Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1

7 views

Skip to first unread message

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 3:32:59 AM9/4/06

Well we have a new contender for the title of "King of Idiots" among the
right-wing nutcases who post to RGP. Previously, Irish Mike and Francis Lee
Turbo were the only serious contenders.

The new kid on the block, whose initials are obviously "RMH", is a strong
contender. This guy is such an idiot that he doesn't realize telling us his
initials is a huge clue to finding out exactly who he is and exactly where
he lives. He also tells us his first name is Rory. DP75089 also realized
he was making a huge mistake by using his initials and his zip code for a
screen name.

Attention RMH. The internet is not as anonymous as you think it is. You
have given me enough clues to find out exactly who you are and exactly where
you live, if I care to devote a few hours to it. It took eleaticus and
myself less than an hour to find out that your fellow Nazi, DFSPON, is
really named Richard Sportsman.

You are an anonymous cowardly troll hiding behind the anonymity of the
internet. Why are you such a coward? Why don't you post with your real
name like I do, and like many other RGP posters do? Because you are a
coward, that's why. Punk.

I suggest you seriously consider the above before telling any lies about me
or making threats against me which you cannot possibly back up in the real
world. I eat anonymous internet tough guys like you for lunch.

Here is a classic example of RMH's idiocy from a post he made in the thread
"Convert to Islam", started by my least favorite RGP poster, Irish Mike.
Here is a Google Groups link to RMH's post --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382

My responses are interleaved.
______________________________________________

"RMHisCOOL" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1157283342$863...@recpoker.com...
:
:
: On Sep 3 2006 4:58 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:
:
: >
: > On Sep 3 2006 2:31 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
: >
: > > Following is a cut & paste from a CNN story today. Al Queada is
graciously
: > > inviting all Americans to convert to islam - or else.
: > >
: > > "We invite all Americans and believers to Islam, whatever their role
and
: > > status in Bush and Blair's world order," Gadahn says. "Decide today,
because
: > > today could be your last day."
: >
: > "We invite all Arabs to Democracy, whatever their roles in their current
: > governments may be." W Says. "Decide today, because tomorrow you might
be
: > building Nukes."
:
: Way to attribute quotes for something that doesn't exist in order to slant
it
: whichever way suits you. Spoken like a true liberal. I can't even
respond to
: this because its so idiotic.

Do you understand written English??? Obviously not. Do you understand the
significance of this sentence --

"Decide today, because tomorrow you might be building Nukes."

The significance is that the Bush Crime Family will likely attack Iran, and
possibly other Muslim countries, on the pretext that they are developing
nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons
program. If they do, they are at least ten years away from having a
functioning nuclear weapon. There is no possible justification for an
attack on Iran at this time, yet it is obvious Bush plans to do so before he
leaves office. It will be Iraq Redux, except Iran has a formidable
military, unlike Saddam's broken down military.

Look, shit for brains, Iran's sock puppet, Hizbollah, withstood the full
onslaught of the mighty Israeli military machine for a month and fought the
Israelis to a standstill. If you think Iran itself will be a pushover, you
are beyond clueless.

I suggest you do some research to find out exactly who the Persians are.
They are not Arabs. Persians are Aryans. You know, Aryans -- Hitler's
Master Race. Please do not confuse Hitler's Master Race with Sand Niggers.

I also suggest you study some military history. When you do, you will find
that the Persians are the baddest motherfuckers of them all. Man for man,
and armed with comparable weapons technology, the Persians would slaughter
both the Jews and the Americans.

You idiots who want to attack Iran have no clue how disasterous the
consequences will be. The consequences will make the Iraq War look like a
minor bit of unpleasantness.

: > > "Mansfield, who is a writer and corporate adviser on the Middle East,
Islam
: > > and terrorism, said the time reference could indicate an attack is
near.
: > > Muslims believe that non-believers should be given a chance to convert
: > > before they are attacked."
: >
: > "Irish Mike, who is an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, can be lied to
repeatedly
: > by
: > the self-serving leaders, yet still follow them blindly, and attempt to
defend
: > the indefensible."
: >
: Elaborate please. What is indefensible?

The entire foreign policy of the Bush Crime Family, which constitutes the
greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the USA.

: And how has Mike defended it? Are
: you denying Mansfield said this? Who cares? That has nothing to do with
the
: point of the post. How have we been lied to?

OMFG!!! You really are brain dead. I could list hundreds of definitively
documented lies of the Bush Crime Family, but you would just dismiss it as
liberal propaganda. Do some research. Turn off Rush Limbaugh. Get in
contact with the real world. Stop living in your Nazi fantasy world.

: Please come up with an actual point not just a wisecrack next time.

Apparently you think a bullshit remark like this can refute a cogent
comment.

: > > Apparently they made an exception to the "give them a chance to
convert
: > > before we kill them" rule regarding the Americans in the World Trade
Center.
: > >
: >
: > Apparently, the United States government made an exception in defending
the
: > country after Osamas declaration of WAR, and his previous attack on the
WTC.
: >
: I'm pretty sure Mike, as well as myself, or anybody else who doesn't hate
this
: country blames Clinton for his inaction in all things terrorist.

I am pretty sure you are a complete idiot or a mindless Clinton basher who
willfully lies about the greatest President of the last sixty years. The
lie that Clinton took no effective action against Islamofascists has been
definitively debunked by Urban Legends, commonly called Snopes.

Here, educate yourself and stop lying --

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of
several terrorist attacks against Americans.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]

After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and
injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and
injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US
sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.

Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people
would be alive today.

Origins: In chronological order:

On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in
a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and
injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners
intended, bring down the towers - that was finally accomplished by flying
two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September
2001.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured,
convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to
240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed
Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and
also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S.
and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an
American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of
Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities
arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but
U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before
they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of
explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which
housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing
nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the
U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow
the FBI to question suspects.

On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have
expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen
Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing.
The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American
justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the
United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with
ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and
sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other
suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting
extradition in London.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff
next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole
in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have
yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the
refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals
and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential
election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the
investigation could have been completed before the end of President
Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in
Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the
embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS
Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton
was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes
primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John
F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill
Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention
away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he
was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin
Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of
the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans
accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's
watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with
missiles in August 1998 failed - he had apparently left a training camp in
Afghanistan a few hours earlier - recent news reports have detailed numerous
other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of
unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to
act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin
Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in
the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising th
at regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists
themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But
Clinton aides said such a policy - potentially involving a full-scale war in
central Asia - was not plausible before politics the world over became
transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said
there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United
States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such
outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED
IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must
be an election year.

Last updated: 27 January 2004

: What's your point?

: You're trying to counter the point that Islam is not a religion of peace
: by mentioning the previous terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims.
Genius. You
: must have voted for Hillary.

If she does run for President, she will be far and away the best qualified
candidate to run for President since Adlai Stevenson.

: > > It's amazing to me that many Americans still delude themselves with
the myth

: > > that islam is a religion of peace.
: >
: > It's amazing to me that anyone still deludes themselves with the myth of
: > religion.
:
: What do your religious views have to do with Mike's post about Islam NOT
being a
: religion of peace? Its of little consequence whether or not you believe
in
: anything. Although you do strike me as one of those atheists who are
atheists
: merely to be cool or the elitist attitude. Thats why you say
condescending one
: liners like the one above. Either way, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH
: MIKE'S POINT!
:
: > > They refuse to believe that islam makes
: > > no distinction between women & children and military targets.
: >
: > No women or children have died in Iraq. Also, no women or children were
killed
: > in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
:
: There probably have been some in Iraq, of course.

PROBABLY??? You are a submoron. Something on the order of 100,000 Iraqi
civilians have been killed in the Iraq War. Obviously, many of these were
women and children.

: Collateral damage is definitely the same thing as targeting them, right?

Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war criminals and
their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely dropped
500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since such
actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions constitute the
war crime of Collective Punishment. I look forward to the war crimes trials
of Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

: Dumbass.

Talking to yourself now?

: I also think its
: a fantastic argument to bring up something that the United States did
before
: most of us were even born.

It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic song
singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at the
U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as
well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear, unambiguous
war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as Collective Punishment.

: What's your point? That Islam is a religion of
: peace because the US dropped an A-bomb on civilians sixty years ago?

Is this your concept of argumentation? To completely misrepresent your
opponent's argument? Apparently all you have got is strawman argumentation.

: You can't stay on topic. Are you a Kennedy or something?

And what would be wrong with that??? The Kennedys are political royalty.
Deal with it.

: > > They do not
: > > want to believe that islam gives infidels (which is any non-muslim)
only two
: > >
: > > choices: convert to islam or be killed.
: >
: > They do not want to believe that Christians killed hundreds of
thousands, only
: > two choices: convert to Christianity or be killed.
: >
: Wow, now you're going even further back.

What is wrong with going back in history??? To paraphrase Santayana --
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

: How does this have anything to do with
: what we're talking about? Are you talking about the Crusades or what? Do
you
: actually believe that's why we attack people today? Clarify.

You fucking moron, the Roman Catholic Church has killed 100,000,000 people
for the crime of disagreeing with Catholic Dogma. Did I mention that the
Roman Catholic Priesthood has, for centuries, operated an international ring
of pedophiles and child molesters?

Anyone who condemns Islamofascism, without also condemning the excesses of
the Catholic Church, has a huge blind spot.

: > > The blame America first crowd is so
: > > busy bashing America that they deny that this is a fundamental tenet
of
: > > islam - not just of radical islamofascists.

We do not blame America first. We accurately point out that events do not
happen in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. The proximate causes for
the 9/11 attacks were the presence of American troops in Muslim countries,
especially Saudi Arabia, and U.S. support for Israel.

The root cause of the 9/11 attacks are people who drive around in 10-mpg
SUVs, sporting bumper stickers like "These colors don't run" and "United We
Stand".

: > The blame America first crowd is growing rather large. Apparently 50+
years of
: > self-serving dominance over the Middle East has had an effect.
: >
: Nice non-sequitor to save yourself from having to actually say something
: meaningful.

He said something meaningful. You have not. Nor have any of your comments
shown even a glimmer of intelligence.

: Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect any less of you at this point.
:
: > > So, fuck you very much but I decline your offer to convert to islam.
: >
: > I also decline.
: >
: First intelligent thing you've said this post. Your answer surprises me
though.

It surprises you that he doesn't want to convert to Islam??? Believe it or
not, it is a complete myth that liberals are supporters or sycophants of
Islamofascism.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________

Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --

http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com

Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
right, and the Google ads.

Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com

IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)

Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.

-- Jesus Christ

God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.

-- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq

RMHisCOOL

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 8:32:22 AM9/4/06

How am I anonymous? My name is Rory Holderness, and as I have previously stated
I'm with 2nd Battalion 8th Marines, located at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. I
have said all of this before, so how am I an anonymous troll?? Also, exactly
what threat have I levelled at you? None. I don't threaten people anonymously
via the internet, I'm a man. I have interspersed my responses among your
ravings.

> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382</a>

Yes, I understand English. So you'd be more comfortable allowing the nuclear
program of Iran to come to fruition before we do anything? No wonder you love
Clinton so much.

>
> : > > "Mansfield, who is a writer and corporate adviser on the Middle East,
> Islam
> : > > and terrorism, said the time reference could indicate an attack is
> near.
> : > > Muslims believe that non-believers should be given a chance to convert
> : > > before they are attacked."
> : >
> : > "Irish Mike, who is an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, can be lied to
> repeatedly
> : > by
> : > the self-serving leaders, yet still follow them blindly, and attempt to
> defend
> : > the indefensible."
> : >
> : Elaborate please. What is indefensible?
>
> The entire foreign policy of the Bush Crime Family, which constitutes the
> greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the USA.
>

If somebody doesn't agree with you, it must be absolutely indefensible. The
world is black and white, eh Bill?

> : And how has Mike defended it? Are
> : you denying Mansfield said this? Who cares? That has nothing to do with
> the
> : point of the post. How have we been lied to?
>
> OMFG!!! You really are brain dead. I could list hundreds of definitively
> documented lies of the Bush Crime Family, but you would just dismiss it as
> liberal propaganda. Do some research. Turn off Rush Limbaugh. Get in
> contact with the real world. Stop living in your Nazi fantasy world.
>

Wow, you're a clever one. You could list hundreds and hundreds of things, but
ah...um...you don't. If these were solid proof, then it couldn't be dismissed
as propaganda, but amazingly, you don't offer anything solid. Surprise. Yawn.

> : Please come up with an actual point not just a wisecrack next time.
>
> Apparently you think a bullshit remark like this can refute a cogent
> comment.
>

If I had seen a cogent comment, maybe I'd understand what you mean.

> : > > Apparently they made an exception to the "give them a chance to
> convert
> : > > before we kill them" rule regarding the Americans in the World Trade
> Center.
> : > >
> : >
> : > Apparently, the United States government made an exception in defending
> the
> : > country after Osamas declaration of WAR, and his previous attack on the
> WTC.
> : >
> : I'm pretty sure Mike, as well as myself, or anybody else who doesn't hate
> this
> : country blames Clinton for his inaction in all things terrorist.
>
> I am pretty sure you are a complete idiot or a mindless Clinton basher who
> willfully lies about the greatest President of the last sixty years. The
> lie that Clinton took no effective action against Islamofascists has been
> definitively debunked by Urban Legends, commonly called Snopes.
>

So how many felonies does a President have to commit to get on your bad side?

> Here, educate yourself and stop lying --
>

> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm</a>

Yousef was arrested by Pakistani intelligence and turned over to U.S. Diplomatic
Security Service agents on February 7, 1995. So Clinton can take somebody in
when they're handed to him.

>
> On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an
> American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of
> Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities
> arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but
> U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before
> they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
>

>What does Clinton have to do with this?

> On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of
> explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which
> housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing
> nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the
> U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow
> the FBI to question suspects.
>
> On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have
> expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen
> Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing.
> The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American
> justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
>

> bHe put a lot of pressure on them, no doubt.

> On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the
> United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
> killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with
> ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and
> sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other
> suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting
> extradition in London.
>

> Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, Mohammed Odeh, Wadih el Hage, and Khalfan
> Khamis Mohamed were convicted in 2001. Anas Al-Liby was captured in
> Afghanistan in 2002 during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Ahmed Khalfan
> Ghailani is believed to have been captured in Pakistan in 2004. Mohammed
> Atef, indicted on November 4, 1998 for his role in orchestrating the
> attacks, was later reported killed by U.S. bombs during the 2001 invasion
> of Afghanistan. Sounds like Bush did more than Clinton in regards to
> these guys.

> On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff
> next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole
> in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have
> yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the
> refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals
> and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
>
>
> (The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential
> election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the
> investigation could have been completed before the end of President
> Clinton's term of office three months later.)
>

> Agreed.

> In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in
> Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the
> embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS
> Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton
> was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes
> primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John
> F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
>
>
> In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill
> Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Sen.
> Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention
> away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he
> was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin
> Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of
> the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans
> accused him of hysteria.
>
>

> .. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's

> watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with
> missiles in August 1998 failed - he had apparently left a training camp in
> Afghanistan a few hours earlier - recent news reports have detailed numerous
> other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of
> unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to
> act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin
> Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in
> the Arab world.
>
>

> .. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising th

> at regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists
> themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
> unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But
> Clinton aides said such a policy - potentially involving a full-scale war in
> central Asia - was not plausible before politics the world over became
> transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.
>

> Why not? People have to die before we'll say you can't harbor terrorists?
> Bullshit.

> Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said
> there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United
> States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such
> outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.
>
> Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED
> IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must
> be an election year.
>
> Last updated: 27 January 2004
>
>
>
> : What's your point?
>
> : You're trying to counter the point that Islam is not a religion of peace
> : by mentioning the previous terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims.
> Genius. You
> : must have voted for Hillary.
>
> If she does run for President, she will be far and away the best qualified
> candidate to run for President since Adlai Stevenson.

Wow, I can't say anything to that, except that I'm glad most Dems are too lazy
to vote.

From what I've seen of Fallujah, there's not a lot of innocent civilians there.

> : Dumbass.
>
> Talking to yourself now?
>
> : I also think its
> : a fantastic argument to bring up something that the United States did
> before
> : most of us were even born.
>
> It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic song
> singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at the
> U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as
> well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear, unambiguous
> war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as Collective Punishment.
>

Absolutely, there were atrocities. Internment camps was one you failed to
mention as well. So what?

> : What's your point? That Islam is a religion of
> : peace because the US dropped an A-bomb on civilians sixty years ago?
>
> Is this your concept of argumentation? To completely misrepresent your
> opponent's argument? Apparently all you have got is strawman argumentation.
>
> : You can't stay on topic. Are you a Kennedy or something?
>
> And what would be wrong with that??? The Kennedys are political royalty.
> Deal with it.
>

Yeah, they're great. I wish I could get away with DUIs and murder. Royalty
indeed.

> : > > They do not
> : > > want to believe that islam gives infidels (which is any non-muslim)
> only two
> : > >
> : > > choices: convert to islam or be killed.
> : >
> : > They do not want to believe that Christians killed hundreds of
> thousands, only
> : > two choices: convert to Christianity or be killed.
> : >
> : Wow, now you're going even further back.
>
> What is wrong with going back in history??? To paraphrase Santayana --
> Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> : How does this have anything to do with
> : what we're talking about? Are you talking about the Crusades or what? Do
> you
> : actually believe that's why we attack people today? Clarify.
>
> You fucking moron, the Roman Catholic Church has killed 100,000,000 people
> for the crime of disagreeing with Catholic Dogma. Did I mention that the
> Roman Catholic Priesthood has, for centuries, operated an international ring
> of pedophiles and child molesters?
>

They operated a ring eh? Do you have evidence or do you just enjoy saying
sensationalist things?

> Anyone who condemns Islamofascism, without also condemning the excesses of
> the Catholic Church, has a huge blind spot.
>

You're right. I would condemn the Church for much of what it did hundreds of
years ago, as I condemn Islamofascism for what it does today.

> : > > The blame America first crowd is so
> : > > busy bashing America that they deny that this is a fundamental tenet
> of
> : > > islam - not just of radical islamofascists.
>
> We do not blame America first. We accurately point out that events do not
> happen in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. The proximate causes for
> the 9/11 attacks were the presence of American troops in Muslim countries,
> especially Saudi Arabia, and U.S. support for Israel.
>
> The root cause of the 9/11 attacks are people who drive around in 10-mpg
> SUVs, sporting bumper stickers like "These colors don't run" and "United We
> Stand".
>

Sure it is. It has nothing to do with terrorists going unpunished.

> : > The blame America first crowd is growing rather large. Apparently 50+
> years of
> : > self-serving dominance over the Middle East has had an effect.
> : >
> : Nice non-sequitor to save yourself from having to actually say something
> : meaningful.
>
> He said something meaningful. You have not. Nor have any of your comments
> shown even a glimmer of intelligence.
>
> : Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect any less of you at this point.
> :
> : > > So, fuck you very much but I decline your offer to convert to islam.
> : >
> : > I also decline.
> : >
> : First intelligent thing you've said this post. Your answer surprises me
> though.
>
> It surprises you that he doesn't want to convert to Islam??? Believe it or
> not, it is a complete myth that liberals are supporters or sycophants of
> Islamofascism.
>

I believe you're providing a good amount of evidence to the contrary.

Rory Michl Holderness
>
>

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

RMHisCOOL

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 8:58:08 AM9/4/06

Glad I made your radar though Bill. It means that I'm doing something right.

Rory

On Sep 4 2006 3:32 AM, William Coleman wrote:

> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382</a>
>

> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm</a>
>

> .. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's

> .. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising th

> <a href="http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com</a>

>
> Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
> or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
> affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
> right, and the Google ads.
>
> Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
>
> IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
> IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
>
> Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
>
> -- Jesus Christ
>
> God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
> Saddam, so I smote him also.
>
> -- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

hiroshi...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 2:18:02 PM9/4/06

William Coleman wrote:
>
> Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war criminals and
> their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely dropped
> 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since such
> actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions constitute the
> war crime of Collective Punishment.

No they don't.

> : I also think its a fantastic argument to bring up something
> : that the United States did before most of us were even born.
>
> It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic song
> singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at the
> U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as
> well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear, unambiguous
> war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as Collective Punishment.

The firestorm at Dresden was a UK affair.

None of the acts you complain about are even remotely "collective
punishment".

And people who take a good look at WWII will see that there was a very
good reason we were bombing Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

HotHa...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 5:57:35 PM9/4/06

RMHisCOOL wrote:
> Glad I made your radar though Bill. It means that I'm doing something right.
>
>

It makes me glad to have Marines of your caliber doing the job of
defending our great country.
Keep up the great work, and know that most of us support you fully.

Don't let the ravings of some on the ng get you down. Idiots are with
us always.

Duke

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 6:46:59 PM9/4/06

"RMHisCOOL" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message

news:1157373142$864...@recpoker.com...

RMH -- How am I anonymous? My name is Rory Holderness, and as I have
previously stated. I'm with 2nd Battalion 8th Marines, located at Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina.

Ramashiva --I went through infantry training at Camp Lejeune in 1967 after
completing boot camp at Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot. I was
later stationed at Camp Lejeune temporarily while waiting for assignment to
OCS. I subsequently decided not to attend OCS and withdrew my name from the
waiting list before a slot became available.

RMH -- I have said all of this before, so how am I an anonymous troll??

Ramashiva -- Thank you very much for identifying yourself. At least you
have a nutsack. As far as I knew you were anonymous, as I had not
previously seen your identification. You were not even on my radar screen
until yesterday, when I read some of your ignorant spew for the first time.

RMH -- Also, exactly what threat have I levelled at you?

Ramashiva -- Also, exactly where did I say you had threatened me? Please
learn to read English and stop claiming people have said things which they
haven't. Here is precisely what I said regarding your threatening me --

"I suggest you seriously consider the above before telling any lies about
me or making threats against me which you cannot possibly back up in the
real world."

Please notice I did not say you had threatened me. I was telling you that
threatening me would not be a good idea, since I react very negatively to
threats.

RMH -- None. I don't threaten people anonymously via the internet, I'm a
man.

Good for you. My respect for you has increased tremendously simply because
you have the balls to identify yourself and refrain from making anonymous
threats. If you have been reading RGP for the past four years, you know
that many people who agree with you politically show what brave men they are
by threatening me and insulting me anonymously while hiding behind
anonymous handles. Two of your heros who have insulted me while hiding
behind anonymous screen names are Irish Mike and Francis Lee Turbo (FL
Turbo). Nothing frosts my balls more than scumbags who are too scared to
tell the world who they are, while issuing threats and/or insults behind an
anonymous screen name. Of course, neither Irish Mike nor Francis Lee Turbo
would dare repeat any of their insults to my face. In particular, Irish
Mike has repeatedly questioned my patriotism, including a post made within
the last 24 hours.

I just assumed you were another one of these anonymous internet tough guys.
I apologize for confusing you with these subhuman scum who have such tiny
dicks that they try to prove they are men by making anonymous internet
threats and insults.

RMH -- I have interspersed my responses among your ravings.

On Sep 4 2006 3:32 AM, William Coleman wrote:

Ramashiva -- Well we have a new contender for the title of "King of Idiots"

among the right-wing nutcases who post to RGP. Previously, Irish Mike and
Francis Lee Turbo were the only serious contenders.

Here is a classic example of RMH's idiocy from a post he made in the thread
"Convert to Islam", started by my least favorite RGP poster, Irish Mike.

Here is a Google Groups link to RMH's post --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9dbe554e3fa93382

My responses are interleaved.

______________________________________________

"RMHisCOOL" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1157283342$863...@recpoker.com...

On Sep 3 2006 4:58 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:

On Sep 3 2006 2:31 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

Irish Mike -- Following is a cut & paste from a CNN story today. Al Queada

is graciously inviting all Americans to convert to islam - or else. "We
invite all Americans and believers to Islam, whatever their role and status
in Bush and Blair's world order," Gadahn says. "Decide today, because today
could be your last day."

Kimmes --"We invite all Arabs to Democracy, whatever their roles in their

current governments may be." W Says. "Decide today, because tomorrow you
might be building Nukes."

RMH -- Way to attribute quotes for something that doesn't exist in order to

slant it whichever way suits you. Spoken like a true liberal. I can't even
respond to this because its so idiotic.

Ramashiva -- Do you understand written English??? Obviously not. Do you

understand the significance of this sentence --

"Decide today, because tomorrow you might be building Nukes."

You idiots who want to attack Iran have no clue how disasterous the
consequences will be. The consequences will make the Iraq War look like a
minor bit of unpleasantness.

RMH -- Yes, I understand English. So you'd be more comfortable allowing the

nuclear program of Iran to come to fruition before we do anything?

Ramashiva -- No, I would not be comfortable with that at all. This is
another example of a strawman argument. Please do not put words in my
mouth. If you want to state my position for purposes of argumentation,
please either quote my words directly or offer an accurate paraphrase.
Please do not try to portray me as holding a position which I do not hold.

The problem of Iran developing nuclear weapons is very serious, but I am not
sure we have an option available to stop it. If I thought there was any
chance of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons by use of military
force, I would fully support such military action.

What I don't support is Bush going off half-cocked and attacking Iran, with
no evidence whatsoever that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Bush
has already created the greatest military and foreign policy disaster in the
history of our country by invading and occupying Iraq, when he had
absolutely no evidence there were WMD in Iraq. Please do not claim that
Bush had any evidence of WMD in Iraq. There were no WMD in Iraq in 2003.
The Duelfer Report concluded that not only were there no WMD in Iraq, there
were no WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. Nor were there any plans for WMD
programs in the future.

As I said, Bush had no evidence there were WMD in Iraq. Since there were no
WMD in Iraq, there was no evidence there were WMD in Iraq. There is no such
thing as evidence for that which does not exist. What the Bush Crime Family
had were lies and repetitions of lies. Bush, Cheney, and Rice knew that
much of their WMD "evidence" was false, yet they repeated this "evidence"
when they knew they were lying.

I will give you a few examples. You can find many more by using Google
Groups to search my posts in the Google Archives, and by using Google to
search the internet. If you really want to know the truth, and not just
support the Bush Crime Family's lies about WMD, then you will inevitably
conclude that Bush, Cheney, and Rice are pathological liars and traitors
because they led the USA into an unnecessary war by scaring the shit out of
the American people in order to get their war on.

Regarding the infamous aluminum tubes -- Condi Rice stated publicly that
these aluminum tubes could really only be used for building nuclear
centrifuges. At the time she made that statement, she was well aware that
nuclear scientists in the Department of Energy had already stated that these
aluminum tubes were totally unsuitable for building nuclear centrifuges and
were probably intended for building rockets.

Regarding Iraq's supposed purchase or attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake
from Niger -- Bush, Cheney, and Rice continued to pimp this nonsense long
after they knew for sure that there was nothing to the story, and that the
story was based on forged documents, most likely forged by the Italian
equivalent of the CIA. Specifically, CIA Director Tenet advised the White
House in 2002 to remove a reference to the Iraq/Niger/Uranium story from a
Presidential speech, because the CIA regarded the story as a complete
fabrication. Despite this, the famous sixteen words that British
intelligence had learned that Iraq recently tried to buy Uranium in Africa
found its way into the 2003 State of the Union address. At that time, the
Bush Crime Family already knew, or should have known, that British
intelligence was basing its findings on the forged Italian documents.

Joseph Wilson, who travelled to Niger at the behest of the CIA to determine
if there was any basis to the Iraq/Niger/Uranium story, finally got tired of
hearing the lies of the Bush Crime Family on this matter, and published his
famous NYT Op-Ed "What I didn't find in Africa" --

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times

What I Didn't Find in Africa

by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam
Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading
up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the
intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to
exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service
officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the
last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful
advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H.
W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President
Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security
Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the
effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's
nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed
former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central
Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions
about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was
told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale
of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq
in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to
check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's
office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau
(and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador
to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet
but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was
offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was
acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I
had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security
Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it.
Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I
could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy
bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around
their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the
embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always
kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then,
when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium
sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her
reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be
best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal
supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials,
people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long
to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it
would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq.
Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which
are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the
government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the
consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated,
quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of
the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In
short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a
sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have
pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for
example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably
forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which
were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of
her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a
detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State
Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or
earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my
trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four
documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The
documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey,
a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up
my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice
president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any
of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this
is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I
did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime
backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September
2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white
paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an
immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase
uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated
the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip
and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his
conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied
that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African
countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time,
I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before
the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet
that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's
office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I
did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was
circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our
political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand
(though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the
information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about
Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false
pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press"
appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to
produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use
of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the
assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained
international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical
weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a
nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations
resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to
the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about?
We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its
information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence
to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist
history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a
democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More
than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a
duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to
1995, is an international business consultant.

_________________________________________________________________

What was the response of the Bush Crime Family to Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed?
Did they admit that Wilson was correct? Fuck no. Instead, they launched a
vicious personal attack on Wilson, which included outing his wife, Valerie
Plame, as a covert CIA operative. They had to do this in order to
promulgate the complete fabrication that Plame had authorized Wilson's trip,
which was a boondoggle and nepotism according to Rove, Libby, and company.
Of course, Plame never authorized Wilson's trip. That authority was way
above her pay grade. Please do not claim that the Bush Crime Family never
said that Plame authorized Wilson's trip. Those are the EXACT words Karl
Rove used in leaking Plame's identity to Time reporter Matt Cooper. Nor did
Plame suggest or recommend Wilson, as the liars Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove
maintain to this day. This lie is based solely on a State Department memo
which so states. The State Department has since repudiated this part of the
memo as without foundation. Yet the right-wing noise machine still spews
this proven lie. If you are like most right-wing nutcases, you get most of
your information from the right-wing noise machine. You need to find a more
reliable source of information, since the right-wing noise machine continues
to spew many lies which have been proven to be lies.

Remember when, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Bush said, "We found the
WMD"? He was referring to the supposed mobile biological weapons
laboratories, of which Colin Powell had shown diagrams at his U.N. speech
presenting the "evidence" for WMD in Iraq. At the time Bush claimed we had
found the WMD in Iraq, a joint CIA/DOD taskforce had already travelled to
Iraq and examined these trailers in detail. Their conclusion was that these
trailers could not possibly be used to produce biological weapons, and were
most likely used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. The report of
the joint taskforce was officially filed the day before Bush made his
idiotic claim that we had found the WMD in Iraq. Bush most probably was not
aware of this report at the time he made his remark. But did Bush make the
report public and repudiate his prior remarks? Fuck no. George Bush is a
pathological liar and a traitor. The response of the Bush Crime Family was
to classify the report top secret and continue to repeat the lie that the
trailers were mobile biological weapons laboratories.

In the run up to the Iraq War, both Bush and Cheney repeatedly stated that
there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had WMD programs, including a nuclear weapons
program. There was plenty of doubt, and they knew it. The 2002 NIE
(National Intelligence Estimate) on Iraq had many qualifications and caveats
that the Iraq WMD intelligence was shaky and questionable. When the Bush
Crime Family published a sanitized version of the NIE, they omitted all
qualifications and caveats, creating the impression that the Iraq WMD
intelligence was solid.

Do you really think Tenet ever told Bush the Iraq WMD case was a "slam
dunk"??? I don't believe Tenet ever said any such thing. I think this is
just another example of Tenet falling on his sword to cover Bush's ass, as
Tenet did when he accepted responsibility for the Iraq/Niger/Uranium fuckup
in the 2003 State of the Union Address, when Tenet had warned the White
House months earlier that the story was a hoax.

I could go on and on my friend. I have written the above paragraphs without
notes or use of Google. I have not provided links. I have provided such
links in previous RGP posts, and you can easily find these links yourself if
you know how to use Google. Every statement I have made is exactly correct
and verifiable with authoritative links and sources.

So, sir, as one Marine combat veteran to another, I ask you -- Are you
willing to follow the truth no matter where it leads? Are you willing to
stop listening to the lies of the right-wing noise machine and start using
Google and other research tools to find out the truth for yourself? Are you
willing to come to terms with the truth, even though the truth means that
Bush, Cheney, and Rice are pathological liars and traitors to our great
country for leading this nation into an unnecessary war based on lies which
they knew were lies at the time they told them? Or are you going to react
like your fellow right-wing nutcases and dismiss everything I have said on
this matter as left-wing propaganda and lies? The truth is the truth, and
no amount of lies from the right-wing noise machine will change the truth.

Given the Bush Crime Family's history of lying about Iraqi WMD, are you
really going to believe anything Bush, Cheney, and Rice say as justification
for military action against Iran? Please tell me that you are not that
gullible.

RMH -- No wonder you love Clinton so much.

Ramashiva --I do not love Clinton, but I think he was a great President and
will be so judged by history. I disagreed with many of Clinton's policies.
Please do not try to paint me as a mindless Clinton supporter.
Specifically, I disagreed with the following Clinton policies --

The attempt to integrate faggots into the military with his "Don't ask,
don't tell" policy. Do you agree with me that there is simply no place for
faggots, in the closet or out, in the U.S. military?

Various attempts to further violate the fundamental right of the people to
keep and bear arms. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and I
have been so stating on RGP for four years. Please do not assume that all
liberals are gun control nutcases.

The military incursions into Bosnia and Kosovo. This was none of our
business. The national security of the United States was not involved. The
dispute between the Serbs and the Muslims of former Yugoslavia goes back for
centuries, including the fact that the Yugoslavian Muslims collaborated with
the Nazis and against the Serbs during World War II.

The United States cannot be the world's policemen. We cannot right all
wrongs nor solve all problems. The use of military force to solve problems
has limitations. A man needs to know his limitations, and so does a
country. The United States should only use military force and send our
soldiers and Marines into harm's way when the national security of the
United States is involved, or when treaty obligations to our military allies
compel us to take military action.

The limitations on the use of military force are nowhere more apparent than
in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, President Karzai is the mayor of
Kabul, nothing more. The central government has no control over the rest of
the country, which is controlled by the Taliban and various warlords, some
of whom are allied with the Taliban. The Taliban are resurgent and stronger
than ever. George Bush said in a speech, in 2002 or 2003, I believe, that
we had destroyed the Taliban and put them out of business forever. George
Bush is an idiot, a liar, or both. The level of violence and conflict
between the Taliban and coalition forces has been steadily increasing and
now amounts to a full blown guerrilla war. As I have previously explained,
military force alone can never defeat an insurgency which has popular
support. We supposedly learned that lesson in Viet Nam. The only solution
which can neutralize an insurgency with popular support is a political
settlement reached through negotiations.

In Iraq, we see exactly the same lesson. Despite the best efforts of our
brave soldiers and Marines, Iraq is rapidly descending into chaos and civil
war. The Iraqi central government controls Baghdad and not much else. U.S.
and Iraqi military forces do not even effectively control Baghdad. Despite
the presence of 60,000 coalition forces in Baghdad, we can't even keep a lid
on the violence or physically control the city. Most of Baghdad is under
effective control of sectarian militias and Al Qaeda.

There are actually three wars going on at once in Iraq, and our soldiers and
Marines are caught in the middle, powerless to do anything to stop the
violence --

The war of the insurgency and Al Qaeda against U.S. military forces.

The war of the insurgency and Al Qaeda against the elected government in
Iraq.

The war of Sunni militias against Shia militias.

Basically, everyone is armed to the teeth in Iraq, and they seem hellbent on
killing each other. We should get the fuck out of there ASAP, and let them
kill each other if that is what they are determined to do. We are powerless
to stop the violence, and the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is
only exacerbating the situation. I am sure you are aware that Congressman
John Murtha, a retired Marine Corps Bird Colonel and decorated veteran of
both the Korean and Viet Nam Wars, has been saying exactly what I am saying
for quite some time. The response of the right-wing noise machine is to
label Murtha a coward and his policy of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq as
"cutting and running". It makes my blood boil to hear the deserter George
Bush and the five-time draft deferment accepter Dick Cheney call Murtha's
policy "cutting and running". Bush and Cheney are very far from being
decent men.

It is treason of the highest order to waste the lives of thousands of U.S.
soldiers and Marines and throw away hundreds of billions of dollars of
taxpayer money on a bogus war on terror. The War in Iraq has nothing to do
with the war on terror, which is itself simply a slogan to justify the
imperialist aggression of the Bush Crime Family. There was no terrorism and
there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Al Qaeda is in
Iraq precisely because the U.S. military is in Iraq. As one Iraqi famously
said, "Why can't George Bush find somewhere else to fight his war on
terror?"

The notion that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight
them over here is also nonsense. Let's get real. The Iraqi insurgency is
95% or more homegrown. This is the official DOD estimate, and one ground
General whose name escapes me at the moment estimated that less than 1% of
the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters. Yet Bush, Cheney, and
company continue to lie to us when they say that the insurgency is just a
few foreign terrorists and Saddam deadenders. Cheney is lying when he says
over and over that the insurgency is in its last throes. The insurgency in
Iraq is stronger than ever.

The Iraqis who compose the insurgency were not terrorists before the
American invasion and occupation. They have had exactly the same reaction
that you and I would have if our country were invaded and occupied by a
foreign military power. They have taken up arms and are willing to fight to
the death to expel the foreign invaders. The idea that these Iraqi
insurgents would be over here attacking the USA if the U.S. military
withdrew from Iraq is pure propaganda from the Bush Crime Family. Those
Iraqi insurgents were in no sense terrorists before we invaded and occupied
their country.

Irish Mike -- "Mansfield, who is a writer and corporate adviser on the

Middle East, Islam and terrorism, said the time reference could indicate an
attack is near. Muslims believe that non-believers should be given a chance
to convert before they are attacked."

Kimmes -- "Irish Mike, who is an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, can be lied to

repeatedly by the self-serving leaders, yet still follow them blindly, and
attempt to defend the indefensible."

RMH -- Elaborate please. What is indefensible?

Ramashiva -- The entire foreign policy of the Bush Crime Family, which

constitutes the greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the USA.

RMH -- If somebody doesn't agree with you, it must be absolutely
indefensible.

Ramashiva --No sir, not at all. Again you are constructing strawman
arguments. Many positions of my political opponents are defensible. I may
disagree with these positions, but I can see how reasonable men would come
to different conclusions based on the same facts.

There is absolutely no question that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is
a huge strategic and military disaster. We can debate that all you want,
but you will lose the debate, because I have all the facts and all the logic
are on my side. Many senior people in the defense and foreign policy
community have reached exactly the same conclusion. If you got your
information from sources other than the right-wing noise machine, you would
already know this.

RMH -- The world is black and white, eh Bill?

Ramashiva -- It most certainly is. We are experiencing the climax of the
ageless war of good against evil as we speak. I have to tell you that there
is no question in my mind that the greatest evil in the world today is the
Bush Crime Family. They are far and away the biggest threat to world peace
and to my life personally.

Yes, the Islamofascists in general and Al Qaeda in particular are also
extremely evil, and we should exterminate them like rats whenever we have
the opportunity. But I have to tell you that the threat of Islamofascism is
greatly overblown by Islamophobics like Irish Mike and Francis Lee Turbo.
Yes, Islamofascism is a threat to our country, but not a threat that now or
ever will threaten our national survival.

Look, Osama bin Laden and his Islamofascist followers have dreams of taking
over the world. So what? So does every steet gang in Los Angeles.
The fact that you dream of taking over the world does not mean you are a
serious threat to do so.

Here is truth -- Cheeseburgers are a greater threat to the lives of
Americans than Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Bush Crime Family is
simply using the terrorist boogeyman to win elections by scaring the shit
out of the American people, to justify using the U.S. Constitution as toilet
paper, and to justify their grand imperialistic design to take over all the
oil fields in the Middle East.

That is truth, my friend. Open your eyes and ears. See the truth and hear
the truth. I would not lie to a fellow Marine.

RMH -- And how has Mike defended it? Are you denying Mansfield said this?

Who cares? That has nothing to do with the point of the post. How have we
been lied to?

Ramashiva -- OMFG!!! You really are brain dead. I could list hundreds of

definitively documented lies of the Bush Crime Family, but you would just
dismiss it as liberal propaganda. Do some research. Turn off Rush
Limbaugh. Get in contact with the real world. Stop living in your Nazi
fantasy world.

RMH -- Wow, you're a clever one. You could list hundreds and hundreds of

things, but ah...um...you don't.

Ramashiva -- Do you seriously want me to start listing the lies of the Bush
Crime Family??? I already gave you a few of the WMD lies, and I can back up
every statement I have made about the WMD lies with authoritative
references. But I shouldn't have to give you those references. You should
be a seeker of truth yourself and use Google to verify that everything I am
telling you is true. If you use Google Groups to search my posts the RGP
Archives, you will find that I have already provided you with authoritative
sources documenting many lies of the Bush Crime Family.

Are you so naive and/or so brainwashed that you actually believe that Bush,
Cheney, and Rice have not lied to us many, many times???

RMH -- If these were solid proof, then it couldn't be dismissed as

propaganda, but amazingly, you don't offer anything solid. Surprise. Yawn.

Ramashiva -- You are a fucking idiot, man. Seriously, you are an idiot.
When I say "I could list hundreds of definitively documented lies of the
Bush Crime Family", do you really think I cannot back up my words with facts
and authoritative references??? You need to study my history of debate on
RGP. When I make an assertion, I am ALWAYS ready to back my assertion up
with facts and authoritative references. You are obviously new here and
don't know who I am.

I can always back up what I say in debates. I never bluff in debates, and I
never bluff in poker. As was recently discussed in the thread on Barry
Greenstein, expert poker players almost never bluff, especially in low limit
games. If you really think stone cold bluffs are an important part of
correct poker strategy, then you are a novice poker player who knows nothing
about correct poker strategy.

But I shouldn't have to provide you with any links or sources. If you are
really a seeker after truth, I have given you enough information and
specific facts that you should be able to use Google to verify that what I
am saying about the WMD lies is exactly correct.

If you want to be an asshole about it and challenge me to prove my
assertions about the Bush Crime Family's WMD lies, I will do so. But you
need to be prepared to eat humble pie and apologize to me for questioning my
truthfulness every step of the way.

So do you want to call my bluff about WMD lies? If so, please do not ask me
to prove everything at once. I am not going to spend hours and hours with
Google doing your homework for you. Select a specific statement of mine
regarding WMD lies which you want to challenge. I will then provide you
with authoritative sources and links. And I will insist that you admit that
you are an asshole and idiot for challenging my credibility in the first
place. I do not lie. I am a truthteller. Got that?

RMH -- Please come up with an actual point not just a wisecrack next time.

Ramashiva -- Apparently you think a bullshit remark like this can refute a
cogent comment.

RMH -- If I had seen a cogent comment, maybe I'd understand what you mean.

Ramashiva -- You did see one, but you are such a dumb motherfucker that you
wouldn't know a cogent comment if one bit you on the ass. Let's look at
your reply to Bryan Kimmes -- "Please come up with an actual point not just
a wisecrack next time."

Do you understand that is a juvenile, sophomoric remark which indicates you
have no reply to Bryan, but you think you can just dismiss his cogent
comment with rhetorical handwaving? At the present time, you are way out of
your depth in terms of the political debates which rage on RGP all the time.
I suggest you review some RGP off-topic debating history before jumping into
debates where you will be cut up into little pieces by veteran debaters on
both sides of the political spectrum.

Irish Mike -- Apparently they made an exception to the "give them a chance

to convert before we kill them" rule regarding the Americans in the World
Trade Center.

Kimmes -- Apparently, the United States government made an exception in

defending the country after Osamas declaration of WAR, and his previous
attack on the WTC.

RMH -- I'm pretty sure Mike, as well as myself, or anybody else who doesn't

hate this country blames Clinton for his inaction in all things terrorist.

Ramashiva -- I am pretty sure you are a complete idiot or a mindless Clinton

basher who willfully lies about the greatest President of the last sixty
years. The lie that Clinton took no effective action against Islamofascists
has been definitively debunked by Urban Legends, commonly called Snopes.

RMH -- So how many felonies does a President have to commit to get on your
bad side?

Ramashiva -- Go fuck yourself, asshole. Clinton lied about an extramarital
blowjob. 99% of married American men would do exactly the same thing. He
lied in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial. The judge
in that trial later ruled that the question about Monica Lewinsky should
never have been asked in the first place. Please explain what possible
relevance a blowjob by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office has to allegations
that Clinton dropped his pants in a motel room years before Clinton became
President.

Clinton's lie was about his private life and had nothing to do with his
duties or functioning as President. The Republican-controlled Supreme Court
was way out of line in ruling that a sitting President could be sued for
actions he took before becoming President. Think about it. Paula Jones was
trailer trash whom the Republican dirty tricksters dug up in a desperate
attempt to get something, anything on Clinton. For reasons I will never
understand, the Republican right-wing hated Clinton with a passion. They
spent eight years in an unsuccessful attempt to bring him down. This makes
no sense. Clinton actually did what Republican Presidents and Presidential
candidates had been promising for years --

He balanced the budget and actually started paying down the National Debt.

He managed to push through a long overdue welfare reform. To do so, he had
to shove welfare reform down the thoats of members of Congress in his own
party.

He finally got the NAFTA free trade agreement passed. Again, over the
strenuous objections of many members of his own party.

He actually reduced the size of the Federal Government.

What is there not to like about the man? Do you seriously maintain that
lying about a blowjob negates all these accomplishments???

Here, educate yourself and stop lying --

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Status: False.

Origins: In chronological order:

RMH -- What does Clinton have to do with this?

Ramashiva -- Who said it did, you fucking moron??? You are the most
pathetic debater I have ever seen. Snopes is simply providing the
historical background for the various bogus attempts to paint Clinton as
soft on terrorism. Since you are so clueless, I doubt you know anything at
all about Snopes. You should. Practically everything you believe is a lie.
You can find the debunking of most of the lies you believe in on Snopes.
Snopes is strictly non-partisan. Snopes is acknowledged by both the left
and the right as a definitive source for settling arguments. If Snopes says
it is so, you had better believe it is so.

One exception to this will totally blow your little right-wing mind. At one
time, Snopes debunked what Michael Moore said in Fahrenheit 9/11 about the
plane full of Bin Ladens and other Saudis leaving the country in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11. When Moore rammed the facts down Snopes'
throat, Snopes was forced to issue an apology to Moore and correct the
record.

Of course you, like all right-wing assholes, claim Michael Moore is a liar.
If you think Moore is a liar, then you are full of shit and do not know what
you are talking about. Michael Moore is a truthteller. Got that? A
truthteller. Yes, Moore is willing to use selective editing and quoting out
of context to create false and misleading impressions. That doesn't make
him a liar. It makes him a brilliant propagandist. Propaganda is not lies.
Effective propaganda must be based on the truth to be credible. Propaganda
is simply the selective use of facts and arguments to present a convincing
case for a particular position. That is exactly what every columnist and
editorial writer in the country does. It's what I do on RGP. That's why I
say I am from the Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery. I
am upfront about what I do. I do not claim to present a complete and
balanced picture on the issues which I discuss. Why should I? I am a
partisan liberal Democrat. I present my strongest facts and arguments to
bolster my case and justify my conclusions. If someone wants to argue with
me, they need to come up with their own facts and arguments to refute my
conclusions. I am not going to hand my debating opponents ammunition with
which to shoot me.

Back to Michael Moore. Yes, he does sometimes present information which is
actually false. No one is perfect. Everyone, including me, sometimes gets
their facts wrong. I make every effort to make sure I have got my facts
straight, but I sometimes fuck up. When someone points out one of my
factual fuckups, I immediately thank them for the correction. I do not try
to obfuscate the issue with bullshit debating techniques to try to claim
that what I said was actually correct. Nor do I just ignore people who
correct my factual errors. Most of the people on your side of the political
spectrum simply refuse to admit when they are wrong. Pickle and Mo Ron
Charles are classic examples of this intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, man, Michael Moore made every effort to tell the truth in
Fahrenheit 9/11. He had what he thought was a reliable source for every
statement he made in the movie. If you doubt that, here is a link to
Moore's sources for every statement made in the movie --

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

Notice there are six pages of links and sources. Six pages. Michael Moore
didn't make anything up in Fahrenheit 9/11. He had what he thought were
reliable sources for everything he said. In a few cases, he didn't get his
facts straight. Big fucking deal. That happens to everyone.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is the most exhaustively researched and documented
documentary movie in history. The Nazis among us are simply lying when they
claim that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary. It is the quintessence of
a documentary film.

RMH -- bHe put a lot of pressure on them, no doubt.

Ramashiva --Look, asshole. Your comments are extremely weak. Snopes is
simply documenting the factual background, not making a partisan argument in
defense of Clinton. So far, your comments are weak and foolish.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff

next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole
in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have
yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the
refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals
and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in

RMH -- Why not? People have to die before we'll say you can't harbor
terrorists? Bullshit.

Ramashiva -- No, what you are saying is bullshit. What you are saying shows
that you are completely ignorant of history and the way the world actually
works. The invasion of Afghanistan was only feasible because Pakistan was
willing to cooperate with us in removing the Taliban in the aftermath of
9/11. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a strong supporter of the Taliban. In
fact, the Taliban was basically a production of the Pakistan military and
intelligence services. You seriously think we could have bullied Pakistan
into supporting the overthrow of the Taliban prior to 9/11???

If you seriously think the Pakistanis would not have told us to go fuck
ourselves prior to 9/11, then you are a total idiot. I shouldn't be wasting
my time on you, since in that case, you would be nothing but a completely
brainwashed Nazi. I still have hope for you, since you are a Marine and a
combat veteran. Please do not disappoint a fellow Marine.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED
IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must
be an election year.

Last updated: 27 January 2004

_________________________________________

RMH -- What's your point?

You're trying to counter the point that Islam is not a religion of peace by
mentioning the previous terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims. Genius.
You must have voted for Hillary.

Ramashiva -- If she does run for President, she will be far and away the

best qualified candidate to run for President since Adlai Stevenson.

RMH -- Wow, I can't say anything to that, except that I'm glad most Dems are
too lazy to vote.

Ramashiva -- You are just a braindead Nazi who hates Hillary the same way
you hate Bill Clinton. The woman is extremely intelligent. She is
extremely well-educated. She is extremely competent and determined to
achieve her goals. These are all qualitities you want in a President.
Notice George Bush is the exact opposite of Hillary --

George Bush is easily the dumbest motherfucker ever to be President. If he
didn't have rich connected parents, he would have wound up a degenerate
alcoholic bum snorting coke when he could afford it.

Despite holding two prestigeous degrees, George Bush is profoundly
uneducated. He basically knows nothing except what his handlers tell him.
Again, there are hundreds of examples of Bush showing his complete ignorance
of common knowledge facts. Yet you probably think the Smirking Chimp is a
great President. If you think that, you are beyond clueless.

You think George Bush is competent??? Don't make me laugh. He is so fucked
up that he couldn't even complete his military obligation, and met the
criteria for a deserter, but his father's influence with the Texas Air
National Guard resulted in a coverup and the sanitizing of Bush's service
record. If you seriously think George Bush was not a deserter, here is
irrefutable proof from the parts of his service record which did not get
sanitized --

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

http://www.glcq.com/

No doubt your response will be that this is just more liberal propaganda.
This is not liberal propaganda, asshole. Everything in these links is
directly from the service records of George W. Bush, Deserter.

Besides being a deserter, Bush also fucked up every business opportunity his
father's rich friends handed him on a golden platter, with the exception of
his being given a share of the Texas Rangers worth $10 million simply for
the use of the Bush family name. His Presidency is an unmitigated failure,
and the evidence of his incompetency is overwhelming. If you stopped
listening to the lies of the right-wing noise machine, you would already
know this.

Irish Mike -- It's amazing to me that many Americans still delude themselves

with the myth that islam is a religion of peace.

Kimmes -- It's amazing to me that anyone still deludes themselves with the
myth of religion.

RMH -- What do your religious views have to do with Mike's post about Islam

NOT being a religion of peace? Its of little consequence whether or not you
believe in anything. Although you do strike me as one of those atheists who
are atheists merely to be cool or the elitist attitude. Thats why you say
condescending one liners like the one above. Either way, IT DOESN'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH MIKE'S POINT!

Irish Mike -- They refuse to believe that islam makes no distinction between

women & children and military targets.

Kimmes -- No women or children have died in Iraq. Also, no women or children

were killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

RMH -- There probably have been some in Iraq, of course.

Ramashiva -- PROBABLY??? You are a submoron. Something on the order of

100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the Iraq War. Obviously, many
of these were women and children.

RMH -- Collateral damage is definitely the same thing as targeting them,
right?

Ramashiva -- Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war
criminals and their sycophants. Listen genius, the U.S. military routinely

dropped 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since
such actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions
constitute the war crime of Collective Punishment. I look forward to the
war crimes trials of Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

RMH -- From what I've seen of Fallujah, there's not a lot of innocent
civilians there.

Ramashiva -- Again, go fuck yourself. You are an unmitigated Nazi asshole.
Before the U.S. military levelled Fallujah, there were about 400,000 people
living there. Do you seriously think all or even most of them were
terrorists or members of the insurgency??? Sure, most of them were
supporters and sympathizers of the insurgency. So fucking what? Their
country had been invaded and occupied by an infidel military force. They
were perfectly within their rights and on solid moral ground in opposing the
U.S. military, even if they were opposing the U.S. military by shooting
back.

You just don't get that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was profoundly
immoral. Resistance to this illegal invasion and occupation of their
country is perfectly moral and perfectly acceptable. The U.S. military in
Iraq is fighting on the side of evil. Got that? If you fought in Iraq,
then you were part of the forces of evil. Either you were duped into
thinking that the U.S. cause in Iraq was moral and right, or you are just an
evil person who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to invade and occupy
another country, indiscriminately kill its citizens, torture its citizens in
its prisons, and generally behave just as badly as Saddam. Most of the
justifications of U.S. atrocities and crimes amount to --

"We are not as bad as Saddam!" Is that the moral standard to which you
think the United States of America should be held? Seriously. Is that what
you think?

RMH -- Dumbass.

Ramashiva -- Talking to yourself now?

RMH -- I also think its a fantastic argument to bring up something that the

United States did before most of us were even born.

Ramashiva -- It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving,

patriotic song singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to
look at the U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and
Tokyo, as well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear,
unambiguous war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as Collective
Punishment.

RMH -- Absolutely, there were atrocities. Internment camps was one you

failed to mention as well. So what?

Ramashiva -- Do I always have to explain the obvious to the obtuse? Jesus
H. Christ on a pogo stick. Let's go back to Bryan Kimmes post to which you
replied.

You completely missed the point of his post. Not surprising, since you are
one of the dumbest motherfuckers I have ever had the misfortune to
encounter. His post was a satire, numbnuts. You kept making the totally
irrelevant point that what Bryan said didn't refute what your fellow Nazi,
Irish Mike said. He wasn't trying to refute anything Irish Mike said. He
was making fun of Irish Mike and making the point that people in glass
houses shouldn't walk around naked. I hope you are not so dense that you
cannot realize the previous sentence is my feeble attempt at humor.
Obviously I meant people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now, let's look at Bryan's post --

Irish Mike -- They refuse to believe that islam makes no distinction between

women & children and military targets.

Kimmes -- No women or children have died in Iraq. Also, no women or children

were killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Get the fucking point now, genius??? Irish Mike is criticizing the
Islamofascists because they indiscriminately kill women and children in
their terrorist attacks. Agreed. Indiscriminately killing innocent
civilians, especially women and children, is always deplorable and always a
war crime. Bryan's point was that the USA was equally guilty of such
indiscriminate killing, both in World War II, and also in the Iraq War.

Have I succeeded in explaining the obvious to the obtuse??? Your reply to
Bryan immediately below shows that Bryan's point went completely over your
head. Did you hear a whooshing sound when you read Bryan's post? Again, I
have to tell you, you are way out of your depth in trying to get involved in
the RGP political debates. How can you debate someone when you don't even
understand what your opponent is saying?

The best course right now for you would be to lurk and just read what others
are saying in the political debates. You should also start getting both
sides of the story by reading what liberals are saying in their weblogs. I
am not saying that we liberals have the whole truth, but we can certainly
prove to you that most everything you believe is a lie. Are you man enough
to accept that possibility? That you have been lied to by the right-wing
noise machine? I gave you a list of the most prominent liberal blogs in
your request for blog recommendations from some of your fellow Nazis. If
you are actually a seeker of truth and not a brainwashed Nazi, you will
listen to both sides of every issue before forming an opinion. I read
conservative blogs and news sources all the time. I want to make sure I am
getting both sides of the story. You should also.

The blogs --

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

http://www.firedoglake.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

http://www.juancole.com/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

http://www.warandpiece.com/

RMH -- What's your point? That Islam is a religion of peace because the US

dropped an A-bomb on civilians sixty years ago?

Ramashiva -- Is this your concept of argumentation? To completely

misrepresent your opponent's argument? Apparently all you have got is
strawman argumentation.

RMH -- You can't stay on topic. Are you a Kennedy or something?

Ramashiva -- And what would be wrong with that??? The Kennedys are

political royalty. Deal with it.

RMH -- Yeah, they're great. I wish I could get away with DUIs and murder.

Ramashiva -- Again, fuck you asshole. You really are an asshole. Who got
away with a DUI? George Bush, that's who. He managed to conceal his DUI
arrest and conviction until just days before the 2000 Presidential Election.
Look up how many DUI convictions Dick Cheney has. The answer will blow your
mind. As far as Teddy and Chappaquidick (spelling?) is concerned, it was a
tragic accident and Teddy handled the incident in a very irresponsible way.
No question about that. To call it murder is nonsense. That suggests that
Teddy deliberately drove off the bridge to kill Mary Jo Kopecne. Is that
what you believe??? That Teddy committed a deliberate act of murder? Just
how much bullshit from the right-wing noise machine have you swallowed???

RMH -- Royalty indeed.

Yes, Royalty indeed, you Nazi pig. I notice you didn't mention Teddy's
assassinated brothers, John and Robert. Would you also like to trash the
memory of these two great Americans with some of your Nazi sleaze? I
suppose you will trash them for fucking Marilyn Monroe. Tell me you
wouldn't fuck Marilyn's brains out if you ever got the chance. Not that you
would ever even get the chance to smell the pussy of a woman as beautiful as
Marilyn Monroe.

Listen, shit for brains. The Kennedys were all horny studs, as is Bill
Clinton. Do you understand that these powerful masculine men were
continuously beseiged by beautiful women who wanted to fuck them? You want
to criticize the Kennedys and Clinton because they got all the pussy they
could get, whenever they could get it? What kind of man are you, anyway?
Contrast the Kennedys and Clinton with both President Bushs, Reagan, Ford,
Nixon, etc. Do you seriously think any of these sexually repressed
Republican Presidents ever got any strange stuff? Do you? Let's face it.
Democratic Presidents are almost always masculine studs. Republican
Presidents are almost always sexually inadequate wimps. Enough said.

Irish Mike -- They do not want to believe that islam gives infidels (which

is any non-muslim) only two choices: convert to islam or be killed.

Kimmes -- They do not want to believe that Christians killed hundreds of

thousands, only two choices: convert to Christianity or be killed.

RMH -- Wow, now you're going even further back.

Ramashiva -- What is wrong with going back in history??? To paraphrase

Santayana -- Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

RMH -- How does this have anything to do with what we're talking about? Are

you talking about the Crusades or what? Do you actually believe that's why
we attack people today? Clarify.

Ramashiva -- You fucking moron, the Roman Catholic Church has killed

100,000,000 people for the crime of disagreeing with Catholic Dogma. Did I
mention that the Roman Catholic Priesthood has, for centuries, operated an
international ring of pedophiles and child molesters?

RMH -- They operated a ring eh? Do you have evidence or do you just enjoy
saying sensationalist things?

Ramashiva --The fucking evidence has been plastered all over the news for
twenty years. Do you live in a cave??? Yes. The Roman Catholic Priesthood
is an organized international conspiracy of pedophiles and child molesters.
For centuries, the official policy of the Catholic Church regarding
pedophile priests has been to cover up for their child molesting priests.
This has been the official policy of the Catholic Church, passed down the
chain of command from the Pope to the Cardinals to the Archbishops to the
Bishops. No police are ever called. Listen, when a Priest molests a child,
that is a serious felony and the Priest should be immediately defrocked and
turned over the cops.

Instead, what has been the official policy of the Catholic Church? The
pedophile Priest is sent for rehabilitation. There is a retreat in New
Mexico devoted to the rehabilitation of pedophile Priests. The name of the
retreat is Spirit of the Paraclete. Following the rehabilitation, the
pedophile Priest is sent to a new parish, and the Bishop of that Parish is
not even informed that he has been sent a pedophile Priest.

Do you still think I am exaggerating when I say the Roman Catholic
Priesthood is an organized conspiracy of pedophiles and child molesters? I
am not saying every Catholic Priest is a pedophile. What I am saying is
that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has provided for centuries a safe
protective environment for Priests who are pedophiles and child molesters.
That is a conspiracy in my book.

Ramashiva -- Anyone who condemns Islamofascism, without also condemning the

excesses of the Catholic Church, has a huge blind spot.

RMH -- You're right. I would condemn the Church for much of what it did
hundreds of years ago,

Ramashiva -- The fact that the murder of 100,000,000 true Christians
occurred centuries ago is irrelevant. You can never wash the blood of
100,000,000 innocents off your hands. For the last 2000 years, the Catholic
Church has been the most evil institution on the face of the earth. They
are an apostate Church, teaching pagan doctrines as Christian doctrines. I
have written extensively about the evils and apostasy of the Catholic
Church. Just use Google Groups with search keys ramashiva Catholic Church.
All will be revealed.

The Roman Catholic Church is not murdering people now, only because they do
not have the political power to do so. Many of their policies, such as
opposition to abortion, amount to murder, since this policy is a primary
reason for overpopulation and poverty in many third world Catholic
countries.

RMH -- as I condemn Islamofascism for what it does today.

Ramashiva -- Listen. In his wildest dreams, Osama bin Laden never has and
never will commit even a fraction of 1% of the evil committed by the Roman
Catholic Church over the centuries. The Catholic Church is literally the
Church of Satan. Read some church history. I am not exaggerating at all.

Irish Mike -- The blame America first crowd is so busy bashing America that

they deny that this is a fundamental tenet of islam - not just of radical
islamofascists.

Ramashiva -- We do not blame America first. We accurately point out that

events do not happen in a vacuum. Actions have consequences. The proximate
causes for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of American troops in Muslim
countries, especially Saudi Arabia, and U.S. support for Israel.

The root cause of the 9/11 attacks are people who drive around in 10-mpg
SUVs, sporting bumper stickers like "These colors don't run" and "United We
Stand".

RMH -- Sure it is. It has nothing to do with terrorists going unpunished.

Ramashiva -- You are so fucking dense. Exactly what lack of punishment of
which terrorists resulted in 9/11? Are we back to the nonsense of Clinton
being soft on terrorism? That is a pure lie from the right-wing noise
machine. I already gave you the Snopes link debunking the myth that Clinton
was soft on terrorism. Are you going to admit it when you are shown to be
wrong about something, or are you just going to keep repeating your Nazi
lies?

The people who drive 10-mpg SUVs are the ultimate cause of 9/11. If
everyone drove a car which gets 40 mpg like I do, and like I have done for
the last 40 years, there would be a great reduction in our total demand for
oil. Sufficient reduction that we would not have become so dependent on
Middle East Oil like we have increasingly become over the last 40 years.

Listen. If we didn't need Middle Eastern Oil, do you seriously think we
would need to station troops in Saudi Arabia to protect our oil supply???
If you knew anything at all about what caused 9/11, which you obviously
don't, you would know that Osama's primary beef with us, which he upbraided
us about for many years before 9/11, was the presence of infidel troops in
the Land of the Two Mosques, i.e., Saudi Arabia.

If we did not need Middle Eastern Oil, we would not give a fuck what the
Sand Niggers were doing, or what was happening in their Godforsaken
countries. Get real.

Kimmes -- The blame America first crowd is growing rather large. Apparently

50+ years of self-serving dominance over the Middle East has had an effect.

RMH -- Nice non-sequitor to save yourself from having to actually say
something meaningful.

Ramashiva -- He said something meaningful. You have not. Nor have any of

your comments shown even a glimmer of intelligence.

RMH -- Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect any less of you at this point.

Irish Mike -- So, fuck you very much but I decline your offer to convert to
islam.

Kimmes -- I also decline.

RMH -- First intelligent thing you've said this post. Your answer surprises
me though.

Ramashiva -- It surprises you that he doesn't want to convert to Islam???

Believe it or not, it is a complete myth that liberals are supporters or
sycophants of Islamofascism.

RMH -- I believe you're providing a good amount of evidence to the contrary.

Ramashiva -- I believe you are an unrepentant Nazi asshole. Just because I
disagree with the warmongering policies of the Bush Crime Family does not
mean that I support Islamofascism in any way. I have made it perfectly
clear repeatedly that I condemn Islamofascism.

One of the most disgusting lies you Nazis tell is that liberals support
terrorism, are soft on terrorism, or are traitors. Are you aware that this
disgusting technique has been used by American Nazis for 60 years? Please
see my post "OT: Stabbed in the back!" for details --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/30f68491328ac891

Here. I will copy the entire post for you, since you are probably too dumb
to click on a URL --

Here is a fantastic essay by Kevin Baker in Harpers, which puts in
perspective the current attempts by Bush, Cheney, Rove, and other right-wing
warmongers to blame liberals and war critics for the failures of the Bush
Crime Family in Iraq. If the Iraq War winds up being a total disaster (as
if it weren't already a total disaster), we will hear a huge hue and cry
from the right that the liberals and war critics are to blame.

Of course, we have seen this all before. We lost the Viet Nam War because
Jane Fonda and John Kerry went to Hanoi. If the American military had been
allowed to do its job, we would have kicked Vietnamese ass.

Baker does a great job of tracing the origin of the modern stabbed in the
back myth to Wagner's Gotterdammerung. He shows how the Nazis embraced this
myth to explain the German defeat in World War I, and how the Republican
Party has taken a page right out of the Nazi playbook since World War II by
blaming all American foreign policy failures on treasonous betrayals by
Democrats and liberals.

This essay should be required reading for all right-wing nutcases. You guys
are all complete historical illiterates, and what history you do know is a
completely distorted narrative. Witness Paul G's recent assertion that
Augusto Pinochet was a "good man" because Chile was under attack from
communism, and Pinochet saved Chile from being transformed into a
totalitarian communist dictatorship. Never mind that Allende was
democratically elected in one of the few stable democracies in Latin
America. Never mind that, upon assuming power, Pinochet dissolved
parliament and destroyed a viable democracy. Never mind that he ruthlessly
persecuted members of all opposition parties, killing thousands of them.
Never mind that he kidnapped and tortured thousands of people. Never mind
that he disappeared thousands of others. Never mind that, like all corrupt
dictators, left or right, he embezzled millions of dollars from the Chilean
people. He was fighting communism, you see. That justifies any and all
atrocities by Pinochet, no matter how horrific. He was a good man.

Anyway, read and learn, you right-wing nutcases. Find out how every time
you
call a liberal a traitor, a terrorist sycophant, or a communist, you are
taking your strategy right out of the Nazi playbook.

http://harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html

Stabbed in the Back!

The past and future of a right-wing myth

Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006. Originally from June 2006. By Kevin Baker.

First drink, hero, from my horn:
I spiced the draught well for you
To waken your memory clearly
So that the past shall not slip your mind!

-- Hagen to Siegfried, Die Götterdämmerung

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially
monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national
pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside
force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back
has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end
of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has
both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own
worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a
formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny
culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on
internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase
the number of internal enemies.

As the United States staggers past the third anniversary of its misadventure
in Iraq, the dagger is already poised, the myth is already being
perpetuated. To understand just how this strategy is likely to unfold-and
why this time it may well fail-we must return to the birth of a legend.

* * *

The stab in the back first gained currency in Germany, as a means of
explaining the nation's stunning defeat in World War I. It was Field Marshal
Paul von Hindenburg himself, the leading German hero of the war, who told
the National Assembly, "As an English general has very truly said, the
German army was 'stabbed in the back.'"

Like everything else associated with the stab-in-the-back myth, this claim
was disingenuous. The "English general" in question was one Maj. Gen. Neill
Malcolm, head of the British Military Mission in Berlin after the war, who
put forward this suggestion merely to politely summarize how Field Marshal
Erich von Ludendorff-the force behind Hindenburg-was characterizing the
German army's alleged lack of support from its civilian government.

"Ludendorff's eyes lit up, and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a
bone," wrote Hindenburg biographer John Wheeler-Bennett. "'Stabbed in the
back?' he repeated. 'Yes, that's it exactly. We were stabbed in the back.'"

Ludendorff's enthusiasm was understandable, for, as he must have known, the
phrase already had great resonance in Germany. The word dolchstoss-"dagger
thrust"-had been popularized almost fifty years before in Wagner's
Götterdämmerung. After swallowing a potion that causes him to reveal a
shocking truth, the invincible Teutonic hero, Siegfried, is fatally stabbed
in the back by Hagen, son of the archvillain, Alberich.

Wagner had himself lifted his plot device from a medieval German poem, which
was inspired in turn by Old Norse folklore, and of course the same story can
be found in a slew of ancient mythologies, whether it's the fate of the
Greek heroes Achilles and Hercules or the story of Jesus and Judas. The hero
cannot be defeated by fair means or outside forces but only by someone close
to him, resorting to treachery.

The Siegfried legend in particular, though, has nuances that would mesh
perfectly with right-wing mythology in the twentieth century, both in
Germany and in the United States. At the end of Wagner's Ring Cycle, the
downfall of the gods is followed by the rise of the Germanic people. The
mythological hero has been transformed into the volk, just as heroic stature
is granted to the modern state. Siegfried is killed just after revealing an
unwelcome truth-much as the right, when pressed for evidence about its
conspiracy theories, will often claim that these are hidden truths their
enemies have a vested interest in concealing. Hagen, as a half-breed, an
outsider posing as a friend, stands in for something worse yet-the
assimilated Jew, able to betray the great warrior of the volk by posing as
his boon companion.

It was an iconography easily transferable to Germany's new, postwar
republic. Hitler himself would claim that while recuperating behind the
lines from a leg wound, he found Jewish "slackers" dominating the
war-production bureaucracy and that "the Jew robbed the whole nation and
pressed it beneath his domination." The rape imagery is revolting but vivid;
Hitler was already attuned to the zeitgeist of his adopted country. Even
before the war had been decided, a soldier in his company recalled how
Corporal Hitler would "leap up and, running about excitedly, say that in
spite of our big guns, victory would be denied us, for the invisible foes of
the German people were a greater danger than the biggest cannon of the
enemy."

It didn't matter that Field Marshal Ludendorff had in fact been the virtual
dictator of Germany from August of 1916 on, or that the empire's civilian
leaders had been stunned by his announcement, in September of 1918, that his
last, murderous offensives on the western front had failed, and that they
must immediately sue for peace. The suddenness of Germany's defeat only
supported the idea that some sort of treason must have been involved. From
this point on, all blame would redound upon "the November criminals," the
scheming politicians, reds, and above all, Jews.

Yet it was necessary, for the purging that the Nazis had in mind, to believe
that the national degeneration went even further. Jerry Lembcke, in his
brilliant work, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam,
writes of how the Nazis fostered the dolchstosslegende in ways that eerily
foreshadowed returning veteran mythologies in the United States. Hermann
Göring, the most charismatic of the Nazi leaders after Hitler, liked to
speak of how "very young boys, degenerate deserters, and prostitutes tore
the insignia off our best front line soldiers and spat on their field gray
uniforms." As Lembcke points out, any insignia ripping had actually been
done by the mutinous soldiers and sailors who would launch a socialist
uprising shortly after the war, tearing them off their own shoulders or
those of their officers. Göring's instant revisionism both covered up this
embarrassing reality and created a whole new class of villains who were-in
his barely coded language-homosexuals, sexually threatening women, and other
"deviants." All such individuals would be dealt with in the new, Nazi order.

* * *

The dolchstosslegende first came to the United States following not a war
that had been lost but our own greatest triumph. Here, the motivating defeat
was suffered not by the nation but by a faction. In the years immediately
following World War II, the American right was facing oblivion.
Domestically, the reforms of the New Deal had been largely embraced by the
American people. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations-supported by many
liberal Republicans-had led the nation successfully through the worst war in
human history, and we had emerged as the most powerful nation on earth.

Franklin Roosevelt and his fellow liberal internationalists had sounded the
first alarms about Hitler, but conservatives had stubbornly-even
suicidally-maintained their isolationism right into the postwar era. Senator
Robert Taft, "Mr. Republican," and the right's enduring presidential hope,
had not only been a prominent member of the leading isolationist
organization, America First, and opposed the nation's first peacetime draft
in 1940, but also appeared to be as naive about the Soviet Union as he had
been about the Axis powers. Like many on the right, he was much more
concerned about Chiang Kai-shek's worm-eaten Nationalist regime in China
than U.S. allies in Europe. "The whole Atlantic Pact, certainly the arming
of Germany, is an incentive for Russia to enter the war before the army is
built up," Taft warned. He was against any U.S. military presence in Europe
even in 1951.

This sort of determined naiveté had Taft and his movement teetering on the
brink of political irrelevance. They saved themselves by grabbing at an
unlikely rope-America's very own dolchstosslegende, the myth of Yalta. No
reasonable observer would have predicted in the immediate wake of the Yalta
conference that it would become an enduring symbol of Democratic perfidy.
Yalta was, in fact, originally considered the apogee of the Roosevelt
Administration's accomplishments, ensuring that the hard-won peace at the
end of World War II would not soon dissolve

into an even worse conflict, just as the botched peace of Versailles had led
only to renewed hostilities in the years after World War I. The conference,
which took place in the Soviet Crimea in February 1945, was the last time
"the Big Three" of the war-Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin-would meet
face-to-face. The U.S. negotiating team went with specific goals and was
widely perceived at the time as having achieved them. Agreements were
reached on the occupation of the soon-to-be-defeated German Reich, the
liberation of those Eastern European countries occupied by or allied with
Germany, the Soviet entrance into the war against Japan, and, most
significantly in Roosevelt's eyes, on the structure of a workable,
international body designed to keep world peace, the United Nations.

FDR's presentation of these agreements before a joint session of Congress
that March met with almost universal acclaim. This was not surprising.
Roosevelt, who had been at Versailles as a junior member of the Wilson
Administration, was preoccupied with making sure that his vision for the
postwar world did not founder on any partisan bickering with Congress.
Before leaving for Yalta, he had briefed a group of leading senators from
across the political spectrum on what he hoped to accomplish, and solicited
their opinions and questions. The delegation he took with him to the Soviet
Union was a bipartisan team of senior diplomats, advisers, and military men,
and he continued to cultivate support from all quarters on his return to the
United States. Such prominent Republican figures as Arthur Vandenberg, the
once-isolationist senator from Michigan turned internationalist, and Thomas
Dewey, Roosevelt's fierce opponent in the 1944 presidential race, expressed
general support for the results of the Yalta conference. Taft and the right
wing of the Republican Party were more skeptical, but offered no substantial
criticisms.

Save for a few congressmen, newspaper publishers, and columnists on the
extreme fringe of the right, this early Cold War consensus would survive
until 1948. Then, Dewey's and the Republicans' stunning losses in the
elections that fall, combined with a confluence of American setbacks abroad,
served to revivify the right.

Not only did the Republicans lose a presidential election against a badly
divided, national Democratic Party; they also lost the congressional
majorities they had just managed to eke out in 1946, following fourteen
years in the political wilderness. It now seemed clear that the Republicans
would never return to power merely by supporting Democratic policies, or by
promising to implement them more effectively, and the right wing gained
traction within the party.

Meanwhile, the exposure of Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent followed, in
relatively rapid succession, by the fall of Czechoslovakia's coalition
government to a Soviet-backed coup, the Soviet attainment of an atomic bomb,
and the victory of Mao's Communists over Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang regime
in China, cast the entire policy of containment into doubt. Never mind that
the right's own feckless or muddled proposals for fighting the Cold War
would not have ameliorated any of these situations. The right swept them
into the memory hole and offered a new answer to Americans bewildered by how
suddenly their nation's global preeminence had been diminished: Yalta.

A growing chorus of right-wing voices now began to excoriate our wartime
diplomacy. Their most powerful charge, one that would firmly establish the
Yalta myth in the American political psyche, was the accusation that our
delegation had given over Eastern Europe to the Soviets. According to "How
We Won the War and Lost the Peace," an essay written for Life magazine
shortly before the 1948 election by William Bullitt-a former diplomat who
had been dismissed by Roosevelt for outing a gay rival in the State
Department-FDR and his chief adviser, Harry Hopkins, were guilty of "wishful
appeasement" of Stalin at Yalta, handing the peoples of Poland, Hungary,
Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states over to the Soviet dictator.

The right wing's dolchstosslegende was a small but fateful conspiracy,
engineered through "secret diplomacy" at Yalta. Its linchpin was Hiss, a
junior State Department aide at Yalta who was now described as a major
architect of the pact. Hiss was a perfect villain for the right's purposes.
He was not only a communist and a spy; he was also an effete Eastern
intellectual right down to his name-and, by implication, possibly a
homosexual. He had been publicly exposed by that relentlessly regular guy,
Dick Nixon, as an unnatural, un-American element who had used his wiles to
sway all of his superiors in the Crimea.

Just how he had accomplished this was never detailed, but it didn't matter;
specificity is anathema to any myth. Bullitt and an equally flamboyant
opportunist of the period, Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce, offered a more
general explanation. The Democrats, Mrs. Luce had already charged, "will
not, or dare not, tell us the commitments that were overtly or secretly made
in moments of war's extermination by a mortally ill President, and perhaps
mortally scared State Department advisers."

The idea of the "dying President" at Yalta was plausible to much of the
public, who had seen photographs of Roosevelt looking suddenly, shockingly
gaunt and exhausted throughout much of the last year of his life. To the
right wing-which had conducted a whispering campaign against Roosevelt
throughout his term in office, claiming that his real affliction was not
polio but syphilis, and that he, his wife, and various advisers, including
Hopkins, were "secret Jews" and Soviet agents-it all made perfect sense. To
the many Americans who still loved Roosevelt and whose votes the Republicans
needed, FDR himself could now become the Siegfried figure, a dying hero
betrayed by the shady, unnatural Hiss.

All of this, of course, falls apart under the most cursory examination. Hiss
was a "technician" at Yalta, relied upon mostly for his expertise regarding
the planned United Nations, and-already suspected of espionage-he had played
no policymaking role in a large, bipartisan delegation that included most of
the nation's military and diplomatic leadership. Roosevelt was in severe
physical decline and would die from a massive stroke some two months later,
but his mind was still active and engaged. Chip Bohlen-who actually was at
Yalta and who went on to become a leading Cold War statesman under both
Republican and Democratic administrations-would echo many other observers in
reporting that while Roosevelt's "physical state was certainly not up to
normal, his mental and psychological state was certainly not affected. He
was lethargic but when important moments arose, he was mentally sharp."

Far from handing over anything to anyone, Roosevelt had actually persuaded
Stalin to sign onto a "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that affirmed "the
right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will
live" and committed the Big Three "to the earliest possible establishment
through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people."
More was not possible. The salient fact about Eastern Europe at the end of
World War II was that the Red Army enjoyed an immense numerical advantage
there. To dislodge it, the United States would have had to embark
immediately upon another epic struggle, a vast new war for which the
American people, already clamoring for demobilization, showed absolutely no
enthusiasm. It is likely that the United States would have eventually
prevailed in such a struggle, but only at a cost of American lives that
would have dwarfed the total lost in World War II itself, and the further
devastation of the very European countries we had sought to liberate.

As Bohlen told a Senate committee in 1953, "I believe that the map of Europe
would look much the same if there had never been a Yalta conference at all."
Why this should have been surprising, and how it possibly reflected a
failure of American foreign policy, is a mystery in any rational analysis of
the situation. But any such analysis could never be made by the heroic
state. Instead, Roosevelt and the nation he represented had to have been
betrayed. The previous, disastrous policies advocated by the Republican
right-ignoring the growing Axis threat, then leaving Western Europe
defenseless while plunging into war in China-could be safely forgotten.

* * *

Republicans now began an almost continuous campaign against alleged
Democratic conspiracies. Following Chiang's defeat, conservatives in
Congress demanded to know "Who lost China?" and Robert Taft, discarding his
much vaunted integrity, egged on Joe McCarthy's witch-hunt against the
Truman Administration, urging him to "keep talking and if one case doesn't
work out, he should proceed with another." Yet it would take another hot
war-and another expansion of the dolchstosslegende-to permanently enthrone
the idea of a vast, treasonous left-wing conspiracy in the American psyche.

The outbreak of hostilities in Korea in 1950 was disturbing enough, but the
defeat of General Douglas MacArthur that winter by invading Chinese forces
sent shock waves throughout the United States. More than anyone else,
MacArthur had brought about his own defeat, launching his troops up the
Korean peninsula in separate columns, divided by mountain ranges, ignoring
both orders from the White House to halt and plentiful signs that a massive
Chinese force had already infiltrated the Korean peninsula. But while his
subordinates scrambled to rally their reeling men, MacArthur moved swiftly
to salvage his military reputation and his hopes for the presidency.

What the general proposed was a massive escalation of the war. U.N. troops
would not only "blockade the coast of China" and "destroy through naval
gunfire and air bombardment China's industrial capacity to wage war" but
would also "release existing restrictions upon the Formosan garrison" of
Chiang Kai-shek, which might lead to counter-invasion against "vulnerable
areas of the Chinese mainland." Above all, MacArthur urged that no fewer
than thirty-four atomic bombs be dropped on what he characterized as
"retardation targets" in Manchuria, including critical concentrations of
troops and planes. Even this soon seemed insufficient. MacArthur later added
that had he been permitted, he not only would have launched as many as fifty
atomic bombs but also would have used "wagons, carts, trucks, and planes" to
create "a belt of radioactive cobalt" that would neatly slice the Korean
thumb from China. "For at least sixty years," he said, "there could have
been no land invasion of Korea from the north."

MacArthur insisted the "only way to prevent World War III is to end the
Korean conflict rapidly and decisively"-as if a massive, atomic attack upon
the world's most populous nation would not, in itself, constitute World War
III. When the Truman Administration rejected his proposals, the general
announced that he was not being allowed to win-"An enormous handicap without
precedent in military history." The U.N. had to "depart from its tolerant
effort to contain the war to the area of Korea" and accept his strategy to
"doom Red China," an opponent "of such exaggerated and vaunted military
power."

MacArthur conveyed similar sentiments to his conservative allies in
Congress, writing House Minority Leader Joseph Martin that he was only
trying to "follow the conventional pattern of meeting force with maximum
counter-force, as we have never failed to do in the past," and concluding:
"There is no substitute for victory." Martin gleefully aired the great man's
views in a speech in Brooklyn, thundering, "If we are not in Korea to win,
then this Administration should be indicted for the murder of thousands of
American boys." He added that "the same State Department crowd that cut off
aid" to Chiang in 1946 now opposed invading China because this would show up
their earlier mistakes. The only way to "save Europe and save Asia at the
same time" was "to clear out the State Department from top to bottom." After
Martin repeated MacArthur's views on the House floor, Truman finally removed
the general from his command. But the move seemed only to confirm that
something was very wrong.

The right seized the opportunity to renew-and expand-its charges of
dolchstoss. Republican Senator William Jenner of Indiana bellowed from the
floor of the Senate that "this country today is in the hands of a secret
inner coterie which is directed by agents of the Soviet Union. We must cut
this whole cancerous conspiracy out of our Government at once. Our own
choice is to impeach President Truman and find out who is the secret
invisible government which has so cleverly led our country down the road to
destruction." Nixon, his new colleague, agreed in barely coded language,
attacking "the whining, whimpering, groveling attitude of our diplomatic
representatives who talk of America's fear rather than of America's strength
and of America's courage." He claimed that "top administration officials
have refused time and time again to recognize the existence of this fifth
column" or "to take effective action to clear subversives out" of the
government.

Douglas MacArthur now became the martyred Siegfried, stabbed in the back by
weaklings at home who were for some reason afraid of victory. It was the
fault of these "whimpering," "soft," "cowardly," "lavender" "appeasers," so
unnatural they were willing to "murder" American boys to cover up their own
misjudgments. Communist treachery and appeasement were blended seamlessly
with an emerging, postwar sex panic.

An entire, seemingly plausible narrative of treason was now firmly
established. The conspiracy of spies, or sexual deviants, or both, had now
expanded beyond Alger Hiss to include pretty much the entire State
Department and maybe the rest of the executive branch. Taft, launching his
third run for the Republican nomination, offered to name MacArthur as his
vice president, and the general, while still harboring hopes of winning the
nomination himself, agreed on the condition that he would have a voice in
foreign policy and be put in charge of national security.

In their desire for power, Republican centrists soon joined this right-wing
chorus. John Foster Dulles, now Eisenhower's secretary-of-state designate,
denounced the very strategy of containment that he had helped to formulate
and promised to "roll back" Communism everywhere, including in Eastern
Europe. Eisenhower himself refused to disown McCarthy, even after the
senator had impugned the patriotism of his longtime friend and mentor,
George Marshall.

The Republican platform that Ike ran on in the fall of 1952 was a freefall
into fantasy, a fatal compact by party moderates with a right wing that
would eventually push them into extinction. For the first time since the
Civil War era, one major American political party charged another one with
treason. Democrats were accused of having "shielded traitors to the Nation
in high places" and creating "enemies abroad where we should have friends."
Democrats were responsible for all "110,000 American casualties" in Korea,
where they had "produced stalemates and ignominious bartering with our
enemies" that "offer no hope of victory." Republicans promised to "repudiate
all commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta
which aid Communist enslavements."

United once more, Republicans brought this compilation of hysterical charges
and bald-faced lies before the American people-who swallowed them willingly.
Once in power, Eisenhower and Dulles immediately returned to managing the
Democratic system of containment. Dulles met with MacArthur, listened
respectfully to his plan to nuke Manchuria, allowed that it "could well
succeed," then shelved it without another word. No "secret understandings"
to "aid Communist enslavements" were repudiated because, of course, they did
not exist. The idea of "rolling back" Communism from Eastern Europe was
taken seriously solely by the Hungarian people, who launched a brave
rebellion against their Soviet occupiers in 1956, only to find that Dulles
and Eisenhower were willing to offer them nothing more than sympathy.

* * *

The right's initial blindness toward first the Axis and then the Soviet
threat in Europe; the disastrous military campaign waged by one of its
icons; its feckless and even apocalyptic ideas for recouping its previous
mistakes-all had been erased in much of the public consciousness by the stab
in the back, a vote-winning tale of deviancy, subversion, and intentional
defeat radiating from Yalta all the way to Korea. The Vietnam War, however,
would call for yet another expansion of the dolchstosslegende.

Vietnam was the sort of war Republicans had been clamoring to fight for two
decades. A liberal administration had started it, with misplaced bravado,
but it had been egged on-even dared-to take the plunge into full-scale war
by prevailing right-wing dogma. When the war soured, Republicans first tried
to blame not the failed premise of the domino theory or the flawed diplomacy
of the Kennedy Administration or the near-universal American failure to
recognize Vietnam's boundless desire for self-determination-no, it was the
old fallbacks of appeasement, defeatism, and treachery in high places.

Once again, we were told that American troops were not being "allowed" to
win, if they could not mine Haiphong harbor, or flatten Hanoi, or reduce all
of North Vietnam to a parking lot. Yet Vietnam was a war with no real
defeats on the ground. U.S. troops won every battle of any significance and
inflicted exponentially greater casualties on the enemy than they suffered
themselves. Even the great debacle of the war, the 1968 Tet offensive, ended
with an overwhelming American military victory and the Viet Cong permanently
expunged as an effective fighting force. It is difficult to claim betrayal
when you do not lose a battle.

Worse yet, Republicans could not provide any meaningful alternative
strategy. Nixon was able to take office in 1969 only by offering a "secret
plan" to get the boys home from Vietnam, not by promising to hugely escalate
the fighting or risk a wider conflict. Richard Nixon became the first
Republican president since the turn of the century to take office while a
major war still hung in the balance, and now all the fantasies began to fall
away. More than 21,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam during Nixon's time
in office, and there were no Democrats to blame it on.

The only political hope for the administration was to turn its gaze
outward-to blame the people themselves, or at least a portion of them.
Nixon, as historian Rick Perlstein has observed, "had a gift for looking
beneath social surfaces to see and exploit subterranean anxieties," and he
had been on hand at the creation of this game. Initially, the divisions he
sought to exploit were much the same as those he had manipulated back in the
1940s, though they were now aimed at broad swaths of the general public-the
children of the New Deal, as it were. The leading tactics included
employment of the same sorts of code words so bluntly wielded twenty years
before, along with a good deal more street muscle.

Over and over, antiwar protesters were called Communists, perverts, or
simply "bums"-the last epithet from Nixon's own lips. The large percentage
of college students in their ranks were depicted as spoiled, obnoxious,
ungrateful children. Older, more established dissidents were ridiculed by
Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, in a series of William Safire?authored
speeches, as "nattering nabobs of negativity," and, unforgettably, as "an
effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as
intellectuals." These invectives were, of course, doubly disingenuous; it
was Agnew and Safire who very much wanted such persons to be known by the
damning label of "intellectual," and what the vice president was really
calling them was fags.

All these bums and effetes might be un-American, but their disapproval still
was sufficient to demoralize our fighting men in Vietnam and thereby put
them in imminent peril. And on hand to take the torch from an increasingly
beleaguered Nixon was a new Republican master at exploiting subterranean
anxieties, Ronald Reagan. As early as 1969, Reagan was insisting that
leaders of the massive Moratorium Days protests "lent comfort and aid" to
the North Vietnamese, and that "some American will die tonight because of
the activity in our streets."

The Nixon Administration now had its new Hagens. People who voiced their
opposition to the war were traitors and even killers, responsible for the
death of American servicemen, and as such almost any action taken against
them could be justified. The Nixon White House even had its own blue-collar
shock troops. Repeatedly, on suspiciously media-heavy occasions,
construction workers appeared to break up antiwar demonstrations and beat up
peaceful demonstrators. The effete protesters had been shown up by real
working-class Americans-and their class allies in the police force eagerly
closed ranks.

* * *

Neither Nixon, nor Agnew, nor the war would survive a second term. With the
shameful, panicked helicopter evacuation of Saigon, U.S. prestige in the
world dropped precipitously-but none of the other dominoes followed. Once
again, by 1975, the American right should have found itself utterly
discredited. A war that conservatives had fervently supported had ended in
defeat, but with none of the consequences they had prophesied. Instead, the
entire operating right-wing belief in "monolithic communism" was debunked in
the wake of our evacuation from Saigon, as Vietnam attacked Cambodia, China
invaded Vietnam, and the Soviet Union and China clashed along their border.

Yet the cultural division that Richard Nixon had fomented to try to salvage
the war in Vietnam would take on a life of its own long after the war was
over and Nixon had been driven from office in disgrace. It cleverly focused
on the men who had fought the war, rather than the war itself. If Vietnam
had been an unnecessary sacrifice, if world Communism could no longer be
passed off as a credible threat to the United States, then the betrayal of
our fighting men must become the issue.

Vietnam, for the right, would come to be defined mainly through a series of
closely related, culturally explosive totems. The protesters and the
counterculture would be reduced to the single person of Jane Fonda, embalmed
forever on a clip of film, traipsing around a North Vietnamese antiaircraft
gun. The soldiers, meanwhile, were transformed into victims and martyrs. It
became general knowledge that they had been savagely scorned and mocked upon
their return to the United States; those returning through the San Francisco
airport were especially liable to be spat upon by men and women protesting
the war.

Of course, those who were able to return at all were the lucky ones. Soon
after we had bugged out of Saigon, millions of Americans became convinced
that American prisoners of war had been left behind in Vietnamese work
camps, by a government that was too cowed or callous to insist upon their
return. Numerous groups sprang up to demand their release, disseminating
flags with a stark, black-and-white tableau of a prisoner's bowed head
against the backdrop of a guard tower, a barbed-wire fence, and the legend:
YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN POW*MIA.

It would do no good to point out that there is no objective evidence that
veterans were ever spat upon by demonstrators or that POWs were ever left
behind or that Jane Fonda's addle-headed mission to Hanoi did anything to
undermine American forces. The stab-in-the-back myth is much more powerful
than any of these facts, and it continues to grow more so as time passes.
Just this past Christmas, one Faye Fiore wrote a feature for the Los Angeles
Times about how returning Iraqi veterans are being showered with acts of
good will by an adoring American public, "In contrast to the hostile stares
that greeted many Vietnam veterans 40 years ago." The POW/MIA flags, with
their black-and-white iconography of shame, now fly everywhere in the United
States, just under the Stars and Stripes; federal law even mandates that on
at least six days a year-Memorial Day, Flag Day, Armed Forces Day, Veterans
Day, Independence Day, and one day during POW/MIA Week (the third week of
September)-they must be flown over nearly every single U.S. government
building. There has been nothing else like them in the history of this
country, and they have no parallel anywhere else in the world-these peculiar
little banners, attached like a disclaimer to our national flag, with their
message of surrender and humiliation, perennially accusing our government of
betrayal.

* * *

If the power of the stab-in-the-back narrative from Vietnam is beyond
question, it still raises the question of why. Why should we wish to
maintain a narrative of horrendous national betrayal, one in which our own
democratically elected government, and a large portion of our fellow
citizens, are guilty of horribly betraying our fighting men?

The answer, I think, lies in Richard Nixon's ability to expand the Siegfried
myth from the halls of power out into the streets. Government conspiracies
are still culpable, of course; ironically, it was Nixon's own administration
that first "left behind" American POWs in North Vietnam. Yet this makes
little difference to the American right, which never considered Nixon
ideologically pure enough to be a member in good standing, and which has
always made hay by railing against government, even now that they are it.
What Nixon and a few of his contemporaries did for the right was to make
culture war the permanent condition of American politics.

On domestic issues as well as ones of foreign policy, from Ronald Reagan's
mythical "welfare queens" through George Wallace's "pointy-headed
intellectuals"; from Lee Atwater's characterization of Democrats as
anti-family, anti-life, anti-God, down through the open, deliberate attempts
of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove to constantly describe opponents in words
that made them seem bizarre, deviant, and "out of the mainstream," the
entire vernacular of American politics has been altered since Vietnam.
Culture war has become the organizing principle of the right, unalterably
convinced as it is that conservatives are an embattled majority, one that
must stand ever vigilant against its unnatural enemies-from the "gay
agenda," to the advocates of Darwinism, to the "war against Christmas" last
year.

This has become such an ingrained part of the right wing's belief system
that the Bush Administration has now become the first government in our
nation's history to fight a major war without seeking any sort of national
solidarity. Far from it. The whole purpose of the war in Iraq-and the "war
on terrorism"-seems to have been to foment division and to win elections by
forcing Americans to choose between starkly different visions of what their
country should be. Again and again, Bush and his confederates have used the
cover of national security to push through an uncompromising right-wing
agenda. Ignoring the broad leeway already provided the federal government to
fight terrorists and conduct domestic surveillance, the administration has
gone out of its way to claim vast new powers to detain, spy on, and imprison
its own citizens, and to abduct and even torture foreigners-a subject we
shall return to. It has used the cover of the war to push through enormous
tax cuts, attempt to dismantle the Social Security system, and alter the
very social covenant of the nation. Incidents from the Terri Schiavo case to
the teaching of "intelligent design" are periodically exploited to start new
cultural battles.

Given this state of permanent culture war, it is not surprising that the
Bush White House trotted out the stab-in-the-back myth when its Iraq project
began to run out of steam early last summer. It was first given a spin, as
usual, by the right's media shock troops, and directed at both Democratic
and renegade Republican lawmakers who had dared to criticize either the
strategic conduct of the war or our treatment of detainees. The Wall Street
Journal's editorial page opined, "Where the terrorists are gaining ground is
in Washington, D.C." and noted that General John Abizaid, of the U.S.
Central Command, had said, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the
question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not,
that worries me. And they're starting to do that."

Again, the link was made. Soldiers of the most powerful army in the history
of the world would be actively endangered if they even wondered whether the
folks at home were questioning their deployment. The right was looking for a
target, and it got one when Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), appalled by an FBI
report on the prisons for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, compared
them to those run by "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime-Pol
Pot or others-that had no concern for human beings . . . "

The right's response was predictably swift and savage. The Power Line
blogger Paul Mirengoff commented that the senator "slanders his own country.
Normally that kind of slander is uttered only by revolutionaries seeking the
violent overthrow of the government." Rush Limbaugh harrumphed that "Dick
Durbin has just identified who the Democrats are in the year 2005,
particularly when it comes to American national security and when it comes
to the U.S. military. These are the same people that say they support the
troops. This is how they do it, huh? They give aid and comfort to the
enemy."

Yet for once, Rush was outdone. John Carlson, host of a Seattle talk show
and Washington State's unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor in
2000, said of Durbin, "This man is simply a piece of excrement, a piece of
waste that needs to be scraped off the sidewalk and eliminated." Bill
O'Reilly
of Fox News launched a preemptive attack on his few liberal counterparts,
urging that the staff of Air America be jailed: "Dissent, fine; undermining,
you're a traitor. Got it? So, all you clowns over at the liberal radio
network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done,
please? Send them over to the FBI and just put them in chains, because they,
you know, they're undermining everything."

Once the Republican media had secured the ground and set the terms of
debate, the party's representatives in Washington jumped into the fray. When
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called the war "a grotesque mistake"
that was "not making America safer," the as-yet-unindicted Tom DeLay
retorted that Pelosi "owes our military and their families an apology for
her reckless comments," and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt claimed that
Pelosi's words had "emboldened" the enemy.

All of the crucial elements of the stab-in-the-back charge were now in
place. Critics of the war were not simply questioning its strategy or its
necessity, or upholding the best of American traditions by raising concerns
over how enemy prisoners were being treated. Instead, they were aiding the
enemy, and actively endangering our fighting men and women. They were
traitors and "revolutionaries," individuals who were "conducting guerrilla
warfare on American troops," and "excrement" who could now be safely
incarcerated "immediately" or even "eliminated."

It remained only for the chief Republican strategist, Karl Rove, to appear
before a conservative party fundraiser in Manhattan on June 22 and tie up a
campaign that bore all of his usual earmarks.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war;
liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove
began, riffing on a proven theme from the 2004 presidential election, which
sought to link Democrats not only with the terrorist attack on 9/11 but also
with a generation of Republican assertions that liberals are "soft" on
domestic crime. Rove then honed in on poor Dick Durbin's remarks: "Has there
ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly
simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the
Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be
said about the motives of liberals."; (My italics.)

The conspiracy had expanded yet again. Not just Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin
but all Democrats and all liberals were now firmly established as traitors,
and it was not possible that they had made some honest gaffes; instead,
their very motives were sinister.

When Rove's thunderous media offensive had finally subsided, however, a
strange silence ensued. The popularity of his master, George W. Bush,
continued to plunge in the opinion polls. Support for the war continued to
plummet as well, and by July, Rove himself was thoroughly enmeshed in the
Valerie Plame scandal, with all of the attendant implications about its
manipulation of prewar intelligence. By November, Rove was forced to send
out Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney themselves on a new "Strategy for
Victory" campaign. Speaking on Veterans Day to an all-military audience at
an army depot in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, Bush attacked Democrats who were
saying they had been duped by the fraudulent intelligence the administration
had used to secure their votes for war.

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy
that is questioning America's will," Bush told the soldiers assembled for
his photo op. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy
our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted
to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

Once again, criticism of the war in Iraq had been adroitly linked to
criticism of the administration, and then to treason-something that would,
somehow, magically empower the enemy and demoralize our own troops. Once
again, unnatural enemies were striking at the heroic, Siegfried figures at
the top of the administration, who struggled to get out their great truth
that no intelligence had been manipulated and the Democrats were engaging in
"revisionism."

Yet still, somehow, Bush's numbers continued to plunge. What went wrong? How
could such an infallible Republican strategy, conducted with all of the
right wing's vast media resources at his command, have failed so utterly?
How was it that the story of the stab in the back had lost its power to hold
us spellbound?

* * *

What has really robbed the conspiracy theories of their effectiveness is how
the war in Iraq has been conducted. Bush and his advisers have sought to use
the war not only to punish their enemies but also to reward their
supporters, a bit of political juggling that led them to demand nothing from
the American public as a whole. Those of us who are not actively fighting in
Iraq, or who do not have close friends and family members who are doing so,
have not been asked to sacrifice in any way. The richest among us have even
been showered with tax cuts.

Yet in demanding so little, Bush has finally uncoupled the state from its
heroic status. It is not a coincidence that modern nationalism dates from
the advent of mass democracy-and mass citizen armies-that the American and
French revolutions ushered in at the end of the eighteenth century. Bush's
refusal to mobilize the nation for the war in Iraq has severed that
immediate identification with our army's fortunes. Nor did it begin with the
Bush Administration. The wartime tax cuts and the all-volunteer, wartime
army are simply the latest manifestations of a trend that is now decades old
and that has been promulgated through peace as well as war, by Democrats as
well as Republicans. It cannot truly be a surprise that a society that has
steadily dismantled or diminished the most basic access to health care,
relief for the poor and the aged, and decent education; a society that has
allowed the gap between its richest and poorest citizens to grow to
unprecedented size; a society that has paid obeisance to the ideology of
globalization to the point of giving away both its jobs and its debt to
foreign nations, and which has just allowed one of its poorer cities to
quietly drown, should choose to largely opt out of its own defense.

Anyone who doubts that this is exactly what we have done need only look at
how little the war really engages most of us. It rarely draws more than a
few seconds of coverage on the local television news, if that, and then only
well into the broadcast, after a story on a murder, or a fire, or the latest
weather predictions. Even the largest and angriest demonstrations against
our occupation of Iraq have not approached the mobilizations against the war
in Vietnam, but a close observer will notice that we also have yet to see
any of the massive counterdemonstrations that were held in support of that
war-or "in support of the troops." Such engagement on either side seems
almost quaint now.

Who could possibly believe in a plot to lose this war? No one cares that
much about it. We have, instead, reached a crossroads where the overwhelming
right-wing desire to dissolve much of the old social compact that held
together the modern nation-state is irreconcilably at odds with any attempt
to conduct such a grand, heroic experiment as implanting democracy in the
Middle East. Without mass participation, Iraq cannot be passed off as an
heroic endeavor, no matter how much Mr. Bush's rhetoric tries to make it
one, and without a hero there can be no great betrayer, no skulking villain.

And yet, a convincing national narrative, though it may be the sheerest,
most vicious fiction, can have incredible staying power-can perhaps outlast
even the nation that it was meant to serve. It is ironic that, even as
support for his war was starting to unravel in May of 2005, George W. Bush
was in the Latvian capital of Riga, describing the Yalta agreement as "one
of the greatest wrongs of history." The President placed it in the "unjust
tradition" of the 1938 Munich Pact and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which
together paved the way for the start of World War II in 1939. Bush's words
echoed his statements of three previous trips to Eastern Europe, dating back
to 2001, during which he had pledged, "no more Munichs, no more Yaltas," and
called Yalta an "attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability," a
"bitter legacy," and a "constant source of injustice and fear" that had
"divided a living civilization."

The ultimate irony of Bush's perpetuating this ageless right-wing shibboleth
is that for once it wasn't intended for home consumption. The Yalta myth has
finally lost its old magic, here in historically illiterate, contemporary
America. Nor did Bush make any special attempt to let his countrymen know he
was apportioning them equal blame with Stalin and Hitler for the greatest
calamities of the twentieth century.

Bush's pandering was directed instead to the nations he was visiting, in a
region that still battens on any number of conspiracy theories. Why he
should have so denigrated his own country to a few small Eastern European
nations might seem a mystery, until one considers that this is the "new
Europe" that Bush has solicited for troops for his Iraqi adventure . . . and
where he appears to have found either destinations or conduits for victims
of "extraordinary rendition," en route to where they could be safely
tortured in secrecy.

An American president, wandering the halls of Eastern European palaces,
denounces his own nation in order to appease his hosts into torturing secret
prisoners. Our heroic age surely has come to an end.

____________________________________________

Ramashiva -- Finally, you disgusting excuse for a human being, here is
positive proof that you and your fellow Nazis, like Irish Mike and Francis
Lee Turbo, are taking your plays right out of the Nazi playbook when you
claim liberals are hurting the war effort and helping the terrorists when we
criticize the foreign policy of the Bush Crime Family --

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Got that? You are a fucking Nazi pig. Are you going to admit it, or are
you going to continue to spread your Nazi filth and lies on this newsgroup?
If so, you will face the Wrath of Ramashiva. I am the ubertroll of this
newsgroup, and I will not tolerate Nazi pigs like you contaminating what is
undoubtedly the greatest usenet newsgroup of them all.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 7:05:15 PM9/4/06

<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

: William Coleman wrote:
: >
: > Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war criminals
and
: > their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely dropped
: > 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since such
: > actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions constitute
the
: > war crime of Collective Punishment.
:
: No they don't.

Yes they do. Please read the definition of Collective Punishment in the
Geneva Conventions. Do I need to provide a link for you? Of course I do,
because you have obviously never read the Geneva Conventions.

: > : I also think its a fantastic argument to bring up something

: > : that the United States did before most of us were even born.
: >
: > It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic song
: > singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at the
: > U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as
: > well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear,
unambiguous
: > war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as Collective
Punishment.
:
: The firestorm at Dresden was a UK affair.

So fucking what??? Maybe you forgot, but Great Britain was our ally. All
military operations were planned cooperatively and closely coordinated.

: None of the acts you complain about are even remotely "collective
: punishment".

They absolutely are. You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which motivated
the definition of Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the
definition of Collective Punishment actually says.

I strongly suggest you read the definition of Collective Punishment offered
by the Geneva Conventions before making an even bigger fool of yourself. Of
course the atrocities at Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki preceded
the formulation of the Geneva Conventions, so technically none of these
atrocities constituted the war crime of Collective Punishment.

I am deliberately not giving the Geneva Conventions' definition of
Collective Punishment to see if you can even provide me with the definition.
It is obvious you have never read the Geneva Conventions, otherwise you
would not be making such ridiculous assertions.

: And people who take a good look at WWII will see that there was a very

: good reason we were bombing Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

In other words, the ends justify the means. The fact that there is a good
reason for committing a war crime does not make it any less a war crime.
The worst war criminals in history always have very good reasons to justify
their war crimes.

The contempory example is Bush's arrogant claim that his authority as
Commander in Chief allows him to justify violating all U.S. laws and
treaties if he deems it necessary to protect our national security. This is
a formula for a totalitarian dictatorship. According to Bush, he is both
judge and jury. If he deems it necessary to commit war crimes to protect
our national security, then there is no further discussion. He is Commander
in Chief.

This is a formula for totalitarian rule. Bush's arrogant claims of his
power as Commander in Chief violate the concept of the rule of law on which
our great country is founded.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 7:09:23 PM9/4/06

<HotHa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157407055.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:

: RMHisCOOL wrote:
: > Glad I made your radar though Bill. It means that I'm doing something
right.
: >
: >
:
: It makes me glad to have Marines of your caliber doing the job of
: defending our great country.

Hey, asshole. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam myself. Don't
suppose that Rory is somehow a national hero and I am a braindead troll.

: Keep up the great work, and know that most of us support you fully.

Since when do you speak for anyone but yourself??? Please do not assume
that anyone else agrees with you. You represent a small minority of
right-wing nutcases and warmongers.

: Don't let the ravings of some on the ng get you down. Idiots are with
: us always.

Yes. You are a perfect example of that.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________

Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --

http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 7:13:01 PM9/4/06

"RMHisCOOL" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message

news:1157374688$864...@recpoker.com...

: Glad I made your radar though Bill. It means that I'm doing something
right.

That depends on your definition of "right". You came to my attention and
motivated me to rip your posts apart because my reaction to reading your
posts was --

OMFG! This RMH is even more of a braindead Nazi warmonger than Irish Mike
and Francis Lee Turbo. I really thought Mike and Francis Lee represented
the ultimate in braindead Nazi warmongering.

If that is what you think is doing something right, you need a serious
reality check.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________

Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --

http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com

RMHisCOOL

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 9:55:52 PM9/4/06

Thanks Duke. Always appreciate the support.

Rory

_______________________________________________________________

hiroshi...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 10:26:44 PM9/4/06

William Coleman wrote:
> <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> : William Coleman wrote:
> : >
> : > Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war criminals
> : > and their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely dropped
> : > 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since such
> : > actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions constitute
> : > the war crime of Collective Punishment.
> :
> : No they don't.
>
> Yes they do.

No they don't.

> Please read the definition of Collective Punishment in the
> Geneva Conventions. Do I need to provide a link for you? Of course I do,
> because you have obviously never read the Geneva Conventions.

I've not only read them, I've comprehended them.

That last bit is something you've never done.

> : > : I also think its a fantastic argument to bring up something
> : > : that the United States did before most of us were even born.
> : >
> : > It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic song
> : > singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at the
> : > U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as
> : > well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear,
> : > unambiguous war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as
> : > Collective Punishment.
> :
> : The firestorm at Dresden was a UK affair.
>
> So fucking what???

So what was it doing in a list of supposedly bad things that the US has
done?

> : None of the acts you complain about are even remotely "collective
> : punishment".
>
> They absolutely are. You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which motivated
> the definition of Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the
> definition of Collective Punishment actually says.

Collective punishments are first and foremost, PUNISHMENTS. The acts
you referred to were military operations.

Secondly, the term was meant to refer to people that are under the
control of a hostile power (i.e. occupied territory). There may be
room for debate here regarding Fallujah, but Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima,
and Nagasaki were in no way occupied by the Allies when they were
attacked.

> I strongly suggest you read the definition of Collective Punishment offered
> by the Geneva Conventions before making an even bigger fool of yourself. Of
> course the atrocities at Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki preceded
> the formulation of the Geneva Conventions, so technically none of these
> atrocities constituted the war crime of Collective Punishment.

I guess you don't comprehend when the Geneva Conventions started.

Don't worry, that is the least of the things you don't comprehend.

> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery

Hiroshima Facts

Department of Truth and Reality

Bob

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 11:14:40 PM9/4/06

hiroshi...@yahoo.com wrote:<snip>

> Hiroshima Facts
>
> Department of Truth and Reality

DPWuz, is that you?

- Bob T.

HotHa...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 11:33:15 PM9/4/06

William Coleman wrote:
> <HotHa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157407055.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : RMHisCOOL wrote:
> : > Glad I made your radar though Bill. It means that I'm doing something
> right.
> : >
> : >
> :
> : It makes me glad to have Marines of your caliber doing the job of
> : defending our great country.
>
> Hey, asshole. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam myself. Don't
> suppose that Rory is somehow a national hero and I am a braindead troll.
>
>

Wow, Lee Harvey and Charles Whitman were also Marines. From reading
your incessant ravings in RGP my opinion is that you are much closer to
being brother Marines with those loonies than with Rory.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 4, 2006, 11:58:54 PM9/4/06

<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

: William Coleman wrote:
: > <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
: > : William Coleman wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war
criminals
: > : > and their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely
dropped
: > : > 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since
such
: > : > actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions
constitute
: > : > the war crime of Collective Punishment.
: > :
: > : No they don't.
: >
: > Yes they do.
:
: No they don't.

Gee, is that how you argue??? Like a six year old brat?

: > Please read the definition of Collective Punishment in the

: > Geneva Conventions. Do I need to provide a link for you? Of course I
do,
: > because you have obviously never read the Geneva Conventions.
:
: I've not only read them, I've comprehended them.

Then prove it by quoting the definition of Collective Punishment given by
the Geneva Conventions. I have obviously challenged you to provide that
definition. You refuse to do so for one of two reasons --

You don't have a clue to how the Geneva Conventions define Collective
Punishment.

Or, you know if you quote the actual definition, you will immediately be
shown to be wrong.

: That last bit is something you've never done.

Please do not presume that you can possibly know what I know and what I
don't know.

: > : > : I also think its a fantastic argument to bring up something

: > : > : that the United States did before most of us were even born.
: > : >
: > : > It is a perfectly legitimate point. All you flag waving, patriotic
song
: > : > singing Nazis who think the USA is pure and innocent need to look at
the
: > : > U.S. war crimes during WW II. The firebombings of Dresden and
Tokyo, as
: > : > well as the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are clear,
: > : > unambiguous war crimes, now defined by the Geneva Conventions as
: > : > Collective Punishment.
: > :
: > : The firestorm at Dresden was a UK affair.
: >
: > So fucking what???
:
: So what was it doing in a list of supposedly bad things that the US has
: done?

I already explained that, but you chose to snip my answer so you could
continue to make your fallacious argument. You have now identified yourself
as a dishonest poster who snips what I say, then pretends I never said it.
Here is what you snipped --

"Maybe you forgot, but Great Britain was our ally. All military operations
were planned cooperatively and closely coordinated."

Maybe you also forgot that General Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied
Commander, and would have signed off on the Dresden firebombing. Give it
up. You are a joke. You snip my answers to your questions, then you act
like I never gave you an answer.

: > : None of the acts you complain about are even remotely "collective

: > : punishment".
: >
: > They absolutely are. You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which
motivated
: > the definition of Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the
: > definition of Collective Punishment actually says.
:
: Collective punishments are first and foremost, PUNISHMENTS. The acts
: you referred to were military operations.

Just how clueless are you??? People can obviously be punished as part of a
military operation. I suppose you also don't think the indiscriminate
bombing of residential neighborhoods of Beruit by Israel were Collective
Punishment either, because these bombings were part of a military operation.
You are clueless. The Secretary General of the United Nations stated
unequivocally that the Beruit bombings constituted Collective Punishment. I
will take Kofi Annan's opinion on a matter of international law over the
opinion of an anonymous usenet troll any day.

: Secondly, the term was meant to refer to people that are under the

: control of a hostile power (i.e. occupied territory).

Listen, numbnuts, as I said, but which you also snipped --

"You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which motivated the definition of
Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the definition of Collective
Punishment actually says."

Gee, I wonder why you snipped that too??? I understand your fallacious
argument better than you do. I refute your arguments before you even make
them.

: There may be

: room for debate here regarding Fallujah, but Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima,
: and Nagasaki were in no way occupied by the Allies when they were
: attacked.

That makes not one particle of difference. The definition of Collective
Punishment makes no reference to military occupation as a prerequisite for
Collective Punishment. Again, I repeat --

"You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which motivated the definition of
Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the definition of Collective
Punishment actually says."

: > I strongly suggest you read the definition of Collective Punishment

offered
: > by the Geneva Conventions before making an even bigger fool of yourself.
Of
: > course the atrocities at Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki
preceded
: > the formulation of the Geneva Conventions, so technically none of these
: > atrocities constituted the war crime of Collective Punishment.
:
: I guess you don't comprehend when the Geneva Conventions started.

I was obviously referring to the date at which the Geneva Conventions
defined Collective Punishment. Notice what I said --

"Of course the atrocities at Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki
preceded the formulation of the Geneva Conventions, so technically none of
these atrocities constituted the war crime of Collective Punishment."

The key here is "formulation of the Geneva Conventions". Any literate
reader understands "formulation of the Geneva Conventions" refers to
"formulation of the definition of Collective Punishment by the Geneva
Conventions", not the codification of the Geneva Conventions in their
entirety.

Sorry if you cannot understand clear precise English prose. I think you
understood exactly what I meant, but are willfully misrepresenting my clear
meaning.

Here, I will make my meaning unambiguously clear --

The formulation of the definition of Collective Punishment occurred AFTER
World War II, since the motivation for defining Collective Punishment arose
from Nazi atrocities in occupied territories.

: Don't worry, that is the least of the things you don't comprehend.

Again, you have no possible way of knowing what I do and do not comprehend.

I will challenge you one more time, then I am done with you --

Please quote the actual definition of Collective Punishment, as defined by
the Geneva Conventions. Please also provide a link.

If you fail to comply with this request, then every reader will know that
you are clueless and do not even know the definition of Collective
Punishment.

Also, please refrain from snipping any part of my post. You did that twice,
and both times you pretended that I never said the words you snipped.

If you fail a second time to provide the Geneva Conventions' definition of
Collective Punishment, then every reader will know you are a clueless troll.

I will then provide the definition of Collective Punishment, with a link.
That definition will show that I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong on the
question of whether the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the
nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fit the definition of Collective
Punishment.

You are in a no win situation. If you fail to produce the definition of
Collective Punishment, then you lose by default, and you are shown to be a
clueless idiot who doesn't even know the definition of Collective
Punishment.

If you do produce the definition of Collective Punishment, then I also win,
since that definition clearly and unambiguously applies to Dresden, Tokyo,
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Your best bet is to slink back into anonymous trolldom, since I win the
debate no matter what you do.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:31:17 AM9/5/06

<HotHa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157427195.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
:

Wow!!! You sure place a lot of faith in your powers of deduction based on
reading what Rory and I have written on RGP. Let me guess. You are still
another whacked out right-wing nutcase. My posts infuriate you because I
make you realize that everything you believe is a lie. Rory, who is a
bonafide Nazi, represents your political views perfectly.

Therefore, since you are in perfect agreement with Rory, he is the model
Marine and a true patriot.

Because my analytical well-written posts make you realize just how full of
shit you are, I must be some madman along the lines of Oswald or Whitman.

Am I close?

I thought so.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________

Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --

http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com

Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com

IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)

Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.

-- Jesus Christ

God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.

hiroshi...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 7:19:59 AM9/5/06

William Coleman wrote:
> <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> : William Coleman wrote:
> : > <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > news:1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> : > : William Coleman wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war
> criminals
> : > : > and their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military routinely
> dropped
> : > : > 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since
> such
> : > : > actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions
> constitute
> : > : > the war crime of Collective Punishment.
> : > :
> : > : No they don't.
> : >
> : > Yes they do.
> :
> : No they don't.
>
> Gee, is that how you argue??? Like a six year old brat?

I gave you the answer you deserve. Don't whine about it.

> : > Please read the definition of Collective Punishment in the
> : > Geneva Conventions. Do I need to provide a link for you? Of course I
> do,
> : > because you have obviously never read the Geneva Conventions.
> :
> : I've not only read them, I've comprehended them.
>
> Then prove it by quoting the definition of Collective Punishment given by
> the Geneva Conventions. I have obviously challenged you to provide that
> definition. You refuse to do so for one of two reasons --
>
> You don't have a clue to how the Geneva Conventions define Collective
> Punishment.

I've already told you how they define it.

It refers to acts in occupied territories where the occupier imposes
hardships on the general population as punishment for crimes committed
by a few.

> : That last bit is something you've never done.
>
> Please do not presume that you can possibly know what I know and what I
> don't know.

You've already made it clear what you don't know.

Nope. The answer is that you were lying when you put Dresden in your
list of so-called US atrocities.

> : There may be
> : room for debate here regarding Fallujah, but Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima,
> : and Nagasaki were in no way occupied by the Allies when they were
> : attacked.
>
> That makes not one particle of difference. The definition of Collective
> Punishment makes no reference to military occupation as a prerequisite for
> Collective Punishment. Again, I repeat --

Nope. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to people who are not in the
power of a hostile nation.

> Also, please refrain from snipping any part of my post. You did that twice,
> and both times you pretended that I never said the words you snipped.

Request denied. I will snip any irrelevant tripe that you spew.

> I will then provide the definition of Collective Punishment, with a link.
> That definition will show that I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong on the
> question of whether the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the
> nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fit the definition of Collective
> Punishment.

If you chose to present an argument and a link, I'll investigate your
claim.

Given your response so far, I expect that the investigation will show
that you've failed to comprehend something and are taking it way out of
context. However, I'll see what you post when (if) you post it.

> You are in a no win situation. If you fail to produce the definition of
> Collective Punishment, then you lose by default, and you are shown to be a
> clueless idiot who doesn't even know the definition of Collective
> Punishment.
>
> If you do produce the definition of Collective Punishment, then I also win,
> since that definition clearly and unambiguously applies to Dresden, Tokyo,
> Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
>
> Your best bet is to slink back into anonymous trolldom, since I win the
> debate no matter what you do.

I must say, you are goofy, if not bright.

HotHa...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 9:11:35 AM9/5/06

> : > Hey, asshole. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam myself. Don't
> : > suppose that Rory is somehow a national hero and I am a braindead troll.
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Wow, Lee Harvey and Charles Whitman were also Marines. From reading
> : your incessant ravings in RGP my opinion is that you are much closer to
> : being brother Marines with those loonies than with Rory.
>
> Wow!!! You sure place a lot of faith in your powers of deduction based on
> reading what Rory and I have written on RGP. Let me guess. You are still
> another whacked out right-wing nutcase. My posts infuriate you because I
> make you realize that everything you believe is a lie. Rory, who is a
> bonafide Nazi, represents your political views perfectly.
>
> Therefore, since you are in perfect agreement with Rory, he is the model
> Marine and a true patriot.
>
> Because my analytical well-written posts make you realize just how full of
> shit you are, I must be some madman along the lines of Oswald or Whitman.
>
> Am I close?
>
> I thought so.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>

Well, after reading your hilarious "Angel of Death" post, madman was
the first word that came to mind, followed closely by adolescent.

It would be fun to see you dressed in your 100 lb costume, all in
black, stalking the Vegas strip. After about 2 blocks you would be
prostrated by heat exhaustion, lying in the gutter begging winos for
drink.

Oh by the way, the correct term for quick reload cylinders is "speed
loaders" I thought the Angel of Death would at least want to use
proper jargon.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 11:39:01 AM9/5/06

"Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:1157426080.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
:
: hiroshi...@yahoo.com wrote:<snip>

:
: > Hiroshima Facts
: >
: > Department of Truth and Reality
:
: DPWuz, is that you?

A truly inspired guess, and very likely correct. Notice the dismissive "you
know nothing at all" tone of the post. Notice the extremely dishonest
technique of snipping what I said, then acting like I never said it. Notice
the refusal to simply show that he knows the definition of Collective
Punishment by quoting the Geneva Conventions' definition of Collective
Punishment.

Yup. Fits DP7/Wuz/Luvin's modus operandi perfectly. Further notice the new
sock puppet name.

LMFAO!!! This submoron knows I have all his many sock puppets killfiled, so
he creates a new sockpuppet to make sure I will read his ignorant bullshit
and waste my time arguing with him, when I already know I am 100% correct.

Let's see if Hiroshima Facts has ever posted to RGP before.

Well, Hiroshima Facts has an extensive posting history on many different
usenet groups. That also fits DP7/Wuz/Luvin's modus operandi. Let's see if
we can do an RGP author search to see if Hiroshima Facts has ever published
to RGP before.

Looks like Hiroshima Facts had posted to RGP a total of two times before on
RGP. The first post is in the thread "has kerry done anything to help us
military" posted on March 8, 2004, about 2.5 years ago. Amazing that
Hiroshima Facts shows up in this thread after a posting hiatus of 2.5 years.

Yup. This post is classic DP7/Wuz/Luvin. Defending the U.S. military
against charges that the American bombers participated in the firebombing of
Dresden. He states in the 3/8/2004 post that the American bombers bombed
the Dresden railyards, while British bombers burned the city. Yet in the
current thread, he claims the firebombing of Dresden was a British
operation. There is an obvious contradiction here. But DP7/Wuz/Luvin is
the King of Nitpickers, so we know he will be able to pick enough nits to
show there is no real contradiction.

He further exculpates the USA from blame for the nuclear blasts by claiming
that the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually
intended for military targets and the 100,000 civilians killed in each city
are "collateral damage".

LMFAO!!! is this classic DP7/Wuz/Luvin or what? We all know that the King
of Nitpickers is an ultranationalistic warmongering pig who thinks nothing
the U.S. military has ever done is blameworthy in the least. This is
absolutely classic stuff from the poster all of RGP loves to hate. This
post is so classic, here it is in its entirety --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/b4ed6378d4a36af4

"Rich" <anonym...@paranoid.org> wrote in message
<news:404663c4$0$63415$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:

> > Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
> > in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
> > simply not the "American" way.

> Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
> killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy
> casualties?

[more classic King of Nitpickers. He has no rebuttal for this classic
atrocity, so he just cruises right past it without comment.]

> What about the bombing of Dresden?

American bombers focused on the Dresden railyards.

The city was burned by British bombers.

> What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Civilians targets, yes. But also significant military targets.

The Hiroshima bomb exploded nearly directly above a large base (the
headquarters of the Japanese Third Army and the headquarters in charge
of the defense of Kyushu), and nearly all of the 20,000 soldiers on
the base were killed instantly.

The Nagasaki bomb was intended for the Kokura Arsenal, but was
diverted by the weather to the outskirts of Nagasaki, where it
exploded between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the
"Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both
beyond repair.

__________________________________________

OMFG!!! Notice the extreme mastery of minute details. Yet another trademark
of the King of Nitpickers. Notice the flagrant attempt to absolve the U.S.
military for all blame for Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

I would bet $100 that Hiroshima Facts = DP7/Wuz/Luvin.

Let's look at the other post which Hirsoshima Facts has published in his
entire posting history on RGP, on February 10, 2004. Again, here is the
entire post, from the thread "OT: America is a sick joke". Judge for
yourself whether this sounds exactly like the King of Nitpickers --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/abea387100531df2

"Gary Leddering" <anonym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<news:4027f791$0$226$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...

> American intelligence had intercepted Japanese communications of
> high-ranking military and goverment officials as early as July 1945
> clearly stating their intentions to surrender.

The Japanese were hoping to get the Soviets to mediate surrender
negotiations and help them get more favorable terms.

We were not interested in either negotiating or providing them with
better terms, so this was largely irrelevant.

> With or without the bomb they were going to surrender.

We had no way of knowing what Japan intended to do if their "Soviet
mediation" gambit fell through.

> According to a large majority of insider and historical accounts
> the bomb was dropped to preclude further East Asian penetration
> by the USSR. It was the first strategic move of the Cold War.

The consensus of historians is that the bombs were dropped with the
goal of forcing Japan to make an unconditional surrender.

The stuff about impressing the USSR is limited to anti-American
propaganda.

_______________________________________

LMFAO!!! It's our boy, the King of Nitpickers, I just know it. Just how
sick is this pathetic fuck??? I remember Kilgore Trout tracing this idiot
to some other usenet newsgroup, where the King of Nitpickers was posting
with multiple sockpuppets to create the impression that many posters agreed
with him.

Would it surprise you if this usenet degenerate has literally hundreds of
sockpuppets which he uses to post to dozens of usenet newsgroups? It
certainly wouldn't surprise me.

He uses a sockpuppet until he becomes the laughingstock of the newsgroup,
then he trots out another sockpuppet, since everyone has killfiled his
previous sockpuppet. He has already done this on RGP, when he abandoned
DP75089 when that sockpuppet became known as an endlessly argumentative
asshole who had no clue.

All the sockpuppets post with a newsreader, so let's see if we can find out
anything from the internet headers. Here are the internet headers from the
latest post by Hiroshima Facts --

Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: hiroshi...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1
Date: 4 Sep 2006 19:26:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
References: <LEQKg.2813$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Li2Lg.6228$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.103.250.151
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157423210 3839 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 02:26:50
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.103.250.151;
posting-account=O_tAuw0AAACWI6W0znjUQK6KkBqvL2hC
Xref: news.earthlink.net rec.gambling.poker:1599995
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:26:51 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)

Whoops. Looks like he is actually posting with Google Groups. Am I correct
on this? What about the sdsu.edu? Obviously San Diego State University. I
am no expert on internet headers. Does that indicate he is posting from San
Diego State University, or just that newshub.sdsu.edu is a server in the
path? Any assistance from anyone would be appreciated.

And is newshub.sdsu.edu part of his unique path, or it that just part of how
all messages get to me? Let's see what the internet headers look like for
Bob's post --

Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1
Date: 4 Sep 2006 20:14:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <1157426080.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
References: <LEQKg.2813$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Li2Lg.6228$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.123.223.234
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157426086 12901 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 03:14:46
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 03:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 SBSSERVER01
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.123.223.234;
posting-account=412rEgwAAAAtD53quApugFn-FKTSUPqj
Xref: news.earthlink.net rec.gambling.poker:1600007
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:14:46 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)

Whoops again. Bob's path is identical to the path of Hiroshima Facts.
Looks like the path just indicates how the message got to me. I guess we
need to look at the NNTP posting hosts --

Hiroshima Facts -- 66.103.250.151

Bob -- 66.123.223.234

Now we are getting somewhere. If we can tie another DP7/Wuz/Luvin
sockpuppet to the NNTP posting host with IP = 66.103.250.151, our work will
be done.

First, I need to go into Options > Read and check "expand grouped messages"
so I can sort every message whose header I have downloaded.

Done. Now let's sort the RGP folder by author. I may have a problem here,
since I think I killfiled all of the sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers.

Whoops one more time. I thought expanding grouped messages would sort all
messages in the folder, but the sort is still by the name of the
threadstarter. I think I understand now why DP7/Wuz/Luvin NEVER starts a
thread. You can't find his sockpuppets by sorting the RGP folder by author.

Houston, we have a problem. How am I going to find a post by one of the
King of Nitpickers sockpuppets, since I have them all killlfiled?

What happens if I remove all of his sockpuppets from my killfile? Will
messages from the sockpuppets reload if I download next 1000 headers
repeatedly?

Fuck. I have a huge killfile. Clicking on the email column does not sort
the killfile by email address.

Looking through my killfile, I only find the following sockpuppets --

WuzYoung...@yahoo.com

wuzyoun...@yahoo.com

No DP7 or Luvin sockpuppets killfiled since I set up my most recent
killfile. How much do you want to bet that half the endlessly argumentative
braindead trolls in my killfile are sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers???
Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick. Just how sick and starved for attention is
this Nazi scumbag???

OK. Should I remove the Wuz sockpuppets from my killfile and see if I can
reload message headers from the Earthlink news servers from these
sockpuppets?

Here's another question. Does Google Groups show the internet headers?
Let's do an RGP author search on one of the Wuz sockpuppets and see if
Google Groups gives us the internet headers.

LMFAO!!! the last post by WuzYoungOnceToo to RGP using email address
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com was made on September 4, 2006 in the thread "OT -
No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on the Plame Issue". What is the King of
Nitpickers up to in this thread?

I am laughing so hard I am going to have a heart attack. The King of
Nitpickers and his fellow Nazi scum, Francis Lee Turbo, are trying to make
the absurd case that no laws were broken in the outing of covert CIA
operative Valerie Plame. Please read the entire thread. Bob and Joseph I.
Mion are bodyslamming the attempts of these Nazi totalitarians to defend the
indefensible -- the obvious treason of outing a covert CIA operative. Just
to give you the flavor of the thread, here is Mion's latest reply to the
King of Nitpickers --

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/858edd10a4bd4f6c

article 1157389755.377575.223...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,

WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Oh, hell...you didn't say it was a scavanger hunt. I thought you
> actually had some links to support what you were claiming. My mistake.

I did. I gave you the links. You didn't follow instructions.

> How the fuck does "we believe we have the right to do so" constitute an
> admission of Constitutional violation?

"We did it. We believe we have the power to do it." It's real simple.
Don't parse out what you don't want to hear.

> Sorry Scooter, but finding evidence to support the claim is YOUR job,
> not mine.

No. It's the job of every American who believes in the rule of law.
You apparently do not. Continuing to bury your head in the sand and
deny what sort of laws your president is breaking is hardly what I'd
consider patriotic. Do yourself and your country a favor and get
informed.

Otherwise, I can only assume that you hate this country and would
rather have a dictatorship. That's surely what your president is
aiming for.

---Joseph

_______________________________________________

Please go read the entire thread. You will see the Nazi scumbags Wuz and
Turbo in all their glory, defending treason and pretending no laws were
broken in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

OMFG!!! The Nazi apologists King of Nitpickers and Francis Lee Turbo think
they can somehow absolve Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney from
having committed obvious treason through legalistic nitpicking. Go and read
the entire thread. You will see how Turbo and Wuz think they create enough
confusion and doubt with their Nazi bullshit and nitpicking to obscure the
obvious facts --

Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney committed clear and unambiguous
treason by outing the covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. Rove, Libby, and
Cheney committed this treason for the disgusting motive of discrediting a
serious exposer of the WMD lies, Joe Wilson. Rove, Libby, and Cheney should
be tried for treason and executed publicly after being convicted.

George Bush not only authorized this treason, but had contemporaneous
knowledge of the treasonous plot to out Valerie Plame. Bush has also
committed treason. He should be impeached and removed from office. Then we
should see if we can find another example of treason by Bush. Shouldn't be
too hard. Then we should try and convict the impeached Bush for treason, so
we can publicly execute him also.

But I digress. Let's see if the post of the Wuz sockpuppet will give us
internet headers from Google Groups.

Yup. Here they are --

Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!postnews.google.com!i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT - No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on Plame Issue
Date: 5 Sep 2006 07:17:16 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <1157465836.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <1156941507.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<300820062020374857%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157046809.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
<310820062222326754%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157118822....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<020920061113196915%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157389755.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.0.171.210
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157465842 10376 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 14:17:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.0.171.210;
posting-account=Jsb7AwwAAACChiJH6kg0YtPNyg7F7La6

OK. The paths are diffferent, but I got the Hiroshima Facts Internet
Headers from my newsreader, which got the message header from the Earthlink
news servers, while I got the WuzYoungOnceToo Internet Headers from Google
Groups. That explains the different paths.

The NTTP Posting Host is 64.0.171.210. Not the same as Hiroshima Facts NTTP
Posting host IP address, 66.103.250.151. Someone help me out here. Does
this prove conclusively that Hiroshima Facts and Wuz are not one and the
same? Or can you have different NTTP Posting Hosts within a short period of
time?

Of course, Wuz could have accounts with two different ISPs. That would also
give different NTTP Posting Hosts, would it not?

While waiting for someone more knowledgeable about interpreting Internet
Headers than me to clarify the issue, is there anything else in the
Internet Headers for Hiroshima Facts and Wuz which shows they are coming
from the same source?

Let's compare the Hiroshima Facts and Wuz Internet Headers side by side to
see the similarities --

Hiroshima Facts --

Wuz --

Wow! A LOT of identical entries. Both are posting from Google Groups using
a yahoo.com email address. Several other headers are also identical. Does
this prove that Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo?

As I said previously, I am no expert in interpreting Internet Headers. In
fact, you can see from the way I have stumbled around, I don't know much at
all on this subject.

Can one of you internet geeks help me out here?

I guess I have to leave the investigation here for now. I am convinced
Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo. Both posting from Google Groups using a
yahoo.com email address. Other Internet Headers are identical.

Both posters are ultranationalistic Nazis. Hiroshima Facts defends obvious
American atrocities in World War II. Wuz defends obvious treason by Bush,
Cheney, Rove, and Libby. Both are endlessly argumentative nitpickers who
will never concede they are wrong about anything.

The modus operandi is exactly the same. The MO of the King of Nitpickers.

So, King of Nitpickers, care to confirm or deny that Hiroshima Facts and
WuzYoungOnceToo are both your sockpuppets?

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery

RussGe...@aol.com

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 11:47:33 AM9/5/06

AMAZING, another account that's only 24 hours old:).

RMHisCOOL

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 12:06:07 PM9/5/06

A little jealous eh? You are more out of touch with reality than you think I am
if you believe you represent anything that the uniform stands for.

Rory

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Minor Glitch

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 12:19:50 PM9/5/06

On Sep 4 2006 11:58 PM, William Coleman wrote:

> : > They absolutely are. You are confusing the Nazi atrocities which
> motivated
> : > the definition of Collective Punishment as a war crime with what the
> : > definition of Collective Punishment actually says.
> :
> : Collective punishments are first and foremost, PUNISHMENTS. The acts
> : you referred to were military operations.
>
> Just how clueless are you??? People can obviously be punished as part of a
> military operation. I suppose you also don't think the indiscriminate
> bombing of residential neighborhoods of Beruit by Israel were Collective
> Punishment either, because these bombings were part of a military operation.

It wasn't collective punishment -- you and Kofi Annan want to define
"collective punishment" so broadly as to make it meaningless.

-mg

www.ramashivaisnuts.com

________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

WuzYoungOnceToo

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 12:58:42 PM9/5/06

William Coleman wrote:
> "Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1157426080.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : hiroshi...@yahoo.com wrote:<snip>
> :
> : > Hiroshima Facts
> : >
> : > Department of Truth and Reality
> :
> : DPWuz, is that you?
>
> A truly inspired guess, and very likely correct.

Nope.

> Notice the dismissive "you know nothing at all" tone of the post.

ROLFMAO!!!!! That has to be the most classic example of the kettle
calling the pot black I've ever read. Hell, if that's your assessment
of the guy's posts then he's more than likely YOUR sock-puppet.

Nice try Willy. Now put me back in your killfile where I belong.

hiroshi...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 1:14:26 PM9/5/06

William Coleman wrote:
> > >
> > > The Hiroshima bomb exploded nearly directly above a large base (the
> > > headquarters of the Japanese Third Army and the headquarters in charge
> > > of the defense of Kyushu), and nearly all of the 20,000 soldiers on
> > > the base were killed instantly.

Actually, Hiroshima was headquarters to much more than the defense of
Kyushu (although as the focal point of the invasion, that was certainly
important). Hiroshima also held the headquarters in charge of the
defense of all southern Japan.

> > > The Nagasaki bomb was intended for the Kokura Arsenal, but was
> > > diverted by the weather to the outskirts of Nagasaki, where it
> > > exploded between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the
> > > "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both
> > > beyond repair.

The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works at Urakami invented and built torpedoes
specifically designed to defeat Pearl Harbor's defenses, by the way.

> Here are the internet headers from the latest post by Hiroshima Facts --

LOL!

I guess I was right to use the word "if" in my last reply.

Your lies were found out. You had no idea when the Geneva Conventions
came into being, or what collective punishment even means. So now you
are spewing a blizzard of nonsense to cover your retreat.

> Both posters are ultranationalistic Nazis.

I invoke Godwin's Law, and thereby automatically defeat you on every
point you might struggle to make.

HotHa...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 1:25:08 PM9/5/06

ROFL. Coleman loses every debate if we invoke Godwin. But then hey,
he loses almost every one anyway.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 2:54:51 PM9/5/06

"RMHisCOOL" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message

news:1157472367$864...@recpoker.com...
:A little jealous eh? You are more out of touch with reality than you think

I am
: if you believe you represent anything that the uniform stands for.

Go fuck yourself, you subhuman Nazi scum. I was over in Viet Nam getting
shot at before you were even born. I received an Honorable Discharge, was
awarded the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V", and received three early
meritorious promotions -- to PFC, Lance Corporal, and Corporal.

Now you want to tell me I don't represent anything the uniform stands for???
Just because you don't agree with my politics??? Polls consistently show
that a majority of the American people agree with my politics, while a small
minority agree with your moronic brownshirt fuck politics. But you
represent what the uniform stands for, while I don't. Yeah. Right. Sure.

Excuse me, you are the one who dishonors the uniform of the USMC, not me.
You support illegally invading and occupying another country, murdering and
raping innocent civilians, and torturing the citizens in Saddam's torture
chambers.

Is that what you think the uniform stands for???

I will now pronounce you as morally unfit to pass judgement on my
patriotism, just like I have for Irish Mike. You two Nazi scumbags are
disgusting beyond belief.

I am an overweight, out of shape hippie, 62 years old. If I ever have the
great good fortune of meeting either you or your fellow moronic brownshirt
fuck Irish Mike in person, I guarantee both you Nazi assholes will shit your
pants and drop down on your knees to beg for mercy.

You have absolutely no concept of who or what I am. I could mop the floor
with both you and Irish Mike in less than 30 seconds. You need to learn who
you are fucking with before you start insulting my patriotism and fitness to
wear the uniform.

You have made a huge mistake. I suggest you leave the Marine Corps at the
earliest opportunity, change your name, and leave the country.

I know you think you are a tough guy. You would turn into a wimpering
coward at the mere sight of me.

I sincerely hope you face the Wrath of Ramashiva in the near future. It
shouldn't be too difficult to find you. I know your name, unit, and duty
station. Let's see how big you talk when the Angel of Death materializes
from nowhere in your face.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:08:52 PM9/5/06

<HotHa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157461895.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
:
: > : > Hey, asshole. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam myself.

That's because you are clueless. You do not understand that one of the
powers of a Kundalini Yoga Master is to transform himself into various
mythlogical characters. I don't just dress up like the Angel of Death. I
actually BECOME the Angel of Death.

: It would be fun to see you dressed in your 100 lb costume, all in

: black, stalking the Vegas strip. After about 2 blocks you would be
: prostrated by heat exhaustion, lying in the gutter begging winos for
: drink.

Listen, asshole. You are just trotting out nonsense without knowing what
you are talking about. I can put a 100 pound pack on my back, then walk
through 110 degree desert heat for 40 miles with no food or water. I would
still be fresh.

Apparently you do not understand the significance of a 40 day fast. A man
who completes one 40 day fast can walk a thousand miles naked with no
shelter, food, or water. Such a man can live forever on sunshine, fresh
air, and rainwater.

I have completed two 40 day fasts. Just who the fuck do you think I am???
:
: Oh by the way, the correct term for quick reload cylinders is "speed

: loaders" I thought the Angel of Death would at least want to use
: proper jargon.

Yes. Thank you very much for the information. I do not get in firefights
with revolvers, unless absolutely necessary. I prefer semi-automatic combat
rifles.

I have never used speed loaders before. When my father died recently, I
inherited all his guns. One of these guns was a short-barreled Ruger .357
magnum revolver with speed loaders. I apologize for my ignorance on such an
important topic.

Oh by the way, King of Nitpickers, AKA DP75089, Hiroshima Facts,
WuzYoungOnceToo, Luvinthegrape, and no telling how many other sockpuppets, I
know it's you. I don't even have to look at the Internet Headers.

Why don't you get the fuck off this newsgroup once and for all and stop
polluting RGP with your Nazi lies and bullshit? You know we all killfile
your next sockpuppet as soon as we find out it's you. We all know you are
Nazi scum. We all know you are an endlessly argumentative asshole who has
no clue.

No one wants to talk to you except your fellow moronic brownshirt fucks. Go
the fuck away already and leave us the fuck alone.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:11:20 PM9/5/06

<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157471253.3...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
: AMAZING, another account that's only 24 hours old:).

Relax, Russ. It's the King of Nitpickers, AKA Hiroshima Facts,
DP7/Wuz/Luvin and who knows how many other endlessly argumentative braindead
trolls.

When he wants me to see his Nazi spew, he has to create another sockpuppet,
because he knows I killfile his new sockpuppets as fast as he creates them.

WuzYoungOnceToo

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:18:55 PM9/5/06

William Coleman wrote:
> <RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1157471253.3...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> : AMAZING, another account that's only 24 hours old:).
>
> Relax, Russ. It's the King of Nitpickers, AKA Hiroshima Facts,
> DP7/Wuz/Luvin and who knows how many other endlessly argumentative braindead
> trolls.

One just has to wonder what your reaction will be when you find out how
full of crap you are. Will you publicly admit how fucking insane
you've become? Will your head explode? Or will you concoct another of
your elaborate fantasies? The possibilities might be endless.

> When he wants me to see his Nazi spew, he has to create another sockpuppet,
> because he knows I killfile his new sockpuppets as fast as he creates them.

Actually, when you announced that you were taking me (and others) out
of your killfile I demanded to be returned to it. Can't you even keep
your own demented bullshit straight?

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:31:54 PM9/5/06

<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157476466.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

: William Coleman wrote:
: > > >
: > > > The Hiroshima bomb exploded nearly directly above a large base (the
: > > > headquarters of the Japanese Third Army and the headquarters in
charge
: > > > of the defense of Kyushu), and nearly all of the 20,000 soldiers on
: > > > the base were killed instantly.
:
: Actually, Hiroshima was headquarters to much more than the defense of
: Kyushu (although as the focal point of the invasion, that was certainly
: important). Hiroshima also held the headquarters in charge of the
: defense of all southern Japan.
:
:
:
: > > > The Nagasaki bomb was intended for the Kokura Arsenal, but was
: > > > diverted by the weather to the outskirts of Nagasaki, where it
: > > > exploded between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the
: > > > "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both
: > > > beyond repair.
:
: The Mitsubishi Ordnance Works at Urakami invented and built torpedoes
: specifically designed to defeat Pearl Harbor's defenses, by the way.
:
:
:
: > Here are the internet headers from the latest post by Hiroshima Facts --
:
: LOL!

LOL right back at you. You snipped the evidence you are a sockpuppet of the
King of Nitpickers. You also snipped my challenge --

The modus operandi is exactly the same. The MO of the King of Nitpickers.

So, King of Nitpickers, care to confirm or deny that Hiroshima Facts and
WuzYoungOnceToo are both your sockpuppets?

: I guess I was right to use the word "if" in my last reply.

:
: Your lies were found out.

And what lies would those be??? You haven't shown anything I said was a lie.
Saying something is a lie doesn't make it a lie.

: You had no idea when the Geneva Conventions came into being,

Please explain how you know what I know and don't know. I know how to use
Google. I know exactly when the various Geneva Conventions were ratified.
I specifically know when the definition of Collective Punishment was
formulated. After World War II, which you seem to think is wrong.

: or what collective punishment even means.

Well, gee, why don't you educate me??? I have specifically asked you twice
to give me the definition, because I am 100% sure that you are the one who
doesn't know the definition of Collective Punishment. Twice I have asked,
twice you have refused to show me you know the definition of Collective
Punishment by defining it for me. You know what that means. As I said in
my last post --

I will challenge you one more time, then I am done with you --

Please quote the actual definition of Collective Punishment, as defined by
the Geneva Conventions. Please also provide a link.

If you fail to comply with this request, then every reader will know that

you are clueless and do not even know the definition of Collective
Punishment.

Also, please refrain from snipping any part of my post. You did that twice,

and both times you pretended that I never said the words you snipped.

If you fail a second time to provide the Geneva Conventions' definition of

Collective Punishment, then every reader will know you are a clueless troll.

I will then provide the definition of Collective Punishment, with a link.

That definition will show that I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong on the
question of whether the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the
nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fit the definition of Collective
Punishment.

You are in a no win situation. If you fail to produce the definition of

Collective Punishment, then you lose by default, and you are shown to be a
clueless idiot who doesn't even know the definition of Collective
Punishment.

If you do produce the definition of Collective Punishment, then I also win,
since that definition clearly and unambiguously applies to Dresden, Tokyo,
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Your best bet is to slink back into anonymous trolldom, since I win the
debate no matter what you do.

: So now you are spewing a blizzard of nonsense to cover your retreat.

Huh??? You are the one spewing a blizzard of nonsense, not me. You have
refused my repeated requests to define Collective Punishment, while claiming
I do not know the definition. Looks like you are beat and know it. You are
retreating, not me. You think I retreat from sockpuppets of the King of
Nitpickers??? I killfile them, but I don't retreat from them.

: > Both posters are ultranationalistic Nazis.

:
: I invoke Godwin's Law, and thereby automatically defeat you on every
: point you might struggle to make.

Godwin's Law was repealed long ago, when Nazi scumbags like you started
infesting usenet. Is that how you argue??? Claim victory by hiding behind
an obsolete usenet law? My, my. Aren't you the master of rhetoric and
logic.

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:37:56 PM9/5/06

<HotHa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157477108.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:

Sure I do. In your Nazi fantasy world. In the real world, every time one
of you moronic brownshirt fucks dares try to debate me, I kick your ass,
clean your clock, and slap your bitch.

OMFG!!! Behold the spectacle of two of the King of Nitpickers sockpuppets
talking to each other. I told you he was one sick demented moronic
brownshirt fuck. Of course the only way this subhuman scumbag can get
anyone to agree with him is to have two of his sockpuppets agree with each
other.

WuzYoungOnceToo

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 3:48:45 PM9/5/06

William Coleman wrote:
>
> LOL right back at you. You snipped the evidence you are a sockpuppet of the
> King of Nitpickers. You also snipped my challenge --
>
> I guess I have to leave the investigation here for now. I am convinced
> Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo. Both posting from Google Groups using a
> yahoo.com email address. Other Internet Headers are identical.

This is almost as entertaining as it is sad.

> So, King of Nitpickers, care to confirm or deny that Hiroshima Facts and

> WuzYoungOnceToo are both your sockpuppets?0

I've already told you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking
about. How many times do I need to repeat it?

William Coleman

unread,

Sep 5, 2006, 4:05:53 PM9/5/06

<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157455199.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

: William Coleman wrote:
: > <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
: > : William Coleman wrote:
: > : > <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : William Coleman wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Collateral damage, my ass. That is the favorite excuse of war
: > criminals
: > : > : > and their sycophants. Listen, genius, the U.S. military
routinely
: > dropped
: > : > : > 500-pound bombs on residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. Since
: > such
: > : > : > actions will forseeably kill innocent civilians, such actions
: > constitute
: > : > : > the war crime of Collective Punishment.
: > : > :
: > : > : No they don't.
: > : >
: > : > Yes they do.
: > :
: > : No they don't.
: >
: > Gee, is that how you argue??? Like a six year old brat?
:
: I gave you the answer you deserve. Don't whine about it.

I am not whining. I am merely pointing out that the totality of your
rhetorical arsenal consists of telling me I am wrong.

: > : > Please read the definition of Collective Punishment in the

: > : > Geneva Conventions. Do I need to provide a link for you? Of course
I
: > do,
: > : > because you have obviously never read the Geneva Conventions.
: > :
: > : I've not only read them, I've comprehended them.
: >
: > Then prove it by quoting the definition of Collective Punishment given
by
: > the Geneva Conventions. I have obviously challenged you to provide that
: > definition. You refuse to do so for one of two reasons --
: >
: > You don't have a clue to how the Geneva Conventions define Collective
: > Punishment.
:
: I've already told you how they define it.

No you have not. Why are you lying about this??? I specifically challenged
you to quote the actual definition of Collective Punishment, as defined by
the Geneva Conventions. Twice I have challenged you to give me the
definition, twice you have declined. You know what that means. As I said
in my previous post --