has become a
>>>> major concern in the U.S.
>>> Yet Europe seems to be doing quite well, despite a higher percentage
>>> of Moslems living there.
>> No, they have not.
>>
>> Did you miss the London subway bombing, cunt?
>>
>> How about the riots and car burnings in France, cunt?
>
> London and France don't seem to be producing rabid sorts like
> yourself.
Oh, who did I bomb?
Or are you saying I'm a Basque?
You stupid lying turd.
> Instead most people just go on living their lives, and
> admiring people like Obama who are turning down the rhetoric several
> notches.
Was the great appeaser Chamberlain also admired in his day?
Nuff said, you klingon motherfucker.
>>> Arabic speakers have much more interesting forms of insult. Look into
>>> it sometime.
>> No surprise a left wing klingon ass-licker like you would know
>
> ... a lot more
You're dead in the water turd, do the right thing and flush yourself now.
dilecticon
> On Dec 13, 7:25 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Face it Spammy, you've become Curt's personal bitch
>> Face it "and sniff", you're a rudderless boat here.
>>
>> Pwnd.
>
> Indeed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
dilecticon
> On Dec 13, 11:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>> (Bush's
>>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>>> history).
>
> A somewhat unfair comparison, to my mind..
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 7:01 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 4:03 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>>>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>>>> root in our military
>>> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
>>> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
>>> wrong as usual.
>> Was the Ok City bombing a bugfuck-crazy act or terrorism?
>
> Guess you'd have to examine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curt
Really? You think Major Hasan was angry at the federal government for
serving that warrant at Waco?
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 7:21 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 7:17 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 7:01 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 10, 4:03 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>>>>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>>>>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>>>>>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>>>>>> root in our military
>>>>> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
>>>>> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
>>>>> wrong as usual.
>>>> Was the Ok City bombing a bugfuck-crazy act or terrorism?
>>> Guess you'd have to examine young mr McVeigh's motivations to decide,
>>> wouldn't you?
>>> What do you think those were?
>> Clearly the same as Jihadist Nidal Hasan-
>
> Really?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and Sniff
Let's all buy Curt a leash for his new personal bitch, Spammy. Oh, and a muzzle.
dilecticon
And let's name you his new poodle.
Bob LeChevalier
The people were worth the effort.
The problem is that Americans expect people of other cultures to
instantly understand those concepts that we intuitively grasp based on
our own cultural upbringing, and how to apply them. Our system
doesn't work merely because democracy is superior, or capitalism is
superior, or any other single factor. We have a complex of things,
including a history of ideas, a lot of money and resources - and
several centuries of experience.
To expect that we can depose a dictator and suddenly everything will
be hunky dory is hideously naive. It took the Marshall Plan to save
western Europe (and even then Spain took a couple of decades to lose
its dictator). It took until the 70s before Japan really recovered
from its WW II military dictatorship. It took Eastern Europe several
decades to throw off Soviet rule.
If we go in to try to change someone's system of government, even for
the right reasons, we have to be prepared to stay and help for a full
generation or more, spending money rather liberally. And we would be
wise to have understood and decided this BEFORE we invade. In Iraq
and Afghanistan, we didn't, and we aren't willing to stay the long
course. (And Bush tried to do it on the cheap, with budget sophistry
to hide even those costs, as well). Thus, we will not achieve our
full aims as envisioned by Bush (we might achieve some lesser aims,
though).
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>>>>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>>>>>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>>>>> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>>>> Nope.
>>> Any Christian kids wearing bomb vests?
>>
>> Americans practice more secretive forms of murderous child abuse.
>
><off-point kookery deleted.>
>
>But NO bomb vests, right???
>
>Because that WAS what you were supposed to be responding to, right?
No. I respond to what >I< want to respond to, not to what you want.
>2001: Swiss man kills 14
>A gunman has run amok in a central Switzerland government building,
>killing at least 14 people before turning the gun on himself.
>But it'd be just as IRRELEVANT as your Christian spite-list
What spite list? I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>>> So there is no similarity,
>>
>> That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
>> tunnel vision.
>
>Christian Jihad?
"Onward Christian Soldiers". The Crusades.
>>>> (Bush's
>>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>>> history).
>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>
>> Did he?
>
>Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>
>Do they have FREE elections?
>
>Their own constitution?
>
>Well, do they, turd?
The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions. They still
weren't "liberated".
>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>
>Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers. Indeed,
we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
death camps existed. That we did liberate them is nice, but it wasn't
what we were fighting for. (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
the Nazis. They declared war on us).
lein
No, but I think he was every bit the terrorist that Tim McVey was,
agree?
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>>>>>>> 1. Fundamentalist Christians are nearly all Republicans, and there
>>>>>>> isn't much difference between fundies of one religion or another.
>>>>>> BULLSHIT LIE!!!
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Any Christian kids wearing bomb vests?
>>> Americans practice more secretive forms of murderous child abuse.
>> <off-point kookery deleted.>
>>
>> But NO bomb vests, right???
>>
>> Because that WAS what you were supposed to be responding to, right?
>
> No. I respond to what >I< want to respond to, not to what you want.
No, you misrepresent, squirm, and lie about what you choose respond to,
you easily outed klingon cunt.
>> 2001: Swiss man kills 14
>> A gunman has run amok in a central Switzerland government building,
>> killing at least 14 people before turning the gun on himself.
>
>> But it'd be just as IRRELEVANT as your Christian spite-list
>
> What spite list?
The cites you posted, cunt.
> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>>>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>>>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>>>> So there is no similarity,
>>> That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
>>> tunnel vision.
>> Christian Jihad?
>
> "Onward Christian Soldiers". The Crusades.
Ancient history, cunt.
Any other red herrings?
>>>>> (Bush's
>>>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>>>> history).
>>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>> Did he?
>> Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>>
>> Do they have FREE elections?
>>
>> Their own constitution?
>>
>> Well, do they, turd?
>
> The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions.
Another non sequitur.
Not only do you lose debates easily, you compound it with your penchant
for veering off topic like a drunk in a clown car.
> They still weren't "liberated".
IRRELEVANT!
>>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>> Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
>
> We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers.
Oh my, and now the historical revisionism really ramps up!
> Indeed,
> we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
> death camps existed.
Oh I get it, AMERICA is repsnsible for the gassing of the Jews, not Hitler!
Wow.
You're sick and insane in so many more ways than I could ever have guessed.
> That we did liberate them is nice,
Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
You really need to drop fucking dead, you exterminable subhuman scum.
> but it wasn't
> what we were fighting for.
Sure...we were fighting for the schnitzel licensing rights...
> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
You libitards are so fucking predictable, and so anti-American to the core.
Why do you make it so easy for me anyway?
Do you enjoy knowing that EVERYONE out here (save for the most
desperate moonbats) depises you?
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 10:31 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 7:21 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 7:17 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 14, 7:01 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 10, 4:03 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>>>>>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>>>>>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>>>>>>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>>>>>>> root in our military
>>>>>> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
>>>>>> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
>>>>>> wrong as usual.
>>>>> Was the Ok City bombing a bugfuck-crazy act or terrorism?
>>>> Guess you'd have to examine young mr McVeigh's motivations to decide,
>>>> wouldn't you?
>>>> What do you think those were?
>>> Clearly the same as Jihadist Nidal Hasan-
>> Really? You think Major Hasan was angry at the federal government for
>> serving that warrant at Waco?
>
> No, but I think he was every bit the terrorist that Tim McVey was,
> agree?
Oh my, trying to make a dummy be consistent - priceless...
Bob LeChevalier
>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>
>Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
Your universal claim is unprovable. You'd have to verify that every
single person who has ever strapped a bomb vest to a child was
non-Christian, and there is no list of such children, much less the
strappers on.
On the other hand, Christians have killed their children,
intentionally, to spite other people, and the method of killing the
child really doesn't matter - the kid dies in any event.
>>>>>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>>>>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>>>>> So there is no similarity,
>>>> That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
>>>> tunnel vision.
>>> Christian Jihad?
>>
>> "Onward Christian Soldiers". The Crusades.
>
>Ancient history
Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>>>> (Bush's
>>>>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>>>>> history).
>>>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>>> Did he?
>>> Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>>>
>>> Do they have FREE elections?
>>>
>>> Their own constitution?
>>>
>>> Well, do they, turd?
>>
>> The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions.
>
>Another non sequitur.
You seem to be imply that the existence of those conditions means
something with regard to whether a people is "liberated". If you
meant something else by the above blather, you need to express
yourself more clearly.
>Not only do you lose debates easily, you compound it with your penchant
>for veering off topic like a drunk in a clown car.
>
>> They still weren't "liberated".
>
>IRRELEVANT!
If irrelevant, then explain why you said this?
>>>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>>> Did he?
>>> Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>>>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>>>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>>> Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
>>
>> We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers.
>
>Oh my, and now the historical revisionism really ramps up!
Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
death camps.
>> Indeed,
>> we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
>> death camps existed.
>
>Oh I get it, AMERICA is repsnsible for the gassing of the Jews, not Hitler!
I made no such claim. My claim was "The attitude that one has the
right to kill some people in order to "liberate" others, is precisely
the attitude that leads to terrorism."
>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>
>Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
that you feel is vital that one express in response to your statement?
It isn't especially relevant as a response to my claim, and thus
wasn't worth more than a "that's nice" in response.
>> but it wasn't
>> what we were fighting for.
>
>Sure...we were fighting for the schnitzel licensing rights...
No.
>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>
>Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
baloney on Usenet?
>You libitards are so fucking predictable,
Apparently not, nutcase.
>and so anti-American to the core.
Wrong. I just consider the American values worthy of being
pro-American to be somewhat different than the ones that you
apparently espouse.
>Why do you make it so easy for me anyway?
Because you're such a natural at making a fool of yourself, I need do
nothing to make it so easy for you.
>Do you enjoy knowing that EVERYONE out here (save for the most
>desperate moonbats) depises you?
Your evidence is non-existent.
I suspect that more people dislike you than me, since your only
contributions seem to be rather boring and repetitive foul-language
insults aimed at everyone who responds to you.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>
> Your universal claim is unprovable.
Your pantheon of lies is unending.
> You'd have to verify that every single person
No, I wouldn't.
You have to supply evidence that they do.
Can you?
NO.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up, you klingon cunt.
>>>>>>>> or Christians strap bomb vests to their children?
>>>>>>> Christian fundies choose other methods
>>>>>> So there is no similarity,
>>>>> That you don't see the similarity shows only that you are practicing
>>>>> tunnel vision.
>>>> Christian Jihad?
>>> "Onward Christian Soldiers". The Crusades.
>> Ancient history
>
> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
No, it's not a modern occurrence at all, you lying sack of Muzzie-loving
shit.
>>>>>>> (Bush's
>>>>>>> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
>>>>>>> history).
>>>>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>>>> Did he?
>>>> Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>>>>
>>>> Do they have FREE elections?
>>>>
>>>> Their own constitution?
>>>>
>>>> Well, do they, turd?
>>> The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions.
>> Another non sequitur.
>
> You seem to be imply that the existence of those conditions means
> something
Did you read the poll data?
Here, back in your rotting lying, toothless grille it is again, you
rotten cunt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
Iraq Poll February 2009
Feb09% Mar08% Aug07% Feb07%
Feb09% Feb07% 2005% 2004%
14 34 26 28
19 22 14 21
64 43 57 49
>> Not only do you lose debates easily, you compound it with your penchant
>> for veering off topic like a drunk in a clown car.
>>
>>> They still weren't "liberated".
>> IRRELEVANT!
>
> If irrelevant, then explain why you said this?
YOU are IRRELEVANT, cunt!
>>>>>> He also liberated 26 million,
>>>>> Did he?
>>>> Why yes he did, is Saddam still in charge?
>
>>>>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>>>>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>>>> Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
>>> We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers.
>> Oh my, and now the historical revisionism really ramps up!
>
> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
> death camps.
Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
ass-felching cunt!
>>> Indeed,
>>> we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
>>> death camps existed.
>> Oh I get it, AMERICA is repsnsible for the gassing of the Jews, not Hitler!
>
> I made no such claim. My claim was
BULLSHIT and insinuation, you worthless ass-licking cunt!
>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>
> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
> that you feel is vital
Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size, you reeking bucket of
liberal barf.
>>> but it wasn't
>>> what we were fighting for.
>> Sure...we were fighting for the schnitzel licensing rights...
>
> No.
Bbbbbbuttt....you libitards revel in revisionism!
>>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>> Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
>
> What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
> baloney on Usenet?
It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
>> You libitards are so fucking predictable,
>
> Apparently not, nutcase.
Apparently you are smart enough not to fall for the bait, cunt.
>> and so anti-American to the core.
>
> Wrong. I just consider the American values
You have no "American values" traitor, drop dead.
>> Why do you make it so easy for me anyway?
>
> Because you're such a natural at making a fool of yourself, I need do
> nothing to make it so easy for you.
By engaging in historical revisionism over WW2?
Do you seriously think ANYONE buys your hateful denials?
You moron.
>> Do you enjoy knowing that EVERYONE out here (save for the most
>> desperate moonbats) depises you?
>
> Your evidence is non-existent.
>
> I suspect that more people dislike you than me,
But you are proven to be in a delusional state.
Nuff said.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>
>> Your universal claim is unprovable.
>
>Your pantheon of lies is unending.
>
>> You'd have to verify that every single person
>
>No, I wouldn't.
>
>You have to supply evidence that they do.
No. YOU made the claim "Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their
children - period.", not me. YOU have to back it up; I have no
obligation to disprove your nonsense.
However, it seems highly implausible as the absolute and universal
claim you made. And any watering down that makes it less than a
universal claim about Christians would apply just as effectively to
any other group. Or perhaps you are relying on a "no true Scotsman"
fallacy and claim that anyone who would strap a bomb vest to their
child isn't a Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
But then someone can equally argue that no true Moslem would strap a
bomb vest to their child. Or merely point out that Christians are
found to regular partake of every other sort of sin imaginable, so
there isn't much reason to believe that they wouldn't commit this one.
>Now sit down
I am.
>and shut the fuck up
No.
>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>
>No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
Tell the families of Dr George Tiller and various others, and see if
you can convince THEM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
>you lying sack
Nope.
>Muzzie-loving
I love all of humanity. That is what Christians are supposed to do.
>>>>> Well, do they, turd?
>>>> The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions.
>>> Another non sequitur.
>>
>> You seem to be imply that the existence of those conditions means
>> something
>
>Did you read the poll data?
It is irrelevant in dismissing my example of the Soviet Union in
response to your silly argument.
Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data. Even less when it
is a poll of a different culture in a different language, and I thus
cannot evaluate the neutrality of the questions.
After all, there are polls that show people in some foreign countries
have 80% or even 90% approval ratings for Obama.
>Here, back in your rotting lying, toothless grille
I still have all my teeth.
>I am an IRRELEVANT cunt!
Your statement corrected to reflect reality.
>>>>>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>>>>>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>>>>> Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
>>>> We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers.
>>> Oh my, and now the historical revisionism really ramps up!
>>
>> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
>> death camps.
>
>Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't
I don't know any revisionist evidence. But
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/camps.html
<1933 - American newspapers and magazines reported the existence of
< concentration camps in early 1933, when Dachau first slammed its gate
< shut on a group of Communists and other political enemies of the
< Nazis. The camps had gained reputations for harsh and sadistic
< treatment of prisoners.
We apparently knew about and tolerated the existence of concentration
camps for 8 years and never went to war over them. Indeed, we never
did declare war on Germany (they declared war on us, after we declared
war on Japan).
<1943 - ... Under Paragraph 175 of the German legal code, male
< homosexuality was punished by imprisonment, but not female
< lesbianism. After 1943, male homosexuals were forced to wear a pink
< trangle and were sent to the death camps. The Americans did not
< repeal Paragraph 175 and sent homosexual inmates liberated from the
< camps to other prisons.
So much for "liberation".
And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
Soviets did. Other allied armies liberated death camps months before
the Americans reached their first one
<July 24, 1944 - At Lublin in Poland, Red Army soldiers discovered the
< abandoned Majdanek extermination camp, the first major camp to be
< liberated. Despite hasty efforts of the Germans to burn the camp to
< hide its purpose, the Russians found the remains of gas chambers.
< During the next month, Soviet troops liberated the abandoned Belzec
< and Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps.
<
<October 26, 1944 - Canadian forces liberated the abandoned Vught
< concentration camp in the Netherlands.
<
<November 23 1944 - The French Army entered the abandoned
< Natzweiler-Struthof camp in Alsace.
<
<January 27, 1945 - Soviet Army liberated Auschwitz, the largest Nazi
< death camp.
<
<April 5, 1945 - In search of secret Nazi communications along the
< Autobahn, units of the American Fourth Armored Division of the Third
< Army moved on Gotha and Ohrdruf, discovering the first of the camps
< containing prisoners and corpses to be uncovered by American armies.
So even when we did first find a death camp, it was accidental while
searching for communications.
<Victims of starvation and tuberculosis, the prisoners had also
< suffered from American bombing of the V-2 factories just one week
< before.
Liberation from our own bombs?
and finally:
<Fred Bohm, an Austrian-born American soldier who helped liberate
< Nordhausen described that his fellow American G.I.'s "had no
< particular feeling for fighting the Germans. They also thought that
< any stories they had read in the paper, or that I had told them out
< of first- hand experience, were either not true or at least
< exaggerated. And it did not sink in, what this was all about, until
< we got into Nordhausen."
Hardly the sort of statement one would make if the soldiers understood
that their purpose in fighting the war was to liberate death camps.
That should be more than enough evidence. Now provide
counterevidence, if you have any.
>>>> Indeed,
>>>> we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
>>>> death camps existed.
>>> Oh I get it, AMERICA is repsnsible for the gassing of the Jews, not Hitler!
>>
>> I made no such claim. My claim was
>
>BULLSHIT
That is a good description of all your posts.
>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>
>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>> that you feel is vital
>
>Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
See above. For us, it was accidental, and not in the least bit
"selfless". And if it was, then obviously the Soviets must have been
even more "selfless" and "noble".
But in any event, it is still irrelevant to the situation in the
Middle East.
>>>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>>>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>>> Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
>>
>> What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
>> baloney on Usenet?
>
>It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
I guess that I don't fit your pattern then. You are *wrong*.
>>> You libitards are so fucking predictable,
>>
>> Apparently not, nutcase.
>
>Apparently you are smart enough not to fall for the bait, cunt.
A good deal smarter than you who tried to bait me, obviously. But
then we already knew that.
>>> Why do you make it so easy for me anyway?
>>
>> Because you're such a natural at making a fool of yourself, I need do
>> nothing to make it so easy for you.
>
>By engaging in historical revisionism over WW2?
>
>Do you seriously think ANYONE buys your hateful denials?
I doubt that a single reputable historian would support your claims.
>You moron.
Self contradictory. You just complimented my intelligence above.
>But you are proven to be in a delusional state.
You haven't provided evidence of anything, much less proof. Just
foul-mouthed blather and drivel.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>> Your universal claim is unprovable.
>> Your pantheon of lies is unending.
>>
>>> You'd have to verify that every single person
>> No, I wouldn't.
>>
>> You have to supply evidence that they do.
>
> No.
YES!
And do it right fucking now, you klingon POS!
> YOU made the claim
And it stands, cope with it.
>> Now sit down
>
> I am.
Good boy...
>> and shut the fuck up
>
> No.
BAD DOG!
>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>
> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
Tiller the Killer?!?!?
A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>> you lying sack
>
> Nope.
Yup.
>> Muzzie-loving
>
> I love all of humanity.
Even the 911 terrorists?
Sick.
>>>>>> Well, do they, turd?
>>>>> The Soviet Unions nominally met all those conditions.
>>>> Another non sequitur.
>>> You seem to be imply that the existence of those conditions means
>>> something
>> Did you read the poll data?
>
> It is irrelevant
It flat BLEW your ass out of the water, which is why you snipped it, again!
Here, again, commit it to memory, klingon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
Iraq Poll February 2009
Feb09% Mar08% Aug07% Feb07%
Feb09% Feb07% 2005% 2004%
14 34 26 28
19 22 14 21
64 43 57 49
> Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data.
Tough.
Others do.
Deal.
>> Here, back in your rotting lying, toothless grille
>
> I still have all my teeth.
Oh?
>> I am an IRRELEVANT cunt!
>
> Your statement munged to deny reality.
Mmm hmmm...
>>>>>>> The attitude that one has the right to kill some people in order to
>>>>>>> "liberate" others, is precisely the attitude that leads to terrorism.
>>>>>> Tell it to the WW2 German death camp survivors, you amoral piece of SHIT!
>>>>> We did not fight WW II in order to liberate the death campers.
>>>> Oh my, and now the historical revisionism really ramps up!
>>> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
>>> death camps.
>> Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't
>
> I don't know any revisionist evidence. But
> http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/camps.html
>
> <1933 - American newspapers and magazines reported the existence of
> < concentration camps in early 1933, when Dachau first slammed its gate
> < shut on a group of Communists and other political enemies of the
> < Nazis. The camps had gained reputations for harsh and sadistic
> < treatment of prisoners.
>
> We apparently knew about and tolerated the existence of concentration
> camps for 8 years and never went to war over them. Indeed, we never
> did declare war on Germany (they declared war on us, after we declared
> war on Japan).
Yes, we had an isolationist stance born of the many men lost pulling
Euro bacon out of the fire in WW1, go figure...
> So much for "liberation".
From your cite:
December 9, 1944 - Americans Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel Edward J.
Gully of the American Sixth Army Group arrived to inspect
Natzweiler-Struthof. They duly reported their findings: a disinfestation
unit, a large pile of human hair, a gas chamber, an incinerator room
with equipment intended for the burning of human bodies, a cell room and
an autopsy room. After their first-hand look and detailed report to war
crimes investigators, they retained a certain measure of disbelief, or
"double vision" as Bracker described it. The correlation between the
remains of the camp and millions dead could not be grasped even on
personal inspection. This "double vision" was as much a story as the
discovery of the camp itself. The term came from the first Great War
when false propaganda about German atrocities was widely reported. Many
remembered this and thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to
the United States were false too. However, Bracker attributed the
disbelief to simply the inability to conceive the magnitude and detail
of the horror. "Double vision" was typical of many American officers in
France, who infuriated local populations by doubting and sometimes even
scoffing at stories of German inhumanity.
> And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
> Soviets did.
April 12, 1945 - Generals George Patton, Omar Bradley,and Dwight
Eisenhower arrived in Ohrdruf. They saw more than 3,200 naked, emaciated
bodies that had been flung into shallow graves. Eisenhower insisted on
seeing the entire camp: a shed piled to the ceiling with bodies, various
torture devices, and a butcher's block used for smashing gold fillings
from the mouths of the dead. Patton became physically ill behind the
barracks. Eisenhower felt that it was necessary for his troops to see
for themselves, and the world to know about the conditions at Ohrdruf.
The day ended with news that Roosevelt had died. Many American soldiers
did not know what they were fighting for. Eisenhower realized that it
was imperative for the soldiers to at least understand what they were
fighting against. He wanted the world to know of the conditions at
Ohrdruf. His message to Washington read: "We are constantly finding
German camps in which they have placed political prisoners where
unspeakable conditions exist. From my own personal observation, I can
state unequivocally that all written statements up to now do not paint
the full horrors."
April 29, 1945 - American forces liberated Dachau, the first
concentration camp built in 1933.
> Liberation from our own bombs?
How do you defeat an enemy war machine, with daisies?
> That should be more than enough evidence. Now provide
> counterevidence, if you have any.
Of what?
From your own cite:
This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp
itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda
about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and
thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were
false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the
inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double
vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated
local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of
German inhumanity.
>>>>> Indeed,
>>>>> we made it rather hard for Jewish refugees to get away before the
>>>>> death camps existed.
>>>> Oh I get it, AMERICA is repsnsible for the gassing of the Jews, not Hitler!
>>> I made no such claim. My claim was
>> BULLSHIT
>
> That is a good description of all your posts.
>
>>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>>> that you feel is vital
>> Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
>
> See above.
Deny we liberated any camps.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/Liberation/index.html
The photograph above was taken on May 6, 1945, the day after the
official liberation of the Mauthausen main camp. It shows prisoners
surrounding an M8 Greyhound armored car. According to Pierre Serge
Choumoff, the liberation of Mauthausen, as shown in the photo above, was
reenacted for photographers at the request of General Dwight D.
Eisenhower. The Nazi eagle over the gate had already been removed by the
prisoners and a banner, written in Spanish, had been put up by the
Spanish political prisoners. The English translation reads "The Spanish
Anti-Fascists Salute the Liberating Forces."
These prisoners were Spanish Republicans who had fought against General
Francisco Franco's Fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War and had
escaped to France when the Republicans lost the war. The Spanish
Republicans were interned by the French and later, when the Germans
defeated France in 1940, they were incarcerated as political prisoners
because they were opposed to the Nazis. Germany had fought on the side
of Franco in the Spanish Civil War, which was a war between the Fascists
and the Communists. For the anti-Fascist Spanish Republicans, Mauthausen
has the same significance as Auschwitz does for the Jews.
On May 5, 1945, the date usually given for the official liberation of
the Mauthausen main concentration camp, a platoon of 23 men from the
11th Armored Division of the US Third Army, led by Staff Sgt. Albert J.
Kosiek, arrived at the main camp near the town of Mauthausen. They were
guided there by Louis Haefliger, a Red Cross representative in the camp,
and two German soldiers, after first liberating the Gusen sub-camp, 6
kilometers to the west.
> For us, it was accidental,
No, it was not.
> and not in the least bit
> "selfless".
Sacrificing our lives in was is not "selfless?"
You're insane.
> And if it was, then obviously the Soviets must have been
> even more "selfless" and "noble".
Why "more"?
Why does there have to be ANY gradation implied?
> But in any event, it is still irrelevant to the situation in the
> Middle East.
Yet somehow you love to take shots at America, regardless of the venue.
That much is evident.
>>>>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>>>>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>>>> Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
>>> What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
>>> baloney on Usenet?
>> It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
>
> I guess that I don't fit your pattern then. You are *wrong*.
You're afraid to play the Hiroshima card, coward.
>>>> You libitards are so fucking predictable,
>>> Apparently not, nutcase.
>> Apparently you are smart enough not to fall for the bait, cunt.
>
> A good deal smarter than you who tried to bait me, obviously. But
> then we already knew that.
No, we don't, traitor.
>>>> Why do you make it so easy for me anyway?
>>> Because you're such a natural at making a fool of yourself, I need do
>>> nothing to make it so easy for you.
>> By engaging in historical revisionism over WW2?
>>
>> Do you seriously think ANYONE buys your hateful denials?
>
> I doubt that a single reputable historian would support your claims.
But you're a delusional liar.
>> You moron.
>
> Self contradictory.
Proven though.
> You just complimented my intelligence above.
You're deluding again.
>> But you are proven to be in a delusional state.
>
> You haven't provided evidence of anything, much less proof.
Why yes I have.
Christians don;t put bomb vests on their children, and we DID liberate Iraq.
Deal.
Ala
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
> >> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
> >> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>
> >Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>
> Your universal claim is unprovable. You'd have to verify that every
> single person who has ever strapped a bomb vest to a child was
> non-Christian, and there is no list of such children, much less the
> strappers on.
>
> On the other hand, Christians have killed their children,
> intentionally, to spite other people, and the method of killing the
> child really doesn't matter - the kid dies in any event.
>
Like when they send them to war, starting with the Crusades, the
Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and the most recent so called wars
against terrorism better referred to as the war to preserve opium
control.
dilecticon
> On Dec 15, 6:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>> Your universal claim is unprovable. You'd have to verify that every
>> single person who has ever strapped a bomb vest to a child was
>> non-Christian, and there is no list of such children, much less the
>> strappers on.
>>
>> On the other hand, Christians have killed their children,
>> intentionally, to spite other people, and the method of killing the
>> child really doesn't matter - the kid dies in any event.
>>
>
> Like when they send them to war, starting with the Crusades, the
> Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials
ANCIENT history, numbnuts.
> and the most recent so called wars
> against terrorism better referred to as the war to preserve opium
> control.
You won't be missed here, traitor.
Ala
thank you for the multiple compliments. You are right, there are many
things about your that remind me about someone else and why I so much
enjoy the times spent with you !
And why you won't miss me
dilecticon
May a pack of Christians pray for you..
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>>>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>>> Your universal claim is unprovable.
>>> Your pantheon of lies is unending.
>>>
>>>> You'd have to verify that every single person
>>> No, I wouldn't.
>>>
>>> You have to supply evidence that they do.
>>
>> No.
>
>YES!
>
>And do it right fucking now, you klingon POS!
I am not obliged to do so. But since you obviously cannot defend your
claim, I am quite willing to drive a nail into the coffin of your
ignorant bigotry.
_Children at war_ By Peter Warren Singer (relevant portion available
on Google Books) p117
<It is important to note, though, that neither terrorism nor children's
< roles in it are a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Just as there are a
< variety of terrorist groups across the world whose members represent
< nearly all religions, so, too, is there a broader set of terrorist
< groups that seek to mobilize children. For example, the Real IRA, a
< coalition of dissident IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, began to
< recruit boys in the fourteen to sixteen-year-old range in the late
< 1990s. The youngest reported terrorist was a nine-year-old boy who
< was sent by the ELN in Columbia to bomb a polling station in 1997 (a
< ten-year-old was later used by the FARC to bomb a military checkpoint
< in 2003).
The ELN was based on Catholic "liberation theology". The IRA is
strongly associated with internecine Christian strife. (FARC appears
to be Marxist, so I won't claim that their use of children reflects
Christianity.
The same source notes that it was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that
were the innovators that developed the concept of child suicide
bombers. The Tamil Tigers are secular, based on a population that is
80% Hindu and 20% Catholic, with a smattering of Protestants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Religion
You lose, loser (not that you'll ever admit it).
>> YOU made the claim
>
>And it stands,
Obviously not, loser.
>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>
>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>
>Tiller the Killer?!?!?
Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws of
the land, unlike his murderer.
>A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
If it is done for religious reasons, it counts. And that applies to
Tiller.
Thanks for demonstrating that you support murder for religious
reasons, if it is *your* religious beliefs that are involved.
>>> Muzzie-loving
>>
>> I love all of humanity.
>
>Even the 911 terrorists?
I love all of humanity. I dislike criminal actions, and believe that
they should be punished, regardless who commits them.
>It flat BLEW your ass out of the water
Not in the least. It is irrelevant.
>which is why you snipped it,
I snipped it because
a) it was irrelevant
b) this is Usenet, and anyone who actually cares can look upthread to
see the text. I identified what I was responding to in a minimal
bandwidth manner, as I usually do when the detailed text is not needed
to understand my response.
>> Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data.
>
>Tough.
>
>Others do.
That is their problem, not mine.
>> So much for "liberation".
>
> From your cite:
>
>December 9, 1944
A full three years after we entered the war, and a death camp that the
French had liberated the month before:
<November 23 1944 - The French Army entered the abandoned Natzweiler-Struthof camp in Alsace.
>- Americans Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel Edward J.
>Gully of the American Sixth Army Group arrived to inspect
>Natzweiler-Struthof. They duly reported their findings: a disinfestation
>unit, a large pile of human hair, a gas chamber, an incinerator room
>with equipment intended for the burning of human bodies, a cell room and
>an autopsy room. After their first-hand look and detailed report to war
>crimes investigators, they retained a certain measure of disbelief, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"double vision" as Bracker described it. The correlation between the
>remains of the camp and millions dead could not be grasped even on
>personal inspection. This "double vision" was as much a story as the
>discovery of the camp itself. The term came from the first Great War
>when false propaganda about German atrocities was widely reported. Many
>remembered this and thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to
>the United States were false too. However, Bracker attributed the
>disbelief to simply the inability to conceive the magnitude and detail
>of the horror. "Double vision" was typical of many American officers in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>France, who infuriated local populations by doubting and sometimes even
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>scoffing at stories of German inhumanity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Nobility" and "selfless" were the terms you used to describe this
behavior.
>> And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
>> Soviets did.
>
>April 12, 1945
Non-responsive. I did not claim that we did *none* of the liberating,
only that we didn't do that much, and what we did was in the last
month of the war.
>> Liberation from our own bombs?
>
>How do you defeat an enemy war machine, with daisies?
You don't call maiming people "liberating them".
>> That should be more than enough evidence. Now provide
>> counterevidence, if you have any.
>
>Of what?
Clearly you are incompetent to participate in Usenet, if you cannot
keep track of the point being discussed from post to post, even with
the entire thread available for you to check. Since you cannot defend
your own foul-mouthed assertions, you lose again, loser.
Here you go, O Memory-Impaired One:
<> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
<> death camps.
<
<Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
<ass-felching cunt!
> From your own cite:
>
>This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp
>itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda
>about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and
>thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were
>false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the
>inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double
>vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated
>local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of
>German inhumanity.
How is that relevant to the point being discussed:
<> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
<> death camps.
<
<Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
<ass-felching cunt!
>>>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>>>> that you feel is vital
>>> Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
>>
>> See above.
>
>Deny we liberated any camps.
Why would I do that? The claim at issue was whether we fought the war
in order to liberate the death camps, not whether we did so
incidentally to our other goals in the war. Your response is
essentially an admission that I am correct, since the things you quote
clearly indicate that not only was liberating the camps not a
priority, but the soldiers involved didn't even believe what they
found once they stumbled on it, and that they offended the locals by
denying the existence and nature of the camps.
>> and not in the least bit
>> "selfless".
>
>Sacrificing our lives in was is not "selfless?"
No lives were sacrificed in liberating the camps, which were generally
abandoned before we got there. The Germans were in the process of
surrendering on May 6, 1945.
Lives were expended as part of the invasion of Europe, but we didn't
invade Europe for the purpose of liberating death camps that your
quotes show we didn't really believe existed. We did it to defeat the
armies of Hitler's Germany.
>You're insane.
You're ignorant and close-minded.
>> And if it was, then obviously the Soviets must have been
>> even more "selfless" and "noble".
>
>Why "more"?
Because they liberated more camps, and sacrificed an order of
magnitude more lives.
>Why does there have to be ANY gradation implied?
Because the world does not exist in black and white.
>> But in any event, it is still irrelevant to the situation in the
>> Middle East.
>
>Yet somehow you love to take shots at America, regardless of the venue.
I have taken no shots at America. I have, however, given YOU both
barrels.
>>>>>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>>>>>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>>>>> Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
>>>> What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
>>>> baloney on Usenet?
>>> It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
>>
>> I guess that I don't fit your pattern then. You are *wrong*.
>
>You're afraid to play the Hiroshima card, coward.
What Hiroshima card? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of how
and why the death camps came to be liberated.
It appears that you are clueless as to what the topic is (or
desperately trying to change the topic because you've lost the
argument, and I am rubbing it in every time I respond to you).
>> A good deal smarter than you who tried to bait me, obviously. But
>> then we already knew that.
>
>No, we don't, traitor.
Apparently the rest of Usenet is also smarter than you, loser.
>>> You moron.
>>
>> Self contradictory.
>
>Proven though.
Only an idiot like you would claim that a self-contradiction was
proven, loser.
What a maroon!
>>> But you are proven to be in a delusional state.
>>
>> You haven't provided evidence of anything, much less proof.
>
>Why yes I have.
>
>Christians don;t put bomb vests on their children,
You have posted no evidence of this, liar. And I refuted it above,
making you a loser as well as a liar.
Give it up, loser.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> I merely point out that mass murder isn't unique to
>>>>>>> one group of fundies. Nor is misusing children.
>>>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>>>> Your universal claim is unprovable.
>>>> Your pantheon of lies is unending.
>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to verify that every single person
>>>> No, I wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> You have to supply evidence that they do.
>>> No.
>> YES!
>>
>> And do it right fucking now, you klingon POS!
>
> I am not obliged to do so. But since you obviously cannot defend your
> claim, I am quite willing to drive a nail into the coffin of your
> ignorant bigotry.
Are you now?
Luck with that...
> _Children at war_ By Peter Warren Singer (relevant portion available
> on Google Books) p117
>
> <It is important to note, though, that neither terrorism nor children's
> < roles in it are a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Just as there are a
> < variety of terrorist groups across the world whose members represent
> < nearly all religions, so, too, is there a broader set of terrorist
> < groups that seek to mobilize children. For example, the Real IRA, a
> < coalition of dissident IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, began to
> < recruit boys in the fourteen to sixteen-year-old range in the late
> < 1990s. The youngest reported terrorist was a nine-year-old boy who
> < was sent by the ELN in Columbia to bomb a polling station in 1997 (a
> < ten-year-old was later used by the FARC to bomb a military checkpoint
> < in 2003).
"To bomb a polling station"....not "to explode himself in the process by
wearing a bomb vest.
It is also worth noting that these isolated examples are NOT reflective
of or comprable to in numbers the broad trend evidenced by radical
Islam, are they?
> The ELN was based on Catholic "liberation theology". The IRA is
> strongly associated with internecine Christian strife. (FARC appears
> to be Marxist, so I won't claim that their use of children reflects
> Christianity.
>
> The same source notes that it was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that
> were the innovators that developed the concept of child suicide
> bombers. The Tamil Tigers are secular, based on a population that is
> 80% Hindu and 20% Catholic, with a smattering of Protestants
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Religion
>
>
> You lose, loser (not that you'll ever admit it).
"80% Hindu and 20% Catholic" is NOT "Christian"!
>>> YOU made the claim
>> And it stands,
>
> Obviously not, loser.
Yes it does, your two examples do not involve:
~ suicide bomb vests (IRA)
~ Christians (Tamil)
>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>
> Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws
Tiller the killer.
>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>
> If it is done for religious reasons, it counts.
No, it DOES NOT!
Jihad is an Islamic concept predicated on enslaving the infidels to
Islam and conquering their nations.
Killing an abortionist is a message sent to stop the slaughter of
innocent fetuses.
No religious conversion, forced or otherwise, is implied nor sought.
Your logic is pathetic, weak as water!
> Thanks for demonstrating that you support murder for religious
> reasons, if it is *your* religious beliefs that are involved.
I don't support murder for any reasons, religious or otherwise, you
lying oaf.
But at the same time I shed NO tears for his demise.
Deal.
>>>> Muzzie-loving
>>> I love all of humanity.
>> Even the 911 terrorists?
>
> I love all of humanity.
Then you're a FOOL!
Because they do NOT love you.
> I dislike criminal actions, and believe that
> they should be punished, regardless who commits them.
It was an act of WAR, not merely a "criminal action"!
Stop trivializing it.
>> It flat BLEW your ass out of the water
>
> Not in the least. It is irrelevant.
You're just making yourself look progressively worse here, continue as
you please.
>> which is why you snipped it,
>
> I snipped it because
> a) it was irrelevant
> b) this is Usenet, and anyone who actually cares can look upthread to
> see the text. I identified what I was responding to in a minimal
> bandwidth manner, as I usually do when the detailed text is not needed
> to understand my response.
BULLSHIT!
You're an intellectual COWARD!
Bandwidth in this day and age is of NO concern, period.
>>> Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data.
>> Tough.
>>
>> Others do.
>
> That is their problem, not mine.
It's an accepted standard of measurement.
You are in denial - again.
>>> So much for "liberation".
>> From your cite:
>>
>> December 9, 1944
>
> A full three years after we entered the war,
That's nice, not everything happens at once you know.
Lots of territory to cover and battles to be fought.
You revisionist ASSHOLE!
>> - Americans Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel Edward J.
>> Gully of the American Sixth Army Group arrived to inspect
>> Natzweiler-Struthof. They duly reported their findings: a disinfestation
>> unit, a large pile of human hair, a gas chamber, an incinerator room
>> with equipment intended for the burning of human bodies, a cell room and
>> an autopsy room. After their first-hand look and detailed report to war
>> crimes investigators, they retained a certain measure of disbelief, or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> "double vision" as Bracker described it. The correlation between the
>> remains of the camp and millions dead could not be grasped even on
>> personal inspection. This "double vision" was as much a story as the
>> discovery of the camp itself. The term came from the first Great War
>> when false propaganda about German atrocities was widely reported. Many
>> remembered this and thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to
>> the United States were false too. However, Bracker attributed the
>> disbelief to simply the inability to conceive the magnitude and detail
>> of the horror. "Double vision" was typical of many American officers in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> France, who infuriated local populations by doubting and sometimes even
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> scoffing at stories of German inhumanity.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> "Nobility" and "selfless" were the terms you used to describe this
> behavior.
Any time one sends men to die to liberate others that is what applies.
How many non-death camp citizens did we liberate along the way, asshole?
>>> And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
>>> Soviets did.
>> April 12, 1945
>
> Non-responsive. I did not claim that we did *none* of the liberating,
> only that we didn't do that much, and what we did was in the last
> month of the war.
We progressed apace as necessary and as our generals managed the battle
theater, deal.
>>> Liberation from our own bombs?
>> How do you defeat an enemy war machine, with daisies?
>
> You don't call maiming people "liberating them".
You call it collateral damage, an time-tested cost of liberation.
>>> That should be more than enough evidence. Now provide
>>> counterevidence, if you have any.
>> Of what?
>
> Clearly you are incompetent to participate in Usenet, if you cannot
> keep track of the point being
Phrase your questions more clearly, you obsequious ass.
> Here you go, O Memory-Impaired One:
> <> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
> <> death camps.
> <
> <Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
> <ass-felching cunt!
>
>
>
>> From your own cite:
>>
>> This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp
>> itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda
>> about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and
>> thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were
>> false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the
>> inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double
>> vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated
>> local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of
>> German inhumanity.
>
> How is that relevant to the point being discussed:
It confirms that we were prone to some degree of initial inaction by
poor intel, duh!
Regrettable, but comprehensible given the cost we paid there in WW1.
> <> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
> <> death camps.
> <
> <Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
> <ass-felching cunt!
>
>
>
>>>>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>>>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>>>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>>>>> that you feel is vital
>>>> Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
>>> See above.
>> Deny we liberated any camps.
>
> Why would I do that? The claim at issue was whether we fought the war
> in order to liberate the death camps, not whether we did so
> incidentally to our other goals in the war.
That was OBVIOUSLY one of many parameters that led us to join the
conflict, yes.
> Your response is
> essentially an admission that I am correct,
No, it is NOT!
> since the things you quote
> clearly indicate that not only was liberating the camps not a
> priority,
It was "a priority" not the SOLE priority.
One wins the battles before the liberation can start, fool.
> but the soldiers involved didn't even believe what they
> found once they stumbled on it, and that they offended the locals by
> denying the existence and nature of the camps.
I'm so sorry that our high moral standards and behavior made this at
first incomprehensible to us. Clearly we were the better parties in this
unfortunate affair, morally speaking.
>>> and not in the least bit
>>> "selfless".
>> Sacrificing our lives in was is not "selfless?"
>
> No lives were sacrificed in liberating the camps,
BULLSHIT!
Every soldier in every hostile situation as a war is ongoing is under
fear of fire, always.
You're a fucking LIAR!
> which were generally
> abandoned before we got there. The Germans were in the process of
> surrendering on May 6, 1945.
But had NOT!
> Lives were expended as part of the invasion of Europe, but we didn't
> invade Europe for the purpose of liberating death camps that your
> quotes show we didn't really believe existed.
BULLSHIT!
It was a component of the reasons for our entry, you lying ass-felcher.
> We did it to defeat the
> armies of Hitler's Germany.
Who were engaged in systemic GENOCIDE, you fucking MORON!
It's a compound sin, fool.
>> You're insane.
>
> You're ignorant and close-minded.
You lie and misrepresent.
>>> And if it was, then obviously the Soviets must have been
>>> even more "selfless" and "noble".
>> Why "more"?
>
> Because they liberated more camps, and sacrificed an order of
> magnitude more lives.
I don't think there is any reason to grant them an extra measure of
nobility. They were in fact geographically CLOSER to the camps and thus
OBVIOUSLY the first to arrive at them.
Is there anything you won't misrepresent?
>> Why does there have to be ANY gradation implied?
>
> Because the world does not exist in black and white.
And their geographic proximity equates to increased nobility?
You're insane.
Maybe we should blame them for not ending the whole thing years earlier.
>>> But in any event, it is still irrelevant to the situation in the
>>> Middle East.
>> Yet somehow you love to take shots at America, regardless of the venue.
>
> I have taken no shots at America. I have, however, given YOU both
> barrels.
Liar!
You have diminished our efforts in WW2, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
You're a fraud and a vile piece of SHIT!
>>>>>>> (Indeed, we did not even declare war on
>>>>>>> the Nazis. They declared war on us).
>>>>>> Isn't it about time for you to go off on a Japan A-bomb rant?
>>>>> What does Japan and the A-bomb have to do with the price of beans and
>>>>> baloney on Usenet?
>>>> It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
>>> I guess that I don't fit your pattern then. You are *wrong*.
>> You're afraid to play the Hiroshima card, coward.
>
> What Hiroshima card? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of how
> and why the death camps came to be liberated.
The same card you lot typically play decrying our use of nuclear weapons
over a ground invasion of Japan.
Looks like I neutered that one for you - good!
> It appears that you are clueless as to what the topic is (or
> desperately trying to change the topic
This from someone who came in defending that dummy Curt and now has
herded the thread into a digression on Nazi death camp liberation?
LOL!
It is to laugh!
Pot/kettle/klingon.
> because you've lost the
> argument, and I am rubbing it in every time I respond to you).
Yet your examples have just been shattered, reduced to shards of
irrelevancy and misrepresentation.
You stupid bastard.
>>> A good deal smarter than you who tried to bait me, obviously. But
>>> then we already knew that.
>> No, we don't, traitor.
>
> Apparently the rest of Usenet is also smarter than you, loser.
Apparently not, fool.
>>>> You moron.
>>> Self contradictory.
>> Proven though.
>
> Only an idiot like you would claim that a self-contradiction was
> proven, loser.
>
> What a maroon!
Only a semantic squirmer would revel in specious grammatical irrelevancies.
>>>> But you are proven to be in a delusional state.
>>> You haven't provided evidence of anything, much less proof.
>> Why yes I have.
>>
>> Christians don;t put bomb vests on their children,
>
> You have posted no evidence of this, liar.
The evidence is in it NOT systemically being present.
The evidence is in the systemic bomb vest mentality amongst radical Islam.
THAT is the evidence, fool!
> And I refuted it above,
No, you refuted nothing.
No bomb vests were found in the Irish example.
And the Tamil example involved mainly Hindus, not Christians.
> making you a loser as well as a liar.
>
> Give it up, loser.
YOU are the liar and the misrepresenter, as proven.
By no applicable measure does modern Christendom practice bomb vest
suicides comparable to radical Islam.
It's a fact.
You WILL live with it, you klingon piece of shit.
Bob LeChevalier
>> _Children at war_ By Peter Warren Singer (relevant portion available
>> on Google Books) p117
>>
>> <It is important to note, though, that neither terrorism nor children's
>> < roles in it are a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Just as there are a
>> < variety of terrorist groups across the world whose members represent
>> < nearly all religions, so, too, is there a broader set of terrorist
>> < groups that seek to mobilize children. For example, the Real IRA, a
>> < coalition of dissident IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, began to
>> < recruit boys in the fourteen to sixteen-year-old range in the late
>> < 1990s. The youngest reported terrorist was a nine-year-old boy who
>> < was sent by the ELN in Columbia to bomb a polling station in 1997 (a
>> < ten-year-old was later used by the FARC to bomb a military checkpoint
>> < in 2003).
>
>"To bomb a polling station"....not "to explode himself in the process by
>wearing a bomb vest.
The text did not say how the bomb was delivered.
But if a kid is killed by a Christian terrorist bomber, it doesn't
much matter whether the bomb was strapped to the kid or not.
>
>It is also worth noting that these isolated examples are NOT reflective
>of or comprable to in numbers the broad trend evidenced by radical
>Islam, are they?
Your claim was:
>>>>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
You made an absolute claim.
Child bombers in Islam are just isolated examples too. There are a
billion Muslims. Even a thousand suicide bombers would be "isolated
examples".
>> The ELN was based on Catholic "liberation theology". The IRA is
>> strongly associated with internecine Christian strife. (FARC appears
>> to be Marxist, so I won't claim that their use of children reflects
>> Christianity.
>>
>> The same source notes that it was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that
>> were the innovators that developed the concept of child suicide
>> bombers. The Tamil Tigers are secular, based on a population that is
>> 80% Hindu and 20% Catholic, with a smattering of Protestants
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Religion
>>
>>
>> You lose, loser (not that you'll ever admit it).
>
>"80% Hindu and 20% Catholic" is NOT "Christian"!
The 20% who are Catholic are Christian (unless you are one of the
turkeys who claim that Catholics aren't Christian). The Tamil Tigers
were secular and reflected the demographics of their ethnic group.
>>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>>
>> Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws
>
>Tiller the killer.
>
>>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>>
>> If it is done for religious reasons, it counts.
>
>No, it DOES NOT!
Of course it does. Murder is murder. Terrorism is terrorism. Doing
it because of your religious beliefs does not make it moral, even if
you think that abortion doctors are killers. If they did, then you
have to allow that the radical Moslems who practice terror for
religious reasons view their enemies PRECISELY the way that you view
Tiller. If Tiller's murder was moral, then so was 9/11. (Of course I
don't think either is moral).
>Jihad is an Islamic concept predicated on enslaving the infidels to
>Islam and conquering their nations.
Your ignorance about Islam is noted.
>Killing an abortionist is a message sent to stop the slaughter of
>innocent fetuses.
Destroying an American skyscraper is a message sent to stop the
slaughter of innocent Moslems.
Both are still terrorism.
>> Thanks for demonstrating that you support murder for religious
>> reasons, if it is *your* religious beliefs that are involved.
>
>I don't support murder for any reasons, religious or otherwise, you
>lying oaf.
You just did, in the case of Tiller, terrorist.
>>>>> Muzzie-loving
>>>> I love all of humanity.
>>> Even the 911 terrorists?
>>
>> I love all of humanity.
>
>Then you're a FOOL!
>
>Because they do NOT love you.
You apparently don't follow the teachings of Christ.
>> I dislike criminal actions, and believe that
>> they should be punished, regardless who commits them.
>
>It was an act of WAR, not merely a "criminal action"!
>
>Stop trivializing it.
Crime is not trivial, especially when innocent people die.
Indeed, you seem to be the one trying to trivialize innocent deaths in
war time. At least when we do it.
The trouble is that if it is OK for your side to kill innocents when
at war, then it is OK for the other side to do so as well. Otherwise
one is hypocritically supporting a double standard.
If we are at war against Iraqs and consider it OK to kill innocents,
then we justify them doing so too.
>>> which is why you snipped it,
>>
>> I snipped it because
>> a) it was irrelevant
>> b) this is Usenet, and anyone who actually cares can look upthread to
>> see the text. I identified what I was responding to in a minimal
>> bandwidth manner, as I usually do when the detailed text is not needed
>> to understand my response.
>
>BULLSHIT!
>
>You're an intellectual COWARD!
Nope.
>Bandwidth in this day and age is of NO concern, period.
Of course it is. I am writing for an audience (and you aren't it,
BTW). If they see a humongous amount of quoted material that they
have to read in order to figure out what is being responded to,
they'll just skip the post. That is what I often do.
>>>> Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data.
>>> Tough.
>>>
>>> Others do.
>>
>> That is their problem, not mine.
>
>It's an accepted standard of measurement.
Not accepted by me, obviously.
You just justified the 9/11 terrorists again. They thought that they
were acting to liberate others.
>How many non-death camp citizens did we liberate along the way, asshole?
Why would that matter? You claim that we fought the war to liberate
death camps that we didn't even believe existed. We didn't.
>>>> And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
>>>> Soviets did.
>>> April 12, 1945
>>
>> Non-responsive. I did not claim that we did *none* of the liberating,
>> only that we didn't do that much, and what we did was in the last
>> month of the war.
>
>We progressed apace as necessary and as our generals managed the battle
>theater, deal.
In other words, we didn't do all that much liberating compared to the
Soviets.
>>>> Liberation from our own bombs?
>>> How do you defeat an enemy war machine, with daisies?
>>
>> You don't call maiming people "liberating them".
>
>You call it collateral damage, an time-tested cost of liberation.
It may be "time-tested", but those who are killed are not "liberated",
and likely those who are maimed as well.
>> Here you go, O Memory-Impaired One:
>> <> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
>> <> death camps.
>> <
>> <Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
>> <ass-felching cunt!
>>
>>> From your own cite:
>>>
>>> This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp
>>> itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda
>>> about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and
>>> thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were
>>> false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the
>>> inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double
>>> vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated
>>> local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of
>>> German inhumanity.
>>
>> How is that relevant to the point being discussed:
>
>It confirms that we were prone to some degree of initial inaction by
>poor intel, duh!
>
>Regrettable, but comprehensible given the cost we paid there in WW1.
Compehensible or not, it shows that we did not fight the war to
liberate death camps that we didn't believe existed, and we scoffed at
stories of German inhumanity to show our "nobility".
>>>>>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>>>>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>>>>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>>>>>> that you feel is vital
>>>>> Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
>>>> See above.
>>> Deny we liberated any camps.
>>
>> Why would I do that? The claim at issue was whether we fought the war
>> in order to liberate the death camps, not whether we did so
>> incidentally to our other goals in the war.
>
>That was OBVIOUSLY one of many parameters that led us to join the
>conflict, yes.
We joined the conflict because Germany declared war on us, and started
sinking our ships with submarines. Death camps that we did not
believe existed had NOTHING to do with it.
>> Your response is essentially an admission that I am correct,
>
>No, it is NOT!
Sorry, but it is, loser.
>> since the things you quote
>> clearly indicate that not only was liberating the camps not a
>> priority,
>
>It was "a priority" not the SOLE priority.
It was not a priority at all before we knew they existed, which was
after Germany was collapsing militarily, and pretty much our sole
priorities were to end the war and capture as much territory as
possible before the Soviets did so as to have some say in the post-war
era.
>One wins the battles before the liberation can start, fool.
>
>> but the soldiers involved didn't even believe what they
>> found once they stumbled on it, and that they offended the locals by
>> denying the existence and nature of the camps.
>
>I'm so sorry that our high moral standards and behavior made this at
>first incomprehensible to us. Clearly we were the better parties in this
>unfortunate affair, morally speaking.
Comparing ourselves with Nazi scum does not make us "noble"; it makes
us "normal".
>>>> and not in the least bit
>>>> "selfless".
>>> Sacrificing our lives in was is not "selfless?"
>>
>> No lives were sacrificed in liberating the camps,
>
>BULLSHIT!
>
>Every soldier in every hostile situation as a war is ongoing is under
>fear of fire, always.
Since the enemy was fleeing, and indeed by May 6 was surrendering, the
situation wasn't hostile.
>You're a fucking LIAR!
>
>> which were generally
>> abandoned before we got there. The Germans were in the process of
>> surrendering on May 6, 1945.
>
>But had NOT!
Wrong. Many military units had surrendered, and the German government
was negotiating surrender.
The last significant battle of WW II in Europe was the Battle of
Berlin, fought by the Russians; the city surrendered on 2 May 1945.
There was still disorganized fighting after that point as Germans
soldiers fought their way west so that they could surrender to Western
allies rather than the Soviets.
There were a couple of minor battles even after the German government
surrendered and V-E Day was celebrated. Some skirmish on an island in
Netherlands, and a battle against several thousand partisans in
Poljana Yugoslavia took place in mid to late May, but these had no
significance with respect to the lack of hostilities as we rolled past
a few undefended death camps in our race eastward.
>> Lives were expended as part of the invasion of Europe, but we didn't
>> invade Europe for the purpose of liberating death camps that your
>> quotes show we didn't really believe existed.
>
>BULLSHIT!
>
>It was a component of the reasons for our entry, you lying ass-felcher.
Your evidence is non-existent, and your claim is contrary to history.
We entered the war because war was declared on us, and we were
attacked. We did not know of the death camps, so they could not have
been "a component"
>> We did it to defeat the
>> armies of Hitler's Germany.
>
>Who were engaged in systemic GENOCIDE, you fucking MORON!
So? That is not why we were fighting them.
>>>> And if it was, then obviously the Soviets must have been
>>>> even more "selfless" and "noble".
>>> Why "more"?
>>
>> Because they liberated more camps, and sacrificed an order of
>> magnitude more lives.
>
>I don't think there is any reason to grant them an extra measure of
>nobility. They were in fact geographically CLOSER to the camps and thus
>OBVIOUSLY the first to arrive at them.
So? Unlike us they knew of and believed in the German atrocities.
THEY had reason to seek out and liberate death camps. We didn't,
since we didn't know they existed until AFTER the Russians had
liberated most of them.
>Is there anything you won't misrepresent?
>
>>> Why does there have to be ANY gradation implied?
>>
>> Because the world does not exist in black and white.
>
>And their geographic proximity equates to increased nobility?
I don't claim that nobility is involved at all. YOU were the one who
did so.
I just said that IF we were "noble", then the Soviets were "noble".
But I don't know many right wing nutcases that will concede even the
slightest amount of nobility to the Soviets.
>>>> But in any event, it is still irrelevant to the situation in the
>>>> Middle East.
>>> Yet somehow you love to take shots at America, regardless of the venue.
>>
>> I have taken no shots at America. I have, however, given YOU both
>> barrels.
>
>Liar!
>
>You have diminished our efforts in WW2, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Nope. Placed them in a realistic historical perspective, perhaps.
>>>>> It's your patterned next move, following the German revisionism.
>>>> I guess that I don't fit your pattern then. You are *wrong*.
>>> You're afraid to play the Hiroshima card, coward.
>>
>> What Hiroshima card? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of how
>> and why the death camps came to be liberated.
>
>The same card you lot typically play decrying our use of nuclear weapons
>over a ground invasion of Japan.
I have never done so, and never will do so. I think Truman's decision
was correct.
>This from someone who came in defending that dummy Curt and now has
>herded the thread into a digression on Nazi death camp liberation?
You raised the subject, not me.
>>>>> You moron.
>>>> Self contradictory.
>>> Proven though.
>>
>> Only an idiot like you would claim that a self-contradiction was
>> proven, loser.
>>
>> What a maroon!
>
>Only a semantic squirmer would revel in specious grammatical irrelevancies.
Self-contradiction is an error of logic, not of grammar.
>>> Christians don;t put bomb vests on their children,
>>
>> You have posted no evidence of this, liar.
>
>The evidence is in it NOT systemically being present.
No, that is not evidence.
An absolute claim requires exhaustive evidence, and is disproven by a
single counterexample.
If you had said "Christians generally don't ...", I could not have
argued that claim. But alas "Moslems generally don't ..." is equally
true.
>The evidence is in the systemic bomb vest mentality amongst radical Islam.
You have provided no evidence of any such mentality. And radical
Islam is as small a portion of Islamic society as those who support
murder of abortion clinic doctors (like you) are a portion of
Christian society.
>THAT is the evidence, fool!
>
>> And I refuted it above,
>
>No, you refuted nothing.
>
>No bomb vests were found in the Irish example.
>
>And the Tamil example involved mainly Hindus, not Christians.
"Mainly" is not "solely". There were Christians among the Tamils who
invented the child suicide vest. Even ONE Christian is enough to make
your claim a lie.
>By no applicable measure does modern Christendom practice bomb vest
>suicides comparable to radical Islam.
"Modern Christendom" is a couple of billion people, most of whom don't
even go to church regularly. "radical Islam" is a few tens of
thousand extremists, and I compared them to fundie extremist
Christians of the sort that think murdering abortion doctors is
justified, not to all of "Modern Christendom", of which fundies are a
tiny percentage, and radical fundies are even tinier.
>It's a fact.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. loser.
Curt
> and Sniff wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:13:13 -0700, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Curt wrote:
> >>> On Dec 13, 7:25 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Face it Spammy, you've become Curt's personal bitch
> >>>> Face it "and sniff", you're a rudderless boat here.
>
> >>>> Pwnd.
> >>> Indeed
>
> >> <76d314e9-e734-433d-baf2-7a93ef7f9...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
>
> >> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
>
> >> "Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
> >> cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
> >> Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
> >> frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
> >> the right roomie in college."
>
>
> >> Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
>
> >> 1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
>
> >> 2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
>
> >> 3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
>
> >> 4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
>
> >> And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
> >> redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
>
> >> All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
> >> his own fellow soldiers.
>
> >> I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
> >> pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
> >> of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
>
> >> Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
> >> DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
>
> >> I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
> >> has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
>
> >> What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
>
> >> Really disgusting.
>
> >> And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
> >> apology.
>
> >> You have my word on it.
>
> > Let's all buy Curt a leash for his new personal bitch, Spammy. Oh, and a muzzle.
>
I already got one. Guess what its name is?
Curt
dilecticon
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curt
> Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 11:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >> >> (Bush's
> >> >> bombs killed far more innocent Iraqis than all the suicide bombers in
> >> >> history).
>
> >A somewhat unfair comparison, to my mind..
>
> >> >He also liberated 26 million,
>
> >> Did he?
>
> >No. Do they look "liberated" to you?
>
> >> Has anyone asked THEM whether they felt "liberated", or even whether
> >> they WANTED to be "liberated" at the cost of the lives of their loved
> >> ones?
>
> >They wanted to be liberated. But they didn't know what to do with it
> >when it was handed to them. The US sacrificed -- greatly -- for a
> >people that ultimately turned out not to be worth the effort.
>
> The people were worth the effort.
>
> The problem is that Americans expect people of other cultures to
> instantly understand those concepts that we intuitively grasp based on
> our own cultural upbringing, and how to apply them. Our system
> doesn't work merely because democracy is superior, or capitalism is
> superior, or any other single factor. We have a complex of things,
> including a history of ideas, a lot of money and resources - and
> several centuries of experience.
I get it, and I originally supported the war on Iraq. Partly for those
reasons, although they were, for me, a side benefit on top of getting
rid of the Nuqulure Anthrax Drone Robot Planes or whatever.
We didn't get the NADRPs, and we didn't liberate anyone either -- just
put them in charge of themselves. Bang-up job they've done of managing
their "country" since we, at great sacrifice, killed their dictator
for them.
>
> To expect that we can depose a dictator and suddenly everything will
> be hunky dory is hideously naive. It took the Marshall Plan to save
> western Europe (and even then Spain took a couple of decades to lose
> its dictator). It took until the 70s before Japan really recovered
> from its WW II military dictatorship. It took Eastern Europe several
> decades to throw off Soviet rule.
But when the wall came down (and the Eastern Europeans did that all by
themselves -- we never invaded Russia to make it happen) the Osties
went right to work building a somewhat workable gummint. The Iraqis
put freaking CLERICS in charge. Clerics, ferpetesake! The worst thing
ever to happen to human progress -- and they put those guys in charge.
And then set to killing people that followed different clerics.
>
> If we go in to try to change someone's system of government, even for
> the right reasons, we have to be prepared to stay and help for a full
> generation or more, spending money rather liberally. And we would be
> wise to have understood and decided this BEFORE we invade. In Iraq
> and Afghanistan, we didn't, and we aren't willing to stay the long
> course. (And Bush tried to do it on the cheap, with budget sophistry
> to hide even those costs, as well). Thus, we will not achieve our
> full aims as envisioned by Bush (we might achieve some lesser aims,
> though).
Those people used to have a secular, somewhat successful (by ME
standards) society. Apparently in about fifteen years they forgot how
to do it. What, they lost all the books, their Internet's down?
Fuckem.
Although, I agree with you -- doing it on the cheap was dumber than
doing it right in the first place.
Curt
dilecticon
Curt
So McVeigh's motivations were? or weren't? the same as Major Hasan's?
It matters.
Curt
Curt
> >>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
> >> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>
> > Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>
> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>
> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
Aaaah. So you're okay with Christian terrism then. Even going so far
as to ludicrously attempt to label it something else.
"Mercy killing"?
That's pretty low, dude. I mean it. That's worse than all your "you
need your ears ripped off/teeth smashed/etc etc". Truly.. vile.
Curt
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> _Children at war_ By Peter Warren Singer (relevant portion available
>>> on Google Books) p117
>>>
>>> <It is important to note, though, that neither terrorism nor children's
>>> < roles in it are a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Just as there are a
>>> < variety of terrorist groups across the world whose members represent
>>> < nearly all religions, so, too, is there a broader set of terrorist
>>> < groups that seek to mobilize children. For example, the Real IRA, a
>>> < coalition of dissident IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, began to
>>> < recruit boys in the fourteen to sixteen-year-old range in the late
>>> < 1990s. The youngest reported terrorist was a nine-year-old boy who
>>> < was sent by the ELN in Columbia to bomb a polling station in 1997 (a
>>> < ten-year-old was later used by the FARC to bomb a military checkpoint
>>> < in 2003).
>> "To bomb a polling station"....not "to explode himself in the process by
>> wearing a bomb vest.
>
> The text did not say how the bomb was delivered.
So you admit to tendering incomplete or even worse, specious data -
thank you.
> But if a kid is killed by a Christian terrorist bomber, it doesn't
> much matter whether the bomb was strapped to the kid or not.
Oh?
So there isn't something beyond the pale about turning your OWN child
into a bomb to kill others with?
Your amorality has no bounds, does it?
>> It is also worth noting that these isolated examples are NOT reflective
>> of or comprable to in numbers the broad trend evidenced by radical
>> Islam, are they?
>
> Your claim was:
Forget "my claim", you asshole.
Take that semantic BULLSHIT and shove it!
>>>>>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>
> You made an absolute claim.
And you failed to disprove it.
> Child bombers in Islam are just isolated examples too.
Huh?
Tell that to the exploding Palesimians Saddam was cash-incenting.
> There are a
> billion Muslims. Even a thousand suicide bombers would be "isolated
> examples".
By most estimates anywhere from 15-20% of Muslimes _support_ radical
Islamic Jihad, you lying PIECE OF SHIT!
>>> The ELN was based on Catholic "liberation theology". The IRA is
>>> strongly associated with internecine Christian strife. (FARC appears
>>> to be Marxist, so I won't claim that their use of children reflects
>>> Christianity.
>>>
>>> The same source notes that it was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that
>>> were the innovators that developed the concept of child suicide
>>> bombers. The Tamil Tigers are secular, based on a population that is
>>> 80% Hindu and 20% Catholic, with a smattering of Protestants
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Religion
>>>
>>>
>>> You lose, loser (not that you'll ever admit it).
>> "80% Hindu and 20% Catholic" is NOT "Christian"!
>
> The 20% who are Catholic are Christian (unless you are one of the
> turkeys who claim that Catholics aren't Christian).
But they are the MINORITY, you dolt.
> The Tamil Tigers
> were secular and reflected the demographics of their ethnic group.
Hindus, oddly enough...truly a non sequitur.
>>>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>>>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>>> Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws
>> Tiller the killer.
>>
>>>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>>> If it is done for religious reasons, it counts.
>> No, it DOES NOT!
>
> Of course it does. Murder is murder. Terrorism is terrorism. Doing
> it because of your religious beliefs does not make it moral, even if
> you think that abortion doctors are killers.
And they are.
> If they did, then you
> have to allow that the radical Moslems who practice terror for
> religious reasons view their enemies PRECISELY the way that you view
> Tiller.
I view Tiller as a fuck up.
I don;t have any need to kill him, cope.
> If Tiller's murder was moral, then so was 9/11. (Of course I
> don't think either is moral).
Yet you went right there, a libitard dog eating its own vile barf.
You scum.
>> Jihad is an Islamic concept predicated on enslaving the infidels to
>> Islam and conquering their nations.
>
> Your ignorance about Islam is noted.
Oh EAT THIS!
http://hindutva.org/quran.html
What the Quran says about Jihad
The Muslims are commanded to wage an everlasting war against the
unbelievers and are assured victory in the struggle. Surely, the Marxist
social philosophy is an extension of the Koranic doctrine. To realize
the significance of this statement, one ought to read the following:
1. On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. (The Cow: 161 )
2. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. ( The Cow: 15 )
3. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful, who will not
believe. (Spoils of War: 55)
4. Oh ye who believe! the non-Muslims are unclean. (Repentance:17)
5. Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find
harshness in you. (Repentance: 123)
6. Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your friends,
if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for
friends, they are evil-doers. (Repentance: 20) 7. Humiliate the
non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. (
Repentance: 29 )
Through the doctrine of hatred, Islam incites Muslims against
non-Muslims and proposes Jehad as the solution to make Islam the
dominant faith. What is Jehad? It is the battle against unbelievers such
as the Hindus, the Christians, the Jews, the atheists - in fact,
unbelievers of all sorts.
Jehad is nothing but an Inducement to Murder and Plunder non-Muslims for
their Sheer Crime of Not Believing in Muhammad
Since humans do not like harming innocent people, Jehad is nothing but
an inducement to murder and plunder non-Muslims for the sheer crime of
not believing in Muhammad. It is called a "holy war." Those who return
home victoriously, come laden with booty, which includes wealth and
non-Muslim women for concubinage and free seduction but those
"crusaders" who are killed "in the way of Allah" go straight to paradise
where ever-young virgins of exquisite beauty and pretty boys anxiously
wait to serve them! Even more stunning is the fact that while every code
of moral conduct treats murder, rape, plunder, lechery as sins, Islam
counts them as acts of piety.
Islamic Jehad is a Perpetual Declaration of War on Non-Muslims
Islam, in fact, is a perpetual declaration of war against all those, who
do not believe in Muhammad. This war is not confined to words but it is
really brutish, barbaric and bewildering. It makes society a hot bed of
mutual hatred based on discrimination of Momin (Muslim) and Kafir
(non-Muslim). Thus, it ignites the flame of eternal conflict far more
dangerous, debilitating and devastating than Karl-Marx could ever
visualize: "They (unbelievers) are Satan's party they are the losers....
Those (the Muslims) are God's party....they are the prosperers." (LVIII
The Disputer: 20)
Islam is basically a medium of Arab Imperialism - Military, Political,
Economic and Cultural
Anwar Shaikh, a scholar of Islam writes the following in his essay
entitled ISLAM - The Arab National Movement, about how and why Islam is
basically a medium of Arab Imperialism - Military, Political, Economic
and Cultural.
In the words of Anwar Shaikh:
"1. The Prophet declared that he was the best individual of all humans;
the Koresh, his tribe were the best of all Arabian tribes and Arabs were
the best of all nations.
2. For this purpose, he used the oldest Semitic device of revelation to
declare himself a prophet, who is supposed to have no axe of his own to
grind but does what he is told by God.
3. As the Jews had a national God called "Yahwe," the Prophet chose
Allah, the Lord of Kaaba, an idol of his own tribe, and raised it to the
dignity of the one supreme God.
4. The Prophet made Kaaba, the sacred shrine of the Arabs as the holiest
place of Islam so that whoever believes in Islam must also acknowledge
the greatness of Arabia and its people.
5. The Prophet Mohammed made Haj, i.e. pilgrimage to the Kaaba, an old
pre-lslamic Arab rite, a basic tenet of his religion to impress upon
foreign (non-Arab) Muslims the sanctity of Arabia, and create an
everlasting source of income for the Arabs.
6. He insisted that God's covenant was not with Abraham and Isaac but
with Abraham and Ishmael. It is universally known that Ishmael was the
direct ancestor of the Arabs. Thus, one can clearly see that the purpose
of Islam is glorification of the Arab nationalism.
7. The Kaaba serves a much greater national purpose of the Arabs than
that which Jerusalem renders to the Jews or Rome to the Christians
(Catholics). It is guardian of the Arab nationalism at the expense of
the national conscience of the non-Arab Muslims who believe that they
have no individual nationality of their own, and prefer to be called
Muslims. Thus the Arabs have achieved the status of a nucleus whereas
the non-Arab Muslims have gladly become their satellites in the hope of
gaining paradise. It ought to be remembered that the Prophet shall not
open the gates of paradise to those Moslems who are not friendly with
the Arabs.
The Prophet said:
a. "May Allah humiliate those who seek to humiliate the Quresh (his
tribe)." Sahih Tirmzi Vol. 2 p.335)
b. The Prophet said to Sulaiman Farsee (the Persian Convert), "If you
bear odium against the Arabs, you bear odium against me." (Sahih Tirmzi
Vol.2. p.840)
c. The Prophet said: "I will not intercede for those or love them who
are not fair with the Arabs." (Sahih Tirmzi Vol . 2 p.840 ) Of course,
there is a difference of opinion about the degree of accuracy about
these Hadiths i.e. the Prophet's sayings, yet they are there. If they
were inappropriate they would have been expunged. They are correct
because they correspond with the Arabic ethos of Islam.
8. The Prophet built the structure of Islam around the sanctity of his
own person by declaring himself:
a. the Intercessor, b. the blessing for the mankind, and
c. the model of actions for all faithful.
9. Since Muhammad preferred Arabs to other nations, love of the Arabs
becomes a prerequisite of Islam.
10. Since faith means belief in both Allah and Muhammad, the Islamic God
represents duality as the Christian doctrine of Trinity represents
Three- in-one. Not only Muhammad was an Arab, Allah, the Lord of the
Kaaba, was also an Arab statue. Thus Islam is there to serve the Arab
cause.
11. The Koran is an Arabic document. It is primarily a book for the
understanding and guidance of the Arabs. Calling it a universal message
is just an innovation for subjugating the non-Arab Muslims to the
national hegemony of the Arabs.
Illegitimate Sex Amongst Muslims is Haram, but for a Mujahid Taking Up
Non-Muslim Women as Concubines in a Jehad is Legitimate
Carnal gratification, man's greatest desire, is the first temptation
that the concept of Jihad carries. A Mujahid i.e. the Islamic warrior,
who at that time suffered pangs of sexual starvation in the torrid land
of Arabia, was promised plenty of sensual enjoyment as a reward for
participating in the carnage whether or not he survived the rigors of
the battlefield. If he (a Mujahid - Islamic warrior) got killed, he was
assured that the houris waited for his glorious company in Jannnat i.e.
paradise, and if he survived, he had a share in the plunder, which
included women of the infidels. Islam has prescribed flogging, and
death-by-stoning for sexual offenses such as fornication and adultery
because it holds such acts as unlawful when committed out of wedlock but
when a Muslim "fights in the way of Allah" to murder the infidels and
plunder their property, then the Koran relaxes this rule:
"And anyone of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry
believing free women in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that
your right hand owns ......So marry them, with their people's leave, and
give them their wages honorably as women in wedlock, not as in license
or taking lovers." (Women, IV: 25) These verses demonstrate beyond a
shadow of doubt that amongst Muslims, the Koran forbids sexual
intercourse outside wedlock: marriage is a must for the fulfillment of
sensual desires, but this law is blown off by the wind of change when it
comes to a Mujahid (the Holy warrior):
During the battle of Autas, the Muslims captured some women along with
their husbands. Though earlier, a Muslim had been forbidden sexual
intercourse with an unbelieving married woman, at this occasion, it was
revealed to the Prophet that Allah had relaxed this restriction and
permitted copulation to the warrior if she had fallen to his lot in the
battle and thus became his property. ( TIRMZI, vol. one, P 417 )
In the Islamic Jehad, sex was a big bait to attract followers, and
eventually, make them sincere devotees. After the people of Taif - the
last major Arab City to resist Islam - surrendered in February, 631
C.E., to escape horrors of the siege, Muhammad was presented with three
beautiful women; he gave one of them "to Ali, another to Usman and the
third to Omar." To realize the significance of this episode, one ought
to remember that both Ali and Usman were his sons-in-law and Omar was
his father-in-law.
The holy warriors of Islam have been given an unusual privilege of
sexual merriment. If they survive the battle, they secure concubines but
if they fall, they are sure to enter paradise full of houris (beautiful
maidens to be turned into concubines), living in the most luxurious
environment.
" For them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision, fruit and a
great honor in the Gardens of bliss reclining upon couches arranged face
to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round to them, while, a
pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide eyed maidens flexing
their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls. (The Rangers,
40-45)
"Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security gardens and
vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms." (The Tidings: 30)
The houris are ever-young women who have wide eyes, flexing glances and
swelling bosoms. Fancy the modesty of Allah and holiness of His manners.
Can anyone honestly say that it is not a lure to attract followers?
The Motivation for Plunder, Loot and Booty in the Koran
The Koran also legitimizes booty and loot secured from non-Muslims
during a religious war - Jehad:
"Eat of what you have taken as booty, such is lawful and good. " (The
Spoils, VIII: 70)
To make his followers, the merciless looters, he thoroughly drilled them
in hatred of non-Muslims, the potential victims:
1. "Surely the worst of beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers." (The
Spoils: VIII: 55)
2. " Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers . " (The Cow: II: 90)
3. "Oh ye who believe! fight those of the unbelievers and let them find
in you harshness." (Repentance: IX: 123)
4. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and
pay tribute." ( Repentance IX: 29 )
Since it was plunder that paved the way to spread Islam, even those
things that the Prophet himself had declared sacred, lost their sanctity
when they proved inconvenient. For example, the Koran says:
"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters (The
non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them,
and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (Repentance, IX: 5)
With this kind of indoctrination what else can one expect from the
followers of this death cult called Islam, except beastly behavior that
CHALLENGES EVERY CIVILIZED NORM.
>> Killing an abortionist is a message sent to stop the slaughter of
>> innocent fetuses.
>
> Destroying an American skyscraper is a message sent to stop the
> slaughter of innocent Moslems.
We're not slaughtering any, you TRAITOR!
> Both are still terrorism.
Liberation is NOT slaughter, you worthless scum.
I would LOVE to have you in a boxing ring for just one round....
>>> Thanks for demonstrating that you support murder for religious
>>> reasons, if it is *your* religious beliefs that are involved.
>> I don't support murder for any reasons, religious or otherwise, you
>> lying oaf.
>
> You just did, in the case of Tiller, terrorist.
I said it doesn't bother me.
That doesn't mean I endorse it.
Why must you lie at every opportunity?
>>>>>> Muzzie-loving
>>>>> I love all of humanity.
>>>> Even the 911 terrorists?
>>> I love all of humanity.
>> Then you're a FOOL!
>>
>> Because they do NOT love you.
>
> You apparently don't follow the teachings of Christ.
You apparently _play_ at said teachings, you amoral atheistic scum.
>>> I dislike criminal actions, and believe that
>>> they should be punished, regardless who commits them.
>> It was an act of WAR, not merely a "criminal action"!
>>
>> Stop trivializing it.
>
> Crime is not trivial, especially when innocent people die.
Calling war a crime IS trivial, you inhuman bastard!
> Indeed, you seem to be the one trying to trivialize innocent deaths in
> war time. At least when we do it.
Liberation has its cost, let is fall at Saddam's dead head.
> The trouble is that if it is OK for your side to kill innocents when
> at war, then it is OK for the other side to do so as well.
Are they "liberating" anyone?
No.
You vile vermin!
> Otherwise
> one is hypocritically supporting a double standard.
Your mind and morals are so totally skull-fucked there is no hope for
you in this life or the next, you are INSANE!
> If we are at war against Iraqs and consider it OK to kill innocents,
> then we justify them doing so too.
Does that mean we "justified" what Japan or Germany did?
You're barking mad.
>>>> which is why you snipped it,
>>> I snipped it because
>>> a) it was irrelevant
>>> b) this is Usenet, and anyone who actually cares can look upthread to
>>> see the text. I identified what I was responding to in a minimal
>>> bandwidth manner, as I usually do when the detailed text is not needed
>>> to understand my response.
>> BULLSHIT!
>>
>> You're an intellectual COWARD!
>
> Nope.
YOU ARE SUBHUMAN SHIT!
>> Bandwidth in this day and age is of NO concern, period.
>
> Of course it is.
Off course it is NOT, here anyway.
> I am writing for an audience
May they all rot in HELL!
>(and you aren't it, BTW).
THANK GOD!!!!
> If they see a humongous amount of quoted material that they
> have to read in order to figure out what is being responded to,
> they'll just skip the post. That is what I often do.
You are in a delusional state.
You're writing for the usual boomer scum that frequent this near-dead
medium.
You're at best an artifact, and in reality, shit on the net's shoes.
>>>>> Meanwhile, I don't place much stock in poll data.
>>>> Tough.
>>>>
>>>> Others do.
>>> That is their problem, not mine.
>> It's an accepted standard of measurement.
>
> Not accepted by me, obviously.
Is it getting through to you how LITTLE any of what you think, believe,
or say matters?!?!?!???
YOU JUST _lied_ AGAIN, YOU TRAITOR TO AMERICA!
> They thought that they
> were acting to liberate others.
Overtly and deliberately targeting civilians in is NEVER "liberation".
You're as sick in the head as dummy curt, or more so.
I can not BELIEVE I'm hearing someone legitimize the 911 attacks.
You must be very, very, very glad we are not in close physical
proximity, know that.
>> How many non-death camp citizens did we liberate along the way, asshole?
>
> Why would that matter?
Huh?
WTF do you think WW2 was about?
A shcnitzel run?
> You claim that we fought the war to liberate
> death camps that we didn't even believe existed. We didn't.
We did liberate them.
It was "A" reason.
And many of us DID believe they existed.
You're a liar on every available level.
>>>>> And of course WE didn't do all that much of the "liberating". The
>>>>> Soviets did.
>>>> April 12, 1945
>>> Non-responsive. I did not claim that we did *none* of the liberating,
>>> only that we didn't do that much, and what we did was in the last
>>> month of the war.
>> We progressed apace as necessary and as our generals managed the battle
>> theater, deal.
>
> In other words, we didn't do all that much liberating compared to the
> Soviets.
Who was closer to the camps geographically?
Who had to cover more occupied territory to get there?
It's sheer madness how you lie and misrepresent.
>>>>> Liberation from our own bombs?
>>>> How do you defeat an enemy war machine, with daisies?
>>> You don't call maiming people "liberating them".
>> You call it collateral damage, an time-tested cost of liberation.
>
> It may be "time-tested",
It is.
> but those who are killed are not "liberated",
That's war, it sucks.
> and likely those who are maimed as well.
No, a lie.
>>> Here you go, O Memory-Impaired One:
>>> <> Please provide evidence that we fought WW II in order to liberate the
>>> <> death camps.
>>> <
>>> <Please provide revisionist evidence that we didn't, you insane
>>> <ass-felching cunt!
>>>
>>>> From your own cite:
>>>>
>>>> This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp
>>>> itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda
>>>> about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and
>>>> thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were
>>>> false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the
>>>> inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double
>>>> vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated
>>>> local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of
>>>> German inhumanity.
>>> How is that relevant to the point being discussed:
>> It confirms that we were prone to some degree of initial inaction by
>> poor intel, duh!
>>
>> Regrettable, but comprehensible given the cost we paid there in WW1.
>
> Compehensible or not,
More bullshit, you're fast approaching the shutdown phase, or maybe just
a tad more...
> it shows that we did not fight the war to
> liberate death camps that we didn't believe existed,
Prove ALL of us were so disinclined.
Use facts.
> and we scoffed at
> stories of German inhumanity to show our "nobility".
ALL of us?
Cute?
>>>>>>>>> That we did liberate them is nice,
>>>>>>>> Oh, it's "nice"...is that all?
>>>>>>> Are you claiming that it isn't nice? Is there some other adjective
>>>>>>> that you feel is vital
>>>>>> Why yes, try "noble" and "selfless" on for size
>>>>> See above.
>>>> Deny we liberated any camps.
>>> Why would I do that? The claim at issue was whether we fought the war
>>> in order to liberate the death camps, not whether we did so
>>> incidentally to our other goals in the war.
>> That was OBVIOUSLY one of many parameters that led us to join the
>> conflict, yes.
>
> We joined the conflict because Germany declared war on us, and started
> sinking our ships with submarines.
Um no.
Pearl Harbor was the proximate trigger.
> Death camps that we did not
> believe existed had NOTHING to do with it.
LIAR!
>>> Your response is essentially an admission that I am correct,
>> No, it is NOT!
>
> Sorry, but it is, loser.
LIAR!
>>> since the things you quote
>>> clearly indicate that not only was liberating the camps not a
>>> priority,
>> It was "a priority" not the SOLE priority.
>
> It was not a priority at all before we knew they existed,
Wow, is there any squirm your insanity can't make.
How could it ever BE a priority BEFORE we knew they existed?
This is insanity!
Are you in a rubber room somewhere?
> which was
> after Germany was collapsing militarily, and pretty much our sole
> priorities were to end the war and capture as much territory as
> possible before the Soviets did so as to have some say in the post-war
> era.
More anti_American froth.
NON SEQUITUR LIE!
>> One wins the battles before the liberation can start, fool.
>>
>>> but the soldiers involved didn't even believe what they
>>> found once they stumbled on it, and that they offended the locals by
>>> denying the existence and nature of the camps.
>> I'm so sorry that our high moral standards and behavior made this at
>> first incomprehensible to us. Clearly we were the better parties in this
>> unfortunate affair, morally speaking.
>
> Comparing ourselves with Nazi scum does not make us "noble"; it makes
> us "normal".
Oh, so now you can somehow lower nobility a notch, when it's
OURS....typical.
I loathe you, scumbag.
Meet me in a ring so I can knock your fucking head off.
Really.
>>>>> and not in the least bit
>>>>> "selfless".
>>>> Sacrificing our lives in was is not "selfless?"
>>> No lives were sacrificed in liberating the camps,
>> BULLSHIT!
>>
>> Every soldier in every hostile situation as a war is ongoing is under
>> fear of fire, always.
>
> Since the enemy was fleeing,
They don't all flee though, do they?
Some stay behind, they keep fighting.
> and indeed by May 6 was surrendering, the
> situation wasn't hostile.
It's hostile until the theater is cleared and secured.
Ever look at the casualties post-surrender?
There were plenty.
>> You're a fucking LIAR!
>>
>>> which were generally
>>> abandoned before we got there. The Germans were in the process of
>>> surrendering on May 6, 1945.
>> But had NOT!
>
> Wrong. Many military units had surrendered, and
This thread is over, klingon liar.
If I had my druthers it would be you in a ring before Christmas.
I would fuck you over big time in ways you can only guess at.
You are easily the most despicable liar in this medium, hands down.
You NEED TO DIE!
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 6:57 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 10:31 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 7:21 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 14, 7:17 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 14, 7:01 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 10, 4:03 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 1:48 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> * Some 50 homegrown jihadists have been arrested thus far this year
>>>>>>>> * A radical imam in Detroit was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
>>>>>>>> * Jihadist Nidal Hasan killed 13 in a terrorist attack that was
>>>>>>>> clearly enabled by a climate of political correctness that has taken
>>>>>>>> root in our military
>>>>>>> You're a nutter, so I won't bother to educate you on the difference
>>>>>>> between bugfuck-crazy acts and terrorism. Suffice it to say, you're
>>>>>>> wrong as usual.
>>>>>> Was the Ok City bombing a bugfuck-crazy act or terrorism?
>>>>> Guess you'd have to examine young mr McVeigh's motivations to decide,
>>>>> wouldn't you?
>>>>> What do you think those were?
>>>> Clearly the same as Jihadist Nidal Hasan-
>>> Really? You think Major Hasan was angry at the federal government for
>>> serving that warrant at Waco?
>> No, but I think he was every bit the terrorist that Tim McVey was,
>> agree?-
>
> So McVeigh's motivations were? or weren't? the same as Major Hasan's?
>
> It matters.
>
> Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 15, 12:59 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>>
>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>
> Aaaah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
Curt
> >>>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
> >>>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
> >>>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
> >>>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
> >>> Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws
> >> Tiller the killer.
>
> >>>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
> >>> If it is done for religious reasons, it counts.
> >> No, it DOES NOT!
>
> > Of course it does. Murder is murder. Terrorism is terrorism. Doing
> > it because of your religious beliefs does not make it moral, even if
> > you think that abortion doctors are killers.
>
> And they are.
>
> > If they did, then you
> > have to allow that the radical Moslems who practice terror for
> > religious reasons view their enemies PRECISELY the way that you view
> > Tiller.
>
> I view Tiller as a fuck up.
>
> I don;t have any need to kill him, cope.
Because you can just sit back and wait for terrists with bigger balls
than you.
*************************************
> >>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
> >> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
> > Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
Aaaah. So you're okay with Christian terrism then. Even going so far
as to ludicrously attempt to label it something else.
"Mercy killing"?
That's pretty low, dude. I mean it. That's worse than all your "you
need your ears ripped off/teeth smashed/etc etc". Truly.. vile.
Curt
***********************************************************8
Bob LeChevalier
>But when the wall came down (and the Eastern Europeans did that all by
>themselves -- we never invaded Russia to make it happen) the Osties
>went right to work building a somewhat workable gummint. The Iraqis
>put freaking CLERICS in charge.
The Iraqis do not have clerics in charge. You seem to be confusing
them with Iran, where the clerics were the ones who led the
revolution.
A couple of Shiite groups led by clerics did not accept the new Iraqi
government, and ending the quasi-civil war meant accommodating them a
little, but the religious leaders aren't in the government.
The difference between Iraq and the various eastern European countries
is that the latter for the most part are comprised of a single ethnic
group. Indeed, where they were not a single ethnic group, they
fragmented along ethnic lines, so that we now have the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, and Yugoslavia has split into several pieces (and not
any more peacefully than Iraq when it happened, because unlike
Czechoslovakia, the ethnic groups had overlapping territories - the
same problem that exists in the Baghdad area today).
Most of the Arab countries are tribal by nature, and their natural
social unit is closer to what we would consider small towns in
population, and not nearly big enough for viability as an independent
nation. With a couple of large cities plunked down in the middle.
Trying to get these quasi-independent tribal units to work together at
a national level has generally taken a strong quasi-dictatorial king
or leader, which is why these countries have such leadership, and why
Afghanistan is in near-chaos - the local leadership is far more
powerful than the central government, and they don't have the
infrastructure to bring the pieces together even if they had the know
how.
>Clerics, ferpetesake! The worst thing
>ever to happen to human progress -- and they put those guys in charge.
>And then set to killing people that followed different clerics.
There are two major subgroups of Islam in the country, and one of the
major fault lines is between the two religious groups, but the
difference between them is less intense than the sectionalism between
North and South before 1860. We just don't want to let them go
through the sort of civil war that we had to suffer in order to unite
the country strongly enough above the state level to survive in the
modern world.
>> If we go in to try to change someone's system of government, even for
>> the right reasons, we have to be prepared to stay and help for a full
>> generation or more, spending money rather liberally. �And we would be
>> wise to have understood and decided this BEFORE we invade. �In Iraq
>> and Afghanistan, we didn't, and we aren't willing to stay the long
>> course. (And Bush tried to do it on the cheap, with budget sophistry
>> to hide even those costs, as well). �Thus, we will not achieve our
>> full aims as envisioned by Bush (we might achieve some lesser aims,
>> though).
>
>Those people used to have a secular, somewhat successful (by ME
>standards) society.
They still do. But Iraq suffered enormous infrastructure damage in
the two wars with our country, and rebuilding it takes more time than
they have, and better organization than the national leadership has.
In our civil war, the most advanced infrastructure that had to be
rebuilt were the railroads, and the Union army in the course of the
war developed the expertise to build or repair those in far less time
than they had taken to initially be built (the South's inability to
match the Union in rail building was part of why they lost, but after
the war, the rails were rebuilt in almost no time).
Rebuilding the infrastructure of a modern major city is much more
difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, as we have found with New
Orleans, whose infrastructure wasn't damaged nearly as badly as
Baghdad's (full power was restored to New Orleans within a few weeks -
I'm not sure that Baghdad has reliable 24/7 power even yet after 6
years).
>Apparently in about fifteen years they forgot how to do it.
Governmentally, the people now in charge never knew how. The Shiites
were largely excluded from government above the local level under
Saddam and before him the Iraqi king. It was a secular government,
but one more like the antebellum US, where the South dominated the
Federal government despite having a minority of the population. But
unlike us, Saddam made sure that no one came close to having the
competence to replace him, whereas Northerners here developed machine
politics that provided the political networks to make government work
(and the war forced the necessity of making the national government
work as it never had before, which is why there was a massive shift in
power to the Federal government after the Civil War).
Iraq is still going through that. It took roughly 10 years for
Reconstruction to bring the South back. It took more than 5 years and
truly enormous sums of money, not to mention large armies filling in
for missing governments, in order to bring western Europe back to
pre-war levels (and a couple decades in the East - arguably, much of
the Warsaw pact was still recovering when the Iron Curtain came down).
GDP has started to increase in the last couple of years.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=iz&l=en
Equally important to long term stability, Iraq's unemployment rate has
dropped from 25% to around 18-19%, which is about equivalent to the
worst of our Depression (even we'd probably have a civil war if
unemployment reached 25% here). And their total labor force has
increased by 75% since 2000, so dropping the unemployment rate is
non-trivial.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=72&c=iz&l=en
As to the future - well Slovakia had 18% unemployment in 2000, and it
is now down to 8%.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=74&c=lo&l=en
and their GDP per capita doubled in 8 years
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=lo&l=en
but that did take 8 years. America these days doesn't have the
patience to wait 8 years, which is a double presidential term - heck,
a lot of people seem to have given up on Obama because he didn't
fulfill most of his campaign promises in less than *one* year.
>What, they lost all the books, their Internet's down?
Their Internet never was up 15 years ago. I remember in the first
Gulf War, Peter Arnett had to set up a portable satellite dish to
report in, and he was the only reporter who managed to keep
broadcasting because only CNN had the international infrastructure to
manage it.
As for books, their literacy rate has increased since pre-war years
(though I doubt that it really dropped 20% during the war, as the
chart shows).
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=39&c=iz&l=en
Bob LeChevalier
>So there isn't something beyond the pale about turning your OWN child
>into a bomb to kill others with?
Of course, that is not the normal situation with child suicide bombers
(I won't say that it never happened, unlike you, but that source I
provided went into just how much goes on in turning a child into a
suicide bomber).
>Your amorality has no bounds, does it?
Who said that I think it is moral? I just don't think it is any more
immoral that the IRA training kids to kill and then requiring them to
kill their close friends in order to prove themselves.
>>> It is also worth noting that these isolated examples are NOT reflective
>>> of or comprable to in numbers the broad trend evidenced by radical
>>> Islam, are they?
>>
>> Your claim was:
>
>Forget "my claim", you asshole.
Ah, you retract!
>Take that semantic BULLSHIT and shove it!
In other words, you are incapable of a reasoned argument. No wonder
all you can do is blather and cuss.
>>>>>>>>> Christians do NOT strap bomb vests to their children - period.
>>
>> You made an absolute claim.
>
>And you failed to disprove it.
But I did. 20% of the Tamils are Catholic, and they invented the child
suicide bomb vest.
>> Child bombers in Islam are just isolated examples too.
>
>Huh?
>
>Tell that to the exploding Palesimians Saddam was cash-incenting.
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2008/11/statistics-of-suicide-bombers.html
(over 8 years):
<Fatah had the most fatalities, with a total of 1,437 terrorists, 128
< of them children, killed since September 28, 2000. Hamas was in
< second place with 1,410 killed in the same time period, 96 of them
< minors. Fifty-three children were killed while taking part in Islamic
< Jihad operations, five were killed as members of the PFLP, four died
< with the DFLP, and three with PRC.
The Palestinian authority population is around 4 million,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/palpop01.html
and close to half are under 15 (and they are considered children until
they are 18)
http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=355
So under 300 children killed in 8 years out of more than 2 million.
I rather suspect that we lost more than that in WWI and WWII, merely
from underage kids joining the military by lying about their age (of
course our population is larger), and MANY times that many in the
Civil War, where teenagers commonly fought, especially for the South
which was drafting 17 year olds in the last year of the war, and
accepted kids as young as 11 as volunteer soldiers (and drummer boys
were as young as 8).
>> There are a
>> billion Muslims. Even a thousand suicide bombers would be "isolated
>> examples".
>
>By most estimates anywhere from 15-20% of Muslimes _support_ radical
>Islamic Jihad, you lying PIECE OF SHIT!
But what does it mean to "support" it? No more than you "supporting"
Tiller's murderer in recent posts. That does not mean that 15-20% of
Muslims are willing to become suicide bomber terrorists themselves,
much less volunteer their children to become suicide bomber
terrorists.
If even 1% were willing to do so, Israel would be in chaos merely from
the Palestinians. And the rest of the world: 1% of Muslim children in
this country would be several thousand suicide bombers, and yet there
hasn't been a single one here "strapped into a suicide vest".
>>>> The ELN was based on Catholic "liberation theology". The IRA is
>>>> strongly associated with internecine Christian strife. (FARC appears
>>>> to be Marxist, so I won't claim that their use of children reflects
>>>> Christianity.
>>>>
>>>> The same source notes that it was the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that
>>>> were the innovators that developed the concept of child suicide
>>>> bombers. The Tamil Tigers are secular, based on a population that is
>>>> 80% Hindu and 20% Catholic, with a smattering of Protestants
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Religion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You lose, loser (not that you'll ever admit it).
>>> "80% Hindu and 20% Catholic" is NOT "Christian"!
>>
>> The 20% who are Catholic are Christian (unless you are one of the
>> turkeys who claim that Catholics aren't Christian).
>
>But they are the MINORITY, you dolt.
So what? They are still among the group that "straps their kids into
bomb vests". Like I said, if even ONE exists, your universal claim is
false.
>> The Tamil Tigers
>> were secular and reflected the demographics of their ethnic group.
>
>Hindus, oddly enough...truly a non sequitur.
Not 20% of them.
>>> Jihad is an Islamic concept predicated on enslaving the infidels to
>>> Islam and conquering their nations.
>>
>> Your ignorance about Islam is noted.
>
>Oh EAT THIS!
>
>http://hindutva.org/quran.html
Looks like the sort of crap that has been published about the Talmud
by anti-Semites for the last thousand years.
Try a more neutral source, bigot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad
>>> Killing an abortionist is a message sent to stop the slaughter of
>>> innocent fetuses.
>>
>> Destroying an American skyscraper is a message sent to stop the
>> slaughter of innocent Moslems.
>
>We're not slaughtering any, you TRAITOR!
Only a few tens of thousands in the current Iraq war.
>> Both are still terrorism.
>
>Liberation is NOT slaughter, you worthless scum.
It is, for those who are killed by the "liberators".
>>>> Thanks for demonstrating that you support murder for religious
>>>> reasons, if it is *your* religious beliefs that are involved.
>>> I don't support murder for any reasons, religious or otherwise, you
>>> lying oaf.
>>
>> You just did, in the case of Tiller, terrorist.
>
>I said it doesn't bother me.
>
>That doesn't mean I endorse it.
I strongly suspect that this puts you in the same category as the
15-20% who support radical Islam, and their attitude towards suicide
bombers.
>>>> I dislike criminal actions, and believe that
>>>> they should be punished, regardless who commits them.
>>> It was an act of WAR, not merely a "criminal action"!
>>>
>>> Stop trivializing it.
>>
>> Crime is not trivial, especially when innocent people die.
>
>Calling war a crime IS trivial, you inhuman bastard!
Actually, justifying crime by calling it "war", is trivializing it.
you subhuman scum!
> Indeed, you seem to be the one trying to trivialize innocent deaths in
>> war time. At least when we do it.
>
>Liberation has its cost, let is fall at Saddam's dead head.
The innocent didn't volunteer to pay that cost. And I suspect that
most of them would have preferred to keep Saddam rather than die in
our liberation efforts. Otherwise, they would have eliminated him
themselves.
>> The trouble is that if it is OK for your side to kill innocents when
>> at war, then it is OK for the other side to do so as well.
>
>Are they "liberating" anyone?
They believe that they are.
>> If we are at war against Iraqs and consider it OK to kill innocents,
>> then we justify them doing so too.
>
>Does that mean we "justified" what Japan or Germany did?
Most of us DON'T think it is OK to kill innocents. If Bush had told
us that eliminating Saddam might lead to 100,000 innocents being
killed, we wouldn't have come close to going to war. (The big
question in judging Bush's decision is whether HE understood that many
might die from his invasion).
>I can not BELIEVE I'm hearing someone legitimize the 911 attacks.
I'm not. I'm delegitimizing your "reasoning" as being just as immoral
as theirs.
>>> How many non-death camp citizens did we liberate along the way, asshole?
>>
>> Why would that matter?
>
>Huh?
>
>WTF do you think WW2 was about?
For us, initially, stopping the Germans from attacking us. Eventually,
when we formed the Allies with Britain, France, and the USSR among
others, we came to share their goals, which basically meant restoring
Germany to a non-militarized state within its original boundaries.
>> You claim that we fought the war to liberate
>> death camps that we didn't even believe existed. We didn't.
>
>We did liberate them.
>
>It was "A" reason.
Nope.
>And many of us DID believe they existed.
Your evidence is lacking.
>> In other words, we didn't do all that much liberating compared to the
>> Soviets.
>
>Who was closer to the camps geographically?
That is easy. We were. The Soviet Army started their advance back at
Stalingrad at the end of 1942. About 1000 miles to Warsaw, and almost
1400 miles to Berlin.
We started our advance from England, 500 miles to Berlin, 800 miles
to Warsaw.
>> It may be "time-tested",
>
>It is.
>
>> but those who are killed are not "liberated",
>
>That's war, it sucks.
Which is why people tend to think war is wrong, even if it might mean
"liberating" other people.
>More bullshit, you're fast approaching the shutdown phase, or maybe just
>a tad more...
>
>> it shows that we did not fight the war to
>> liberate death camps that we didn't believe existed,
>
>Prove ALL of us were so disinclined.
I didn't claim any such thing. And it hardly matters - "all of us"
don't decide whether to fight a war. The President and the Congress
do.
>> We joined the conflict because Germany declared war on us, and started
>> sinking our ships with submarines.
>
>Um no.
>
>Pearl Harbor was the proximate trigger.
Pearl Harbor caused us to declare war on Japan. We never declared war
on Germany - they declared war on us, and started unrestricted
submarine warfare against our shipping.
>> Death camps that we did not
>> believe existed had NOTHING to do with it.
>
>LIAR!
Nope.
>>>> since the things you quote
>>>> clearly indicate that not only was liberating the camps not a
>>>> priority,
>>> It was "a priority" not the SOLE priority.
>>
>> It was not a priority at all before we knew they existed,
>
>Wow, is there any squirm your insanity can't make.
>
>How could it ever BE a priority BEFORE we knew they existed?
Precisely why your claim has been nonsense all along. We fought the
war for reasons that most certainly did not include something that we
didn't know existed. Your claim that we fought the war to liberate
death camps necessarily means that when we entered the war, we did so
with knowledge of them, and that this knowledge was part of the
decision making process.
>> which was
>> after Germany was collapsing militarily, and pretty much our sole
>> priorities were to end the war and capture as much territory as
>> possible before the Soviets did so as to have some say in the post-war
>> era.
>
>More anti_American froth.
Hardly anti-American. Just recognition of geopolitics, which is what
world war is about.
>> Comparing ourselves with Nazi scum does not make us "noble"; it makes
>> us "normal".
>
>Oh, so now you can somehow lower nobility a notch, when it's
>OURS....typical.
I don't claim that ANY group going to war has the slightest bit of
"nobility" no matter what the reason. War is inherently ignoble.
>Meet me in a ring so I can knock your fucking head off.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>>> Every soldier in every hostile situation as a war is ongoing is under
>>> fear of fire, always.
>>
>> Since the enemy was fleeing,
>
>They don't all flee though, do they?
They were at that point.
>This thread is over, klingon liar.
Does that mean you will finally shut up?
Thank Ghod!
>You NEED TO DIE!
There you go again, terrorist scum.
dilecticon
> On Dec 16, 7:17 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Murderous Christian extremism isn't merely a modern phenomenon.
>>>>>>>> No, it's not a modern occurrence at all,
>>>>>>> Tell the families of Dr George Tiller
>>>>>> Tiller the Killer?!?!?
>>>>> Tiller the licensed practitioner of medicine, who obeyed the laws
>>>> Tiller the killer.
>>>>>> A murderer mercy killing doesn't count when we're discussing JIHAD!
>>>>> If it is done for religious reasons, it counts.
>>>> No, it DOES NOT!
>>> Of course it does. Murder is murder. Terrorism is terrorism. Doing
>>> it because of your religious beliefs does not make it moral, even if
>>> you think that abortion doctors are killers.
>> And they are.
>>
>>> If they did, then you
>>> have to allow that the radical Moslems who practice terror for
>>> religious reasons view their enemies PRECISELY the way that you view
>>> Tiller.
>> I view Tiller as a fuck up.
>>
>> I don;t have any need to kill him, cope.
>
> Because you can just sit back and wait for terrists with bigger balls
> than you.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> So there isn't something beyond the pale about turning your OWN child
>> into a bomb to kill others with?
>
> Of course, that is not the normal situation with child suicide bombers
YOU ARE DONE HERE KLINGON LIAR!
Fuck off, go sleep with your besotted terrorist muzzie ilk and go
STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Jamir Quay
>> By most estimates anywhere from 15-20% of Muslimes _support_ radical
>> Islamic Jihad, you lying PIECE OF SHIT!
>
> But what does it mean to "support" it? No more than you "supporting"
> Tiller's
YOU VILE PIECE OF SHIT!
Your endless squirming, merging of unrelated subject items and outright
misrepresentation is over!
One might be led to think that if international law enforcement
authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a
twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the
oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror
networks in the world to launch a program of �cultural invasion� and
eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by
Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from
headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New
York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La
Repubblica.
If that�s what you might think, you would be wrong.
In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in
November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time
information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as
�The Project�, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to
the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through
the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps,
and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conqu�te de
l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West:
The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project
finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has
described The Project as �a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which
represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.�
Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete
English translation of The Project.
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with
the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7,
2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa
Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim
Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the
organization�s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded
as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the
world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo,
�Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur�an is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.�
The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the
White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking
at Al-Taqwa�s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range
of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian
affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian
Ennahdah.
Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada�s Swiss villa
was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which
outlines a 12-point strategy to �establish an Islamic government on
earth� � identified as The Project. According to testimony given to
Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by
�Islamic researchers� associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
What makes The Project so different from the standard �Death of America!
Death to Israel!� and �Establish the global caliphate!� Islamist
rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term
approach to the �cultural invasion� of the West. Calling for the
utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration,
surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and
terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the
Muslim Brotherhood �master plan�. As can be seen in a number of examples
throughout Europe � including the political recognition of parallel
Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent �cartoon� jihad
in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7
terrorist attacks in London � the plan outlined in The Project has been
overwhelmingly successful.
Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as
is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of
terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively
infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over
the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many
recommendations made in The Project:
�Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist
organizations;
�Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and
individuals to maintain the appearance of �moderation�;
�Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign
them towards the Muslim Brotherhood�s collective goals;
�Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long
as it doesn�t conflict with shari�a law;
�Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or
globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist
powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
�Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the
West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
�Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection
and data storage capabilities;
�Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to
warn Muslims of �international plots fomented against them�;
�Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the
establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing
�academic� studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle
the history of Islamist movements;
�Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology
throughout the world;
�Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
�Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable
organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the
movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
�Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected
institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs,
private organizations and labor unions;
�Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be
converted and put into service of Islam;
�Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual
implementation;
�Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels,
including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
�Instituting alliances with Western �progressive� organizations that
share similar goals;
�Creating autonomous �security forces� to protect Muslims in the West;
�Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West �in a jihad
frame of mind�;
�Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching,
propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
�Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
�Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation
of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic
domination;
�Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against
Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with
them;
�Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
�Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror
movement;
�Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support
jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in
1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East
were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely
prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by
�moderate� Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the
past two decades.
At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the
result of Sylvain Besson�s investigative work, including his book and a
related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps,
L'islamisme � la conqu�te du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the
World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language
edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the
entire Arabic text of The Project last November.
In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson�s revelation
of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a
mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in
an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta,
The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been
by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott
Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The
Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the
French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III,
IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr.
Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.
The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the
document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable
discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US
counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and
who is cited in Guitta�s Weekly Standard article, is current White House
terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood
master plan for �spreading their political ideology,� Zarate expressed
concerns to Besson because �the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that
worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas
but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.�
One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke
with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:
The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of
the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982.
It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the
immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and
Egyptians, into Europe.
As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part
of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its
organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in
the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian
government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to
the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew
King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary
regime because of Nasser�s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood�s
call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various
times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly
been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.
Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its
network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in
Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood
winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the
largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the
world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority
after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian
Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest
organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has
affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood
is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).
Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of
terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic
domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic
world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included
among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef
Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.
As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical
Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera),
Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in
Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both
Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between
Qaradawi�s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming
Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi�s
Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the
language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is
speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template
for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps
coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the
Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the
individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999,
Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his
connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of
terrorism.
For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that
Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been
assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have
been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks
and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan
for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in
the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology
that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish
populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of
Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy
of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West
against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism
as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable
reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly
instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari�a in the West,
and eventually the whole world.
dilecticon
>> Pearl Harbor was the proximate trigger.
>
> Pearl Harbor caused us to declare war on Japan.
Very good, you klingon piece of shit.
Why not just say, "yes, you're right" next time.
dilecticon
> And the rest of the world: 1% of Muslim children in
> this country would be several thousand suicide bombers, and yet there
> hasn't been a single one here "strapped into a suicide vest".
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
2007:
57 percent of Palestinians support Bin Laden.
41 percent of Indonesians support Bin Laden.
38 percent of Pakistanis support Bin Laden.
20 percent of Jordanians support Bin Laden.
1 percent of Lebanese support Bin Laden.
Survey of Muslim world, Feb 2009 has all sorts of horrible stats:
76 percent of Pakistanis want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
76 percent of Moroccans want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
90 percent of Palestinians support killing American troops in Iraq. And
yet America is giving the Palestinians $1 billion in aid!
83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
America gives Egypt $2 billion in aid every year!
68 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Iraq.
40 percent in Turkey support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
America is pushing for its "ally" Turkey to be let into the EU.
83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
61 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
78 percent of Palestinians have "positive" or "mixed" feelings towards
Bin Laden.
69 percent of Egyptians have "positive" or "mixed" feelings towards Bin
Laden.
53 percent of Moroccans have "positive" or "mixed" feelings towards Bin
Laden.
51 percent of Pakistanis have "positive" or "mixed" feelings towards Bin
Laden.
Survey of Muslim world, Sept 2009
68 percent of Palestinian Muslims said suicide bombings of civilians
were justifiable.
51 percent of Shiite Lebanese Muslims said suicide bombings of civilians
were justifiable.
43 percent of Nigerian Muslims said suicide bombings of civilians were
justifiable.
38 percent of all Lebanese Muslims said suicide bombings of civilians
were justifiable.
54 percent of Nigerian Muslims expressed confidence in bin Laden to do
the right thing.
52 percent of Palestinian Muslims expressed confidence in bin Laden to
do the right thing.
28 percent of Jordanian Muslims expressed confidence in bin Laden to do
the right thing.
dilecticon
> There you go again, terrorist scum.
>
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
dilecticon
> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>
dilecticon
> Hardly anti-American. Just recognition of geopolitics, which is what
> world war is about.
>
dilecticon
> Which is why people tend to think war is wrong, even if it might mean
> "liberating" other people.
>
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
dilecticon
> Your evidence is lacking.
Curt
> Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >But when the wall came down (and the Eastern Europeans did that all by
> >themselves -- we never invaded Russia to make it happen) the Osties
> >went right to work building a somewhat workable gummint. The Iraqis
> >put freaking CLERICS in charge.
>
> The Iraqis do not have clerics in charge. You seem to be confusing
> them with Iran, where the clerics were the ones who led the
> revolution.
I'm thinking of Badr Sadr Wossname, and the various "armies" the
clerics had -- and we negotiated with them when we should have dropped
bombs on them.
They still have entirely too much power.
>
> A couple of Shiite groups led by clerics did not accept the new Iraqi
> government, and ending the quasi-civil war meant accommodating them a
> little, but the religious leaders aren't in the government.
>
> The difference between Iraq and the various eastern European countries
> is that the latter for the most part are comprised of a single ethnic
> group. Indeed, where they were not a single ethnic group, they
> fragmented along ethnic lines, so that we now have the Czech Republic
> and Slovakia, and Yugoslavia has split into several pieces (and not
> any more peacefully than Iraq when it happened, because unlike
> Czechoslovakia, the ethnic groups had overlapping territories - the
> same problem that exists in the Baghdad area today).
Sure -- and I remember Biden saying we should just partition them. And
he was right. Except that the oil is only in, what is it, the middle
of the country, and everyone wants their share of the oil revenues..
anyway, why should WE be the ones that have to partition them? They
should be able to handle that on their own.
>
> Most of the Arab countries are tribal by nature, and their natural
> social unit is closer to what we would consider small towns in
> population, and not nearly big enough for viability as an independent
> nation. With a couple of large cities plunked down in the middle.
> Trying to get these quasi-independent tribal units to work together at
> a national level has generally taken a strong quasi-dictatorial king
> or leader, which is why these countries have such leadership, and why
> Afghanistan is in near-chaos - the local leadership is far more
> powerful than the central government, and they don't have the
> infrastructure to bring the pieces together even if they had the know
> how.
Thus, not a people worthy of our sacrifice to bring them Democracy.
Let them huddle in their wreckage. Maybe they'll be lucky enough to
get another Saddam in a few years, only without the shredders, acid
baths, and vicious sons.
>
> >Clerics, ferpetesake! The worst thing
> >ever to happen to human progress -- and they put those guys in charge.
> >And then set to killing people that followed different clerics.
>
> There are two major subgroups of Islam in the country, and one of the
> major fault lines is between the two religious groups, but the
> difference between them is less intense than the sectionalism between
> North and South before 1860. We just don't want to let them go
> through the sort of civil war that we had to suffer in order to unite
> the country strongly enough above the state level to survive in the
> modern world.
I'm not sure that, after their utter failure to step up to Grownup
Gummint, I want to spend any more money "uniting" them. Let 'em have
their civil war. We can "safeguard" their oil fields while they do it,
if necessary..
Especially when the people are ignorant cowards that won't dime off
the terrorists they know about, thus making it impossible for their
American minders to effectively put up power lines and substations..
>
> >Apparently in about fifteen years they forgot how to do it.
>
> Governmentally, the people now in charge never knew how. The Shiites
> were largely excluded from government above the local level under
> Saddam and before him the Iraqi king. It was a secular government,
> but one more like the antebellum US, where the South dominated the
> Federal government despite having a minority of the population. But
> unlike us, Saddam made sure that no one came close to having the
> competence to replace him, whereas Northerners here developed machine
> politics that provided the political networks to make government work
> (and the war forced the necessity of making the national government
> work as it never had before, which is why there was a massive shift in
> power to the Federal government after the Civil War).
>
> Iraq is still going through that. It took roughly 10 years for
> Reconstruction to bring the South back. It took more than 5 years and
> truly enormous sums of money, not to mention large armies filling in
> for missing governments, in order to bring western Europe back to
> pre-war levels (and a couple decades in the East - arguably, much of
> the Warsaw pact was still recovering when the Iron Curtain came down).
Okay, fair enough. But these are supposed to be people with the
benefits of centuries of history. The blood of Hammurabi is sposed to
flow in their veins, etc etc. It boggles how they can be just so
incredibly BAD at everything. And how much did we spend on this
project? And when are we done spending it? And weren't they supposed
to finance it themselves with oil money? When do they start paying us
back (they're on schedule to do that, of course, right? What? They
haven't offered?)?
I'm just filled with disgust for the whole botched operation.
>
> GDP has started to increase in the last couple of years.
>
> http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=iz&l=en
>
> Equally important to long term stability, Iraq's unemployment rate has
> dropped from 25% to around 18-19%, which is about equivalent to the
> worst of our Depression (even we'd probably have a civil war if
> unemployment reached 25% here). And their total labor force has
> increased by 75% since 2000, so dropping the unemployment rate is
> non-trivial.
>
> http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=72&c=iz&l=en
>
> As to the future - well Slovakia had 18% unemployment in 2000, and it
> is now down to 8%. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=74&c=lo&l=en
> and their GDP per capita doubled in 8 yearshttp://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=lo&l=en
> but that did take 8 years. America these days doesn't have the
> patience to wait 8 years, which is a double presidential term - heck,
> a lot of people seem to have given up on Obama because he didn't
> fulfill most of his campaign promises in less than *one* year.
I'll give you that, too. It seems to me that this is the 21st century,
though, and they know what they need to do. They need to dime off
their terrists, fire their clerics, form a secular society, ditch the
burqas, pump some oil, get some cash, and start producing things
people want to buy. But they won't do it.
>
> >What, they lost all the books, their Internet's down?
>
> Their Internet never was up 15 years ago. I remember in the first
> Gulf War, Peter Arnett had to set up a portable satellite dish to
> report in, and he was the only reporter who managed to keep
> broadcasting because only CNN had the international infrastructure to
> manage it.
It's back up now, right? Or, wait, lemme guess. The terrorist younger
brother keeps blowing up the servers with truck bombs, and the older
brother just isn't willing to tell the police?
>
> As for books, their literacy rate has increased since pre-war years
> (though I doubt that it really dropped 20% during the war, as the
> chart shows).
>
> http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=39&c=iz&l=en
Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on. An
Islamic gummint? A Constitution that's in line with Sharia law?
Jesus.
Curt
dilecticon
> Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gb
<obadia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 12:59�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >But when the wall came down (and the Eastern Europeans did that all by
>> >themselves -- we never invaded Russia to make it happen) the Osties
>> >went right to work building a somewhat workable gummint. The Iraqis
>> >put freaking CLERICS in charge.
>>
>> The Iraqis do not have clerics in charge. �You seem to be confusing
>> them with Iran, where the clerics were the ones who led the
>> revolution.
>
>I'm thinking of Badr Sadr Wossname, and the various "armies" the
>clerics had -- and we negotiated with them when we should have dropped
>bombs on them.
A bomb is a point weapon. The Sadrists were widely scattered. Bombing
wouldn't have mattered much, and we'd have killed more innocents than
those whom we were targeting.
>They still have entirely too much power.
For whom? The history of Iraq has long been one of "private" armies
fielded by families, tribes and clans. Those, in turn, have oftimes
banded together to form sectarian groups, mostly Shia/Sunni but there
are some other offshoots of each of those as well.
When Muqtada ordered his groups to voluntarily stand down, just prior
to The Surge, that was a pretty smart play. He wandered off for some
continuing education in order to become a higher-ranked mullah,
perhaps even someday an ayatollah.
These people, unlike Westerners, don't think in terms of a few weeks
or months. They think in terms of generations and decades.
We are going to leave Iraq. When, not if, we do, there will be the
inevitable power struggle later. It's not as though we can or will
stop it, prevent it from happening. More importantly, there's no
particular reason why we should spend Murken lives and Chinese money
to do it.
We have no dog in that hunt. Never have had.
>Sure -- and I remember Biden saying we should just partition them. And
>he was right.
No -- We ought not to do that. We ought to let Them do that on their
own. They will, sooner or later.
> Except that the oil is only in, what is it, the middle
>of the country, and everyone wants their share of the oil revenues..
East and North -- the Shia area in the SE and the Kurdish area in the
NE.
>anyway, why should WE be the ones that have to partition them? They
>should be able to handle that on their own.
Precisely! It's gonna happen regardless of what we do. It's been 90
years waiting to happen, and it will.
When, not if, it does, it won't be the US who will be wielding either
military Or economic influence there. Check on who the Iraqis sold
the awl rights to, just last week. Clue: It wasn't US firms.
>Thus, not a people worthy of our sacrifice to bring them Democracy.
That was always just eyewash -- fodder for a political campaign back
in CONUS, and supposedly linked to the War On Terrism.
>Let them huddle in their wreckage. Maybe they'll be lucky enough to
>get another Saddam in a few years, only without the shredders, acid
>baths, and vicious sons.
Without the UN sanctions, and with the Russians and Chinese owning the
awl rights, something will be worked out. We'd be fools to be in that
furball.
>I'm not sure that, after their utter failure to step up to Grownup
>Gummint, I want to spend any more money "uniting" them. Let 'em have
>their civil war. We can "safeguard" their oil fields while they do it,
>if necessary..
Since the awl fields are going to be controlled by other nations, and
not the US, let Them safeguard them.
>Especially when the people are ignorant cowards that won't dime off
>the terrorists they know about, thus making it impossible for their
>American minders to effectively put up power lines and substations..
Iraqis are neither ignorant nor cowardly, within the last century. But
like most in the Middle East, they don't much take kindly to being
occuped by Westerners.
>...But these are supposed to be people with the
>benefits of centuries of history. The blood of Hammurabi is sposed to
>flow in their veins, etc etc. It boggles how they can be just so
>incredibly BAD at everything.
They aren't bad at everything. They just don't control everything. We
do. We are the ones who, from the fall of Saddam, have demonstrated a
certain incompetence at dealing with them.
But once again, beware the temptation to lump them all together in one
group. There is no Iraqi Nation and there are no genuine Iraquis who
feel a primary allegiance to that cartographic fiction imposed on them
in 1919 by the West.
> And how much did we spend on this project?
Dollars -- half a trillion and counting, by the most conservative
estimates.
Lives -- 4,000+ and counting.
Wounded/Maimed -- upwards of 10,000.
>And when are we done spending it?
As I've said all along, we're the best source of ready cash (literally
by the ton on pallets) in town.
>And weren't they supposed to finance it themselves with oil money?
That's what Cheney always said. Why anyone believed it is, well,
sorta strange too! And as it's turned out, they sold the awl to
someone else from somewhere else.
They are Not about to pay us back for the effort either.
> When do they start paying us
>back (they're on schedule to do that, of course, right? What? They
>haven't offered?)?
Nope. And they won't offer. Not a dime.
>I'm just filled with disgust for the whole botched operation.
Some of us knew this would be the outcome Before the operation got
botched.
>It seems to me that this is the 21st century,
>though, and they know what they need to do. They need to dime off
>their terrists, fire their clerics, form a secular society, ditch the
>burqas, pump some oil, get some cash, and start producing things
>people want to buy. But they won't do it.
See - that's where Westerners get it all wrong. We/You demand that
They should do what We want them to do. They don't want to do that,
any more than We should do what They want us to do.
>> http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=39&c=iz&l=en
>
>Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on. An
>Islamic gummint? A Constitution that's in line with Sharia law?
>Jesus.
Why not? We have a bunch of fools in This nation who believe we ought
to enshring the Ten Commandments into law as well, Even Though they
make little real sense as laws.
This is what happens when Organized Superstition gets large enough
actually to control a government and enforce all that silly
superstitious drivel.
There's a lesson there.
dilecticon
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
LDosser
news:potki55cvlu1ud7rd...@4ax.com...
Nothing meaningful in a 1000 words or more.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Dec 17, 12:59�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >But when the wall came down (and the Eastern Europeans did that all by
>> >themselves -- we never invaded Russia to make it happen) the Osties
>> >went right to work building a somewhat workable gummint. The Iraqis
>> >put freaking CLERICS in charge.
>>
>> The Iraqis do not have clerics in charge. �You seem to be confusing
>> them with Iran, where the clerics were the ones who led the
>> revolution.
>
>I'm thinking of Badr Sadr Wossname, and the various "armies" the
>clerics had -- and we negotiated with them when we should have dropped
>bombs on them.
A surefire way to lose control is to turn clerics into martyrs.
>> The difference between Iraq and the various eastern European countries
>> is that the latter for the most part are comprised of a single ethnic
>> group. �Indeed, where they were not a single ethnic group, they
>> fragmented along ethnic lines, so that we now have the Czech Republic
>> and Slovakia, and Yugoslavia has split into several pieces (and not
>> any more peacefully than Iraq when it happened, because unlike
>> Czechoslovakia, the ethnic groups had overlapping territories - the
>> same problem that exists in the Baghdad area today).
>
>Sure -- and I remember Biden saying we should just partition them.
It was tried once before, by the British which is why we ended up with
Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Lines
imposed by outsiders don't work. And in this case, we had our ally
Turkey opposed, because they don't want the Kurds to be autonomous,
because they will try to partition off SE Turkey as well.
>anyway, why should WE be the ones that have to partition them? They
>should be able to handle that on their own.
The Kurds want a partition. The rest of the country doesn't. But the
Shiites want the power due them as the majority, and the Sunni Arabs
fear the power of the Shiites using their majority, and the secularist
Baaths (who are mostly Sunni in ethnicity) resent the loss of power
and economic clout they suffered in the overthrow of Saddam. It
actually isn't all that unlike what happened between the North and the
South in 1861, though the demographics are different and there are
three or four groups instead of two.
>> Most of the Arab countries are tribal by nature, and their natural
>> social unit is closer to what we would consider small towns in
>> population, and not nearly big enough for viability as an independent
>> nation. �With a couple of large cities plunked down in the middle.
>> Trying to get these quasi-independent tribal units to work together at
>> a national level has generally taken a strong quasi-dictatorial king
>> or leader, which is why these countries have such leadership, and why
>> Afghanistan is in near-chaos - the local leadership is far more
>> powerful than the central government, and they don't have the
>> infrastructure to bring the pieces together even if they had the know
>> how.
>
>Thus, not a people worthy of our sacrifice to bring them Democracy.
Of course. It was a silly goal.
>> >Clerics, ferpetesake! The worst thing
>> >ever to happen to human progress -- and they put those guys in charge.
>> >And then set to killing people that followed different clerics.
>>
>> There are two major subgroups of Islam in the country, and one of the
>> major fault lines is between the two religious groups, but the
>> difference between them is less intense than the sectionalism between
>> North and South before 1860. �We just don't want to let them go
>> through the sort of civil war that we had to suffer in order to unite
>> the country strongly enough above the state level to survive in the
>> modern world.
>
>I'm not sure that, after their utter failure to step up to Grownup
>Gummint, I want to spend any more money "uniting" them. Let 'em have
>their civil war. We can "safeguard" their oil fields while they do it,
>if necessary.
If we do so, then their civil war will be one of terrorism against us.
If we stay there at all, we have to be actively helping in ways that
the populace sees.
>> Rebuilding the infrastructure of a modern major city is much more
>> difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, as we have found with New
>> Orleans, whose infrastructure wasn't damaged nearly as badly as
>> Baghdad's (full power was restored to New Orleans within a few weeks -
>> I'm not sure that Baghdad has reliable 24/7 power even yet after 6
>> years).
>
>Especially when the people are ignorant cowards that won't dime off
>the terrorists they know about, thus making it impossible for their
>American minders to effectively put up power lines and substations.
We never made it a priority to do so. If we had done so in 2003-2004,
we would not have been dealing with civil war in 2005-2006.
>> Iraq is still going through that. �It took roughly 10 years for
>> Reconstruction to bring the South back. �It took more than 5 years and
>> truly enormous sums of money, not to mention large armies filling in
>> for missing governments, in order to bring western Europe back to
>> pre-war levels (and a couple decades in the East - arguably, much of
>> the Warsaw pact was still recovering when the Iron Curtain came down).
>
>Okay, fair enough. But these are supposed to be people with the
>benefits of centuries of history.
Ancient history. But the skills needed are those of modernity.
Building a road or a palace takes a lot less skill than a power plant.
>The blood of Hammurabi is sposed to flow in their veins, etc etc.
Actually, I think we don't know that. The peoples of the region were
largely migratory, and they suffered several "invasions" from the
north and east - Persians and Turks, etc, not to mention the Greeks
and Romans from the West. And the Arabs swept north after Mohammed,
so I am not sure whether the people of Hammurabi are necessarily those
who inhabited the region.
>It boggles how they can be just so incredibly BAD at everything.
They aren't.
>And how much did we spend on this project?
On rebuilding the country, not all that much. We kept trying to get
them to pay for the rebuilding out of their oil revenues, when they
did not have the governmental structure needed to make decisions about
how to spend those revenues.
>And when are we done spending it? And weren't they supposed
>to finance it themselves with oil money? When do they start paying us
>back (they're on schedule to do that, of course, right? What? They
>haven't offered?)?
They won't. It was our choice to invade, not theirs.
>I'm just filled with disgust for the whole botched operation.
So am I. But I try to see it from their side as well as ours, and to
bear in mind the historical precedents which say that nation-building
takes a lot more time than we are willing to spend.
>> As to the future - well Slovakia had 18% unemployment in 2000, and it
>> is now down to 8%. �http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=74&c=lo&l=en
>> and their GDP per capita doubled in 8 yearshttp://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=67&c=lo&l=en
>> but that did take 8 years. �America these days doesn't have the
>> patience to wait 8 years, which is a double presidential term - heck,
>> a lot of people seem to have given up on Obama because he didn't
>> fulfill most of his campaign promises in less than *one* year.
>
>I'll give you that, too. It seems to me that this is the 21st century,
>though, and they know what they need to do.
I don't think they do.
>They need to dime off their terrists, fire their clerics, form a secular society,
It was a secular society that gave them Saddam. They don't have much
reason to trust secular society.
>> >What, they lost all the books, their Internet's down?
>>
>> Their Internet never was up 15 years ago. �I remember in the first
>> Gulf War, Peter Arnett had to set up a portable satellite dish to
>> report in, and he was the only reporter who managed to keep
>> broadcasting because only CNN had the international infrastructure to
>> manage it. �
>
>It's back up now, right?
I don't know. If it is, it is probably only in the major cities.
>> http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=39&c=iz&l=en
>
>Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on. An
>Islamic gummint? A Constitution that's in line with Sharia law?
Such ideas come from those books.
>Jesus.
They think rather less of him than we do.
Bob LeChevalier
>Christian Jihad?
>
>Nope.
Of course not, since the term is Arabic, and few Christians speak
Arabic (and as you so ably demonstrate, most of them have no clue what
"jihad" even means.
>Christian international terrorism?
>
>Nope.
IRA
The drug lords of Mexico and South America probably qualify as well.
[remaining repetitive tripe deleted]
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> And the rest of the world: 1% of Muslim children in
>> this country would be several thousand suicide bombers, and yet there
>> hasn't been a single one here "strapped into a suicide vest".
>
>http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
Polls such as these purport to be have no real credibility, except to
gullible bigots like you.
>2007:
>57 percent of Palestinians support Bin Laden.
>41 percent of Indonesians support Bin Laden.
>38 percent of Pakistanis support Bin Laden.
>20 percent of Jordanians support Bin Laden.
>1 percent of Lebanese support Bin Laden.
100% of dialecticon supports murders of abortion clinic doctors.
>Survey of Muslim world, Feb 2009 has all sorts of horrible stats:
>76 percent of Pakistanis want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
>76 percent of Moroccans want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
Nothing "horrible" about that. Their idea of what "strict sharia" is
almost certain has little similarity to that of a bigot like you.
>90 percent of Palestinians support killing American troops in Iraq. And
>yet America is giving the Palestinians $1 billion in aid!
>83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
>America gives Egypt $2 billion in aid every year!
>68 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Iraq.
>40 percent in Turkey support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
>America is pushing for its "ally" Turkey to be let into the EU.
>83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
>61 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
Whoopie for them. That's what happens when you invade other
countries.
Remaining crap deleted. Uninteresting.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Christian Jihad?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Of course not, since the term is Arabic, and
Why are you still spinning?
Did someone restart the Crusades?
Drop dead, OK?
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> And the rest of the world: 1% of Muslim children in
>>> this country would be several thousand suicide bombers, and yet there
>>> hasn't been a single one here "strapped into a suicide vest".
>> http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
>
> Polls such as these purport to be have no real credibility, except to
> gullible bigots like you.
Oh?
Every single one, and there are almost a hundred, are corrupt statistically?
Do tell.
You really lie about everything don;t you?
>> 2007:
>> 57 percent of Palestinians support Bin Laden.
>> 41 percent of Indonesians support Bin Laden.
>> 38 percent of Pakistanis support Bin Laden.
>> 20 percent of Jordanians support Bin Laden.
>> 1 percent of Lebanese support Bin Laden.
>
> 100% of dialecticon supports murders of abortion clinic doctors.
The specious red herring, so predictable.
>> Survey of Muslim world, Feb 2009 has all sorts of horrible stats:
>> 76 percent of Pakistanis want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
>> 76 percent of Moroccans want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
> Nothing "horrible" about that. Their idea of what "strict sharia" is
> almost certain has little similarity to that of a bigot like you.
>
>> 90 percent of Palestinians support killing American troops in Iraq. And
>> yet America is giving the Palestinians $1 billion in aid!
>> 83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
>> America gives Egypt $2 billion in aid every year!
>> 68 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Iraq.
>> 40 percent in Turkey support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
>> America is pushing for its "ally" Turkey to be let into the EU.
>> 83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
>> 61 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
>
> Whoopie for them. That's what happens when you invade other
> countries.
To liberate 50 million...
> Remaining crap deleted. Uninteresting.
And THAT defines you, blinders and a head full of shit.
You have the intellectual curiosity of mollusk, and the slimey trail to
match.
Drop dead.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Polls such as these purport to be have no real credibility, except to
>> gullible bigots like you.
>
>Oh?
>
>Every single one, and there are almost a hundred, are corrupt statistically?
No. They are corrupt conceptually.
You can ask a stupid question in a stupid way a million times, and it
won't get you any sort of useful answer.
>> 100% of dialecticon supports murders of abortion clinic doctors.
>
>The specious red herring, so predictable.
Just as useful as your silly poll list. More useful, in fact, since
it characterizes the poster as a nutcase extremist not fit to be
listened to (of course, your foul mouthed ranting and insults already
succeed in that, so it isn't all that necessary).
>> Whoopie for them. That's what happens when you invade other
>> countries.
>
>To liberate 50 million...
Obviously they don't agree as to who is trying to "liberate" what.
>And THAT defines me, blinders and a head full of shit.
I agree, as modified.
>I have the intellectual curiosity of mollusk, and the slimey trail to
>match.
I agree, as modified.
>I wish I would drop dead.
I agree as modified.
Bob LeChevalier
A goodly number of Muslims think that George W Bush did so, especially
since he stupidly used that very word to describe what he intended.
"This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people
are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is
going to take a while. And American people must be patient."
- Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2001
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Polls such as these purport to be have no real credibility, except to
>>> gullible bigots like you.
>> Oh?
>>
>> Every single one, and there are almost a hundred, are corrupt statistically?
>
> No. They are corrupt conceptually.
Your blithering denials are beyond ludicrous.
> You can ask a stupid question in a stupid way
The questions asked were neither stupid nor stupidly asked.
You have reduced yourself to a laughing stock again.
>>> 100% of dialecticon supports murders of abortion clinic doctors.
>> The specious red herring, so predictable.
>
> Just as useful as
Nope, just a red herring, and still useless.
>>> Whoopie for them. That's what happens when you invade other
>>> countries.
>> To liberate 50 million...
>
> Obviously they don't agree as to who is trying to "liberate" what.
Inherent factionalism renders that a moot point.
>> And THAT
Drop dead, you lying piece of shit.
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
Survey of Muslim world, Feb 2009 has all sorts of horrible stats:
76 percent of Pakistanis want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
76 percent of Moroccans want strict sharia in every Islamic country.
90 percent of Palestinians support killing American troops in Iraq. And
yet America is giving the Palestinians $1 billion in aid!
83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
America gives Egypt $2 billion in aid every year!
68 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Iraq.
40 percent in Turkey support killing American troops in Iraq. And yet
America is pushing for its "ally" Turkey to be let into the EU.
83 percent of Egyptians support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
61 percent of Moroccans support killing American troops in Afghanistan.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Christian Jihad?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>> Of course not, since the term is Arabic, and
>> Why are you still spinning?
>>
>> Did someone restart the Crusades?
>
> A goodly number of Muslims think that George W Bush did so,
So the polls I cited do have merit after all, thank you.
http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html
> especially
> since he stupidly used that very word to describe what he intended.
>
> "This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people
> are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is
> going to take a while. And American people must be patient."
> - Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2001
Any decent and patriotic American is wholly in favor of a crusade
against terrorism.
You have shown yourself as the vile un-patriotic scumbag we all know you
to be.
Curt
>
> >I'm just filled with disgust for the whole botched operation.
>
> Some of us knew this would be the outcome Before the operation got
> botched.
My dad laughed at me when I defended the invasion. He was right, and I
and the Republicans were wrong.
>
> >It seems to me that this is the 21st century,
> >though, and they know what they need to do. They need to dime off
> >their terrists, fire their clerics, form a secular society, ditch the
> >burqas, pump some oil, get some cash, and start producing things
> >people want to buy. But they won't do it.
>
> See - that's where Westerners get it all wrong. We/You demand that
> They should do what We want them to do. They don't want to do that,
> any more than We should do what They want us to do.
Oh, no don't get me wrong. This has nothing to do with what I want
them to do. It's just what they need to do to be a successful nation
with a decent standard of living. I don't care if they want to live
like the ignorant, cowardly savages they seem to want to be.
If they're gonna do that though, the more .. advanced .. peoples of
the world should safeguard their oil. Right? Because who wants to
trust, say, Iraqis with the kind of money oil brings in? All they'll
do with it is buy weapons they're not to be trusted with.
>
> >>http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=39&c=iz&l=en
>
> >Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on. An
> >Islamic gummint? A Constitution that's in line with Sharia law?
> >Jesus.
>
> Why not? We have a bunch of fools in This nation who believe we ought
> to enshring the Ten Commandments into law as well, Even Though they
> make little real sense as laws.
Which is why I send money to the ACLU and United for Separation of
Church and State or whatever that's called -- Barry Lynn's group.
Iraqis don't have the ability to do that of course, because they don't
have an ICLU or whatever. And they're afraid to form one.
>
> This is what happens when Organized Superstition gets large enough
> actually to control a government and enforce all that silly
> superstitious drivel.
>
> There's a lesson there.
Indeed.
Curt
Curt
> >> The Iraqis do not have clerics in charge. You seem to be confusing
> >> them with Iran, where the clerics were the ones who led the
> >> revolution.
>
> >I'm thinking of Badr Sadr Wossname, and the various "armies" the
> >clerics had -- and we negotiated with them when we should have dropped
> >bombs on them.
>
> A bomb is a point weapon. The Sadrists were widely scattered. Bombing
> wouldn't have mattered much, and we'd have killed more innocents than
> those whom we were targeting.
But we could have dropped a bomb on Sadr hisself.
Curt
gb
<obadia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 10:52�am, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
Curt had said:
>> >It seems to me that this is the 21st century,
>> >though, and they know what they need to do. They need to dime off
>> >their terrists, fire their clerics, form a secular society, ditch the
>> >burqas, pump some oil, get some cash, and start producing things
>> >people want to buy. But they won't do it.
>>
>> See - that's where Westerners get it all wrong. �We/You demand that
>> They should do what We want them to do. �They don't want to do that,
>> any more than We should do what They want us to do.
>
>Oh, no don't get me wrong. This has nothing to do with what I want
>them to do. It's just what they need to do to be a successful nation
>with a decent standard of living. I don't care if they want to live
>like the ignorant, cowardly savages they seem to want to be.
You still can't quite bring yourself to see that They don't wish to
live as you do. They don't see the tradeoff to a Western standard of
living being worth what they'd have to give up to get to it.
>If they're gonna do that though, the more .. advanced .. peoples of
>the world should safeguard their oil. Right? Because who wants to
>trust, say, Iraqis with the kind of money oil brings in? All they'll
>do with it is buy weapons they're not to be trusted with.
Nope. It's theirs, by the luck of the draw. The rest of the world
has no claim on their resources. And to be frank, leaving it in the
ground is a pretty smart play, on their part.
>> >Seems to me they ought to read some of them then. I mean, come on. An
>> >Islamic gummint? A Constitution that's in line with Sharia law?
>> >Jesus.
>>
>> Why not? �We have a bunch of fools in This nation who believe we ought
>> to enshring the Ten Commandments into law as well, Even Though they
>> make little real sense as laws.
>
>Which is why I send money to the ACLU and United for Separation of
>Church and State or whatever that's called -- Barry Lynn's group.
>
>Iraqis don't have the ability to do that of course, because they don't
>have an ICLU or whatever. And they're afraid to form one.
The WingNuts in this nation are afraid of having one. Flip side of
the coin.
But it's Their nation, not ours. That, at the core, is the important
matter in the discussion. We won't change them. In fact, trying to
do so may well be counterproductive.
gb
There are outcomes to all of that. Sadr was able to stand down his
militia. No one else could have.
So far as we're concerned, we're pleased he did so. The Surge had a
much easier time because he did. And he had an easier time doing it.
The inevitable was postponed. That's good.
But they want to have at each other. The only question is When.
So, let them.