Closing the Door on Free Speech.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Bush Outlaws War Protest -
Citizens Face Full Asset Seizure
>From Dave Livingston
7-20-7
WELL IT HAS HAPPENED. THIS MANIACAL SON OF A BITCH HAS OUTLAWED ALL
WAR PROTEST AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
PASSED INTO LAW JULY 17TH. SINCE CONGRESS IS TOO WEAK-KNEED TO STAND
UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING, PERHAPS IT WILL BE LEFT TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. WILL THIS BEGIN THE CIVIL WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
PREDICTED BY JOHN TITOR? READ THE ARTICLE BELOW, "Bush Outlaws All War
Protest In The United States"..........best of luck.........dave
livingston
Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States
By Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
7-19-7
In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens,
the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week
outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war.
<snip>
Paul Maffia
the impossible. 100% of everything you post is complete and utter,
preposterous nonsense. You believe every nutty idea put forward by anybody.
If this moronic article were true, for example, the Rense website would
already be shut down and its owner secretly locked up never to be heard from
again.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184972102.3...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
No wonder we all laugh at you.
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://rense.com/general77/asset.htm
>
> Bush Outlaws War Protest -
Where does it say protest is outlawed ?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization
Efforts in Iraq
White House News
Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International
Emergency Economic Powers Act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of
the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies
Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States
Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to
the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy
of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and
stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi
people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps
with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May
22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied
upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4)
of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders,
directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and
notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior
to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the
following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the
United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of
United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or
acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform
in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material,
logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such
an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or
on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not
limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or
services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests
in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any
contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United
States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or
attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is
prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this
order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture,
corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent
resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any
jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any
person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in
section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of,
any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this
order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency
declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I
hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked
pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United
States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets
instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant
to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine
that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency
declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there
need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section
1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions,
including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers
granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these
functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government,
consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are
hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry
out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary
of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness
of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative
action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31
C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or
pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit,
or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities,
or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
Stuart Grey
Actually, he didn't. But nice try.
BR
stretch for it to include war protesters. The orders are directed at
groups giving direct aid to insurgent groups in the middle east. That's
not to say that Bush wouldn't try to use it against war protesters, but
such forfeitures would be unlikely to survive a court review.
--
Remove the TOS star ship captain to reply privately.
Stuart Grey
> I read the exact text of the executive orders, and it would be a real
> stretch for it to include war protesters.
Unless the war protesters really believe that they are committing high
treason, they shouldn't have a problem with it.
> The orders are directed at
> groups giving direct aid to insurgent groups in the middle east. That's
> not to say that Bush wouldn't try to use it against war protesters, but
> such forfeitures would be unlikely to survive a court review.
True enough.
Giving aid (and comfort) to the enemy is not protected free speech.
Dan Bloomquist
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:26:05 -0400, BR wrote:
>
>
>>I read the exact text of the executive orders, and it would be a real
>>stretch for it to include war protesters.
>
>
> Unless the war protesters really believe that they are committing high
> treason, they shouldn't have a problem with it.
So, enforcement action is dependent on a detainee's thoughts?
You are wierd...
Stuart Grey
What's weird, is that:
1) You lie about what I say, and call me weird for what you lied about.
2) You can't spell "weird".
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
pma...@centurytel.net says...
> Tell us Know nothing, how is it possible that a boob like you accomplishes
> the impossible. 100% of everything you post is complete and utter,
> preposterous nonsense. You believe every nutty idea put forward by anybody.
> If this moronic article were true, for example, the Rense website would
> already be shut down and its owner secretly locked up never to be heard from
> again.
No, you are mistaken. Jeff Rense is still free because he is
also part of the conspiracy.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Dan Bloomquist
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:00:52 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:26:05 -0400, BR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read the exact text of the executive orders, and it would be a real
>>>>stretch for it to include war protesters.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless the war protesters really believe that they are committing high
>>>treason, they shouldn't have a problem with it.
>>
>>So, enforcement action is dependent on a detainee's thoughts?
>>
>>You are wierd...
>
>
> What's weird, is that:
> 1) You lie about what I say, and call me weird for what you lied about.
No Stuey. I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. So it is not
possible to claim a lie. But I can see where the paranoid type would
believe to infer it.
> 2) You can't spell "weird".
I transposed a couple letters as I often do with 'thier'. Now, aren't
you special. Maybe a high paid office assistant?
Stuart Grey
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:00:52 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:26:05 -0400, BR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I read the exact text of the executive orders, and it would be a real
>>>>>stretch for it to include war protesters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Unless the war protesters really believe that they are committing high
>>>>treason, they shouldn't have a problem with it.
>>>
>>>So, enforcement action is dependent on a detainee's thoughts?
>>>
>>>You are wierd...
>>
>>
>> What's weird, is that:
>> 1) You lie about what I say, and call me weird for what you lied about.
>
> No Stuey. I asked a question, I didn't make a statement.
Yes, yes, yes. Libtards, who lack any kind or form of moral fortitude or
courage, try to make points with smart ass questions, so when they get
called on being an asshole, can run away from them.
Like you're running away now.
yes, you are not a man, you're craven and won't even stand by your own
words. Indeed, you are NOT making a statement of any kind; monkeys don't
make statements.
They gibber.
knews4...@yahoo.com
"(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform
in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; "
This could be construed as any act of free speech in defiance of
America's policy in Iraq.
If you are flying the flag upside down in protest of America's
"entaglement" in Iraq saying that American taxpayed should not pay for
this....old G.W.Boooosh will use it against free speach just like
every part of the so called "Patriot" Act has alredy been used for
illegal violations of people's rights and will they will continue to
use it in the most oppressive manner that they can get away with.
The Arabs have a saying...somthing about "Once you let the camel's
nose is under the tent....he can do jst about what he wants."
Time will tell EXCATLY what free speach they use this to restrict.
Just the threat alone will be enough to stop much of the dessent. All
they need do is make an example of one or two defenseless American's
to stop thousands.
Just watch....
Tankfixer
stuar...@comcast.net mumbled
> monkeys don't make statements.
>
> They gibber.
Yes, you do.
Next you will start flinging crap i suspect..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
strabo
>
> knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://rense.com/general77/asset.htm
>>
>> Bush Outlaws War Protest -
>
> Where does it say protest is outlawed ?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
>
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004 says that the President
has declared that *anyone* [Sec 3] who says, has said, or who *might
say*, *anything* that the president considers threatening or
destabilizing, [Sec 1], is subject to losing all their stuff [Sec 4
and 5].
Along with the infamous Patriot and Military Commissions Acts, and
Policy Directive 51, you've been had.
Under the infamous Patriot Act your president can declare you an
enemy combatant or enemy of the state and have you seized and held
incommunicado; imprisoned without habeas corpus; without trial;
tortured if need be; and executed if need be; in the name of national
security. And, anyone who says anything about your case may also be
"disappeared".
If you don't believe it, read section 802.
Has this happened? Who knows? Its a secret.
Thanks to the inaction of Congress and the SCOTUS and the military,
you now have a bona fide dictator in the person of the president.
Now let's hear it for all those who demand to know what Rights
anyone has lost.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BR
I think if the above were to happen, and the courts didn't overturn it,
you would have a revolution on your hands. The Bush Administration
thought that the Iraq war would be a cakewalk, but look what a disaster
that turned out to be. In part, because Iraq was/is a nation of gun
nuts! So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
three months with only a few pistols and rifles. With most of the US
armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan now, who is Bush going to call in
to quell the uprising?
Stuart Grey
The Iraq war was a cake walk. It is the terrorist who are putting up a
fight.
> In part, because Iraq was/is a nation of gun
> nuts!
The reason why we are still in combat operations in Iraq has more to do
with Bush's weak rules of engagement and refusal to wipe out initial
resistance with all necessary force.
The Koran tells the faithful to abide by the infidel when the infidel has
the upper hand, and when the infidel shows weakness, to strike. Ergo, when
the Moslems saw that Bush had a "don't shoot back until you're dead"
engagement rule, and that he refused to use the force we can bring to bear
against the insurgents, they were encouraged - no, REQUIRED, by their
faith to fight us.
Bush's ethnocentric view was that his weak and merciful treatment of the
insurgents would be rewarded. Bush's ignorance has killed 3000 of our
troops, and many more of the enemy that he was trying to bring to his side.
> So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
> small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
> participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
> three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
wonders why they didn't do that.
> With most of the US
> armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan now, who is Bush going to call in
> to quell the uprising?
Beats me. Bush's moves have been very foolish.
Defendario
Confusing Patriot for terro'ist, eh Stewie?
>
>>In part, because Iraq was/is a nation of gun
>>nuts!
>
>
> The reason why we are still in combat operations in Iraq has more to do
> with Bush's weak rules of engagement and refusal to wipe out initial
> resistance with all necessary force.
>
Keep telling yourself that, numbnuts.
> The Koran tells the faithful to abide by the infidel when the infidel has
> the upper hand, and when the infidel shows weakness, to strike. Ergo, when
> the Moslems saw that Bush had a "don't shoot back until you're dead"
> engagement rule, and that he refused to use the force we can bring to bear
> against the insurgents, they were encouraged - no, REQUIRED, by their
> faith to fight us.
>
Bushler didn't know a Sunni from a Shi'ite, and you don't either, no
doubt. Your knowledge of Islam is severely deficient.
> Bush's ethnocentric view was that his weak and merciful treatment of the
> insurgents would be rewarded. Bush's ignorance has killed 3000 of our
> troops, and many more of the enemy that he was trying to bring to his side.
>
This war was lost from the moment it was decided to occupy with less
than 2.5 million troops or so. DeBaathification and disbanding the
Army, as well as allowing the arms depot of al-QaaQaa to be looted
slammed the coffin lid shut, and Abu Ghraib nailed it.
TY Generals Franks and Odineiro. What good Nazis you'd have made!
:-)
>
>> So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
>>small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
>>participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
>>three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
>
>
> Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
> they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
> wonders why they didn't do that.
>
They didn't want to destroy the valuable property. That's what
separates soldiers (wehrmacht) from barbarians (4th ID)
>
>>With most of the US
>>armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan now, who is Bush going to call in
>>to quell the uprising?
>
>
> Beats me. Bush's moves have been very foolish.
End the war. Bite the bullet.
If Bushler had any decency, he'd do that, and save us all further
embarrassment.
knews4...@yahoo.com
following the 911 DEMOLITION of the OBSOLETE WTC.
The real reason is oil. All wars are based on resources, PERIOD.
> The Koran tells the faithful to abide by the infidel when the infidel has
> the upper hand, and when the infidel shows weakness, to strike. Ergo, when
> the Moslems saw that Bush had a "don't shoot back until you're dead"
> engagement rule, and that he refused to use the force we can bring to bear
> against the insurgents, they were encouraged - no, REQUIRED, by their
> faith to fight us.
>
As far as I'm concerned they are all figting in self defence.
> Bush's ethnocentric view was that his weak and merciful treatment of the
> insurgents would be rewarded. Bush's ignorance has killed 3000 of our
> troops, and many more of the enemy that he was trying to bring to his side.
Bush s a pawn of the, Banking, Military, Industrial, Educational,
Pharmacuitical COMPLEX
>
> > So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
> > small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
> > participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
> > three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
>
They don't tell Pollock jokes about that.
> Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
> they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
> wonders why they didn't do that.
>
> > With most of the US
> > armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan now, who is Bush going to call in
> > to quell the uprising?
>
That would be a good question to ask about America too eh?
> Beats me. Bush's moves have been very foolish.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would appear that the King(s) are using the court Jester as a front
man.
Stuart Grey
> On Jul 22, 12:05 pm, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The reason why we are still in combat operations in Iraq has more to do
>> with Bush's weak rules of engagement and refusal to wipe out initial
>> resistance with all necessary force.
>>
> The reason we are there in the first place is based on a pack of lies
> following the 911 DEMOLITION of the OBSOLETE WTC.
Oh. So you're one of those tin hat conspiracy nuts that think that those
airplanes flying into the WTC had nothing to do with their destruction.
> The real reason is oil. All wars are based on resources, PERIOD.
>
>> The Koran tells the faithful to abide by the infidel when the infidel has
>> the upper hand, and when the infidel shows weakness, to strike. Ergo, when
>> the Moslems saw that Bush had a "don't shoot back until you're dead"
>> engagement rule, and that he refused to use the force we can bring to bear
>> against the insurgents, they were encouraged - no, REQUIRED, by their
>> faith to fight us.
>>
> As far as I'm concerned they are all figting in self defence.
Your treason is noted.
Defendario
Your delusional mindset is likewise noted, Kultie.
;D
Gunner Asch
<stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
>> small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
>> participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
>> three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
>
>Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
>they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
>wonders why they didn't do that.
Because they didnt believe that a square mile (or less) of Jews, could
hold off Germany's best. Leveling the Ghetto would have caused them to
lose "face". The general(s) involved didnt wish to appear
incompetent, and kept saying it would "only be a couple more days"
while slowly ramping up the response.
Ultimately..they DID bring in arty..which brought the show to a rapid
close.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>Confusing Patriot for terro'ist, eh Stewie?
Only if you confuse Iranians for Iraqi Patriots.
Gunner
Defendario
What about the Badr Brigade boiz, Gummer? You know, those fine Interior
Ministry paras? <snerk>
The greatest Patriot in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and he's surely
not an Iranian.
> Gunner
>
Stuart Grey
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:05:11 -0500, Stuart Grey
> <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
>>> small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
>>> participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
>>> three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
>>
>>Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
>>they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
>>wonders why they didn't do that.
>
> Because they didnt believe that a square mile (or less) of Jews, could
> hold off Germany's best. Leveling the Ghetto would have caused them to
> lose "face".
They leveled an entire village, killing all the men, in retaliation for a
terrorist attack, so I don't see how it would be consistent that they
would lose face if they leveled the Warsaw Ghetto.
> The general(s) involved didnt wish to appear
> incompetent, and kept saying it would "only be a couple more days"
> while slowly ramping up the response.
> Ultimately..they DID bring in arty..which brought the show to a rapid
> close.
Uh-huh.
Gunner Asch
<Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:29:00 -0400, Defendario
>> <Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Confusing Patriot for terro'ist, eh Stewie?
>>
>>
>> Only if you confuse Iranians for Iraqi Patriots.
>>
>
>What about the Badr Brigade boiz, Gummer? You know, those fine Interior
>Ministry paras? <snerk>
I also left out the Syrian's contributions.
>
>The greatest Patriot in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and he's surely
>not an Iranian.
Your opinion is noted as to patriots of note, Defecator.
You want to play name games...you got it
>
>> Gunner
>>
Defendario
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:04:35 -0400, Defendario
> <Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:29:00 -0400, Defendario
>>><Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Confusing Patriot for terro'ist, eh Stewie?
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you confuse Iranians for Iraqi Patriots.
>>>
>>
>>What about the Badr Brigade boiz, Gummer? You know, those fine Interior
>>Ministry paras? <snerk>
>
>
> I also left out the Syrian's contributions.
>
Who'd those be, Gummer? OTOH, since Bushler branded Bashir one of the
Axis, Syria has all the right to pre-emptively defend themselves, using
other MFers to squeeze the triggers, of course.
>>The greatest Patriot in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and he's surely
>>not an Iranian.
>
>
> Your opinion is noted as to patriots of note, Defecator.
>
So saith the Man with a Paper (_=o=_) aka Gummer
> You want to play name games...you got it
>
Your move.
>>>Gunner
>>>
>
>
The Mysterion
"Defendario" <Defen...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:5ghv41F...@mid.individual.net...
Now, now, don't confuse the little lickspittle.
His masters have told him that Iran is the enemy and that's all he needs to
know.
You don't actually expect a willing slave to do his own thinking, do you?
Defendario
Right.
;D
>
Gunner Asch
<stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:58:34 +0000, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:05:11 -0500, Stuart Grey
>> <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> So is the United States. There are those that would argue that
>>>> small arms could not stand up against the US Army, but consider that the
>>>> participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising held off the German army for
>>>> three months with only a few pistols and rifles.
>>>
>>>Only because the Germans didn't want to bombard the Warsaw Ghetto, which
>>>they could have done. Given what is said about the WW II Germans, one
>>>wonders why they didn't do that.
>>
>> Because they didnt believe that a square mile (or less) of Jews, could
>> hold off Germany's best. Leveling the Ghetto would have caused them to
>> lose "face".
>
>They leveled an entire village, killing all the men, in retaliation for a
>terrorist attack, so I don't see how it would be consistent that they
>would lose face if they leveled the Warsaw Ghetto.
>
Because it was the Waffen SS that was sent to put down the Jewish
Uprising.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/warsaw.htm
Gunner Asch
<Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also left out the Syrian's contributions.
>>
>
>Who'd those be, Gummer? OTOH, since Bushler branded Bashir one of the
>Axis, Syria has all the right to pre-emptively defend themselves, using
>other MFers to squeeze the triggers, of course.
In Iraq..sure Defecator..sure
>
>>>The greatest Patriot in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and he's surely
>>>not an Iranian.
>>
>>
>> Your opinion is noted as to patriots of note, Defecator.
>>
>
>So saith the Man with a Paper (_=o=_) aka Gummer
Says the man with an asshole for a mouth, and shit for brains.
>
>> You want to play name games...you got it
>>
>
>Your move.
Checkmate.
Gunner
Defendario
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:54:43 -0400, Defendario
> <Defen...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>I also left out the Syrian's contributions.
>>>
>>
>>Who'd those be, Gummer? OTOH, since Bushler branded Bashir one of the
>>Axis, Syria has all the right to pre-emptively defend themselves, using
>>other MFers to squeeze the triggers, of course.
>
>
> In Iraq..sure Defecator..sure
>
How else do you think those M1A1s were getting smoked in West al-Anbar?
It couldn't have been that a few AT-14s fell off a truck, could it?
;-)
>>>>The greatest Patriot in Iraq is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and he's surely
>>>>not an Iranian.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your opinion is noted as to patriots of note, Defecator.
>>>
>>
>>So saith the Man with a Paper (_=o=_) aka Gummer
>
>
> Says the man with an asshole for a mouth, and shit for brains.
>
Projecting, Gummer?
:-\
>>>You want to play name games...you got it
>>>
>>
>>Your move.
>
>
> Checkmate.
>
LOL, but your capitulation is graciously accepted.
;D
> Gunner
>
Dan Bloomquist
>
> knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>http://rense.com/general77/asset.htm
>>
>>Bush Outlaws War Protest -
>
>
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
>
>
>
> Efforts in Iraq
>
> White House News
>
>
You Brits have no sense of the Forth Amendment.
Fuck your message, here is the order:
ANNEX
TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
July 17, 2007
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten
Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that,
due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and
foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to
promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to
provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the
interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to
the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22,
2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and
relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July
29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3),
and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in
regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant
to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any
license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property
and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the
United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are
or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States
persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary
of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an
act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,