Scary Article
Bob Kincade
time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
read it.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
How strange...
--
Kincade
George Graves
Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
civilian government.
--
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
Rick
> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>
>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> read it.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>
>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> How strange...
>
> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I think
> that after the crises were over, things would be returned to civilian
> government.
That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.
--
Rick
Martik
"I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at
peace"
Jim Polaski
Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
Remember the Boston Tea Party...
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
George Graves
Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws
that allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however,
those laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis passes
- of course the liberals in Congress might have changed that during
their watch without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it past the
bastards, but last time I checked, that was how it works. IOW, I think
this general is an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in the Republic
than he does.
Rick
He may know the government better than you do.
--
Rick
James Boswell
> - of course the liberals in Congress
You misspelt politicians.
If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...
-JB
Peter Hayes
> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>
>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> read it.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>
>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> How strange...
>
> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> civilian government.
History doesn't support that assertion.
--
Peter
Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
--
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
George Graves
"James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > - of course the liberals in Congress
>
> You misspelt politicians.
Sigh. OK, have it your way.
>
>
> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...
Unfortunately, the alternatives to our system of government are worse.
George Graves
I think, like most career military officers, he knows the military.
Period. That's why they rarely make good civilian leaders.
Rick
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>> read it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>
>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>> either. How strange...
>>>
>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> civilian government.
>>
>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
--
Rick
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>>
>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
governmental backing and haven.
The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
terrorism in the first place.
Snit
> Unfortunately the last line of the article is probably true:
>
> "I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at
> peace"
>
>
Sure we will. After Bush wins the "War on Terror" he will start the "War on
War".
Snit
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose to
>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>
>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>
> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven.
Partly true. We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
office to get rid of one terrorist. That is if the next presidential
election is run fairly.
Snit
It is not possible to win a war on a philosophy of fighting.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
Snit
Read Article VI of the constitution. Then read our treaties with countries
of the UN. Then read the UN definition of war criminal. Come back when you
are done.
>
>> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>
> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>
What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? Funny
thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
Ironic, eh?
In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
Rick
Florida followed its laws, jerk. People in Palm Beach are too stupid to
vote.
--
Rick
Snit
Can you quote the law that allows many people to be disallowed to vote
because they were erroneously placed on a felon list?
Snit
> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>
> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can attack they
> are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if he wants to win the
> war on terrorism
Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy of
fighting. It is like fighting a war on espionage.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
good god, where do you get this stuff? terrorism is not a "method" or
"philosophy" of fighting. you're probably thinking of guerilla warfare.
Snit
See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Some of the definitions that come up:
> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property
> to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This
> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and
> involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or
> coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social
> objectives.
By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism. Certainly seems
to be talking about a type of fighting
> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or
> threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on
> behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s)
> committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any
> section of the public in fear.
Again, supports my idea...
> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or
> military in non-military situations.
Still...
> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in
> order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in
> nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
intimidation and fear against a group.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-...@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "Harri Mellin" <at...@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>>>
>>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if
>>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>>>
>>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy
>>> of fighting. It is like fighting a war on espionage.
>>
>> good god, where do you get this stuff? terrorism is not a "method"
>> or "philosophy" of fighting. you're probably thinking of guerilla
>> warfare.
>>
> See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
i read the first 5 definition, and none of them support the definition you
gave.
> Some of the definitions that come up:
>
>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
>> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
>> population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political
>> or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1)
>> Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2)
>> The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
>> are committed in support of political or social objectives.
again, doesn't match your definition.
> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
> Certainly seems
> to be talking about a type of fighting
no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*. it's
talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the really important
one) the *intent* of the actions.
>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence
>> and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether
>> acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any
>> organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions,
>> ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to
>> influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of
>> the public in fear.
>
> Again, supports my idea...
no, it doesn't. again, it's talking about the goals. not the methods.
>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>
> Still...
you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense on what?
>> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against
>> civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious
>> or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or
>> coercion or instilling fear
>
> Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
> intimidation and fear against a group.
no, it's not. it's actions used for intimidation or fear alright, but
there's no mention of the methods. could be dropping an a-bomb, a gaggle
samurais with swords, suicide bombers, kidnappings, etc. *those* are
examples of *methods* that could be used to carry out terrorism.
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >George Graves wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>
> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >>> read it.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>
> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
> >>> How strange...
> >>
> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> civilian government.
> >
> >History doesn't support that assertion.
>
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
on terror.
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
ZnU
"James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > - of course the liberals in Congress
>
> You misspelt politicians.
George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his
standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very
least.
> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...
--
Snit
"Use of force" (method - though vague). "to intimidate or coerce"
(philosophy, or perhaps reason)
>
>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism. Certainly seems
>> to be talking about a type of fighting
>>
> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*. it's talking
> about the legality of the actions, and (here's the really important one) the
> *intent* of the actions.
Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
>
>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or
>>> threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or
>>> on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s)
>>> committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes,
>>> including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>
>> Again, supports my idea...
>>
> no, it doesn't. again, it's talking about the goals. not the methods.
"use of force or violence" (method) "committed for political, religions,
ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
>
>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or
>>> military in non-military situations.
>>>
>> Still...
>>
> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense on what?
Where did I claim that? I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.
>
>>> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in
>>> order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in
>>> nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
>>>
>> Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
>> intimidation and fear against a group.
>>
> no, it's not. it's actions used for intimidation or fear alright, but there's
> no mention of the methods.
The methods are violence. Not very specific, but I doubt most people would
think that terrorism is based on some specific act of violence anyway.
> could be dropping an a-bomb, a gaggle samurais with swords, suicide bombers,
> kidnappings, etc. *those* are examples of *methods* that could be used to
> carry out terrorism.
All of those are specific examples of acts of bringing violence (or the
threat of violence) to another. If you mistook my meaning to be a specific
act of violence, I hope that clears up what I meant. I can see where I was
not very specific.
Snit
> In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>>>>> How strange...
>>>>
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>>
>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
> The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
> on terror.
Sure there will be; if it ever becomes politically advantageous for Bush to
declare that.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <bq3b4c$pd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> "James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> >
> > You misspelt politicians.
>
> George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his
> standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very
> least.
I was also joking, but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
George Graves
Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
terrorist act too high. Right now, that's not an option. Most people
wouldn't go for such a policy. But after a few more 9/11's -r worse ...
who can say?
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
ed
no, "use of force" is not a "method" of fighting in normal-people world.
> "to intimidate or coerce"
> (philosophy, or perhaps reason)
"to intimidate" is not a philosophy, nor is "coerce".
>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>
>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>> really important one) the
>> *intent* of the actions.
>
> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.
>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>
>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>
>> no, it doesn't. again, it's talking about the goals. not the
>> methods.
>
> "use of force or violence" (method) "committed for political,
> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own definitions
to words that are already well defined. but i thought we were going to use
the real definitions. *shrug*.
>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>
>>> Still...
>>>
>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>> on what?
>
> Where did I claim that? I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.
you used a definition that stated terrorism was "the unlawful use of force
against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population...", then followed up with "by that definition, Bush is
having the US commit terrorism." i suppose you could have been referring to
property, but the common usage these days doesn't typically refer to that;
if that's what you were referring to, i misintereted your statement.
<snip tediousness>
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
Snit
Great. Now I will have nightmares.
Snit
Talk to Gandhi about that. :) Or look below...
>
>> "to intimidate or coerce"
>> (philosophy, or perhaps reason)
>
> "to intimidate" is not a philosophy, nor is "coerce".
Ask Gandhi or MLK. I *think* they would take my side.
>
>>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>>
>>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>>> really important one) the
>>> *intent* of the actions.
>>
>> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
>
> but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.
I may have been essentially correct without being technically correct... OK.
>
>>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>>
>>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>>
>>> no, it doesn't. again, it's talking about the goals. not the
>>> methods.
>>
>> "use of force or violence" (method) "committed for political,
>> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
>
> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own definitions
> to words that are already well defined. but i thought we were going to use
> the real definitions. *shrug*.
What word do you disagree with? If you want to get something done, you can
do many things: publicize it, use force, etc. Of course, there are many
specific actions that can fit each method. Now if you have already assumed
violence, then by "method" you would want something more specific.
>
>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>
>>>> Still...
>>>>
>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>>> on what?
>>
>> Where did I claim that? I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.
>
> you used a definition that stated terrorism was "the unlawful use of force
> against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
> civilian population...", then followed up with "by that definition, Bush is
> having the US commit terrorism." i suppose you could have been referring to
> property, but the common usage these days doesn't typically refer to that;
> if that's what you were referring to, i misintereted your statement.
Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up. Also, the
definition you quote does not differentiate between civilians and
militaries, as your question does.
The US has used unlawful force against people and property. The war with
Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the UN, and, based
Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our "Supreme Law". I do not
have the exact treaty it goes against, but clearly we did go against the UN
(Using the excuse that Iraq was going against the UN. Ironic.).
Snit
OK. How about leaving out the whole South. Let them have their own
country.
James Boswell
How about actually having a system of government that operates within it's
constitutionally mandated limits?
-JB
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 10:41 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEAD75B.327F3%snit-...@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:09 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-...@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>>>
>>>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>>>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>>>> really important one) the
>>>> *intent* of the actions.
>>>
>>> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
>>
>> but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.
>
> I may have been essentially correct without being technically
> correct... OK.
*rolls eyes*.
>>>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>>>
>>>> no, it doesn't. again, it's talking about the goals. not the
>>>> methods.
>>>
>>> "use of force or violence" (method) "committed for political,
>>> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
>>
>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>> definitions to words that are already well defined. but i thought
>> we were going to use the real definitions. *shrug*.
>
> What word do you disagree with? If you want to get something done,
> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc. Of course,
> there are many specific actions that can fit each method. Now if you
> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
> something more specific.
of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
*FORCE*
>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Still...
>>>>>
>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>>>> on what?
>>>
>>> Where did I claim that? I just was quoting a definition of
>>> terrorism.
>>
>> you used a definition that stated terrorism was "the unlawful use
>> of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
>> government, the civilian population...", then followed up with "by
>> that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism." i suppose
>> you could have been referring to property, but the common usage
>> these days doesn't typically refer to that; if that's what you were
>> referring to, i misintereted your statement.
>
> Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up.
> Also, the definition you quote does not differentiate between
> civilians and
> militaries, as your question does.
ay caramba; you also defined it as "Acts of murder and destruction
deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military
situations". i didn't realize i had to quote everything you said 2 minutes
ago!
> The US has used unlawful force against people and property. The war
> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
> "Supreme Law". I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
> going against the UN. Ironic.).
not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense because
iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any classified info on any
intellegience the administration may have had, but i would *like* to think
they had / have better information than has been publicly disclosed. the
united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o security
council resolution.
Snit
People would argue over what that means. Look at the never ending argument
over the second amendment, for example.
Snit
> In news:BBEAE39F.32810%snit-...@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>>> definitions to words that are already well defined. but i thought
>>> we were going to use the real definitions. *shrug*.
>>
>> What word do you disagree with? If you want to get something done,
>> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc. Of course,
>> there are many specific actions that can fit each method. Now if you
>> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
>> something more specific.
>
> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
> *FORCE*
Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
method/philosophy of fighting. It is like fighting a war on espionage."
There are non-violent methods to fight things.
>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>
>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>>>>> on what?
>>>>
>>>> Where did I claim that? I just was quoting a definition of
>>>> terrorism.
>>>
>>> you used a definition that stated terrorism was "the unlawful use
>>> of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
>>> government, the civilian population...", then followed up with "by
>>> that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism." i suppose
>>> you could have been referring to property, but the common usage
>>> these days doesn't typically refer to that; if that's what you were
>>> referring to, i misintereted your statement.
>>
>> Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up.
>> Also, the definition you quote does not differentiate between
>> civilians and
>> militaries, as your question does.
>
> ay caramba; you also defined it as "Acts of murder and destruction
> deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military
> situations". i didn't realize i had to quote everything you said 2 minutes
> ago!
Full original quote:
-----
> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property
> to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This
> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and
> involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or
> coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social
> objectives.
By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism. Certainly seems
to be talking about a type of fighting
-----
Notice the use of force can be against persons *or* property to intimidate
... a government *or* a civilian population... In the furtherance of ...
objectives.
Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
- the activities are illegal
- actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
- the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
>> The US has used unlawful force against people and property. The war
>> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
>> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
>> "Supreme Law". I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
>> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
>> going against the UN. Ironic.).
>
> not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense because
> iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any classified info on any
> intellegience the administration may have had, but i would *like* to think
> they had / have better information than has been publicly disclosed.
As would I. *IF* they can show that they had reliable information that Iraq
was in the midst of planning, or even heavily supporting, a direct attack
against the US, then *maybe* what our military has done may be justifiable.
So far, despite the huge political gains that would offer Bush, he has not
shown this. Perhaps he is waiting for a time closer to the election?
> the united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o security
> council resolution.
Even if there is classified info, you would think we would have shared it
with the UN as we looked for support of the war. Not only did the UN not
see a good enough reason, few countries have shown us much support. *If*
this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must be
highly classified and/or of questionable value.
ZnU
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-7A7EB3.2...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > "James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > >
> > > You misspelt politicians.
> >
> > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his
> > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very
> > least.
>
> I was also joking,
Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in
total seriousness.
Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who
thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.
> but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton
advocated?
ZnU
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
It will never be in the long-term interests of the neocons to declare
that this nation is no longer under threat.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 11:32 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEAE39F.32810%snit-...@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>
>>>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>>>> definitions to words that are already well defined. but i thought
>>>> we were going to use the real definitions. *shrug*.
>>>
>>> What word do you disagree with? If you want to get something done,
>>> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc. Of course,
>>> there are many specific actions that can fit each method. Now if
>>> you
>>> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
>>> something more specific.
>>
>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method"
>> of
>> *FORCE*
>
> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
> method/philosophy of fighting. It is like fighting a war on
> espionage."
>
> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
in the context of terrorism?
<snip>
> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
> - the activities are illegal
what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.
>>> The US has used unlawful force against people and property. The war
>>> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
>>> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
>>> "Supreme Law". I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
>>> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
>>> going against the UN. Ironic.).
>>
>> not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense
>> because iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any
>> classified info on any intellegience the administration may have
>> had, but i would *like* to think they had / have better information
>> than has been publicly disclosed.
>
> As would I. *IF* they can show that they had reliable information
> that Iraq was in the midst of planning, or even heavily supporting, a
> direct attack against the US, then *maybe* what our military has done
> may be justifiable.
again, as i said, there may be plenty of intellegience that shows all that,
but the public isn't privy to it. i have a hard time believing the
administration *doesn't* have good info, given the ramnifications of that.
> So far, despite the huge political gains that would offer Bush, he
> has not shown this. Perhaps he is waiting for a time closer to the
> election?
no, if it's classified and sensitive, it's a felony to disclose the
information, with no statute of limitation, even if you're the president and
would gain politically from it.
>> the united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o
>> security council resolution.
>
> Even if there is classified info, you would think we would have
> shared it
> with the UN as we looked for support of the war.
why would you think that? there are many countries in the UN that are not
allies of the US, even on the security council. you know, countries like
syria. you seem to think the UN is an alliance like NATO rather than a
large world-gov't with many countries w/ varying and conflicting political
agendas.
> Not only did the UN
> not
> see a good enough reason, few countries have shown us much support.
the UN is a political organization; it's a world congress. and like our
congress, there's much squablling and bad decision making, and you should
not make judgements of whether something is good and right based on the
actions of the organization.
> *If*
> this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must
> be
> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
highly classified, versus just a little classified? either way, disclosing
it before it's declassified is a felony.
James Boswell
>> How about actually having a system of government that operates within
>> it's constitutionally mandated limits?
>>
> People would argue over what that means. Look at the never ending
> argument over the second amendment, for example.
True that,
you can file me in the 'minimal government plz thx' pile however.
-JB (for the record, I'm English.. but the petty partisanship that goes on
the states gets pretty frickin' ludicrus.... and no, I didn't vote for Blair
over here either.)
ZnU
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
in next week.
Peter Hayes
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>> read it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>
>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>> either. How strange...
>>>
>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> civilian government.
>>
>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
These wars had well defined starts and ends. The "War on Terror" could be
said to have begun on 9/11. The end will not be clearly defined, which is
an excellent reason for governments to retain powers that otherwise would
be relinquished. The Patriot Act, for example.
Another example - UK Income Tax was introduced to pay for the 100 years
war. It's still with us (the tax, that is - wars have come and gone).
--
Peter
Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
C Lund
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > Still...
> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense on what?
The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
wouldn't they do so again?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Hayes
> In article <pan.2003.11.27...@none.com>,
> Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>> > to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >
>> >>George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>> >>>> ought to read it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >>>> either. How strange...
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >>> civilian government.
>> >>
>> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> >
>> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>
> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> terrorist act too high.
Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred, fuelling
further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
Peter Hayes
> In article <pan.2003.11.26....@none.com>,
> Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:17:07 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.26....@none.com>,
>> > Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> > Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>> >> >> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>> >> >> ought to read it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >> >> either. How strange...
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >> > think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >> > civilian government.
>> >>
>> >> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once
>> >> rights are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by
>> >> the people.
>> >
>> > Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws
>> > that allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however,
>> > those laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis
>> > passes - of course the liberals in Congress might have changed that
>> > during their watch without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it
>> > past the bastards, but last time I checked, that was how it works.
>> > IOW, I think this general is an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in
>> > the Republic than he does.
>>
>> He may know the government better than you do.
>
> I think, like most career military officers, he knows the military.
> Period. That's why they rarely make good civilian leaders.
Eisenhower?
Colin Powell seems to be the only member of the current administration with
any sense.
Peter Hayes
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>
>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>
> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven.
> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
> terrorism in the first place.
that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.
C Lund
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>
> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> terrorist act too high.
Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.
> Right now, that's not an option. Most people
> wouldn't go for such a policy. But after a few more 9/11's -r worse ...
> who can say?
Indeed.
> --
> George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven.
> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
> terrorism in the first place.
In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against
terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
ZnU
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
Because it's not useful?
Snit
> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-...@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
>>> *FORCE*
>>
>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
>> method/philosophy of fighting. It is like fighting a war on
>> espionage."
>>
>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
>
> in the context of terrorism?
In the context of fighting for something. Terrorism is one method of
fighting for a position. It uses violence (or uses the threat of violence).
When people want something badly, their are many methods or working toward
it. I do not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.
>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
>> - the activities are illegal
>
> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
No, I am simply answering your question. You had questioned my statement
that Bush fit the definition of terrorist as defined by the FBI. That
definition is:
----
the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the
furtherance of political or social objectives. This definition includes
three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of
force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
are committed in support of political or social objectives.
----
I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your response.
>> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
>> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
>
> these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.
Those were the "assumptions" in the definition that showed that Bush could
be seen as a terrorist. You have refuted the first point, by saying you do
not think our attack against Iraq was illegal (or hope it was not anyway).
I conceded that *if* that can be shown, then he may not fit this definition.
That evidence, however, despite huge political gains (both internal to the
US and around the world) has not been made by Bush or his administration. I
have offered the possibility that he is withholding this information (if it
does exist) to release it closer to the election, to better his chances of
getting elected to a second term.
>> *If* this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must be
>> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
>
> highly classified, versus just a little classified? either way, disclosing
> it before it's declassified is a felony.
Who has the ability to determine what is classified? Oh, and yes, there are
different levels of classification.
Snit
Right - you can not win a war against a method or philosophy of achieving a
goal.
Snit
> In article <clund-5A6B97....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>
>>>> Still...
>>>
>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>>> on what?
>>
>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>> wouldn't they do so again?
>
> Because it's not useful?
Then why do the terrorists do it? Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
terrorizes a population.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> > > > be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > >
> > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? Funny
> > > thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
> > > would
> > > have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
> > > have.
> > > Ironic, eh?
> > >
> > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people
> > > who
> > > were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> >
> > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
>
> I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
> in next week.
Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country
wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are
plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo
choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run
on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring
the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social
Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.
Snit
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> How about actually having a system of government that operates within
>>> it's constitutionally mandated limits?
>>>
>> People would argue over what that means. Look at the never ending
>> argument over the second amendment, for example.
>
> True that,
>
> you can file me in the 'minimal government plz thx' pile however.
>
I am in the "let's have government and business get a divorce" camp. Seems
the Liberals and Conservatives want the marriage - they just fight over who
gets to wear the pants.
Snit
> In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>>>
>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? Funny
>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>>> Ironic, eh?
>>>
>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>>
>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
>
> I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
> in next week.
Sounds good to me. An overgrown debate team member is better than an
overgrown frat boy in my book.
Snit
And strangely enough he decided the war on Iraq made sense the same time
Bush decided to fund health issues in Africa, Powell's pet cause. Funny how
politics work, isn't it.
Snit
I say let'm. And I was born there...
Snit
Granted, I would vote for Donald Duck to get Bush out of office, but I hope
you are not right...
ZnU
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-CD08EB.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not
> > > > > need to be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > >
> > > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being
> > > > counted? Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way
> > > > Bush had wanted, Gore would have won, but had they been
> > > > recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have. Ironic, eh?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of
> > > > people who were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being
> > > > identified as felons.
> > >
> > > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> >
> > I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear
> > Gore in next week.
>
> Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.
ZnU
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
'decadent' western culture, for instance.
ZnU
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
There's very little chance of Hillary running in 2004. That's just a
scary story Republicans tell their base in order to drumb up
contributions.
George Graves
C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-AAC7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >
> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> > terrorist act too high.
>
> Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.
They haven't done it with ENOUGH commitment, they just give the policy
lip service. You can't do that. You've got to do what the Nazis did in
occupied territories. If people misbehaved, you lined the entire town up
against the wall and shot them all. You have to be ruthless. You have to
convince terrorists of two things: (1) They won't go to Paradise if
they're caught because we're gonna shoot them with pork-fat coverd
bullets and sew their bodies in pig-skins, and (2), we will kill eveyone
in the village from which they came including their wives, sweethearts,
children and parents and that they will similarily be sewn into pigskin
body bags so that they don't go to Paradise either. This will put quite
a dent in the terrorist's martyr recruitment.
I.E. find each terrorist group's weaknesses and fears and exploit them
to the hilt (terrorists won't always be Muslims, you know, so this above
'example' will only work on Muslims). We aren't ready to that ....yet.
George Graves
wrote:
Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire Palestinian
villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with pork-fat covered
bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin sacks. I must've
missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I mean BE RUTHLESS.
It's the only way to win against this sort of thing. Find what makes
them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it until they figure
it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the point where the
bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a few more 9/11s or
worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their tune.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-49E7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-7A7EB3.2...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > "James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > >
> > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > >
> > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his
> > > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very
> > > least.
> >
> > I was also joking,
>
> Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in
> total seriousness.
Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of
Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the
gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they
came! As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you
know how it goes. :->
> Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who
> thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.
>
> > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
>
> Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton
> advocated?
He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and selling military secrets
to the Chinese Communists for a start.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <znu-94BC96.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-49E7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <znu-7A7EB3.2...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>> > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>> > > "James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
>> > > >
>> > > > You misspelt politicians.
>> > >
>> > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his
>> > > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very
>> > > least.
>> >
>> > I was also joking,
>>
>> Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in
>> total seriousness.
>
>Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of
>Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the
>gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they
>came! As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you
>know how it goes. :->
You seem to be confusing conservatives and xenophobes, George. While
I'd like to see immigration regulated tighter I also think its high
time we caught our laws up to reality and instituted some kind of
guest worker program.
>
>> Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who
>> thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.
>>
>> > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
>>
>> Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton
>> advocated?
>
>He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and selling military secrets
>to the Chinese Communists for a start.
I don't think anyone is in favor of unbrideled immigration and
Clinton's selling secrets to the Chinese was for his personal gain.
IOW it was a symptom of his personal ammorality not his politics.
I truly believe that Clinton has zero political beliefs.
I think he got his start and established himself in an age when
liberaslism reigned supreme so that's what he went with. After that he
had to stick with it because a sudden jump to conservative would have
harmed his career more than helped it.
I don't think Bill Clinton gives a damn about anything except Bill
Clinton.
--
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose to
>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>
>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>
>>> Partly true. We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>
>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
>
>Read Article VI of the constitution. Then read our treaties with countries
>of the UN. Then read the UN definition of war criminal. Come back when you
>are done.
Why don't you point out the relevant passages. I'm certainly not going
to read every treaty we've entered into.
>>> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>
>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>
>What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?
Florida's laws state the time frame that a recount has to occur in.
The Democrats insisted on taking longer even though it was illegal.
> Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>Ironic, eh?
I don';t recall seeing that anywhere. Several liberal newspapers did a
recount after the fact and everyone of them found that Bush was the
winner.
>In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
Talk to the independent contractor who made the mistake.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>> > > be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>> > >
>> > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? Funny
>> > thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>> > have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>> > Ironic, eh?
>> >
>> > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>> > were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>>
>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
>
>I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
>in next week.
That's just what we need - an absolute retard whose response to
September 11 would have been to seize everyone's guns and ban motor
vehicles.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv...@4ax.com>,
You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>George Graves wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.11.27...@none.com>,
>> Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>>> > to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> >
>>> >>George Graves wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>> >>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>> >>>> ought to read it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>> >>>> either. How strange...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> >>> civilian government.
>>> >>
>>> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> >
>>> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>
>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>
>> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>> terrorist act too high.
>
>Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
>outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred, fuelling
>further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
Israel is nowhere employing that tactic. Now the one group that is
employing that tactic is having quite a bit of success with it. That
group is, of course, Muslim governments.
Syria had a radical movement brewing. Assad found out where it was,
sealed off the town and had his army shell it into dust.
Both Turkey and Algeria unleashed paramilitary death squads againt
the families of known terrorists within their borders to control
their problems.
These guys may be willing to die for Allah but it seems that knowing
that Mommy and Daddy will beaten to death and little sister will spend
her last moments on earth being passed around like a party favor kinda
puts a damper on their enthusiasm.
Where exactly has Israel done anything even close to that?
ZnU
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-94BC96.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgravesnos-49E7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <znu-7A7EB3.2...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > > "James Boswell" <JamesB...@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > >
> > > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > >
> > > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that
> > > > by his standards, everyone in office in this country is a
> > > > liberal at the very least.
> > >
> > > I was also joking,
> >
> > Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post,
> > seemingly in total seriousness.
>
> Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of
> Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the
> gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they
> came
I think the word you're looking for it "reactionary", not "conservative".
> As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you
> know how it goes. :->
>
> > Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone
> > who thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become
> > demagnetized.
> >
> > > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
> >
> > Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that
> > Clinton advocated?
>
> He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and
Immigration has served this country very well. Is that all you've got?
> selling military secrets to the Chinese Communists for a start.
Last time I checked, that wasn't part of liberal policy. And anyway,
I'd expect more action than we've seen if the claim actually had any
merit.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <hOexb.59874$sn3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>> > Still...
>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense on what?
>
>The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
Viet Cong guerrillas weren't exactly civilians.
> Why wouldn't they do so again?
I would hope that they would target and eliminate the leadership of
any group that was opposing us with arms.
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:55:16 -0500, ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article
> ><gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> >> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not
> >> > > need to be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> >> > >
> >> > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being
> >> > counted? Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way
> >> > Bush had wanted, Gore would have won, but had they been
> >> > recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have. Ironic, eh?
> >> >
> >> > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of
> >> > people who were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being
> >> > identified as felons.
> >>
> >> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> >
> >I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear
> >Gore in next week.
>
> That's just what we need - an absolute retard whose response to
> September 11 would have been to seize everyone's guns and ban motor
> vehicles.
Gore supported the action in Afghanistan.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>"Rick" <ri...@none.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:26 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:53:53 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net>
>>>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>>
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>>
>>>> Partly true. We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>>
>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get tired
>>> of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him Hitler? That's
>>> always entertaining too.
>>>
>>>> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>>
>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to be
>>> told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>
>> Florida followed its laws, jerk.
Only because the Supreme Court of the United States made them. The
Florida courts let the Democrats illegally extend the time for
recounts with no sign that they were ever going to put and end to it.
> People in Palm Beach are too stupid to vote.
Actually Florida's amount of miscast ballots in 2000 was right in line
with the national average. All of that crap was a cover story for
getting the recounts going that the Democrats started laying the
groundwork for before Florida's polls even closed.
>Can you quote the law that allows many people to be disallowed to vote
>because they were erroneously placed on a felon list?
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
>> us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>
>>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>
>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>
>>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>
>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> governmental backing and haven.
>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> terrorism in the first place.
>
>that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
>isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.
No it isn't but its the lack of dignity and opportunity under
dictatorship that drives many to join his cause. With a democracy in
place the people would have both and his recruiting drives would be
but a trickle.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >George Graves wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> >>> read it.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >>>
>> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> >>> How strange...
>> >>
>> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >> civilian government.
>> >
>> >History doesn't support that assertion.
>>
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
>on terror.
Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
killing Muslims.
Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
nothing.
If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
won't occur.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>>
>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>These wars had well defined starts and ends. The "War on Terror" could be
>said to have begun on 9/11. The end will not be clearly defined, which is
>an excellent reason for governments to retain powers that otherwise would
>be relinquished. The Patriot Act, for example.
The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
to be. To find actual horrorific violations of basic rights you need
to look to the War On Drugs.
To fight it police were given the power to seize every single thing
you own without due process or legal recourse so long as they
'suspected' that you were involved with drugs. They didn't even have
to charge you with a crime. And to top it off the police were given a
share of the proceeds so they have an incentive to steal. And they do.
We have people doing what amounts to life in prison on drug charges
solely on the word of jailhouse snitches.
To me looking at library records or getting a wiretap on a cellphone
with a warrant doesn't compare to things like that.
>
>Another example - UK Income Tax was introduced to pay for the 100 years
>war. It's still with us (the tax, that is - wars have come and gone).
Yeah and our death taxes and luxury taxes were invoked to pay for WWI.
The war and its debts are long gone but the taxes remain.
But a tax isn't a suspension of civil rights.
Mayor of R'lyeh
But would have he iniated it if it were his call? Everything in his
record points to 'No'.
Snit
> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "ZnU" <z...@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
>>
>>> In article <clund-5A6B97....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>
>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
>>>>> on what?
>>>>
>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>
>>> Because it's not useful?
>>
>> Then why do the terrorists do it? Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
>> terrorizes a population.
>
> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
Snit
I do not have the research at my fingertips... Perhaps I will dig it up for
you later to be more specific. But we clearly did not get UN support for
our war on Iraq; can we at least agree to that?
>
>>>> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>>
>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>>
>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?
>
> Florida's laws state the time frame that a recount has to occur in.
> The Democrats insisted on taking longer even though it was illegal.
OK. Can you answer my question?
>
>> Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
>> would have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
>> have. Ironic, eh?
>
> I don';t recall seeing that anywhere. Several liberal newspapers did a
> recount after the fact and everyone of them found that Bush was the
> winner.
Based on the recounts, each would have had the other elected. The headlines
rarely said that, just that Bush would have won had Gore's recount been
done. And people refer to it as the "Liberal Media".
>
>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>
> Talk to the independent contractor who made the mistake.
And find the law that allows the state to follow any independent contractor
in denying votes.
Snit
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 02:55:16 -0500, ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>>>>
>>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? Funny
>>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>>>> Ironic, eh?
>>>>
>>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>>>
>>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
>>
>> I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
>> in next week.
>
> That's just what we need - an absolute retard whose response to
> September 11 would have been to seize everyone's guns and ban motor
> vehicles.
>
Can you support this? When has Gore stated he would do this?
Snit
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv...@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>>> terrorism in the first place.
>>
>> In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against
>> terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
>
> You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
>
I have never heard Bush or anyone in his administration claim that they were
going after only big terrorist organizations, only that they had a "war on
terror". Idiotic rhetoric...
ZnU
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
those goals in any direct way.
ZnU
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
How about "not brainwashed into believing that multiculturalism actually
works."
> > As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you
> > know how it goes. :->
> >
> > > Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone
> > > who thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become
> > > demagnetized.
> > >
> > > > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
> > >
> > > Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that
> > > Clinton advocated?
> >
> > He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and
>
> Immigration has served this country very well. Is that all you've got?
Sure it did, when the immigrants came mostly from Europe. Unfortunately,
the current wave are told that they do not have to assimilate, in fact,
we'll change our laws to accommodate them (like the new law in Florida
which says that Muslim female driver's license applicants can keep their
veils on when being photographed!). We'll print ballots in YOUR
language, and if you don't want to become Americans, that's OK too. You
can stay here. Besides, our country has enough people in it, we don't
need more. I don't want more. Most conservatives I know feel the same
way.
> > selling military secrets to the Chinese Communists for a start.
> Last time I checked, that wasn't part of liberal policy.
It's part of Commie policy and to me there's little to choose between
them.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-92A9...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Partly true. We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> > > >> office to get rid of one terrorist. That is if the next presidential
> > > >> election is run fairly.
> > > >
> > > > Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> > >
> > > Great. Now I will have nightmares.
> >
> > Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo
> > choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run
> > on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring
> > the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social
> > Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.
>
> There's very little chance of Hillary running in 2004. That's just a
> scary story Republicans tell their base in order to drumb up
> contributions.
Remember this conversation. I'm betting that Hilary gets drafted on the
third Commie Party - er- Democratic party convention ballot next summer.
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:50 AM:
>
> > In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:40 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <ri...@none.com> chose to bless
> >>>>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <m...@privacy.net>
> >>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> Bob Kincade <B...@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >>>>>>> War.
> >>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>>>> governmental backing and haven.
> >>>>
> >>>> Partly true. We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >>>> office to get rid of one terrorist. That is if the next presidential
> >>>> election is run fairly.
> >>>
> >>> Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> >>
> >> Great. Now I will have nightmares.
> >
> > Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo
> > choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run
> > on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring
> > the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social
> > Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.
>
> Granted, I would vote for Donald Duck to get Bush out of office, but I hope
> you are not right...
Yeah, I think Donald would make a better president than Bush.
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:46 AM:
>
> > In article <BBEAE3D5.32811%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-...@cableone.net>
> >>>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
> >>>>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
> >>>>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Read Article VI of the constitution. Then read our treaties with
> >>>> countries
> >>>> of the UN. Then read the UN definition of war criminal. Come back when
> >>>> you
> >>>> are done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> >>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> >>>>>
> >>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?
> >>>> Funny
> >>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
> >>>> would
> >>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
> >>>> have.
> >>>> Ironic, eh?
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people
> >>>> who
> >>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> >>>
> >>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> >>
> >> OK. How about leaving out the whole South. Let them have their own
> >> country.
> >
> > They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country
> > wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are
> > plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!
>
> I say let'm. And I was born there...
Me too.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-4F3B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-CD08EB.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <gmgravesnos-B0A7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > > > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not
> > > > > > need to be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > > >
> > > > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being
> > > > > counted? Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way
> > > > > Bush had wanted, Gore would have won, but had they been
> > > > > recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have. Ironic, eh?
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of
> > > > > people who were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being
> > > > > identified as felons.
> > > >
> > > > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> > >
> > > I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear
> > > Gore in next week.
> >
> > Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
>
> I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.
Unfortunately, you don't know how Algore's "harmlessness" would manifest
itself. He might be worse than Bush because he's weak.
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:01:01 +0100, C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >In article <hOexb.59874$sn3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >> > Still...
> >> you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense on what?
> >The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
> Viet Cong guerrillas weren't exactly civilians.
They weren't targeting Viet Cong guerrilas. They were targeting
teachers, lawyers, businessmen, and anybody else unfortunate to have
their names on the Phoenix blacklist. If bush & Co were serious about
their "War on Terror", they should start by bombing the CIA
headquarters in Langly.
> > Why wouldn't they do so again?
> I would hope that they would target and eliminate the leadership of
> any group that was opposing us with arms.
Except these people weren't doing that. They were just names provided
by the corrupt regime of South Viet Nam (one more dirtbag regime
propped up byt the US, btw) and the CIA obligingly abducted, tortured,
and murdered them.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <clund-5A6B97....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> > > >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > > > Still...
> > > you think the US is *targeting* civilians? you base this nonsense
> > > on what?
That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well repeat
itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any further.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > Then why do the terrorists do it? Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> > terrorizes a population.
> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> rare cases.
A terrorized population gives an unstable society - and that seems to
be the goal of most terrorists.
> The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
No, but it's had a huge impact on the US itself.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
> to be.
It's bad enough to make librarians destroy lending records to prevent
them from being abused to make false "terrorist" profiles. Either way
I think the Patriot Acts are just the thin end of the wedge.
But as long as it doesn't affect you, it's ok, eh?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
> >on terror.
> Sure there will be.
Meanwhile, on Planet Earth...
> At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> we're doing in Iraq
Are you serious???
What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism.
The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of
just one.
> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> killing Muslims.
> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> nothing.
> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> won't occur.
Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund