What do these children have in common?

[brattt]

Name | Age | Gender

Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male
Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19

---------------------------------------------------------

On Apr 15 2013 4:47 PM, BillB wrote
I lied about susan

On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
control pulls.

Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:20:49 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

They all qualify to make their parents proud by killing a few Jews.
Along with themselves, of course.

Or have they already? I realize the two year old wouldn't have done it
by choice.

[brattt]

None of them did anything wrong - except be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

[Dave the Clueless]

Obombing victims.


-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[O-PGManager]

Their death is the reason we have not been suitcase nuked by Al Qaeda.
(hattip BillB)

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[brattt]

Praise God, Obama and B-BillB

[BillB]

They were all suspended from school once upon a time?

[BillB]

Come on...you dug up dirt on Trayvon. I'm sure you can dig up some dirt
on some of them too.

[BillB]

On 21/04/2013 10:31 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Their death is the reason we have not been suitcase nuked by Al Qaeda.
> (hattip BillB)

Close. Their deaths are incidental to the effort to prevent (well,
delay) that from happening.

Everybody knows civilians get killed in wars. What's astonishing is how
*few* there are on that particular list. Truly amazing. Where's the list
from Iraq? That would be 300 pages long.

Good job minimizing civilian deaths, Obama! You rock!

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:11:31 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Apr 21 2013 10:32 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> They all qualify to make their parents proud by killing a few Jews.
>> Along with themselves, of course.
>>
>> Or have they already? I realize the two year old wouldn't have done it
>> by choice.
>
>
>None of them did anything wrong - except be in the wrong place at the
>wrong time.

Ah - their parents killed them, and threw their bodies among the real
victims of one of our actions? I think that gets them points, too.

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 21 2013 2:40 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 21/04/2013 10:31 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Their death is the reason we have not been suitcase nuked by Al Qaeda.
> > (hattip BillB)
>
> Close. Their deaths are incidental to the effort to prevent (well,
> delay) that from happening.
>
> Everybody knows civilians get killed in wars.

What "war" were these children killed in? Which battlefield were they
killed on?

[brattt]

On Apr 21 2013 1:25 PM, BillB wrote:


> Come on...you dug up dirt on Trayvon. I'm sure you can dig up some dirt
> on some of them too.

LOL good try - I posted an article from (I think) Huffington Post.
Sure did a lot of digging, didn't i?

[risky biz]

BillB drank their blood?

[BillB]

On 21/04/2013 2:41 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Apr 21 2013 2:40 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2013 10:31 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>>
>>> Their death is the reason we have not been suitcase nuked by Al Qaeda.
>>> (hattip BillB)
>>
>> Close. Their deaths are incidental to the effort to prevent (well,
>> delay) that from happening.
>>
>> Everybody knows civilians get killed in wars.
>
> What "war" were these children killed in?

The war colloquially know as the "war on terror," which is actually a
war on al-qaeda.

Which battlefield were they
> killed on?

The one they were standing on at the time. There is no "battlefield" in
the conventional sense.

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:41:43 PM UTC-7, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Apr 21 2013 2:40 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > On 21/04/2013 10:31 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > Their death is the reason we have not been suitcase nuked by Al Qaeda.
> > > (hattip BillB)
> >
> > Close. Their deaths are incidental to the effort to prevent (well,
> > delay) that from happening.
> >
> > Everybody knows civilians get killed in wars.

.
.> What "war" were these children killed in? Which battlefield were they
> killed on?

When Bush attacked Iraq ("My mistake - I was sure they had WMD and could attack us in 15-minutes.") It is believed that his bombing killed 90,000 men, women and children (toss in a few pregnant women).

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here. We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)

[risky biz]

I wonder if Germans made jokes about Jewish children the Nazis killed?

[risky biz]

On Apr 22 2013 11:59 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> When Bush attacked Iraq ("My mistake - I was sure they had WMD and could
attack us in 15-minutes.")
> It is believed that his bombing killed 90,000 men, women and children (toss
in a few pregnant women).

In other words if an SS officer in Ukraine shot 12 Jewish children in the
back of the head and dumped their bodies in a pit he shouldn't really be
considered a nazi. A nazi would be someone like Heinrich Himmler who
organized the death camps.

Is that the brilliance you're bestowing on us today, Jerry?

[O-PGManager]

So you are totally and perpetually ok with a child getting killed
anywhere, anytime, so long as an Obama official (anonymously) decrees it
was done in the name of a "war on terror", that by definition has zero
spatial or temporal boundaries.

[BillB]

On 22/04/2013 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> So you are totally and perpetually ok with a child getting killed
> anywhere, anytime, so long as an Obama official (anonymously) decrees it
> was done in the name of a "war on terror", that by definition has zero
> spatial or temporal boundaries.

I think I already answered that. I have never said I was "ok" with
children getting killed. I have said many, many times (and you have
ignored it an equal number of times) that civilian casualties should be
kept to to the lowest practicable minimum, which is why I favor the
civilian-friendly drone strikes. It is an unfortunate reality that many
children and other civilians invariably get killed in wars, particularly
asymmetric ground wars in civilian areas. This is especially true, and
unavoidable, when they are used as human shields by terrorist
combatants, which is how al-qaeda operates.

It's telling that you blame the people legitimately defending themselves
from an EXPLICIT existential threat of nuclear terrorism, rather than
the terrorists who are using women and children as human shields. It
tells me exactly whose side you're on.

No, I do not think the United States of America is targeting innocent
children. No, I do not think there is any other way to decimate al-qaeda
which would result in fewer civilian deaths. Why is this so hard for you
to understand?

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 22 2013 5:46 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 22/04/2013 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > So you are totally and perpetually ok with a child getting killed
> > anywhere, anytime, so long as an Obama official (anonymously) decrees it
> > was done in the name of a "war on terror", that by definition has zero
> > spatial or temporal boundaries.
>
> I think I already answered that. I have never said I was "ok" with
> children getting killed. I have said many, many times (and you have
> ignored it an equal number of times) that civilian casualties should be
> kept to to the lowest practicable minimum, which is why I favor the
> civilian-friendly drone strikes. It is an unfortunate reality that many
> children and other civilians invariably get killed in wars, particularly
> asymmetric ground wars in civilian areas. This is especially true, and
> unavoidable, when they are used as human shields by terrorist
> combatants, which is how al-qaeda operates.
>
> It's telling that you blame the people legitimately defending themselves
> from an EXPLICIT existential threat of nuclear terrorism,

lol - let me guess, they got these nuclear weapons from Saddam?

rather than
> the terrorists who are using women and children as human shields. It
> tells me exactly whose side you're on.
>
> No, I do not think the United States of America is targeting innocent
> children. No, I do not think there is any other way to decimate al-qaeda
> which would result in fewer civilian deaths. Why is this so hard for you
> to understand?

[BillB]

On 22/04/2013 4:53 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Apr 22 2013 5:46 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2013 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>>
>>> So you are totally and perpetually ok with a child getting killed
>>> anywhere, anytime, so long as an Obama official (anonymously) decrees it
>>> was done in the name of a "war on terror", that by definition has zero
>>> spatial or temporal boundaries.
>>
>> I think I already answered that. I have never said I was "ok" with
>> children getting killed. I have said many, many times (and you have
>> ignored it an equal number of times) that civilian casualties should be
>> kept to to the lowest practicable minimum, which is why I favor the
>> civilian-friendly drone strikes. It is an unfortunate reality that many
>> children and other civilians invariably get killed in wars, particularly
>> asymmetric ground wars in civilian areas. This is especially true, and
>> unavoidable, when they are used as human shields by terrorist
>> combatants, which is how al-qaeda operates.
>>
>> It's telling that you blame the people legitimately defending themselves
>> from an EXPLICIT existential threat of nuclear terrorism,
>
> lol - let me guess, they got these nuclear weapons from Saddam?

Why do you choose to play the role of town fool?

[risky biz]

You're an asshole. If you had used that defense at the Nuremburg War
Crimes Tribunal you would have been hanging from a rope. You were born too
late.

[Bill Vanek]

It's not a joke. We are clearly on opposite sides of this issue, and I
don't understand it. This is off this subject, but you don't seem to
understand the differences among intentionally targeting innocents,
not particularly caring about collateral casualties, and accepting the
fact that they happen regardless of serious efforts to avoid those
casualties.

My comment in this thread is based on real life. Palestinians can be
pretty sick.

[risky biz]

You're saying Palestinians kill their own children and throw somewhere
thta makes it look like Israel killed them?

That comment isn't even halfway intelligent.

You don't understand that indiscriminately killing civilians because you
MIGHT get a few terrorists is wrong? Try reading the "Geneva Conventions".
They were created to stop nazi-like atrocities.

JFC.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:27 -0700, "risky biz"

Not directly, but they are not afraid of putting them in harms way.
Their death can be useful to them.

>You don't understand that indiscriminately killing civilians because you
>MIGHT get a few terrorists is wrong?

You're twisting my words, and that's not what I said. But I also don't
like the way I worded my earlier question: I should have said
"acknowledge", not "understand".

[O-PGManager]

Not even in Dick Cheney's wildest wet dream has it been asserted that any
of the drone murder victims were moving toward a deployable nuclear
weapon. I mean, you are really in some wacky, wacky territory here.

[BillB]

On 22/04/2013 8:39 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Not even in Dick Cheney's wildest wet dream has it been asserted that any
> of the drone murder victims were moving toward a deployable nuclear
> weapon.

Please show me where I said that. You can't address what I actually say,
because it makes you like an idiot. All you have are insults and
misquotes. Basically, you're a joke. The war is against al-qaeda.
al-qaeda has threatened nuclear terrorism against the United States.
They have actively attempted to acquire highly enriched uranium. These
are known FACTS. They have also flown commercial jets into skyscrapers
in Manhattan, attacked the Pentagon, and attempted to fly a jet into the
Capitol. And they've done a lot more than that, and are planning more as
we speak. A week ago they had a couple of their chumps set off bombs at
the Boston Marathon. Any member or associate of al-qaeda abroad is fair
game for extermination, where he stands. Why is this so difficult for
you to understand?

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 23 2013 12:12 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 22/04/2013 8:39 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > Not even in Dick Cheney's wildest wet dream has it been asserted that any
> > of the drone murder victims were moving toward a deployable nuclear
> > weapon.
>
> Please show me where I said that.

You said the drone murdering is a reasonable defense against the threat of
nuclear terrorism. It would follow that the drone victims are engaged in
such activities.

[risky biz]

BillB has discovered that the Boston Marathon bombers were working under
orders. How does he know that? The same way he knows everything. By a
spastic thought process. The same thought process that can't figure out
why after 10 - 11 years al-Qaeda still hasn't detonated it's nuclear
weapon in an act of terror. Those nuclear weapons are so easy to build,
too.

Jesus. What a nincompoop.

[Dave the Clueless]

The moron can't understand your question, much less answer it.

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 1:46:01 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Apr 22 2013 11:59 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > When Bush attacked Iraq ("My mistake - I was sure they had WMD and could
> attack us in 15-minutes.")
> > It is believed that his bombing killed 90,000 men, women and children (toss
> in a few pregnant women).

.
.> In other words if an SS officer…

No, you weak-minded fool, in the exact words I wrote. Not some dumb-shit crap you make up in that warped brain of yours.

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here.
We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak
English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads
say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where
he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up
their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on
backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua,
Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99
percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come
from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included
kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)

[VegasJerry]

Unable to address; much less argue, with Bill;
O-PGManager and risky continually dodge with:

"lol - let me guess…"
"So you are totally and perpetually ok with…"
"In other words if…."
"You're an asshole…"
"You're saying…"


You'd think these two would learn that Bill simply bitch-slaps them, and they keep digging.

[risky biz]

On Apr 23 2013 12:58 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> Unable to address; much less argue, with Bill;
> O-PGManager and risky continually dodge with:
>
> "lol - let me guess…"
> "So you are totally and perpetually ok with…"
> "In other words if…."
> "You're an asshole…"
> "You're saying…"
>
>
> You'd think these two would learn that Bill simply bitch-slaps them, and
they keep digging.

Get an appointment with your physician. There's something wrong.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:13:14 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Apr 23 2013 12:58 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > Unable to address; much less argue, with Bill;
> > O-PGManager and risky continually dodge with:
> >
> > "lol - let me guess "
> > "So you are totally and perpetually ok with "
> > "In other words if ."
> > "You're an asshole "
> > "You're saying "
> >
> >
> > You'd think these two would learn that Bill simply bitch-slaps them, and
> they keep digging.

.
.> Get an appointment with your physician. There's something wrong.

"lol - let me guess "
"So you are totally and perpetually ok with "

"In other words if..."
"You're an asshole....."
"You're saying..."
"Get an appointment with your physician..."

You'd think these two would learn that Jerry simply bitch-slaps them, and they keep digging.

[risky biz]

On Apr 23 2013 1:58 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:13:14 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Apr 23 2013 12:58 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > > Unable to address; much less argue, with Bill;
> > > O-PGManager and risky continually dodge with:
> > >
> > > "lol - let me guess "
> > > "So you are totally and perpetually ok with "
> > > "In other words if ."
> > > "You're an asshole "
> > > "You're saying "
> > >
> > >
> > > You'd think these two would learn that Bill simply bitch-slaps them, and
> > they keep digging.
>
> .

> ..> Get an appointment with your physician. There's something wrong.

>
> "lol - let me guess "
> "So you are totally and perpetually ok with "
> "In other words if..."
> "You're an asshole....."
> "You're saying..."
> "Get an appointment with your physician..."
>
> You'd think these two would learn that Jerry simply bitch-slaps them, and
they keep digging.

Are you cappable of saying anything meaningful?