Re: This is Iraqi freedom
staten
"D.K." <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
news:9gltl09571kmnkoha...@4ax.com...
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq
>
> --------------------------------------
> Samarra, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, appeared mostly calm Saturday -
except
> for in the center, where American snipers on rooftops fired at anybody
appearing
> in the streets below. Residents in outlying areas emerged from their homes
for
> the first time to survey the damage.
>
> Many bodies were strewn in the street but could not be collected for fear
of the
> snipers, while others were buried in people's gardens, residents said. A 7
p.m.
> to 7 a.m. curfew was in effect, and water and electricity services were
severed.
>
> AP Television News reported that some residents could not take their
wounded for
> treatment because of gunfire from American troops, who along with Iraqi
forces
> were arresting any persons above the age of 15 being taken to at least one
> hospital.
>
> "Dead bodies and injured people are everywhere in the city and when we
tried to
> evacuate them, the Americans fired at us," one ambulance driver told APTN.
> "Later on they told us than we can evacuate only injured women and
children and
> we are not allowed to pick up injured men
>
> Wounded people, mostly women and children, lay on beds at the Tikrit
Teaching
> Hospital.
>
> "His pregnant mother was killed," said one man, Sami Hashem, standing over
a
> young boy whose belly was covered in bandages. Nearby was a young girl who
lost
> her left foot.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> But, but, but ... Saddam was a bad guy! Iraqi people are so much
> better off without him! I suppose residents of Samarra, shot by our
> snipers for daring to come outside of their houses, are truly
> ecstatic about their lives without Saddam now.
>
> DK
It's war, buddy and and war is hell. Bad things happen in war and people
die. Civilians die too. Surprised? What is truly unfortunate is that those
responsible for real atrocities like slaughtering human beings by sawing
their heads off or blowing up busses full of five years old continue to
roam free and most likely will never face justice. But hypocrites like you
will never see that.. No matter how heinous are atrocities committed by
world's criminals , you always will blame your all-purpose bogeyman - the
US.
kurttrail
They wouldn't have had the opportunity if Bush didn't invade Iraq. Most of
the world believes that the Iraq War made the world less safe, not more.
Only you Rightards and your fascist buddies around the world hold on to the
delusion that the world is a safer place with a US destablized Iraq.
http://kurttrail.com/rightard/
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
Ouroboros Rex
Acharya
staten
news:d6adna9Rxv6...@adelphia.com...
"Most of the world" , self-righteous, leftist morons, is dominated by the
most morally backward and corrupt regimes ruled by despots and tyrants. You
surely can pretend preaching that terrorist scourge created by Islamic
fascism is a result of American "destabilization". But make no mistakes
,fools, no matter how hard you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying
to avoid reality you are on their hit list as well. They just use your
cowardly souls for reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like
pigs anyway. It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day
you will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded on
video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your lethargy
earlier.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:d6adna9Rxv6...@adelphia.com...
>
Nope, I don't pretend anything. You have to pretend that Iraqi insurgency
wasn't created by American mistakes in going to war with Iraq.
> But make no mistakes ,fools, no matter how hard
> you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying to avoid reality you
> are on their hit list as well.
LOL! I don't live my life in fear of what others might do. 911s will
happen again, but part of the reason it did happen in the first place was
the Bush Admin relegating al Qaida to the back burners of the priorities
during their first 8 months.
> They just use your cowardly souls for
> reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like pigs anyway.
Well, it does seem that you cowboys have helped them a lot more. Terrorism
is a much greater threat now than before the Iraq War.
> It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day you
> will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded on
> video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your
> lethargy earlier.
LOL! Americans are getting their heads chooped off and I've seen the
videos. All that happened during the Bush Administration.
staten
Mistakes? So, deposing the bloody Baghdad butcher who coddled terrorists ,
gassed his own people and who launched two bloody wars in the region is a
"mistake" ? Very nice. It's very telling to what level of insanity Euro
pacifism has reached. It's little wonder why Islamo nazis so prosper in
Europe gradually turning the Euro continent into Jihadistan. Euro fools
never see a terrorist . Their minds are set on America "perpetrating" mode
only while Islamo Nazis successfully entrench and form their fifth column
in Europe . .
> > But make no mistakes ,fools, no matter how hard
> > you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying to avoid reality you
> > are on their hit list as well.
>
> LOL! I don't live my life in fear of what others might do. 911s will
> happen again, but part of the reason it did happen in the first place was
> the Bush Admin relegating al Qaida to the back burners of the priorities
> during their first 8 months.
9/11 sure may happen. But it's much easier to perform a such deadly
firework in Europe. America is too far and America fights back. Islamonazis
have learnt that very well after losing a such huge piece of their property
in Afghanistan and their rich sponsor in Baghdad. Europe, on the other hand
is closer and Europe is weak. Europe's best effective response to
terrorism is to send an army of appeasers to negotiation tables instead of
blowing up terrorists to smithereens . Madrid bombing was just a beginning.
Expect more fun in the nearest future.
> > They just use your cowardly souls for
> > reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like pigs anyway.
>
> Well, it does seem that you cowboys have helped them a lot more.
Terrorism
> is a much greater threat now than before the Iraq War.
For Europe that's for sure. But it is not because of us , cowboys, but
because of your collective Euro disease - hiding your heads in the sand when
your enemies are preparing to gut you.
> > It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day you
> > will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded on
> > video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your
> > lethargy earlier.
>
> LOL! Americans are getting their heads chooped off and I've seen the
> videos. All that happened during the Bush Administration.
Stupid Euro peaceniks, how about Italians , Nepalese, Filipinos, British who
were executed in the similar or other manner? Are you really such idiots
thinking that Islamonazis are after Americans only but you in Germany are
immune to their violence? The French have done everything in their power
to sabotage American efforts in fighting Saddam's bloody regime, but Islamo
Nazis anyway blew up a French oil tanker and kidnapped French
journalists. Isn't this telling you that you may be the next on
Islamonazi's list? Or you will keep your heads hidden in the sand believing
that this is the best tactics in keeping you free of terrorism?
kurttrail
> "
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:IemdnZunQr5...@adelphia.com...
No, the mistake was the way we went about it. Where the world is less
secure and so are the Iraqi people.
>
>>> But make no mistakes ,fools, no matter how hard
>>> you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying to avoid reality you
>>> are on their hit list as well.
>>
>> LOL! I don't live my life in fear of what others might do. 911s
>> will happen again, but part of the reason it did happen in the first
>> place was the Bush Admin relegating al Qaida to the back burners of
>> the priorities during their first 8 months.
>
>
> 9/11 sure may happen. But it's much easier to perform a such deadly
> firework in Europe. America is too far and America fights back.
They don't have to come to America.
> Islamonazis have learnt that very well after losing a such huge
> piece of their property in Afghanistan and their rich sponsor in
> Baghdad. Europe, on the other hand is closer and Europe is weak.
> Europe's best effective response to terrorism is to send an army of
> appeasers to negotiation tables instead of blowing up terrorists to
> smithereens . Madrid bombing was just a beginning. Expect more fun
> in the nearest future.
>
Yep. And the actions of the Bush Administration makes it all the more
likely!
>
>>> They just use your cowardly souls for
>>> reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like pigs
>>> anyway.
>>
>> Well, it does seem that you cowboys have helped them a lot more.
>> Terrorism is a much greater threat now than before the Iraq War.
>
>
> For Europe that's for sure. But it is not because of us , cowboys, but
> because of your collective Euro disease - hiding your heads in the
> sand when your enemies are preparing to gut you.
LOL! The Iraqi war made them less safe, since its recruited more
terrorists. Had we put the resourses into finishing up the job in
Afghanistan and not stopped at the Pakistan border, that would help make the
world safer. That was the war that had legitimacy!
>
>
>>> It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day you
>>> will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded on
>>> video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your
>>> lethargy earlier.
>>
>> LOL! Americans are getting their heads chooped off and I've seen the
>> videos. All that happened during the Bush Administration.
>
>
> Stupid Euro peaceniks, how about Italians , Nepalese, Filipinos,
> British who were executed in the similar or other manner?
They wouldn't have been beheaded either, had we had an Administration that
didn't shoot first and ask questions later.
> Are you
> really such idiots thinking that Islamonazis are after Americans only
> but you in Germany are immune to their violence?
I live in Florida, and I was born in Nevada, and grew up in New Jersey
watching the Twin Towers being built. 911 wasn't about Iraq, and can't be
used to legitimize invading Iraq. No WMDs. And all the Iraq War did is
stain the onece great name of the America around the world, creating more
terrorists to bring it on to us.
> The French have
> done everything in their power to sabotage American efforts in
> fighting Saddam's bloody regime, but Islamo Nazis anyway blew up a
> French oil tanker and kidnapped French
> journalists. Isn't this telling you that you may be the next on
> Islamonazi's list? Or you will keep your heads hidden in the sand
> believing that this is the best tactics in keeping you free of
> terrorism?
Nope. I believe we shouldn't have diverted our resources away from fighting
those that attacked us. The American people and the World understood that
we had to go after them, but the Iraq War didn't have that kind of
legitimacy. Even the Bush Administration could figure out a way to come up
with legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, as most of have seen how many times
the Bush Administration has changed its reasons to fight in Iraq. Saddam
was isolated, 2/3 of his country was a no-fly zone, with the rest of the
country being a no-zone fly at the drop of the hat. Saddam was no imminent
threat to us or the world. There were many other countries that were much
more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam did. But
we invaded Iraq anyway, and the world is less safe because of it. And the
only people that have there heads up their ass, are those that think the
world is a better place, because we diverted the War on Terror to Iraq, and
refuse to see what a mess Iraq really has become, Rightard!
http://kurttrail.com/rightard/
staten
Oh sure, Iraqi people were more "secure" in Saddam's torture dungeons and
in mass graves. Very nice revelation worth of classical leftist "compassion"
to people..
> >
> >>> But make no mistakes ,fools, no matter how hard
> >>> you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying to avoid reality you
> >>> are on their hit list as well.
> >>
> >> LOL! I don't live my life in fear of what others might do. 911s
> >> will happen again, but part of the reason it did happen in the first
> >> place was the Bush Admin relegating al Qaida to the back burners of
> >> the priorities during their first 8 months.
> >
> >
> > 9/11 sure may happen. But it's much easier to perform a such deadly
> > firework in Europe. America is too far and America fights back.
>
> They don't have to come to America.
Right. Why to come to America if Euro milksops are much easier target...
> > Islamonazis have learnt that very well after losing a such huge
> > piece of their property in Afghanistan and their rich sponsor in
> > Baghdad. Europe, on the other hand is closer and Europe is weak.
> > Europe's best effective response to terrorism is to send an army of
> > appeasers to negotiation tables instead of blowing up terrorists to
> > smithereens . Madrid bombing was just a beginning. Expect more fun
> > in the nearest future.
> >
>
> Yep. And the actions of the Bush Administration makes it all the more
> likely!
Bush Administration? We are under constant terrorist attacks beginning from
November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian terrorists stormed the American
embassy and took 90 American hostages. You leftist fools have very short
memory.
> >
> >>> They just use your cowardly souls for
> >>> reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like pigs
> >>> anyway.
> >>
> >> Well, it does seem that you cowboys have helped them a lot more.
> >> Terrorism is a much greater threat now than before the Iraq War.
> >
> >
> > For Europe that's for sure. But it is not because of us , cowboys, but
> > because of your collective Euro disease - hiding your heads in the
> > sand when your enemies are preparing to gut you.
>
> LOL! The Iraqi war made them less safe, since its recruited more
> terrorists.
Blame not us but Euro sissies who don't want to spend money on their
defense, who refuse to fight terrorists preferring just loafing in the
shadow
of our might spending their recourses on bloating social programs.
>Had we put the resourses into finishing up the job in
> Afghanistan and not stopped at the Pakistan border, that would help make
the
> world safer. That was the war that had legitimacy!
The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist heaven ,
terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban terrorist loving regime is
finished up. Pakistan is our ally in fighting terrorism. Starting war
against our ally would be insanity. You leftist mindsets falls short of any
logic.
> >
> >
> >>> It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day you
> >>> will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded on
> >>> video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your
> >>> lethargy earlier.
> >>
> >> LOL! Americans are getting their heads chooped off and I've seen the
> >> videos. All that happened during the Bush Administration.
> >
> >
> > Stupid Euro peaceniks, how about Italians , Nepalese, Filipinos,
> > British who were executed in the similar or other manner?
>
> They wouldn't have been beheaded either, had we had an Administration that
> didn't shoot first and ask questions later.
Asking questions when a killer is ready to pull the trigger aiming at you is
both stupid and suicidal. If you want to survive you should deliver a first
blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
> > Are you
> > really such idiots thinking that Islamonazis are after Americans only
> > but you in Germany are immune to their violence?
>
> I live in Florida, and I was born in Nevada, and grew up in New Jersey
> watching the Twin Towers being built.
No big mistake. You sound as a seasoned Euro pacifist seeing no mass
graves left by the Baghdad Butcher, no terrorists , no school kids blown up
in school busses , no pregnant women executed by terrorists, no videotaped
chopped off heads but just spending all his time and energy concentrated
on "exposing" American transgressions - without rest , continuously ,
perpetually.
>911 wasn't about Iraq, and can't be
> used to legitimize invading Iraq. No WMDs. And all the Iraq War did is
> stain the onece great name of the America around the world, creating more
> terrorists to bring it on to us.
No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained and keep
staining America's name around the world. Before you trashed America trying
to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi despots, now you trash America and
count on an appeaser who would entrust our security to the totally corrupt
organization - the UN. Terrorists , like you are, also count on President
Bush being defeated and replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate
with them , who would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to terrorist
demands) , thus strengthening their power and pushing them closer to their
cherished goal- destruction of America and the western civilization. In
fact , you are accomplices of our enemies . You when triggering your
shameful company of lies , forgeries, and discrediting our county and her
commander-in-chief in any imaginable ways actually put gasoline on
terrorist fire and are partially responsible for the deaths of Americans
and freedom loving Iraqis in Iraq.
> > The French have
> > done everything in their power to sabotage American efforts in
> > fighting Saddam's bloody regime, but Islamo Nazis anyway blew up a
> > French oil tanker and kidnapped French
> > journalists. Isn't this telling you that you may be the next on
> > Islamonazi's list? Or you will keep your heads hidden in the sand
> > believing that this is the best tactics in keeping you free of
> > terrorism?
>
> Nope. I believe we shouldn't have diverted our resources away from
fighting
> those that attacked us.
What fighting are you talking about if you are still have no idea whom to
fight? Your pussyfooting around mysterious "enemies" , with no places to
live , with no countries to name sounds like fighting wind mills thinking
that you fight powerful giants.
>The American people and the World understood that
> we had to go after them, but the Iraq War didn't have that kind of
> legitimacy.
Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN Resolution
1441. The only thing left after that to have guts to realize it. Bush got
it, but you leftist morons and your beloved world still live in the 2002
hoping for a miracle that would change Saddam's behavior. But miracle didn't
happen . The war followed.
>Even the Bush Administration could figure out a way to come up
> with legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, as most of have seen how many
times
> the Bush Administration has changed its reasons to fight in Iraq. Saddam
> was isolated, 2/3 of his country was a no-fly zone, with the rest of the
> country being a no-zone fly at the drop of the hat. Saddam was no
imminent
> threat to us or the world.
Leftist bullshit. If Iraq had no capability to attack us by missiles it
doesn't mean that there was no threat. Saddam's regime was sponsoring
terrorism. For years, Saddam's regime offered $25,000 in blood money to the
families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam harbored prominent terrorist
figures like Abu Nidal, responsible for the deaths of American citizens, and
Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who helped hatch the 1993 attack on the World
Trade Center. He also sponsored Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda spin-off group
headquartered in northern Iraq. Iraq had WMD. Just absence of it after the
war broke out does not mean Saddam had no WMD. David Kay and his team found
many forbidden programs on WMD. ISG has collected and cataloged millions of
pages of documents on this matter , not all of which have been fully
examined. But what is already known indicates that Iraq was in flagrant
violation of the UN resolutions . Having a such solid record of Saddam's
violations and trickery and stating that it still has "no imminent threat"
is both preposterous and suicidal.
>There were many other countries that were much
> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam did.
Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated record than
Saddam had.
>But
> we invaded Iraq anyway, and the world is less safe because of it.
We invaded Iraq first of all because of our security , not the world's . If
the world is concerned about its security it has just two options: joining
us to fight terrorism, as some countries did, or to join terrorists. Just
doing nothing or fomenting anti-American hatred , like Europe and Arabs do ,
is tantamount to abetting terrorists.
>And the
> only people that have there heads up their ass, are those that think the
> world is a better place, because we diverted the War on Terror to Iraq,
and
> refuse to see what a mess Iraq really has become, Rightard!
We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on streets of
our cities. The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and Iraq was the worst
enemy. No mistakes were made. The war on Jihadistan is going on where it's
suppose to be.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:Wd-dnfe6IP2...@adelphia.com...
Actually it is an indictment of the Bush Administration not having a plan to
secure the peace after the Invasion, shows that Bush wasn't concern with the
plight of the Iraqi people. Remember practically the first move in Bagdad
was to protect the Oil Ministry.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> But make no mistakes ,fools, no matter how hard
>>>>> you kiss asses of Islamist barbarians trying to avoid reality
>>>>> you are on their hit list as well.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! I don't live my life in fear of what others might do. 911s
>>>> will happen again, but part of the reason it did happen in the
>>>> first place was the Bush Admin relegating al Qaida to the back
>>>> burners of the priorities during their first 8 months.
>>>
>>>
>>> 9/11 sure may happen. But it's much easier to perform a such
>>> deadly firework in Europe. America is too far and America fights
>>> back.
>>
>> They don't have to come to America.
>
>
> Right. Why to come to America if Euro milksops are much easier
> target...
No, why come to America when it is easier to slip over the Iraqi border to
kill Americans.
>
>
>>> Islamonazis have learnt that very well after losing a such huge
>>> piece of their property in Afghanistan and their rich sponsor in
>>> Baghdad. Europe, on the other hand is closer and Europe is weak.
>>> Europe's best effective response to terrorism is to send an army
>>> of appeasers to negotiation tables instead of blowing up terrorists
>>> to smithereens . Madrid bombing was just a beginning. Expect more
>>> fun in the nearest future.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. And the actions of the Bush Administration makes it all the
>> more likely!
>
>
> Bush Administration? We are under constant terrorist attacks
We were? LOL!
> beginning from November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian terrorists
> stormed the American embassy and took 90 American hostages. You
> leftist fools have very short memory.
At least I don't have to lie about constant attacks! And you have a very
short memory, that Republican Administration supported both Saddam and
Osama.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> They just use your cowardly souls for
>>>>> reaching their objectives and later butcher you all like pigs
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it does seem that you cowboys have helped them a lot more.
>>>> Terrorism is a much greater threat now than before the Iraq War.
>>>
>>>
>>> For Europe that's for sure. But it is not because of us , cowboys,
>>> but because of your collective Euro disease - hiding your heads in
>>> the sand when your enemies are preparing to gut you.
>>
>> LOL! The Iraqi war made them less safe, since its recruited more
>> terrorists.
>
> Blame not us but Euro sissies who don't want to spend money on their
> defense, who refuse to fight terrorists preferring just loafing in
> the shadow
> of our might spending their recourses on bloating social programs.
Pretty soon you'll be blaming the Jews for it!
>
>
>
>> Had we put the resourses into finishing up the job in
>> Afghanistan and not stopped at the Pakistan border, that would help
>> make the world safer. That was the war that had legitimacy!
>
>
> The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist
> heaven , terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban terrorist
> loving regime is finished up. Pakistan is our ally in fighting
> terrorism. Starting war against our ally would be insanity. You
> leftist mindsets falls short of any logic.
LOL! The Pakis put on a big show of being our allies. But they don't have
the will to get the terrorists hiding in their country. They pardon a guy
sell nuke technology to anyone who'd pay him. And didn't say anything about
starting a war with the Pakis. I'd would have had the balls to tell them to
stay out of our way while we hunt down al Qaida.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It's written in the Koran. So don't be surprised when one day you
>>>>> will see a chopped off heads of your fellows countrymen recorded
>>>>> on video camera. It's your future if you don't wake up from your
>>>>> lethargy earlier.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Americans are getting their heads chooped off and I've seen
>>>> the videos. All that happened during the Bush Administration.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupid Euro peaceniks, how about Italians , Nepalese, Filipinos,
>>> British who were executed in the similar or other manner?
>>
>> They wouldn't have been beheaded either, had we had an
>> Administration that didn't shoot first and ask questions later.
>
>
> Asking questions when a killer is ready to pull the trigger aiming at
> you is both stupid and suicidal.
Saddam didn't have a trigger to pull. We controlled 2/3 of his airspace and
could close off the other third at the drop of a hat. Saddam was not an
imminent threat to the US, his neighbors, or the world. He was just an easy
target with a lot of oil.
> If you want to survive you should
> deliver a first blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
LOL! That blow was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
>
>
>>> Are you
>>> really such idiots thinking that Islamonazis are after Americans
>>> only but you in Germany are immune to their violence?
>>
>> I live in Florida, and I was born in Nevada, and grew up in New
>> Jersey watching the Twin Towers being built.
>
> No big mistake. You sound as a seasoned Euro pacifist seeing no mass
> graves left by the Baghdad Butcher, no terrorists , no school kids
> blown up in school busses , no pregnant women executed by
> terrorists, no videotaped chopped off heads but just spending all
> his time and energy concentrated on "exposing" American
> transgressions - without rest , continuously , perpetually.
No, that would be your rightard bias of thinking that anyone against
invading Iraq for no good reason is a terrorist enabler, to hide the fact
that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that enabled the terrorists to gain
more support and recruits.
>
>> 911 wasn't about Iraq, and can't be
>> used to legitimize invading Iraq. No WMDs. And all the Iraq War
>> did is stain the onece great name of the America around the world,
>> creating more terrorists to bring it on to us.
>
>
> No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained
> and keep staining America's name around the world. Before you trashed
> America trying to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi despots, now you
> trash America and count on an appeaser who would entrust our
> security to the totally corrupt organization - the UN. Terrorists ,
> like you are, also count on President Bush being defeated and
> replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate with them , who
> would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to terrorist demands)
> , thus strengthening their power and pushing them closer to their
> cherished goal- destruction of America and the western civilization.
> In fact , you are accomplices of our enemies . You when triggering
> your shameful company of lies , forgeries, and discrediting our
> county and her commander-in-chief in any imaginable ways actually
> put gasoline on terrorist fire and are partially responsible for the
> deaths of Americans and freedom loving Iraqis in Iraq.
Rant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iraqi occupation was a
mistake. GHWB knew it in 1991, but his Idiot Son rather listen to his
make-believe father in heaven, than his real father who was an expert when
dealing with Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>>> The French have
>>> done everything in their power to sabotage American efforts in
>>> fighting Saddam's bloody regime, but Islamo Nazis anyway blew up a
>>> French oil tanker and kidnapped French
>>> journalists. Isn't this telling you that you may be the next on
>>> Islamonazi's list? Or you will keep your heads hidden in the sand
>>> believing that this is the best tactics in keeping you free of
>>> terrorism?
>>
>> Nope. I believe we shouldn't have diverted our resources away from
>> fighting those that attacked us.
>
> What fighting are you talking about if you are still have no idea
> whom to fight?
Al Qaida you fucking moron. They are the ones that attacked us! Not Iraq.
> Your pussyfooting around mysterious "enemies" , with
> no places to live , with no countries to name sounds like fighting
> wind mills thinking that you fight powerful giants.
Al Qaida isn't a country. They are a bunch of criminals!
>
>> The American people and the World understood that
>> we had to go after them, but the Iraq War didn't have that kind of
>> legitimacy.
>
> Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN
> Resolution 1441.
Serious Consequences doesn't equal a mandate to go to war.
> The only thing left after that to have guts to
> realize it. Bush got it, but you leftist morons and your beloved
> world still live in the 2002 hoping for a miracle that would change
> Saddam's behavior. But miracle didn't happen . The war followed.
LOL! Bush tried to get a war mandate from the UN, said he would let it get
voted on, but then flip flopped.
That is the legitimacy that Bush lacked. Didn't even have the balls to let
it be voted on!
>
>> Even the Bush Administration could figure out a way to come up
>> with legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, as most of have seen how
>> many times the Bush Administration has changed its reasons to fight
>> in Iraq. Saddam was isolated, 2/3 of his country was a no-fly zone,
>> with the rest of the country being a no-zone fly at the drop of the
>> hat. Saddam was no imminent threat to us or the world.
>
> Leftist bullshit. If Iraq had no capability to attack us by missiles
> it doesn't mean that there was no threat. Saddam's regime was
> sponsoring terrorism. For years, Saddam's regime offered $25,000 in
> blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam
> harbored prominent terrorist figures like Abu Nidal, responsible for
> the deaths of American citizens, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who
> helped hatch the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He also
> sponsored Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda spin-off group headquartered
> in northern Iraq. Iraq had WMD. Just absence of it after the war
> broke out does not mean Saddam had no WMD. David Kay and his team
> found many forbidden programs on WMD. ISG has collected and cataloged
> millions of pages of documents on this matter , not all of which have
> been fully examined. But what is already known indicates that Iraq
> was in flagrant violation of the UN resolutions . Having a such solid
> record of Saddam's violations and trickery and stating that it still
> has "no imminent threat" is both preposterous and suicidal.
LOL! Where are the WMDs? What was the exact imminent threat that made war
necessary? Saddam was toothless. We controlled whatever part of his
Airspace that we wanted to control. Iran was much more complicit in helping
terrorism than Saddam, and has a real program to build nukes. There were
and are many more countries that posed a greater threat to US than Saddam.
The only difference is that they aren't as weak and didn't have as much oil
as Saddam!
>
>> There were many other countries that were much
>> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam did.
>
> Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated record
> than Saddam had.
I already have! But here is another NORTH KOREA! We are only in a state of
seize fire with them since the 1950's and they actually have NUKES and
MISSILES to deliver them!
But that situation we leave to our "allies" the commie chinese to deal with!
The country that helped North Korea to stalemate us in the first place!
>
>> But
>> we invaded Iraq anyway, and the world is less safe because of it.
>
> We invaded Iraq first of all because of our security , not the
> world's .
LOL! Our security is much worse off today! Just ask the families of the
Americans that died in Iraq in a rush to war, that didn't have anything to
do with WMDs, and nothing to do with fighting terrorism!
> If the world is concerned about its security it has just
> two options: joining us to fight terrorism, as some countries did, or
> to join terrorists. Just doing nothing or fomenting anti-American
> hatred , like Europe and Arabs do , is tantamount to abetting
> terrorists.
LOL! Those against the Iraq War are those that ask questions of legitimacy.
Hitler was only protecting Germans by invading the Poland.
>
>> And the
>> only people that have there heads up their ass, are those that think
>> the world is a better place, because we diverted the War on Terror
>> to Iraq, and refuse to see what a mess Iraq really has become,
>> Rightard!
>
>
> We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on
> streets of our cities.
LOL! And that isn't a legitimate reason for invading Iraq, but that is the
real reason. Create a situation where terrorists would come to us, but not
in America. The "Bring 'em on" Reason. Instead of hunting them down as the
criminals that they are! But it's just creating more support for those that
hate us, and that will bring them back to America. All so short-sited!
> The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and
> Iraq was the worst enemy.
No, Iran was and is.
> No mistakes were made. The war on
> Jihadistan is going on where it's suppose to be.
If we keep it up, we will have to kill all Arabs. And that would be
genocide.
Don W. McCollough
No Buddy! Its a crime.
Don W. McCollough
Fuckwit. Instead of 1 Saddam Hussein in Iraq...Now you've got 1000s.
And they won't "coddle" terrorists, they ARE terrorists.
Counterproductive to the (ahem) WAR ON TERRORISM...absolutely.
staten
>
> >> No, the mistake was the way we went about it. Where the world is
> >> less secure and so are the Iraqi people.
> >
> > Oh sure, Iraqi people were more "secure" in Saddam's torture
> > dungeons and in mass graves. Very nice revelation worth of classical
> > leftist "compassion" to people..
>
> Actually it is an indictment of the Bush Administration not having a plan
to
> secure the peace after the Invasion, shows that Bush wasn't concern with
the
> plight of the Iraqi people. Remember practically the first move in Bagdad
> was to protect the Oil Ministry.
Immaterial hot air. No matter what Bush would do you leftist detractors
anyway would find anything so that to mount your stupid " indictments".
Meanwhile your commander-in-chief wannabe clearly showed last Thursday that
he is the one who doesn't care about security. This arrogant peacock openly
declared that if he will be elected he will shut down American nuclear
programs including bunker busting technology This must be music to the ears
of thousands of Bin Ladens around the world who as experience has shown in
Afghanistan , Iraq and Pacistan have tendency to hide in caves and bunkers
buried deep inside mountains. This guy would rather
sacrifice our troops than change his politically correct view of nuclear
weapons.
> > beginning from November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian terrorists
> > stormed the American embassy and took 90 American hostages. You
> > leftist fools have very short memory.
>
> At least I don't have to lie about constant attacks! And you have a very
> short memory, that Republican Administration supported both Saddam and
> Osama.
>
Oh stop this stupid banality. Allies change as do situation. At that time we
had to consider all means to stop Soviet expansion including help of
mudjahedins who fought Soviet aggressors. On the other hand ,
you leftists , always sided with Soviet communists as you do now with
genocidal, despotic, sadistic and vicious regimes.
> > Blame not us but Euro sissies who don't want to spend money on their
> > defense, who refuse to fight terrorists preferring just loafing in
> > the shadow
> > of our might spending their recourses on bloating social programs.
>
> Pretty soon you'll be blaming the Jews for it!
Your Euro buddies already blame Jews for all sins on earth again. In Europe,
especially in France, a red-green-black coalition of hard core leftists,
Islamists, and old-fashioned fascists has revived
violent and ugly anti-Semitism
> > The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist
> > heaven , terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban terrorist
> > loving regime is finished up. Pakistan is our ally in fighting
> > terrorism. Starting war against our ally would be insanity. You
> > leftist mindsets falls short of any logic.
>
> LOL! The Pakis put on a big show of being our allies. But they don't have
> the will to get the terrorists hiding in their country. They pardon a guy
> sell nuke technology to anyone who'd pay him. And didn't say anything
about
> starting a war with the Pakis. I'd would have had the balls to tell them
to
> stay out of our way while we hunt down al Qaida.
>
Oh sure, listening to leftists like you , Edwards , Kennedy and their
cronies we don't have valuable allies at all. Your beloved Hanoi John ,
whose portrait hangs in a "War Crime Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City , says the
same. . Great Britain? Worthless. Australia? Coerced. South Korea?
Confused. Italy? Meaningless. The leader of Iraq? A stooge. So much about
"coalition building" he was boasting from the high podium. This phony fraud'
s idea about "lidership " is complaining about the allies we
have and praising the ones who are doing nothing , like France or Germany.
Estonia, Moldova, and Thailand have provided more troop support than his
beloved France ever will, and Kerry thanks them by throwing egg in their
faces. He was a pacifist and Hanoi's stooge in 1970's and remains to be
such today.
> Saddam didn't have a trigger to pull. We controlled 2/3 of his airspace
and
> could close off the other third at the drop of a hat. Saddam was not an
> imminent threat to the US, his neighbors, or the world. He was just an
easy
> target with a lot of oil.
>
We controlled nothing. Nor did the UN inspectors. Hans
Blix, the former UN weapons inspector who opposed military
intervention, has conceded that not long before to the war, his
inspection team found 16 Iraqi warheads marked for use with Sarin.What it
tells you? It tells that the UN inspection and controlling his air space ,
as you say, was a total fiasco.
> > If you want to survive you should
> > deliver a first blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
>
> LOL! That blow was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
They were both worth to deliver a first blow. Both were supporters of
terrorism.
> > No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained
> > and keep staining America's name around the world. Before you trashed
> > America trying to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi despots, now you
> > trash America and count on an appeaser who would entrust our
> > security to the totally corrupt organization - the UN. Terrorists ,
> > like you are, also count on President Bush being defeated and
> > replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate with them , who
> > would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to terrorist demands)
> > , thus strengthening their power and pushing them closer to their
> > cherished goal- destruction of America and the western civilization.
> > In fact , you are accomplices of our enemies . You when triggering
> > your shameful company of lies , forgeries, and discrediting our
> > county and her commander-in-chief in any imaginable ways actually
> > put gasoline on terrorist fire and are partially responsible for the
> > deaths of Americans and freedom loving Iraqis in Iraq.
>
>
> Rant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iraqi occupation was a
> mistake. GHWB knew it in 1991, but his Idiot Son rather listen to his
> make-believe father in heaven, than his real father who was an expert when
> dealing with Iraq.
GHWB didn't finish his business. His son is doing it now.
> >> Nope. I believe we shouldn't have diverted our resources away from
> >> fighting those that attacked us.
> >
> > What fighting are you talking about if you are still have no idea
> > whom to fight?
>
> Al Qaida you fucking moron. They are the ones that attacked us! Not Iraq.
>
Al Qaeda, idiot, is too general term. Al Qaeda cannot exist without
countries supporting it morally, financially, feeding it with arms. Mid East
and Afghanistan were such countries. The Mid East is still a greatest
breeding ground of terrorism in the entire world today.
> > Your pussyfooting around mysterious "enemies" , with
> > no places to live , with no countries to name sounds like fighting
> > wind mills thinking that you fight powerful giants.
>
> Al Qaida isn't a country. They are a bunch of criminals!
They are not a bunch of criminals, moron. We deal with people who have for
centuries been taught to hate all non-Muslims , to kill them and to
introduce Sharia law on the planet as their most important priority. We are
dealing with people who are at war with Western civilization. These people
act as they have been taught .
At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred. In
1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for
more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up,
killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing
270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center,
and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans. In
1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more
than 200 dead and 4,000 injured. Who are the people responsible for these
and other wanton murders of innocents and barbaric beheadings ?
They were all Muslims. And all this happened long before Bush
was sworn to office.
> > Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN
> > Resolution 1441.
>
> Serious Consequences doesn't equal a mandate to go to war.
>
Serious consequences, idiot , mean actions not spreading empty wind .
The U.S. intervention was legitimized by the U.N.Charter .
Chapter VI resolutions require a pacific settlement of disputes,
without any armed-force intervention - like resolutions concerning
Israel and Palestine. Chapter VII
resolutions allow, through Article 41, the use of armed force when all other
means have failed - this type of resolution concerned Iraq.
> > Leftist bullshit. If Iraq had no capability to attack us by missiles
> > it doesn't mean that there was no threat. Saddam's regime was
> > sponsoring terrorism. For years, Saddam's regime offered $25,000 in
> > blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam
> > harbored prominent terrorist figures like Abu Nidal, responsible for
> > the deaths of American citizens, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who
> > helped hatch the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He also
> > sponsored Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda spin-off group headquartered
> > in northern Iraq. Iraq had WMD. Just absence of it after the war
> > broke out does not mean Saddam had no WMD. David Kay and his team
> > found many forbidden programs on WMD. ISG has collected and cataloged
> > millions of pages of documents on this matter , not all of which have
> > been fully examined. But what is already known indicates that Iraq
> > was in flagrant violation of the UN resolutions . Having a such solid
> > record of Saddam's violations and trickery and stating that it still
> > has "no imminent threat" is both preposterous and suicidal.
>
> LOL! Where are the WMDs?
U.S. forces found in Iraq:
-An artillery shell filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the
shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it
when terrorists tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad.
-Another artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed
signs it once contained mustard agent.
-Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer,
that showed signs they once were filled with sarin.
-Centrifuge parts buried in a former nuclear scientist's garden in Baghdad.
The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.
-A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon,
in another scientist's refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there
since 1993.
-Evidence of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges
of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from
having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.
Could we afford to leave Saddam with these toys , and believing your leftist
bleating "he had no WMD" ? Yes, we could. If we would be a nation of suicide
lunatics.
>What was the exact imminent threat that made war
> necessary?
To pass deadly toys , like above, to terrorists who would instantly find
application to them in our cities.
>Saddam was toothless. We controlled whatever part of his
> Airspace that we wanted to control.
Controlling his airspace, baboon, does not allow you to find out what Saddam
was doing in his bunkers.
>Iran was much more complicit in helping
> terrorism than Saddam, and has a real program to build nukes.
Iran is the next on the list if it doesn't stop its deadly games.
>There were
> and are many more countries that posed a greater threat to US than Saddam.
> The only difference is that they aren't as weak and didn't have as much
oil
> as Saddam!
There was no a single country with a record similar to Saddam's
> >> There were many other countries that were much
> >> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam did.
> >
> > Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated record
> > than Saddam had.
>
> I already have! But here is another NORTH KOREA! We are only in a state of
> seize fire with them since the 1950's and they actually have NUKES and
> MISSILES to deliver them!
Does N. Korea sends N.Koreans to highjack planes and plough them into our
tall
buildings? Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians around
the world? Do N. Korean participate in atrocities with chopping off heads
and executing school kids? The answer is obvious as obvious is your idiotic
comparison.
> But that situation we leave to our "allies" the commie chinese to deal
with!
> The country that helped North Korea to stalemate us in the first place!
Wrong, pinhead. Talks with N.Korea include China Russia, Japan and S.Korea.
That is your beloved traitor and Hanoi stooge Kerry who would exchange
multinational talks for talks that only include the United States. This was
a strategy used by Clinton that obviously failed.
> >
> >> But
> >> we invaded Iraq anyway, and the world is less safe because of it.
> >
> > We invaded Iraq first of all because of our security , not the
> > world's .
>
> LOL! Our security is much worse off today! Just ask the families of the
> Americans that died in Iraq in a rush to war, that didn't have anything to
> do with WMDs, and nothing to do with fighting terrorism!
Don't need to ask families of Americans who died in Iraq. All they went
there voluntarily and that's why our safety has nothing to do with their
unhappy ending. Ask families of Americans who have no one terrorist act
since 9/11 in our country and they tell you that you are an idiot.
> > If the world is concerned about its security it has just
> > two options: joining us to fight terrorism, as some countries did, or
> > to join terrorists. Just doing nothing or fomenting anti-American
> > hatred , like Europe and Arabs do , is tantamount to abetting
> > terrorists.
>
> LOL! Those against the Iraq War are those that ask questions of
legitimacy.
> Hitler was only protecting Germans by invading the Poland.
Again, Bush and Hitler , the same parallels , the same leftist lunacy.
> >> And the
> >> only people that have there heads up their ass, are those that think
> >> the world is a better place, because we diverted the War on Terror
> >> to Iraq, and refuse to see what a mess Iraq really has become,
> >> Rightard!
> >
> >
> > We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on
> > streets of our cities.
>
> LOL! And that isn't a legitimate reason for invading Iraq, but that is the
> real reason. Create a situation where terrorists would come to us, but not
> in America. The "Bring 'em on" Reason. Instead of hunting them down as the
> criminals that they are! But it's just creating more support for those
that
> hate us, and that will bring them back to America. All so short-sited!
If Kerry wins, expect terrorists in America, that's for sure. Kerry's
"global test" will work like an invitation to visit our shores.
> > The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and
> > Iraq was the worst enemy.
>
> No, Iran was and is.
Iran, fool, is in the Mid East.
> > No mistakes were made. The war on
> > Jihadistan is going on where it's suppose to be.
>
> If we keep it up, we will have to kill all Arabs. And that would be
> genocide.
Another leftist sickening brainchild. We don't kill Arabs and don't kill
Muslims . We only kill Muslim fanatics who want to destroy us. If those
fanatics are Arabs so be it, we have to kill them all. There is no place for
political correctness when our own lives are in grave danger.
staten
news:67468b.041007...@posting.google.com...> "staten"
<stat...@lycos.com> wrote in message > >
> > It's war
>
> No Buddy! Its a crime.
Siding with our enemies for the sake of political correctness and morally
supporting atrocities against innocent civilians is a true crime . You
obviously have a big problem recognizing crime . For people like you the
arsonist and the firefighter are equal.
staten
> > Mistakes? So, deposing the bloody Baghdad butcher who coddled terrorists
,
> > gassed his own people and who launched two bloody wars in the region is
a
> > "mistake" ?
>
> Fuckwit. Instead of 1 Saddam Hussein in Iraq...Now you've got 1000s.
.
Instead of 5 the most evil countries exporting death and destructionn we
have now 3.
> And they won't "coddle" terrorists, they ARE terrorists
Sure. Like they have been for the last 30 years. That's why we finally woke
up from the lethargy of political correctness and fight those bastards in
the lands creating them.
> Counterproductive to the (ahem) WAR ON TERRORISM...absolutely.
Hiding heads in the sand thinking that terrorists don't find you is
counterproductive indeed. More, it is stupid and suicidal.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:r8adndb-dJv...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>
>>>> No, the mistake was the way we went about it. Where the world is
>>>> less secure and so are the Iraqi people.
>>>
>>> Oh sure, Iraqi people were more "secure" in Saddam's torture
>>> dungeons and in mass graves. Very nice revelation worth of classical
>>> leftist "compassion" to people..
>>
>> Actually it is an indictment of the Bush Administration not having a
>> plan to secure the peace after the Invasion, shows that Bush wasn't
>> concern with the plight of the Iraqi people. Remember practically
>> the first move in Bagdad was to protect the Oil Ministry.
>
>
> Immaterial hot air. No matter what Bush would do you leftist
> detractors anyway would find anything so that to mount your stupid "
> indictments". Meanwhile your commander-in-chief wannabe clearly
> showed last Thursday that he is the one who doesn't care about
> security. This arrogant peacock openly declared that if he will be
> elected he will shut down American nuclear programs including bunker
> busting technology This must be music to the ears of thousands of Bin
> Ladens around the world who as experience has shown in Afghanistan ,
> Iraq and Pacistan have tendency to hide in caves and bunkers buried
> deep inside mountains. This guy would rather
> sacrifice our troops than change his politically correct view of
> nuclear weapons.
So is this a War on Terror or on everyone? Let's poison everyone with
radiation to get the terrorists! Yeah, sounds like a brillian fucking idea!
>
>>> beginning from November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian terrorists
>>> stormed the American embassy and took 90 American hostages. You
>>> leftist fools have very short memory.
>>
>> At least I don't have to lie about constant attacks! And you have a
>> very short memory, that Republican Administration supported both
>> Saddam and Osama.
>>
>
>
> Oh stop this stupid banality.
"We are under constant terrorist attacks." You are just stupid.
> Allies change as do situation. At that
> time we had to consider all means to stop Soviet expansion including
> help of mudjahedins who fought Soviet aggressors. On the other hand
> ,
> you leftists , always sided with Soviet communists as you do now with
> genocidal, despotic, sadistic and vicious regimes.
Talk about stupid banalities!
>
>
>>> Blame not us but Euro sissies who don't want to spend money on their
>>> defense, who refuse to fight terrorists preferring just loafing in
>>> the shadow
>>> of our might spending their recourses on bloating social programs.
>>
>> Pretty soon you'll be blaming the Jews for it!
>
>
> Your Euro buddies already blame Jews for all sins on earth again. In
> Europe, especially in France, a red-green-black coalition of hard
> core leftists, Islamists, and old-fashioned fascists has revived
> violent and ugly anti-Semitism
Like America doesn't have the equivilent neonazis that hate Jews!
>
>
>>> The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist
>>> heaven , terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban terrorist
>>> loving regime is finished up. Pakistan is our ally in fighting
>>> terrorism. Starting war against our ally would be insanity. You
>>> leftist mindsets falls short of any logic.
>>
>> LOL! The Pakis put on a big show of being our allies. But they don't
>> have the will to get the terrorists hiding in their country. They
>> pardon a guy sell nuke technology to anyone who'd pay him. And
>> didn't say anything about starting a war with the Pakis. I'd would
>> have had the balls to tell them to stay out of our way while we hunt
>> down al Qaida.
>>
>
>
> Oh sure, listening to leftists like you , Edwards , Kennedy and their
> cronies we don't have valuable allies at all.
We do. And Bush screwed many of them.
> Your beloved Hanoi John
> , whose portrait hangs in a "War Crime Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City ,
> says the same. . Great Britain? Worthless. Australia? Coerced.
> South Korea? Confused. Italy? Meaningless. The leader of Iraq? A
> stooge.
Yep.
> So much about "coalition building" he was boasting from the
> high podium. This phony fraud' s idea about "lidership " is
> complaining about the allies we
> have and praising the ones who are doing nothing , like France or
> Germany.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan, so look who is dissing one of our allies!
> Estonia, Moldova, and Thailand have provided more troop
> support than his beloved France ever will, and Kerry thanks them by
> throwing egg in their faces. He was a pacifist and Hanoi's stooge in
> 1970's and remains to be such today.
LOL! He is no pacifist.
>
>> Saddam didn't have a trigger to pull. We controlled 2/3 of his
>> airspace and could close off the other third at the drop of a hat.
>> Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US, his neighbors, or the
>> world. He was just an easy target with a lot of oil.
>>
>
>
> We controlled nothing. Nor did the UN inspectors. Hans
> Blix, the former UN weapons inspector who opposed military
> intervention, has conceded that not long before to the war, his
> inspection team found 16 Iraqi warheads marked for use with
> Sarin.What it tells you? It tells that the UN inspection and
> controlling his air space , as you say, was a total fiasco.
It stopped all development of WMDs in Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>>> If you want to survive you should
>>> deliver a first blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
>>
>> LOL! That blow was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
>
>
> They were both worth to deliver a first blow. Both were supporters of
> terrorism.
The Saudi were too. So were the Pakis.
>
>>> No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained
>>> and keep staining America's name around the world. Before you
>>> trashed America trying to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi
>>> despots, now you trash America and count on an appeaser who would
>>> entrust our security to the totally corrupt organization - the UN.
>>> Terrorists , like you are, also count on President Bush being
>>> defeated and replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate
>>> with them , who would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to
>>> terrorist demands) , thus strengthening their power and pushing
>>> them closer to their cherished goal- destruction of America and the
>>> western civilization. In fact , you are accomplices of our enemies
>>> . You when triggering your shameful company of lies , forgeries,
>>> and discrediting our county and her commander-in-chief in any
>>> imaginable ways actually put gasoline on terrorist fire and are
>>> partially responsible for the deaths of Americans and freedom
>>> loving Iraqis in Iraq.
>>
>>
>> Rant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iraqi occupation
>> was a mistake. GHWB knew it in 1991, but his Idiot Son rather listen
>> to his make-believe father in heaven, than his real father who was
>> an expert when dealing with Iraq.
>
>
> GHWB didn't finish his business. His son is doing it now.
As long as that business is making America the most hated nation in the
world.
>
>
>>>> Nope. I believe we shouldn't have diverted our resources away from
>>>> fighting those that attacked us.
>>>
>>> What fighting are you talking about if you are still have no idea
>>> whom to fight?
>>
>> Al Qaida you fucking moron. They are the ones that attacked us! Not
>> Iraq.
>>
>
>
> Al Qaeda, idiot, is too general term. Al Qaeda cannot exist without
> countries supporting it morally, financially, feeding it with arms.
> Mid East and Afghanistan were such countries. The Mid East is still a
> greatest breeding ground of terrorism in the entire world today.
And why is that? Isn't the mess in Iraq aiding that breeding?
>>> Your pussyfooting around mysterious "enemies" , with
>>> no places to live , with no countries to name sounds like fighting
>>> wind mills thinking that you fight powerful giants.
>>
>> Al Qaida isn't a country. They are a bunch of criminals!
>
>
> They are not a bunch of criminals, moron. We deal with people who
> have for centuries been taught to hate all non-Muslims , to kill them
> and to introduce Sharia law on the planet as their most important
> priority. We are dealing with people who are at war with Western
> civilization. These people act as they have been taught .
> At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred.
> In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages
> held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut
> were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103
> was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing
> of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble,
> killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya
> and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000
> injured. Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton
> murders of innocents and barbaric beheadings ?
> They were all Muslims. And all this happened long before Bush
> was sworn to office.
Holy War! Just what the terrorists want!
>
>
>>> Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN
>>> Resolution 1441.
>>
>> Serious Consequences doesn't equal a mandate to go to war.
>>
>
>
> Serious consequences, idiot , mean actions not spreading empty wind .
> The U.S. intervention was legitimized by the U.N.Charter .
> Chapter VI resolutions require a pacific settlement of disputes,
> without any armed-force intervention - like resolutions concerning
> Israel and Palestine. Chapter VII
> resolutions allow, through Article 41, the use of armed force when
> all other means have failed - this type of resolution concerned Iraq.
Not all means had failed. Are reason we gave the UN to invade Iraq was all
about WMDs. And we now know they didn't have any.
So are we gonna invade every country that have even more? Like Russia,
France, England, South Korea, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Iran, . .
. .
>> What was the exact imminent threat that made war
>> necessary?
>
> To pass deadly toys , like above, to terrorists who would instantly
> find application to them in our cities.
The warheads were so old that they were useless. The buried parts weren't
complete. And the Pakis were already spreading Nuke technology around the
world.
>
>> Saddam was toothless. We controlled whatever part of his
>> Airspace that we wanted to control.
>
> Controlling his airspace, baboon, does not allow you to find out what
> Saddam was doing in his bunkers.
What was he doing in his bunkers, writing bad romance novels?
>
>> Iran was much more complicit in helping
>> terrorism than Saddam, and has a real program to build nukes.
>
> Iran is the next on the list if it doesn't stop its deadly games.
And then who? Where does it stop? Do we go after the whole fucking world,
and ourselves too? We are the ones that are poisoning people with uranium
dust!
>
>> There were
>> and are many more countries that posed a greater threat to US than
>> Saddam. The only difference is that they aren't as weak and didn't
>> have as much oil as Saddam!
>
>
> There was no a single country with a record similar to Saddam's
Most of which happened when we were supplying him intelligence and more,
during the Iran/Iraq war!
>
>>>> There were many other countries that were much
>>>> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam
>>>> did.
>>>
>>> Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated record
>>> than Saddam had.
>>
>> I already have! But here is another NORTH KOREA! We are only in a
>> state of seize fire with them since the 1950's and they actually
>> have NUKES and MISSILES to deliver them!
>
>
> Does N. Korea sends N.Koreans to highjack planes and plough them into
> our tall
> buildings?
SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!
> Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians
> around the world?
NEITHER DID SADDAM!
> Do N. Korean participate in atrocities with
> chopping off heads and executing school kids?
You don't think that people have been killed by the North Korean gov't?
> The answer is obvious
> as obvious is your idiotic comparison.
>
Yes. You still think that it was Saddam that attacked us on 911.
>
>> But that situation we leave to our "allies" the commie chinese to
>> deal with! The country that helped North Korea to stalemate us in
>> the first place!
>
>
> Wrong, pinhead. Talks with N.Korea include China Russia, Japan and
> S.Korea.
And the Chinese have been the most active in negotiating with NK.
> That is your beloved traitor and Hanoi stooge Kerry who
> would exchange multinational talks for talks that only include the
> United States. This was a strategy used by Clinton that obviously
> failed.
It failed when Bush went off half-cocked with his Axis of Evil nonsense.
There were inspectors and cameras monitoring NK. NK wasn't developing
anymore Nukes until after NK kicked them out because of Bush's cowboy
antics.
>
>
>>>
>>>> But
>>>> we invaded Iraq anyway, and the world is less safe because of it.
>>>
>>> We invaded Iraq first of all because of our security , not the
>>> world's .
>>
>> LOL! Our security is much worse off today! Just ask the families of
>> the Americans that died in Iraq in a rush to war, that didn't have
>> anything to do with WMDs, and nothing to do with fighting terrorism!
>
>
> Don't need to ask families of Americans who died in Iraq. All they
> went there voluntarily and that's why our safety has nothing to do
> with their unhappy ending. Ask families of Americans who have no one
> terrorist act since 9/11 in our country and they tell you that you
> are an idiot.
Only the rightarded ones. Bush's actions in Iraq have made it more likely
that we will be attacked again. We have created a whole generation of
people that hate America. And that didn't have to happen. 911 actually
gained us support around the world, especially in the Muslim world. But we
threw that away, going to war in Iraq.
>
>
>>> If the world is concerned about its security it has just
>>> two options: joining us to fight terrorism, as some countries did,
>>> or to join terrorists. Just doing nothing or fomenting anti-American
>>> hatred , like Europe and Arabs do , is tantamount to abetting
>>> terrorists.
>>
>> LOL! Those against the Iraq War are those that ask questions of
>> legitimacy. Hitler was only protecting Germans by invading the
>> Poland.
>
>
>
> Again, Bush and Hitler , the same parallels , the same leftist lunacy.
Same rightard lunacy of might makes right.
>
>>>> And the
>>>> only people that have there heads up their ass, are those that
>>>> think the world is a better place, because we diverted the War on
>>>> Terror to Iraq, and refuse to see what a mess Iraq really has
>>>> become, Rightard!
>>>
>>>
>>> We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on
>>> streets of our cities.
>>
>> LOL! And that isn't a legitimate reason for invading Iraq, but that
>> is the real reason. Create a situation where terrorists would come
>> to us, but not in America. The "Bring 'em on" Reason. Instead of
>> hunting them down as the criminals that they are! But it's just
>> creating more support for those that hate us, and that will bring
>> them back to America. All so short-sited!
>
>
> If Kerry wins, expect terrorists in America, that's for sure. Kerry's
> "global test" will work like an invitation to visit our shores.
LOL! The test is one of legitimacy, and when our Sec. of State has to
apologize for his UN presentation explaining our reasons for invading Iraq,
it is apparent to all, but the rightarded, that our reasons were not
legitimate.
>
>
>>> The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and
>>> Iraq was the worst enemy.
>>
>> No, Iran was and is.
>
>
> Iran, fool, is in the Mid East.
So is Israel. So is Jordan. So is Saudi Arabia. So is Kuwait.
>
>
>>> No mistakes were made. The war on
>>> Jihadistan is going on where it's suppose to be.
>>
>> If we keep it up, we will have to kill all Arabs. And that would be
>> genocide.
>
>
> Another leftist sickening brainchild. We don't kill Arabs and don't
> kill Muslims . We only kill Muslim fanatics who want to destroy us.
> If those fanatics are Arabs so be it, we have to kill them all. There
> is no place for political correctness when our own lives are in grave
> danger.
And we kill innocent muslim women and children. But you already said it is
the Middle East.
staten
Leftist dork, President Ronald Reagan's buildup
of nuclear weapons eventually brought the Soviet Union to its knees and
helped bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people across Europe.
Now this idiot Kerry wants to disarm America so that to please his beloved
Euros and the rest scumbags of the world.
> >
> >>> beginning from November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian terrorists
> >>> stormed the American embassy and took 90 American hostages. You
> >>> leftist fools have very short memory.
> >>
> >> At least I don't have to lie about constant attacks! And you have a
> >> very short memory, that Republican Administration supported both
> >> Saddam and Osama.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh stop this stupid banality.
>
> "We are under constant terrorist attacks." You are just stupid.
That's right, since 1970s we have been indeed under attacks . And finally
we have a president who
has waken us from deadly lethargy of pacifism and appeasement. But you
leftist idiots still keep sleeping.
.
> > Your Euro buddies already blame Jews for all sins on earth again. In
> > Europe, especially in France, a red-green-black coalition of hard
> > core leftists, Islamists, and old-fashioned fascists has revived
> > violent and ugly anti-Semitism
>
> Like America doesn't have the equivilent neonazis that hate Jews!
In America Jews have protection and law on their side. In Europe they have a
tacit
approval of beatings and pogroms .
> >>> The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist
> >>> heaven , terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban terrorist
> >>> loving regime is finished up. Pakistan is our ally in fighting
> >>> terrorism. Starting war against our ally would be insanity. You
> >>> leftist mindsets falls short of any logic.
> >>
> >> LOL! The Pakis put on a big show of being our allies. But they don't
> >> have the will to get the terrorists hiding in their country. They
> >> pardon a guy sell nuke technology to anyone who'd pay him. And
> >> didn't say anything about starting a war with the Pakis. I'd would
> >> have had the balls to tell them to stay out of our way while we hunt
> >> down al Qaida.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh sure, listening to leftists like you , Edwards , Kennedy and their
> > cronies we don't have valuable allies at all.
>
> We do. And Bush screwed many of them.
Your paranoia caused by blatant hatred to Bush screwed up your mind.
> > Your beloved Hanoi John
> > , whose portrait hangs in a "War Crime Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City ,
> > says the same. . Great Britain? Worthless. Australia? Coerced.
> > South Korea? Confused. Italy? Meaningless. The leader of Iraq? A
> > stooge.
>
> Yep.
One leftist idiot worth the other.
> > So much about "coalition building" he was boasting from the
> > high podium. This phony fraud' s idea about "lidership " is
> > complaining about the allies we
> > have and praising the ones who are doing nothing , like France or
> > Germany.
>
> Germany has troops in Afghanistan, so look who is dissing one of our
allies!
> > Estonia, Moldova, and Thailand have provided more troop
> > support than his beloved France ever will, and Kerry thanks them by
> > throwing egg in their faces. He was a pacifist and Hanoi's stooge in
> > 1970's and remains to be such today.
>
> LOL! He is no pacifist.
Well, replace the word "pacifist" for "traitor" it really make no big
difference
today.
> >> Saddam didn't have a trigger to pull. We controlled 2/3 of his
> >> airspace and could close off the other third at the drop of a hat.
> >> Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US, his neighbors, or the
> >> world. He was just an easy target with a lot of oil.
> >>
> >
> >
> > We controlled nothing. Nor did the UN inspectors. Hans
> > Blix, the former UN weapons inspector who opposed military
> > intervention, has conceded that not long before to the war, his
> > inspection team found 16 Iraqi warheads marked for use with
> > Sarin.What it tells you? It tells that the UN inspection and
> > controlling his air space , as you say, was a total fiasco.
>
> It stopped all development of WMDs in Iraq.
Your problem is that you believe in daydreams . Blix , though he hates
America ,
believes in facts and sometimes tells truth.. Saddam's gross violations of
his
disarmament commitments is exactly the case Blix outlined at the end of his
carreer .
> >>> If you want to survive you should
> >>> deliver a first blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
> >>
> >> LOL! That blow was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
> >
> >
> > They were both worth to deliver a first blow. Both were supporters of
> > terrorism.
>
> The Saudi were too. So were the Pakis.
At least now, Saudis and Pakis unwillingly cooperate with us . Your beloved
France and
Germany, our precious "allies" constantly stab us in the back.
> >>> No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained
> >>> and keep staining America's name around the world. Before you
> >>> trashed America trying to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi
> >>> despots, now you trash America and count on an appeaser who would
> >>> entrust our security to the totally corrupt organization - the UN.
> >>> Terrorists , like you are, also count on President Bush being
> >>> defeated and replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate
> >>> with them , who would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to
> >>> terrorist demands) , thus strengthening their power and pushing
> >>> them closer to their cherished goal- destruction of America and the
> >>> western civilization. In fact , you are accomplices of our enemies
> >>> . You when triggering your shameful company of lies , forgeries,
> >>> and discrediting our county and her commander-in-chief in any
> >>> imaginable ways actually put gasoline on terrorist fire and are
> >>> partially responsible for the deaths of Americans and freedom
> >>> loving Iraqis in Iraq.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iraqi occupation
> >> was a mistake. GHWB knew it in 1991, but his Idiot Son rather listen
> >> to his make-believe father in heaven, than his real father who was
> >> an expert when dealing with Iraq.
> >
> >
> > GHWB didn't finish his business. His son is doing it now.
>
> As long as that business is making America the most hated nation in the
> world.
Our security is much more important than love of those who hate us.
> >>> Your pussyfooting around mysterious "enemies" , with
> >>> no places to live , with no countries to name sounds like fighting
> >>> wind mills thinking that you fight powerful giants.
> >>
> >> Al Qaida isn't a country. They are a bunch of criminals!
> >
> >
> > They are not a bunch of criminals, moron. We deal with people who
> > have for centuries been taught to hate all non-Muslims , to kill them
> > and to introduce Sharia law on the planet as their most important
> > priority. We are dealing with people who are at war with Western
> > civilization. These people act as they have been taught .
> > At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred.
> > In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages
> > held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut
> > were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103
> > was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing
> > of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble,
> > killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya
> > and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000
> > injured. Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton
> > murders of innocents and barbaric beheadings ?
> > They were all Muslims. And all this happened long before Bush
> > was sworn to office.
>
> Holy War! Just what the terrorists want!
Correct. That's exactly what they want- to destroy us. This in turn is
obvious that they are not a bunch of criminals, like you leftist
idiots paint them, but a culture of death driven by totalitarian Islamic
ideology .
> >
> >>> Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN
> >>> Resolution 1441.
> >>
> >> Serious Consequences doesn't equal a mandate to go to war.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Serious consequences, idiot , mean actions not spreading empty wind .
> > The U.S. intervention was legitimized by the U.N.Charter .
> > Chapter VI resolutions require a pacific settlement of disputes,
> > without any armed-force intervention - like resolutions concerning
> > Israel and Palestine. Chapter VII
> > resolutions allow, through Article 41, the use of armed force when
> > all other means have failed - this type of resolution concerned Iraq.
>
> Not all means had failed. Are reason we gave the UN to invade Iraq was all
> about WMDs. And we now know they didn't have any.
We " gave the UN" nothing. The UN Security Counsel voted unanimously for the
Resolution 1441, including France, Germany and Russia. It's too late to make
stupid excuses. Unless of course you are not tired of making a fool of
yourself.
It's very nice to learn that you put Russia, France, England , South Korea
,Pakis and India on the same level with the Iraqi maniac.
> >> What was the exact imminent threat that made war
> >> necessary?
> >
> > To pass deadly toys , like above, to terrorists who would instantly
> > find application to them in our cities.
>
> The warheads were so old that they were useless. The buried parts weren't
> complete. And the Pakis were already spreading Nuke technology around the
> world.
That's right " Pakis *were* spreading"- and not do it anymore thanks to Bush
policy.
> >> Saddam was toothless. We controlled whatever part of his
> >> Airspace that we wanted to control.
> >
> > Controlling his airspace, baboon, does not allow you to find out what
> > Saddam was doing in his bunkers.
>
> What was he doing in his bunkers, writing bad romance novels?
He was creating deadly fumes and germs while you stupid leftists kept
defending his ass in anti-American rallies and in the UN..
> >
> >> Iran was much more complicit in helping
> >> terrorism than Saddam, and has a real program to build nukes.
> >
> > Iran is the next on the list if it doesn't stop its deadly games.
>
> And then who? Where does it stop? Do we go after the whole fucking world,
> and ourselves too? We are the ones that are poisoning people with uranium
> dust!
We never asked anyone "where does it stop" fighting Hitler. And we don't
need to ask anyone fighting Islamonazis.
> >> There were
> >> and are many more countries that posed a greater threat to US than
> >> Saddam. The only difference is that they aren't as weak and didn't
> >> have as much oil as Saddam!
> >
> >
> > There was no a single country with a record similar to Saddam's
>
> Most of which happened when we were supplying him intelligence and more,
> during the Iran/Iraq war!
Was there other alternatives in the prospective of being engulfed by a
Soviet monster spreading its communism around the globe? Or being a diehard
leftist you still abhor an idea of fighting Soviet communism by any
available means?
> >
> >>>> There were many other countries that were much
> >>>> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam
> >>>> did.
> >>>
> >>> Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated record
> >>> than Saddam had.
> >>
> >> I already have! But here is another NORTH KOREA! We are only in a
> >> state of seize fire with them since the 1950's and they actually
> >> have NUKES and MISSILES to deliver them!
> >
> >
> > Does N. Korea sends N.Koreans to highjack planes and plough them into
> > our tall
> > buildings?
>
> SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!
Saddam has everything to do with terrorism.
> > Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians
> > around the world?
>
> NEITHER DID SADDAM!
Saddam paid families of suicide lunatics who blew up civilians. This is
qualified as promoting and
supporting terrorism.
> > Do N. Korean participate in atrocities with
> > chopping off heads and executing school kids?
>
> You don't think that people have been killed by the North Korean gov't?
I am not aware that they blow up school busses full of five years old or
slaughter eight month pregnant women.
> > The answer is obvious
> > as obvious is your idiotic comparison.
> >
>
> Yes. You still think that it was Saddam that attacked us on 911.
I never said so. Nor did Bush. I said Saddam terrorist regime had all
sources and resources to pass his deadly technology to terrorists. Arms
inspector Charles Duelfer has just delivered the most detailed findings on
Saddam's WMD's His conclusion - Saddam had all ability and capability to
revive his chemical, biological and nuclear programs so that to produce
quick results. Having his contacts with Al-Qaeda and his buddies covering
his ass in the UN , we were within hair length from being bombed by
terrorists using Saddam's deadly toys.
> >
> >> But that situation we leave to our "allies" the commie chinese to
> >> deal with! The country that helped North Korea to stalemate us in
> >> the first place!
> >
> >
> > Wrong, pinhead. Talks with N.Korea include China Russia, Japan and
> > S.Korea.
>
> And the Chinese have been the most active in negotiating with NK.
>
> > That is your beloved traitor and Hanoi stooge Kerry who
> > would exchange multinational talks for talks that only include the
> > United States. This was a strategy used by Clinton that obviously
> > failed.
>
> It failed when Bush went off half-cocked with his Axis of Evil nonsense.
> There were inspectors and cameras monitoring NK. NK wasn't developing
> anymore Nukes until after NK kicked them out because of Bush's cowboy
> antics.
It sounds the same like "Saddam had no WMD". But anyway as all leftists, you
are customarily out of touch with reality. Bush pledged to work within the
multilateral context in dealing with North Korea because he understands
that Japan, S.Korea and other regional players must be part of
any long-lasting solution.And it makes sense. By contrast Clinton;s
idea was that this was a contest
between the US and North Korea only and that the others did not have a dog
in the fight. Clinton went so far in appeasing the N.Korean dictator that
offered him free oil which was delivered regularly in return of his promise
not to pursue his nuclear programs. It needless to say that this lunacy
grossly failed.
> >> LOL! Our security is much worse off today! Just ask the families of
> >> the Americans that died in Iraq in a rush to war, that didn't have
> >> anything to do with WMDs, and nothing to do with fighting terrorism!
> >
> >
> > Don't need to ask families of Americans who died in Iraq. All they
> > went there voluntarily and that's why our safety has nothing to do
> > with their unhappy ending. Ask families of Americans who have no one
> > terrorist act since 9/11 in our country and they tell you that you
> > are an idiot.
>
> Only the rightarded ones. Bush's actions in Iraq have made it more likely
> that we will be attacked again. We have created a whole generation of
> people that hate America. And that didn't have to happen. 911 actually
> gained us support around the world, especially in the Muslim world. But we
> threw that away, going to war in Iraq.
Yeah right, it's a mighty "support" in the Muslim world indeed . Especially
when Arabs were jumping for joy and celebrating seeing collapsing the WTC
towers .
> >>> We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on
> >>> streets of our cities.
> >>
> >> LOL! And that isn't a legitimate reason for invading Iraq, but that
> >> is the real reason. Create a situation where terrorists would come
> >> to us, but not in America. The "Bring 'em on" Reason. Instead of
> >> hunting them down as the criminals that they are! But it's just
> >> creating more support for those that hate us, and that will bring
> >> them back to America. All so short-sited!
> >
> >
> > If Kerry wins, expect terrorists in America, that's for sure. Kerry's
> > "global test" will work like an invitation to visit our shores.
>
> LOL! The test is one of legitimacy, and when our Sec. of State has to
> apologize for his UN presentation explaining our reasons for invading
Iraq,
> it is apparent to all, but the rightarded, that our reasons were not
> legitimate.
How about oil-for-food-scam? Do you expect France , Germany, Russia to
apologize for this great fraud which helped them through the UN interaction
to put billions in their pockets ?
> >
> >>> The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and
> >>> Iraq was the worst enemy.
> >>
> >> No, Iran was and is.
> >
> >
> > Iran, fool, is in the Mid East.
>
> So is Israel. So is Jordan. So is Saudi Arabia. So is Kuwait.
Do you imply Israel = Saudi Arabia or Jordan?
> >>> No mistakes were made. The war on
> >>> Jihadistan is going on where it's suppose to be.
> >>
> >> If we keep it up, we will have to kill all Arabs. And that would be
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > Another leftist sickening brainchild. We don't kill Arabs and don't
> > kill Muslims . We only kill Muslim fanatics who want to destroy us.
> > If those fanatics are Arabs so be it, we have to kill them all. There
> > is no place for political correctness when our own lives are in grave
> > danger.
>
> And we kill innocent muslim women and children. But you already said it is
> the Middle East.
>
Again, we don't kill innocent Muslim women and children, Islamist stooge.
Your buddies Islamist barbarians are engaged in slaughter business. You
watch too much Al Jezeera, dude. It completely impaired your ability to
think reasonably.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:icOdnas9jLl...@adelphia.com...
It won't work with bringing down international terrorists.
> Now this idiot Kerry wants to disarm America so that to please his
> beloved Euros and the rest scumbags of the world.
You're the idiot. Kerry just wants to stop the development of a certain
kind of nuke.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> beginning from November 4, 1979, in Teheran when Iranian
>>>>> terrorists stormed the American embassy and took 90 American
>>>>> hostages. You leftist fools have very short memory.
>>>>
>>>> At least I don't have to lie about constant attacks! And you have a
>>>> very short memory, that Republican Administration supported both
>>>> Saddam and Osama.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh stop this stupid banality.
>>
>> "We are under constant terrorist attacks." You are just stupid.
>
>
> That's right, since 1970s we have been indeed under attacks .
You said, "constant terrorist attacks." And we have not been under constant
terrorist attack.
> And
> finally we have a president who
> has waken us from deadly lethargy of pacifism and appeasement. But you
> leftist idiots still keep sleeping.
After 911, almost everyone is for going after the terrorists. But Iraq now
has more terrorists than before the war. Iraq wasn't about going after
terrorists, it was about disarming Saddam of WMDs that he didn't have. WMDs
was the reason we told the world we were going to war in Iraq.
>
> .
>>> Your Euro buddies already blame Jews for all sins on earth again. In
>>> Europe, especially in France, a red-green-black coalition of hard
>>> core leftists, Islamists, and old-fashioned fascists has revived
>>> violent and ugly anti-Semitism
>>
>> Like America doesn't have the equivilent neonazis that hate Jews!
>
>
> In America Jews have protection and law on their side. In Europe they
> have a tacit
> approval of beatings and pogroms .
No they don't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3670821.stm
>
>
>
>>>>> The job in Afghanistan in terms of destroying the major terrorist
>>>>> heaven , terrorist training camps and deposing the Taliban
>>>>> terrorist loving regime is finished up. Pakistan is our ally in
>>>>> fighting terrorism. Starting war against our ally would be
>>>>> insanity. You leftist mindsets falls short of any logic.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! The Pakis put on a big show of being our allies. But they
>>>> don't have the will to get the terrorists hiding in their country.
>>>> They pardon a guy sell nuke technology to anyone who'd pay him. And
>>>> didn't say anything about starting a war with the Pakis. I'd would
>>>> have had the balls to tell them to stay out of our way while we
>>>> hunt down al Qaida.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh sure, listening to leftists like you , Edwards , Kennedy and
>>> their cronies we don't have valuable allies at all.
>>
>> We do. And Bush screwed many of them.
>
> Your paranoia caused by blatant hatred to Bush screwed up your mind.
Tell that to the Jordians.
>
>>> Your beloved Hanoi John
>>> , whose portrait hangs in a "War Crime Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City ,
>>> says the same. . Great Britain? Worthless. Australia? Coerced.
>>> South Korea? Confused. Italy? Meaningless. The leader of Iraq? A
>>> stooge.
>>
>> Yep.
>
>
> One leftist idiot worth the other.
He is. His speeches in the US were prepped by Bush cronies.
>
>
>>> So much about "coalition building" he was boasting from the
>>> high podium. This phony fraud' s idea about "lidership " is
>>> complaining about the allies we
>>> have and praising the ones who are doing nothing , like France or
>>> Germany.
>>
>> Germany has troops in Afghanistan, so look who is dissing one of our
>> allies!
>
>
>>> Estonia, Moldova, and Thailand have provided more troop
>>> support than his beloved France ever will, and Kerry thanks them by
>>> throwing egg in their faces. He was a pacifist and Hanoi's stooge in
>>> 1970's and remains to be such today.
>>
>> LOL! He is no pacifist.
>
>
> Well, replace the word "pacifist" for "traitor" it really make no big
> difference
> today.
Ah. Channeling Ann Coulter.
>
>>>> Saddam didn't have a trigger to pull. We controlled 2/3 of his
>>>> airspace and could close off the other third at the drop of a hat.
>>>> Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US, his neighbors, or the
>>>> world. He was just an easy target with a lot of oil.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We controlled nothing. Nor did the UN inspectors. Hans
>>> Blix, the former UN weapons inspector who opposed military
>>> intervention, has conceded that not long before to the war, his
>>> inspection team found 16 Iraqi warheads marked for use with
>>> Sarin.What it tells you? It tells that the UN inspection and
>>> controlling his air space , as you say, was a total fiasco.
>>
>> It stopped all development of WMDs in Iraq.
>
>
> Your problem is that you believe in daydreams . Blix , though he hates
> America ,
> believes in facts and sometimes tells truth.. Saddam's gross
> violations of his
> disarmament commitments is exactly the case Blix outlined at the end
> of his carreer .
Saddam didn't have any WMDs nor was he developing any WMDs since the
mid-1990s.
Don't you read see any news other than on Fox?
>
>>>>> If you want to survive you should
>>>>> deliver a first blow. If not, you are dead. Simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! That blow was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>> They were both worth to deliver a first blow. Both were supporters
>>> of terrorism.
>>
>> The Saudi were too. So were the Pakis.
>
>
> At least now, Saudis and Pakis unwillingly cooperate with us .
Bush's coalition of the Bribed and coerced! ROFL!
> Your
> beloved France and
> Germany, our precious "allies" constantly stab us in the back.
Again I'll remind you that Germany has troops in Afghanistan!
>
>
>
>>>>> No , buddy, not the Iraq war but you leftists and liberals stained
>>>>> and keep staining America's name around the world. Before you
>>>>> trashed America trying to be subservient to Soviet and Hanoi
>>>>> despots, now you trash America and count on an appeaser who would
>>>>> entrust our security to the totally corrupt organization - the UN.
>>>>> Terrorists , like you are, also count on President Bush being
>>>>> defeated and replaced by an appeaser-in-chief who would negotiate
>>>>> with them , who would wage "a more sensitive war" (read bowing to
>>>>> terrorist demands) , thus strengthening their power and pushing
>>>>> them closer to their cherished goal- destruction of America and
>>>>> the western civilization. In fact , you are accomplices of our
>>>>> enemies . You when triggering your shameful company of lies ,
>>>>> forgeries, and discrediting our county and her commander-in-chief
>>>>> in any imaginable ways actually put gasoline on terrorist fire
>>>>> and are partially responsible for the deaths of Americans and
>>>>> freedom loving Iraqis in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iraqi occupation
>>>> was a mistake. GHWB knew it in 1991, but his Idiot Son rather
>>>> listen to his make-believe father in heaven, than his real father
>>>> who was an expert when dealing with Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>> GHWB didn't finish his business. His son is doing it now.
>>
>> As long as that business is making America the most hated nation in
>> the world.
>
>
> Our security is much more important than love of those who hate us.
And how does having more people hate makes us make us more secure?
Holy War. You are sick.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> Legitimacy? Legitimacy was given unanimously by voting for the UN
>>>>> Resolution 1441.
>>>>
>>>> Serious Consequences doesn't equal a mandate to go to war.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Serious consequences, idiot , mean actions not spreading empty wind
>>> . The U.S. intervention was legitimized by the U.N.Charter .
>>> Chapter VI resolutions require a pacific settlement of disputes,
>>> without any armed-force intervention - like resolutions concerning
>>> Israel and Palestine. Chapter VII
>>> resolutions allow, through Article 41, the use of armed force when
>>> all other means have failed - this type of resolution concerned
>>> Iraq.
>>
>> Not all means had failed. Are reason we gave the UN to invade Iraq
>> was all about WMDs. And we now know they didn't have any.
>
>
> We " gave the UN" nothing. The UN Security Counsel voted unanimously
> for the Resolution 1441, including France, Germany and Russia.
1441 didn't authorize the Invasion of Iraq. And Colin Powell "gave" a
presentation to the general assembly of the UN about our reason to invade
Iraq, and that was all about WMDs. And even Colin Powell apologized for
that presentation.
> It's
> too late to make stupid excuses. Unless of course you are not tired
> of making a fool of yourself.
I'm not the one that is a Crusade. I'm for going after the terrorists, no
matter their religion. The only fool in this is you. And I ain't going
away!
They all have and/or are developing WMDs. England even burned down the
White House. Some of Russia's WMDs are protected with a padlock, and are
guarded only during the day. Pakistan pardoned the guy that was selling
nuke technology around the world. South Korea is developing Nukes. India
has nukes.
>
>
>>>> What was the exact imminent threat that made war
>>>> necessary?
>>>
>>> To pass deadly toys , like above, to terrorists who would instantly
>>> find application to them in our cities.
>>
>> The warheads were so old that they were useless. The buried parts
>> weren't complete. And the Pakis were already spreading Nuke
>> technology around the world.
>
> That's right " Pakis *were* spreading"- and not do it anymore thanks
> to Bush policy.
And they didn't protest at all when the Pakis pardoned the ringleader! He
is living in the lap of luxury! Martha Stewart got more jail time!
>
>
>
>>>> Saddam was toothless. We controlled whatever part of his
>>>> Airspace that we wanted to control.
>>>
>>> Controlling his airspace, baboon, does not allow you to find out
>>> what Saddam was doing in his bunkers.
>>
>> What was he doing in his bunkers, writing bad romance novels?
>
>
> He was creating deadly fumes and germs while you stupid leftists kept
> defending his ass in anti-American rallies and in the UN..
And your proof is?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> Iran was much more complicit in helping
>>>> terrorism than Saddam, and has a real program to build nukes.
>>>
>>> Iran is the next on the list if it doesn't stop its deadly games.
>>
>> And then who? Where does it stop? Do we go after the whole fucking
>> world, and ourselves too? We are the ones that are poisoning people
>> with uranium dust!
>
>
> We never asked anyone "where does it stop" fighting Hitler.
Saddam was no Hilter. Hilter and the Axis was a threat to the whole world.
> And we
> don't need to ask anyone fighting Islamonazis.
Those that want to attack us, will be hunted down. Saddam wasn't an Islamic
extremist. He was worried about them coming after him!
>
>>>> There were
>>>> and are many more countries that posed a greater threat to US than
>>>> Saddam. The only difference is that they aren't as weak and didn't
>>>> have as much oil as Saddam!
>>>
>>>
>>> There was no a single country with a record similar to Saddam's
>>
>> Most of which happened when we were supplying him intelligence and
>> more, during the Iran/Iraq war!
>
>
> Was there other alternatives in the prospective of being engulfed by a
> Soviet monster spreading its communism around the globe? Or being a
> diehard leftist you still abhor an idea of fighting Soviet communism
> by any available means?
Yeah there was. We could have stayed the fuck out of it. Iran/Iraq really
wasn't part of the Cold War, and the Soviets were having their own problems
in Afghanistan.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>> There were many other countries that were much
>>>>>> more of a threat, and treat the citizens just as badly as Saddam
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name at least one which had or still has the more aggravated
>>>>> record than Saddam had.
>>>>
>>>> I already have! But here is another NORTH KOREA! We are only in a
>>>> state of seize fire with them since the 1950's and they actually
>>>> have NUKES and MISSILES to deliver them!
>>>
>>>
>>> Does N. Korea sends N.Koreans to highjack planes and plough them
>>> into our tall
>>> buildings?
>>
>> SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!
>
>
> Saddam has everything to do with terrorism.
Just keep repeating that over and over again, and you might convince
yourself of that. There are more terrorists in Iraq today than during
Saddam's regime.
>
>
>>> Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians
>>> around the world?
>>
>> NEITHER DID SADDAM!
>
>
> Saddam paid families of suicide lunatics who blew up civilians. This
> is qualified as promoting and
> supporting terrorism.
So did the Saudis, and so did the Iranians!
>
>
>>> Do N. Korean participate in atrocities with
>>> chopping off heads and executing school kids?
>>
>> You don't think that people have been killed by the North Korean
>> gov't?
>
>
> I am not aware that they blow up school busses full of five years old
> or slaughter eight month pregnant women.
http://ncafe.com/northkorea/scholte-chrc.html
>
>
>>> The answer is obvious
>>> as obvious is your idiotic comparison.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. You still think that it was Saddam that attacked us on 911.
>
>
> I never said so. Nor did Bush. I said Saddam terrorist regime had all
> sources and resources to pass his deadly technology to terrorists.
> Arms inspector Charles Duelfer has just delivered the most detailed
> findings on Saddam's WMD's His conclusion - Saddam had all ability
> and capability to revive his chemical, biological and nuclear
> programs so that to produce quick results. Having his contacts with
> Al-Qaeda and his buddies covering his ass in the UN , we were within
> hair length from being bombed by terrorists using Saddam's deadly
> toys.
LOL! Nothing but Rightard spin. David Kay said that they'd have the same
ability as a lunatic in the US to make WMDs in their garage, and Saddam had
no capablity to produce WMDs on a military scale.
>
>>>
>>>> But that situation we leave to our "allies" the commie chinese to
>>>> deal with! The country that helped North Korea to stalemate us in
>>>> the first place!
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong, pinhead. Talks with N.Korea include China Russia, Japan and
>>> S.Korea.
>>
>> And the Chinese have been the most active in negotiating with NK.
>>
>>> That is your beloved traitor and Hanoi stooge Kerry who
>>> would exchange multinational talks for talks that only include the
>>> United States. This was a strategy used by Clinton that obviously
>>> failed.
>>
>> It failed when Bush went off half-cocked with his Axis of Evil
>> nonsense. There were inspectors and cameras monitoring NK. NK wasn't
>> developing anymore Nukes until after NK kicked them out because of
>> Bush's cowboy antics.
>
>
> It sounds the same like "Saddam had no WMD".
He didn't. Didn't you read the Duelfer report? No WMDs since the mid
1990s.
> But anyway as all
> leftists, you are customarily out of touch with reality. Bush pledged
> to work within the multilateral context in dealing with North Korea
> because he understands that Japan, S.Korea and other regional players
> must be part of
> any long-lasting solution.
Yep. And so does Kerry, but the difference is that Kerry wants the US to be
more engaged in those negotiations.
> And it makes sense. By contrast Clinton;s
> idea was that this was a contest
> between the US and North Korea only and that the others did not have
> a dog in the fight. Clinton went so far in appeasing the N.Korean
> dictator that offered him free oil which was delivered regularly in
> return of his promise not to pursue his nuclear programs. It needless
> to say that this lunacy grossly failed.
No it worked. They didn't develop their nukes after that until the Bush
Admin identified them as part of the Axis of Evil.
>
>>>> LOL! Our security is much worse off today! Just ask the families of
>>>> the Americans that died in Iraq in a rush to war, that didn't have
>>>> anything to do with WMDs, and nothing to do with fighting
>>>> terrorism!
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't need to ask families of Americans who died in Iraq. All they
>>> went there voluntarily and that's why our safety has nothing to do
>>> with their unhappy ending. Ask families of Americans who have no one
>>> terrorist act since 9/11 in our country and they tell you that you
>>> are an idiot.
>>
>> Only the rightarded ones. Bush's actions in Iraq have made it more
>> likely that we will be attacked again. We have created a whole
>> generation of people that hate America. And that didn't have to
>> happen. 911 actually gained us support around the world, especially
>> in the Muslim world. But we threw that away, going to war in Iraq.
>
>
> Yeah right, it's a mighty "support" in the Muslim world indeed .
> Especially when Arabs were jumping for joy and celebrating seeing
> collapsing the WTC towers .
Some Palestinians were seen doing that. Most of the Arab gov'ts condemned
911.
>
>
>>>>> We had to divert war on terror someplace instead of waging it on
>>>>> streets of our cities.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! And that isn't a legitimate reason for invading Iraq, but that
>>>> is the real reason. Create a situation where terrorists would come
>>>> to us, but not in America. The "Bring 'em on" Reason. Instead of
>>>> hunting them down as the criminals that they are! But it's just
>>>> creating more support for those that hate us, and that will bring
>>>> them back to America. All so short-sited!
>>>
>>>
>>> If Kerry wins, expect terrorists in America, that's for sure.
>>> Kerry's "global test" will work like an invitation to visit our
>>> shores.
>>
>> LOL! The test is one of legitimacy, and when our Sec. of State has to
>> apologize for his UN presentation explaining our reasons for
>> invading Iraq, it is apparent to all, but the rightarded, that our
>> reasons were not legitimate.
>
>
> How about oil-for-food-scam? Do you expect France , Germany, Russia to
> apologize for this great fraud which helped them through the UN
> interaction to put billions in their pockets ?
I suspect that the individuals that were bribed or profited from this scam
will be eventually prosecuted. Like the boys of Enron will be.
>
>>>
>>>>> The Mid East is the hotbed of terrorism and
>>>>> Iraq was the worst enemy.
>>>>
>>>> No, Iran was and is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Iran, fool, is in the Mid East.
>>
>> So is Israel. So is Jordan. So is Saudi Arabia. So is Kuwait.
>
> Do you imply Israel = Saudi Arabia or Jordan?
Jordan was our ally. Bush has soured that. The Saudis still are. And I
notice you excluded Kuwait from your equation. Don't think that there are
Kuwaitis that don't like us because of their Islamic faith?
>
>
>
>
>>>>> No mistakes were made. The war on
>>>>> Jihadistan is going on where it's suppose to be.
>>>>
>>>> If we keep it up, we will have to kill all Arabs. And that would be
>>>> genocide.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another leftist sickening brainchild. We don't kill Arabs and don't
>>> kill Muslims . We only kill Muslim fanatics who want to destroy us.
>>> If those fanatics are Arabs so be it, we have to kill them all.
>>> There is no place for political correctness when our own lives are
>>> in grave danger.
>>
>> And we kill innocent muslim women and children. But you already said
>> it is the Middle East.
>>
>
>
> Again, we don't kill innocent Muslim women and children, Islamist
> stooge.
Almost everyday. You are just in denial.
> Your buddies Islamist barbarians are engaged in slaughter
> business. You watch too much Al Jezeera, dude. It completely impaired
> your ability to think reasonably.
You haven't read enough about crusades, dude.
staten
> > message news:icOdnas9jLl...@adelphia.com...
> >
> >> staten wrote:
> >>
> >>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> >>> message news:r8adndb-dJv...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
> > Leftist dork, President Ronald Reagan's buildup
> > of nuclear weapons eventually brought the Soviet Union to its knees
> > and helped bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people across
> > Europe.
>
> It won't work with bringing down international terrorists.
Oh yeas, it will. When rogue states like Iran and North Korea - about which
Kerry worries constantly - build up their nuclear arsenals they will most
likely be stored deep underground inside fortified bunkers. Those
"bunker-buster" nukes may be the only thing that allows America to
neutralize such threats without a massive loss of life. Likewise, this
weaponry would be very useful in reducing American troop casualties
assisting our military in annihilating hardened terrorist positions - Like
Osama's caverns of Tora Bora, with zero loss of American military forces.
Yet, this idiot Kerry says openly he will ban this systems, if elected.
> > Now this idiot Kerry wants to disarm America so that to please his
> > beloved Euros and the rest scumbags of the world.
>
> You're the idiot. Kerry just wants to stop the development of a certain
> kind of nuke
After reviewing his twenty year record of anti-military, anti-intelligence
voting, his firm stance for nuclear freeze and against virtually all
military action by the US , it's absolutely clear what this phony fraud
wants - he wants to disarm America to please world's scoundrels .
> You said, "constant terrorist attacks." And we have not been under
constant
> terrorist attack.
Read again, idiot:
1979. Taking American hostages in in Tehran.
1983. April. 17 Americans died when a suicide bomber in a pickup truck
loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.
1983 October. A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives at the
U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut's International Airport. 242 Marines were
killed in that attack and more than 100 others were wounded.
1983.December. The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Five Americans
were killed.
1984. September , a truck bomb exploded at the U.S. Embassy Annex in
Aukar,Lebanon, Northeast of Beirut. 24 people were killed, two of whom were
American military personnel.
1985. October . An Italian cruise ship, the "Achille Lauro" was seized by
Palestinian terrorists. 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, a disabled American
tourist was killed by the terrorists.
1985. Bodies of three American University of Beirut employees were
discovered near Beirut after authorities determined they had been shot to
death. The Arab Revolutionary Cells, a pro-Libyan group of Palestinians
affiliated with terrorist "Abu Nadal", claimed credit for the executions.
In December, 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed by Muslim
terrorists over Lockerbie, Scotland.
In February, 1993, the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics. Five people
were killed and hundreds were injured.
In October, 1993, 18 American GI's were killed in a firefight in Somalia.
The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu for
the whole world to see.
In November, 1995, five Americans were killed and several wounded when a car
bomb set by Muslim extremists exploded in Saudi Arabia.
In June, 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed.
On August 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by
Muslim extremists. At least 252 people died, including 12 Americans, more
than 5,000 were injured.
In October, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by Muslim terrorists. .
As I said , we were at constant terrorist attacks . Before September 10,
2001, an estimated 800 Americans lost their lives because of terrorism
against our country and our government did almost nothing to launch
retaliatory
strikes against terrorists till after 9/11.
> After 911, almost everyone is for going after the terrorists. But Iraq now
> has more terrorists than before the war. Iraq wasn't about going after
> terrorists,
"everyone for going after terrorists"? Who is that "everyone" ? France and
Germany for instance clearly say that they won't participate in any actions
against terrorism in Iraq even if Kerry will be elected. So, much about his
"international coalition building"
More terrorists? Sure, because we came to their home to fight evil they
spread around the world. We should do that long time ago when first
explosions killed our people in the land of terror, honor killings,
beheadings and genocide. Terrorism is encouraged by weakness, not strength.
And if we stay the course , we will defeat terrorism in their own home.
By contrast when your beloved serial flip-flopper Kerry states categorically
that he'll bring our troops home within four years, it promises the
terrorists that they only have to hang on. When he declares our efforts a
disaster, he encourages our enemies to believe they're winning. And when he
promises a "more sensitive" war on terror, it's read as a pending
declaration of surrender
>it was about disarming Saddam of WMDs that he didn't have. WMDs
> was the reason we told the world we were going to war in Iraq.
The primary purpose of Security Council Resolution 1441 was not to discover
whether Saddam had weapons and programs. The real question was whether he
was ready to make a clean breast of everything and give up not only his
forbidden weapons but also his efforts to acquire them once and for all.
Saddam failed to deliver clean record. The war followed.
> > Well, replace the word "pacifist" for "traitor" it really make no big
> > difference
> > today.
>
> Ah. Channeling Ann Coulter.
>
Ann did not hang his portrait in the communist Hall Of Fame in Hanoi. Kerry
deserved this fame with communists by his anti-American actions.
> > Your problem is that you believe in daydreams . Blix , though he hates
> > America ,
> > believes in facts and sometimes tells truth.. Saddam's gross
> > violations of his
> > disarmament commitments is exactly the case Blix outlined at the end
> > of his carreer .
>
> Saddam didn't have any WMDs nor was he developing any WMDs since the
> mid-1990s.
We still don't know that. But what we do know that Saddam was in a flagrant
violation of his obligations to disarm. In his May 30, 2003, report to the
Security Council, Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX
remained unaccounted for. He elaborated: "Little progress was made in the
solution of outstanding issues. . . . The long list of proscribed items
unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was
not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and
documentation."
> > At least now, Saudis and Pakis unwillingly cooperate with us .
>
> Bush's coalition of the Bribed and coerced! ROFL!
Call it whatever names you want, but it is a coalition which exists and
works. Kerry's "coalition" of those who tell in advance they will not
participate in fighting terrorism is a coalition of ghosts.
> >> As long as that business is making America the most hated nation in
> >> the world.
> >
> >
> > Our security is much more important than love of those who hate us.
>
> And how does having more people hate makes us make us more secure?
>
Simple. Don't appease and don't kiss their Islamist asses, but
fight them like men . It makes world more secure.
> 1441 didn't authorize the Invasion of Iraq. And Colin Powell "gave" a
> presentation to the general assembly of the UN about our reason to invade
> Iraq, and that was all about WMDs. And even Colin Powell apologized for
> that presentation.
Care to present a proof where Collin Powell "apologized" for his
presentation?
> > It's
> > too late to make stupid excuses. Unless of course you are not tired
> > of making a fool of yourself.
>
> I'm not the one that is a Crusade. I'm for going after the terrorists, no
> matter their religion. The only fool in this is you. And I ain't going
> away!
Iraq is full of terrorists , like you say, but you are against invasion like
all your soc/lib/com/anti-war/anti-anything buddies. Where is your
consistence ?
> > It's very nice to learn that you put Russia, France, England , South
> > Korea ,Pakis and India on the same level with the Iraqi maniac.
>
> They all have and/or are developing WMDs. England even burned down the
> White House. Some of Russia's WMDs are protected with a padlock, and are
> guarded only during the day. Pakistan pardoned the guy that was selling
> nuke technology around the world. South Korea is developing Nukes. India
> has nukes.
So what, dumbbell? The UN passed 17 resolutions against Saddam , not against
Russia or Britain.
> >> What was he doing in his bunkers, writing bad romance novels?
> >
> >
> > He was creating deadly fumes and germs while you stupid leftists kept
> > defending his ass in anti-American rallies and in the UN..
>
> And your proof is?
>
Read Blix's, Kay's, Duefler's reports. The proof is there.
> >
> > We never asked anyone "where does it stop" fighting Hitler.
>
> Saddam was no Hilter. Hilter and the Axis was a threat to the whole world.
Saddam, terrorism plus WMD is no less threat to the world than Hitler. Or
you imply that Saddam was just after Americans?
> > And we
> > don't need to ask anyone fighting Islamonazis.
>
> Those that want to attack us, will be hunted down. Saddam wasn't an
Islamic
> extremist. He was worried about them coming after him!
How about presenting nice shelter to Abu Nidal, Khala Khadar al Salahat (top
terrorist on the AlQaeda most wanted list who was captured in Baghdad in
April or 2003), Ramzi Yousef (planner of the first WTC bombing of 1993),
Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing), Abu Abbas
(captured just outside Baghdad in April of 2003) and, of course, Abu Musab
al Zarqawi who is still in Iraq? A nice record for a guy who "was worried
about them coming after him"
> > Was there other alternatives in the prospective of being engulfed by a
> > Soviet monster spreading its communism around the globe? Or being a
> > diehard leftist you still abhor an idea of fighting Soviet communism
> > by any available means?
>
> Yeah there was. We could have stayed the fuck out of it. Iran/Iraq really
> wasn't part of the Cold War, and the Soviets were having their own
problems
> in Afghanistan.
>
A classical leftist approach when it boils down to American foreign
affairs - see nothing, hear nothing, "stay the fuck out of it" while Nazis
a day before yesterday, Soviets yesterday or Islamonazis today prepare to
destroy America.
> >>> Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians
> >>> around the world?
> >>
> >> NEITHER DID SADDAM!
Well, paying fat checks to families of suicide bombers and presenting
shelter to top terrorists in his country proves that you failed to defend
your buddy Saddam. He is guilty as charged.
> > Saddam paid families of suicide lunatics who blew up civilians. This
> > is qualified as promoting and
> > supporting terrorism.
>
> So did the Saudis, and so did the Iranians!
>
That's why we started this war in the land of Jihadistan that prevent our
kids being beheaded before the camera by Saudis or Iranians. .
> > I never said so. Nor did Bush. I said Saddam terrorist regime had all
> > sources and resources to pass his deadly technology to terrorists.
> > Arms inspector Charles Duelfer has just delivered the most detailed
> > findings on Saddam's WMD's His conclusion - Saddam had all ability
> > and capability to revive his chemical, biological and nuclear
> > programs so that to produce quick results. Having his contacts with
> > Al-Qaeda and his buddies covering his ass in the UN , we were within
> > hair length from being bombed by terrorists using Saddam's deadly
> > toys.
>
> LOL! Nothing but Rightard spin. David Kay said that they'd have the same
> ability as a lunatic in the US to make WMDs in their garage, and Saddam
had
> no capablity to produce WMDs on a military scale.
>
OK let's see what he said about lunatics in the US.
Testifying before Congress Kay said the Iraqis
launched negotiations for North Korean missile assistance in 1999 and the
cooperation continued through 2002.
On WMD Kay said " that Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of
biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum,
sophisticated concealment efforts, and advanced design work on prohibited
longer-range missiles,"
Later Kay told reporters that Iraq's extensive missile program was "all
hidden."
"They were much more than paper studies; there was actual physical work
taking place on several of these. [They were] not discovered by the
inspectors because the Iraqis prevented them,"
As for the assistance Iraq was receiving from the unnamed countries, Kay
said: "Our fear is that that same assistance may be made available to other
countries, and we would like to close off that avenue of proliferation."
This is exactly How your buddy Saddam could pass his deadly toys to
terrorists.
Elaborating further on N.Korean deal Key said " Under the terms of the North
Korean deal, Iraq was to receive "missile technology for the Nodong, a
1,300-kilometer missile, as well as other nonmissile related but prohibited
technologies." Could a "lunatic in the US " to create all these deadly toys
in his
garage, moron?
> >
> > It sounds the same like "Saddam had no WMD".
>
> He didn't. Didn't you read the Duelfer report? No WMDs since the mid
> 1990s.
The key point of Duelfer report is that the UN sanctions didn't work. If
Saddam's friends, like you and other anti-war, anti-everything leftists had
prevailed, the inspections would have played into his hands. Having shelved
his WMD programs, he would have received the U.N.'s clean bill of health and
the sanctions would have been lifted.
In short terms, he would have restarted his chemical, biological and nuclear
programs, with plenty of oil money to buy materials and produce quick
results.
When Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is better off
with Saddam out of power. Duelfer said "I'm an analyst, and I realize I'm in
a political world right now, but I have to agree. Analytically, the world is
better off." As you see, your leftist "no WMD" mantra is not working again.
> > And it makes sense. By contrast Clinton;s
> > idea was that this was a contest
> > between the US and North Korea only and that the others did not have
> > a dog in the fight. Clinton went so far in appeasing the N.Korean
> > dictator that offered him free oil which was delivered regularly in
> > return of his promise not to pursue his nuclear programs. It needless
> > to say that this lunacy grossly failed.
>
> No it worked. They didn't develop their nukes after that until the Bush
> Admin identified them as part of the Axis of Evil.
>
It worked???? It worked only for N.Korean communists who received American
oil for free in return for their worthless , communist promise. I can
imagine
how their entire Politburo were choking of laughter rolling on the floor
after signing this deal with Clinton.
> > How about oil-for-food-scam? Do you expect France , Germany, Russia to
> > apologize for this great fraud which helped them through the UN
> > interaction to put billions in their pockets ?
>
> I suspect that the individuals that were bribed or profited from this scam
> will be eventually prosecuted. Like the boys of Enron will be.
Really ? I am not aware that the UN, France or Russia are willing to
disclose documents to investigators about this scam. They are not fools.
> Jordan was our ally. Bush has soured that. The Saudis still are. And I
> notice you excluded Kuwait from your equation. Don't think that there are
> Kuwaitis that don't like us because of their Islamic faith?
Who cares what they like. Our F16s and our Hellfire missiles will do desired
results. If you don't love us , it's your business. But we make you to fear
us and thus to abstain from your deadly pranks.
> >> And we kill innocent muslim women and children. But you already said
> >> it is the Middle East.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Again, we don't kill innocent Muslim women and children, Islamist
> > stooge.
>
> Almost everyday. You are just in denial.
>
> > Your buddies Islamist barbarians are engaged in slaughter
> > business. You watch too much Al Jezeera, dude. It completely impaired
> > your ability to think reasonably.
>
> You haven't read enough about crusades, dude.
>
You haven't read enough about Jihad and dhimmitude which were lasting for
centuries. Hence your ignorance and gullibility , dude.
kurttrail
>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:icOdnas9jLl...@adelphia.com...
>>>
>>>> staten wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>>>> message news:r8adndb-dJv...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>
>>> Leftist dork, President Ronald Reagan's buildup
>>> of nuclear weapons eventually brought the Soviet Union to its knees
>>> and helped bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people across
>>> Europe.
>>
>> It won't work with bringing down international terrorists.
>
>
> Oh yeas, it will. When rogue states like Iran and North Korea - about
> which Kerry worries constantly - build up their nuclear arsenals they
> will most likely be stored deep underground inside fortified bunkers.
> Those "bunker-buster" nukes may be the only thing that allows America
> to neutralize such threats without a massive loss of life. Likewise,
> this weaponry would be very useful in reducing American troop
> casualties assisting our military in annihilating hardened terrorist
> positions - Like Osama's caverns of Tora Bora, with zero loss of
> American military forces. Yet, this idiot Kerry says openly he will
> ban this systems, if elected.
Iran and NK are soveriegn nations, not a terrorist organization.
As for the bunker buster nukes, let's just poison the planet and kill off
all humans. That is the only way to rid the world of terrorism.
>
>
>>> Now this idiot Kerry wants to disarm America so that to please his
>>> beloved Euros and the rest scumbags of the world.
>>
>> You're the idiot. Kerry just wants to stop the development of a
>> certain kind of nuke
>
>
>
> After reviewing his twenty year record of anti-military,
> anti-intelligence voting, his firm stance for nuclear freeze and
> against virtually all military action by the US , it's absolutely
> clear what this phony fraud wants - he wants to disarm America to
> please world's scoundrels .
2+2=42
That is not "constant terrorist attacks." London was under constant bombing
attacks during a period of WWII. Nearly every day, not 15 times in 25
years.
>
>
>
>> After 911, almost everyone is for going after the terrorists. But
>> Iraq now has more terrorists than before the war. Iraq wasn't about
>> going after terrorists,
>
> "everyone for going after terrorists"? Who is that "everyone" ?
> France and Germany for instance clearly say that they won't
> participate in any actions against terrorism in Iraq even if Kerry
> will be elected. So, much about his "international coalition building"
Iraq is more a terrorist haven today than before the war. Germany has
troops in Afghanistan.
>
> More terrorists? Sure, because we came to their home to fight evil
> they spread around the world. We should do that long time ago when
> first explosions killed our people in the land of terror, honor
> killings, beheadings and genocide. Terrorism is encouraged by
> weakness, not strength. And if we stay the course , we will defeat
> terrorism in their own home.
Iraq isn't the terrorists home. Most of the terrorists in Iraq crossed the
border after we invaded.
>
> By contrast when your beloved serial flip-flopper Kerry states
> categorically that he'll bring our troops home within four years, it
> promises the terrorists that they only have to hang on. When he
> declares our efforts a disaster, he encourages our enemies to believe
> they're winning. And when he promises a "more sensitive" war on
> terror, it's read as a pending declaration of surrender
I love how you take a couple of words out of context!
>
>> it was about disarming Saddam of WMDs that he didn't have. WMDs
>> was the reason we told the world we were going to war in Iraq.
>
>
> The primary purpose of Security Council Resolution 1441 was not to
> discover whether Saddam had weapons and programs. The real question
> was whether he was ready to make a clean breast of everything and
> give up not only his forbidden weapons but also his efforts to
> acquire them once and for all. Saddam failed to deliver clean record.
> The war followed.
Without authorization from the UN.
>
>>> Well, replace the word "pacifist" for "traitor" it really make no
>>> big difference
>>> today.
>>
>> Ah. Channeling Ann Coulter.
>>
>
>
> Ann did not hang his portrait in the communist Hall Of Fame in Hanoi.
> Kerry deserved this fame with communists by his anti-American actions.
Kerry is no pacifist, and certainly not a traitor. What the commies do is
up to them. That you put any merit in what they do or say kinda makes you
the commie.
>
>>> Your problem is that you believe in daydreams . Blix , though he
>>> hates America ,
>>> believes in facts and sometimes tells truth.. Saddam's gross
>>> violations of his
>>> disarmament commitments is exactly the case Blix outlined at the end
>>> of his carreer .
>>
>> Saddam didn't have any WMDs nor was he developing any WMDs since the
>> mid-1990s.
>
>
> We still don't know that. But what we do know that Saddam was in a
> flagrant violation of his obligations to disarm.
No, he couldn't prove that he had already destroyed his WMDs.
> In his May 30, 2003,
> report to the Security Council, Blix reported that the declared
> stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. He elaborated:
> "Little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues. . .
> . The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such
> resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either
> by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."
The Duelfer Report
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG
found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared
chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that
Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG
attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered
ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq
abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no
direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was
conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
>
>>> At least now, Saudis and Pakis unwillingly cooperate with us .
>>
>> Bush's coalition of the Bribed and coerced! ROFL!
>
>
> Call it whatever names you want, but it is a coalition which exists
> and works.
Well, you are the one that said that they "unwillingly cooperate with us."
> Kerry's "coalition" of those who tell in advance they will
> not participate in fighting terrorism is a coalition of ghosts.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan. Most countries didn't say one bad word
about us going in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, so many of
our own allies rightfully think we have other motives in invading Iraq.
>
>
>>>> As long as that business is making America the most hated nation in
>>>> the world.
>>>
>>>
>>> Our security is much more important than love of those who hate us.
>>
>> And how does having more people hate makes us make us more secure?
>>
>
>
> Simple. Don't appease and don't kiss their Islamist asses, but
> fight them like men . It makes world more secure.
And as we kill more and more innocents in the process, we become just as bad
as the terrorists. And more people hate us and want to kill us.
>
>
>> 1441 didn't authorize the Invasion of Iraq. And Colin Powell "gave" a
>> presentation to the general assembly of the UN about our reason to
>> invade Iraq, and that was all about WMDs. And even Colin Powell
>> apologized for that presentation.
>
> Care to present a proof where Collin Powell "apologized" for his
> presentation?
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1442
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5046
>
>>> It's
>>> too late to make stupid excuses. Unless of course you are not tired
>>> of making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> I'm not the one that is a Crusade. I'm for going after the
>> terrorists, no matter their religion. The only fool in this is you.
>> And I ain't going away!
>
>
> Iraq is full of terrorists , like you say, but you are against
> invasion like all your soc/lib/com/anti-war/anti-anything buddies.
> Where is your consistence ?
Iraq has only become a haven for terrorists because of our invasion. We
can't pull out now, but Bush also should be held accountable for his Iraq
mistake.
>
>>> It's very nice to learn that you put Russia, France, England , South
>>> Korea ,Pakis and India on the same level with the Iraqi maniac.
>>
>> They all have and/or are developing WMDs. England even burned down
>> the White House. Some of Russia's WMDs are protected with a padlock,
>> and are guarded only during the day. Pakistan pardoned the guy that
>> was selling nuke technology around the world. South Korea is
>> developing Nukes. India has nukes.
>
>
> So what, dumbbell? The UN passed 17 resolutions against Saddam , not
> against Russia or Britain.
And none of those resolutions authorized the use of force against Iraq for
failing to prove what happened to the WMDs.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> What was he doing in his bunkers, writing bad romance novels?
>>>
>>>
>>> He was creating deadly fumes and germs while you stupid leftists
>>> kept defending his ass in anti-American rallies and in the UN..
>>
>> And your proof is?
>>
>
>
> Read Blix's, Kay's, Duefler's reports. The proof is there.
The Duelfer Report
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG
found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared
chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that
Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG
attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered
ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq
abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no
direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was
conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
>
>
>>>
>>> We never asked anyone "where does it stop" fighting Hitler.
>>
>> Saddam was no Hilter. Hilter and the Axis was a threat to the whole
>> world.
>
> Saddam, terrorism plus WMD is no less threat to the world than
> Hitler.
No WMDs. So what actual treat?
> Or you imply that Saddam was just after Americans?
I implied that Saddam wasn't a Hilter, out to conquer the world.
>
>>> And we
>>> don't need to ask anyone fighting Islamonazis.
>>
>> Those that want to attack us, will be hunted down. Saddam wasn't an
>> Islamic extremist. He was worried about them coming after him!
>
>
> How about presenting nice shelter to Abu Nidal,
Saddam had him killed before the war.
> Khala Khadar al
> Salahat (top terrorist on the AlQaeda most wanted list who was
> captured in Baghdad in April or 2003),
Abu Nidal Organization, suspected to have helped Libyan agents use Semtex
explosives to destroy Pan-Am Flight 103, in 1988.
> Ramzi Yousef (planner of the
> first WTC bombing of 1993),
Only connection with Iraq is that he had a fake Iraqi passport. Been in a
US prison since 1995.
> Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the
> first WTC bombing),
Was imprisoned by Saddam between 1994 through at least 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml
> Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April
> of 2003)
“Two times the Israeli government had the opportunity to arrest him, and two
times the U.S. and Italy could have asked for his extradition,”
Darshan-Leitner lamented. “I look at the stories [of Abbas’ arrest] today.
They say they have been looking for this terrorist for 18 years and I just
laugh. He was in the Old City [of Jerusalem], at a cocktail party at Orient
House [the former offices of the Palestinian Authority]. If the U.S. had
wanted to get its hands on him, it could have done so long ago.” -
http://www.israellawcenter.org/news042503.shtml
Yep. If you were a terrorist that wanted to retire or die, Iraq was the
place.
> and, of course, Abu Musab al Zarqawi who is still in Iraq? A
> nice record for a guy who "was worried about them coming after him"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041006/ts_nm/iraq_usa_zarqawi_dc
>
>>> Was there other alternatives in the prospective of being engulfed
>>> by a Soviet monster spreading its communism around the globe? Or
>>> being a diehard leftist you still abhor an idea of fighting Soviet
>>> communism by any available means?
>>
>> Yeah there was. We could have stayed the fuck out of it. Iran/Iraq
>> really wasn't part of the Cold War, and the Soviets were having
>> their own problems in Afghanistan.
>>
>
>
> A classical leftist approach when it boils down to American foreign
> affairs - see nothing, hear nothing, "stay the fuck out of it" while
> Nazis a day before yesterday, Soviets yesterday or Islamonazis today
> prepare to destroy America.
It was a Democratic liberal that took care of Hitler.
We did stay the fuck out of the Soviet Union, made sure that China and the
Soviets mistrusted each other as much as they mistrusted us, and then we
bankrupted them.
And we went after the "Islamonazis" that attacked us in Afghanistan, but
Bush sent in warlords to get them at Tora Bora, instead of using our special
forces! Many terrorists got away, and probably Osama along with them!
>
>
>>>>> Does N.Korea send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians
>>>>> around the world?
>>>>
>>>> NEITHER DID SADDAM!
>
>
> Well, paying fat checks to families of suicide bombers and presenting
> shelter to top terrorists in his country proves that you failed to
> defend your buddy Saddam. He is guilty as charged.
But Saddam didn't "send suicide lunatics to blow out civilians around the
world." And the Saudis also paid fat checks to the families of suicide
bombers.
And Pakistan pardoned the dude that sold Nuke Technology to all that paid
him, and Osama is probably hiding out there too!
>
>
>
>>> Saddam paid families of suicide lunatics who blew up civilians. This
>>> is qualified as promoting and
>>> supporting terrorism.
>>
>> So did the Saudis, and so did the Iranians!
>>
>
>
> That's why we started this war in the land of Jihadistan that prevent
> our kids being beheaded before the camera by Saudis or Iranians. .
LOL! Tell that to Paul Johnson's family!
Well that Kay is saying differently now.
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&i=49184aed-77bb-42a9-b58c-d9bdd8efaef5
>
>
>
>>>
>>> It sounds the same like "Saddam had no WMD".
>>
>> He didn't. Didn't you read the Duelfer report? No WMDs since the mid
>> 1990s.
>
>
> The key point of Duelfer report is that the UN sanctions didn't work.
What?
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG
found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared
chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that
Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG
attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered
ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq
abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no
direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was
conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
> If Saddam's friends, like you and other anti-war, anti-everything
> leftists had prevailed, the inspections would have played into his
> hands. Having shelved his WMD programs, he would have received the
> U.N.'s clean bill of health and the sanctions would have been lifted.
>
> In short terms, he would have restarted his chemical, biological and
> nuclear programs, with plenty of oil money to buy materials and
> produce quick results.
>
> When Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is better
> off with Saddam out of power. Duelfer said "I'm an analyst, and I
> realize I'm in a political world right now, but I have to agree.
> Analytically, the world is better off." As you see, your leftist "no
> WMD" mantra is not working again.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001985512_wdig22.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090598/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1010-21.htm
>
>
>
>>> And it makes sense. By contrast Clinton;s
>>> idea was that this was a contest
>>> between the US and North Korea only and that the others did not have
>>> a dog in the fight. Clinton went so far in appeasing the N.Korean
>>> dictator that offered him free oil which was delivered regularly in
>>> return of his promise not to pursue his nuclear programs. It
>>> needless to say that this lunacy grossly failed.
>>
>> No it worked. They didn't develop their nukes after that until the
>> Bush Admin identified them as part of the Axis of Evil.
>>
>
>
> It worked???? It worked only for N.Korean communists who received
> American oil for free in return for their worthless , communist
> promise. I can imagine
> how their entire Politburo were choking of laughter rolling on the
> floor after signing this deal with Clinton.
They didn't start up their Nuke Program until Bush called them part of the
Axis of Evil.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> How about oil-for-food-scam? Do you expect France , Germany, Russia
>>> to apologize for this great fraud which helped them through the UN
>>> interaction to put billions in their pockets ?
>>
>> I suspect that the individuals that were bribed or profited from
>> this scam will be eventually prosecuted. Like the boys of Enron will
>> be.
>
>
> Really ? I am not aware that the UN, France or Russia are willing to
> disclose documents to investigators about this scam. They are not
> fools.
US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too.
>
>
>> Jordan was our ally. Bush has soured that. The Saudis still are. And
>> I notice you excluded Kuwait from your equation. Don't think that
>> there are Kuwaitis that don't like us because of their Islamic faith?
>
>
> Who cares what they like. Our F16s and our Hellfire missiles will do
> desired results. If you don't love us , it's your business. But we
> make you to fear us and thus to abstain from your deadly pranks.
Might is always right to you morons. And that just makes us more hated, and
more likely to be on the receiving end of terrorism. If another 911
happens, many will believe that we got what we deserve.
>
>
>>>> And we kill innocent muslim women and children. But you already
>>>> said it is the Middle East.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, we don't kill innocent Muslim women and children, Islamist
>>> stooge.
>>
>> Almost everyday. You are just in denial.
>>
>>> Your buddies Islamist barbarians are engaged in slaughter
>>> business. You watch too much Al Jezeera, dude. It completely
>>> impaired your ability to think reasonably.
>>
>> You haven't read enough about crusades, dude.
>>
>
>
> You haven't read enough about Jihad and dhimmitude which were lasting
> for centuries. Hence your ignorance and gullibility , dude.
I've read enough to know that you can't kill them all.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:Vu6dne4tgfV...@adelphia.com... > staten wrote:
>>
>>>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>>>> message news:icOdnas9jLl...@adelphia.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> staten wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote
>>>>>>> in message news:r8adndb-dJv...@adelphia.com...> staten
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Leftist dork, President Ronald Reagan's buildup
>>>>> of nuclear weapons eventually brought the Soviet Union to its
>>>>> knees and helped bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people
>>>>> across Europe.
>>>>
>>>> It won't work with bringing down international terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh yeas, it will. When rogue states like Iran and North Korea -
>>> about which Kerry worries constantly - build up their nuclear
>>> arsenals they will most likely be stored deep underground inside
>>> fortified bunkers. Those "bunker-buster" nukes may be the only
>>> thing that allows America to neutralize such threats without a
>>> massive loss of life. Likewise, this weaponry would be very useful
>>> in reducing American troop casualties assisting our military in
>>> annihilating hardened terrorist positions - Like Osama's caverns of
>>> Tora Bora, with zero loss of American military forces. Yet, this
>>> idiot Kerry says openly he will ban this systems, if elected.
>>
>> Iran and NK are soveriegn nations, not a terrorist organization.
>
> Oh sure, so was Hitler's Germany. . Taking your leftist approach, it
> shouldn't be bombed - it was sovereign.
>
>
>> As for the bunker buster nukes, let's just poison the planet and
>> kill off all humans. That is the only way to rid the world of
>> terrorism.
>
>
>
> If that's all you can say, then you are more stupid than I thought.
>
>>>>> Now this idiot Kerry wants to disarm America so that to please his
>>>>> beloved Euros and the rest scumbags of the world.
>>>>
>>>> You're the idiot. Kerry just wants to stop the development of a
>>>> certain kind of nuke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After reviewing his twenty year record of anti-military,
>>> anti-intelligence voting, his firm stance for nuclear freeze and
>>> against virtually all military action by the US , it's absolutely
>>> clear what this phony fraud wants - he wants to disarm America to
>>> please world's scoundrels .
>>
>> 2+2=42
>
>
>
> Ditto.
>
Great comeback! ROFL!
> So, we had to be bombed every day so that the term "under constant
> terrorist attacks" could be applied to us. What a perfect idiot this
> leftist dupe is!
> Michael Savage is absolutely right saying " liberalism is a
> mental disorder". Everything is upside down in their freakish
> world. If you are a criminal, you're better than a cop. If you are a
> homosexual pervert, you are better than the straight and narrow. You
> can have sex in public. You can masturbate in public. You can
> cross-dress in public. But you can't pray in public. Praying is too
> offensive. It hurts feelings of minorities who don't share your
> faith! It's not only the case for marijuana smoking junkies.
> Liberalism turns some of the most intelligent people into
> propaganda-spewing robots who care only about the message, not the
> absurdity behind the message. Emotion always trumps logic for them,
> regardless of the blatantly obvious.
>
Liberalism - A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans
and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political
liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and
protection from arbitrary authority.
Those who attack Liberalism, attack America.
>
>
>
>>>> After 911, almost everyone is for going after the terrorists. But
>>>> Iraq now has more terrorists than before the war. Iraq wasn't about
>>>> going after terrorists,
>>>
>>> "everyone for going after terrorists"? Who is that "everyone" ?
>>> France and Germany for instance clearly say that they won't
>>> participate in any actions against terrorism in Iraq even if Kerry
>>> will be elected. So, much about his "international coalition
>>> building"
>>
>> Iraq is more a terrorist haven today than before the war.
>
> It's little wonder why. Terrorists , like you leftists, also badly
> want to bring Bush down.
LOL! The Islamist Terrorist are ultra-Conservative Muslims.
>> Germany has troops in Afghanistan.
>
>
> How long will they stay there? Till a first explosion in Berlin? Or
> till a first beheading?
They are still there after 3 years, moron.
>
>
>>> More terrorists? Sure, because we came to their home to fight evil
>>> they spread around the world. We should do that long time ago when
>>> first explosions killed our people in the land of terror, honor
>>> killings, beheadings and genocide. Terrorism is encouraged by
>>> weakness, not strength. And if we stay the course , we will defeat
>>> terrorism in their own home.
>>
>> Iraq isn't the terrorists home. Most of the terrorists in Iraq
>> crossed the border after we invaded.
>
>
> Sure. World's scambags from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street dislike
> Bush and want to see him defeated . Osama, Zarqawi and the other
> barbarians are among them. They are true allies.
Osama is in Iraq?
>>> By contrast when your beloved serial flip-flopper Kerry states
>>> categorically that he'll bring our troops home within four years, it
>>> promises the terrorists that they only have to hang on. When he
>>> declares our efforts a disaster, he encourages our enemies to
>>> believe they're winning. And when he promises a "more sensitive"
>>> war on terror, it's read as a pending declaration of surrender
>>
>> I love how you take a couple of words out of context!
>
>
> Couple of words? Out of context? That's what he said and keep saying
> during his speeches and debates. Today he votes for $87 billions ,
> tomorrow against it.
Too different bills, moron.
> This guy is fake and phony to the bones. When
> asked a question about taxpayer funding of abortion during the last
> debate his answer was "Religion has been a huge part of my life. It
> helped lead me through a war."
> Only Kerry could turn an abortion question into a Vietnam answer
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed
abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax
dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life
and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy.
Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war,
leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for
someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic,
atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about
responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making
other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that
we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I
have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but
you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being
smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options
are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right
to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't
afford it otherwise.
That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the
United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction
on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision
about family planning.
You'll help prevent AIDS.
You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral
responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
>>>
>>>> it was about disarming Saddam of WMDs that he didn't have. WMDs
>>>> was the reason we told the world we were going to war in Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>> The primary purpose of Security Council Resolution 1441 was not to
>>> discover whether Saddam had weapons and programs. The real question
>>> was whether he was ready to make a clean breast of everything and
>>> give up not only his forbidden weapons but also his efforts to
>>> acquire them once and for all. Saddam failed to deliver clean
>>> record. The war followed.
>>
>> Without authorization from the UN.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Looks like this idiot believes that Security Counsel and the UN are
> totally different organizations.
Huh? The Security Council did not Authorize the use of force, only serious
consequenses. They left what would happen ambiguous, so that they would
have to agree what that meant after Saddam failed to comply with 1441.
>
>
>>>>> Well, replace the word "pacifist" for "traitor" it really make no
>>>>> big difference
>>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> Ah. Channeling Ann Coulter.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ann did not hang his portrait in the communist Hall Of Fame in
>>> Hanoi. Kerry deserved this fame with communists by his
>>> anti-American actions.
>>
>> Kerry is no pacifist, and certainly not a traitor. What the commies
>> do is up to them. That you put any merit in what they do or say
>> kinda makes you the commie.
>
>
> Sure. "What commies do its up to them ". They for instance didn't
> hang up a picture of Oliver North ( a real Vietnam war hero) in their
> Hall of Fame but selected an anti-war scumbag who marched under
> Vietcong banners in anti-war protests and who hurled his military
> awards like worthless trash . As Retired
> General George S. Patton (son of the World War II commander), who led
> troops in battle in Vietnam , said "this guy had given aid and
> comfort to the enemy. "Which, come to think of it, is one of the
> Constitution's definitions of treason
That was said of all Vietnam War protesters. Just rhetoric.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> Your problem is that you believe in daydreams . Blix , though he
>>>>> hates America ,
>>>>> believes in facts and sometimes tells truth.. Saddam's gross
>>>>> violations of his
>>>>> disarmament commitments is exactly the case Blix outlined at the
>>>>> end of his carreer .
>>>>
>>>> Saddam didn't have any WMDs nor was he developing any WMDs since
>>>> the mid-1990s.
>>>
>>>
>>> We still don't know that. But what we do know that Saddam was in a
>>> flagrant violation of his obligations to disarm.
>>
>> No, he couldn't prove that he had already destroyed his WMDs.
>>
> And who do you think could afford to believe Saddam except you and
> his buddy Chirac?
We could. We were the ones that could blow up Iraq at a moments notice. We
were the ones in control of 2/3 of Iragi airspace, and could close down the
other 1/3 whenever we wanted to.
>> In his May 30, 2003,
>>> report to the Security Council, Blix reported that the declared
>>> stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. He elaborated:
>>> "Little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues. . .
>>> . The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such
>>> resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either
>>> by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."
>>
>>
>> The Duelfer Report
>>
>> "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf
>> war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
>> the program."
>>
>> "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
>> discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its
>> undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible
>> indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
>> thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see
>> sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
>> against it should WMD be discovered."
>>
>> "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility,
>> Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly.
>> ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a
>> new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military
>> purposes."
>>
>
>
> A typical leftist spin.
Spin? Those are exact quotes right from the Duelfer Report moron!
> When Kay reported to Congress in January that
> the ISG had found no stockpiles of forbidden weapons, his conclusion
> made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in
> his testimony last October , leftist media instantly lost all
> interest .
>
> Same is with this guy . He gives just statements which help him to
> whitewash his buddy Saddam and completely ignores what was found.
> Duelfer in his report
> gives us the best review on Saddam's long-term strategy.
Which is just speculation.
> From all
> sources this message was clear: Saddam's first order of business was
> to break the United Nations sanctions so that he could resume the WMD
> program. He was very close to succeeding thanks to dirty deals with
> France, Germany, Russia , UN and other players who tried to keep
> Saddam's regime alive as long as possible.
>
> So, dude , when you copied Duelfer's report in the Key Findings you
> "forgot" to copy the very first sentence opening this section . Here
> it is:
>
> "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when
> sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable"
That is more speculation.
>
> Here are other things you "forgot" to mention:
>
> "The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among
> other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile;
>
> however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely
> associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons"
>
> What this means that inspections are not completed yet.
>
> "Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production
> projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of
> these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve
> Iraq's infrastructure, which would have
> enhanced Iraq's ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up
> production processes were implemented."
>
> "Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq
> was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions.
> ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor
> chemicals in bulk; however
> documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals
> were acquired through this system. "
>
>
>
> "Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq
> was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions.
> ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor
> chemicals in bulk; however
> documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals
> were acquired through this system. "
LOL! The conclusions are clear. Saddam didn't have the means to produce
more, if they didn't have the precusor chemicals.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Kerry's "coalition" of those who tell in advance they will
>>> not participate in fighting terrorism is a coalition of ghosts.
>>
>> Germany has troops in Afghanistan. Most countries didn't say one
>> bad word about us going in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with
>> 911, so many of our own allies rightfully think we have other
>> motives in invading Iraq.
>
>
> Most of countries you trying to depict as our "allies" are in fact
> indistinguishable from our enemies. Kerry scoffs at the countries
> that are our true friends, but he praises those that illegally
> provided Saddam with the weapons now being used to kill the coalition
> troops and innocent Iraqi civilians. What is sickening is that Kerry
> knows what they have done and doesn't care. The liberal spin-doctors
> consistently ignore the United Nations ''Oil for Food'' scam and the
> involvement of our ''good friends'' in Europe. How these leftists can
> look into the camera and say ''the sanctions were working'' defies
> any logic. The sanctions were successful at two things:
> stuffing the pockets of France, Germany, Russia, China, and Saddam,
> and starving to death thousands of Iraqi children.
You are forgetting about American companies that were also involved in
exploiting the "Oil for Food" program.
>
>
>>> Simple. Don't appease and don't kiss their Islamist asses, but
>>> fight them like men . It makes world more secure.
>>
>> And as we kill more and more innocents in the process, we become
>> just as bad as the terrorists. And more people hate us and want to
>> kill us.
>>
>
>
> Leftist insanity mode is on again. Islamist barbarians cut throats
> and blow things up. But that's we who "kill innocents" . And that's
> we again who supposed to "be sensitive" and "understanding" of their
> feelings .
No, we should understand that what we are doing in Iraq is just creating
more people that hate us.
>
>
>>>
>>>> 1441 didn't authorize the Invasion of Iraq. And Colin Powell
>>>> "gave" a presentation to the general assembly of the UN about our
>>>> reason to invade Iraq, and that was all about WMDs. And even Colin
>>>> Powell apologized for that presentation.
>>>
>>> Care to present a proof where Collin Powell "apologized" for his
>>> presentation?
>>
>> http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1442
>>
>>
>
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?ser
> vice_id=5046
>>
> What is funny with these two sites you provided that the
> anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist, pro-Jihad Al Jazeera had decency
> elaborate on Powell's "apologizing" : "Despite admitting mistakes in
> his UN presentation,
> Powell insisted that Bush had still been right to invade Iraq.
But the reasons that were presented to the world were bogus.
>
> "Those stockpiles would have reappeared since he was no longer under
> observation or control by the international community," he said later
> at the State Department after meeting with Belgian Foreign Minister
> Karel De Gucht. "
Between 1998 through 2003 there was no inspections, and yet Saddam didn't
resume his WMD programs.
> While your beloved the Nation kept rambling about "misleading nation"
> , castigating Bush, Chalabi , Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Pentagon
> proving once again that it is the flagship publication of the
> political hard Left and supporter of totalitarian, rogue and
> Communist regimes.
>
LOL! I love your rants!
>
>
>>>>> He was creating deadly fumes and germs while you stupid leftists
>>>>> kept defending his ass in anti-American rallies and in the UN..
>>>>
>>>> And your proof is?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read Blix's, Kay's, Duefler's reports. The proof is there.
>>
>> The Duelfer Report
>>
>> "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf
>> war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
>> the program."
>>
>> "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
>> discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its
>> undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible
>> indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
>> thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see
>> sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
>> against it should WMD be discovered."
>>
>> "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility,
>> Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly.
>> ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a
>> new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military
>> purposes."
>>
>
>
> Stop to play this broken record, mongol. It won't work. You failed to
> whitewash your friend Saddam. He is guilty as charged. Duelfer clearly
> showed that.
Guilty of thought crimes? ROFL!
>>>> Those that want to attack us, will be hunted down. Saddam wasn't an
>>>> Islamic extremist. He was worried about them coming after him!
>>>
>>>
>>> How about presenting nice shelter to Abu Nidal,
>>
>> Saddam had him killed before the war.
>>
>>> Khala Khadar al
>>> Salahat (top terrorist on the AlQaeda most wanted list who was
>>> captured in Baghdad in April or 2003),
>>
>> Abu Nidal Organization, suspected to have helped Libyan agents use
>> Semtex explosives to destroy Pan-Am Flight 103, in 1988.
>>
>>> Ramzi Yousef (planner of the
>>> first WTC bombing of 1993),
>>
>> Only connection with Iraq is that he had a fake Iraqi passport.
>> Been in a US prison since 1995.
>>
>>> Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the
>>> first WTC bombing),
>>
>> Was imprisoned by Saddam between 1994 through at least 2002.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml
>>
>
>
> What that moronic interview with Yasin dated by 2002 suppose to mean?
> Do you think that Yassin;s own words is enough to prove that he was
> in Saddam's custody? I don't think so. Unless of course you
> unconditionally believe him, like you believe Saddam.
>
"Yasin, who was indicted in the bombing but escaped, was interviewed by CBS
News' Lesley Stahl in an Iraqi installation near Baghdad"
>
>
>>> Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April
>>> of 2003)
>>
>> "Two times the Israeli government had the opportunity to arrest him,
>> and two times the U.S. and Italy could have asked for his
>> extradition," Darshan-Leitner lamented. "I look at the stories [of
>> Abbas' arrest] today. They say they have been looking for this
>> terrorist for 18 years and I just laugh. He was in the Old City [of
>> Jerusalem], at a cocktail party at Orient House [the former offices
>> of the Palestinian Authority]. If the U.S. had
>>
>
> wanted to get its hands on him, it could have done so long ago." -
>> http://www.israellawcenter.org/news042503.shtml
>>
>>
>
> I don't believe in conspiracy theories . Even if they are penned by
> Israelis.
>
LOL! You don't want to believe anything that doesn't fit into your narrow
world view.
>
>
>> Yep. If you were a terrorist that wanted to retire or die, Iraq was
>> the place.
>
>
> So, Saddam's Iraq was kind of "nursing home" for them. Very good.
> Leftist insanity mode is on again.
But not a haven for active terrorism.
>
>
>>> and, of course, Abu Musab al Zarqawi who is still in Iraq? A
>>> nice record for a guy who "was worried about them coming after him"
>>
>>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041006/ts_nm/iraq_usa_z
> arqawi_dc
>
>
> I really enjoy how the ABC works itself to lather trying to prove that
> Saddam had no connections with terrorists. But the same ABC had
> disclosed the ties between Baghdad and Osama as far back as 1999 . At
> that time it was not shocking at all . Clinton was president.
>
>
> Here's what ABC News reported on January 14, 1999:
> "With an American price on his head there weren't many places bin
> Laden could go unless he teamed up with another international pariah,
> one also with an interest in weapons of mass destruction. 'Osama
> believed in the enemy of my enemy is my friend and is someone I
> should cooperate with. That' s certainly the current case with Iraq,'
> "
>
>
> "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists, Carlos the
> Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abas - the most notorious terrorists of their
> era all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad.
>
> "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the
> Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their
> efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after
> (Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory) on August
> 31st, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's
> Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the
> Sudanese after the U.S. attack."
>
> "ABC News has learned that during these meetings senior Sudanese
> officials acting on behalf of bin Laden asked if Saddam Hussein would
> grant him asylum. Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned
> that in December an Iraqi intelligence chief . (who in 1999 was
> Iraq's ambassador to Turkey) made a secret trip to Afghanistan to
> meet with bin Laden." During the meeting, ABC says their sources
> reported that "bin Laden was told be would be welcome in Baghdad."
>
> And now compare what ABC blathers today. So much about journalist
> objectivity. It's just too bad that those who are paid to give the
> public information aren't making all these leftist clowns eat their
> own words.
Ever consider that they were being duped by the NeoCon Thinktanks and Iraqi
exiles?
>
>
>>>
>>>>> Was there other alternatives in the prospective of being engulfed
>>>>> by a Soviet monster spreading its communism around the globe? Or
>>>>> being a diehard leftist you still abhor an idea of fighting Soviet
>>>>> communism by any available means?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah there was. We could have stayed the fuck out of it. Iran/Iraq
>>>> really wasn't part of the Cold War, and the Soviets were having
>>>> their own problems in Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A classical leftist approach when it boils down to American foreign
>>> affairs - see nothing, hear nothing, "stay the fuck out of it"
>>> while Nazis a day before yesterday, Soviets yesterday or
>>> Islamonazis today prepare to destroy America.
>>
>> It was a Democratic liberal that took care of Hitler.
>
>
> Agreed. At that time they were liberal Democrats indeed who put
> safety of their country before their party line. Now it is a bunch of
> hateful hard core
> leftists who dominate the entire Democrat Party. These leftist rats
> literally would love to get rid of our military and have the UN and
> EU be our protectors for the sake of grabbing power at any price.
> Revolting.
More ranting! I love it so!
>
>
>
>>> That's why we started this war in the land of Jihadistan that
>>> prevent our kids being beheaded before the camera by Saudis or
>>> Iranians. .
>>
>> LOL! Tell that to Paul Johnson's family!
>
> I said our kids, buffoon. Johnson was far from being a kid.
Oh, so our non-military citizens don't count?
>
>>> On WMD Kay said " that Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine
>>> network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent
>>> botulinum, sophisticated concealment efforts, and advanced design
>>> work on prohibited longer-range missiles,"
>>>
>>> Later Kay told reporters that Iraq's extensive missile program was
>>> "all hidden."
>>> "They were much more than paper studies; there was actual physical
>>> work taking place on several of these. [They were] not discovered by
>>> the inspectors because the Iraqis prevented them,"
>>>
>>>
>>> As for the assistance Iraq was receiving from the unnamed countries,
>>> Kay said: "Our fear is that that same assistance may be made
>>> available to other countries, and we would like to close off that
>>> avenue of proliferation." This is exactly How your buddy Saddam
>>> could pass his deadly toys to terrorists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elaborating further on N.Korean deal Key said " Under the terms of
>>> the North Korean deal, Iraq was to receive "missile technology for
>>> the Nodong, a 1,300-kilometer missile, as well as other nonmissile
>>> related but prohibited technologies." Could a "lunatic in the US "
>>> to create all these deadly toys in his
>>> garage, moron?
>>
>> Well that Kay is saying differently now.
>>
>>
>
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&i=49184aed-77bb-42a9-b58c-d9bdd8efaef5
>
>>
>
>
> This interview proves nothing. First, an audio interview is a
> questionable source. Second, Kay's testimony to Congress which is
> available to public is more
> credible and weighty than your audio who-knows-when-and-how-it-was
> obtained.
Actually, its a video of Kay on the Today Show. Your computer is fucked up.
"David Kay, who preceded Duelfer as the chief U.S. weapons inspector, said
the latest report showed clearly that Saddam Hussein did not threaten the
United States. 'Look, Saddam was delusional,' Kay said Thursday on NBC's
Today Show. 'He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent
without capabilities is not an imminent threat.'" -
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/9865996.htm
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds the same like "Saddam had no WMD".
>>>>
>>>> He didn't. Didn't you read the Duelfer report? No WMDs since the
>>>> mid 1990s.
>>>
>>>
>>> The key point of Duelfer report is that the UN sanctions didn't
>>> work.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf
>> war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
>> the program."
>>
>> "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
>> discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its
>> undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible
>> indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
>> thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see
>> sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
>> against it should WMD be discovered."
>>
>> "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility,
>> Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly.
>> ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a
>> new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military
>> purposes."
>
>
> Stop this parroting, clown. We all can read.
>
> Duelfer:
>
> ''Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was
> essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's
> economy stabilized,
Stabilizing Iraq's Economy would have taken years IF sanctions were ever
lifted!
> but probably with a different mix of capabilities
> to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear
> capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international
> pressure and the resulting economic risks-but he intended to focus on
> ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare capabilities.''
>
>
>
> ''The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was
> a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy
> from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly
> came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange
> both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to
> enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related
> development."
>
>
>
> "The Iraq Survey Group judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s
> shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD
> helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during
> the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground
> offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken
> its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed
> WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond
> the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing
> the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.''
>
>
> ''The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the
> revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable
> group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
> Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from
> their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm,
> verbal comments and directions to them.''
They told American interrogators what they wanted to hear.
> It's still the same Doulfer. Don't think his report is available
> only to you and your leftist spin-expert buddies .
Mere speculation, and dubious sources. The conclusion are clear. No WMDs,
No Active WMD Program. All the speculation of intent is based on the straw
man of sanctions being lifted.
>>> If Saddam's friends, like you and other anti-war, anti-everything
>>> leftists had prevailed, the inspections would have played into his
>>> hands. Having shelved his WMD programs, he would have received the
>>> U.N.'s clean bill of health and the sanctions would have been
>>> lifted.
>>>
>>> In short terms, he would have restarted his chemical, biological and
>>> nuclear programs, with plenty of oil money to buy materials and
>>> produce quick results.
>>>
>>> When Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is
>>> better off with Saddam out of power. Duelfer said "I'm an analyst,
>>> and I realize I'm in a political world right now, but I have to
>>> agree. Analytically, the world is better off." As you see, your
>>> leftist "no WMD" mantra is not working again.
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001985512_wdig22.html
>
> Annan is a crook, corrupt and mendacious like his entire
> organization.
Prove it.
> With the full knowledge that it was their own corrupt
> dealings with Saddam causing the Iraqi people's suffering, this crook
> now complaining that Bush wants to withhold $34 million from the U.N.
> Population Fund. After food-for oil grand scam, Bush should not only
> to withhold but completely to
> stop funding this corrupt world diplomatic gang lining their
> bottomless pockets with our tax dollars .
>
>
>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090598/
>
>
> First was Al Jazeera, now the France Press. Excellent sources. What
> is next? The Osama Tribune?
That is MSNBC moron! And Musharraf is one of Bush's allies.
>> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1010-21.htm
>>
>
>
> That's the good one.
>
> "Brokaw: Mr. President, you may not have heard this. But in the
> Democratic Party in this country, there is a great suspicion at many
> levels that you know where Osama Bin Laden is, and that he will be
> captured just before the American presidential election, so that he
> will be a trophy for you and for President Bush"
Boy are you confused! That ain't from the link at common dreams.
>
> Here leftists clearly show their true face . To them, capture of
> Osama would be
> "a trophy" for Bush and Musharraf only. Certainly not for the entire
> world let alone the Democratic Party as this capture would not suit
> their cause when just two weeks left before the general elections.
Right now after over three years, Osama isn't a trophy for anyone. He is
still free, thanks to Bush outsourcing Tora Bora to Afghan warlords that
weeks earlier were fighting against us.
>
>>> Really ? I am not aware that the UN, France or Russia are willing to
>>> disclose documents to investigators about this scam. They are not
>>> fools.
>>
>> US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too.
>
>
> Oh, you would be the happiest person in the world if this really took
> place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/international/middleeast/09sanctions.html?oref=login
> But since it is just your fantasy, then shut up your leftist
> mouth. "May be" , "probably", "perhaps" is not a proof.
It's good enough for you when the Duelfer report speculates about Saddam's
intentions!
>
>
>> Might is always right to you morons. And that just makes us more
>> hated, and more likely to be on the receiving end of terrorism. If
>> another 911 happens, many will believe that we got what we deserve.
>
> Oh sure, you already believe in that . You leftist rats have a
> preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.
Prove it, moron. I have never been on the side of treason, but I am on the
side of REASON!
> Whenever our nation is under attack, from within or without, you
> liberal stooges always side with the enemy. This is your essence.
Saddam never attacked America. Osama and Al Qaida did.
Dan the Man
along with the troops.
NO, I do not support the troops. They kill people and they are "willing to
die" for their country. I call that a suicide bomber. They chose do what
they did. They have freewill
holy war bullshit - its an invasion
--
-
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:yeidnffnlPs...@adelphia.com...
> Dan the Man wrote:
>
> > Kurttrail - It is the USA doing the constant terror attacks. Its
> > going on right now. Don't you watch your own news???
>
> The Iraqi War was wrong. It is part of the Holy War.
>
> Neither side in a Holy War is just.
>
> It's now just a matter of how we get ourselves out of it. Bush will
expand
> the Holy War, and Kerry will try to get out, without leaving Iraq in the
> midst of a Civil War.
>
> American Troops will be in Iraq for a few more years at the very least.
> That is reality. And as long as our troops are attacked, we will strike
> back, no matter who is President.
Dan the Man
Maybe thats the problem???
Dan - Canada
--
-
"staten" <stat...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:10mvm5a...@corp.supernews.com...
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
> Maybe yesterday it was a political theory. Today's liberalism is in the
> spasm of a major mental meltdown. A meltdown, or more precisely a mental
> confusion , where in their bizarre leftist world sexual dysfunction,
> conspiracy theories, hatred of proven facts, and complete moral
> collapse are considered normal. Thirty years of rampant liberalism
rendered
> liberals unable to make reasonable judgments or tell the difference
between
> good and evil. ''Feminists'' march in support of those who would either
> subjugate or kill them. Gays express support for maniacs who would stone
> them to death. And liberal Jews, in the greatest denial of all, work to
aid
> those who would kill them and annihilate Israel. If this is not a mental
> disorder, then how is this possible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>> After 911, almost everyone is for going after the terrorists. But
> > >>>> Iraq now has more terrorists than before the war. Iraq wasn't about
> > >>>> going after terrorists,
> > >>>
> > >>> "everyone for going after terrorists"? Who is that "everyone" ?
> > >>> France and Germany for instance clearly say that they won't
> > >>> participate in any actions against terrorism in Iraq even if Kerry
> > >>> will be elected. So, much about his "international coalition
> > >>> building"
> > >>
> > >> Iraq is more a terrorist haven today than before the war.
> > >
> > > It's little wonder why. Terrorists , like you leftists, also badly
> > > want to bring Bush down.
> >
> > LOL! The Islamist Terrorist are ultra-Conservative Muslims.
>
>
> In your warped , leftist world only. For all reasonable and sane people
> (leftists are not in this category) they are Muslim
> sadists and barbarians.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> By contrast when your beloved serial flip-flopper Kerry states
> > >>> categorically that he'll bring our troops home within four years, it
> > >>> promises the terrorists that they only have to hang on. When he
> > >>> declares our efforts a disaster, he encourages our enemies to
> > >>> believe they're winning. And when he promises a "more sensitive"
> > >>> war on terror, it's read as a pending declaration of surrender
> > >>
> > >> I love how you take a couple of words out of context!
> > >
> > >
> > > Couple of words? Out of context? That's what he said and keep saying
> > > during his speeches and debates. Today he votes for $87 billions ,
> > > tomorrow against it.
> >
> > Too different bills, moron.
>
>
> No, two different Kerries " I actually voted for $87 billions, but before
I
> voted against it"
> So, where is an answer to squarely set question what he would do so that
our
> tax
> dollars would not go to support abortion? Hhis answer drowned in his
> convoluted nonsense.
>
>
> > >>>
> > >>>> it was about disarming Saddam of WMDs that he didn't have. WMDs
> > >>>> was the reason we told the world we were going to war in Iraq.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The primary purpose of Security Council Resolution 1441 was not to
> > >>> discover whether Saddam had weapons and programs. The real question
> > >>> was whether he was ready to make a clean breast of everything and
> > >>> give up not only his forbidden weapons but also his efforts to
> > >>> acquire them once and for all. Saddam failed to deliver clean
> > >>> record. The war followed.
> > >>
> > >> Without authorization from the UN.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks like this idiot believes that Security Counsel and the UN are
> > > totally different organizations.
> >
> > Huh? The Security Council did not Authorize the use of force, only
serious
> > consequenses. They left what would happen ambiguous, so that they would
> > have to agree what that meant after Saddam failed to comply with 1441.
>
>
> That's your fantasy, pal. "Serious consequences " mean actions, not a tea
> party in Baghdad.
>
>
> > > Sure. "What commies do its up to them ". They for instance didn't
> > > hang up a picture of Oliver North ( a real Vietnam war hero) in their
> > > Hall of Fame but selected an anti-war scumbag who marched under
> > > Vietcong banners in anti-war protests and who hurled his military
> > > awards like worthless trash . As Retired
> > > General George S. Patton (son of the World War II commander), who led
> > > troops in battle in Vietnam , said "this guy had given aid and
> > > comfort to the enemy. "Which, come to think of it, is one of the
> > > Constitution's definitions of treason
> >
> > That was said of all Vietnam War protesters. Just rhetoric.
>
>
> Just Rhetoric? Let's see what Vietnam vets think about it:
>
>
>
> "For thirty years and more we quietly persevered in our march to heal
> the wound inflicted on our souls, not by the armed enemy we faced on the
> battlefield, but by our countrymen, some of whom had even worn the uniform
> themselves. Such a deep wound had been healing slowly and without any
help
> from those who gleefully inflicted it.
>
> And then, one of the men who wielded the original knife--the dagger
> sharpened by his ideological masters in Hanoi, Beijing, Moscow, and
> Havana--re-emerges from our past and begins to once-again twist that knife
> he
> so deeply thrust into our backs. He now emerges, wearing the mantle of a
> member of Congress, who rode his once-shameful Vietnam service into the
> halls
> of political power. He now seeks the highest office in the land,
professing
> to be one of us--the abandoned ones, the forgotten ones, the ''murderers,
> rapists and sadists'' he so loudly and theatrically damned in front of a
> world
> in 1971. He now proudly proclaims shedding blood for a nation whose
service
> he condemned in the seventies, whose medals he contemptuously threw on the
> Capitol grounds and which he now displays, unstained by the shame of his
> rejecting them when his nation needed solidarity. He now claims heroism
as
> his badge of honor in an army of savages not seen since the ''hordes of
> Genghis Khan.''
>
> And he does all of this without shame, guilt, or remorse in front
of
> us, the forgotten ones, the abandoned ones. And what is most terrifying
to
> us--the ones who were never ashamed of our service, who have quietly kept
> the
> faith of our fathers, who have faithfully remembered and honored our dead,
> who
> have never ''cashed in'' on our military service, and who had slowly and
> painfully learned to accept our anonymity--is the fact that this
> opportunist,
> this sunshine patriot, this back-stabbing traitor to his uniformed
> compatriots, this elitist, gold-digger, may possibly become our
> commander-in-chief.
>
> And you, America--our dearly loved Nation--who abandoned us so many
> years ago, and to whom we have remained faithful nonetheless, are you
going
> to shame us once again? "
> Viper's Vietnam Veterans
> Speculation? So, just a couple of paragraphs which match your cause "are
> exact quotes " and are true but the entire Duelfer's report is "just
> speculation. " Perhaps the only guy who tells indisputable truth is
Saddam.
> What a pathetic leftist scumbag you are , kurtrail.
>
>
> > > From all
> > > sources this message was clear: Saddam's first order of business was
> > > to break the United Nations sanctions so that he could resume the WMD
> > > program. He was very close to succeeding thanks to dirty deals with
> > > France, Germany, Russia , UN and other players who tried to keep
> > > Saddam's regime alive as long as possible.
> > >
> > > So, dude , when you copied Duelfer's report in the Key Findings you
> > > "forgot" to copy the very first sentence opening this section . Here
> > > it is:
> > >
> > > "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when
> > > sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable"
> >
> > That is more speculation.
> >
>
>
> More speculations? I think you are extremely bigheaded and arrogant
> believing that all readers are fools , Duelfer is a speculator but only
you
> and Saddam are genuine truth bearers.
> Moron, read the report, don't jump to your stupid conclusions. They are
> inane and foolish on the background of facts presented. The report clearly
> shows that with sanctions weakening and money flowing, Saddam rebuilt his
> strength. He enhanced his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds
> for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's
> budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical
> research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods
> and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem" Those
> are hard facts, jackass, that are not match to your pathetic leftist
> bleating exonerating Saddam .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>
> > >> Germany has troops in Afghanistan. Most countries didn't say one
> > >> bad word about us going in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with
> > >> 911, so many of our own allies rightfully think we have other
> > >> motives in invading Iraq.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of countries you trying to depict as our "allies" are in fact
> > > indistinguishable from our enemies. Kerry scoffs at the countries
> > > that are our true friends, but he praises those that illegally
> > > provided Saddam with the weapons now being used to kill the coalition
> > > troops and innocent Iraqi civilians. What is sickening is that Kerry
> > > knows what they have done and doesn't care. The liberal spin-doctors
> > > consistently ignore the United Nations ''Oil for Food'' scam and the
> > > involvement of our ''good friends'' in Europe. How these leftists can
> > > look into the camera and say ''the sanctions were working'' defies
> > > any logic. The sanctions were successful at two things:
> > > stuffing the pockets of France, Germany, Russia, China, and Saddam,
> > > and starving to death thousands of Iraqi children.
> >
> > You are forgetting about American companies that were also involved in
> > exploiting the "Oil for Food" program.
>
>
> You are watching Al Jazeera too much. One day it turns you into a complete
> idiot.
>
> >
> > >>> Simple. Don't appease and don't kiss their Islamist asses, but
> > >>> fight them like men . It makes world more secure.
> > >>
> > >> And as we kill more and more innocents in the process, we become
> > >> just as bad as the terrorists. And more people hate us and want to
> > >> kill us.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Leftist insanity mode is on again. Islamist barbarians cut throats
> > > and blow things up. But that's we who "kill innocents" . And that's
> > > we again who supposed to "be sensitive" and "understanding" of their
> > > feelings .
> >
> > No, we should understand that what we are doing in Iraq is just creating
> > more people that hate us.
> >
>
>
> Hitler, imperial Japan and people around him hated us too. Should we
> "understand" them as well?
>
>
> >
>
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?ser
> > > vice_id=5046
> > >>
> > > What is funny with these two sites you provided that the
> > > anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist, pro-Jihad Al Jazeera had decency
> > > elaborate on Powell's "apologizing" : "Despite admitting mistakes in
> > > his UN presentation,
> > > Powell insisted that Bush had still been right to invade Iraq.
> >
> > But the reasons that were presented to the world were bogus.
> >
>
>
> If the reasons "were bogus" then Bush is in a good company.
>
>
> Clinton : ''One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
> capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
> them. That is our bottom line.''
>
> Sandy Berger :''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he
> has ten times since 1983.''
>
> Al Gore : ''We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
> chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass
> destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it
will
> continue for as long as Saddam is in power.''
>
> And your beloved, serial flip-flopper , Kerry October 9, 2002 : ''I will
be
> voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use
> force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
> deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
> grave threat to our security.''
>
> Are you ready to call "liars presented bogus reasons" ?
>
>
>
> > >> The Duelfer Report
> > >>
> > >> "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf
> > >> war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart
> > >> the program."
> > >>
> > >> "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been
> > >> discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its
> > >> undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible
> > >> indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
> > >> thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see
> > >> sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
> > >> against it should WMD be discovered."
> > >>
> > >> "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility,
> > >> Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly.
> > >> ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a
> > >> new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military
> > >> purposes."
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Stop to play this broken record, mongol. It won't work. You failed to
> > > whitewash your friend Saddam. He is guilty as charged. Duelfer clearly
> > > showed that.
> >
> > Guilty of thought crimes? ROFL!
>
>
> Guilty of many crimes . Read the report, idiot.
>
>
> > >> Was imprisoned by Saddam between 1994 through at least 2002.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What that moronic interview with Yasin dated by 2002 suppose to mean?
> > > Do you think that Yassin;s own words is enough to prove that he was
> > > in Saddam's custody? I don't think so. Unless of course you
> > > unconditionally believe him, like you believe Saddam.
> > >
> >
> > "Yasin, who was indicted in the bombing but escaped, was interviewed by
> CBS
> > News' Lesley Stahl in an Iraqi installation near Baghdad"
> >
>
>
> I asked you what else you can present except Yassin's words, clown
>
>
> > >
> > >>> Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April
> > >>> of 2003)
> > >>
> > >> "Two times the Israeli government had the opportunity to arrest him,
> > >> and two times the U.S. and Italy could have asked for his
> > >> extradition," Darshan-Leitner lamented. "I look at the stories [of
> > >> Abbas' arrest] today. They say they have been looking for this
> > >> terrorist for 18 years and I just laugh. He was in the Old City [of
> > >> Jerusalem], at a cocktail party at Orient House [the former offices
> > >> of the Palestinian Authority]. If the U.S. had
> > >>
> > >
> > > wanted to get its hands on him, it could have done so long ago." -
> > >> http://www.israellawcenter.org/news042503.shtml
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't believe in conspiracy theories . Even if they are penned by
> > > Israelis.
> > >
> >
> > LOL! You don't want to believe anything that doesn't fit into your
narrow
> > world view.
>
>
> I certainly don't believe anything what is coming from your upside down
> world where perversity, sexual dysfunction, moral degradation, lies and a
> total disrespect to facts are considered virtues.
> ABC is your leftist mouthpiece , turkey. How can they be duped by neocons?
>
> But this is just one side of the story. Recently documents obtained by CNS
> from Iraqi intelligence also connect Saddam to top terrorist masters. A
> nonpartisan
> team - Walid Phares, a prominent Mid East expert, former Clinton adviser
> Laurie Mylroie and a retired CIA official Bruce Tefft described the
document
> as "accurate" .
>
> Here is the site where you can read about your buddy's cavorting with
> terrorists. http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayArticle.cfm?ID=9762
> So, with sanctions in place Iraqi economy were doing better? Do you think
> this make sense?
> The conclusion is clear that you are a shameless , leftist charlatan. Your
> haughty disdain of facts is outrageous. You cannot refute a single line of
> the report ,or earlier discussions we had, with an intelligent response
> backed
> up with essentials or details supporting your beliefs. All you can afford
is
> just blurting your three lines of nonsense brazenly denying everything but
> lines that help you to embellish Saddam. I don't think it worth wasting
time
> on debating with a such primitively programmed robot if he cannot expand
his
> mind beyond propaganda from the CNN (the Communist News Network), Hillary
> club or Al Jazeera.
>
> Liberalism , as it is today , turned you into dangerous leftist idiots
like
> Michael Moore.
> Our Civilization as we know it is in jeopardy because liberals are so
> eager to abandon the values on which it rests and are not willing to
support
> the institutions that safeguard those values. Case in point: a deaf
lesbian
> couple genetically engineered two deaf children
> on purpose! How selfish and cruel it is for parents to deliberately
handicap
> children they supposed love and to take care of but liberals see nothing
> wrong with that. A moral degradation is obvious.
>
> No less horrific is your perception of the world . Muslim fanatics
threaten
> to subjugate the world , murder and enslave all non-Muslims. But leftist
> nihilists are not even willing to support our actions against the threat
> Instead, they blame America.
>
> The case in point is that you leftists hit rock bottom - if you have
> abandoned the notion of objective morality but rely instead on emotions
and
> feelings you have become modern barbarians. Welcome to 21 century.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001985512_wdig22.html
> > >
> > > Annan is a crook, corrupt and mendacious like his entire
> > > organization.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
>
> Annan after meeting with Saddam in Iraq in 1998 returned to New York to
> report: "I think I can do business with him." And he did excellent
business
> with him. Annan was a chief negotiator with Saddam. Annan's secretariat
> collected fees of $1.4 billion to monitor, administer and audit the
program,
> keep the records, and interact with Saddam . The Iraq oil ministry has
> released a list of 270 companies and politicians from 46 countries,
> especially Russia and France, that profited from this scheme. The list
> includes former Iraqi officials, a former French Cabinet minister, a
British
> official , Benon Sevan, who ran the program, a company with which Annan's
> son was associated and other U.N. personnel who were supposed to be
> monitoring the contracts. It is the biggest financial fraud in history .
> Investigations still are in progress
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, you would be the happiest person in the world if this really took
> > > place.
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/international/middleeast/09sanctions.html?
> oref=login
> >
>
>
> The New York Times on the web? No, thanks a bunch , I don't want wasting
my
> time on subscribing this paper. If you want to prove your point , provide
an
> other site . But I bet that except convoluted disinformation or outright
> lies penned by conspiracy theory freaks , hardly you can get something
> valuable to read. Your sources like Al Jazeera tell volumes what kind of
> information you love to read.
>
>
>
>
Dan the Man
I don't watch Al Jazeera . I live in Canada and see VERY CLEARLY that many
Americans are brainwashed.
You murder people and think its right - just like Bin Laden
Dan
--
-
"staten" <stat...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:10mvpjb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dan the Man" <chitr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tPQbd.3507$Cb5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> > Maybe the USA should stop going around the globe killing people?
> > Maybe thats the problem???
> > Dan - Canada
> >
> >
>
> Another victim of Al Jazeera brainwashing.
staten
> I don't watch Al Jazeera . I live in Canada and see VERY CLEARLY that many
> Americans are brainwashed.
> You murder people and think its right - just like Bin Laden
>
> Dan
Very good. But are you aware that Al-Jazeera in your Al- Canada , on your
Al -CRTC in the news again? Iraqi authorities shut down the Qatari
television station's Baghdad offices, citing the "violence they are
advocating, inciting hatred and problems and racial tension." The U.S.
Democratic party decided to take down Al-Jazeera's banner from its national
conference, so it would not be televised around the globe. But in Canada, in
the biggest telecommunications uproar in decades, Al-Jazeera won approval
for distribution its propaganda over Canada's politically correct, airwaves.
Little wonder why you have such views.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:BqSdndjVlNi...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:jr6dnTPSXeQ...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>>> Liberalism - A political theory founded on the natural goodness of
>>>> humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and
>>>> political liberties, government by law with the consent of the
>>>> governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
>>>>
>>>> Those who attack Liberalism, attack America.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe yesterday it was a political theory.
>>
>> It is the theory that is the moral & political foundation of this
>> country.
>>
>>> Today's liberalism is in
>>> the spasm of a major mental meltdown. A meltdown, or more precisely
>>> a mental confusion , where in their bizarre leftist world sexual
>>> dysfunction, conspiracy theories, hatred of proven facts, and
>>> complete moral
>>> collapse are considered normal. Thirty years of rampant liberalism
>>> rendered liberals unable to make reasonable judgments or tell the
>>> difference between good and evil. ''Feminists'' march in support of
>>> those who would either subjugate or kill them. Gays express support
>>> for maniacs who would stone them to death. And liberal Jews, in the
>>> greatest denial of all, work to aid those who would kill them and
>>> annihilate Israel. If this is not a mental disorder, then how is
>>> this possible?
>>
>> Rightard spin. Feminists don't march in support of terrorists. Gays
>> don't support the homophobes that would kill them. And Liberal Jews
>> don't aid anyone that wants to destroy Isreal.
>
>
> Again, still the same three lines of denial without making any
> attempts to present at least half of an intelligent argument so that
> to back up your point. I guess fife graders doing much better when
> arguing than this preprogrammed robot. I don't think it's worth
> arguing with a machine . Though machines doing much smart things
> today , but they have no brains. Similar case is here. Leftism turned
> a human into brainless machine.
You didn't back up your claims about Feminists, Gays or Liberal Jews to
begin with. I merely need to refute your claims about them. It is up to
you to prove them.
>
>
>
> <tThe rest three lines of stupid robotic denial and negations are
> flushed down to
> toilet>
>
> Let's see what's left .
>
>
>
>
>>> No, two different Kerries " I actually voted for $87 billions, but
>>> before I voted against it"
>>
>> Yep. He voted for the first bill, that would roll back the tax cuts
>> on the rich, in order to pay for the $87 billion. The Rightards
>> defeated that fiscally sound approach. Then Kerry vote against the
>> second bill, that was assured of passing, that effectively gave a
>> blank check that only added to the deficit.
>>
>> Spin it any way you like, but that doesn't changes the facts.
>>
>
>
> I never would think that Kerry's flip-flopping disease may be so
> contagious. Now I see it's possible.
You can't handle the truth!
>
>>> So, where is an answer to squarely set question what he would do so
>>> that our tax
>>> dollars would not go to support abortion? Hhis answer drowned in his
>>> convoluted nonsense.
>>
>> "That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's
>> important for the United States, for instance, not to have this
>> rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world
>> to be able to make a smart decision about family planning."
>>
>> It's important.
>
>
> The question was about OUR tax dollars and abortions. What the hell
> "families around the world" have to do in common with that? Where is a
> direct answer on the direct stated question? Likewise, whether on the
> economy, Iraq, or stem-cell research, this guy gave alternately
> confused and contradictory answers. Perhaps those leftist spin-gurus
> who wrote his speech might be able to reconcile Kerry's flip-flopping
> , but ordinary voters likely saw him for the shameless shill he is.
No the question was: "Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter
who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his
or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to
that person?"
The short answer of what he'd say is, "It's important."
>
>
>>
>> It is purposefully ambigous. Many members of the Security Council
>> wouldn't vote for 1441 with war explicitly written into it.
>
>
> Read and learn, thickhead. The text of Resolution 1441 built a case
> for military retribution based on Saddam's long history of ignoring
> UN decrees (total 17 ). Resolution 678, passed months before the war
> allows UN member nations
> "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and
> all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace
> and security in the area." One subsequent resolution
> is UNSR 687, which required Iraq to accept a full weapons
> inspections regime as a condition of the ceasefire agreement.
> Resolution 1441 specifically stated that any failure to fully disclose
> all WMD weapons or programs within 30 days constituted a violation of
> Resolution 678, automatically triggering the potential military
> retribution it promises. Saddam failed . Resolution 1441 was enforced.
There were no WMD weapons or programs to fully disclose moron!
>> Many Vets came home to protest the war themselves. You Rightards act
>> like Kerry was the only one,
>
> He is the only one who runs for the nation's highest office.
So what? That doesn't
>
>
>
>> and hide your heads in the sand that no war crimes
>> were committed.
>
>
> Kerry gave his "testimony" (shameless lies) before Senate. No one of
> his lies was confirmed.
They were confirmed by the testimony of Vets.
>
>
>
>> One is history, the other is prophesy.
>
>
> <Robotic denial mode is still on . Keep flushing. >
No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be established as
being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the future
if sanctions ever were lifted.
One is history, the other is prophesy.
>
>
>
>
>> One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
>> speculation.
>
> <Primitive stubborn parroting still deserves no meaningful response .
> Keep flushing>
>
No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be established as
being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the future
if sanctions ever were lifted.
One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
speculation.
You have proven that you cannot handle reality.
>
>>> Moron, read the report, don't jump to your stupid conclusions. They
>>> are inane and foolish on the background of facts presented. The
>>> report clearly shows that with sanctions weakening and money
>>> flowing, Saddam rebuilt his strength. He enhanced his technical
>>> knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists.
>>> He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold
>>> between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical
>>> research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited
>>> goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no
>>> problem" Those are hard facts, jackass, that are not match to your
>>> pathetic leftist bleating exonerating Saddam .
>>
>> Yet no evidence that he had any active WMD program. ROFL!
>
>
> <Stupid rofling and stubborn denial of all facts still has no ground
> for arguing with the human robot. Keep flushing>
The Duelfer Report never claims that any active WMD program existed since
the 1990s.
>
>
>
>
>>> If the reasons "were bogus" then Bush is in a good company.
>>>
>>>
>>> Clinton : ''One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
>>> capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
>>> deliver them. That is our bottom line.''
>>
>> And he did "deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
>> destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
>> line.''
>>
>>>
>>> Sandy Berger :''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
>>> as he has ten times since 1983.''
>>
>> All before the 1991.
>
>
> Wrong, dolt, Clinton commented on February 4, 1998, Sandy Berger on
> February 18, 1998 .
I meant Saddam's use of WMDs were all before 1991.
>
>
>>> Al Gore : ''We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological
>>> and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for
>>> weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we
>>> should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
>>> power.''
>>
>> Assume! ROFL!
>
>
> Address your stupid rofling to Gore. These are his words.
Bring him into this conversation, and I will.
>
>
>
>
>>> And your beloved, serial flip-flopper , Kerry October 9, 2002 : ''I
>>> will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
>>> security.''
>>
>> If necessary. I agree that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>> destruction in [Saddam's] hands [was] a real and grave threat to our
>> security.'' But obviously he didn't have such an arsenal, and
>> further inspections could have proven it, if Bush and his cronies
>> weren't so hell bent to go to war before it was "necessary!"
>
>
> We don't speak now what arsenal he had or hadn't, don't try to outdo
> Kerry in doublespeak you will fail, he is a professional. We talk
> about what he said then and what he is saying now. Where is your
> accusation in "misleading the nation"?
That all other options were exhauted before going to war.
>
>
>>> ABC is your leftist mouthpiece , turkey. How can they be duped by
>>> neocons?
>>
>> The Disney News? They just report what they are told. Investigative
>> journalism died long ago, as being too expensive.
>>
>
>
> Absolutely. They just report what they told, you are right. Mark
> Halperin , ABC's Political director, clearly defined that in his memo
> ordering to support Kerry.
>
> "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public
> interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold
> both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
>
> "It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few
> news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters
> evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest.
> Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."
Straw man.
>
>> And you didn't answer my question!
>
>
> I guess I did. I had told you already that you are leftist fake and
> phony charlatan. Isn't that enough? .
"Ever consider that they were being duped by the NeoCon Thinktanks and Iraqi
exiles?"
>
>
>>> But this is just one side of the story. Recently documents obtained
>>> by CNS from Iraqi intelligence also connect Saddam to top terrorist
>>> masters. A nonpartisan
>>> team - Walid Phares, a prominent Mid East expert, former Clinton
>>> adviser Laurie Mylroie and a retired CIA official Bruce Tefft
>>> described the document as "accurate" .
>>>
>>> Here is the site where you can read about your buddy's cavorting
>>> with terrorists.
>>> http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayArticle.cfm?ID=9762
>>
>> CNS & WM are religious news services. And will say anything to
>> support the Holy War.
>>
>> http://www.religionjournal.com/resources.asp?id=5
>
>
> Why CNS is religious, idiot ? And what this site has to do with the
> matter discussed? Are you sure you are not drunk?
The link identifies that both CNS and WM as "Religious Media."
>
>
>> Annan after meeting with Saddam in Iraq in 1998 returned to New York
>>> to report: "I think I can do business with him." And he did
>>> excellent business with him. Annan was a chief negotiator with
>>> Saddam. Annan's secretariat collected fees of $1.4 billion to
>>> monitor, administer and audit the program, keep the records, and
>>> interact with Saddam . The Iraq oil ministry has released a list of
>>> 270 companies and politicians from 46 countries, especially Russia
>>> and France, that profited from this scheme. The list includes
>>> former Iraqi officials, a former French Cabinet minister, a British
>>> official , Benon Sevan, who ran the program, a company with which
>>> Annan's son was associated and other U.N. personnel who were
>>> supposed to be monitoring the contracts. It is the biggest
>>> financial fraud in history . Investigations still are in progress
>>
>> That's not proof that Annan himself was a crook.
>
>
> Oh certainly, being a head of the corrupt organization and a chief
> negotiator with Saddam surely give him a free pass which doesn't
> allow to cast a shade on his "impeccable" reputation. You remind me
> idiots who because of their sick loyalty and idealism still believe
> that Hitler and Stalin did not know about crimes committed by their
> henchmen.
People are innocent until proven guilty. That is an American value. But I
wouldn't expect a fascist like you to understand.
>
>>>>>> US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, you would be the happiest person in the world if this really
>>>>> took place.
>>>
>>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/international/middleeast/09sanctions.html?
>>> oref=login
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The New York Times on the web? No, thanks a bunch , I don't want
>>> wasting my time on subscribing this paper. If you want to prove your
>>> point , provide an other site . But I bet that except convoluted
>>> disinformation or outright lies penned by conspiracy theory freaks ,
>>> hardly you can get something valuable to read. Your sources like Al
>>> Jazeera tell volumes what kind of information you love to read.
>>
>> "The names of American companies and individuals who may have been
>> involved in oil deals weren't released because of U.S. privacy laws,
>> the report said." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/
>>
>
>
> Read this statement again, cretin. "American companies and
> individuals who MAY HAVE BEEN involved bla, bla, bla"
"US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too." You are the
cretin. No country, corporation, or individual has been proven guilty, as
of yet.
> What means that
> this is just nothing more but a speculation indeed , unlike Duelfer
> report where facts, names and players are clearly demonstrated..
The Duelfer Report allegges that countries companies and individuals were
invovled in the scam. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt yet.
> But
> the same site you gave clearly shows who not "may have been" but
> without any doubts participated in this dirty bargain with Saddam .
The NYT article names names too.
> It still the same familiar faces - France, Russia, China, Jordan,
> Egypt. All those who were against the war because being on Saddam's
> payroll helped them to put billions in their bottomless pockets.
> Where is your outrages ? Where are your rallies against dishonest
> crooks who at the expense of Iraqi children helped their bloody
> dictator to acquire prohibited goods and weapons ? Where is your
> international solidarity and world community , you love so much to
> spread, united against frauds jeopardizing lives Iraqi children?
> Where is your liberal humanism? Could it be that your "humanism"
> wakes up only when America is involved?
Straw men.
And what you choose to cut out and not respond to speaks volumes, dude.
Thanks!
kurttrail
> Well I certainly hope Bush is not re-elected. He should be thrown in
> jail along with the troops.
> NO, I do not support the troops. They kill people and they are
> "willing to die" for their country. I call that a suicide bomber.
> They chose do what they did. They have freewill
>
> holy war bullshit - its an invasion
Like I said, the war is wrong. The troops are honorable, except for a very
few. Their President has sent them to war, and I hope Bush and his
ChickenHawks one day pay for their war crimes.
Just like in WWII, the majority of German troops were not war criminals,
just fighting for their country. Hitler and his Nazi buddies were war
criminals.
staten
Kurttrail - It is the USA doing the constant terror attacks. Its going on
> right now. Don't you watch your own news???
>
> Dan - Canada
Sure, he does watch. CNN (communist news network) and Al-Jazeera are his
favorite .
kurttrail
Speak for yourself. I watch and read multiple news sources.
staten
Refute my claims? What to refute? "Feminist don't march in support of
terrorists"? Are you really a such idiot believing that this childish
chirping made up of 5 words may be considered as a serious "refuting "? I
guess you are, otherwise you would never display a such sincere stupidity.
> >
> > <tThe rest three lines of stupid robotic denial and negations are
> > flushed down to
> > toilet>
> >
> > Let's see what's left .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> No, two different Kerries " I actually voted for $87 billions, but
> >>> before I voted against it"
> >>
> >> Yep. He voted for the first bill, that would roll back the tax cuts
> >> on the rich, in order to pay for the $87 billion. The Rightards
> >> defeated that fiscally sound approach. Then Kerry vote against the
> >> second bill, that was assured of passing, that effectively gave a
> >> blank check that only added to the deficit.
> >>
> >> Spin it any way you like, but that doesn't changes the facts.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I never would think that Kerry's flip-flopping disease may be so
> > contagious. Now I see it's possible.
>
> You can't handle the truth!
What truth? It's called obfuscation, not truth . But you and Kerry believe
that obfuscation=truth.
> > The question was about OUR tax dollars and abortions. What the hell
> > "families around the world" have to do in common with that? Where is a
> > direct answer on the direct stated question? Likewise, whether on the
> > economy, Iraq, or stem-cell research, this guy gave alternately
> > confused and contradictory answers. Perhaps those leftist spin-gurus
> > who wrote his speech might be able to reconcile Kerry's flip-flopping
> > , but ordinary voters likely saw him for the shameless shill he is.
>
> No the question was: "Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter
> who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that
his
> or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to
> that person?"
>
> The short answer of what he'd say is, "It's important."
The short answer is that you make a fool of Kerry to match your own mindset.
But Kerry is a liar and fraud , but he is not a fool..
> >> It is purposefully ambigous. Many members of the Security Council
> >> wouldn't vote for 1441 with war explicitly written into it.
> >
> >
> > Read and learn, thickhead. The text of Resolution 1441 built a case
> > for military retribution based on Saddam's long history of ignoring
> > UN decrees (total 17 ). Resolution 678, passed months before the war
> > allows UN member nations
> > "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and
> > all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace
> > and security in the area." One subsequent resolution
> > is UNSR 687, which required Iraq to accept a full weapons
> > inspections regime as a condition of the ceasefire agreement.
> > Resolution 1441 specifically stated that any failure to fully disclose
> > all WMD weapons or programs within 30 days constituted a violation of
> > Resolution 678, automatically triggering the potential military
> > retribution it promises. Saddam failed . Resolution 1441 was enforced.
>
> There were no WMD weapons or programs to fully disclose moron!
You are absolutely hopeless. How long does it take to become so dumb like
you are?
> >>> And you, America--our dearly loved Nation--who abandoned us so
> >>> many years ago, and to whom we have remained faithful nonetheless,
> >>> are you going to shame us once again? "
> >>> Viper's Vietnam Veterans
> >>
> >> Many Vets came home to protest the war themselves. You Rightards act
> >> like Kerry was the only one,
> >
> > He is the only one who runs for the nation's highest office.
>
> So what? That doesn't
That doesn't what? Do you always offer your opponents to play a game in
guessing what is on your mind ? Or is it just a new form of "refuting" ?
> >> and hide your heads in the sand that no war crimes
> >> were committed.
> >
> >
> > Kerry gave his "testimony" (shameless lies) before Senate. No one of
> > his lies was confirmed.
>
> They were confirmed by the testimony of Vets.
Care to back up your statement with facts ?
> >> One is history, the other is prophesy.
> >
> >
> > <Robotic denial mode is still on . Keep flushing. >
>
> No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be established as
> being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
> The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the
future
> if sanctions ever were lifted.
>
> One is history, the other is prophesy.
This pro-Saddam idiot still believes that he is the only one on this planet
who can read and who can reveal a hidden "truth" in the Duelfer's 1000 page
report.
> >> One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
> >> speculation.
> >
> > <Primitive stubborn parroting still deserves no meaningful response .
> > Keep flushing>
> >
>
> No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be established as
> being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
>
> The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the
future
> if sanctions ever were lifted.
>
> One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
> speculation.
>
> You have proven that you cannot handle reality.
You have proven that you are a programmed humanoid, primitive and stupid at
that . And that is a sad reality.
> > <Stupid rofling and stubborn denial of all facts still has no ground
> > for arguing with the human robot. Keep flushing>
>
> The Duelfer Report never claims that any active WMD program existed since
> the 1990s.
Same as above. I feel pity for your wife , if you have one.
> >>>
> >>> Sandy Berger :''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
> >>> as he has ten times since 1983.''
> >>
> >> All before the 1991.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, dolt, Clinton commented on February 4, 1998, Sandy Berger on
> > February 18, 1998 .
>
> I meant Saddam's use of WMDs were all before 1991.
>
But Clinton and Berger meant 1998. Feel the difference, baboon?
> >
> >>> Al Gore : ''We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological
> >>> and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for
> >>> weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we
> >>> should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
> >>> power.''
> >>
> >> Assume! ROFL!
> >
> >
> > Address your stupid rofling to Gore. These are his words.
>
> Bring him into this conversation, and I will.
Your insanity is progressing. That's for sure.
> >>> And your beloved, serial flip-flopper , Kerry October 9, 2002 : ''I
> >>> will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> >>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
> >>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
> >>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
> >>> security.''
> >>
> >> If necessary. I agree that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
> >> destruction in [Saddam's] hands [was] a real and grave threat to our
> >> security.'' But obviously he didn't have such an arsenal, and
> >> further inspections could have proven it, if Bush and his cronies
> >> weren't so hell bent to go to war before it was "necessary!"
> >
> >
> > We don't speak now what arsenal he had or hadn't, don't try to outdo
> > Kerry in doublespeak you will fail, he is a professional. We talk
> > about what he said then and what he is saying now. Where is your
> > accusation in "misleading the nation"?
>
> That all other options were exhauted before going to war.
Right, exhausted like your mind.
> >> The Disney News? They just report what they are told. Investigative
> >> journalism died long ago, as being too expensive.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Absolutely. They just report what they told, you are right. Mark
> > Halperin , ABC's Political director, clearly defined that in his memo
> > ordering to support Kerry.
> >
> > "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public
> > interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold
> > both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
> >
> > "It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few
> > news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters
> > evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest.
> > Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."
>
> Straw man.
You are predictable. Like always.
> >> And you didn't answer my question!
> >
> >
> > I guess I did. I had told you already that you are leftist fake and
> > phony charlatan. Isn't that enough? .
>
> "Ever consider that they were being duped by the NeoCon Thinktanks and
Iraqi
> exiles?"
Excellent question - for mental asylum residents.
> >>
> >> http://www.religionjournal.com/resources.asp?id=5
> >
> >
> > Why CNS is religious, idiot ? And what this site has to do with the
> > matter discussed? Are you sure you are not drunk?
>
> The link identifies that both CNS and WM as "Religious Media."
It's like with the Duelfer's report, this idiot thinks that he is alone who
has a PC.
> >> Annan after meeting with Saddam in Iraq in 1998 returned to New York
> >>> to report: "I think I can do business with him." And he did
> >>> excellent business with him. Annan was a chief negotiator with
> >>> Saddam. Annan's secretariat collected fees of $1.4 billion to
> >>> monitor, administer and audit the program, keep the records, and
> >>> interact with Saddam . The Iraq oil ministry has released a list of
> >>> 270 companies and politicians from 46 countries, especially Russia
> >>> and France, that profited from this scheme. The list includes
> >>> former Iraqi officials, a former French Cabinet minister, a British
> >>> official , Benon Sevan, who ran the program, a company with which
> >>> Annan's son was associated and other U.N. personnel who were
> >>> supposed to be monitoring the contracts. It is the biggest
> >>> financial fraud in history . Investigations still are in progress
> >>
> >> That's not proof that Annan himself was a crook.
> >
> >
> > Oh certainly, being a head of the corrupt organization and a chief
> > negotiator with Saddam surely give him a free pass which doesn't
> > allow to cast a shade on his "impeccable" reputation. You remind me
> > idiots who because of their sick loyalty and idealism still believe
> > that Hitler and Stalin did not know about crimes committed by their
> > henchmen.
>
> People are innocent until proven guilty. That is an American value. But I
> wouldn't expect a fascist like you to understand.
For you Saddam is also innocent . How about Osama ? No one court in the
world still has arraigned him officially .
> > Read this statement again, cretin. "American companies and
> > individuals who MAY HAVE BEEN involved bla, bla, bla"
>
> "US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too." You are the
> cretin. No country, corporation, or individual has been proven guilty, as
> of yet.
Your wishful thinking is not substitution for facts. Countries , individuals
, their names and their dirty deeds are already known. There is no one
American among those phony frauds. Disappointed? I know you are. Sorry for
spoiling your weekend eve.
> > It still the same familiar faces - France, Russia, China, Jordan,
> > Egypt. All those who were against the war because being on Saddam's
> > payroll helped them to put billions in their bottomless pockets.
> > Where is your outrages ? Where are your rallies against dishonest
> > crooks who at the expense of Iraqi children helped their bloody
> > dictator to acquire prohibited goods and weapons ? Where is your
> > international solidarity and world community , you love so much to
> > spread, united against frauds jeopardizing lives Iraqi children?
> > Where is your liberal humanism? Could it be that your "humanism"
> > wakes up only when America is involved?
>
> Straw men.
Predictable , repetitive and foolish like always .
> And what you choose to cut out and not respond to speaks volumes, dude.
> Thanks!
You are welcome. If you think that I should honor your three line
nihilistic, childish nonsense with a meaningful response , then you are dead
wrong. I tried , but it was in vain . Grow up , research beyond leftist
propaganda to understand things as they really exist in the world, back up
your arguments with facts , not emotions or wishful thinking and be my guest
I always will respond. This is a difficult step, because it means you can't
be lazy and self-satisfied any more , but it worth to try. When your leftist
dark glasses covering your sight will drop, you will discover a new world
and see the light again.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
Yep, since you never back up your claims to begin with. If I claim that the
earth is really flat, it isn't up to anyone to prove me wrong, but for me to
back up my claim with more that stating it.
Rightard Claim #1 - ''Feminists'' march in support of those who would either
subjugate or kill them.
Prove it!
Rightard Claim #2 - Gays express support for maniacs who would stone them to
death.
Prove it!
Rightard Claim #3 - And liberal Jews, in the greatest denial of all, work to
aid those who would kill them and annihilate Israel.
Prove it!
Until you back up your accusations, they are nothing but bullshit!
>
>>>
>>> <tThe rest three lines of stupid robotic denial and negations are
>>> flushed down to
>>> toilet>
>>>
>>> Let's see what's left .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No, two different Kerries " I actually voted for $87 billions, but
>>>>> before I voted against it"
>>>>
>>>> Yep. He voted for the first bill, that would roll back the tax cuts
>>>> on the rich, in order to pay for the $87 billion. The Rightards
>>>> defeated that fiscally sound approach. Then Kerry vote against the
>>>> second bill, that was assured of passing, that effectively gave a
>>>> blank check that only added to the deficit.
>>>>
>>>> Spin it any way you like, but that doesn't changes the facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I never would think that Kerry's flip-flopping disease may be so
>>> contagious. Now I see it's possible.
>>
>> You can't handle the truth!
>
>
> What truth?
About the history of his votes on two bills.
> It's called obfuscation, not truth .
It is fact, numbnuts.
> But you and Kerry
> believe that obfuscation=truth.
More Spin.
>
>
>
>>> The question was about OUR tax dollars and abortions. What the hell
>>> "families around the world" have to do in common with that? Where
>>> is a direct answer on the direct stated question? Likewise, whether
>>> on the economy, Iraq, or stem-cell research, this guy gave
>>> alternately confused and contradictory answers. Perhaps those
>>> leftist spin-gurus who wrote his speech might be able to reconcile
>>> Kerry's flip-flopping , but ordinary voters likely saw him for the
>>> shameless shill he is.
>>
>> No the question was: "Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a
>> voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for
>> reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support
>> abortion, what would you say to that person?"
>>
>> The short answer of what he'd say is, "It's important."
>
>
> The short answer is that you make a fool of Kerry to match your own
> mindset. But Kerry is a liar and fraud , but he is not a fool..
More Spin.
>
>
>>>> It is purposefully ambigous. Many members of the Security Council
>>>> wouldn't vote for 1441 with war explicitly written into it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read and learn, thickhead. The text of Resolution 1441 built a case
>>> for military retribution based on Saddam's long history of ignoring
>>> UN decrees (total 17 ). Resolution 678, passed months before the war
>>> allows UN member nations
>>> "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660
>>> and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore
>>> international peace and security in the area." One subsequent
>>> resolution
>>> is UNSR 687, which required Iraq to accept a full weapons
>>> inspections regime as a condition of the ceasefire agreement.
>>> Resolution 1441 specifically stated that any failure to fully
>>> disclose all WMD weapons or programs within 30 days constituted a
>>> violation of Resolution 678, automatically triggering the potential
>>> military retribution it promises. Saddam failed . Resolution 1441
>>> was enforced.
>>
>> There were no WMD weapons or programs to fully disclose moron!
>
> You are absolutely hopeless.
Yes. I believe in reality, not rightard spin. And it is hopeless to try to
get me to believe anything you spin.
> How long does it take to become so dumb
> like you are?
Ignorance is Bliss, and you are one of the most blissful people on this
planet.
>
>
>>>>> And you, America--our dearly loved Nation--who abandoned us so
>>>>> many years ago, and to whom we have remained faithful nonetheless,
>>>>> are you going to shame us once again? "
>>>>> Viper's Vietnam Veterans
>>>>
>>>> Many Vets came home to protest the war themselves. You Rightards
>>>> act like Kerry was the only one,
>>>
>>> He is the only one who runs for the nation's highest office.
>>
>> So what? That doesn't
>
>
> That doesn't what? Do you always offer your opponents to play a game
> in guessing what is on your mind ? Or is it just a new form of
> "refuting" ?
That doesn't mean ANYTHING!
>
>>>> and hide your heads in the sand that no war crimes
>>>> were committed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry gave his "testimony" (shameless lies) before Senate. No one of
>>> his lies was confirmed.
>>
>> They were confirmed by the testimony of Vets.
>
>
> Care to back up your statement with facts ?
Senator Mark O. Hatfield, a Republican, entered the Winter Soldier
Investigation testimony into the Senate Foreign Relations Committee record
in 1971.
>
>>>> One is history, the other is prophesy.
>>>
>>>
>>> <Robotic denial mode is still on . Keep flushing. >
>>
>> No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be
>> established as being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
>
>
>> The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the
>> future if sanctions ever were lifted.
>>
>> One is history, the other is prophesy.
>
>
> This pro-Saddam idiot still believes that he is the only one on this
> planet who can read and who can reveal a hidden "truth" in the
> Duelfer's 1000 page report.
No. I can tell the difference between stating historical fact from guessing
the future intentions of another person.
One is Reality, the other is speculation.
>
>>>> One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
>>>> speculation.
>>>
>>> <Primitive stubborn parroting still deserves no meaningful response
>>> . Keep flushing>
>>>
>>
>> No. It's the difference that WMDs, and WMD program can be
>> established as being destroyed since the mid 1990's.
>>
>> The speculation comes in when predicting what Saddam would do in the
>> future if sanctions ever were lifted.
>>
>> One is history, the other is prophesy. One is fact, the other is
>> speculation.
>>
>> You have proven that you cannot handle reality.
>
>
> You have proven that you are a programmed humanoid, primitive and
> stupid at that . And that is a sad reality.
LOL! I'm not the one that believes speculation is fact.
>
>>> <Stupid rofling and stubborn denial of all facts still has no ground
>>> for arguing with the human robot. Keep flushing>
>>
>> The Duelfer Report never claims that any active WMD program existed
>> since the 1990s.
>
>
> Same as above. I feel pity for your wife , if you have one.
Denying reality again.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandy Berger :''He will use those weapons of mass destruction
>>>>> again, as he has ten times since 1983.''
>>>>
>>>> All before the 1991.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong, dolt, Clinton commented on February 4, 1998, Sandy Berger on
>>> February 18, 1998 .
>>
>> I meant Saddam's use of WMDs were all before 1991.
>>
>
> But Clinton and Berger meant 1998. Feel the difference, baboon?
Burger did not. He might have said it in 1998, but in no way way he
suggesting that Saddam used WMDs after 1991.
''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983.''
He was saying that Saddam will use WMDs again, based on prior acts. He was
wrong.
>
>>>
>>>>> Al Gore : ''We know that he has stored secret supplies of
>>>>> biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's
>>>>> search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>>>>> deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
>>>>> Saddam is in power.''
>>>>
>>>> Assume! ROFL!
>>>
>>>
>>> Address your stupid rofling to Gore. These are his words.
>>
>> Bring him into this conversation, and I will.
>
>
> Your insanity is progressing. That's for sure.
Hey, I ain't the one that brought Al Bore up. You did.
>
>
>>>>> And your beloved, serial flip-flopper , Kerry October 9, 2002 :
>>>>> ''I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>>>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
>>>>> security.''
>>>>
>>>> If necessary. I agree that "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>>> destruction in [Saddam's] hands [was] a real and grave threat to
>>>> our security.'' But obviously he didn't have such an arsenal, and
>>>> further inspections could have proven it, if Bush and his cronies
>>>> weren't so hell bent to go to war before it was "necessary!"
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't speak now what arsenal he had or hadn't, don't try to outdo
>>> Kerry in doublespeak you will fail, he is a professional. We talk
>>> about what he said then and what he is saying now. Where is your
>>> accusation in "misleading the nation"?
>>
>> That all other options were exhauted before going to war.
>
> Right, exhausted like your mind.
ROFL! What a halfwit you are!
>
>
>>>> The Disney News? They just report what they are told. Investigative
>>>> journalism died long ago, as being too expensive.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. They just report what they told, you are right. Mark
>>> Halperin , ABC's Political director, clearly defined that in his
>>> memo ordering to support Kerry.
>>>
>>> "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the
>>> public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and
>>> artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts
>>> don't warrant that."
>>>
>>> "It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the
>>> few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters
>>> evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public
>>> interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that
>>> right."
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>
> You are predictable. Like always.
Why? Because I won't follow your attempt to change the subject?
>
>
>
>>>> And you didn't answer my question!
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess I did. I had told you already that you are leftist fake and
>>> phony charlatan. Isn't that enough? .
>>
>> "Ever consider that they were being duped by the NeoCon Thinktanks
>> and Iraqi exiles?"
>
>
> Excellent question - for mental asylum residents.
Still can't answer? It says a lot that your are unwilling to answer a
simple yes or no question. You don't consider anything that doesn't fit
your fascist world view.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.religionjournal.com/resources.asp?id=5
>>>
>>>
>>> Why CNS is religious, idiot ? And what this site has to do with the
>>> matter discussed? Are you sure you are not drunk?
>>
>> The link identifies that both CNS and WM as "Religious Media."
>
>
>
>
> It's like with the Duelfer's report, this idiot thinks that he is
> alone who has a PC.
I don't believe biased news reports or unprovable speculation.
>
>
>>>> Annan after meeting with Saddam in Iraq in 1998 returned to New
>>>> York
>>>>> to report: "I think I can do business with him." And he did
>>>>> excellent business with him. Annan was a chief negotiator with
>>>>> Saddam. Annan's secretariat collected fees of $1.4 billion to
>>>>> monitor, administer and audit the program, keep the records, and
>>>>> interact with Saddam . The Iraq oil ministry has released a list
>>>>> of 270 companies and politicians from 46 countries, especially
>>>>> Russia and France, that profited from this scheme. The list
>>>>> includes former Iraqi officials, a former French Cabinet
>>>>> minister, a British official , Benon Sevan, who ran the program,
>>>>> a company with which Annan's son was associated and other U.N.
>>>>> personnel who were supposed to be monitoring the contracts. It is
>>>>> the biggest financial fraud in history . Investigations still are
>>>>> in progress
>>>>
>>>> That's not proof that Annan himself was a crook.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh certainly, being a head of the corrupt organization and a chief
>>> negotiator with Saddam surely give him a free pass which doesn't
>>> allow to cast a shade on his "impeccable" reputation. You remind me
>>> idiots who because of their sick loyalty and idealism still believe
>>> that Hitler and Stalin did not know about crimes committed by their
>>> henchmen.
>>
>> People are innocent until proven guilty. That is an American value.
>> But I wouldn't expect a fascist like you to understand.
>
>
> For you Saddam is also innocent. How about Osama ? No one court in
> the world still has arraigned him officially.
They have committed multiple crimes that are well documented by numerous
sources. Kofi Annan isn't a brutal dictator, or the head of a terrorist
organization. And I have yet to see any proof that he is criminal, only
allegations.
>
>
>
>>> Read this statement again, cretin. "American companies and
>>> individuals who MAY HAVE BEEN involved bla, bla, bla"
>>
>> "US companies may be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too." You
>> are the cretin. No country, corporation, or individual has been
>> proven guilty, as of yet.
>
>
> Your wishful thinking is not substitution for facts. Countries ,
> individuals , their names and their dirty deeds are already known.
> There is no one American among those phony frauds. Disappointed? I
> know you are. Sorry for spoiling your weekend eve.
But you are willing to paint Kofi Annan on unsubstantiated allegations!
"Your wishful thinking is not substitution for facts."
"US companies *may* be involved in the "Oil for Food" scam too." I claim
the possibility, but don't state it is a fact.
"Annan is a crook, corrupt and mendacious like his entire organization."
See the difference? You have convicted Annan in your twisted little mind
already!
>
>
>>> It still the same familiar faces - France, Russia, China, Jordan,
>>> Egypt. All those who were against the war because being on Saddam's
>>> payroll helped them to put billions in their bottomless pockets.
>>> Where is your outrages ? Where are your rallies against dishonest
>>> crooks who at the expense of Iraqi children helped their bloody
>>> dictator to acquire prohibited goods and weapons ? Where is your
>>> international solidarity and world community , you love so much to
>>> spread, united against frauds jeopardizing lives Iraqi children?
>>> Where is your liberal humanism? Could it be that your "humanism"
>>> wakes up only when America is involved?
>>
>> Straw men.
>
>
> Predictable , repetitive and foolish like always .
Whatever you want to think. If anyone is still reading our conversation,
they see that you are just grasping at straw, and hoping I'll follow along.
>
>
>> And what you choose to cut out and not respond to speaks volumes,
>> dude. Thanks!
>
>
> You are welcome. If you think that I should honor your three line
> nihilistic, childish nonsense with a meaningful response , then you
> are dead wrong. I tried , but it was in vain . Grow up , research
> beyond leftist propaganda to understand things as they really exist
> in the world, back up your arguments with facts , not emotions or
> wishful thinking and be my guest I always will respond. This is a
> difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy and self-satisfied
> any more , but it worth to try. When your leftist dark glasses
> covering your sight will drop, you will discover a new world and see
> the light again.
Facts?! ROFL! You wouldn't know a fact, if it bitch-slapped you upside
your pointed little head!
staten
> >> You didn't back up your claims about Feminists, Gays or Liberal Jews
> >> to begin with. I merely need to refute your claims about them. It is
> >> up to you to prove them.
> >
> >
> > Refute my claims? What to refute? "Feminist don't march in support of
> > terrorists"? Are you really a such idiot believing that this childish
> > chirping made up of 5 words may be considered as a serious "refuting
> > "? I guess you are, otherwise you would never display a such sincere
> > stupidity.
>
> Yep, since you never back up your claims to begin with. >
I don't need to back up my claims because it is widely known fact that
leftist feminists, gays and Jews are rabidly anti-American and side with any
world scoundrels and the most corrupt and brutal regimes if they see those
scoundrels and regimes comport with the leftist's principles : hatred for
capitalism, hatred for America, hatred for military , hatred for religion.
It is as true as the fact that that the Earth isn't flat. That's why no
extra comments are needed.
>If I claim that the
> earth is really flat, it isn't up to anyone to prove me wrong, but for me
to
> back up my claim with more that stating it.
So far, during entire our debating I haven't seen anything meaningful to
buck up your claims except three line denials or a mute reference to a web
site . Your "refute " vocabulary consist of just a set of few words : "
they/he/she/it/don't" , " "straw man" , "more spin", "There were no WMD"
(universal term, fits all issues no matter what is discussed Saddam, ISG
report, UN or war on terror) , "One is history, the other is speculation"
(this is about the entire 1000 page Duelfer report from which this duffer
picked out just several sentences stating that Saddam had no WMD - what
supposed to be "history" - and the rest of the report with facts , numbers ,
statistics and interviews is a "speculation") and the last strong "refute"
is "So what? That doesn't." ( what is the rest part after "that doesn't"
this ninny leaves to readers to guess)
> Rightard Claim #1 - ''Feminists'' march in support of those who would
either
> subjugate or kill them.
>
> Prove it!
I really shouldn't argue with you as you have no ammunition whatsoever for a
productive debating except two, three words of negation. But if you insist,
I'll do it. But it is for the last time, as arguing with a fool producing
just three lines of "refute" is not exciting anymore. It just kills any
desire for debating. From now on, I just will select from your posts what
makes sense (if ever) or is not so outrageously foolish and primitive.
Last March, on International Women's Day, feminists organized a next rally
at the White House to defend ass of the brutal dictator Saddam under code
name "women against "immoral war". These nice brave , leftists bitches
bravely called for the U.S. to do nothing, allowing that brutal and vicious
man to torture and gas more his own citizens, including women and children,
to death. They didn't protest against brutal treatment of women in Islam
world. They didn't protest an execution of a 25-year-old Iraqi woman Um
Haydar who was beheaded in front of her children in the street without
charge or trial at the end of December 2000. Um Haydar is just one of
thousands of women who have been raped, tortured and murdered in front of
their families. But American brave feminists protested against removing
Saddam because, to them , it is very 'immoral"
This is just one episode of feminist's idiocy. The same ideas feminists
demonstrated during Afghan war. The main idea of protests "How dare we to
impose our Western ways of thinking on Taliban having their own culture and
traditions?" It is fine about polygamy in Islamic
cultures. They couldn't care less about fact that Afghan girls were barred
from school; they never protest against women being stoned to death for
adultery or beaten and even killed for showing an ankle or wearing
high-heeled shoes. Feminists love to protect Palestinians (fighting against
imperialist aggression) but you never hear feminist outrages against honor
killings (usual practice in Palestine) or when women are denied medical help
because of male doctors are around . Reuters reported the story of an
Iranian man, "defending my honor, family, and dignity," who cut off his
seven-year-old daughter's head after suspecting she had been raped by her
uncle. But you couldn't hear a peep from feminists camps condemning such
savagery.
The bottom line is no matter how barbarian and brutal regimes are, feminists
always will find excuses to exonerate barbarians, who would for sure kill
them just for showing an ankle in public, but instead they blame America for
all world's evils. If this is not insanity, then I don't know what is.
> Rightard Claim #2 - Gays express support for maniacs who would stone them
to
> death.
>
All mentioned above pretty much applies to gays as well. Leftist gay morons
never bursting with anger and publicly espousing their moral indignation
about how the Taliban treated homosexuals. Nor do they display their
outrages that in some Muslim countries they would be murdered by the state
simply for being gay. Instead, they remain silent or actively oppose ridding
the world of Islamic barbarians who kill women, children, and gays . And
like feminists, always blame America first.
>
> Rightard Claim #3 - And liberal Jews, in the greatest denial of all, work
to
> aid those who would kill them and annihilate Israel.
>
> Prove it!
In America liberal , self-hating Jews one can find in college an university
campuses. Berkeley's Israel Divestment Campaign signed a petition demanding
severe economic punishment of Israel out of a "deep concern about the brutal
rule over Palestinians" . Leftist dupes would be very happy if Israel would
be punished not only economically. By bombs for instance . Listening their
hateful speeches at anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian , pro-Hamas rallies gives
you such impression.
Two Jewish South African politicians Max Ozinsky and South African Communist
Party member Ronnie Kasrils, published articles and letters drawing a
specific analogy between apartheid and Israel. They almost don 't conceal
their Pro-Palestinian views (siding with those whose prime goal is to
destroy the state of Israel.)
In Israel leftist Jews published an article entitled, "'Hebronizing'
Jerusalem." The central theme of this article and slogans is that Jews
shouldn't live in all parts of Jerusalem. Imagine, Jerusalem the city Jews
have loved for over 3,000 years and now they shouldn't live there because it
may "irritate" Palestinians who also claim this city for a capital.
After Oslo "peace process" Israeli leftists triggered anti-Jewish bigotry in
the media. "Post-Jewish" leftist extremists openly collaborating with the
enemies of their own country in time of war, openly
advocating the elimination of their own country and its merger into
some sort of Palestinian state.
Israeli leftist faculty members touring the world, denounce Israel before
audiences of anti-Semites as a Nazi, Fascist, terrorist, criminal, apartheid
country, engaged in systematic human rights atrocities.
In America the most prominent self-hating Jews are Noam Chomsky, and George
Soros. They hate Jews and Israel so much that rather love to see Israel
destroyed than to take stance against terror. It needless to say that both
hate America as well.
< childish and stupid three words cheeping ("refutes") flushed to toilet
again>
******************************************************************
Stop. Here this leftist dupe is trying to say something what makes sense.
>> Kerry gave his "testimony" (shameless lies) before Senate. No one of
> >>> his lies was confirmed.
> >>
> >> They were confirmed by the testimony of Vets.
> >
> >
> > Care to back up your statement with facts ?
>
> Senator Mark O. Hatfield, a Republican, entered the Winter Soldier
> Investigation testimony into the Senate Foreign Relations Committee record
> in 1971.
>
>
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter
_Soldier/WS_01_Hatfield.html
Of course, what else you could unearth but "Winter Soldier Investigation" a
falsehood organized by money raised by another pro-communist traitor Jane
Fonda .
.
This three-day circus featured tales of the most sadistic forms of torture
allegedly committed by American military. In the words of Kerry "These were
not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
In other words, Kerry and VVAW claimed that almost unprecedented war crimes
were not simply rampant, but committed as a matter of U.S. policy
North Vietnamese jailers used Kerry's words to torture American POWs,
including John McCain. Paul Galanti, who spent more than six years in
captivity. He said "They wanted us to.confess to war crimes and killing
babies and all this other stuff. They kept talking about Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, they had seen the right way and.they had crossed over to
the peoples' [ Communist] side."
Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu very precisely described who this Hanoi's stooge is.
" As part of his involvement and rise to leadership in the VVAW and with the
other antiwar groups such as those including Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and the
rest of the dregs, Kerry turned viciously on his fellow veterans. He
testified before Congress, giving lurid tales - all manufactured - of
atrocities that were 'normal' and 'known by officials at all levels' in
Vietnam.
Kerry described disgusting things: torture, rape, burnings, dismemberment,
violence against civilians and more as if they were common daily fare. In
fact he said specifically that these crimes occurred virtually on a 24/7
routine basis with no interference, indeed with encouragement, from higher
headquarters.
He went on to describe the Vietnam veteran as someone psychologically
damaged by the war. In his words the Vietnam vet was a soldier driven to
heavy drug and alcohol use, incapable of readjustment to normal civilian
life after have been required to engage in atrocities 'worse than Genghis
Khan.' One need only look as far as the crowd surrounding Kerry - the
scrufty, fatigue-wearing, long hair, strung out misfits - to see how
terrible the war was to its poor, innocent soldiers. Except that it was all
a lie. Kerry's testimony and his organization created a myth that persists
to this day."
Kerry is a scumbag and traitor. Accept that as a fact.
And now read the entire story about this phony fraud and his pro-communist
buddies. In contrast to you forgery this is a fact.
John Kerry's Trail of Treachery.
By WinterSoldier.com
March 8, 1965 -- The first Stockholm Conference on Vietnam is held in
Stockholm, Sweden. The conference is the creation of Romesh Chandra,
chairman of the KGB-funded World Peace Council. Former Soviet bloc spy chief
Ion Mihai Pacepa will later describe it as "a permanent international
organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the
draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to
conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone
connected with the war." The operation is staffed by undercover intelligence
officers and funded to the tune of about $15 million per year by the
Communist Party. Between 1966 and 1972 it will generate what Pacepa
describes as "thousands of 'documentary' materials printed in all the major
Western languages describing the 'abominable crimes' committed by American
soldiers against civilians in Vietnam, along with counterfeited pictures."
May 2, 1967 -- Bertrand Russell's International War Crimes Tribunal opens in
Stockholm, Sweden, with Jean-Paul Sartre as executive president. The members
of the tribunal are all well-known supporters of North Vietnam, and the
"evidence" presented is supplied largely by North Vietnam, the Vietcong, and
communist investigators. The Tribunal concludes that American forces are
engaged in the "massive extermination" of the people of South Vietnam, and
are committing "genocide in the strictest sense."
November 20, 1967 -- A second session of the International War Crimes
Tribunal is held at Roskilde, Denmark.
Early April, 1969 -- U.S. Naval Lieutenant John Kerry leaves Vietnam and is
soon reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral
Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea Transportation Service based in
Brooklyn, New York.
November, 1969 -- In response to a public call from the Bertrand Russell
foundation in New York, Jeremy Rifkin and Tod Ensign launch a new
organization called Citizens Commissions of Inquiry (CCI) to publicize
American war crimes in Indochina.
November 22, 1969 -- During a fund-raising tour for GI deserters, Vietnam
Veterans Against the War, and the Black Panthers, Jane Fonda is quoted in
the Detroit Free Press as saying, "I would think that if you understood what
communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would
someday become communist," and "The peace proposal of the Viet Cong is the
only honorable, just, possible way to achieve peace in Vietnam."
December, 1969 -- Kerry requests an early discharge from the Navy in order
to run for a Massachusetts congressional seat on an antiwar platform.
January 3, 1970 -- Kerry is discharged from active duty.
February 13, 1970 -- Candidate Kerry tells the Harvard Crimson, "I'm an
internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world
only at the directive of the United Nations," and that he wants "to almost
eliminate CIA activity."
February, 1970 -- CCI co-sponsors its first "commissions of inquiry" in
Toronto and Annapolis MD, and begins providing accounts of war crimes to the
press. During the next few months, the CCI holds events in Springfield
Massachusetts, Richmond, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, Minneapolis, Los
Angeles, and Portland Oregon.
March, 1970 -- Kerry drops out of the Fourth District congressional race to
make way for antiwar activist Father Robert F. Drinan, dean of Boston
College Law School, and later becomes chairman of Drinan's campaign. Drinan
defeats pro-war incumbent Philip Philbin in the Democratic primary and goes
on to win the general election.
May 7, 1970 -- Kerry appears on The Dick Cavett Show for the first time,
speaking in opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
May 23, 1970 -- Kerry marries Julia Stimson Thorne in New York.
Late May or early June, 1970 -- John and Julia Kerry travel to Paris on a
private trip. Kerry meets with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of
the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) -- the political
wing of the Vietcong -- and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris
for the peace talks.
June, 1970 -- Kerry joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
August, 1970 -- VVAW Executive Secretary Al Hubbard asks Tod Ensign and
Jeremy Rifkin of the CCI to join with the VVAW, the Reverend Dick Fernandez
of Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam (CALCAV), Jane Fonda, Mark Lane
and others to organize national hearings on war crimes. Lane suggests
calling the hearings "Winter Soldier," a play on the opening lines of Thomas
Paine's The American Crisis: "These are the times that try men's souls. The
summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink for the
service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman." By the end of the month the Winter Soldier
Investigation has been planned as a simultaneous event featuring "Vietnamese
victims" in Windsor, Canada, and Vietnam veterans in Detroit, connected by
closed-circuit television.
September 4, 1970 -- Operation RAW (Rapid American Withdrawal). Some 75 VVAW
members begin a three-day hike to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Along the way
they simulate war atrocities against civilians, and hand out flyers to
townspeople stating that they might have been raped, murdered or tortured by
the U.S. Infantry had they been Vietnamese, and claiming that "American
soldiers do these things every day."
September 7, 1970 -- At the conclusion of Operation RAW, a rally is held in
Valley Forge, featuring speeches by John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and Mark Lane.
Fonda is quoted as saying that "...My Lai was not an isolated incident but
rather a way of life for many of our military."
September 11, 1970 -- A VVAW Executive Committee meeting is attended by
president Jan Crumb, executive secretary Al Hubbard, treasurer Jason
Gettinger, Northeast representative John Kerry, and three others. The
organization leadership decides to picket against the National Guard
Association in New York, send Hubbard on a "speaking tour" with Jane Fonda,
consider an "appropriate induction center action for purpose of making clear
transition from citizen to war criminal," and "sponsor turn in of war crimes
testimony to UN" after the Winter Soldier event.
October, 1970 -- Jane Fonda and Al Hubbard raise money for the VVAW and
create new chapters through a nationwide lecture tour covering more than 50
college campuses. Fonda and Mark Lane also plug the VVAW during appearances
on the Dick Cavett Show.
November, 1970 -- After a falling-out between Mark Lane and the CCI
leadership, the CCI splits from the VVAW and drops out of the Winter Soldier
event. The CCI turns to planning a National Veterans Inquiry in Washington,
D.C. in early December. Fonda and Lane continue working with the VVAW on
Winter Soldier.
December 27, 1970 -- In Mark Lane: Smearing America's Soldiers in Vietnam,
reporter and Vietnam veteran Neil Sheehan savages Mark Lane's Conversations
With Americans in the New York Times Book Review as "irresponsible" and
details several fabricated claims of American atrocities. Publisher Simon &
Schuster quickly cancels future printings of Lane's book.
December 29, 1970 -- Playboy subscribers start receiving the February 1971
issue of the magazine, which contains a full page ad provided for free to
the VVAW by publisher Hugh Hefner. The ad brings in thousands of new members
during the next several weeks.
January, 1971 -- Jane Fonda raises money for the Winter Soldier
Investigation through a series of benefit concerts. Participants include
Fonda, Dick Gregory, Donald Sutherland, Graham Nash, David Crosby and Phil
Ochs.
Late January, 1971 -- Newly elected Congressman Ronald Dellums permits the
CCI to set up a display of "war crime materials" in his Washington office.
Late January, 1971 -- Canadian authorities deny visas to the Vietnamese
refugees who had been scheduled to describe American atrocities in Windsor,
limiting the Winter Soldier Investigation to the single event in Detroit.
January 31 - February 2, 1971 -- The Winter Soldier Investigation. Members
of the VVAW meet in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes that they had
participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During
the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians give
anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against
innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder,
and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses state that
these acts are being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a
matter of policy.
February, 1971 -- VVAW leaders meet with Vietcong representatives in
Windsor, Canada after the Winter Soldier Investigation.
February 19, 1971 -- VVAW leaders meet in New York to plan the
organization's next action. John Kerry proposes to "march on Washington and
take this whole thing to Congress." The protest is designated "Dewey Canyon
III," after two military operations into Laos intended to interdict the Ho
Chi Minh Trail.
Early 1971 -- Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland form "FTA" (F*** The Army),
an anti-war, anti-American road show that tours near Army bases in order to
undermine troop morale. Skits and songs portray American defeats, soldiers
refusing to fight, and the murder of officers by their troops. FTA cast
members mingle with soldiers after the shows, encouraging them to desert or
to sabotage the Army.
March, 1971 -- Jane Fonda meets privately in Paris with Madame Binh of the
PRG. Fonda then flies to London where according to the book "Citizen Jane"
she alleges American atrocities that include "applying electrodes to
prisoners' genitals, mass rapes, slicing off of body parts, scalping,
skinning alive, and leaving 'heat tablets' around which burned the insides
of children who ate them.'"
March 16, 1971 -- John Kerry holds a news conference with retired general
David Shoup in a congressional hearing room.
Early April, 1971 -- The VVAW is flat broke the week before the Dewey Canyon
III event, with no way to transport protestors. In his book "Home to War,"
Gerald Nicosia will report that "Kerry immediately got on the phone to some
of the biggest Democratic Party fund-raisers in New York and set up a
meeting. When it broke up, VVAW was $75,000 in the black, and busfare for at
least a few hundred out-of-towners was assured." Writing in "Winter
Soldiers," Richard Stacewicz will cite an FBI memorandum dated April 13,
1971 as follows, "VVAW had received fifty thousand dollars from United
States Senators McGovern and Hatfield, who... obtained the money from an
unknown New York source."
April 18, 1971 -- John Kerry and Al Hubbard appear on NBC's "Meet the Press"
to allege widespread atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Hubbard is
introduced as a former Air Force captain who had spent two years in Vietnam
and was wounded in action. Kerry seems to admit to committing war crimes,
saying, "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.
I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine
guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning
of villages."
April 18 - 23, 1971 -- Operation Dewey Canyon III. More than a thousand VVAW
members stage an "invasion" of Washington D.C., where they hold memorial
ceremonies, meet with sympathetic members of Congress, camp on the Mall,
perform "guerilla theater" -- re-enactments of atrocities against civilians,
complete with fake blood -- on the Capitol steps and in front of the Justice
Department, and hold a candlelight march around the White House carrying an
upside-down American flag. At the end of the six-day event, a number of the
veterans throw military medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the
Capitol in a gesture of contempt. Many shout obscenities or threats against
the government. The protests receive enthusiastic coverage in the communist
Daily World newspaper on April 20th (Part 1, Part 2), 21st (Part 1, Part 2),
23rd (Part 1, Part 2), and 24th (Part 1, Part 2). Later in 1971, Kerry and
the VVAW will publish The New Soldier, a book of essays and photographs
documenting the event.
April 22, 1971 -- John Kerry testifies on behalf of the VVAW before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. He claims that American soldiers had
"personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable
telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown
up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent
of Genghis Khan..." and that these acts were "not isolated incidents but
crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers
at all levels of command." Kerry also accuses the U.S. military of "rampant"
racism and of being "more guilty than any other body" of violating the
Geneva Conventions, supports "Madame Binh's points" when asked to recommend
a peace proposal, and states that any reprisals against the South Vietnamese
after an American withdrawal would be "far, far less than the 200,000 a year
who are murdered by the United States of America."
April 22, 1971 -- The NBC Nightly News reveals that Al Hubbard had not been
an Air Force Captain, as he claimed, but a staff sergeant E-5. A later
investigation of Hubbard's military records shows that he was never assigned
to Vietnam.
April 25 - 28, 1971 -- Congressman Dellums sponsors ad hoc war crimes
hearings organized by the CCI and attended at least in part by twenty
members of Congress.
April 27, 1971 -- Hundreds of thousands of protestors march in Washington,
D.C., led by members of the VVAW. Kerry spoke to the crowd, accepting
applause on behalf of "the 1,200 active-duty GIs who took part in the [Dewey
Canyon III] demonstration." The Daily World is on the job, with glowing
coverage of the day's events (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).
May 3, 1971 -- VVAW members throw bags of cow manure on the steps of the
Mall Entrance to the Pentagon, then offer to clean up the mess in return for
an audience with an assistant Secretary of Defense. This offer is rejected,
and 28 people are arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
May 25, 1971 -- Kerry appears on 60 Minutes with Morley Safer. Asked whether
he wants to be President of the United States, Kerry replies in the
negative, and calls it a "crazy question."
June 20, 1971 -- Kerry appears on The Dick Cavett Show to debate Navy
veteran John O'Neill, who is representing a group called Veterans for a Just
Peace put together by the Nixon Administration.
July 17, 1971 -- Following a month-long speaking tour of the Soviet Union
and other countries, six VVAW and CCI members meet with PRG representatives
in Paris to show support for the communist peace plan.
July 20, 1971 -- Leaders of the VVAW hold a staff meeting. They agree to use
the designations favored by North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)
and the Vietcong (Provisional Revolutionary Government) for future press
releases, decide to remove all American flags from VVAW offices, and discuss
how best to handle Al Hubbard's planned trip to Hanoi.
July 24, 1971 -- the Daily World features a photograph of John Kerry
speaking in support of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Vietcong)
Seven Point Plan.
August, 1971 -- VVAW Executive Committee member Joe Urgo travels with other
antiwar leaders to North Vietnam, where he meets with Prime Minister Pham
Van Dong.
August, 1971 -- The FBI opens a full investigation of the VVAW to "determine
the extent of control over VVAW by subversive groups and/or violence-prone
elements in the antiwar movement," noting that "sources had provided
information that VVAW was stockpiling weapons, VVAW had been in contact with
North Vietnam officials in Paris, France, VVAW was receiving funds from
former CPUSA members and VVAW was aiding and financing U.S. military
deserters. Additionally, information had been received that some individual
chapters throughout the country had been infiltrated by the youth groups of
the CPUSA and the SWP [Socialist Workers Party]." Source: FBI Memorandum to
Senate Select Committee, 12/2/75, pp. 2-3; Hearings, Vol. 6, Exhibit 72.
Late August, 1971 -- Kerry and Hubbard meet with leftist millionaires in
East Hampton to promote the VVAW and show film clips of atrocity claims from
the Winter Soldier Investigation. According to the New York Times, a request
for funds had the attendees "scrambling for pens and checkbooks."
November 12-15, 1971 -- the VVAW leadership meets in Kansas City. Fearing
surveillance by authorities, the group relocates the meeting to another
building. They debate, then vote down a plan to assassinate several pro-war
U.S. Senators. Several witnesses, meeting minutes and FBI records eventually
place John Kerry at this meeting.
December 26, 1971 -- Fifteen VVAW protesters take over the Statue of Liberty
and drape a large upside-down American flag across the statue's face.
December 27, 1971 -- Twenty-five VVAW protesters take over the Betsy Ross
House in Philadelphia, hanging an upside-down American flag in front of the
house.
December 28, 1971 -- 150 VVAW protesters splash bags of blood in front of
the White House, then take over the Lincoln Memorial. 87 are arrested.
January 11, 1972 -- John Kerry represents the VVAW at Dartmouth College.
January 25, 1972 -- John Kerry represents the VVAW at the "People's State of
the Union" in Washington, D.C.
February, 1972 -- A VVAW delegation attends a World Assembly for Peace and
Independence of the People of Indochina in Versailles, France.
April 22, 1972 -- John Kerry represents the VVAW at the "Emergency March for
Peace" in Bryant Park in New York City.
July 8 - 22, 1972 -- Jane Fonda visits Hanoi, where she makes numerous radio
broadcasts to American military personnel, encouraging mutiny and desertion
while repeatedly claiming that the United States is committing war crimes in
Vietnam. Fonda also visits American prisoners, reporting on the air that
they are being "well cared for" and that they wished to convey their "sense
of disgust of the war and their shame for what they have been asked to do."
Upon leaving North Vietnam, Fonda accepts from her hosts a ring made from
the wreckage of a downed American plane.
September 18, 1972 -- John Kerry's brother Cameron and Vietnam veteran
Thomas Vallely are arrested in Lowell, Massachusetts in the basement of a
building that houses both Kerry's campaign headquarters and those of
opposing candidate Tony DiFruscia. Cameron Kerry and Vallely are charged
with breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. Kerry will win
the Democratic nomination for a Massachusetts congressional seat the next
day, but lose in the general election to Republican Paul Cronin. Thomas
Vallely will later become director of the Vietnam Program at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Late 1972 -- The U.S Congress votes to eliminate funding for military
operations in Indochina.
January, 1973 -- The Nixon Administration signs the Treaty of Paris.
February and March, 1973 -- American prisoners of war are released by North
Vietnam. They report having been starved, beaten and tortured by their
captors, in an effort to make them sign documents in which they admitted to
committing war crimes.
April, 1973 -- Jane Fonda calls the freed American prisoners "hypocrites and
pawns," insisting that, "Tortured men do not march smartly off planes,
salute the flag, and kiss their wives. They are liars. I also want to say
that these men are not heroes."
Fall, 1974 -- North Vietnam initiates minor probing attacks into South
Vietnam, in violation of the Paris treaty. There is no military response by
the United States.
Early 1975 -- North Vietnam launches a massive invasion of South Vietnam.
April 30, 1975 -- Saigon falls.
1975 - 1979 -- Communist regimes in southeast Asia murder an estimated two
million Cambodians, as well as tens of thousands of South Vietnamese. One
million South Vietnamese are imprisoned in "re-education camps," and
hundreds of thousands die there. An additional two million flee the country,
with many drowning in the attempt.
1978 -- The original VVAW splits when a minority breaks away to form Vietnam
Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAWAI), with the larger faction
retaining the original name. Both the VVAW and the rabidly anti-American
VVAWAI remain in operation today.
1978 -- Former VVAW leader Robert Muller founds the Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA). The VVA also describes John Kerry as a "co-founder" of the
organization. In the late 1980s, Mueller and the Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation (VVAF) will split from the VVA.
1981 -- Mueller leads a VVAF delegation to Hanoi, where he praises the
communist leadership of Vietnam and lays a wreath on the grave of Ho Chi
Minh.
> > You are welcome. If you think that I should honor your three line
> > nihilistic, childish nonsense with a meaningful response , then you
> > are dead wrong. I tried , but it was in vain . Grow up , research
> > beyond leftist propaganda to understand things as they really exist
> > in the world, back up your arguments with facts , not emotions or
> > wishful thinking and be my guest I always will respond. This is a
> > difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy and self-satisfied
> > any more , but it worth to try. When your leftist dark glasses
> > covering your sight will drop, you will discover a new world and see
> > the light again.
>
> Facts?! ROFL! You wouldn't know a fact, if it bitch-slapped you upside
> your pointed little head!
If you would translate what this abracadabra suppose to mean, I would
appreciate your efforts. But you do it , I guess, later. Continue enjoying
your scotch . I understand its Saturday.
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
I like your signature. Here we see everything what characterize leftists
today - windowsex, gonorrhea and peace. I guess you could add something else
to make your signature more spicy , like AIDS or Syphilis.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:KLydnQFQtNT...@adelphia.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> You didn't back up your claims about Feminists, Gays or Liberal
>>>> Jews to begin with. I merely need to refute your claims about
>>>> them. It is up to you to prove them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Refute my claims? What to refute? "Feminist don't march in support
>>> of terrorists"? Are you really a such idiot believing that this
>>> childish chirping made up of 5 words may be considered as a serious
>>> "refuting "? I guess you are, otherwise you would never display a
>>> such sincere stupidity.
>>
>> Yep, since you never back up your claims to begin with. >
>
>
> I don't need to back up my claims because it is widely known fact that
> leftist feminists, gays and Jews are rabidly anti-American and side
> with any world scoundrels and the most corrupt and brutal regimes if
> they see those scoundrels and regimes comport with the leftist's
> principles : hatred for capitalism, hatred for America, hatred for
> military , hatred for religion. It is as true as the fact that that
> the Earth isn't flat. That's why no extra comments are needed.
LOL! You are the one that sounds like you are filled with hatred.
"it is widely known fact that leftist feminists, gays and Jews are rabidly
anti-American and side with any world scoundrels and the most corrupt and
brutal regimes"
Sounds like you are paraphrasing "Mein Kampf."
>
>
>
>> If I claim that the
>> earth is really flat, it isn't up to anyone to prove me wrong, but
>> for me to back up my claim with more that stating it.
>
> So far, during entire our debating I haven't seen anything meaningful
> to buck up your claims except three line denials or a mute reference
> to a web site . Your "refute " vocabulary consist of just a set of
> few words : " they/he/she/it/don't" , " "straw man" , "more spin",
> "There were no WMD" (universal term, fits all issues no matter what
> is discussed Saddam, ISG report, UN or war on terror) , "One is
> history, the other is speculation" (this is about the entire 1000
> page Duelfer report from which this duffer picked out just several
> sentences stating that Saddam had no WMD - what supposed to be
> "history" - and the rest of the report with facts , numbers ,
> statistics and interviews is a "speculation") and the last strong
> "refute" is "So what? That doesn't." ( what is the rest part after
> "that doesn't" this ninny leaves to readers to guess)
Rant and rave, Naziboy! I love it!
They didn't protest against us going after Afghanistan.
Some wars are immoral. Like Iraq. Deal with it.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Rightard Claim #2 - Gays express support for maniacs who would stone
>> them to death.
>>
> All mentioned above pretty much applies to gays as well. Leftist gay
> morons never bursting with anger and publicly espousing their moral
> indignation about how the Taliban treated homosexuals. Nor do they
> display their outrages that in some Muslim countries they would be
> murdered by the state simply for being gay. Instead, they remain
> silent or actively oppose ridding the world of Islamic barbarians who
> kill women, children, and gays . And like feminists, always blame
> America first.
I didn't see any gay groups protesting against us going after Afghanistan.
And I'm loving dissed me for giving only a few links, but you don't provide
any to back up your rants! What's the matter?
>
>
>
>>
>> Rightard Claim #3 - And liberal Jews, in the greatest denial of all,
>> work to aid those who would kill them and annihilate Israel.
>>
>> Prove it!
>
>
> In America liberal , self-hating Jews one can find in college an
> university campuses. Berkeley's Israel Divestment Campaign signed a
> petition demanding severe economic punishment of Israel out of a
> "deep concern about the brutal rule over Palestinians" . Leftist
> dupes would be very happy if Israel would be punished not only
> economically. By bombs for instance . Listening their hateful
> speeches at anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian , pro-Hamas rallies gives
> you such impression.
There are Jews in Isreal that think that Isreal is going to far when it
comes to the Palestinians. It doesn't mean they are pro-terrorist. They
are against the violent actions of their own government.
>
>
>
>
>
> Two Jewish South African politicians Max Ozinsky and South African
> Communist Party member Ronnie Kasrils, published articles and letters
> drawing a specific analogy between apartheid and Israel. They almost
> don 't conceal their Pro-Palestinian views (siding with those whose
> prime goal is to destroy the state of Israel.)
What do South African jews have to do with American Jews?
>
>
> In Israel leftist Jews published an article entitled, "'Hebronizing'
> Jerusalem." The central theme of this article and slogans is that Jews
> shouldn't live in all parts of Jerusalem. Imagine, Jerusalem the city
> Jews have loved for over 3,000 years and now they shouldn't live
> there because it may "irritate" Palestinians who also claim this city
> for a capital.
Palestinians have rights to parts of Jerusalem.
>
> After Oslo "peace process" Israeli leftists triggered anti-Jewish
> bigotry in the media. "Post-Jewish" leftist extremists openly
> collaborating with the enemies of their own country in time of war,
> openly
> advocating the elimination of their own country and its merger into
> some sort of Palestinian state.
>
> Israeli leftist faculty members touring the world, denounce Israel
> before audiences of anti-Semites as a Nazi, Fascist, terrorist,
> criminal, apartheid country, engaged in systematic human rights
> atrocities.
>
> In America the most prominent self-hating Jews are Noam Chomsky, and
> George Soros. They hate Jews and Israel so much that rather love to
> see Israel destroyed than to take stance against terror. It needless
> to say that both hate America as well.
Boy! Anybody that disagrees with you hates America. I'm sure that it never
occured to you that you are the one that hates America, because you don't
accept that people that disagree with you actually still loves America.
<snipped Anti-reality bullhit>
>
>
>>> You are welcome. If you think that I should honor your three line
>>> nihilistic, childish nonsense with a meaningful response , then you
>>> are dead wrong. I tried , but it was in vain . Grow up , research
>>> beyond leftist propaganda to understand things as they really exist
>>> in the world, back up your arguments with facts , not emotions or
>>> wishful thinking and be my guest I always will respond. This is a
>>> difficult step, because it means you can't be lazy and
>>> self-satisfied any more , but it worth to try. When your leftist
>>> dark glasses covering your sight will drop, you will discover a new
>>> world and see the light again.
>>
>> Facts?! ROFL! You wouldn't know a fact, if it bitch-slapped you
>> upside your pointed little head!
>
>
> If you would translate what this abracadabra suppose to mean, I would
> appreciate your efforts. But you do it , I guess, later. Continue
> enjoying your scotch . I understand its Saturday.
I drink Guinness.
>
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>
> I like your signature. Here we see everything what characterize
> leftists today - windowsex, gonorrhea and peace. I guess you could
> add something else to make your signature more spicy , like AIDS or
> Syphilis.
LOL! Typical rightard taking things out of context and spinning it. Please
respond with more of your hatemongering rants. I'm quite enjoying it. I
don't get to read much modern day Nazi Propaganda.
Women, Hebrews, and Gays, oh my! What nightmares you must have!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
staten
Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and gonrrhea,
keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again. He wrote :
As expected, the first word this imbecile used out of his arsenal of 5 words
is "they didn't." Very good. But how about the fact that they never protest
horrific barbarity in Islamic countries where their sisters are subjected to
cruelty and humiliation every day? Why they didn't protest that Taliban and
Islamists stone to death women for adultery ? Why they never protest honor
killings? Where were feminist outrages when Saddam's thugs tortured and
raped women on the regular basis in front of their families? Where was their
compassion when Um Haydar was beheaded in public? Why they didn't protest
before Iranian embassy when that Iranian guy cut off his seven-year-old
daughter's head ? Are American wars more immoral than this obvious savagery,
you leftist scumbags?
> Some wars are immoral. Like Iraq. Deal with it.
Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded in public.
> >> Rightard Claim #2 - Gays express support for maniacs who would stone
> >> them to death.
> >>
> > All mentioned above pretty much applies to gays as well. Leftist gay
> > morons never bursting with anger and publicly espousing their moral
> > indignation about how the Taliban treated homosexuals. Nor do they
> > display their outrages that in some Muslim countries they would be
> > murdered by the state simply for being gay. Instead, they remain
> > silent or actively oppose ridding the world of Islamic barbarians who
> > kill women, children, and gays . And like feminists, always blame
> > America first.
>
> I didn't see any gay groups protesting against us going after Afghanistan.
Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against killing gays
just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where is your leftist
humanity you love to spread so much ?
>And I'm loving dissed me for giving only a few links, but you don't provide
> any to back up your rants! What's the matter?
When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like you did
below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your beloved traitor and
Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
> >> Rightard Claim #3 - And liberal Jews, in the greatest denial of all,
> >> work to aid those who would kill them and annihilate Israel.
> >>
> >> Prove it!
> >
> >
> > In America liberal , self-hating Jews one can find in college an
> > university campuses. Berkeley's Israel Divestment Campaign signed a
> > petition demanding severe economic punishment of Israel out of a
> > "deep concern about the brutal rule over Palestinians" . Leftist
> > dupes would be very happy if Israel would be punished not only
> > economically. By bombs for instance . Listening their hateful
> > speeches at anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian , pro-Hamas rallies gives
> > you such impression.
>
> There are Jews in Isreal that think that Isreal is going to far when it
> comes to the Palestinians. It doesn't mean they are pro-terrorist. They
> are against the violent actions of their own government.
Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very small
percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of their government
", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists in their dens no matter
what their status is in the Palestinian society is not the same as blowing
up school buses full of Israeli kids , blowing to pieces Israeli teens in
disco clubs or murdering in cold blood eight month pregnant Israeli women. .
> > Two Jewish South African politicians Max Ozinsky and South African
> > Communist Party member Ronnie Kasrils, published articles and letters
> > drawing a specific analogy between apartheid and Israel. They almost
> > don 't conceal their Pro-Palestinian views (siding with those whose
> > prime goal is to destroy the state of Israel.)
>
> What do South African jews have to do with American Jews?
Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) . What they
have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to destroy the state of
Israel.
> >
> > In Israel leftist Jews published an article entitled, "'Hebronizing'
> > Jerusalem." The central theme of this article and slogans is that Jews
> > shouldn't live in all parts of Jerusalem. Imagine, Jerusalem the city
> > Jews have loved for over 3,000 years and now they shouldn't live
> > there because it may "irritate" Palestinians who also claim this city
> > for a capital.
>
> Palestinians have rights to parts of Jerusalem.
And they were offered that right. More than that, Ehud Barak offered
Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab
neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This generous offer
was not only rejected by Arafat but used as a provocation to launch a
campaign of violence and terrorism that continues to this day.
> >
> > After Oslo "peace process" Israeli leftists triggered anti-Jewish
> > bigotry in the media. "Post-Jewish" leftist extremists openly
> > collaborating with the enemies of their own country in time of war,
> > openly
> > advocating the elimination of their own country and its merger into
> > some sort of Palestinian state.
> >
> > Israeli leftist faculty members touring the world, denounce Israel
> > before audiences of anti-Semites as a Nazi, Fascist, terrorist,
> > criminal, apartheid country, engaged in systematic human rights
> > atrocities.
> >
> > In America the most prominent self-hating Jews are Noam Chomsky, and
> > George Soros. They hate Jews and Israel so much that rather love to
> > see Israel destroyed than to take stance against terror. It needless
> > to say that both hate America as well.
>
> Boy! Anybody that disagrees with you hates America. I'm sure that it never
> occured to you that you are the one that hates America, because you don't
> accept that people that disagree with you actually still loves America.
Who cares whether people agree or disagree with me. It's not the point. The
point is that Jews like Chomsky do hate Israel and America. Chomsky supports
holocaust revisionism siding with the French Holocaust-denier and
anti-Semite Robert Faurisson. His hatred toward Israel is so great that in
his vision it is a "terrorist state" "with points of similarity" equal the
Third Reich .
And this is on the face of the fact that his father , an immigrant from the
Ukraine, was a Hebrew teacher; his mother wrote children's stories about the
heroism of Jews trying to form a new country in the face of Arab hatred, but
Chomsky himself was once a member of a pro-Israel youth group. It just
confirms one more time that leftism is indeed a form of mental disorder.
Thank you doctor Savage , you got it right.!
> <snipped Anti-reality bullhit>
>
> http://www.vvaw.org
>
"Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it? If it is "bullshit" then let
people see and praise you for your great analysis exposing the "bullshit".
You, dude, cannot disprove a single line of what is written in winter
soldier.com. and that's why you shamelessly deleted it and dragged out
instead again your discredited , pro-communist VVAW.
As I told you, you are stupid and predictable.
> >> Peace!
> >> Kurt
> >> Self-anointed Moderator
> >> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> >
> > I like your signature. Here we see everything what characterize
> > leftists today - windowsex, gonorrhea and peace. I guess you could
> > add something else to make your signature more spicy , like AIDS or
> > Syphilis.
>
> LOL! Typical rightard taking things out of context and spinning it. Please
> respond with more of your hatemongering rants. I'm quite enjoying it. I
> don't get to read much modern day Nazi Propaganda.
>
> Women, Hebrews, and Gays, oh my! What nightmares you must have!
First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my claims on
feminists, Jews and gays. And I did it. If you are not happy , so be it. But
this is not the point. The point is that when you display before the whole
world the words "pubic", "windowsex" , "gonorrhea" the first impression is
this guy is obsessed with sex or is a sex maniac. Just look at other people'
s posts, only few cranks like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:14mdnUMJJu0...@adelphia.com...>
>
> Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and
> gonrrhea, keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again. He
> wrote :
ROFL! When you are losing the argument just attack the person you are
losing to! It is the way of the NeoCon!
> As expected, the first word this imbecile used out of his arsenal of
> 5 words is "they didn't." Very good. But how about the fact that they
> never protest horrific barbarity in Islamic countries where their
> sisters are subjected to cruelty and humiliation every day? Why they
> didn't protest that Taliban and Islamists stone to death women for
> adultery ? Why they never protest honor killings? Where were feminist
> outrages when Saddam's thugs tortured and raped women on the regular
> basis in front of their families? Where was their compassion when Um
> Haydar was beheaded in public? Why they didn't protest before Iranian
> embassy when that Iranian guy cut off his seven-year-old daughter's
> head ? Are American wars more immoral than this obvious savagery, you
> leftist scumbags?
What does this have to do with American Feminists protesting the actions of
the American government?
http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
> Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded in
> public.
Straw man. We didn't invade Iraq because of their human rights abuses. We
invaded because of non-existent WMDs, and because of a non-existent
operational ties to Al-Qaida.
> Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against
> killing gays just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where is
> your leftist humanity you love to spread so much ?
LOL! You are so silly. Where were the rightard protests about it?
Americans don't protest in American streets about what happens in other
countries. We protest what is happening in our own country.
> When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like
> you did below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your
> beloved traitor and Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
It was pure hate propaganda.
> Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very small
> percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of their
> government ", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists in their
> dens no matter what their status is in the Palestinian society is not
> the same as blowing up school buses full of Israeli kids , blowing to
> pieces Israeli teens in disco clubs or murdering in cold blood eight
> month pregnant Israeli women. .
And all Palestinians are terrorists? There are no peaceful Palestinians
that just want a country of their own?
Rational human beings see that neither side in blameless when it comes to
the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
> Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) . What
> they have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to destroy the
> state of Israel.
You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
You have to get over your hate of those that don't believe as you do.
> And they were offered that right. More than that, Ehud Barak offered
> Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab
> neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This generous
> offer was not only rejected by Arafat but used as a provocation to
> launch a campaign of violence and terrorism that continues to this
> day.
Both sides are guilty. Isreal still wanted to keep settlements in both.
> Who cares whether people agree or disagree with me. It's not the
> point. The point is that Jews like Chomsky do hate Israel and
> America. Chomsky supports holocaust revisionism siding with the
> French Holocaust-denier and anti-Semite Robert Faurisson. His hatred
> toward Israel is so great that in his vision it is a "terrorist
> state" "with points of similarity" equal the Third Reich .
> And this is on the face of the fact that his father , an immigrant
> from the Ukraine, was a Hebrew teacher; his mother wrote children's
> stories about the heroism of Jews trying to form a new country in the
> face of Arab hatred, but Chomsky himself was once a member of a
> pro-Israel youth group. It just confirms one more time that leftism
> is indeed a form of mental disorder. Thank you doctor Savage , you
> got it right.!
http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm
"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have
frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle
East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of
collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of
expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of
which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are
almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most
vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense
or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of
civil rights by some official enemy." -
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm
You believe your Rightist propaganda like it was handed down from heaven!
>
> "Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it?
To save people from having to scroll through it to read my reply to you.
> If it is "bullshit"
> then let people see and praise you for your great analysis exposing
> the "bullshit". You, dude, cannot disprove a single line of what is
> written in winter soldier.com. and that's why you shamelessly deleted
> it and dragged out instead again your discredited , pro-communist
> VVAW.
VVAW is not pro-communist.
What is VVAW's relationship to Communism and Communists?
Of course, all Vietnam veterans, at one time, participated in a war that
was ostensibly anti-communist. Identifying people as "communists" when there
is no longer a unified block of Communist nations makes little sense. The
nations that were formerly the Soviet Union are no longer communist. During
the 1970's, one would-be communist organization supported the formation of
VVAW-AI which is not to be confused with VVAW, Inc. (Nicosia, 310, 490;
"Beware VVAW-AI," http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php).
>
> As I told you, you are stupid and predictable.
If being stupid and predictable means I come to my own conclusions based on
reality, instead being based on other people's hate-filled propaganda, then
I am damned proud of it.
>
> First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my
> claims on feminists, Jews and gays.
You haven't. All you did was present the hate-filled ramblings of others.
> And I did it.
No you presented propaganda. Instead of showing where Chomsky denied the
holocaust, you just said it.
You never presented one American Feminist, Jewish, or Gay group that
supported terrorists, or the destruction of Isreal. You just said it. You
didn't back it up at all.
> If you are not
> happy , so be it.
I'm very happy! I'm filled with love and peace. You are filled with hate.
Which should be apparent to any rational human being still reading this
thread.
> But this is not the point. The point is that when
> you display before the whole world the words "pubic", "windowsex" ,
> "gonorrhea" the first impression is this guy is obsessed with sex or
> is a sex maniac.
No, I am making fun of myself in my signature, by calling myself the
"Self-anointed Moderator," and "microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea" is a
play on the name of the group I normally post in,
"micosoft.public.windowsxp.general." I've just taken a break in posting
there until the election is over.
There are more important things than trying to promote individual rights
over the rights of corporation. Like defeating the fascist takeover of
America this November.
> Just look at other people' s posts, only few cranks
> like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
staten
>
> > "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> > message news:14mdnUMJJu0...@adelphia.com...>
> >
> > Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and
> > gonrrhea, keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again. He
> > wrote :
>
> ROFL! When you are losing the argument just attack the person you are
> losing to! It is the way of the NeoCon!
First off, I am not losing to you . It's impossible to lose to a goof who
uses just 5 words as his "refuting" techniques. 1st graders would surely bit
you . They are more resourceful and creative when arguing with each other.
Second , I am not a neocon because I am not a Jew. You applying your
leftist, racist term to a wrong person. Finally, I don't attack you. It's
your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" , and "gonorrhea" under
every each post of yours. If you are not happy about this , there is no one
to blame but yourself.
> > As expected, the first word this imbecile used out of his arsenal of
> > 5 words is "they didn't." Very good. But how about the fact that they
> > never protest horrific barbarity in Islamic countries where their
> > sisters are subjected to cruelty and humiliation every day? Why they
> > didn't protest that Taliban and Islamists stone to death women for
> > adultery ? Why they never protest honor killings? Where were feminist
> > outrages when Saddam's thugs tortured and raped women on the regular
> > basis in front of their families? Where was their compassion when Um
> > Haydar was beheaded in public? Why they didn't protest before Iranian
> > embassy when that Iranian guy cut off his seven-year-old daughter's
> > head ? Are American wars more immoral than this obvious savagery, you
> > leftist scumbags?
>
> What does this have to do with American Feminists protesting the actions
of
> the American government?
What does this have to do with feminists? Everything. This is their nature.
They are feminists. They always protest against social injustice, champion
tolerance, advocate women's rights yet they clearly side with regimes that
are the worst enemy of their feminist values . This is either degeneration
or a high profile hypocrisy . Pick any and you hit the target.
> http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
> > Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded in
> > public.
>
> Straw man. We didn't invade Iraq because of their human rights abuses. We
> invaded because of non-existent WMDs, and because of a non-existent
> operational ties to Al-Qaida.
I like how this leftist dupe distorts reality : "We invaded Iraq because of
non- existent WMD. " as if we knew it very well in advance and yet attacked
this innocent country.
To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a statement of
your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I will be voting to give
the President of the United States the authority to use force--if
necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to
our security.'' Feel the difference , simpleton?
The same leftist lies about Al Qaeda . President Bush never used the
Iraq-Osama connection as a primary reason for going to war.
What he said was that Iraq's
demonstrated ties to anti-American terrorist groups, including al Qaeda,
alongwith its refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions on weapons of mass
destruction.
> > Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against
> > killing gays just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where is
> > your leftist humanity you love to spread so much ?
>
> LOL! You are so silly. Where were the rightard protests about it?
> Americans don't protest in American streets about what happens in other
> countries. We protest what is happening in our own country.
Do we kill gays like Islamists do?
> > When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like
> > you did below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your
> > beloved traitor and Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
>
> It was pure hate propaganda.
I understand that "hate propaganda " is a code word for truth in leftist
vocabulary, but again, why did you cut it? If it advocates hate let people
decide , not you. You behave not like self-appointed Moderator but like
self-appointed Stalinist thought gendarme .
> > Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very small
> > percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of their
> > government ", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists in their
> > dens no matter what their status is in the Palestinian society is not
> > the same as blowing up school buses full of Israeli kids , blowing to
> > pieces Israeli teens in disco clubs or murdering in cold blood eight
> > month pregnant Israeli women. .
>
> And all Palestinians are terrorists? There are no peaceful Palestinians
> that just want a country of their own?
Polls show that a majority of Palestinians support the continued use of
terrorism against Israel .
In a spring 2002 poll of residents in the West Bank and Gaza conducted by
the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a Palestinian organization, 43
percent of respondents called for a Palestinian state only in the West Bank
and Gaza and 51 percent insisted on the state in "all of historic
Palestine," - code words for the destruction of Israel.
> Rational human beings see that neither side in blameless when it comes to
> the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
First of all , leftists are not "rational". By contrast, they are extremely
irrational. They live in Israel and side with those who want to destroy it.
They live in America and side with America enemies who want to destroy
America. Next , Palestinians were offered their home land namely : ( I quote
my comment again) 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab
neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This offer was
rejected but instead Palestinians unleashed bloody terror .
> > Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) . What
> > they have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to destroy the
> > state of Israel.
>
> You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to terminate its
existence is acute mental disease.
Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
> > And they were offered that right. More than that, Ehud Barak offered
> > Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab
> > neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This generous
> > offer was not only rejected by Arafat but used as a provocation to
> > launch a campaign of violence and terrorism that continues to this
> > day.
>
> Both sides are guilty. Isreal still wanted to keep settlements in both.
Israel wants just to survive . Arabs want to destroy it. They never say it
otherwise. They are acting consistently according to their goal
- full destructionof Israel - from day one after creation of the state
of Israel. It's a fact.
No , dude , try harder. It's not convincing. Chomsky is a professional liar
and fraud. . But you are just a fool believing every word this grand
dissembler drones to your ears.
For instance , it is well known fact that after the fall of Saigon, the
Hanoi communists began torturing , assassination, forced relocation, and
incarceration of their political opponents along with ethnically cleansing
Chinese citizens and creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Chomsky ,
always being a great sympathizer of Marxism , socialism and communism,
dismissed these well-documented reports of oppression and violence as
American propaganda .
The same is case with his denial of holocaust. He says that his views "are
diametrically opposed to "Faurisson's conclusions " , but in fact he
defended this Jew-hater Faurisson.
"...Yet this is not the only instance of Chomsky's support of neo-Nazi
Holocaust denial. He published the French version of one of his books with
La Vieille Taupe, has allowed this neo-Nazi press to promote his books and
tapes, and composed a 2,500-word essay in which he defended Faurisson. This
essay became the infamous "Preface" to Faurisson's book. Chomsky continues
to maintain that his support of Faurisson is motivated solely by his concern
to protect the right of free speech. Yet as Cohn points out, Chomsky wrote
"that there is nothing anti-Semitic about Holocaust-denial; he agreed with
Guillaume that belief on his (Chomsky's) part in the historical reality of
the Holocaust was a purely personal opinion--a sort of quirk--and was not to
be regarded as implying criticism of Faurisson's 'scholarly' work." When
taken with Chomsky's relentless assaults on Israel, detailed in Paul
Bogdanor's "Chomsky's War against Israel," this support of anti-Semitic
lunacy and this willingness to be associated with neo-Nazis suggest
something darker and more dangerous in Chomsky's world view--the hatred of
America that extends to America's democratic ally Israel."
By Bruce Thornton.( A professor of Classics at Cal State Fresno and author
of Bonfire of the Humanities) ..
> >
> > "Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it?
>
> To save people from having to scroll through it to read my reply to you.
Do you think your reply of three words is more important that statistics on
Kerry's cavorting with Jane Fonda , the traitor, and his meeting with Hanoi
's communists in France? If so, then you are very ambitious and arrogant
dude. Stupid but haughty. Like all leftists.
> > If it is "bullshit"
> > then let people see and praise you for your great analysis exposing
> > the "bullshit". You, dude, cannot disprove a single line of what is
> > written in winter soldier.com. and that's why you shamelessly deleted
> > it and dragged out instead again your discredited , pro-communist
> > VVAW.
>
> VVAW is not pro-communist.
>
> What is VVAW's relationship to Communism and Communists?
Relationship? Stooges of Hanoi.
"Early 1971 -- Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland form "FTA" (F*** The Army),
an anti-war, anti-American road show that tours near Army bases in order to
undermine troop morale. Skits and songs portray American defeats, soldiers
refusing to fight, and the murder of officers by their troops. FTA cast
members mingle with soldiers after the shows, encouraging them to desert or
to sabotage the Army"
"February, 1971 -- VVAW leaders meet with Vietcong representatives in
Windsor, Canada after the Winter Soldier Investigation. "
"April 18 - 23, 1971 -- Operation Dewey Canyon III. More than a thousand
VVAW members stage an "invasion" of Washington D.C., where they hold
memorial ceremonies, meet with sympathetic members of Congress, camp on the
Mall, perform "guerilla theater" -- re-enactments of atrocities against
civilians, complete with fake blood -- on the Capitol steps and in front of
the Justice Department, and hold a candlelight march around the White House
carrying an upside-down American flag. At the end of the six-day event, a
number of the veterans throw military medals and ribbons over a fence in
front of the Capitol in a gesture of contempt. Many shout obscenities or
threats against the government. The protests receive enthusiastic coverage
in the communist Daily World newspaper on April 20th (Part 1, Part 2), 21st
(Part 1, Part 2), 23rd (Part 1, Part 2), and 24th (Part 1, Part 2). Later in
1971, Kerry and the VVAW will publish The New Soldier, a book of essays and
photographs documenting the event."
"July 17, 1971 -- Following a month-long speaking tour of the Soviet Union
and other countries, six VVAW and CCI members meet with PRG representatives
in Paris to show support for the communist peace plan.
July 20, 1971 -- Leaders of the VVAW hold a staff meeting. They agree to use
the designations favored by North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)
and the Vietcong (Provisional Revolutionary Government) for future press
releases, decide to remove all American flags from VVAW offices, and discuss
how best to handle Al Hubbard's planned trip to Hanoi. "
"August, 1971 -- VVAW Executive Committee member Joe Urgo travels with other
antiwar leaders to North Vietnam, where he meets with Prime Minister Pham
Van Dong. "
.
"August, 1971 -- The FBI opens a full investigation of the VVAW to
"determine the extent of control over VVAW by subversive groups and/or
violence-prone elements in the antiwar movement," noting that "sources had
provided information that VVAW was stockpiling weapons, VVAW had been in
contact with North Vietnam officials in Paris, France, VVAW was receiving
funds from former CPUSA members and VVAW was aiding and financing U.S.
military deserters. Additionally, information had been received that some
individual chapters throughout the country had been infiltrated by the youth
groups of the CPUSA and the SWP [Socialist Workers Party]." Source: FBI
Memorandum to Senate Select Committee, 12/2/75, pp. 2-3; Hearings, Vol. 6,
Exhibit 72. "
"1978 -- Former VVAW leader Robert Muller founds the Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA). The VVA also describes John Kerry as a "co-founder" of the
organization. In the late 1980s, Mueller and the Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation (VVAF) will split from the VVA.
1981 -- Mueller leads a VVAF delegation to Hanoi, where he praises the
communist leadership of Vietnam and lays a wreath on the grave of Ho Chi
Minh. "
A pretty impressive record for "American veterans" "loving their country" ,
huh?
> Of course, all Vietnam veterans, at one time, participated in a war that
> was ostensibly anti-communist. Identifying people as "communists" when
there
> is no longer a unified block of Communist nations makes little sense. The
> nations that were formerly the Soviet Union are no longer communist.
During
> the 1970's, one would-be communist organization supported the formation of
> VVAW-AI which is not to be confused with VVAW, Inc. (Nicosia, 310, 490;
> "Beware VVAW-AI," http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php).
>
> http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#15
"1978 -- The original VVAW splits when a minority breaks away to form
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAWAI), with the larger
faction retaining the original name. Both the VVAW and the rabidly
anti-American VVAWAI remain in operation today"
> > First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my
> > claims on feminists, Jews and gays.
>
> You haven't. All you did was present the hate-filled ramblings of others.
Well, if you feel it's "hate filled", then stop whining , get your 5words
arsenal and refute it.
> > And I did it.
>
> No you presented propaganda. Instead of showing where Chomsky denied the
> holocaust, you just said it.
I did it for the second time , but if you are so stupid I cannot perform a
miracle.
.
<repeating of childish bubbling flushed>
> > If you are not
> > happy , so be it.
>
> I'm very happy! I'm filled with love and peace. You are filled with hate.
> Which should be apparent to any rational human being still reading this
> thread.
You are filled with leftism up to you ears and here is your problem. But if
so, you cannot be rational.
> > But this is not the point. The point is that when
> > you display before the whole world the words "pubic", "windowsex" ,
> > "gonorrhea" the first impression is this guy is obsessed with sex or
> > is a sex maniac.
>
> No, I am making fun of myself in my signature, by calling myself the
> "Self-anointed Moderator," and "microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea" is a
> play on the name of the group I normally post in,
> "micosoft.public.windowsxp.general." I've just taken a break in posting
> there until the election is over.
It's very telling. I wonder what your kids and wife would say , if you have
ones , should they know where their husband and dad wasting his time in a
company of lovers of window sex , gonorrhea and syphilis. Are members of
this group all homos an lesbos?
> There are more important things than trying to promote individual rights
> over the rights of corporation. Like defeating the fascist takeover of
> America this November.
What are more important things? Playing in window sex and gonorrea?
> > Just look at other people' s posts, only few cranks
> > like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
>
> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see gatherings of
leftist homos you should take every precautions.
> > It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
>
> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in "windowsex" is
really very bizarre sense of humor!
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:caOdnWrkxLU...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:14mdnUMJJu0...@adelphia.com...>
>>>
>>> Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and
>>> gonrrhea, keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again. He
>>> wrote :
>>
>> ROFL! When you are losing the argument just attack the person you are
>> losing to! It is the way of the NeoCon!
>
> First off, I am not losing to you . It's impossible to lose to a goof
> who uses just 5 words as his "refuting" techniques. 1st graders would
> surely bit you . They are more resourceful and creative when arguing
> with each other.
Pasting other biased people's words don't need more than 5 words to refute.
> Second , I am not a neocon because I am not a Jew.
You hate Jews?
> You applying your
> leftist, racist term to a wrong person.
I had no idea that you would find the term racist. Most NeoCons are
American Christians and Jews.
> Finally, I don't attack you.
> It's your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" ,
"windowsexp."
> and
> "gonorrhea" under every each post of yours. If you are not happy
> about this , there is no one to blame but yourself.
It's a parody of the group I have mostly posted to. Of course, I happy
about it, I made it up, moron. I find it hysterical that you even mention
it.
>>> As expected, the first word this imbecile used out of his arsenal of
>>> 5 words is "they didn't." Very good. But how about the fact that
>>> they never protest horrific barbarity in Islamic countries where
>>> their sisters are subjected to cruelty and humiliation every day?
>>> Why they didn't protest that Taliban and Islamists stone to death
>>> women for adultery ? Why they never protest honor killings? Where
>>> were feminist outrages when Saddam's thugs tortured and raped women
>>> on the regular basis in front of their families? Where was their
>>> compassion when Um Haydar was beheaded in public? Why they didn't
>>> protest before Iranian embassy when that Iranian guy cut off his
>>> seven-year-old daughter's head ? Are American wars more immoral
>>> than this obvious savagery, you leftist scumbags?
>>
>> What does this have to do with American Feminists protesting the
>> actions of the American government?
>
> What does this have to do with feminists? Everything. This is their
> nature. They are feminists. They always protest against social
> injustice, champion tolerance, advocate women's rights yet they
> clearly side with regimes that are the worst enemy of their feminist
> values .
You only think that, because you are a moron. Protesting the Iraq War,
wasn't supporting Saddam, but supporting America from starting a War for the
wrong reasons.
> This is either degeneration or a high profile hypocrisy .
> Pick any and you hit the target.
You are obviously biased against women. You want them to be barefoot and
pregnant in the kitchen of your shack.
>> http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
Didn't bother to read what NOW's positions of the plight of women around the
world, huh?
>>> Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded in
>>> public.
>>
>> Straw man. We didn't invade Iraq because of their human rights
>> abuses. We invaded because of non-existent WMDs, and because of a
>> non-existent operational ties to Al-Qaida.
>
> I like how this leftist dupe distorts reality : "We invaded Iraq
> because of non- existent WMD. " as if we knew it very well in advance
> and yet attacked this innocent country.
While I wasn't certain at the time, I had a pretty good idea. Scott Ritter,
while demonize at the time, expressed as much, and he was one of the few
people in the world that had experience about WMDs in Iraq. I also had a
pretty good idea that Saddam wasn't likely to have many ties to the
religious Muslim extremists of Al Qaida. Saddam was running a secular
dictatorship, that fought a very tough war with the religous extremist
regime in Iran. And the third reason I had for opposing the war was that
there were countries that we didn't control the airspace over it that were
much more dangerous than Iraq, namely Iran and North Korea.
So the reasons why I opposed the war was knowledge that was available to an
average citizen like me before we invaded.
> To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a
> statement of your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I will
> be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to
> use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
> a real and grave threat to our security.'' Feel the difference ,
> simpleton?
One. "if necessary." The necessity has never been reasonably demonstrated.
But I disagree with Kerry, but I understand why he voted for it.
> The same leftist lies about Al Qaeda . President Bush never used the
> Iraq-Osama connection as a primary reason for going to war.
It was the secondary reason after the non-existent WMDs.
"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical
weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on
terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of
weapons of mass destruction." - Dick
"You bet we're concerned [concerned that those weapons might have been
shipped out of the country]about it. And one of the reasons it's important
is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass
destruction ... and terrorist groups -- networks -- is a critical link. And
the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and
[get] in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect.
So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen." - Rummy
> What he said was that Iraq's
> demonstrated ties to anti-American terrorist groups, including al
> Qaeda, alongwith its refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions on
> weapons of mass destruction.
LOL! You spin it your way. The ties Iraq had to terrorist acts are tenuous
at best. The closest I've seen is that he gave money to families of
Palestinian suicide bombers, after the fact. And members of the Saudi Royal
family have those same "ties."
>>> Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against
>>> killing gays just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where is
>>> your leftist humanity you love to spread so much ?
>>
>> LOL! You are so silly. Where were the rightard protests about it?
>> Americans don't protest in American streets about what happens in
>> other countries. We protest what is happening in our own country.
>
> Do we kill gays like Islamists do?
I bet you probably know someone that beat someone up just for being gay.
But we didn't go to Iraq to stop terrorist Islamists from killing people
because they are gay, moron! Yet another strawman, Scarecrow!
>>> When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like
>>> you did below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your
>>> beloved traitor and Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
>>
>> It was pure hate propaganda.
>
> I understand that "hate propaganda " is a code word for truth in
> leftist vocabulary, but again, why did you cut it? If it advocates
> hate let people decide , not you. You behave not like self-appointed
> Moderator but like self-appointed Stalinist thought gendarme .
ROFL! No, it's a code word for what you inbred dumbfucks have somebody else
read to you!
And it's "Self-anointed," Dude! My parody website of Microsoft is called
MicrosCUM. I only changed 3 letters of Microsoft, so I got to cum on
Microsoft's name. Now put that together with "Self-Anointed," and I'm
making fun of myself. A little bit of self-deprecating humor. But I doubt
your would understand the concept of making fun of yourself. You think you
know everything. Jews hate Israel. Women hate women. Gays hate gays. And
you think that you are not full of hate. PMSL!
>>> Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very
>>> small percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of
>>> their government ", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists
>>> in their dens no matter what their status is in the Palestinian
>>> society is not the same as blowing up school buses full of Israeli
>>> kids , blowing to pieces Israeli teens in disco clubs or murdering
>>> in cold blood eight month pregnant Israeli women. .
>>
>> And all Palestinians are terrorists? There are no peaceful
>> Palestinians that just want a country of their own?
>
> Polls show that a majority of Palestinians support the continued use
> of terrorism against Israel .
> In a spring 2002 poll of residents in the West Bank and Gaza
> conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a
> Palestinian organization, 43 percent of respondents called for a
> Palestinian state only in the West Bank and Gaza and 51 percent
> insisted on the state in "all of historic Palestine," - code words
> for the destruction of Israel.
No supporting link to your stats. Probably because if it exists, it's from
another admittedly biased source.
>> Rational human beings see that neither side in blameless when it
>> comes to the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
>
> First of all , leftists are not "rational".
No. Only delusional hatemongers like you are! ROFL!
> By contrast, they are
> extremely irrational. They live in Israel and side with those who
> want to destroy it. They live in America and side with America
> enemies who want to destroy America. Next , Palestinians were offered
> their home land namely : ( I quote my comment again) 97 percent of
> the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab neighborhoods of East
> Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This offer was rejected but instead
> Palestinians unleashed bloody terror .
And they didn't accept it because of Israel insistence to keep that 3%.
Jewish settlements need to go. Even that madman Sharon is seeing the light
and wants to dismantle them in Gaza. Now he needs to figure it out for the
West Bank too.
>>> Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) . What
>>> they have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to destroy the
>>> state of Israel.
>>
>> You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
>
> I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to terminate
> its existence is acute mental disease.
> Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
I don't side with any of my enemies. I love them, as the man mistakenly
called "Jesus" taught.
>>> And they were offered that right. More than that, Ehud Barak offered
>>> Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the
>>> Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This
>>> generous offer was not only rejected by Arafat but used as a
>>> provocation to launch a campaign of violence and terrorism that
>>> continues to this day.
>>
>> Both sides are guilty. Isreal still wanted to keep settlements in
>> both.
>
> Israel wants just to survive . Arabs want to destroy it. They never
> say it otherwise. They are acting consistently according to their
> goal - full destructionof Israel - from day one after creation of the
> state
> of Israel. It's a fact.
Both the countries of Egypt and Jordon have given up opposing Israel
soveriegnty. And right now the biggest obstacles to co-existence between
Israel and Palestine are two obstinent old men, Sharon and Arafat. Both are
ultra-Rightists stuck in the lifetime of hate.
Then supply us with a Chomsky quote denying the Holocaust, Elmer.
> For instance , it is well known fact that after the fall of Saigon,
> the Hanoi communists began torturing , assassination, forced
> relocation, and incarceration of their political opponents along with
> ethnically cleansing Chinese citizens and creating hundreds of
> thousands of refugees. Chomsky , always being a great sympathizer of
> Marxism , socialism and communism, dismissed these well-documented
> reports of oppression and violence as American propaganda .
>
> The same is case with his denial of holocaust. He says that his views
> "are diametrically opposed to "Faurisson's conclusions " , but in
> fact he defended this Jew-hater Faurisson.
He defended his right to freely express his opinions, no matter how stupid
they are.
He would even defend your right to free speech, as do I. Because society
needs to know what you hatemongers really feel, and so we can ridicule you
for your hate-filled insanity.
> "...Yet this is not the only instance of Chomsky's support of neo-Nazi
> Holocaust denial. He published the French version of one of his books
> with La Vieille Taupe, has allowed this neo-Nazi press to promote his
> books and tapes, and composed a 2,500-word essay in which he defended
> Faurisson. This essay became the infamous "Preface" to Faurisson's
> book. Chomsky continues to maintain that his support of Faurisson is
> motivated solely by his concern to protect the right of free speech.
> Yet as Cohn points out, Chomsky wrote "that there is nothing
> anti-Semitic about Holocaust-denial; he agreed with Guillaume that
> belief on his (Chomsky's) part in the historical reality of the
> Holocaust was a purely personal opinion--a sort of quirk--and was not
> to be regarded as implying criticism of Faurisson's 'scholarly'
> work." When taken with Chomsky's relentless assaults on Israel,
> detailed in Paul Bogdanor's "Chomsky's War against Israel," this
> support of anti-Semitic lunacy and this willingness to be associated
> with neo-Nazis suggest something darker and more dangerous in
> Chomsky's world view--the hatred of America that extends to America's
> democratic ally Israel."
>
> By Bruce Thornton.( A professor of Classics at Cal State Fresno and
> author of Bonfire of the Humanities) ..
Somebody else describes Chomsky's opinions without show one quote of
Chomsky's to back it up!
>>> "Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it?
>>
>> To save people from having to scroll through it to read my reply to
>> you.
>
> Do you think your reply of three words is more important that
> statistics on Kerry's cavorting with Jane Fonda , the traitor, and
> his meeting with Hanoi 's communists in France? If so, then you are
> very ambitious and arrogant dude. Stupid but haughty. Like all
> leftists.
That wasn't statistics. That was a totally biased timeline. Statistics is
"the mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of
numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by
inference from sampling."
>>> If it is "bullshit"
>>> then let people see and praise you for your great analysis exposing
>>> the "bullshit". You, dude, cannot disprove a single line of what is
>>> written in winter soldier.com. and that's why you shamelessly
>>> deleted it and dragged out instead again your discredited ,
>>> pro-communist VVAW.
>>
>> VVAW is not pro-communist.
>>
>> What is VVAW's relationship to Communism and Communists?
>
> Relationship? Stooges of Hanoi.
No. Patriots. They fought for their country, saw the immorality of the
fight, and came fight for their country to stop that immoral war.
<snipped more biased stupidity>
>
>> Of course, all Vietnam veterans, at one time, participated in a war
>> that was ostensibly anti-communist. Identifying people as
>> "communists" when there is no longer a unified block of Communist
>> nations makes little sense. The nations that were formerly the
>> Soviet Union are no longer communist. During the 1970's, one
>> would-be communist organization supported the formation of VVAW-AI
>> which is not to be confused with VVAW, Inc. (Nicosia, 310, 490;
>> "Beware VVAW-AI," http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php).
>>
>> http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#15
>
> "1978 -- The original VVAW splits when a minority breaks away to form
> Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAWAI), with the
> larger faction retaining the original name. Both the VVAW and the
> rabidly anti-American VVAWAI remain in operation today"
So you see the majority of the VVAW were not pro-communist. Even your
biased crap shows that the commies were a minority of the whole.
>>> First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my
>>> claims on feminists, Jews and gays.
>>
>> You haven't. All you did was present the hate-filled ramblings of
>> others.
>
> Well, if you feel it's "hate filled", then stop whining , get your
> 5words arsenal and refute it.
I don't waste my time with obviously biased propaganda.
>>> And I did it.
>>
>> No you presented propaganda. Instead of showing where Chomsky denied
>> the holocaust, you just said it.
>
> I did it for the second time , but if you are so stupid I cannot
> perform a miracle.
No you haven't. You quoted other peoples biased opinion about Chomsky. You
have yet to come up with one quote of Chomsky's where he denies the
holocaust.
> <repeating of childish bubbling flushed>
You never presented one American Feminist, Jewish, or Gay group that
supported terrorists, or the destruction of Isreal. You just said it. You
didn't back it up at all.
>>> If you are not
>>> happy , so be it.
>>
>> I'm very happy! I'm filled with love and peace. You are filled with
>> hate. Which should be apparent to any rational human being still
>> reading this thread.
>
> You are filled with leftism up to you ears and here is your problem.
> But if so, you cannot be rational.
Yeah. My heros are the Buddha, Yeshosuha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.
And I'm damned proud of it.
From the sound of your hate, your heros are Ghengis Khan, Caligula,
Napolean, and Hitler.
>>> But this is not the point. The point is that when
>>> you display before the whole world the words "pubic", "windowsex" ,
>>> "gonorrhea" the first impression is this guy is obsessed with sex or
>>> is a sex maniac.
>>
>> No, I am making fun of myself in my signature, by calling myself the
>> "Self-anointed Moderator," and
>> "microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea" is a play on the name of the
>> group I normally post in, "micosoft.public.windowsxp.general." I've
>> just taken a break in posting there until the election is over.
>
>
> It's very telling. I wonder what your kids and wife would say , if
> you have ones , should they know where their husband and dad wasting
> his time in a company of lovers of window sex , gonorrhea and
> syphilis. Are members of this group all homos an lesbos?
Nope, just some sychophatic geeks, and people that need computer help and
those that go out of their way to help them.
>> There are more important things than trying to promote individual
>> rights over the rights of corporation. Like defeating the fascist
>> takeover of America this November.
>
> What are more important things? Playing in window sex and gonorrea?
Defeating the NeoFascism of the Bush Regime, of course.
>>> Just look at other people' s posts, only few cranks
>>> like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
>>
>> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
>> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
>
> It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see gatherings of
> leftist homos you should take every precautions.
You know you really love me, baby! You keep coming back for more spankings!
>>> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
>>
>> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
>
> Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in "windowsex"
> is really very bizarre sense of humor!
I knew you wouldn't understand, sweety. You really are my bitch! ;-)
--
Kisses!
staten
>
> > "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> > message news:caOdnWrkxLU...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
> >>
> >>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> >>> message news:14mdnUMJJu0...@adelphia.com...>
> >>>
> >>> Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and
> >>> gonrrhea, keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again. He
> >>> wrote :
> >>
> >> ROFL! When you are losing the argument just attack the person you are
> >> losing to! It is the way of the NeoCon!
> >
> > First off, I am not losing to you . It's impossible to lose to a goof
> > who uses just 5 words as his "refuting" techniques. 1st graders would
> > surely bit you . They are more resourceful and creative when arguing
> > with each other.
>
> Pasting other biased people's words don't need more than 5 words to
refute.
>
If your brain has just 5 cells , 5 words is a very good match,
> > Second , I am not a neocon because I am not a Jew.
>
> You hate Jews?
No. You leftist hate Jews . "Neocons" is code word for Jews invented by
leftists.
> > You applying your
> > leftist, racist term to a wrong person.
>
> I had no idea that you would find the term racist. Most NeoCons are
> American Christians and Jews.
I also have no idea why you leftist idiots call them so each time names of
Wolfovitz, Perle or Frum are on the tip of your tounges.
> > Finally, I don't attack you.
> > It's your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" ,
>
> "windowsexp."
>
Whatever. It changes nothing.
> > and
> > "gonorrhea" under every each post of yours. If you are not happy
> > about this , there is no one to blame but yourself.
>
> It's a parody of the group I have mostly posted to. Of course, I happy
> about it, I made it up, moron. I find it hysterical that you even mention
> it.
Not surprising. What one can expect from an imbecile but posting in the
"windowsex. gonorrhea" group.
:
> >>> As expected, the first word this imbecile used out of his arsenal of
> >>> 5 words is "they didn't." Very good. But how about the fact that
> >>> they never protest horrific barbarity in Islamic countries where
> >>> their sisters are subjected to cruelty and humiliation every day?
> >>> Why they didn't protest that Taliban and Islamists stone to death
> >>> women for adultery ? Why they never protest honor killings? Where
> >>> were feminist outrages when Saddam's thugs tortured and raped women
> >>> on the regular basis in front of their families? Where was their
> >>> compassion when Um Haydar was beheaded in public? Why they didn't
> >>> protest before Iranian embassy when that Iranian guy cut off his
> >>> seven-year-old daughter's head ? Are American wars more immoral
> >>> than this obvious savagery, you leftist scumbags?
> >>
> >> What does this have to do with American Feminists protesting the
> >> actions of the American government?
> >
> > What does this have to do with feminists? Everything. This is their
> > nature. They are feminists. They always protest against social
> > injustice, champion tolerance, advocate women's rights yet they
> > clearly side with regimes that are the worst enemy of their feminist
> > values .
>
> You only think that, because you are a moron. Protesting the Iraq War,
> wasn't supporting Saddam, but supporting America from starting a War for
the
Thanks for your "support" . Having such "supporters " who needs enemies.
>
>
> > This is either degeneration or a high profile hypocrisy .
> > Pick any and you hit the target.
>
> You are obviously biased against women. You want them to be barefoot and
> pregnant in the kitchen of your shack.
>
> >> http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
>
> Didn't bother to read what NOW's positions of the plight of women around
the
> world, huh?
Sure . It's terrible. They are stoned to death, beheaded, raped, killed for
adultery in Islamic countries. Where are your leftist protests or sites
condemning that savagery?
> >>> Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded in
> >>> public.
> >>
> >> Straw man. We didn't invade Iraq because of their human rights
> >> abuses. We invaded because of non-existent WMDs, and because of a
> >> non-existent operational ties to Al-Qaida.
> >
> > I like how this leftist dupe distorts reality : "We invaded Iraq
> > because of non- existent WMD. " as if we knew it very well in advance
> > and yet attacked this innocent country.
>
> While I wasn't certain at the time, I had a pretty good idea. Scott
Ritter,
> while demonize at the time, expressed as much, and he was one of the few
> people in the world that had experience about WMDs in Iraq. I also had a
> pretty good idea that Saddam wasn't likely to have many ties to the
> religious Muslim extremists of Al Qaida. Saddam was running a secular
> dictatorship, that fought a very tough war with the religous extremist
> regime in Iran. And the third reason I had for opposing the war was that
> there were countries that we didn't control the airspace over it that were
> much more dangerous than Iraq, namely Iran and North Korea.
>
> So the reasons why I opposed the war was knowledge that was available to
an
> average citizen like me before we invaded.
What "knowledge" was available to you , imbecile, if all Democrats, the
Russians, the French, the UN shared the same information. Are yoou claiming
to be a prophet?
> > To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a
> > statement of your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I will
> > be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to
> > use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> > that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
> > a real and grave threat to our security.'' Feel the difference ,
> > simpleton?
>
> One. "if necessary." The necessity has never been reasonably demonstrated.
> But I disagree with Kerry, but I understand why he voted for it.
He voted because he believed in what he was saying. Like many others people
in the world. Except of course you - an oracle with a single digit IQ.
> > The same leftist lies about Al Qaeda . President Bush never used the
> > Iraq-Osama connection as a primary reason for going to war.
>
> It was the secondary reason after the non-existent WMDs.
>
> "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical
> weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on
> terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of
> weapons of mass destruction." - Dick
Absolutely . Iraq failed to present verifiable proof to the UN it had no
WMD.
> "You bet we're concerned [concerned that those weapons might have been
> shipped out of the country]about it. And one of the reasons it's important
> is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass
> destruction ... and terrorist groups -- networks -- is a critical link.
And
> the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and
> [get] in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect.
> So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen." - Rummy
>
Also true. Even what was found represents the grave danger. Duelfer showed
this in his report.
> > What he said was that Iraq's
> > demonstrated ties to anti-American terrorist groups, including al
> > Qaeda, alongwith its refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions on
> > weapons of mass destruction.
>
> LOL! You spin it your way. The ties Iraq had to terrorist acts are tenuous
> at best. The closest I've seen is that he gave money to families of
> Palestinian suicide bombers, after the fact. And members of the Saudi
Royal
> family have those same "ties."
>
Read line by line , idiot, not between lines. I wrote "what he (President)
said was that Iraq demonstrated ties to anti-American terrorist groups ,
including al-Qaeda (what is true) along with Iraq's refusal to comply with
UN resolutions ." What means Saddam' incompliance plus connection to
terrorism was the main reason for invasion.
> >>> Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against
> >>> killing gays just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where is
> >>> your leftist humanity you love to spread so much ?
> >>
> >> LOL! You are so silly. Where were the rightard protests about it?
> >> Americans don't protest in American streets about what happens in
> >> other countries. We protest what is happening in our own country.
> >
> > Do we kill gays like Islamists do?
>
> I bet you probably know someone that beat someone up just for being gay.
> But we didn't go to Iraq to stop terrorist Islamists from killing people
> because they are gay, moron! Yet another strawman, Scarecrow!
Again, I didn't say a word about "Islamists killing people" I said about
Islamists killing gays just for being gay and for western gays' indifference
to that fact. Are you really so hoplessly stupid that you cannot concentrate
on the topics discussed.
> >>> When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like
> >>> you did below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your
> >>> beloved traitor and Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
> >>
> >> It was pure hate propaganda.
> >
> > I understand that "hate propaganda " is a code word for truth in
> > leftist vocabulary, but again, why did you cut it? If it advocates
> > hate let people decide , not you. You behave not like self-appointed
> > Moderator but like self-appointed Stalinist thought gendarme .
>
> ROFL! No, it's a code word for what you inbred dumbfucks have somebody
else
> read to you!
>
If you are stupid like a baobab tree it doesn't matter that all around you
are stupid as well . But no matter how stupid you are, you still post your
opinion. However, when you in response shamelessly cut someone's posted
information, which you cannot stand and digest, but instead leave your
comment , it is a pure Stalinism , plain and simple.
> And it's "Self-anointed," Dude! My parody website of Microsoft is called
> MicrosCUM. I only changed 3 letters of Microsoft, so I got to cum on
> Microsoft's name. Now put that together with "Self-Anointed," and I'm
> making fun of myself. A little bit of self-deprecating humor. But I doubt
> your would understand the concept of making fun of yourself. You think you
> know everything. Jews hate Israel. Women hate women. Gays hate gays. And
> you think that you are not full of hate. PMSL!
>
Of course, what else you can invent but obscenity . "Windowsex", "pubic",
"cum", "gonorrhea" all these words tell volumes what your mind is spinning
around.
.
> >>> Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very
> >>> small percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of
> >>> their government ", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists
> >>> in their dens no matter what their status is in the Palestinian
> >>> society is not the same as blowing up school buses full of Israeli
> >>> kids , blowing to pieces Israeli teens in disco clubs or murdering
> >>> in cold blood eight month pregnant Israeli women. .
> >>
> >> And all Palestinians are terrorists? There are no peaceful
> >> Palestinians that just want a country of their own?
> >
> > Polls show that a majority of Palestinians support the continued use
> > of terrorism against Israel .
> > In a spring 2002 poll of residents in the West Bank and Gaza
> > conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a
> > Palestinian organization, 43 percent of respondents called for a
> > Palestinian state only in the West Bank and Gaza and 51 percent
> > insisted on the state in "all of historic Palestine," - code words
> > for the destruction of Israel.
>
> No supporting link to your stats. Probably because if it exists, it's from
> another admittedly biased source.
For Stalinists like you all sources are "biased" if they are at odds with
your leftist cause.
> >> Rational human beings see that neither side in blameless when it
> >> comes to the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
> >
> > First of all , leftists are not "rational".
>
> No. Only delusional hatemongers like you are! ROFL!
>
> > By contrast, they are
> > extremely irrational. They live in Israel and side with those who
> > want to destroy it. They live in America and side with America
> > enemies who want to destroy America. Next , Palestinians were offered
> > their home land namely : ( I quote my comment again) 97 percent of
> > the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab neighborhoods of East
> > Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This offer was rejected but instead
> > Palestinians unleashed bloody terror .
>
> And they didn't accept it because of Israel insistence to keep that 3%.
> Jewish settlements need to go. Even that madman Sharon is seeing the light
> and wants to dismantle them in Gaza. Now he needs to figure it out for the
> West Bank too.
>
Excellent. They didn't accept 3% and that's why triggered bloody terror
which continues to this day. An outstanding "diplomatic" language for
negotiating a status of a future sovereign state. They have the same mindset
like you do. Both terrorists and their apologists are sick beyond belief.
> >>> Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) . What
> >>> they have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to destroy the
> >>> state of Israel.
> >>
> >> You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
> >
> > I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to terminate
> > its existence is acute mental disease.
> > Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
>
> I don't side with any of my enemies. I love them, as the man mistakenly
> called "Jesus" taught.
>
If so, then you are an idiot to the second power. Your enemies hate you and
your guts . They don't care whether you love them or not. They follow Koran'
s teaching. You will be one of the first ones who they kill. Islamofascists
hate perverts .
> >>> And they were offered that right. More than that, Ehud Barak offered
> >>> Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the
> >>> Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This
> >>> generous offer was not only rejected by Arafat but used as a
> >>> provocation to launch a campaign of violence and terrorism that
> >>> continues to this day.
> >>
> >> Both sides are guilty. Isreal still wanted to keep settlements in
> >> both.
> >
> > Israel wants just to survive . Arabs want to destroy it. They never
> > say it otherwise. They are acting consistently according to their
> > goal - full destructionof Israel - from day one after creation of the
> > state
> > of Israel. It's a fact.
>
> Both the countries of Egypt and Jordon have given up opposing Israel
> soveriegnty. And right now the biggest obstacles to co-existence between
> Israel and Palestine are two obstinent old men, Sharon and Arafat. Both
are
> ultra-Rightists stuck in the lifetime of hate.
>
Egypt and Jordan get billions paid them for keeping peace with Israel. But
even if they temporarily suspend their attacks, there are 20 more hostile
Arab states who dream to push Israel to the sea. They couldn't care less
about Palestinians. Palestine for them serves just like surgical
bloodletting which slowly bleeding Israel to death. Arabs don't want
terrorism to stop. If it stops, Arabs will be losers. That's why they
continue
to incite, to fan hatred and to pay Palestinians for commiting new
savageries .
Read all lines of my comment, not just cut where you please so that to
insert your stupid two cents. Concentrate on reading , not on windowsex.
> > For instance , it is well known fact that after the fall of Saigon,
> > the Hanoi communists began torturing , assassination, forced
> > relocation, and incarceration of their political opponents along with
> > ethnically cleansing Chinese citizens and creating hundreds of
> > thousands of refugees. Chomsky , always being a great sympathizer of
> > Marxism , socialism and communism, dismissed these well-documented
> > reports of oppression and violence as American propaganda .
> >
> > The same is case with his denial of holocaust. He says that his views
> > "are diametrically opposed to "Faurisson's conclusions " , but in
> > fact he defended this Jew-hater Faurisson.
>
>
> He defended his right to freely express his opinions, no matter how stupid
> they are.
>
> He would even defend your right to free speech, as do I. Because society
> needs to know what you hatemongers really feel, and so we can ridicule you
> for your hate-filled insanity.
>
I see what champion of "right to free speech" you are. You shamelessly cut
my information about Kerry and his pro-Hanoi cronies for the second time.
And now you are posing as a free speech advocate. You are not a free speech
defender . You behave like the worst KGB thought inquisitor. Disgusting!.
> > "...Yet this is not the only instance of Chomsky's support of neo-Nazi
> > Holocaust denial. He published the French version of one of his books
> > with La Vieille Taupe, has allowed this neo-Nazi press to promote his
> > books and tapes, and composed a 2,500-word essay in which he defended
> > Faurisson. This essay became the infamous "Preface" to Faurisson's
> > book. Chomsky continues to maintain that his support of Faurisson is
> > motivated solely by his concern to protect the right of free speech.
> > Yet as Cohn points out, Chomsky wrote "that there is nothing
> > anti-Semitic about Holocaust-denial; he agreed with Guillaume that
> > belief on his (Chomsky's) part in the historical reality of the
> > Holocaust was a purely personal opinion--a sort of quirk--and was not
> > to be regarded as implying criticism of Faurisson's 'scholarly'
> > work." When taken with Chomsky's relentless assaults on Israel,
> > detailed in Paul Bogdanor's "Chomsky's War against Israel," this
> > support of anti-Semitic lunacy and this willingness to be associated
> > with neo-Nazis suggest something darker and more dangerous in
> > Chomsky's world view--the hatred of America that extends to America's
> > democratic ally Israel."
> >
> > By Bruce Thornton.( A professor of Classics at Cal State Fresno and
> > author of Bonfire of the Humanities) ..
>
> Somebody else describes Chomsky's opinions without show one quote of
> Chomsky's to back it up!
>
I'd like to see YOUR opinion on the topic discussed , mooncalf, not that
pathetic non-related bubbling. I showed you prof. Thornton's comment on
Chomsky;s cavorting with Jew-haters along with Chomsky's denial of the
communist genocide. Comment on that , not on who described it. If you can't,
then give up and go to play with your "windosex.gonorrhea" buddies. There,
no
one will call in question your superiority.
> >>> "Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it?
> >>
> >> To save people from having to scroll through it to read my reply to
> >> you.
> >
> > Do you think your reply of three words is more important that
> > statistics on Kerry's cavorting with Jane Fonda , the traitor, and
> > his meeting with Hanoi 's communists in France? If so, then you are
> > very ambitious and arrogant dude. Stupid but haughty. Like all
> > leftists.
>
> That wasn't statistics. That was a totally biased timeline. Statistics is
> "the mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of
> numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by
> inference from sampling."
>
Whatever it is it is not an excuse for cutting it and leaving just your
stupid comment at the end. If you do , then stop boasting about advocating
free speech and accept that you are a Stalinist. At least it looks natural,
not so outrageously phony and obnoxious.
> >>> If it is "bullshit"
> >>> then let people see and praise you for your great analysis exposing
> >>> the "bullshit". You, dude, cannot disprove a single line of what is
> >>> written in winter soldier.com. and that's why you shamelessly
> >>> deleted it and dragged out instead again your discredited ,
> >>> pro-communist VVAW.
> >>
> >> VVAW is not pro-communist.
> >>
> >> What is VVAW's relationship to Communism and Communists?
> >
> > Relationship? Stooges of Hanoi.
>
> No. Patriots. They fought for their country, saw the immorality of the
> fight, and came fight for their country to stop that immoral war.
>
"Immorality of the fight" ? Very good . Thanks for letting us know that our
attempt to stop Soviet aggression and expansion was just "immorality " .
Same like fighting Saddam's terrorist regime. Same language., same approach.
Leftists never change their treacherous , rotten souls.
> <snipped more biased stupidity>
>
If this is "stupidity" then why did you cut it? Why didn't you "ridicule"
it, as you just bragged above? And where is your stance for defending "my
right for free speech" , as you just proudly declared above ? Or you reserve
this
right for Chomsky exclusively?
> >> Of course, all Vietnam veterans, at one time, participated in a war
> >> that was ostensibly anti-communist. Identifying people as
> >> "communists" when there is no longer a unified block of Communist
> >> nations makes little sense. The nations that were formerly the
> >> Soviet Union are no longer communist. During the 1970's, one
> >> would-be communist organization supported the formation of VVAW-AI
> >> which is not to be confused with VVAW, Inc. (Nicosia, 310, 490;
> >> "Beware VVAW-AI," http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php).
> >>
> >> http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#15
> >
> > "1978 -- The original VVAW splits when a minority breaks away to form
> > Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAWAI), with the
> > larger faction retaining the original name. Both the VVAW and the
> > rabidly anti-American VVAWAI remain in operation today"
>
> So you see the majority of the VVAW were not pro-communist. Even your
> biased crap shows that the commies were a minority of the whole.
>
No I don't see that . I see that both VVAW and the VVAWAI are rabidly
ant-American, like it's written above. And below..
Stooges of Hanoi.
.
.
.
> >>> First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my
> >>> claims on feminists, Jews and gays.
> >>
> >> You haven't. All you did was present the hate-filled ramblings of
> >> others.
> >
> > Well, if you feel it's "hate filled", then stop whining , get your
> > 5words arsenal and refute it.
>
> I don't waste my time with obviously biased propaganda.
If so, shut up your mouth and go to play your "gonorrhea" games.
> >>> And I did it.
> >>
> >> No you presented propaganda. Instead of showing where Chomsky denied
> >> the holocaust, you just said it.
> >
> > I did it for the second time , but if you are so stupid I cannot
> > perform a miracle.
>
> No you haven't. You quoted other peoples biased opinion about Chomsky. You
> have yet to come up with one quote of Chomsky's where he denies the
> holocaust.
>
No, I don't "have yet to" do anything . If you are an idiot, no matter what
information I present you, you still will not be pleased. Learn how to
digest facts without hating them , stop cutting other people's posts, stop
your
trickery with reading between lines and only then you can fairly demand an
intelligent response. But so far, your level is "sexwindow". Enjoy it.
> > <repeating of childish bubbling flushed>
>
> You never presented one American Feminist, Jewish, or Gay group that
> supported terrorists, or the destruction of Isreal. You just said it. You
> didn't back it up at all.
Just going in circles distorting my comments the way your poorly developed
brain prompts you is not doing good for you. . By contrast , it gives an
impression that you either are not able to understand given information or
are simply an idiot , what is more likely.
But if so, all my attempts to reason with you are futile.
> >>> If you are not
> >>> happy , so be it.
> >>
> >> I'm very happy! I'm filled with love and peace. You are filled with
> >> hate. Which should be apparent to any rational human being still
> >> reading this thread.
> >
> > You are filled with leftism up to you ears and here is your problem.
> > But if so, you cannot be rational.
>
> Yeah. My heros are the Buddha, Yeshosuha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.
> And I'm damned proud of it.
You forgot another your hero- Lenin.
> From the sound of your hate, your heros are Ghengis Khan, Caligula,
> Napolean, and Hitler.
>
My heroes are Ronald Reagan , Margaret Thatcher and all those who helped to
bring down the Soviet Union to its knees. For you leftists, it's certainly a
tragedy. Little wonder why you leftiies call Vietnam fight against
communism
"immoral". Your ideal -Soviet Union - collapsed like a house of cards but
the country you hate is still alive and prosper. It's not surprising that
you count on your new allies -Isalmofascists.
> >>> But this is not the point. The point is that when
> >>> you display before the whole world the words "pubic", "windowsex" ,
> >>> "gonorrhea" the first impression is this guy is obsessed with sex or
> >>> is a sex maniac.
> >>
> >> No, I am making fun of myself in my signature, by calling myself the
> >> "Self-anointed Moderator," and
> >> "microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea" is a play on the name of the
> >> group I normally post in, "micosoft.public.windowsxp.general." I've
> >> just taken a break in posting there until the election is over.
> > It's very telling. I wonder what your kids and wife would say , if
> > you have ones , should they know where their husband and dad wasting
> > his time in a company of lovers of window sex , gonorrhea and
> > syphilis. Are members of this group all homos an lesbos?
> Nope, just some sychophatic geeks, and people that need computer help and
> those that go out of their way to help them.
It's must be something new in the computer science - computer "sex",
computer "cum"
and computer "gonorrhea" .
> >> There are more important things than trying to promote individual
> >> rights over the rights of corporation. Like defeating the fascist
> >> takeover of America this November.
> >
> > What are more important things? Playing in window sex and gonorrea?
>
> Defeating the NeoFascism of the Bush Regime, of course.
>
We will see that on Nowember 2. So far Bush leads. Kerry trails.
> >>> Just look at other people' s posts, only few cranks
> >>> like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
> >>
> >> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
> >> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
> >
> > It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see gatherings of
> > leftist homos you should take every precautions.
>
> You know you really love me, baby! You keep coming back for more
spankings!
Leave this comment to your boyfriend. He much better appreciate your love. I
have nothing in common with homos. I consider them freaks of nature.
> >>> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
> >>
> >> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
> >
> > Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in "windowsex"
> > is really very bizarre sense of humor!
>
> I knew you wouldn't understand, sweety. You really are my bitch! ;-)
Very good. Thanks for letting us know that in addition to being stupid
leftist and
simpleton you are a homosexual pervert as well. Now it's absolutely clear
where that "sexwindow" and "gonorrhea" come from. It's your homo trademark.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:FJydnW9fZYZ...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:caOdnWrkxLU...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>>>>> message news:14mdnUMJJu0...@adelphia.com...>
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-appointed Moderator, leftist Kurt, who loves windowsex and
>>>>> gonrrhea, keeps stunning readers with his childish idiocy again.
>>>>> He wrote :
>>>>
>>>> ROFL! When you are losing the argument just attack the person you
>>>> are losing to! It is the way of the NeoCon!
>>>
>>> First off, I am not losing to you . It's impossible to lose to a
>>> goof who uses just 5 words as his "refuting" techniques. 1st
>>> graders would surely bit you . They are more resourceful and
>>> creative when arguing with each other.
>>
>> Pasting other biased people's words don't need more than 5 words to
>> refute.
>>
>
>
> If your brain has just 5 cells , 5 words is a very good match,
>
>
Was that supposed to be funny?
>
>>> Second , I am not a neocon because I am not a Jew.
>>
>> You hate Jews?
>
>
> No. You leftist hate Jews . "Neocons" is code word for Jews invented
> by leftists.
I didn't know that. To me it is a code word for the assholes that have
taken over the Republican Party. Who believe that might makes right.
>>> You applying your
>
>
>>> leftist, racist term to a wrong person.
>>
>> I had no idea that you would find the term racist. Most NeoCons are
>> American Christians and Jews.
>
>
> I also have no idea why you leftist idiots call them so each time
> names of Wolfovitz, Perle or Frum are on the tip of your tounges.
They are the ones that manufactured the Iraq War.
>
>
>>> Finally, I don't attack you.
>>> It's your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" ,
>>
>> "windowsexp."
>>
>
>
> Whatever. It changes nothing.
It shows that it is a parody of a WindowsXP newsgroup.
>
>>> and
>>> "gonorrhea" under every each post of yours. If you are not happy
>>> about this , there is no one to blame but yourself.
>>
>> It's a parody of the group I have mostly posted to. Of course, I
>> happy about it, I made it up, moron. I find it hysterical that you
>> even mention it.
>
>
> Not surprising. What one can expect from an imbecile but posting in
> the "windowsex. gonorrhea" group.
Someone that doesn't blindly accept the propaganda of a convicted predatory
monopoly, and has a sense of humor about it.
http://www.microscum.com/msvcxp/
It is my right as an American to support what I believe is right.
That what a true American Patriot does. My Country right or wrong isn't
patriotism, just blind nationalist devotion.
>>> This is either degeneration or a high profile hypocrisy .
>>> Pick any and you hit the target.
>>
>> You are obviously biased against women. You want them to be barefoot
>> and pregnant in the kitchen of your shack.
>>
>>>> http://www.now.org/issues/global/index.html
>>
>> Didn't bother to read what NOW's positions of the plight of women
>> around the world, huh?
>
>
> Sure . It's terrible. They are stoned to death, beheaded, raped,
> killed for adultery in Islamic countries. Where are your leftist
> protests or sites condemning that savagery?
You didn't follow one link on that page, did you?
>>>>> Oh , sure. More "immoral" than being stoned to death or beheaded
>>>>> in public.
>>>>
>>>> Straw man. We didn't invade Iraq because of their human rights
>>>> abuses. We invaded because of non-existent WMDs, and because of a
>>>> non-existent operational ties to Al-Qaida.
>>>
>>> I like how this leftist dupe distorts reality : "We invaded Iraq
>>> because of non- existent WMD. " as if we knew it very well in
>>> advance and yet attacked this innocent country.
>>
>> While I wasn't certain at the time, I had a pretty good idea. Scott
>> Ritter, while demonize at the time, expressed as much, and he was
>> one of the few people in the world that had experience about WMDs in
>> Iraq. I also had a pretty good idea that Saddam wasn't likely to
>> have many ties to the religious Muslim extremists of Al Qaida.
>> Saddam was running a secular dictatorship, that fought a very tough
>> war with the religous extremist regime in Iran. And the third reason
>> I had for opposing the war was that there were countries that we
>> didn't control the airspace over it that were much more dangerous
>> than Iraq, namely Iran and North Korea.
>>
>> So the reasons why I opposed the war was knowledge that was
>> available to an average citizen like me before we invaded.
>
>
> What "knowledge" was available to you , imbecile, if all Democrats,
> the Russians, the French, the UN shared the same information. Are
> yoou claiming to be a prophet?
Nope. And I already said why I opposed the war before in the previous
paragraph to the one you questioned where I got my knowledge.
>
>
>>> To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a
>>> statement of your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I
>>> will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
>>> security.'' Feel the difference , simpleton?
>>
>> One. "if necessary." The necessity has never been reasonably
>> demonstrated. But I disagree with Kerry, but I understand why he
>> voted for it.
>
>
> He voted because he believed in what he was saying. Like many others
> people in the world. Except of course you - an oracle with a single
> digit IQ.
Yeah, he believed that we should attack Iraq IF NECESSARY. And it wasn't.
>
>
>>> The same leftist lies about Al Qaeda . President Bush never used the
>>> Iraq-Osama connection as a primary reason for going to war.
>>
>> It was the secondary reason after the non-existent WMDs.
>>
>> "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical
>> weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war
>> on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably
>> deprived of weapons of mass destruction." - Dick
>
>
> Absolutely . Iraq failed to present verifiable proof to the UN it had
> no WMD.
Very hard to prove a negative to someone that doesn't believe you to begin
with.
>
>
>> "You bet we're concerned [concerned that those weapons might have
>> been shipped out of the country]about it. And one of the reasons
>> it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with
>> weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups -- networks --
>> is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials
>> could leave the country and [get] in the hands of terrorist networks
>> would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see
>> that that doesn't happen." - Rummy
>>
>
>
> Also true. Even what was found represents the grave danger. Duelfer
> showed this in his report.
Only if sanctions were lifted. So the "grave danger" didn't really exist in
2003.
>
>>> What he said was that Iraq's
>>> demonstrated ties to anti-American terrorist groups, including al
>>> Qaeda, alongwith its refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions on
>>> weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>> LOL! You spin it your way. The ties Iraq had to terrorist acts are
>> tenuous at best. The closest I've seen is that he gave money to
>> families of Palestinian suicide bombers, after the fact. And members
>> of the Saudi Royal family have those same "ties."
>>
>
>
> Read line by line , idiot, not between lines. I wrote "what he
> (President) said was that Iraq demonstrated ties to anti-American
> terrorist groups , including al-Qaeda (what is true) along with
> Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions ." What means Saddam'
> incompliance plus connection to terrorism was the main reason for
> invasion.
And I bet you are one of those morons that believe we should pull out of the
UN.
The right is so hypocritical!
>>>>> Same as above. Where are their indignation and protests against
>>>>> killing gays just because of being gay in Islamic counties? Where
>>>>> is your leftist humanity you love to spread so much ?
>>>>
>>>> LOL! You are so silly. Where were the rightard protests about it?
>>>> Americans don't protest in American streets about what happens in
>>>> other countries. We protest what is happening in our own country.
>>>
>>> Do we kill gays like Islamists do?
>>
>> I bet you probably know someone that beat someone up just for being
>> gay. But we didn't go to Iraq to stop terrorist Islamists from
>> killing people because they are gay, moron! Yet another strawman,
>> Scarecrow!
>
>
> Again, I didn't say a word about "Islamists killing people" I said
> about Islamists killing gays just for being gay and for western gays'
> indifference to that fact. Are you really so hoplessly stupid that
> you cannot concentrate on the topics discussed.
And I said, "we didn't go to Iraq to stop terrorist Islamists from killing
people because they are gay."
>
>
>>>>> When I do provide , you either ignore or shamelessly cut them like
>>>>> you did below when you cut wintersoldier.com site exposing your
>>>>> beloved traitor and Hanoi's stooge Kerry.
>>>>
>>>> It was pure hate propaganda.
>>>
>>> I understand that "hate propaganda " is a code word for truth in
>>> leftist vocabulary, but again, why did you cut it? If it advocates
>>> hate let people decide , not you. You behave not like self-appointed
>>> Moderator but like self-appointed Stalinist thought gendarme .
>>
>> ROFL! No, it's a code word for what you inbred dumbfucks have
>> somebody else read to you!
>>
>
> If you are stupid like a baobab tree it doesn't matter that all
> around you are stupid as well . But no matter how stupid you are, you
> still post your opinion. However, when you in response shamelessly
> cut someone's posted information, which you cannot stand and digest,
> but instead leave your comment , it is a pure Stalinism , plain and
> simple.
LOL! It's my reply, and I can snip whatever the hell I want to. Why must
someone need to scroll past the obviously biased timeline you supplied? If
they want to read it they can always go back to your post to read it.
>
>> And it's "Self-anointed," Dude! My parody website of Microsoft is
>> called MicrosCUM. I only changed 3 letters of Microsoft, so I got to
>> cum on Microsoft's name. Now put that together with "Self-Anointed,"
>> and I'm making fun of myself. A little bit of self-deprecating
>> humor. But I doubt your would understand the concept of making fun
>> of yourself. You think you know everything. Jews hate Israel. Women
>> hate women. Gays hate gays. And you think that you are not full of
>> hate. PMSL!
>>
>
>
> Of course, what else you can invent but obscenity . "Windowsex",
> "pubic", "cum", "gonorrhea" all these words tell volumes what your
> mind is spinning around.
Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. If what your eye see offends you,
then you should pluck it out, to paraphrase the man mistakenly called
"Jesus."
>>>>> Those are leftist Jews ( mentally disordered) who make up a very
>>>>> small percentage of Jewish population. As to "violent action of
>>>>> their government ", it is another leftist myth. Killing terrorists
>>>>> in their dens no matter what their status is in the Palestinian
>>>>> society is not the same as blowing up school buses full of Israeli
>>>>> kids , blowing to pieces Israeli teens in disco clubs or murdering
>>>>> in cold blood eight month pregnant Israeli women. .
>>>>
>>>> And all Palestinians are terrorists? There are no peaceful
>>>> Palestinians that just want a country of their own?
>>>
>>> Polls show that a majority of Palestinians support the continued use
>>> of terrorism against Israel .
>>> In a spring 2002 poll of residents in the West Bank and Gaza
>>> conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a
>>> Palestinian organization, 43 percent of respondents called for a
>>> Palestinian state only in the West Bank and Gaza and 51 percent
>>> insisted on the state in "all of historic Palestine," - code words
>>> for the destruction of Israel.
>>
>> No supporting link to your stats. Probably because if it exists,
>> it's from another admittedly biased source.
>
> For Stalinists like you all sources are "biased" if they are at odds
> with your leftist cause.
Ashamed to present your source, huh?
>
>
>>>> Rational human beings see that neither side in blameless when it
>>>> comes to the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
>>>
>>> First of all , leftists are not "rational".
>>
>> No. Only delusional hatemongers like you are! ROFL!
>>
>>> By contrast, they are
>>> extremely irrational. They live in Israel and side with those who
>>> want to destroy it. They live in America and side with America
>>> enemies who want to destroy America. Next , Palestinians were
>>> offered their home land namely : ( I quote my comment again) 97
>>> percent of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Arab neighborhoods
>>> of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This offer was rejected but
>>> instead Palestinians unleashed bloody terror .
>>
>> And they didn't accept it because of Israel insistence to keep that
>> 3%. Jewish settlements need to go. Even that madman Sharon is seeing
>> the light and wants to dismantle them in Gaza. Now he needs to
>> figure it out for the West Bank too.
>>
>
>
> Excellent. They didn't accept 3% and that's why triggered bloody
> terror which continues to this day. An outstanding "diplomatic"
> language for negotiating a status of a future sovereign state. They
> have the same mindset like you do. Both terrorists and their
> apologists are sick beyond belief.
How would like your state to have settlements of those that hate you in it?
>>>>> Correction. With American leftist Jews (mentally disordered) .
>>>>> What they have to do in commn? Siding with those who want to
>>>>> destroy the state of Israel.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
>>>
>>> I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to
>>> terminate its existence is acute mental disease.
>>> Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
>>
>> I don't side with any of my enemies. I love them, as the man
>> mistakenly called "Jesus" taught.
>
> If so, then you are an idiot to the second power. Your enemies hate
> you and your guts . They don't care whether you love them or not.
> They follow Koran' s teaching. You will be one of the first ones who
> they kill. Islamofascists hate perverts .
>
So "Jesus" was an idiot too. Cool!
Sounds like Neo-Conservativism to me!
You have not supplied us with a quote of Chomsky's denying the Holocaust,
Elmer.
>
>>> For instance , it is well known fact that after the fall of Saigon,
>>> the Hanoi communists began torturing , assassination, forced
>>> relocation, and incarceration of their political opponents along
>>> with ethnically cleansing Chinese citizens and creating hundreds of
>>> thousands of refugees. Chomsky , always being a great sympathizer of
>>> Marxism , socialism and communism, dismissed these well-documented
>>> reports of oppression and violence as American propaganda .
>>>
>>> The same is case with his denial of holocaust. He says that his
>>> views "are diametrically opposed to "Faurisson's conclusions " ,
>>> but in fact he defended this Jew-hater Faurisson.
>>
>>
>> He defended his right to freely express his opinions, no matter how
>> stupid they are.
>>
>> He would even defend your right to free speech, as do I. Because
>> society needs to know what you hatemongers really feel, and so we
>> can ridicule you for your hate-filled insanity.
>>
>
>
> I see what champion of "right to free speech" you are. You
> shamelessly cut my information about Kerry and his pro-Hanoi cronies
> for the second time. And now you are posing as a free speech
> advocate. You are not a free speech defender . You behave like the
> worst KGB thought inquisitor. Disgusting!.
It's not Free Speech to have to repeat shit you don't believe. You have
every right to snip my words and quotes in your replies, just like I do with
yours. That is free speech. But if you snip without acknowledging it, I
promise to ridicule you about it.
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need
> I showed you prof. Thornton's
> comment on Chomsky;s cavorting with Jew-haters along with Chomsky's
> denial of the communist genocide. Comment on that , not on who
> described it. If you can't, then give up and go to play with your
> "windosex.gonorrhea" buddies. There, no
> one will call in question your superiority.
Show us a quote of Chomsky's that shows he denies the existence of the
Holocaust, and I'll discuss it with you. Until that happens, your & anyone
else's accusations aren't worth wasting my time on.
>
>
>>>>> "Anti reality bullshit'"? Then why you cut it?
>>>>
>>>> To save people from having to scroll through it to read my reply to
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Do you think your reply of three words is more important that
>>> statistics on Kerry's cavorting with Jane Fonda , the traitor, and
>>> his meeting with Hanoi 's communists in France? If so, then you are
>>> very ambitious and arrogant dude. Stupid but haughty. Like all
>>> leftists.
>>
>> That wasn't statistics. That was a totally biased timeline.
>> Statistics is "the mathematics of the collection, organization, and
>> interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of
>> population characteristics by inference from sampling."
>>
>
>
> Whatever it is it is not an excuse for cutting it and leaving just
> your stupid comment at the end. If you do , then stop boasting about
> advocating free speech and accept that you are a Stalinist. At least
> it looks natural, not so outrageously phony and obnoxious.
>
So you want to force me to repeat words of morons in MY POSTS? And that is
free speech? You are a total idiot.
>
>
>>>>> If it is "bullshit"
>>>>> then let people see and praise you for your great analysis
>>>>> exposing the "bullshit". You, dude, cannot disprove a single line
>>>>> of what is written in winter soldier.com. and that's why you
>>>>> shamelessly deleted it and dragged out instead again your
>>>>> discredited , pro-communist VVAW.
>>>>
>>>> VVAW is not pro-communist.
>>>>
>>>> What is VVAW's relationship to Communism and Communists?
>>>
>>> Relationship? Stooges of Hanoi.
>>
>> No. Patriots. They fought for their country, saw the immorality of
>> the fight, and came fight for their country to stop that immoral war.
>>
>
>
> "Immorality of the fight" ? Very good . Thanks for letting us know
> that our attempt to stop Soviet aggression and expansion was just
> "immorality " . Same like fighting Saddam's terrorist regime. Same
> language., same approach. Leftists never change their treacherous ,
> rotten souls.
Neither accomplished anything except killing people on both sides.
>> <snipped more biased stupidity>
>>
>
>
> If this is "stupidity" then why did you cut it?
So people who already read it in your post wouldn't have to scroll through
it reading my post.
> Why didn't you
> "ridicule" it, as you just bragged above?
I did, by calling it "stupidity," Elmer.
> And where is your stance
> for defending "my right for free speech" , as you just proudly
> declared above ? Or you reserve this
> right for Chomsky exclusively?
>
Dude, I know you have no ability to actually read what you are saying. You
are trying to tell me what I need to include in MY POST. That is NOT free
speech.
>>>> Of course, all Vietnam veterans, at one time, participated in a war
>>>> that was ostensibly anti-communist. Identifying people as
>>>> "communists" when there is no longer a unified block of Communist
>>>> nations makes little sense. The nations that were formerly the
>>>> Soviet Union are no longer communist. During the 1970's, one
>>>> would-be communist organization supported the formation of VVAW-AI
>>>> which is not to be confused with VVAW, Inc. (Nicosia, 310, 490;
>>>> "Beware VVAW-AI," http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php).
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#15
>>>
>>> "1978 -- The original VVAW splits when a minority breaks away to
>>> form Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAWAI),
>>> with the larger faction retaining the original name. Both the VVAW
>>> and the rabidly anti-American VVAWAI remain in operation today"
>>
>> So you see the majority of the VVAW were not pro-communist. Even your
>> biased crap shows that the commies were a minority of the whole.
>>
>
>
> No I don't see that . I see that both VVAW and the VVAWAI are rabidly
> ant-American, like it's written above. And below..
Of course you don't see it. You are totally blinded to the truth.
<snipped more biased and stupid revisionism>
>
>
>>>>> First off, lefty boy, this is your idea to make me to back up my
>>>>> claims on feminists, Jews and gays.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't. All you did was present the hate-filled ramblings of
>>>> others.
>>>
>>> Well, if you feel it's "hate filled", then stop whining , get your
>>> 5words arsenal and refute it.
>>
>> I don't waste my time with obviously biased propaganda.
>
>
>
> If so, shut up your mouth and go to play your "gonorrhea" games.
Make me!
>
>
>
>>>>> And I did it.
>>>>
>>>> No you presented propaganda. Instead of showing where Chomsky
>>>> denied the holocaust, you just said it.
>>>
>>> I did it for the second time , but if you are so stupid I cannot
>>> perform a miracle.
>>
>> No you haven't. You quoted other peoples biased opinion about
>> Chomsky. You have yet to come up with one quote of Chomsky's where
>> he denies the holocaust.
>>
>
>
> No, I don't "have yet to" do anything .
HUH?! Is English is a second languange for you?
> If you are an idiot, no
> matter what information I present you, you still will not be pleased.
All you have to do is come up with one quote of Chomsky's where he denies
the existence of the Holocaust. It would be very easy to do, if it actually
existed!
> Learn how to digest facts without hating them , stop cutting other
> people's posts, stop your
> trickery with reading between lines and only then you can fairly
> demand an intelligent response. But so far, your level is
> "sexwindow". Enjoy it.
Learn to think for yourself, instead of believing such obviously biased
stupidity!
>>> <repeating of childish bubbling flushed>
>>
>> You never presented one American Feminist, Jewish, or Gay group that
>> supported terrorists, or the destruction of Isreal. You just said
>> it. You didn't back it up at all.
>
>
> Just going in circles distorting my comments the way your poorly
> developed brain prompts you is not doing good for you. . By contrast
> , it gives an impression that you either are not able to understand
> given information or are simply an idiot , what is more likely.
> But if so, all my attempts to reason with you are futile.
LOL! You wouldn't know reason if it was shoved up ass sideways!
>
>
>
>>>>> If you are not
>>>>> happy , so be it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm very happy! I'm filled with love and peace. You are filled with
>>>> hate. Which should be apparent to any rational human being still
>>>> reading this thread.
>>>
>>> You are filled with leftism up to you ears and here is your problem.
>>> But if so, you cannot be rational.
>>
>> Yeah. My heros are the Buddha, Yeshosuha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King
>> Jr. And I'm damned proud of it.
>
>
> You forgot another your hero- Lenin.
Lenin wasn't a spiritual dude. He was a dictator that did what ever he
wanted.
>
>
>
>> From the sound of your hate, your heros are Ghengis Khan, Caligula,
>> Napolean, and Hitler.
>>
>
>
> My heroes are Ronald Reagan , Margaret Thatcher and all those who
> helped to bring down the Soviet Union to its knees. For you leftists,
> it's certainly a tragedy. Little wonder why you leftiies call
> Vietnam fight against communism
> "immoral". Your ideal -Soviet Union - collapsed like a house of
> cards but the country you hate is still alive and prosper. It's not
> surprising that you count on your new allies -Isalmofascists.
After Nixon divided the communist world by going to China, it was just a
matter of time that the Soviet empire would colapse on itself.
>>>>> But this is not the point. The point is that when
>>>>> you display before the whole world the words "pubic", "windowsex"
>>>>> , "gonorrhea" the first impression is this guy is obsessed with
>>>>> sex or is a sex maniac.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am making fun of myself in my signature, by calling myself
>>>> the "Self-anointed Moderator," and
>>>> "microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea" is a play on the name of the
>>>> group I normally post in, "micosoft.public.windowsxp.general." I've
>>>> just taken a break in posting there until the election is over.
>
>>> It's very telling. I wonder what your kids and wife would say , if
>>> you have ones , should they know where their husband and dad wasting
>>> his time in a company of lovers of window sex , gonorrhea and
>>> syphilis. Are members of this group all homos an lesbos?
>
>> Nope, just some sychophatic geeks, and people that need computer
>> help and those that go out of their way to help them.
>
> It's must be something new in the computer science - computer "sex",
> computer "cum"
> and computer "gonorrhea" .
Yeah, it's called Product Activation.
>
>
>>>> There are more important things than trying to promote individual
>>>> rights over the rights of corporation. Like defeating the fascist
>>>> takeover of America this November.
>>>
>>> What are more important things? Playing in window sex and gonorrea?
>>
>> Defeating the NeoFascism of the Bush Regime, of course.
>>
>
>
> We will see that on Nowember 2. So far Bush leads. Kerry trails.
According to flawed models of who are likely voters. Bush has mobilized
those who are normally apathetic about voting to vote this year. I know I
am one of them.
I haven't voted since 1983, and the last person I voted for president was
Reagan in 1980.
>
>>>>> Just look at other people' s posts, only few cranks
>>>>> like you use the same gonorrhea signatures.
>>>>
>>>> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
>>>> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
>>>
>>> It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see gatherings
>>> of leftist homos you should take every precautions.
>>
>> You know you really love me, baby! You keep coming back for more
>> spankings!
>
> Leave this comment to your boyfriend. He much better appreciate your
> love. I have nothing in common with homos. I consider them freaks of
> nature.
And a misogynist and a Jew-hater, besides being a homophobe.
>>>>> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
>>>>
>>>> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in "windowsex"
>>> is really very bizarre sense of humor!
>>
>> I knew you wouldn't understand, sweety. You really are my bitch! ;-)
>
>
> Very good. Thanks for letting us know that in addition to being stupid
> leftist and
> simpleton you are a homosexual pervert as well. Now it's absolutely
> clear where that "sexwindow" and "gonorrhea" come from. It's your
> homo trademark.
LOL! Your like a little girl that hits the boy she has a crush on. You
know you really love me, darling!
staten
>
<making no sense stupid 5 words cackling deleted>
> > No. You leftist hate Jews . "Neocons" is code word for Jews invented
> > by leftists.
> I didn't know that. To me it is a code word for the assholes that have
> taken over the Republican Party. Who believe that might makes right.
Another brilliant "translation" of the certified idiot Kurt -
"assholes"="neocons"="Republican Party".
> >> I had no idea that you would find the term racist. Most NeoCons are
> >> American Christians and Jews.
> >
> >
> > I also have no idea why you leftist idiots call them so each time
> > names of Wolfovitz, Perle or Frum are on the tip of your tounges.
>
> They are the ones that manufactured the Iraq War.
>
Still another asinine conspiracy theory - "Jews manufactured the Iraq war".
Leftist's idiocy has no limits.
> >>> Finally, I don't attack you.
> >>> It's your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" ,
> >>
> >> "windowsexp."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Whatever. It changes nothing.
>
> It shows that it is a parody of a WindowsXP newsgroup.
>
It shows depravity of idiots obsessed with sex .
Here are some pearls posted in this group:
"Virtual Vaginal Condom XP HouseFrau Edition - code-named "Ballenchane",
modeled after "Stealth". Rest assured, Ladies, your 'Lover' [the reason for
your month long headache] can still fill you without you having to worry
about having a baby of a different ethnicity than your Husband!"
"The Virtual Condom XP Home Edition, let's your sperm through, so she thinks
you're still trying to get her pregnant, but kills every last one of them,
DEAD! And the Virtual Condom XP Professional Edition, is for when she's had
a headache for the last month, and that skanky 'ho on the corner is willing
to do the WILD THANG with you for $50 an hour!"
"Virtual Condom XP Homo Edition - code-named "AbnerLouima", for the
Hard-Core Homosexual, not satisfied with the interchangeability of the
optional attachments between the Virtual Condom XP Professional and the
Virtual Vaginal Condom XP PieceOfAss Editions, and who also have fantasies
of the NYPD treating them like a black immigrant"
And so on... One solid "asses", "vaginal condoms" , "sperm" , "gonorrhea"
and "sex". And all that degradation supposed to be "funny" because these
idiots "don't like Microsoft" . What a bunch of miserable losers!
> >>> and
> >>> "gonorrhea" under every each post of yours. If you are not happy
> >>> about this , there is no one to blame but yourself.
> >>
> >> It's a parody of the group I have mostly posted to. Of course, I
> >> happy about it, I made it up, moron. I find it hysterical that you
> >> even mention it.
> >
> >
> > Not surprising. What one can expect from an imbecile but posting in
> > the "windowsex. gonorrhea" group.
>
> Someone that doesn't blindly accept the propaganda of a convicted
predatory
> monopoly, and has a sense of humor about it.
>
> http://www.microscum.com/msvcxp/
Same as above. Your "sex of humor" matches your debased mind.
> >>> What does this have to do with feminists? Everything. This is their
> >>> nature. They are feminists. They always protest against social
> >>> injustice, champion tolerance, advocate women's rights yet they
> >>> clearly side with regimes that are the worst enemy of their feminist
> >>> values .
> >>
> >> You only think that, because you are a moron. Protesting the Iraq
> >> War, wasn't supporting Saddam, but supporting America from starting
> >> a War for the
> >
> > Thanks for your "support" . Having such "supporters " who needs
> > enemies.
>
> It is my right as an American to support what I believe is right.
>
> That what a true American Patriot does. My Country right or wrong isn't
> patriotism, just blind nationalist devotion.
You are as to a true American Patriot as a pig is to a ballet dancer. You
leftist
morns long time ago lost your ability to recognize what is right. You are
unhappy with any war fought in the name of national defense . Our Nation in
your perception has no rights to defend itself , no rights having our
interests abroad , no rights for promoting our ideas . At bottom, you simply
don't believe much in the nation at all except as a guilty party that owes
an endless debt to all the racial and sexual minorities or as a source of
all evils in the world. So, when you leftist scumbags call yourself
"patriots", it sounds as a great mockery.
<more stupid chirping deleted>
>>> To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a
> >>> statement of your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I
> >>> will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> >>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
> >>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
> >>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
> >>> security.'' Feel the difference , simpleton?
> >>
> >> One. "if necessary." The necessity has never been reasonably
> >> demonstrated. But I disagree with Kerry, but I understand why he
> >> voted for it.
> >
> >
> > He voted because he believed in what he was saying. Like many others
> > people in the world. Except of course you - an oracle with a single
> > digit IQ.
>
> Yeah, he believed that we should attack Iraq IF NECESSARY. And it wasn't.
>
Read his words again , turkey. He said " I believe that a deadly arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
security.'' He believed in that , moron, as believed the Russians, the
French the UN and many other people in the world. He didn't
say "it wasn't necessary" so don't put your words in his
mouth. It's too late. It's history.
>>>>>You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
> >>>
> >>> I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to
> >>> terminate its existence is acute mental disease.
> >>> Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
> >>
> >> I don't side with any of my enemies. I love them, as the man
> >> mistakenly called "Jesus" taught.
> >
> > If so, then you are an idiot to the second power. Your enemies hate
> > you and your guts . They don't care whether you love them or not.
> > They follow Koran' s teaching. You will be one of the first ones who
> > they kill. Islamofascists hate perverts .
> >
>
> So "Jesus" was an idiot too. Cool!
You are not Jesus. You are a deranged leftist idiot. If we would fight our
enemies with "love" , Hitlers's death camps and Stalin's gulags still would
be in business today.
> >>
> >> LOL! You spin it your way. The ties Iraq had to terrorist acts are
> >> tenuous at best. The closest I've seen is that he gave money to
> >> families of Palestinian suicide bombers, after the fact. And members
> >> of the Saudi Royal family have those same "ties."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Read line by line , idiot, not between lines. I wrote "what he
> > (President) said was that Iraq demonstrated ties to anti-American
> > terrorist groups , including al-Qaeda (what is true) along with
> > Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions ." What means Saddam'
> > incompliance plus connection to terrorism was the main reason for
> > invasion.
>
> And I bet you are one of those morons that believe we should pull out of
the
> UN.
>
> The right is so hypocritical!
Stop your trickery ,fraud. There is no as ingle word about pulling out of
the UN in my comment. Concentrate on reading, dork , not on slipping your
hands into your boyfriend's pants.
> >
> >> And it's "Self-anointed," Dude! My parody website of Microsoft is
> >> called MicrosCUM. I only changed 3 letters of Microsoft, so I got to
> >> cum on Microsoft's name. Now put that together with "Self-Anointed,"
> >> and I'm making fun of myself. A little bit of self-deprecating
> >> humor. But I doubt your would understand the concept of making fun
> >> of yourself. You think you know everything. Jews hate Israel. Women
> >> hate women. Gays hate gays. And you think that you are not full of
> >> hate. PMSL!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Of course, what else you can invent but obscenity . "Windowsex",
> > "pubic", "cum", "gonorrhea" all these words tell volumes what your
> > mind is spinning around.
>
> Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. If what your eye see offends you,
> then you should pluck it out, to paraphrase the man mistakenly called
> "Jesus."
Again, you are not Jesus. You are a homosexual , immoral pervert. You are a
direct insult to Jesus' teaching professing purity of our mind and body .
When you dirty, homosexual pervert refer to Jesus' name trying to shield
your immorality, you commit in fact a greatest blasphemy. You certainly will
be punished for your reckless audacity.
> >> And they didn't accept it because of Israel insistence to keep that
> >> 3%. Jewish settlements need to go. Even that madman Sharon is seeing
> >> the light and wants to dismantle them in Gaza. Now he needs to
> >> figure it out for the West Bank too.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Excellent. They didn't accept 3% and that's why triggered bloody
> > terror which continues to this day. An outstanding "diplomatic"
> > language for negotiating a status of a future sovereign state. They
> > have the same mindset like you do. Both terrorists and their
> > apologists are sick beyond belief.
>
> How would like your state to have settlements of those that hate you in
it?
Learn from Israelis , idiot. In spite of almost everyday atrocities
committed by Palestinian terrorists Israelis don't strap explosives to their
kids and don't send them to blow up Palestinian school busses or Palestinian
teen clubs.
> >> Both the countries of Egypt and Jordon have given up opposing Israel
> >> soveriegnty. And right now the biggest obstacles to co-existence
> >> between Israel and Palestine are two obstinent old men, Sharon and
> >> Arafat. Both are ultra-Rightists stuck in the lifetime of hate.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Egypt and Jordan get billions paid them for keeping peace with
> > Israel. But even if they temporarily suspend their attacks, there are
> > 20 more hostile Arab states who dream to push Israel to the sea. They
> > couldn't care less about Palestinians. Palestine for them serves just
> > like surgical bloodletting which slowly bleeding Israel to death.
> > Arabs don't want terrorism to stop. If it stops, Arabs will be
> > losers. That's why they continue
> > to incite, to fan hatred and to pay Palestinians for commiting new
> > savageries .
>
> Sounds like Neo-Conservativism to me!
>
> >
So, Arab terrorism=American neo-conservatism. Brilliant. A comment worth a
delirium of a hopeless madman.
> >> He would even defend your right to free speech, as do I. Because
> >> society needs to know what you hatemongers really feel, and so we
> >> can ridicule you for your hate-filled insanity.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I see what champion of "right to free speech" you are. You
> > shamelessly cut my information about Kerry and his pro-Hanoi cronies
> > for the second time. And now you are posing as a free speech
> > advocate. You are not a free speech defender . You behave like the
> > worst KGB thought inquisitor. Disgusting!.
>
> It's not Free Speech to have to repeat shit you don't believe. You have
> every right to snip my words and quotes in your replies, just like I do
with
> yours. That is free speech. But if you snip without acknowledging it, I
> promise to ridicule you about it.
Stop bubbling about free speech , idiot. You , as all leftists in general ,
simply hate truth. That's why you cut any facts which would put your beloved
Kerry in a bad light. This pathetic trickery is nothing more than a feeble
attempt to cover up facts that
Kerry won't own up to his despicable life. The mainstream press also has
sheltered Kerry from questions surrounding his self-proclaimed hero status
leaving many Americans to speculate about his traitor status.
Kerry, despite repeated demands to authorize the
release of his military records by signing standard DO form 180,
still has not signed it. Bush signed his form 180 during the 2000 campaign,
so did Al
Gore, and John McCain. As a matter of fact, John Kerry is the first
presidential candidate in U.S. history, who has built his entire
campaign upon his self-proclaimed war hero status, and yet keeps
intentionally concealing his military records. Why? American veterans tell
you why.
Retired Colonel Leo K. Thorsness
a Vietnam Air Force veteran and recipient of the Medal of Honor, Silver
Star, six Distinguished Flying Crosses, 10 Air Medals, two Purple Hearts and
the Good Conduct Medal -- spent five years and 19 days as a POW.
he reports:
"A measure of patriotism is his loyalty to those still in uniform. That's
totally contrary to what he did. That makes him totally unpatriotic or
loyal. He was over there fighting, he came home and there were still people
he knew over there fighting, and he starts talking about war crimes and the
atrocities we're committing. He's putting them in dire jeopardy. Every
military combat guy I've talked to from Vietnam said their greatest fear was
not being killed; it was becoming a POW. As you know, there were people
captured in South Vietnam who were literally skinned alive.And Kerry's
giving the captors ammunition to treat people like that if they're captured.
And these are people he knew. Where in the world is his loyalty to the
people in the military?"
Retired Air Force veteran Captain Kevin McManus
received the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Distinguished flying
Cross, Air Medal and Purple Heart -- spent five years and eight months in
the prison camps. He says:
"The first knowledge of John Kerry, really, that I can recall now was after
we came back, he had made apparently some statements that essentially said
that all the Americans over there were war criminals and committed atrocious
acts. I had a big problem with that, not so much for me...but thousands of
guys who died had no chance to hold their own against Kerry. So essentially
he desecrated all the war dead and their families, with no chance of them
ever replying."
May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report, " the POW-turned-senator
( McCain ) charged that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William
Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective
propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."
And many veterans more...
Kerry is also the first
candidate to have 254 fellow decorated War Veterans publicly accuse him of
being ''Unfit for Command.'' He is the first since Benedict Arnold to have
thousands of former War POW's accuse him of being a traitor. He is the first
to have his picture
hung on the walls of a Communist War Museum, advertising him as one of
their hero's. Vote for him. He badly needs votes of pro-Saddam stooges like
you. He counts on traitors an appeasers. You are his true electorate.
> >> Yeah. My heros are the Buddha, Yeshosuha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King
> >> Jr. And I'm damned proud of it.
> >
> >
> > You forgot another your hero- Lenin.
>
> Lenin wasn't a spiritual dude. He was a dictator that did what ever he
> wanted.
>
Saddam was also a dictator , but you love him.
> >
> >
> >> From the sound of your hate, your heros are Ghengis Khan, Caligula,
> >> Napolean, and Hitler.
> >>
> >
> >
> > My heroes are Ronald Reagan , Margaret Thatcher and all those who
> > helped to bring down the Soviet Union to its knees. For you leftists,
> > it's certainly a tragedy. Little wonder why you leftiies call
> > Vietnam fight against communism
> > "immoral". Your ideal -Soviet Union - collapsed like a house of
> > cards but the country you hate is still alive and prosper. It's not
> > surprising that you count on your new allies -Isalmofascists.
>
> After Nixon divided the communist world by going to China, it was just a
> matter of time that the Soviet empire would colapse on itself.
Nixon did not divide the communist world. By contrast, after we pulled out
our troops out of Vietnam the communist world became even more stronger and
solidified. It has to be a genius of President Reagan who said enough is
enough. He busted the evil empire proving that freedom and our free
enterprise economy is not a match to the communist slave system no matter
how strong military it might have. If not Reagan and people believing in our
values , the evil empire still would be in business today.
> > It's must be something new in the computer science - computer "sex",
> > computer "cum"
> > and computer "gonorrhea" .
>
> Yeah, it's called Product Activation.
>
You obviously are very sick.
> >>>> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
> >>>> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
> >>>
> >>> It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see gatherings
> >>> of leftist homos you should take every precautions.
> >>
> >> You know you really love me, baby! You keep coming back for more
> >> spankings!
> >
> > Leave this comment to your boyfriend. He much better appreciate your
> > love. I have nothing in common with homos. I consider them freaks of
> > nature.
>
> And a misogynist and a Jew-hater, besides being a homophobe.
A Jew-hater is your Chomsky, not me. Being a Jew himself and hating Jews
must be a highest degree mental disorder.
As to misogynist, I have nothing against women. I love them. It's natural.
But no one can make me believe that two males having intercourse through
anus look as natural and ordinary as a straight guy making love to a women .
Let alone a picture when a hairy , dirty hand of a homosexual pervert slips
into pants
of a ten year boy. I find it highly unnatural , freakish and disgusting.
> >>>>> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in "windowsex"
> >>> is really very bizarre sense of humor!
> >>
> >> I knew you wouldn't understand, sweety. You really are my bitch! ;-)
> >
> >
> > Very good. Thanks for letting us know that in addition to being stupid
> > leftist and
> > simpleton you are a homosexual pervert as well. Now it's absolutely
> > clear where that "sexwindow" and "gonorrhea" come from. It's your
> > homo trademark.
>
> LOL! Your like a little girl that hits the boy she has a crush on. You
> know you really love me, darling!
>
If you, a disgusting and sleazy fag think that everyone reading your
delirium loves you, then you are simply insane. I don't think I should waste
my time reasoning with you. You showed your true face - a face of obnoxious,
homosexual freak . It's not funny . It's ugly and disgusting. That's why I
rest my case. Find someone to feed your fag's fantasy among your "sexwindow"
kinship. Freaks like you there surely deserve each other. Enjoy your
gonorrhea and syphilis.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:kr-dncRw77N...@adelphia.com...> staten wrote:
>>
>
>
> <making no sense stupid 5 words cackling deleted>
>
>
>>> No. You leftist hate Jews . "Neocons" is code word for Jews invented
>>> by leftists.
>
>> I didn't know that. To me it is a code word for the assholes that
>> have taken over the Republican Party. Who believe that might makes
>> right.
>
>
> Another brilliant "translation" of the certified idiot Kurt -
> "assholes"="neocons"="Republican Party".
No. You didn't get it.
NeoCons are assholes, but not all assholes are NeoCons. NeoCons are
Republicans, but not all Republicans are NeoCons, and some, but not all,
Republicans are assholes.
>>>> I had no idea that you would find the term racist. Most NeoCons are
>>>> American Christians and Jews.
>>>
>>>
>>> I also have no idea why you leftist idiots call them so each time
>>> names of Wolfovitz, Perle or Frum are on the tip of your tounges.
>>
>> They are the ones that manufactured the Iraq War.
>>
>
>
> Still another asinine conspiracy theory - "Jews manufactured the Iraq
> war". Leftist's idiocy has no limits.
Most Jews are not NeoCons, but a very few Jews are NeoCons, and some NeoCons
claim they are Christians.
NeoCons manufactured the Iraq War, not the majority of Jews.
>>>>> Finally, I don't attack you.
>>>>> It's your signature. You are the one who sign "windowsex" ,
>>>>
>>>> "windowsexp."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever. It changes nothing.
>>
>> It shows that it is a parody of a WindowsXP newsgroup.
>>
>
>
> It shows depravity of idiots obsessed with sex .
>
> Here are some pearls posted in this group:
No. It's on my microscum website. I posted a link to it.
>
> "Virtual Vaginal Condom XP HouseFrau Edition - code-named
> "Ballenchane", modeled after "Stealth". Rest assured, Ladies, your
> 'Lover' [the reason for your month long headache] can still fill you
> without you having to worry about having a baby of a different
> ethnicity than your Husband!"
>
>
> "The Virtual Condom XP Home Edition, let's your sperm through, so she
> thinks you're still trying to get her pregnant, but kills every last
> one of them, DEAD! And the Virtual Condom XP Professional Edition, is
> for when she's had a headache for the last month, and that skanky 'ho
> on the corner is willing to do the WILD THANG with you for $50 an
> hour!"
>
> "Virtual Condom XP Homo Edition - code-named "AbnerLouima", for the
> Hard-Core Homosexual, not satisfied with the interchangeability of the
> optional attachments between the Virtual Condom XP Professional and
> the Virtual Vaginal Condom XP PieceOfAss Editions, and who also have
> fantasies of the NYPD treating them like a black immigrant"
>
> And so on... One solid "asses", "vaginal condoms" , "sperm" ,
> "gonorrhea" and "sex". And all that degradation supposed to be
> "funny" because these idiots "don't like Microsoft" . What a bunch of
> miserable losers!
Bill Gates has something he wants you to see!
>>>>> and
>>>>> "gonorrhea" under every each post of yours. If you are not happy
>>>>> about this , there is no one to blame but yourself.
>>>>
>>>> It's a parody of the group I have mostly posted to. Of course, I
>>>> happy about it, I made it up, moron. I find it hysterical that you
>>>> even mention it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not surprising. What one can expect from an imbecile but posting in
>>> the "windowsex. gonorrhea" group.
>>
>> Someone that doesn't blindly accept the propaganda of a convicted
>> predatory monopoly, and has a sense of humor about it.
>>
>> http://www.microscum.com/msvcxp/
>
> Same as above. Your "sex of humor" matches your debased mind.
What are you? A Puritan?
>>>>> What does this have to do with feminists? Everything. This is
>>>>> their nature. They are feminists. They always protest against
>>>>> social injustice, champion tolerance, advocate women's rights yet
>>>>> they clearly side with regimes that are the worst enemy of their
>>>>> feminist values .
>>>>
>>>> You only think that, because you are a moron. Protesting the Iraq
>>>> War, wasn't supporting Saddam, but supporting America from starting
>>>> a War for the
>>>
>>> Thanks for your "support" . Having such "supporters " who needs
>>> enemies.
>>
>> It is my right as an American to support what I believe is right.
>>
>> That what a true American Patriot does. My Country right or wrong
>> isn't patriotism, just blind nationalist devotion.
>
>
> You are as to a true American Patriot as a pig is to a ballet dancer.
> You leftist
> morns long time ago lost your ability to recognize what is right. You
> are unhappy with any war fought in the name of national defense . Our
> Nation in your perception has no rights to defend itself , no rights
> having our interests abroad , no rights for promoting our ideas . At
> bottom, you simply don't believe much in the nation at all except as
> a guilty party that owes an endless debt to all the racial and sexual
> minorities or as a source of all evils in the world. So, when you
> leftist scumbags call yourself "patriots", it sounds as a great
> mockery.
Burn me at the stake. I'm a witch!
>>>> To remind you that you are a fake and phony fraud , here is a
>>>>> statement of your beloved Kerry who on October 9, 2002 said: ''I
>>>>> will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>>>> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
>>>>> security.'' Feel the difference , simpleton?
>>>>
>>>> One. "if necessary." The necessity has never been reasonably
>>>> demonstrated. But I disagree with Kerry, but I understand why he
>>>> voted for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> He voted because he believed in what he was saying. Like many others
>>> people in the world. Except of course you - an oracle with a single
>>> digit IQ.
>>
>> Yeah, he believed that we should attack Iraq IF NECESSARY. And it
>> wasn't.
>>
>
>
> Read his words again , turkey. He said " I believe that a deadly
> arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
> grave threat to our security.'' He believed in that , moron, as
> believed the Russians, the French the UN and many other people in the
> world. He didn't
> say "it wasn't necessary" so don't put your words in his
> mouth. It's too late. It's history.
Now read it in context, Elmer!
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use
force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat,
and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian
Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold
Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now
committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this
threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around
the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution
does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means
"America speaks with one voice."
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and
one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot
accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint
concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with
the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out
tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at
our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so,
I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with
others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave,
imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires
the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national
security needs.
>>>>>> You mean like Liberals want to destroy America? ROFL!
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean siding with enemies of someone's country who want to
>>>>> terminate its existence is acute mental disease.
>>>>> Leftist Jews and leftist gentiles proved that by their actions.
>>>>
>>>> I don't side with any of my enemies. I love them, as the man
>>>> mistakenly called "Jesus" taught.
>>>
>>> If so, then you are an idiot to the second power. Your enemies hate
>>> you and your guts . They don't care whether you love them or not.
>>> They follow Koran' s teaching. You will be one of the first ones who
>>> they kill. Islamofascists hate perverts .
>>>
>>
>> So "Jesus" was an idiot too. Cool!
>
> You are not Jesus.
No, But I believe in much of what he said.
> You are a deranged leftist idiot.
Because I believe that Jesus was right.
> If we would
> fight our enemies with "love" , Hitlers's death camps and Stalin's
> gulags still would be in business today.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Gandhi did free his country from the
Brits without hating them.
>>>> LOL! You spin it your way. The ties Iraq had to terrorist acts are
>>>> tenuous at best. The closest I've seen is that he gave money to
>>>> families of Palestinian suicide bombers, after the fact. And
>>>> members of the Saudi Royal family have those same "ties."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read line by line , idiot, not between lines. I wrote "what he
>>> (President) said was that Iraq demonstrated ties to anti-American
>>> terrorist groups , including al-Qaeda (what is true) along with
>>> Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions ." What means Saddam'
>>> incompliance plus connection to terrorism was the main reason for
>>> invasion.
>>
>> And I bet you are one of those morons that believe we should pull
>> out of the UN.
>>
>> The right is so hypocritical!
>
>
> Stop your trickery ,fraud. There is no as ingle word about pulling
> out of the UN in my comment. Concentrate on reading, dork , not on
> slipping your hands into your boyfriend's pants.
Nice way to avoid saying that I hit the nail on the head!
>>>> And it's "Self-anointed," Dude! My parody website of Microsoft is
>>>> called MicrosCUM. I only changed 3 letters of Microsoft, so I got
>>>> to cum on Microsoft's name. Now put that together with
>>>> "Self-Anointed," and I'm making fun of myself. A little bit of
>>>> self-deprecating humor. But I doubt your would understand the
>>>> concept of making fun of yourself. You think you know everything.
>>>> Jews hate Israel. Women hate women. Gays hate gays. And you think
>>>> that you are not full of hate. PMSL!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, what else you can invent but obscenity . "Windowsex",
>>> "pubic", "cum", "gonorrhea" all these words tell volumes what your
>>> mind is spinning around.
>>
>> Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. If what your eye see
>> offends you, then you should pluck it out, to paraphrase the man
>> mistakenly called "Jesus."
>
>
> Again, you are not Jesus. You are a homosexual , immoral pervert. You
> are a direct insult to Jesus' teaching professing purity of our mind
> and body . When you dirty, homosexual pervert refer to Jesus' name
> trying to shield your immorality, you commit in fact a greatest
> blasphemy. You certainly will be punished for your reckless audacity.
Blasphemy! Isn't that the reason that Jesus was nailed on the cross for?
>>>> And they didn't accept it because of Israel insistence to keep that
>>>> 3%. Jewish settlements need to go. Even that madman Sharon is
>>>> seeing the light and wants to dismantle them in Gaza. Now he needs
>>>> to figure it out for the West Bank too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent. They didn't accept 3% and that's why triggered bloody
>>> terror which continues to this day. An outstanding "diplomatic"
>>> language for negotiating a status of a future sovereign state. They
>>> have the same mindset like you do. Both terrorists and their
>>> apologists are sick beyond belief.
>>
>> How would like your state to have settlements of those that hate you
>> in it?
>
>
> Learn from Israelis , idiot. In spite of almost everyday atrocities
> committed by Palestinian terrorists Israelis don't strap explosives
> to their kids and don't send them to blow up Palestinian school
> busses or Palestinian teen clubs.
No, they send in tanks and level the homes and there orchards, and kill
innocent women and children in the process!
Two wrongs never make a Right.
>>>> Both the countries of Egypt and Jordon have given up opposing
>>>> Israel soveriegnty. And right now the biggest obstacles to
>>>> co-existence between Israel and Palestine are two obstinent old
>>>> men, Sharon and Arafat. Both are ultra-Rightists stuck in the
>>>> lifetime of hate.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Egypt and Jordan get billions paid them for keeping peace with
>>> Israel. But even if they temporarily suspend their attacks, there
>>> are 20 more hostile Arab states who dream to push Israel to the
>>> sea. They couldn't care less about Palestinians. Palestine for them
>>> serves just like surgical bloodletting which slowly bleeding Israel
>>> to death. Arabs don't want terrorism to stop. If it stops, Arabs
>>> will be losers. That's why they continue
>>> to incite, to fan hatred and to pay Palestinians for commiting new
>>> savageries .
>>
>> Sounds like Neo-Conservativism to me!
>>
>>>
>
> So, Arab terrorism=American neo-conservatism. Brilliant. A comment
> worth a delirium of a hopeless madman.
No they don't equal, just come from the same kind of mindset.
>>>> He would even defend your right to free speech, as do I. Because
>>>> society needs to know what you hatemongers really feel, and so we
>>>> can ridicule you for your hate-filled insanity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see what champion of "right to free speech" you are. You
>>> shamelessly cut my information about Kerry and his pro-Hanoi cronies
>>> for the second time. And now you are posing as a free speech
>>> advocate. You are not a free speech defender . You behave like the
>>> worst KGB thought inquisitor. Disgusting!.
>>
>> It's not Free Speech to have to repeat shit you don't believe. You
>> have every right to snip my words and quotes in your replies, just
>> like I do with yours. That is free speech. But if you snip without
>> acknowledging it, I promise to ridicule you about it.
>
>
> Stop bubbling about free speech , idiot. You , as all leftists in
> general , simply hate truth. That's why you cut any facts which would
> put your beloved Kerry in a bad light. This pathetic trickery is
> nothing more than a feeble attempt to cover up facts that
> Kerry won't own up to his despicable life. The mainstream press also
> has sheltered Kerry from questions surrounding his self-proclaimed
> hero status leaving many Americans to speculate about his traitor
> status.
Yada, Yada, Yada! The time to prove that Kerry was a traitor was over 30
years ago. Ya'll can't. It was War Protestors like him that shortened the
Vietnam War, and that does make him a Hero in my eyes.
And they might still be in Vietnam, if no one protested the War.
>
>
>
>
> Kerry is also the first
> candidate to have 254 fellow decorated War Veterans publicly accuse
> him of being ''Unfit for Command.'' He is the first since Benedict
> Arnold to have thousands of former War POW's accuse him of being a
> traitor.
Huh? There were thousands of former POWs that accused Benedict Arnold of
being a traitor?
Arnold actually switched sides and fought for the Brits. Kerry came home
and protested the War, and never fought for North Vietnam.
> He is the first to have his picture
> hung on the walls of a Communist War Museum, advertising him as one of
> their hero's. Vote for him. He badly needs votes of pro-Saddam
> stooges like you. He counts on traitors an appeasers. You are his
> true electorate.
The picture that is hanging is from one of his visits to Vietnam as a US
Senator.
>>>> Yeah. My heros are the Buddha, Yeshosuha, Gandhi, Martin Luther
>>>> King Jr. And I'm damned proud of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> You forgot another your hero- Lenin.
>>
>> Lenin wasn't a spiritual dude. He was a dictator that did what ever
>> he wanted.
>>
>
>
> Saddam was also a dictator , but you love him.
When did I say that? I'm glad he's gone, but that doesn't excuse the Bush
junta for invading Iraq on false pretenses.
>>>> From the sound of your hate, your heros are Ghengis Khan, Caligula,
>>>> Napolean, and Hitler.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My heroes are Ronald Reagan , Margaret Thatcher and all those who
>>> helped to bring down the Soviet Union to its knees. For you
>>> leftists, it's certainly a tragedy. Little wonder why you leftiies
>>> call
>>> Vietnam fight against communism
>>> "immoral". Your ideal -Soviet Union - collapsed like a house of
>>> cards but the country you hate is still alive and prosper. It's not
>>> surprising that you count on your new allies -Isalmofascists.
>>
>> After Nixon divided the communist world by going to China, it was
>> just a matter of time that the Soviet empire would colapse on itself.
>
>
> Nixon did not divide the communist world.
Then you do not know history.
> By contrast, after we
> pulled out our troops out of Vietnam the communist world became even
> more stronger and solidified. It has to be a genius of President
> Reagan who said enough is enough. He busted the evil empire proving
> that freedom and our free enterprise economy is not a match to the
> communist slave system no matter how strong military it might have.
> If not Reagan and people believing in our values , the evil empire
> still would be in business today.
Yeah, that's the Reagan myth.
>>> It's must be something new in the computer science - computer "sex",
>>> computer "cum"
>>> and computer "gonorrhea" .
>>
>> Yeah, it's called Product Activation.
>>
>
>
> You obviously are very sick.
That's better than being well like you!
>>>>>> Really. I don't think I've ever seen any other signature that has
>>>>>> gonorrhea! Maybe they have taken penicillin since you saw it! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. And they are damn right. Every time you see
>>>>> gatherings of leftist homos you should take every precautions.
>>>>
>>>> You know you really love me, baby! You keep coming back for more
>>>> spankings!
>>>
>>> Leave this comment to your boyfriend. He much better appreciate your
>>> love. I have nothing in common with homos. I consider them freaks of
>>> nature.
>>
>> And a misogynist and a Jew-hater, besides being a homophobe.
>
>
> A Jew-hater is your Chomsky, not me. Being a Jew himself and hating
> Jews must be a highest degree mental disorder.
LOL! Quote Chomsky!
>
> As to misogynist, I have nothing against women. I love them. It's
> natural. But no one can make me believe that two males having
> intercourse through anus look as natural and ordinary as a straight
> guy making love to a women . Let alone a picture when a hairy ,
> dirty hand of a homosexual pervert slips into pants
> of a ten year boy. I find it highly unnatural , freakish and
> disgusting.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, I think you are protesting too much.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> It tells readers right away what this guy's mind is at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a strange sense of humor, and I'm proud of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. Displaying in public "gonorrhea" and "pubic" in
>>>>> "windowsex" is really very bizarre sense of humor!
>>>>
>>>> I knew you wouldn't understand, sweety. You really are my bitch!
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Very good. Thanks for letting us know that in addition to being
>>> stupid leftist and
>>> simpleton you are a homosexual pervert as well. Now it's absolutely
>>> clear where that "sexwindow" and "gonorrhea" come from. It's your
>>> homo trademark.
>>
>> LOL! Your like a little girl that hits the boy she has a crush on.
>> You know you really love me, darling!
>>
>
>
> If you, a disgusting and sleazy fag think that everyone reading your
> delirium loves you, then you are simply insane. I don't think I
> should waste my time reasoning with you. You showed your true face -
> a face of obnoxious, homosexual freak . It's not funny . It's ugly
> and disgusting. That's why I rest my case. Find someone to feed your
> fag's fantasy among your "sexwindow" kinship. Freaks like you there
> surely deserve each other. Enjoy your gonorrhea and syphilis.
Yep, you are a self-loathing Homo!
--
Kisses and Hugs too!
staten
>
>
> Yada, Yada, Yada! The time to prove that Kerry was a traitor was over 30
> years ago. Ya'll can't. It was War Protestors like him that shortened
the
> Vietnam War, and that does make him a Hero in my eyes.
>
Yes, that shortened the Vietnam War - under terms of Hanoi communists and
with help of a bunch of traitors with John Kerry topping the list. Read
this , pervert, it's exactly what you and the rest of the left-libs want to
delete from English language on the eve of coming election - the word
treason.
The President Who Committed Treason
by Raymond Kraft
October 29, 2004
Next week the American people may do something they have never done
before: they may elected as president of the United States of America a man
who has committed treason against the United States of America.
The Constitution of the United States of America defines treason as
follows:
''Section 3. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open
court.''
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
Let's look at some facts.
1. The Cover Up of Military Records.
It has been widely reported for months, and not contradicted by John
Kerry, that he has never signed the Form 180 required to fully release his
military service file for public scrutiny. Various news stories from
multiple sources over the last few months report that somewhere between 31
and more than 100 pages of his records have not been released. See ''Navy
Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records,'' Marc Morano,
CNSNews.com, September 16, 2004. See www.CNSNews.com.
The Big Media, openly and completely complicit in the Kerry campaign,
have never demanded that he do so, although the same Big Media have spent
the last year parsing every word of President Bush's service records (George
Bush signed Form 180 and fully released his service records years ago, while
running for governor in Texas).
The obvious question is: Why does John Kerry not want to release the
rest of his service records? What is in there that he does not want me, or
you, or anyone else, to see?
John Kerry will obviously do anything he can to win this election.
If his concealed records would help him, you can bet the farm he would
publish them.
Since he keeps them covered up, so to speak, you can bet the farm
that they would hurt him, and that he knows it. It's a pretty simple
deduction that he knows releasing them would hurt him even worse than taking
the heat for not releasing them. If releasing the records would help his
campaign, he would. If releasing the records would help his campaign, he
would have done so a year ago.
What, exactly, is in them? I don't know. I haven't seen them
either. But whatever it is, it can't be good for his election chances.
2. Kerry's 1971 Direct Ties to North Vietnam
According to two new articles published in World Net Daily on October
26, 2004, ''Discovered Papers: Hanoi Directed Kerry,'' and on October 28,
2004, ''Another Document Ties Kerry to Hanoi,'' authenticated documents
recently found in the Texas Tech University's Vietnam Archive in Lubbock,
Texas, confirm that Kerry made two, and possibly three, direct contacts with
Madame Nguyen Thi Binh and the North Vietnamese Delegation to the Paris
Peace Talks in Paris, in he summer of 1971, where she is reported to have
instructed him on how he and the Vietnam Veterans Against The War could
''serve as Hanoi's surrogates in the United States.''
See www.WorldNetDaily.com articles numbered 41106 and 41142.
John Kerry returned to the United States and on July 22, 1971, held
a press conference publicly calling on President Nixon to accept the North
Vietnamese's 7-point ''Peace Plan''--essentially calling for the surrender
of the United States to North Vietnam.
The seven points John Kerry and the North Vietnamese advocated were:
1. The U.S. must agree to a date certain for total withdrawal of all U.S.
and allied forces from South Vietnam. If the date was set in 1971, North
Vietnam would agree to a safe withdrawal of U.S. forces and a release of all
POWs.
2. The U.S. must no longer interfere in the internal affairs of South
Vietnam.
3. The North and South Vietnamese will ''settle the question of
Vietnamese armed forces in South Viet Nam in a spirit of national concord.''
4. The reunification of North and South Vietnam.
5. That South Vietnam would pursue a ''foreign policy of peace and
neutrality.''
6. The U.S. would pay reparations for all the losses and destruction it
had caused to the Vietnamese people (North and South).
7. The parties, the United States and North Vietnam, would ''find
agreement on the forms of respect for and international guarantee of the
accords that will be concluded.''
[I have summarized these points for the sake of brevity. Source: Liberation
Press Agency, July 1, 1971, translation by Robert K. Brigham and Le Phuong
Anh.]
I.e., the United States would unconditionally withdraw from South
Vietnam, and would not interfere with the completely predictable takeover of
South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese communists.
In this press conference, John Kerry advocated that the United
States surrender to North Vietnam on the terms and conditions proposed by
North Vietnam, at a time when John Kerry was a reserve officer in the United
States Navy, the United States was at war with North Vietnam, and American
POWs were being held and tortured by North Vietnam. This followed just
three months after Kerry's famous congressional testimony in April 1971,
when he falsely claimed that American troops in Vietnam, including himself,
had committed war crimes and atrocities on a daily basis, with official
sanction.
Men who were POWs at the time, including Senator John McCain, have
since reported that John Kerry's congressional testimony and other anti-war
activism was used as propaganda against them by their torturers. See
''Stolen Honor.''
This conduct by John Kerry, which appears to be thoroughly
documented and undisputed, clearly appears to give ''aid and comfort'' to an
enemy of the United States, in a time of war, and to be prosecutable as
treason.
3. The Crime of Private Diplomacy
John Kerry's meetings with Madame Binh and the North Vietnamese
Delegation appear to violate 18 US Code 953, which provides:
''Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries
on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any
officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct
of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to
any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the
measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.''
I.e., Congress by 18 USC 953 has declared it a crime for a private
citizen to conduct private diplomacy adverse to the public policy and
interests of the United States, without the prior authority of the U.S.
Government.
And this is exactly what John Kerry appears to have done--he met with
the North Vietnamese Delegation and attempted, in collaboration with an
enemy of the United States, to effect the surrender of the United States to
North Vietnam.
His office has denied this, and claimed that he just happened to be
taking a honeymoon in Paris when he just happened to drop in on Madam Nguyen
Thi Binh and the North Vietnamese Delegation for a spot of tea and
strumpets, sorry, I mean crumpets, or croissants, perhaps, and a couple of
weeks later he just happens to give a highly publicized anti-war press
conference in America calling on President Nixon to accept all seven points
of the North Vietnamese surrender demands forthwith - this explanation
doesn't even pass the straight-face test!
Just how many honeymooning couples in Paris that spring just happened
to drop in to see Madam Nguyen Thi Binh of the North Vietnamese Delegation
to the Paris Peace Conference, do you think?
See ''Kerry's Meeting With Communists Violated U.S. Law,'' CNS News,
May 20, 2004.
4. The Discharge Mysteries
In the New York Sun, October 13, 2004, in an article entitled
''Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge,'' Thomas Lipscomb describes how
unusual circumstances surrounding John Kerry's discharge from the Navy and
the reissue--the reissue--of his medals after Kerry joined the Senate on
June 4, 1985, suggest that he received something other than an honorable
discharge.
For brevity, I shall simply refer you to the article at
www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=3107.
5. The First Amendment Breach
In the last few months and weeks, John Kerry and the Kerry Campaign
have at least twice violated, or attempted to violate, the First Amendment
rights of American citizens, the right of free political speech.
In August, 2004, Kerry's lawyers threatened to sue the Swiftboat
Veterans for Truth, and any television station that carried their ads, when
the Swiftboat Veterans, men who had served alongside John Kerry in Vietnam,
began running te;evosopm ads expressing their opinion that John Kerry was
''Unfit for Command.''
In October, 2004, Kerry's lawyers again threatened Sinclair
Broadcasting Group, Inc., with lawsuits and retaliation if it ran the
documentary, ''Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,'' which highlights the
testimony of former POWs who describe how their imprisonment was lengthened,
their torture was intensified, and their physical and emotional pain was
aggravated, by the aid and comfort John Kerry's anti-war activism gave to
the enemy in the early 1970s.
The freedom of speech is the very second right guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, following only the
freedom of religion. Indeed, modern liberalism kicked itself off with the
''Free Speech Movement'' at Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley in the 1960s with
loud and often profane demands that nobody interfere with its First
Amendment right to speak freely and say anything!
It has come full circle, and the Free Speechers of yesterday are now
doing all they can to suppress the free speech of anyone who disagrees with
them today. John Kerry's efforts to suppress the freedom of his political
opponents to speak freely and publicly, while not precisely an act of
''treason,'' is clearly an act in violation of the United States
Constitution, in violation of the First Amendment, and in violation of John
Kerry's Senatorial oath to ''protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.''
This is, in my opinion, a wholly despicable act, an act beneath
contempt, an act that betrays John Kerry's utter and complete disregard of
the Constitution which John Kerry has twice sworn to protect and defend, an
act that betrays John Kerry's utter and complete disregard of the
Constitution he will again swear to protect and defend if he is elected
president, an illegal act by John Kerry, a presidential aspirant, a senator,
and a lawyer, who of all people should know better.
America cannot afford a president who holds the First Amendment of
the Constitution in such deep contempt that he will violate it at will to
get elected. If he does not respect the First Amendment while campaigning
for office, I fear the disregard in which he and his administration may hold
it, and any other amendment, if, or while, he holds office.
John Kerry has not been tried for treason. He has not been
convicted. He may never be tried, and if he were tried, he might not be
convicted. I cannot predict the future. But he hasn't even been elected,
and these circumstances are already the beginning of the first great scandal
of a Kerry presidency: Kerrygate.
The Democratic Party cannot afford to elect a Democrat as President
who has committed treason, or who has given aid and comfort to an enemy of
the United States, or who has acted with open disregard of the First
Amendment in the conduct of his presidential campaign; a man who may be
subject to removal from the presidency after he takes office, without
impeachment, but simply by a judicial determination that he is disqualified
from the presidency by the U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 3, and by
the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14 Section 3.
The Democratic Party cannot afford to elect this man, not if the
Democratic Party wants to remain a credible, respected, and cohesive force
in American life and politics. Not if it wants to survive this election, or
a Kerry presidency.
The euphoria of the election will quickly fade in the litigious
aftermath of the voting discrepancies, real and imaginary, and then the
lawsuits contesting John Kerry's eligibility to be president at all will
come. This will begin one of the most heated and contentious legal and
political battles in American history. And the blood will be on the hands
of the Democratic Party which has nominated and elected a man who appears to
have committed treason, to have given aid and comfort to any enemy of the
United States in a time of war, to the presidency.
And if Kerry is removed from office, then the Presidency will fall on
the shoulders of John Edwards, a one-term senator from South Carolina who
would not be re-elected to the Senate if he ran again, a trial lawyer who
has made himself rich by suing doctors, a man with no military experience,
no international diplomatic experience, no national political experience
before this election, a man whom even John Kerry has called unqualified to
be president!
And what if this legal challenge to the legitimacy of a Kerry
presidency occurs at a time of great danger to the United States? In the
midst of a war on terrorism? If it disrupts the ability of the
administration to conduct that war? What if the election of such a
candidate is, itself, an act of giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the
United States?
These are serious questions, and serious issues, about which I see no
public discussion, certainly not in the New York Times, the Los Angeles
Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, or on ABC, CBS,
CNN, NBC, MSNBC, or even Fox News.
We are on the verge of an election. John Kerry is still covering up
some of his own service records, and whatever is in them, and the American
people deserve to know what he doesn't want us to know. Where is the
''Peoples' Right to Know'' now? We need to know, before we vote. We don't
like cover-ups. We have called them Watergate. Iran-Contragate.
Whitewatergate. Monicagate. They have brought down some presidents, and
humbled others. We may call the next one Kerrygate.
And John Kerry and the Democrats will have no one to blame but
themselves
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:b-SdnSs577e...@adelphia.com...
>>
>>
>> Yada, Yada, Yada! The time to prove that Kerry was a traitor was
>> over 30 years ago. Ya'll can't. It was War Protestors like him
>> that shortened the Vietnam War, and that does make him a Hero in my
>> eyes.
>>
>
> Yes, that shortened the Vietnam War - under terms of Hanoi communists
> and with help of a bunch of traitors with John Kerry topping the
> list. Read this , pervert, it's exactly what you and the rest of the
> left-libs want to delete from English language on the eve of coming
> election - the word treason.
>
>
> The President Who Committed Treason
> by Raymond Kraft
> October 29, 2004
Bush & Co.: War Crimes and Cover-Up
by Marjorie Cohn
September 20, 2004
As the election approaches, we are bombarded with stories about swift
boats, dereliction of duty, and who's the most macho leader. Missing from
the discourse is a critical examination of why George W. Bush failed to heed
warnings before September 11, why he sat paralyzed for 7 minutes after being
informed of the attacks, how he subsequently turned Iraq into a deadly
cauldron, and committed - then covered up - war crimes in Afghanistan,
Guantánamo and Iraq.
The central theme of the Republican Convention was Bush's bona fides as a
tough president who will save us from another terrorist attack. Instead of
examining why we went to war with a country that posed no threat to us, the
agenda was replete with rhetoric about fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we
wouldn't have to fight them here.
Significantly absent from the patriotic speeches was the "t" word. Not even
a brief acknowledgement that prisoners in American custody were mistreated.
Torture is on the back burner. Every so often, another official report comes
out, with more disturbing revelations, but never directly implicates Bush,
Cheney or Rumsfeld.
Even the release of Seymour Hersh's new book, Chain of Command: The Road
from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, has garnered scant attention in the daily fare of
television staples, where most Americans get their news. But Rumsfeld
noticed. Four days before the book's release, without having read it, the
Department of Defense issued a rare but characteristically preemptive attack
on the book.
Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that his
department was alerted to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in January
2004. Rumsfeld told Bush in February about an "issue" involving mistreatment
of prisoners in Iraq, according to a Senior White House aide.
These claims are disingenuous. The roots of Abu Ghraib, writes Hersh, lie in
the creation of the "unacknowledged" special-access program (SAP)
established by a top-secret order Bush signed in late 2001 or early 2002.
The presidential order authorized the Defense Department to set up a
clandestine team of Special Forces operatives to defy international law and
snatch, or assassinate, anyone considered a "high-value" Al Qaeda operative,
anywhere in the world.
Rumsfeld expanded SAP into Iraq in August 2003. It was Rumsfeld who approved
the use of physical coercion and sexual humiliation to extract information
from prisoners. Rumsfeld and Bush set this system in motion long before
January 2004. The mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was part of the
ongoing operation.
Hersch quotes a CIA analyst who was sent to the U.S. military prison at
Guantánamo in late summer of 2002, to find out why so little useful
intelligence had been gathered. After interviewing 30 prisoners, "he came
back convinced that we were committing war crimes in Guantánamo."
By fall 2002, the analyst's report finally reached Gen. John A. Gordon, the
deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, who reported
directly to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Gordon was deeply
distressed by the report and its implications for the treatment of captured
American soldiers. He also thought "that if the actions at Guantánamo ever
became public, it'd be damaging to the president."
Gordon passed the report to Rice, who called a high-level meeting in the
White House situation room. Rumsfeld, who had been encouraging his soldiers
to get tough with prisoners, was present at the meeting. Yet Rice asked
Rumsfeld "what the issues were, and he said he hadn't looked into it." Rice
urged him to look into it: "Let's get the story right," she declared.
A military consultant with close ties to Special Operations told Hersh that
war crimes were committed in Iraq and no action was taken. "People were
beaten to death," he said. "What do you call it when people are tortured and
going to die and the soldiers know it, but do not treat their injuries?" the
consultant asked rhetorically. "Execution," he replied to his own question.
We should have seen it coming. In Bush's January 2003 State of the Union
Address, he said: "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been
arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate." He
added, "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem for the United
States and our friends and allies."
Bush was admitting he had sanctioned summary execution, in direct violation
of international, and United States, law.
The Bush administration has also admittedly engaged in the illegal practice
of rendition, where people are sent to other countries to be tortured. The
C.I.A. acknowledged in testimony before Congress that prior to 2001, it had
engaged in about seventy "extraordinary renditions."
In December 2001, American operatives kidnapped two Egyptians and flew them
to Cairo, where they were subjected to repeated torture by electrical shocks
from electrodes attached to their private parts.
Rapes, sodomy with foreign objects, the use of unmuzzled dogs to bite and
severely injure prisoners, and beating prisoners to death have been
documented at Abu Ghraib. Women beg their families to smuggle poison into
the prisons so they can kill themselves because of the humiliation they
suffered.
Allegations of routine torture have emerged from Mosul and Basra as well.
"Some were burnt with fire, others [had] bandaged broken arms," claimed
Yasir Rubaii Saeed al-Qutaji. Haitham Saeed al-Mallah reported seeing "a
young man of 14 years of age bleeding from his anus and lying on the floor."
Al-Mallah heard the soldiers say that "the reason for this bleeding was
inserting a metal object in his anus."
The army has charged one Sergeant with assault and other crimes, and is
recommending that two dozen American soldiers face criminal charges,
including negligent homicide for mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.
Last week, three Americans, running a private prison, but reportedly working
with the CIA, were convicted of kidnapping and torture and sentenced to 8-10
years in prison by an Afghan court. Afghan police had discovered three men
hanging from the ceiling, and five others were found beaten and tied in a
dark small room.
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, a treaty ratified by the U.S. and thus part of our
binding domestic law, defines torture as follows: the infliction of severe
pain or suffering for the purpose of obtaining a confession, discrimination,
coercion or intimidation.
Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful killing are grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions, treaties ratified by the United States. Grave breaches
of Geneva are considered war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of
1996. American nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in
prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of
command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should
have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to prevent
or stop them.
When John Walker Lindh was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001, his
American interrogators stripped and gagged him, strapped him to a board, and
displayed him to the press. He was writhing in pain from a bullet left in
his body.
Although initially charged with crimes of terrorism carrying life in prison,
John Ashcroft permitted Lindh to plead guilty to lesser crimes that garnered
him 20 years. The condition: Lindh make a statement that he suffered "no
deliberate mistreatment" while in custody. The cover-up was underway.
Lawyers from the Defense and Justice Departments penned lengthy memos and
created a definition of torture much narrower than the one in the Torture
Convention. They advised Bush how his people could engage in torture and
avoid prosecution under the federal Torture Statute.
Relying on advice in these memos, Bush issued an unprecedented order that,
as commander-in-chief, he has the authority to suspend the Geneva
Conventions. In spite of Geneva's requirement that a competent tribunal
decide whether someone qualifies for POW status, Bush took it upon himself
to decide that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan were not
protected by the Geneva Convention on the POWs.
This decision was premised on the reasoning of White House Counsel Alberto
Gonzalez, that "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war, a new
paradigm [that] renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning
of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint!
A still-secret section of the recently-released Fay Report says that
"policies and practices developed and approved for use on Al Qaeda and
Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva
Conventions, now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva
Conventions' protections."
The Schlesinger Report that came out a few weeks ago accused the Pentagon's
top civilian and military leadership of failing to exercise sufficient
oversight and permitting conditions that led to the abuses. Rumsfeld's
reversals of interrogation policy, according to the report, created
confusion about which techniques could be used on prisoners in Iraq.
Rumsfeld has admitted ordering an Iraqi prisoner be hidden from the
International Committee of the Red Cross. Pentagon investigators believe the
CIA has held as many as 100 "ghost" detainees in Iraq. Hiding prisoners from
the Red Cross violates Geneva.
The Schlesinger Report confirmed 5 detainee deaths as a result of
interrogation, and 23 more deaths are currently under investigation.
In May, when the Abu Ghraib scandal was on the front pages, there were
demands for Rumsfeld to resign. But Cheney told Rumsfeld there would be no
resignations. It was blatantly political. We're going to hunker down and
tough it out, Cheney said, so as not to hurt Bush's chances for election in
November.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions
and interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison, was sent from Guantánamo to Iraq
last fall to transplant his harsh interrogation techniques. Miller recently
conducted an overnight tour of Abu Ghraib for journalists.
He proudly displayed "Camp Liberty" and "Camp Redemption," newly renovated
in response to the torture scandal.
Under the new system in place at Abu Ghraib, an interrogation plan is
submitted to a lawyer for approval before any interrogation begins. The time
required to process prisoners has been reduced from 120 to 50 days. Since
July, 60% of the reviews have led to releases.
Three hundred Iraqi prisoners were released Wednesday. Each walked away with
$25 and a 12-page glossy pamphlet on Iraq's interim government.
But evidence of war crimes by the Bush administration - notably Rumsfeld,
Cheney and Bush - continues to emerge. And in spite of Bush's renunciation
of the International Criminal Court, many people around the world are
clamoring for Bush and his deputies to be held accountable. In the words of
Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman: "It is one thing to protect the armed
forces from politicized justice; quite another, to make it a haven for
suspected war criminals."
__________________________________________________
I'm more worried about the High Crimes committed by the current President.
--
Peace!