linux users are hypocrites
CG
deep down they're just right-wing assholes who don't give a rat's arse
about freedom or rights providing they have a contant supply of consumer
electronics to play with.
Even Eric S. Raymond, a linux 'leading light', is a right-wing nutjob who
believes in gun ownership (probably because he has a small dick and needs
to extend it) and the 'war' in Iraq. You heard that right. This is a guy
who loves freedom and individual rights yet supports a brutal occupation
of a third-world country by a military superpower, with 100,000 civilians
dead and counting, not to mention the 1000+ dead US soldiers and thousands
more who come back disfigured, maimed or poisoned with depleted uranium.
Nice going, eric, you ugly hypocrite. At least you'll have plenty of gas
in your car for trips to circuit city to buy new kit.
It won't be long before Linux is bought up and sold out by the likes of
Novel, Redhat and IBM but the Linux fux will have no right to complain
because they never cared about Free Software or rights or freedom. All
that 'politics stuff' went out of the window the minute nvidia offered
them accelerated 3d driver payola in exchange for all their principles.
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
rapskat
Fault at address <34convF...@individual.net>, details...
<snip bullshit>
You have no valid criticisms about Linux and OSS so you attack users and
supporters of it? How pathetic.
The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely Windows
users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active participants in
hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing. The
individual opinions, activities and lifestyles of the people that use a
particular piece of software have nothing at all to do with the software
itself.
Your personal political hangups are not relevant to the topic of Windows
vs. Linux. It just goes to show how desperate M$ et al are when you
resort to petty attacks, lies and FUDslinging.
--
rapskat - 08:27:33 up 23:08, 2 users, load average: 1.26, 1.93, 1.75
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
to reform.
-- Mark Twain
9 Way
> The individual opinions, activities and lifestyles of the people that
> use a particular piece of software have nothing at all to do with the
> software itself.
Well done. You've just proved the OP's point.
Knotweed Streptosporangiaceae
> I'm just as confused now as I was before I had surgery.
You're learning.
7
> begin Error log for Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:06:24 +0000: CG caused a Page
> Fault at address <34convF...@individual.net>, details...
>
> <snip bullshit>
>
> You have no valid criticisms about Linux and OSS so you attack users and
> supporters of it? How pathetic.
I agree - users are members of the public.
Ralph
> deep down they're just right-wing assholes
Hmmm, first we are accused of being communists, now right wing... Guess the
Linux haters will say ANYTHING, true or not, to bash Linux supporters. We
can not be both Communist and right wing.
Diogenes
A linux luser can indeed be both, they really are that fucked up... and
stupid. Let's not forget stupid.
Linønut
> Typical linux 'advocates'...
Why crosspost to XP and Linux newsgroups?
Why the crazed rant?
Please, try to get help for your problem.
--
Linux, because a CPU is a terrible thing to waste.
A Nengineer
> Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
Funny. Right-wingers hate Linuxers because they're "commies."
Left-wingers hate 'em because they're "right-wingers."
The fact is that there is no typical "Linux user." I'm about as
conservative politically as they come, but I love Linux.
However, many of the most ardent Linux advocates are to the left,
politically.
I know that you people want to merge the idea of a computer operating
system with something "bigger," and thus the attempts at
"religionifying" or "politicizing" Linux.
But the fact remains that it's JUST A COMPUTER PROGRAM.
That's all.
rapskat
Fault at address <pan.2005.01.09....@botnet.com>, details...
Really? We must not have read the same post then.
--
rapskat - 13:57:04 up 1 day, 4:38, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.53, 0.87
Be cheerful while you are alive.
-- Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.
Diogenes
The characteristic held in common amongst all linux lusers is stupid. linux
makes you stupid.
HTH & HAND
rapskat
Page Fault at address
<1105299012.9ba34322b375517fbfb92ace90464212@teranews>, details...
> The characteristic held in common amongst all linux lusers is stupid.
> linux makes you stupid.
>
> HTH & HAND
Anyone who uses OE has no business calling anyone else "stupid".
--
rapskat - 14:52:37 up 1 day, 5:33, 2 users, load average: 0.59, 1.51, 1.21
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One. Only it's his light bulb when he's done.
I am jamming to Zero 7 - Destiny (Photek Remix)
Hamilcar Barca
Jan 2005 18:56:09 +0000), A Nengineer wrote:
> CG wrote:
>> Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
>> deep down they're just right-wing assholes...
>
> Funny. Right-wingers hate Linuxers because they're "commies."
> Left-wingers hate 'em because they're "right-wingers."
Everybody needs somebody to hate. Trolls hate everybody, including
themselves.
> But the fact remains that it's JUST A COMPUTER PROGRAM.
But it's a very good one.
--
"The [litigious] arguments that SCO have been making are so laughably
absurd that they lend support to the idea that SCO has no real case,
that they're only interested in creating FUD."
-- Richard M. Stallman. Founder, Free Software Foundation.
Jeremy Fisher
[Rubbish removed]
Go get a live, I want to read about advocacy, the pros and cons of OS. Not
verbal abuse.
Jem..
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:48:01 -0600,
Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
> CG poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Typical linux 'advocates'...
>
> Why crosspost to XP and Linux newsgroups?
>
> Why the crazed rant?
>
> Please, try to get help for your problem.
>
Trolling, not a very good troll. Lacking in original materiel. Poor
constuction, and lack of cohesion.
All in all, a 3 on the troll-o-meter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4ZSQd90bcYOAWPYRAh1CAKCFLx/cjnFG58juy2BKFI9dduAHCACfQEcT
F4WMMZbwh8Y454J7p2OxZ38=
=XTYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The United States of America: Screwing with the
English Language for over 200 years.
--Mike Sphar
Kibdelosporangium Samsonia
> CG wrote:
>
> [Rubbish removed]
> [But my rubbish added]
> Go get a live, I want to read about advocacy, the pros and cons of
> OS. Not verbal abuse.
Then you've come to the wrong place, you whinging
Jew fuck.
Having said that, your poast doesn't ooze of advocacy, does it?
Nice self nuke, fucktard.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:40:08 -0500,
rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> begin Error log for Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:06:24 +0000: CG caused a Page
> Fault at address <34convF...@individual.net>, details...
>
><snip bullshit>
>
> You have no valid criticisms about Linux and OSS so you attack users and
> supporters of it? How pathetic.
>
> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely Windows
> users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active participants in
> hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>
You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush, then
you leap up and do exactly the same.
> What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing. The
> individual opinions, activities and lifestyles of the people that use a
> particular piece of software have nothing at all to do with the software
> itself.
>
Or hardware.
> Your personal political hangups are not relevant to the topic of Windows
> vs. Linux. It just goes to show how desperate M$ et al are when you
> resort to petty attacks, lies and FUDslinging.
>
Your post would have had more impact, if you hadn't engaged in the very
same act, you decry.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4aEod90bcYOAWPYRAo3tAKCyzKNkG5QwumFGcLyMSF+dWeJe9QCfeT/o
uks1j5hZ2zccgVEkC7468TI=
=2R1R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Disclaimer: Elvis would agree with me, but he's got dirt in his mouth.
ray
hypocrites.
Kadaitcha Man
honkey, and taxidermist, purled:
What? In comp.os.linux.advocacy? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!
--
Kadaitcha Man: "When an omnipotent metaphysical X decides to
bend your will to its obedience, just what the fuck are you
going to do to stop it, you moron?"
Kadaitcha Man
castrator of horses and dogs, elucidated:
> The majority of people that support bushism are more than
> likely Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA,
> active participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
Kadaitcha Man
circus slugs, indoctrinated:
> Guess the Linux haters will say ANYTHING, true or not, to bash Linux
> supporters.
You mean like in the following, yes?
rapskat: "The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
Johan Lindquist
Jim Richardson was all like, "Dude,
[..]
>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>
> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush,
> then you leap up and do exactly the same.
I thought that was a matter of simple statistics? Remove the NRA part
(or was it the 'bushism' part that you triggered on?), and read what he
wrote again.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
23:29:20 up 77 days, 11:56, 9 users, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.01
Linux 2.6.9 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Kadaitcha Man
dispensed:
> CG poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Typical linux 'advocates'...
>
> Why crosspost to XP and Linux newsgroups?
>
> Why the crazed rant?
>
> Please, try to get help for your problem.
Why crosspost to XP and Linux newsgroups?
Why the crazed rant?
Please, try to get help for your problem.
--
Kadaitcha Man
pimp, blustered:
> The fact is that there is no typical "Linux user." I'm about as
> conservative politically as they come, but I love Linux.
>
> However, many of the most ardent Linux advocates are to the left,
> politically.
One of the accepted measures of a typical representation for any set is the
quantity referred to as 'many'. Congratulations on your spectacular self
nuke. You also managed to destroy what little credibility people were
willing to lend you out of mere pity.
Drool along with the bouncing ball, retard... "there is no typical Linux
user ... However, many ... are" typically "to the left ..."
<aside>
Really, what the fuck do those cunts have for brains?
rapskat
caused a Page Fault at address <82k8b2-...@grendel.myth>, details...
>> You have no valid criticisms about Linux and OSS so you attack users
>> and supporters of it? How pathetic.
>>
>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>
> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush, then
> you leap up and do exactly the same.
>
>
It wasn't my intention to engage in any personal attack or criticisms, I
was just demonstrating to the OP that the law of averages is against him
in these regards if he should choose to base his attacks on the personal
aspects of users of any particular platform.
>> What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing. The
>> individual opinions, activities and lifestyles of the people that use a
>> particular piece of software have nothing at all to do with the
>> software itself.
>>
> Or hardware.
>
>> Your personal political hangups are not relevant to the topic of
>> Windows vs. Linux. It just goes to show how desperate M$ et al are
>> when you resort to petty attacks, lies and FUDslinging.
>>
>>
> Your post would have had more impact, if you hadn't engaged in the very
> same act, you decry.
Showing a person that their own camp is even more subject to the
criticisms that they attempt to attribute to others doesn't consitute
participation, just education.
--
rapskat - 18:23:31 up 1 day, 9:04, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.22, 0.18
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
-- Wm. Shakespeare, "Henry VI", Part IV
Liam Slider
> Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
> deep down they're just right-wing assholes who don't give a rat's arse
> about freedom or rights providing they have a contant supply of consumer
> electronics to play with.
>
> Even Eric S. Raymond, a linux 'leading light', is a right-wing nutjob who
> believes in gun ownership (probably because he has a small dick and needs
> to extend it)
How does believing you have a right to own the tools necessary to defend
your life, and liberty, and maybe even put a little food on your table or
have a little fun at a target range make you a "right-wing nutjob"? I
guess only a far left idiot would think so...
> and the 'war' in Iraq. You heard that right. This is a guy
> who loves freedom and individual rights
Sounds right so far...
> yet supports a brutal
> occupation of a third-world country by a military superpower,
Wait..."brutal occupation"?
> with
> 100,000 civilians dead and counting
Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those people?
>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
> soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or poisoned
> with depleted uranium.
People who join a military organization should expect that they just might
end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are part-timers.
BTW, how is France doing in Africa these days?
> Nice going, eric, you ugly hypocrite. At least you'll have plenty of gas
> in your car for trips to circuit city to buy new kit.
Gas prices are very high right now actually.
>
> It won't be long before Linux is bought up and sold out by the likes of
> Novel, Redhat and IBM but the Linux fux will have no right to complain
> because they never cared about Free Software or rights or freedom.
If you had any idea whatsoever how Linux worked you'd know that this is
impossible.
> All
> that 'politics stuff' went out of the window the minute nvidia offered
> them accelerated 3d driver payola in exchange for all their principles.
>
> What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
What an idiot.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:32:25 +0100,
Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote:
> So anyway, it was like, 22:24 CET Jan 09 2005, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Jim Richardson was all like, "Dude,
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:40:08 -0500,
>> rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>>
>> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush,
>> then you leap up and do exactly the same.
>
> I thought that was a matter of simple statistics? Remove the NRA part
> (or was it the 'bushism' part that you triggered on?), and read what he
> wrote again.
>
the attempt to lump those he disagrees with, politcally, with child
molestors and other criminals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4b0hd90bcYOAWPYRAgTDAKCPLHzvuL03wcemUIrW+XYIf6eU5gCgrGEh
kL5PgjJLYW3ERXn8YQgZlfI=
=EJKR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
People who say that money can't buy happiness just don't know where to
shop.
A Nengineer
>
> The characteristic held in common amongst all linux lusers is stupid. linux
> makes you stupid.
>
firm. I have an advanced engineering degree. I am a licensed
Professional Engineer. I have an I.Q. of around 130.
I use Linux, and I love it. I use Windows, though I can't bring myself
to "love" it because it is so annoying. But it does an "adequate" job.
If applications suited to my work were readily available for Linux, I'd
abandon Windows in a heartbeat, but they're not, so I make do.
The notion that "Linux users are stupid" is, itself, so simplistic as to
border on the moronic.
GC
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:06:24 +0000, CG wrote:
>
>
>>Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
>>deep down they're just right-wing assholes who don't give a rat's arse
>>about freedom or rights providing they have a contant supply of consumer
>>electronics to play with.
>>
>>Even Eric S. Raymond, a linux 'leading light', is a right-wing nutjob who
>>believes in gun ownership (probably because he has a small dick and needs
>>to extend it)
>
>
> How does believing you have a right to own the tools necessary to defend
> your life, and liberty, and maybe even put a little food on your table or
> have a little fun at a target range make you a "right-wing nutjob"? I
> guess only a far left idiot would think so...
Civilised people don't generally like 'tools' designed to blast metal
through the human body.
>>and the 'war' in Iraq. You heard that right. This is a guy
>>who loves freedom and individual rights
>
>
> Sounds right so far...
To a liar like you...
>>yet supports a brutal
>>occupation of a third-world country by a military superpower,
>
>
> Wait..."brutal occupation"?
Oh, sorry. Your idea of the 'war' comes from Fox news, right?
>
>>with
>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>
>
> Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
> Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those people?
No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
from sun stroke.
What a fucking liar.
>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or poisoned
>>with depleted uranium.
>
>
> People who join a military organization should expect that they just might
> end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are part-timers.
Go and tell that to this guy:
http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat, no Al Qaeda
link, no 9/11 link, in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at all
other than to line the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
> BTW, how is France doing in Africa these days?
Who's talking about France?
>>Nice going, eric, you ugly hypocrite. At least you'll have plenty of gas
>>in your car for trips to circuit city to buy new kit.
>
>
> Gas prices are very high right now actually.
Oil is the Achilles heel of the US, and the rest of the world knows it.
Are you scared?
>
>>It won't be long before Linux is bought up and sold out by the likes of
>>Novel, Redhat and IBM but the Linux fux will have no right to complain
>>because they never cared about Free Software or rights or freedom.
>
>
> If you had any idea whatsoever how Linux worked you'd know that this is
> impossible.
It's entirely possible you'll have no civil liberties tomorrow.
>
>>All
>>that 'politics stuff' went out of the window the minute nvidia offered
>>them accelerated 3d driver payola in exchange for all their principles.
>>
>>What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
>
>
>
> What an idiot.
What a liar.
rapskat
caused a Page Fault at address <12r8b2-...@grendel.myth>, details...
>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>>>
>>> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush,
>>> then you leap up and do exactly the same.
>>
>> I thought that was a matter of simple statistics? Remove the NRA part
>> (or was it the 'bushism' part that you triggered on?), and read what he
>> wrote again.
>>
>>
>
> the attempt to lump those he disagrees with, politcally, with child
> molestors and other criminals.
I didn't consider that someone would take umbrage to that statement. I
was merely using and extending the comments of the OP in order to prove a
point. I apologize for any implication of association, it was not at all
intended.
As far as my "disagreeing politically" with anyone, I don't know where
that came from as I made no judgements or gave any opinions about such,
such as the OP did. Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't liken someone to
criminals and perverts simply because we happened to have different
political outlooks. Geez, Jim, I would think you knew me better than
that.
--
rapskat - 21:28:07 up 1 day, 12:09, 2 users, load average: 0.87, 0.62, 0.59
It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man
who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that
there were too many prehistoric toads in it.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Linønut
And a damn good one!
Kadaitcha Man
for firewood, screaked:
> Civilised people don't generally like 'tools' designed to blast metal
> through the human body.
Ok, so go back to throwing sticks and rocks.
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:06:24 +0000, CG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
>>>deep down they're just right-wing assholes who don't give a rat's arse
>>>about freedom or rights providing they have a contant supply of consumer
>>>electronics to play with.
>>>
>>>Even Eric S. Raymond, a linux 'leading light', is a right-wing nutjob who
>>>believes in gun ownership (probably because he has a small dick and needs
>>>to extend it)
>>
>>
>> How does believing you have a right to own the tools necessary to defend
>> your life, and liberty, and maybe even put a little food on your table or
>> have a little fun at a target range make you a "right-wing nutjob"? I
>> guess only a far left idiot would think so...
>
> Civilised people don't generally like 'tools' designed to blast metal
> through the human body.
Civilized people don't generally like to be helpless while they are raped,
or murdered by lunatics or druggies either. Nor do civilized people like
to *force* honest people who intend no harm to anyone who intends no harm
to them to give up their property....
>
>>>and the 'war' in Iraq. You heard that right. This is a guy who loves
>>>freedom and individual rights
>>
>>
>> Sounds right so far...
>
> To a liar like you...
Lie? When have I lied?
>
>
>
>>>yet supports a brutal
>>>occupation of a third-world country by a military superpower,
>>
>>
>> Wait..."brutal occupation"?
>
> Oh, sorry. Your idea of the 'war' comes from Fox news, right?
Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>
>
>
>>>with
>>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>>
>>
>> Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
>> Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those
>> people?
>
> No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
> from sun stroke.
Or by Iraqi insurrgents. Or even disease.
>
> What a fucking liar.
What an idiot.
>
>
>>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or
>>>poisoned with depleted uranium.
>>
>>
>> People who join a military organization should expect that they just
>> might end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are
>> part-timers.
>
>
> Go and tell that to this guy:
>
> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
Appeal to emotionalism noted.
Facts aren't changed.
>
> And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat,
Opinions at the time differed.
> no Al Qaeda
> link,
So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
> no 9/11 link,
So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
> in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at
> all other than to line the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
Liar. There were plenty of reasons.
>
>
>> BTW, how is France doing in Africa these days?
>
>
> Who's talking about France?
Nobody is. And that's the problem.
>
>
>>>Nice going, eric, you ugly hypocrite. At least you'll have plenty of
>>>gas in your car for trips to circuit city to buy new kit.
>>
>>
>> Gas prices are very high right now actually.
>
> Oil is the Achilles heel of the US, and the rest of the world knows it.
Gas prices are even higher in Europe. About twice as high.
> Are you scared?
Nope.
>
>
>
>>>It won't be long before Linux is bought up and sold out by the likes of
>>>Novel, Redhat and IBM but the Linux fux will have no right to complain
>>>because they never cared about Free Software or rights or freedom.
>>
>>
>> If you had any idea whatsoever how Linux worked you'd know that this
>> is impossible.
>
>
> It's entirely possible you'll have no civil liberties tomorrow.
Always has been. But because of Bush? He makes little difference. Both the
left and the right was to take away my civil liberties.
>
>
>>>All
>>>that 'politics stuff' went out of the window the minute nvidia offered
>>>them accelerated 3d driver payola in exchange for all their principles.
>>>
>>>What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
>>
>>
>>
>> What an idiot.
>
> What a liar.
No, I can quite honestly say you're an idiot.
GC
Your entire position is a lie, and an inhuman one at that.
>>>>yet supports a brutal
>>>>occupation of a third-world country by a military superpower,
>>>
>>>
>>>Wait..."brutal occupation"?
>>
>>Oh, sorry. Your idea of the 'war' comes from Fox news, right?
>
>
>
> Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
http://fallujahinpictures.com/
Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
>>>>with
>>>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>>>
>>>
>>>Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
>>>Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those
>>>people?
>>
>>No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
>>from sun stroke.
>
>
>
> Or by Iraqi insurrgents. Or even disease.
Air strikes from 'coalition' forces accounted for most violent deaths,
according to the Lancet report.
>
>>What a fucking liar.
>
>
>
> What an idiot.
>
>
>>
>>>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or
>>>>poisoned with depleted uranium.
>>>
>>>
>>>People who join a military organization should expect that they just
>>>might end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are
>>>part-timers.
>>
>>
>>Go and tell that to this guy:
>>
>>http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
>
>
>
> Appeal to emotionalism noted.
Nope. Just reality.
> Facts aren't changed.
You don't have any facts.
>>And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat,
>
>
> Opinions at the time differed.
I think you mean lies at the time have been subsequently exposed as lies.
>
>>no Al Qaeda
>>link,
>
>
> So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>
>
>>no 9/11 link,
>
>
> So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
You're running out of reasons.
>>in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at
>>all other than to line the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
>
>
>
> Liar. There were plenty of reasons.
There was oil and profit. But what about legitimate reasons?
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:53:29 +0000, GC wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Liam Slider wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:06:24 +0000, CG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Typical linux 'advocates' like to harp on about freedom and rights but
>>>>>deep down they're just right-wing assholes who don't give a rat's arse
>>>>>about freedom or rights providing they have a contant supply of consumer
>>>>>electronics to play with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even Eric S. Raymond, a linux 'leading light', is a right-wing nutjob who
>>>>>believes in gun ownership (probably because he has a small dick and needs
>>>>>to extend it)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How does believing you have a right to own the tools necessary to defend
>>>>your life, and liberty, and maybe even put a little food on your table or
>>>>have a little fun at a target range make you a "right-wing nutjob"? I
>>>>guess only a far left idiot would think so...
>>>
>>>Civilised people don't generally like 'tools' designed to blast metal
>>>through the human body.
>>
>>
>>
>> Civilized people don't generally like to be helpless while they are raped,
>> or murdered by lunatics or druggies either. Nor do civilized people like
>> to *force* honest people who intend no harm to anyone who intends no harm
>> to them to give up their property....
Concession accepted.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>and the 'war' in Iraq. You heard that right. This is a guy who loves
>>>>>freedom and individual rights
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sounds right so far...
>>>
>>>To a liar like you...
>>
>>
>>
>> Lie? When have I lied?
>
> Your entire position is a lie, and an inhuman one at that.
You really are retarded aren't you.
>
>
>
>>>>>yet supports a brutal
>>>>>occupation of a third-world country by a military superpower,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wait..."brutal occupation"?
>>>
>>>Oh, sorry. Your idea of the 'war' comes from Fox news, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>
>
> http://fallujahinpictures.com/
>
> Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
> like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
One of the things that happen in war is that people die, and things are
destroyed. If it didn't happen, it wouldn't...well, be war now would it?
Now the question that needs to be asked is...what happened to cause these
things to happen? Are they just there having one big target shoot
slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
>
>
>>>>>with
>>>>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
>>>>Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those
>>>>people?
>>>
>>>No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
>>>from sun stroke.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or by Iraqi insurrgents. Or even disease.
>
>
> Air strikes from 'coalition' forces accounted for most violent deaths,
> according to the Lancet report.
Oh now *that* is a load of bullshit. There is no way in hell that
*100,000* civilians were killed in coalition air strikes, unless they were
being used by Saddam as human shields around military targets. In other
words, if they were killed, it's because Saddam rounded them up and put
them around his equipment before the bombs fell.
That's not *our* fault, those deaths are entirely blamed on Saddam.
>
>
>
>>>What a fucking liar.
>>
>>
>>
>> What an idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>>>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or
>>>>>poisoned with depleted uranium.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People who join a military organization should expect that they just
>>>>might end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are
>>>>part-timers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Go and tell that to this guy:
>>>
>>>http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
>>
>>
>>
>> Appeal to emotionalism noted.
>
> Nope. Just reality.
No, you attempted to sway the argument by bringing in a bloody picture,
without any context.
Simple appeal to the emotional.
It's all you nitwits have.
>
>> Facts aren't changed.
>
> You don't have any facts.
I do too have facts, you ignore them. You seem to be lacking in the fact
department though.
>
>>>And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat,
>>
>>
>> Opinions at the time differed.
>
> I think you mean lies at the time have been subsequently exposed as
> lies.
Lies? No, misinterpretations, and faulty intel...
And I might add, that Clinton, Gore, and most of the left prior to Bush's
election believed that Saddam was a serious threat, with WMD...and yet,
miraculously, as soon as Bush was elected Saddam just happens to not have
any weapons, and all the intel that Clinton felt was reliable too is
suddenly lies told by Bush the evil monster bent on world domination...
>
>
>>>no Al Qaeda
>>>link,
>>
>>
>> So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>>
>>
>>>no 9/11 link,
>>
>>
>> So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>
> You're running out of reasons.
No, just don't need any others.
>
>>>in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at all other than to line
>>>the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
>>
>>
>>
>> Liar. There were plenty of reasons.
>
>
> There was oil and profit. But what about legitimate reasons?
What oil? We sure aren't getting any. And what profit? Haliburton? The big
"reconstruction contract conspiracy"? Did you know that after the war with
Serbia that *Clinton* gave Haliburton the exact same type of deal for the
reconstruction of the region?
As for legitimate reasons, they've been given, and there were plenty of
them.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:49 -0500,
rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> begin Error log for Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:24:56 -0800: Jim Richardson
> caused a Page Fault at address <82k8b2-...@grendel.myth>, details...
>
>>> You have no valid criticisms about Linux and OSS so you attack users
>>> and supporters of it? How pathetic.
>>>
>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>>
>> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush, then
>> you leap up and do exactly the same.
>>
>>
> It wasn't my intention to engage in any personal attack or criticisms, I
> was just demonstrating to the OP that the law of averages is against him
> in these regards if he should choose to base his attacks on the personal
> aspects of users of any particular platform.
>
I probably jumped to conclusions, sorry for that :)
>
>>> What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing. The
>>> individual opinions, activities and lifestyles of the people that use a
>>> particular piece of software have nothing at all to do with the
>>> software itself.
>>>
>> Or hardware.
>>
>>> Your personal political hangups are not relevant to the topic of
>>> Windows vs. Linux. It just goes to show how desperate M$ et al are
>>> when you resort to petty attacks, lies and FUDslinging.
>>>
>>>
>> Your post would have had more impact, if you hadn't engaged in the very
>> same act, you decry.
>
> Showing a person that their own camp is even more subject to the
> criticisms that they attempt to attribute to others doesn't consitute
> participation, just education.
>
true. As I said above, apologies for jumping the gun.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4g8xd90bcYOAWPYRAqy7AKCLGyTyzPoc8CFDvnnFEcpSHWEnRgCeKPLP
CiTavH3ka2C3LtBzs6P76Aw=
=2wj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You need to go back to the wizard, and ask for a brain this time.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:44:03 -0500,
rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> begin Error log for Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:24:17 -0800: Jim Richardson
> caused a Page Fault at address <12r8b2-...@grendel.myth>, details...
>
>>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>>>>
>>>> You complain about someone attacking others, wielding a wide brush,
>>>> then you leap up and do exactly the same.
>>>
>>> I thought that was a matter of simple statistics? Remove the NRA part
>>> (or was it the 'bushism' part that you triggered on?), and read what he
>>> wrote again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> the attempt to lump those he disagrees with, politcally, with child
>> molestors and other criminals.
>
> I didn't consider that someone would take umbrage to that statement. I
> was merely using and extending the comments of the OP in order to prove a
> point. I apologize for any implication of association, it was not at all
> intended.
>
> As far as my "disagreeing politically" with anyone, I don't know where
> that came from as I made no judgements or gave any opinions about such,
> such as the OP did. Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't liken someone to
> criminals and perverts simply because we happened to have different
> political outlooks. Geez, Jim, I would think you knew me better than
> that.
>
Yeah, I think I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Apologies.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4g9Yd90bcYOAWPYRAtmhAJoC+1uXPVCBWusJquGcuOBo/7tixACg43Cy
ntfq8NOjIYVYV+zWh/3D7Fc=
=4fAD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Just because I'm moody doesn't mean you're not irritating
GC
>>>Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>>
>>
>>http://fallujahinpictures.com/
>>
>>Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
>>like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
>
>
>
> One of the things that happen in war is that people die, and things are
> destroyed. If it didn't happen, it wouldn't...well, be war now would it?
> Now the question that needs to be asked is...what happened to cause these
> things to happen?
No. The question that needs to be asked is: is the occupation justified?
And given that the US government launched a unilateral invasion of a
soverign country in direct violation of international law, based on lies
and fabricated intel, the answer is No.
> Are they just there having one big target shoot
> slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
including the use of white phosphorus and torture. The US government
doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties -- sure sounds like
indiscriminate slaughter to me.
>
>>
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
>>>>>Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those
>>>>>people?
>>>>
>>>>No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
>>>
>>>>from sun stroke.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Or by Iraqi insurrgents. Or even disease.
>>
>>
>>Air strikes from 'coalition' forces accounted for most violent deaths,
>>according to the Lancet report.
>
>
>
> Oh now *that* is a load of bullshit. There is no way in hell that
> *100,000* civilians were killed in coalition air strikes, unless they were
> being used by Saddam as human shields around military targets. In other
> words, if they were killed, it's because Saddam rounded them up and put
> them around his equipment before the bombs fell.
>
> That's not *our* fault, those deaths are entirely blamed on Saddam.
That's patently ridiculous. The real reason is the extensive use of
cluster bombs all over Iraq.
>>
>>>>What a fucking liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What an idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>>>>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or
>>>>>>poisoned with depleted uranium.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People who join a military organization should expect that they just
>>>>>might end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are
>>>>>part-timers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go and tell that to this guy:
>>>>
>>>>http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Appeal to emotionalism noted.
>>
>>Nope. Just reality.
>
>
> No, you attempted to sway the argument by bringing in a bloody picture,
> without any context.
>
> Simple appeal to the emotional.
>
> It's all you nitwits have.
It's called humanity.
>
>>>Facts aren't changed.
>>
>>You don't have any facts.
>
>
> I do too have facts, you ignore them.
Where?
> You seem to be lacking in the fact department though.
>>>
>>>>And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat,
>>>
>>>
>>>Opinions at the time differed.
>>
>>I think you mean lies at the time have been subsequently exposed as
>>lies.
>
>
>
> Lies? No, misinterpretations, and faulty intel...
Out and out lies. All the lies have been exposed and documented. How
come you still believe that bullshit about "faulty intel"? Fox news again?
> And I might add, that Clinton, Gore, and most of the left prior to Bush's
> election believed that Saddam was a serious threat, with WMD...and yet,
> miraculously, as soon as Bush was elected Saddam just happens to not have
> any weapons, and all the intel that Clinton felt was reliable too is
> suddenly lies told by Bush the evil monster bent on world domination...
So? The Clinton administration was also an aggressive administration
that bombed Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Kosovo...
>
>>
>>>>no Al Qaeda
>>>>link,
>>>
>>>
>>>So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>no 9/11 link,
>>>
>>>
>>>So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>>
>>You're running out of reasons.
>
>
> No, just don't need any others.
>
>
>>>>in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at all other than to line
>>>>the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Liar. There were plenty of reasons.
>>
>>
>>There was oil and profit. But what about legitimate reasons?
>
>
>
> What oil? We sure aren't getting any. And what profit? Haliburton? The big
> "reconstruction contract conspiracy"? Did you know that after the war with
> Serbia that *Clinton* gave Haliburton the exact same type of deal for the
> reconstruction of the region?
What makes you think I believe Clinton is any better?
>
> As for legitimate reasons, they've been given, and there were plenty of
> them.
Where? Not a single one has been given.
Kadaitcha Man
measures for weighing the herring and kipper catches, yearned:
> No. The question that needs to be asked is: is the occupation
> justified? And given that the US government launched a unilateral
> invasion of a soverign country in direct violation of international
> law, based on lies and fabricated intel, the answer is No.
No. The question that needs to be asked is: is your statement justified,
backed up by solid argument and supporting evidence? "the answer is No."
The answer is also, you are a fuckwit.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:42:05 +0000,
GC <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Liam Slider wrote:
>>>>Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>>>
>>>
>>>http://fallujahinpictures.com/
>>>
>>>Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
>>>like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the things that happen in war is that people die, and things are
>> destroyed. If it didn't happen, it wouldn't...well, be war now would it?
>> Now the question that needs to be asked is...what happened to cause these
>> things to happen?
>
> No. The question that needs to be asked is: is the occupation justified?
> And given that the US government launched a unilateral invasion of a
> soverign country in direct violation of international law, based on lies
> and fabricated intel, the answer is No.
>
First, look up the definition of Unilateral, it doesn't mean what you
seem to think it means. Hint, the US, while the majority of forces in
the invasion of Iraq, were not alone.
Second, the invasion was supported by UN resolution(s)
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm> for some details.
> > Are they just there having one big target shoot
>> slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
>
> Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
> are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
> including the use of white phosphorus and torture. The US government
> doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties -- sure sounds like
> indiscriminate slaughter to me.
WP isn't a war crime, it's a weapon, a damn effective weapon. Torture?
any such claims should be investigated, and if found credible,
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Look up indiscriminate, again, a word you seem to misunderstand the
meaning of.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4kU5d90bcYOAWPYRArezAJ93TWHGDNOsRS4y5QfPOZt0KbL/wwCgmPjU
rR4Mx6LocdgRfaO5lTwXn60=
=1L+w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo.
deviance
> In article <d7fEd.2631$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> (Sun, 09
> Trolls hate everybody, including themselves.
> themselves.
>
There's a terrible sadness in this truth
--
My other computer is your XP box.
GC
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:42:05 +0000,
> GC <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Liam Slider wrote:
>>
>>>>>Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://fallujahinpictures.com/
>>>>
>>>>Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
>>>>like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One of the things that happen in war is that people die, and things are
>>>destroyed. If it didn't happen, it wouldn't...well, be war now would it?
>>>Now the question that needs to be asked is...what happened to cause these
>>>things to happen?
>>
>>No. The question that needs to be asked is: is the occupation justified?
>>And given that the US government launched a unilateral invasion of a
>>soverign country in direct violation of international law, based on lies
>>and fabricated intel, the answer is No.
>>
>
>
> First, look up the definition of Unilateral, it doesn't mean what you
> seem to think it means. Hint, the US, while the majority of forces in
> the invasion of Iraq, were not alone.
Hint: wake up and smell the coffee. The 'coalition' (i.e. the US and its
British mascot, as well as a few other small countries who would be more
accurately described as the "coalition of the bribed"), was a pure
fabrication.
There was no internation support -- or UN charter -- justifying the
unilateral invasion of Iraq.
> Second, the invasion was supported by UN resolution(s)
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm> for some details.
That's just a link to an article stating that the US government denies
the UN secretary-general's claim that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
It doesn't prove anything at all!
>>>Are they just there having one big target shoot
>>>slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
>>
>>Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
>>are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
>>including the use of white phosphorus and torture. The US government
>>doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties -- sure sounds like
>>indiscriminate slaughter to me.
>
>
>
> WP isn't a war crime, it's a weapon, a damn effective weapon.
WP is banned by the Geneva Convention. Its use is a crime against humanity.
> Torture?
> any such claims should be investigated, and if found credible,
> prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Your government should be tried for war crimes.
> Look up indiscriminate, again, a word you seem to misunderstand the
> meaning of.
Stop watching Fox news. Then you might actually have a homegrown thought
in your head instead of inanely parroting your government's propaganda.
chrisv
>Typical linux 'advocates'
*plonk*
Kumud Ranjan Supri Kumwamkia Sumu
*PLANK*
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider wrote:
>>>>Still waiting for proof of "brutal."
>>>
>>>
>>>http://fallujahinpictures.com/
>>>
>>>Then again, you'll probably think these images are fine. It'll look
>>>like "freedom on the march" or something to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the things that happen in war is that people die, and things are
>> destroyed. If it didn't happen, it wouldn't...well, be war now would it?
>> Now the question that needs to be asked is...what happened to cause these
>> things to happen?
>
> No. The question that needs to be asked is: is the occupation justified?
Given that we invaded the country, we do have an obligation to occupy it
afterward to ensure order is restored. That's international law.
Note, you never asked at this point if the invasion was justified, which
it also was.
> And given that the US government launched a unilateral invasion
The invasion was not unilateral. It's only because called that because
France, Germany, and Russia refused to join the coalition. It's being
called the "coalition of the bribed" because 3 countries didn't take part.
Countries, which for the most part, had either a financial interest in
making sure that the corrupt "oil for food" (in other words, oil for
palaces) program went forward, or a financial interest in maintaining the
military technology of Saddam's regime. Or both (in the case of France).
You want to look at corrupt national interests, governments causing mass
suffering for profit and oil...look to France and Russia.
> of a
> soverign country in direct violation of international law,
Wrong. The war was fully legal under international law. In fact, no nation
requires UN approval to declare war. The US is also a sovereign nation,
we are not governed by the UN. And furthermore, numerous resolutions, by
the UN, were backed with the threat of force....that the US was
technically long authorised to use. The fact that certain members of the
UN didn't think those threats were supposed to be taken seriously, and
wanted to revote before taking any action whatsoever, doesn't make the
actions of the US illegal.
> based on
> lies and fabricated intel, the answer is No.
Sure, "fabricated" intel.
>
> > Are they just there having one big target shoot
>> slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
>
> Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
> are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
> including the use of white phosphorus
Every nation on earth uses it. Napalm is also outlawed under the Geneva
Conventions. Shotguns are outlawed under the Geneva Conventions. The
Geneva Conventions has a lot ofz good stuff. Like not targetting
civilians, rules to limit civilian casualties, and no torture. But some of
the stuff is just completely anal retentive and *nobody* follows it.
Also, do you know what the penalty is for not following the Geneva
Conventions in war? It's not War Crimes trials....those are saved for the
truely horrific, like genocide. Nobody ever had a War Crimes trial over
the use of a shotgun. It's that any enemies you have no longer have to
obey the Geneva Conventions themselves when it comes to you. That's the
penalty.
> and torture.
Then there will be investigations surely, and anyone committing such acts
will be in serious trouble. I'm sure you have proof of this claim of
torture going on at the hands of US troops in Fallujah.
> The US government
> doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties
Is that our job, to conduct a regular census of the country?
In fact, AFAIK the civilian population was evacuated from Fallujah.
Anyone left there are people who knew what was coming, and stayed anyway.
Most are insurrgents. So most of the casualties certainly won't be
civilians.
> -- sure sounds like
> indiscriminate slaughter to me.
Please.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>100,000 civilians dead and counting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most sources disagree with *that* number, putting it much lower.
>>>>>>Also....do you have any proof whatsoever that the *US* killed those
>>>>>>people?
>>>>>
>>>>>No. Actually, it's perfectly feasible that 99.9% of those people died
>>>>
>>>>>from sun stroke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or by Iraqi insurrgents. Or even disease.
>>>
>>>
>>>Air strikes from 'coalition' forces accounted for most violent deaths,
>>>according to the Lancet report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh now *that* is a load of bullshit. There is no way in hell that
>> *100,000* civilians were killed in coalition air strikes, unless they
>> were being used by Saddam as human shields around military targets. In
>> other words, if they were killed, it's because Saddam rounded them up
>> and put them around his equipment before the bombs fell.
>>
>> That's not *our* fault, those deaths are entirely blamed on Saddam.
>
> That's patently ridiculous. The real reason is the extensive use of
> cluster bombs all over Iraq.
You will please provide proof og the extensive use of cluster bombs all
over Iraq. Populated areas only please.
>
>
>
>>>>>What a fucking liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>, not to mention the 1000+ dead US
>>>>>>>soldiers and thousands more who come back disfigured, maimed or
>>>>>>>poisoned with depleted uranium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People who join a military organization should expect that they just
>>>>>>might end up dead. It's an occupational hazard, even if they are
>>>>>>part-timers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Go and tell that to this guy:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue24/images/large/03f9.jpeg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Appeal to emotionalism noted.
>>>
>>>Nope. Just reality.
>>
>>
>> No, you attempted to sway the argument by bringing in a bloody picture,
>> without any context.
>>
>> Simple appeal to the emotional.
>>
>> It's all you nitwits have.
>
> It's called humanity.
It's called fuckwittery.
>
>
>
>>>>Facts aren't changed.
>>>
>>>You don't have any facts.
>>
>>
>> I do too have facts, you ignore them.
>
> Where?
I have been countering you with them.
>
>
> > You seem to be lacking in the fact department though.
> >>>
>>>>>And while you're at it tell him there was no WMD threat,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Opinions at the time differed.
>>>
>>>I think you mean lies at the time have been subsequently exposed as
>>>lies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lies? No, misinterpretations, and faulty intel...
>
> Out and out lies. All the lies have been exposed and documented. How
> come you still believe that bullshit about "faulty intel"? Fox news
> again?
I don't even get fox news.
>
>
>> And I might add, that Clinton, Gore, and most of the left prior to
>> Bush's election believed that Saddam was a serious threat, with
>> WMD...and yet, miraculously, as soon as Bush was elected Saddam just
>> happens to not have any weapons, and all the intel that Clinton felt
>> was reliable too is suddenly lies told by Bush the evil monster bent on
>> world domination...
>
> So? The Clinton administration was also an aggressive administration
> that bombed Iraq,
With good cause. Didn't do *enough* there.
> Sudan
Now *that* was a fuck up.
>, Afghanistan
Clinton did jack shit in Afghanistan.
>, Kosovo...
That was a humanitarian mission, where the Serbians were slaughtering the
people of Kosovo. European powers were doing their usual...nothing. There
were worries, quite justified from his Hitler-like speeches, that they
were going to be doing the same in country after country in the region...
...a region responsable for the *first* World War.
Granted, I think we should have stayed out ourselves, unless dragged in,
and let the do nothing Euros have a another big fucking mess to eventually
clean up. But I can at least see where Clinton was coming from on this one.
>
>
>
>>>>>no Al Qaeda
>>>>>link,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>no 9/11 link,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? That's not the only reason to go to war.
>>>
>>>You're running out of reasons.
>>
>>
>> No, just don't need any others.
>>
>>
>>>>>in fact no legitimate reason for the invasion at all other than to
>>>>>line the pockets of a bunch of neacon liars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Liar. There were plenty of reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>>There was oil and profit. But what about legitimate reasons?
>>
>>
>>
>> What oil? We sure aren't getting any. And what profit? Haliburton? The
>> big "reconstruction contract conspiracy"? Did you know that after the
>> war with Serbia that *Clinton* gave Haliburton the exact same type of
>> deal for the reconstruction of the region?
>
> What makes you think I believe Clinton is any better?
Because he's generally considered one of the cornerstones of the left.
>>
>> As for legitimate reasons, they've been given, and there were plenty of
>> them.
>
> Where? Not a single one has been given.
There have been plenty. First of all. Saddam was a destabalizing factor in
the region. Second, he was a rather constant pain in our collective ass,
and a constant violator of international law. He routinely violated UN
resolutions, and was in violation of the cease fire that ended Gulf I. The
UN *had* authorised use of force....and then the French came along and
called for more time, and called for more time, and then finally said they
wanted a revote, and then said they'd veto any use of force...
...but there had already been authorization given for such.
General Protection Fault
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:19:44 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:
> Given that we invaded the country, we do have an obligation to occupy it
> afterward to ensure order is restored. That's international law.
Great, then can you explain why Bush Sr. didn't have to follow that law,
but Bush Jr. does?
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:10PM up 48 days, 17:32, 0 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00
GreyCloud
> >>Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
> >>are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
> >>including the use of white phosphorus and torture. The US government
> >>doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties -- sure sounds like
> >>indiscriminate slaughter to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > WP isn't a war crime, it's a weapon, a damn effective weapon.
>
> WP is banned by the Geneva Convention. Its use is a crime against humanity.
>
Do you have a URL for this?
> > Torture?
> > any such claims should be investigated, and if found credible,
> > prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
>
> Your government should be tried for war crimes.
>
And who is going to do that? The inept and corrupt UN??
> > Look up indiscriminate, again, a word you seem to misunderstand the
> > meaning of.
>
> Stop watching Fox news. Then you might actually have a homegrown thought
> in your head instead of inanely parroting your government's propaganda.
Stop watching C da BS news and you won't get brainwashed.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
So your went and looked the word up! congratualtions. Now, I am sure
that you propoganda ministry wants you to ignore the countries included
in the coalition, but I don't think that's fair to the UK, Australia,
Poland, or the many others.
> There was no internation support -- or UN charter -- justifying the
> unilateral invasion of Iraq.
>
The UN Charter, is something else entirely.
>> Second, the invasion was supported by UN resolution(s)
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm> for some details.
>
> That's just a link to an article stating that the US government denies
> the UN secretary-general's claim that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
> It doesn't prove anything at all!
UN Resolution 1441, you did read that part too, right?
>
>>>>Are they just there having one big target shoot
>>>>slaughtering anyone they feel like? No, they are not.
>>>
>>>Really? The 'assault' on Fallujah was a massacre and a war crime. There
>>>are widespread reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by US forces,
>>>including the use of white phosphorus and torture. The US government
>>>doesn't even keep count of civilian casualties -- sure sounds like
>>>indiscriminate slaughter to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> WP isn't a war crime, it's a weapon, a damn effective weapon.
>
> WP is banned by the Geneva Convention. Its use is a crime against humanity.
>
No it is not. It is classed as "restricted" not banned. Please read the
documents you reference.
> > Torture?
>> any such claims should be investigated, and if found credible,
>> prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
>
> Your government should be tried for war crimes.
>
Anyone who has performed same, should indeed be held accountable for
same.
>> Look up indiscriminate, again, a word you seem to misunderstand the
>> meaning of.
>
> Stop watching Fox news. Then you might actually have a homegrown thought
> in your head instead of inanely parroting your government's propaganda.
Since I don't have a TV, it's amusing to hear your rant about how my TV
watching must the reason I disagree with your specious claims.
1) Read things, make sure you understand what you read.
2) Don't confuse things like Charters, with Resolutions, words mean
things.
3) Try not to foam at the mouth so much. It doesn't do your debate any
good.
4) take it elsewhere.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4tQHd90bcYOAWPYRAqQfAKDYg7pJNjJcGr4TRNAxv/6FtMcBfgCfWBKS
KfOivJIpDiJr3fU7Q8KwD1U=
=mLW7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If only there were some indication the universe was doing it on purpose
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:16:18 GMT,
General Protection Fault <gene...@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:19:44 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:
>> Given that we invaded the country, we do have an obligation to occupy it
>> afterward to ensure order is restored. That's international law.
>
> Great, then can you explain why Bush Sr. didn't have to follow that law,
> but Bush Jr. does?
>
Because we (foolishly) left SH in power the first time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB4umtd90bcYOAWPYRAoF0AKCurU1Eo89ge1CEdS0YUTPbLykunQCgiO3L
Low2oTrIiuBUIk7u+DB/TwQ=
=d7Ey
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If your voting could really change things, Congress
would make it illegal.
General Protection Fault
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:16:18 GMT,
> General Protection Fault <gene...@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:19:44 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:
>>> Given that we invaded the country, we do have an obligation to occupy it
>>> afterward to ensure order is restored. That's international law.
>>
>> Great, then can you explain why Bush Sr. didn't have to follow that law,
>> but Bush Jr. does?
>>
>
> Because we (foolishly) left SH in power the first time.
Thanks for the laugh. I have a good feeling Slider won't be responding to
this one.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
3:30PM up 48 days, 20:52, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Liam Slider
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:19:44 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:
>> Given that we invaded the country, we do have an obligation to occupy it
>> afterward to ensure order is restored. That's international law.
>
> Great, then can you explain why Bush Sr. didn't have to follow that law,
> but Bush Jr. does?
Because in Gulf I we libertared Kuwait, and merely turned over authority
back to the pre-existing govermment. When we moved into Iraq...we didn't
move that far and we never took the country, nor toppled the government.
We signed a quick cease fire and withdrew. We never *had* that particular
obligation under international law for the entire country. Although we did
have to ensure order in the southern cities that we moved through in Gulf
I, and we did. But we never moved into a full scale occupation because, in
all cases, the original governments were left intact.
That was not the case this time, different obligations under international
law come into play.
General Protection Fault
Good one! Your Republican card is in the mail.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
11:25PM up 49 days, 4:47, 0 users, load averages: 0.08, 0.02, 0.01
S.Heenan
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
> Go get a live, I want to read about advocacy, the pros and cons of OS. Not
> verbal abuse.
You don't know how to appreciate the little pleasures of life, like
discussing about nothing in COLA.
--
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jker...@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA
The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"
GreyCloud
>
> CG wrote:
>
> [Rubbish removed]
>
> Go get a live, I want to read about advocacy, the pros and cons of OS. Not
> verbal abuse.
>
http://rixstep.com/1/20040831,00.html
You might like this one about NT thru XP... and any
semblance of security.
jmende...@hotmail.com
Why would Linux users identify with a political party that stands for
Big Business. The philosophy of open source coincides with social
compassion and lending a hand to those who cannot afford the Microsoft
alternative. I think this guy has his priorities backwards, or doesn't
know a f*cking thing about politics.
Kadaitcha Man
seedy weasel, and person who attends on professional boxers to wipe up the
snot, poor mouthed:
> First off, this is the biggest load of you know what
No point fucking reading it then, eh.
--
"Slother" <sloth...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:10o5mdd...@corp.supernews.com:
> hear are some dicionanry definations
Kelsey Bjarnason
> I know that you people want to merge the idea of a computer operating
> system with something "bigger," and thus the attempts at
> "religionifying" or "politicizing" Linux.
>
> But the fact remains that it's JUST A COMPUTER PROGRAM.
>
> That's all.
In much the same way that Elizabeth Hurley is JUST A COLLECTION OF CARBON
MOLECULES, I agree. :)
chrisv
And she doesn't suck cock.
*plonk*
General Protection Fault
> *plonk*
Is that your signature, now?
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:45PM up 52 days, 18:07, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00
chrisv
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:39:56 +1100, chrisv wrote:
>> *plonk*
>
> Is that your signature, now?
What a silly question. You must think I'm some sort of idiot.
--
*plonk*
Kelsey Bjarnason
chrisv
*PLONK* FORGER
oops.
General Protection Fault
Yes, and I'm not alone.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:55PM up 52 days, 18:17, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
chrisv
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:52:24 -0800, chrisv wrote:
>> General Protection Fault wrote:
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:39:56 +1100, chrisv wrote:
>>>> *plonk*
>>>
>>> Is that your signature, now?
>>
>> What a silly question. You must think I'm some sort of idiot.
>
> Yes, and I'm not alone.
You most certainly are not. See...
*plonk*
Jesse F. Hughes
Your utter nonsense wasn't any better than his utter nonsense.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"How come there's still apes running around loose and there are
humans? Why did some of them decide to evolve and some did not? Did
they choose to stay as a monkey or what?" -Kans. Board of Ed member
Mark Kent
And water ... don't forget the water...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people
are right more than half of the time.
-- E. B. White
S.Heenan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:49 -0500,
> rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
> true. As I said above, apologies for jumping the gun.
--
"... naturally, we tend to be a bit reticent in admitting
to any failings Linux might have." -kier
Kadaitcha Man
person employed in the needlemaking trade to insert the needles into the
paper ready for sale, gnarred:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:49 -0500,
>> rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
Signatured. Ta.
--
The truth about Linux advocacy:
"The majority of people that support bushism are more than
likely Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA,
active participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc."
rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
S.Heenan
> S.Heenan, <she...@wahs.ac>, the saucer-eyed, homegrown hedge-pig, and
> person employed in the needlemaking trade to insert the needles into
> the paper ready for sale, gnarred:
>
>
>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:49 -0500,
>>> rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>
> Signatured. Ta.
More than fitting.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:39:56 +1100, chrisv wrote:
>> *plonk*
>
> Is that your signature, now?
I've been plonked by chrisv? Oh my, however will I recover? :)
Kadaitcha Man
gambling prostitute, choked out:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> S.Heenan, <she...@wahs.ac>, the saucer-eyed, homegrown hedge-pig,
>> and person employed in the needlemaking trade to insert the needles
>> into the paper ready for sale, gnarred:
>>
>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:32:49 -0500,
>>>> rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The majority of people that support bushism are more than likely
>>>>>>> Windows users, as are card carrying members of the NRA, active
>>>>>>> participants in hate groups, pedophiles, criminals, etc.
>>
>> Signatured. Ta.
>
>
> More than fitting.
I got another out of cola yesterday. Had you not replied to Eric
FuckingBorscht, I would not have seen his faux pas. Thanks. It's below.
--
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
"This brings us to the obviously hypocritical aspect that I
don't always admit to my own faults. That, however, has more
to do with the character of those I argue against than me."
Real meaning: His personality flaws are someone else's fault.
chrisv
>General Protection Fault wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 someone forging chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> Is that your signature, now?
>
>I've been plonked by chrisv? Oh my, however will I recover? :)
Cripes, haven't I been here long-enough that people would know that I
don't post things like "And she doesn't suck cock. *plonk*" in
response to a harmless post regarding Elizabeth Hurley?
tab
like he is "preaching" or "selling". This leads one to
think that he is just selling something, and full of the
Linux Bullshit like you are.
rapskat
Wha...??? Is that how your mind works?
Tasty raw giblets
> This is very on target.
And it only took you a day to figure it out.