A Question for Combat Arms Soldiers
Colin Campbell
>This question might provoke a rash of flames but oh well.
>
>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders towards
>everybody else?
Please, you are thinking that a couple of trolls (both of whom claim
to be paratroopers) speak for the rest of us.
>
>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31 series in
>the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?
We are not blasting the MOSs, just the wannabes who claim to hold
them.
For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
easy to understand and wrong answer.
Mike
towards
everybody else?<<
They're in the front lines and get a lot more frustrating and physical work.
. .
>>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31
series in
the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?<<
I know nothing about that. . .
>>But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops anytime
anyone else has pride in their MOS?<<
That's the 'combatativeness' of combat arms?!?
Yes, there's a certain unattractive agressiveness in the combat arms. I
think that's good. Although it's sometimes taken too far.
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
ARNG76
Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders towards
everybody else?
Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31 series in
the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?
I am not being judgemental nor am I saying that REMF MOS's don't provoke it
many times. But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops anytime
anyone else has pride in their MOS?
- Wayne
V-Man
>in
>the past few posts),
That was a lot of misunderstanding. it was NOT, save on the resident trolls
part, what it might appear to have been.
"Hold 'em by the nose so you can kick 'em in the butt."
- George S Patton, Jr, General, USA
Bill Gross
don't have to worry about being up close and personal with the bad
guys day in and day out if the sh*t hits the fan. If a unit is well
trained and has high esprit de corps, cockieness is part of the
territory. Being cocky and not knowing you job, well that's a
different issue.
On 12 Jul 2000 02:19:36 GMT, arn...@aol.com (ARNG76) wrote:
>This question might provoke a rash of flames but oh well.
>
>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders towards
>everybody else?
>
>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31 series in
Tommel6
It's a fact of life... one can't make everybody happy... :)
>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their
>shoulders towards everybody else?
>
I don't think this is the case at all. There's one nimrod, that
CLAIMS he was an airborne 91P that keeps posting on this group
about how all "Combat Arms Losers" are too dumb to do anything
except work at McDonalds when they leave the service. There are
several ex-combat arms types on here that are in college (I'm in
law school, V-Man is a history major for example...), and have
told this loser otherwise. "Stan" on the other hand, has admitted
that he is doing the same exact thing he has done in the
service... This idiot also claims that 91Ps have seen more
combat than infantrymen in the last forty years, and
that a soldier is a coward if he hasn't gone airborne... so
everybody flames the retard, and certain things are said about
"Sandra/Stanley/James" supposed MOS-- I don't believe Stan was
ever IN the service, and I know that if he was, he certainly
isn't represenative of the Airborne guys I knew or the 91 series
blokes that I knew...
>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91
>and 31 series in the past few posts), instead of having pride
>in their own?
>
I think that for the most part, we are just blasting that moron
"Stan" or "Sandra" (he likes to pretend he is a girl) and not
thoses other MOS's...
>I am not being judgemental nor am I saying that REMF MOS's don't
>provoke it many times.
I don't think the other guys provoke it at all, just that cretin
"Stanley..." I find it rather amusing to tease him though, sort
of like taking my SR-25 and taking potshots at an annoying French
Mime...
> But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops
>anytime anyone else has pride in their MOS?
>
There's a difference between taking pride in your MOS and doing a
job well, and being an asshole. "Standra" is the latter, and I
supsect that you are the former- nobody likes a pompous ass,
especially one that has done so little or shown that he has
accomplished NOTHING (like "Stan") and that's why we insult him
so... -Tom
Nearly every red-blooded human boy has had war,
in some shape or form for his first love; if his blood has remained red
and he kept some of his boyishness in after life, that first love
will never have been forgotten. -Saki/1915
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
V-Man
>>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their
>>shoulders towards everybody else?
>>
>
>I don't think this is the case at all. There's one nimrod, that
>CLAIMS he was an airborne 91P that keeps posting on this group
>about how all "Combat Arms Losers" are too dumb to do anything
>except work at McDonalds when they leave the service.
And, to get to the cause of the misunderstandings I mentioned, when these
guys try to defend themselves, several others have then taken their comments
out of context.
Hawk
>
> This question might provoke a rash of flames but oh well.
>
> everybody else?]
I know you mean well friend, but it might come as a large surprize to
learn damn few soldiers from the Combat Arms post or read here. You
would likewise be surprized to learn that of those that do, few of them
have such chips as you describe on their shoulders. There is and
always will be a few inmature, insecure individuals that feel a great
need to flex for the boys, but hardly define what the Combat Arms
Soldiers are really like.
>
> Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31 series in
> the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?
Of those that do, see above.
>
> I am not being judgemental nor am I saying that REMF MOS's don't provoke it
> many times. But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops anytime
> anyone else has pride in their MOS?
See above and don';t concern yourself with petty little spitwad
throwing. It has nothing to do with real soldiers.
Ed
>
> - Wayne
Hawk
>
> >>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders
> towards
> everybody else?<<
>
Sorry, you may want to re-think that a little. YOu want to see some
frustration and work, let the rear guys go on vacation and watch the
crying take place.
Ed
> . .
>
> >>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31
> series in
> the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?<<
>
> I know nothing about that. . .
>
> >>But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops anytime
> anyone else has pride in their MOS?<<
>
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> They're in the front lines and get a lot more frustrating and physical
work.
Not always the case (Kosovo).
Dave
Ranger One Five
shoulders towards
> everybody else?
They are liable to be ordered to kill ANYBODY else, including their own
officers or REMFs; read “Thrill of the Kill” in August 1998 issue of
Soldier of Fortune magazine.
Although he does not have combat experience, basic problems of
combatants have been well presented by Lt. Col Dave Grossman in his book
“On Killing.”
> Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31
series in
> the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?
>
> I am not being judgemental nor am I saying that REMF MOS's don't
provoke it
> many times. But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops
anytime
> anyone else has pride in their MOS?
Maltreatment of combat infantrymen by REMFs with backing of desk jockey
shavetails and MPs during short stand-downs in Long Binh was so bad
during Vietnam conflict that I actually saw one chaplin base a Sunday
sermon on it.
>
> - Wayne
>
>
Be sure to read Grossman's books. Entertainment media has discovered
former secrets of how we get most American infantrymen to actually close
with and destroy the enemy. There follow two, among other, serious
problems: Combat veterans (and historians) learn most REMFs and
gentlemen by act of Congress deserve death more than the soldiers that
have been butchered, and Congress and District Attorneys are allowing
the entertainment media to teach children how to massacre each other in
schools and the streets of your neighborhood.
--
Harry Miller 312-787-0565
150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
Chicago IL 60610
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
V-Man
>They are liable to be ordered to kill ANYBODY else, including their own
>officers or REMFs; read “Thrill of the Kill” in August 1998 issue of
>Soldier of Fortune magazine.
<Snicker>
Eyewitness accounts as retold in Soldier of Fiction, er... Fortune as a
source... that's good. the only thing that is completely trustworthy in that
rag are technical articles.
Perry
>This question might provoke a rash of flames but oh well.
>
>Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders towards
>everybody else?
>
>Why do they feel the need to blast other MOS's (such as the 91 and 31 series in
>the past few posts), instead of having pride in their own?
>
>I am not being judgemental nor am I saying that REMF MOS's don't provoke it
>many times. But why does this anger seem to exist among combat troops anytime
>anyone else has pride in their MOS?
>
>- Wayne
>
You using the term REMF is derogatory in its own right. You used it
so you just shit on all the support career fields. Whether you know it
or not.
Mr Sebastian
REMF's are just tourists and without the REMF's the Teeth
Arms are just nude wankers with empty guns standing in the
wrong field. We are all there for the job, take the piss in
peacetime but when the game is on everyone has to bat.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Colin Campbell
>The combat troops can buy the service jobs from civilian contractors (which
>is already being done to a certain extent), but the non-combat troops will
>have a hard time buying soldiering services from someone else.
This has been done for all jobs that do not require a soldier.
BTW, I challenge you to call the guy who fuels your tank a remf, or
your medics, or your cooks, or your pac personnel.
David Casey
"Tanker" <--@--> wrote:
> Anyone in my battalion, or brigade, is a combat soldier, and that includes
> the guys who fuel the tanks, the medics, the cooks and so on.
>
> Anyone behind a desk or in a shop or whatever far far away from any
> possible enemy action is not.
Got something for you. I was in Kosovo on Camp Monteith and at times sat
behind a desk only a few miles from the Serbian border. At other times I
was sitting on top of some hill significantly closer to the border and
keeping an eye out with a loaded weapon and putting up commo equipment.
Does this make me a part-time "combat soldier" and part-time REMF?
Dave
Roger Perkins
don't have to prove anything.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
David Casey <davidcas...@hotmail.dpc> wrote in message
news:eLuc5.40478$MT.14...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
Alen
be replaced with contractors anytime soon. What's next, replace combat arms
soldiers with people advertising in Soldier of Fortune.
"Tanker" <--@--> wrote in message
news:3d14ns4q1dcb7stkq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:34:19 -0700 in <news:us.military.army> Mr Sebastian
> wrote:
>
> ->The argument is pointless. Without the Teeth Arms the
> ->REMF's are just tourists and without the REMF's the Teeth
> ->Arms are just nude wankers with empty guns standing in the
> ->wrong field. We are all there for the job, take the piss in
> ->peacetime but when the game is on everyone has to bat.
Williams
Tanker <--@--> wrote in message
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:22:03 -0700 in <news:us.military.army> Colin
> Campbell wrote:
>
> ->On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:59:02 +0200, Tanker <--@--> wrote:
> ->
> ->
> ->>The combat troops can buy the service jobs from civilian contractors
(which
> ->>is already being done to a certain extent), but the non-combat troops
will
> ->>have a hard time buying soldiering services from someone else.
> ->
> ->This has been done for all jobs that do not require a soldier.
> ->
> ->BTW, I challenge you to call the guy who fuels your tank a remf, or
> ->your medics, or your cooks, or your pac personnel.
>
> Anyone in my battalion, or brigade, is a combat soldier, and that includes
> the guys who fuel the tanks, the medics, the cooks and so on.
>
> Anyone behind a desk or in a shop or whatever far far away from any
> possible enemy action is not.
So, in your estimation, anybody not organically part of your brigade is not
a soldier??? Make sure that you inform the Division Surgeon (saving your
soldiers), the Chaplain (also saving your soldiers), the chemical guys
(deconing your equipment), the signal folks (making sure you can talk), the
MPs (protecting your rear and collecting your POWs), and the various other
elements who in the modern day of battle are most likely just as close to
danger as your little band of heroes.
SFC Williams
Former Cav Scout, currently driving a desk.
David Casey
"Tanker" <--@--> wrote:
> I suggest you read what I write. Considering that Camp Monteith is well
> within artillery range from Serbia you can hardly be regarded as being
far,
> far away any possible enemy action.
Believe me, I knew this. I'm simply trying to point out that not only were
combat arms types there, but "lowly" combat support troops such as myself.
Everyone is a soldier no matter what their MOS. Without that PAC clerk who
doesn't get issued TA-50 back in Washington, the infantry troop keeping
watch on the Serbs isn't able to do their job.
Dave
David Casey
"Roger Perkins" <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Just a sojer, man. Just a sojer. Blow the assholes off and soldier on.
You
> don't have to prove anything.
Oh I know, just trying to knock some "I'm the shit" private from their high
horse. :-)
Dave
billh
"Tanker"
> Anyone in my battalion, or brigade, is a combat soldier, and that includes
> the guys who fuel the tanks, the medics, the cooks and so on.
>
> Anyone behind a desk or in a shop or whatever far far away from any
> possible enemy action is not.
So, what about the Infantry soldier having served in two campaigns or wars
that is now senior (SGM, CSM, or COL, or pick any other rank) and is serving
on a MACOM staff, the DA staff, or the staff of unified or functional
command? You prove to be full of crap and prove that you do not understand
the Army in which you serve.
Hawk
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:34:19 -0700 in <news:us.military.army> Mr Sebastian
> wrote:
>
> ->The argument is pointless. Without the Teeth Arms the
> ->REMF's are just tourists and without the REMF's the Teeth
> ->Arms are just nude wankers with empty guns standing in the
> ->wrong field. We are all there for the job, take the piss in
> ->peacetime but when the game is on everyone has to bat.
>
Why buy them when it would take little time at all for the Support
Troops to take on the Combat Job if nesessary. Yea it takes time to
become ultra good, but nessessity is the mother of all motivators. Some
of you tend to over estimate your value.
Ed
Hawk
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:59:02 +0200, Tanker <--@--> wrote:
>
> >is already being done to a certain extent), but the non-combat troops will
> >have a hard time buying soldiering services from someone else.
>
>
>
> easy to understand and wrong answer.
Only the most mini-minded marginal soldier would do that, and usually
only once.
Ed
Hawk
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:22:03 -0700 in <news:us.military.army> Colin
> Campbell wrote:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->>The combat troops can buy the service jobs from civilian contractors (which
> ->>is already being done to a certain extent), but the non-combat troops will
> ->>have a hard time buying soldiering services from someone else.
> ->
> ->This has been done for all jobs that do not require a soldier.
> ->
> ->BTW, I challenge you to call the guy who fuels your tank a remf, or
> ->your medics, or your cooks, or your pac personnel.
>
> Anyone in my battalion, or brigade, is a combat soldier, and that includes
> the guys who fuel the tanks, the medics, the cooks and so on.
>
> Anyone behind a desk or in a shop or whatever far far away from any
> possible enemy action is not.
And where pray tell Where would that be, Pasadena, Cal?
Ed
Hawk
>
> Just a sojer, man. Just a sojer. Blow the assholes off and soldier on. You
> don't have to prove anything.
Once more the man is right. Correctomente Roger, and piss on em if they
can't take a joke.
Ed
>
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
>
> David Casey <davidcas...@hotmail.dpc> wrote in message
> news:eLuc5.40478$MT.14...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Tanker" <--@--> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone in my battalion, or brigade, is a combat soldier, and that
> includes
> > > the guys who fuel the tanks, the medics, the cooks and so on.
> > >
> > > Anyone behind a desk or in a shop or whatever far far away from any
> > > possible enemy action is not.
> >
Hawk
>
> On 12 Jul 2000 02:19:36 GMT in <news:us.military.army> ARNG76 wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> ->Why do combat arms Soldiers seem to have such a chip on their shoulders towards
> ->everybody else?
>
> Because combat arms soldiers are real soldiers. As opposed to
> (non-frontline) cooks, cleaners, paper pushers back home, shoe shiners, cab
> drivers and others comfortably located three thousand miles away from any
> enemy action.
>
> Anyone can be a paper pusher in Oklahoma. Nut anyone can take frontline
> service.
>
> Simple as that.
>
> <cut>
You poor demented little fool. I can only thank God the Military isn't
made up of idiots such as yourself. You have no qualities that would
serve you as a decent soldier in any situation, if you did, your mouth
would not be here overloading your ass. Could you furnish me your unit
designation as I feel a need to warn the real troops that should be able
to depend on you. They need to know they can't.
Ed
Mike
frustration and work, let the rear guys go on vacation and watch the
crying take place.
<<
You got a point. I knew a couple troops in the 503rd Support BN in West
Germany. Support at a combat arms base with 2 Tank and 2 Mech Battalions is
no picnic. . .
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
<<
Today's technology SHOULD allow for the privatization of cooking and
payroll.
Field cooking could be accomplished by heating technologies and pre-made
dishes. Privatize all garrison cooking. It's a destraction from the
mission. . .
For the Navy, they could keep their cooks but should learn some management
techniques from how criuse ships operate. Their on-ship food preparation is
a horror show of inefficiency and waste.
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
Yes. Messy situation. It could be a great training ground.
What's needed is a Radio Free Serbia / Bosnia backed by some Special Ops /
Covert / Pheonix-type selective assassinations. There are too many junior
Stalins and Hitlers in that area for democracy to take root. Some weeding
is necessary.
Of course, that would require too much Machiavellian (and quality)
leadership skills on NATO's part. . .
The West lacks the stomach for it. Heinlein had a point about the weakness
of the Democracies . . .
Just my 2 cents. . .
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> Some job descriptions and MOS's are outdated. Some should be blended.
>
> Today's technology SHOULD allow for the privatization of cooking and
> payroll.
>
> Field cooking could be accomplished by heating technologies and pre-made
> dishes. Privatize all garrison cooking. It's a destraction from the
> mission. . .
First question, are you or have you been in the military? If so, which
branch? In the Army, we don't always set up shop in a nice place where
everyone is friendly. Every so often, we are working and living in places
far from the things we take for granted in life. You feel we should hire
private civilians to follow us around (paying them *much* more to do so) and
cook for us? Works good in a place like Kosovo (right up until the war
starts up), but not in any other conflict. I doubt the cooks working in the
Army now feel working in a dining facility is a distraction from their
mission since their mission is to cook. "Field cooking" consists of heating
up the MRE, but since eating those for days (weeks) on end tends to suck, a
hot A Ration does worlds for morale. :-)
Dave
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> Yes. Messy situation. It could be a great training ground.
I agree it is a messy situation, and it is a great training ground. I
learned more about how the Army works together to get the mission done in
seven months there than I did in six years of going to the field.
> What's needed is a Radio Free Serbia / Bosnia backed by some Special Ops
/
> Covert / Pheonix-type selective assassinations. There are too many junior
> Stalins and Hitlers in that area for democracy to take root. Some weeding
> is necessary.
Interesting. If we stoop to the level of those we are "fighting" against,
we're no better than them and simply being the local bully.
Dave
tkarney@hotmail...com
I just did a TDY where my only ways to get hot rats was the
microwave, or a walk to a restaurant.
Given the long days and the expense of the latter I opted for
the former.
That was thirty days. I can't say it was a great thing for my
morale. I had the advantage of not being in a combat zone. The
boost to morale and unit effectiveness gained from a hot meal is
worth any price.
Further, there are times when the enemy is not so kind as to
sit out in the front where the line-doggies can shoot them. The
battle of the Bulge comes to mind where, "cooks and baker's,"
got to shoulder the rifles they thought not much more than a
nuisance to maintain and fought like lions.
There is no way a completely untrained civilian can do the
same. Most people in the service don't to do more than some CTT
and annually/semi-annually qualify. But they have had the
advatage of basic training, doesn't make them a grunt, but it
DOES make them a soldier, and that is an important thing in a
war zone.
That Basic (and I stress the word basic) Training and
motivation can do wonders. Just as the boys from the Virgina
Military Acadamy.
I for one, don't want men in my rear who CAN'T, in a pinch, be
counted on to hold my life worth saving. Civilians have not
been asked to make that promise, nor should they be expected to.
TK
Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Mike
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
redc1c4
>
> As a former combat arms sojer, i never met a 91B i did'nt like.
as a former, and current combat arms trooper, and a 91 series myself,
i've met a few, but they REALLY worked at it...
redc1c4,
Scouts Out!
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>>>BTW, I challenge you to call the guy who fuels your tank a remf, or
>your medics, or your cooks, or your pac personnel.
><<
>Some job descriptions and MOS's are outdated. Some should be blended.
>
>Today's technology SHOULD allow for the privatization of cooking and
>payroll.
>
>Field cooking could be accomplished by heating technologies and pre-made
>dishes. Privatize all garrison cooking. It's a destraction from the
>mission. . .
This has been tried. The result was the infamous 'T-Rations.'
What is the longest time you have been in the field without A-rations?
Colin Campbell
<mwithee...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:
> As a former combat arms sojer, i never met a 91B i did'nt like.
"No matter how minor the ailment, a visit to the unit medics will
result in an IV." (Murphys' Laws of Armor)
David Casey
"Colin Campbell" <col...@linkline.com> wrote:
> "No matter how minor the ailment, a visit to the unit medics will
> result in an IV." (Murphys' Laws of Armor)
Signal troops just get some Motrin.
Dave
:-)
Ranger One Five
> > Covert / Pheonix-type selective assassinations. There are too many
junior
> > Stalins and Hitlers in that area for democracy to take root. Some
weeding
> > is necessary.
>
> Interesting. If we stoop to the level of those we are "fighting"
against,
> we're no better than them and simply being the local bully.
>
> Dave
Phoenix Program. In declining writ of certiorari for "Miller v
Silverstein et al." 97-667 U.S. Supreme Court as your final arbiter
decided to let stand lower court decision that evidence on
"assassinations" of American soldiers and citizens paralleling Phoenix
Program could not be looked at by any court because to do so would
question authority of your legislators to sanction executive actions
fostering patriotic wars Congress neglects to fund. Those murders
supported distribution of heroin and cocaine off Air America and
Southern Air Transport. But by 1977 most of the drug money was going
into election campaign fund contributions rather than purchase of
hardware for freedom fighters.
See also completed file on "Miller v Clinton" 1205/96 Supreme Court of
State of New York County of Queens.
You have not seen anything of the charges in the media because, since
before WWII, the publishers and broadcasters who so patrioticaly
instituted hot war censorship and continued that during cold war, have
been sanctioning Federal assassinations, not Congress. Congress was
never mentioned in "Miller v Silverstein et al." until appellate judge
wrote them into her decision. However, since closing of the case by
Supreme Court you, The People, are now on record as approving
assassination as a tool of the supremely powerful republic whose
citizens have opted for an all volunteer armed force.
Messy situation: Mike's solutions can be blamed on you and your family.
Perhaps you should see whether your Senators and Member of the House of
Representatives are willing to establish beyond doubt that anyone who
has assassinated is actually still guilty of an indictable felony in the
United States. Too many people like Mike and his enemies are liable to
be taking Soldier of Fortune stories such as "Thrill of the Kill" in the
August 1998 issue ot that magazine for a real policy in your history.
Ther are a lot of messy questions entailed, such as how cartels directed
by retired Admirals and Generals have gotten stranglehold on third world
mineral wealth.
---
Harry Miller 312-787-0565
150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
Chicago IL 60610
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roger Perkins
And of course, despite the censorship and the protection by the evil
government YOU, fearless defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way,
knows.
Whatta man. Whatta maroon.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Ranger One Five <one...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8l7tpa$a4a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>That's right Dave. But Uncle Sugar has already gone lower than the
>Phoenix Program. In declining writ of certiorari for "Miller v
>Silverstein et al." 97-667 U.S. Supreme Court as your final arbiter
>decided to let stand lower court decision that evidence on
>"assassinations" of American soldiers and citizens paralleling Phoenix
>Program could not be looked at by any court because to do so would
>question authority of your legislators to sanction executive actions
>fostering patriotic wars Congress neglects to fund. Those murders
>supported distribution of heroin and cocaine off Air America and
>Southern Air Transport. But by 1977 most of the drug money was going
>into election campaign fund contributions rather than purchase of
>hardware for freedom fighters.
The tinfoil hat brigade strikes again.
And as I expected what is posted above is not what I found when I
looked up the case.
From my research here is what _really_ happened.
1) Miller sues the government for $47 million dollars.
2) Lawsuit is thrown out as frivolous. (In other words ther plaintiff
did not have enough of a case to even justify a trial.)
3) Miller appeals.
4) Appeals court hears the appeal and finds the lawsuit frivolous.
5) Miller appeals.
6) Supreme Court declines to hear the case.
Are you related to hinderloser by any chance?
References:
http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/miller.htm
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/September97/s96-6303.html
Mike
we're no better than them and simply being the local bully.
<<
By your moral-idiot logic, those troops who landed on the Normandy beachhead
54+ years ago were bullying the poor Nazis.
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
be taking Soldier of Fortune stories such as "Thrill of the Kill" in the
August 1998 issue ot that magazine for a real policy in your history.
<<
Sorry. That's not my position. I consider communists and nazi vile.
Killing to stop them, while often difficult, costly and unpleasant, is
moral.
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Ranger One Five
col...@linkline.com wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:17:23 GMT, Ranger One Five
> <one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >That's right Dave. But Uncle Sugar has already gone lower than the
> >Phoenix Program. In declining writ of certiorari for "Miller v
> >Silverstein et al." 97-667 U.S. Supreme Court as your final arbiter
> >decided to let stand lower court decision that evidence on
> >"assassinations" of American soldiers and citizens paralleling
Phoenix
> >Program could not be looked at by any court because to do so would
> >question authority of your legislators to sanction executive actions
> >fostering patriotic wars Congress neglects to fund. Those murders
> >supported distribution of heroin and cocaine off Air America and
> >Southern Air Transport. But by 1977 most of the drug money was going
> >into election campaign fund contributions rather than purchase of
> >hardware for freedom fighters.
>
> The tinfoil hat brigade strikes again.
>
> And as I expected what is posted above is not what I found when I
> looked up the case.
>
> From my research here is what _really_ happened.
>
> 1) Miller sues the government for $47 million dollars.
>
the case except as employer of William Jefferson
Clinton and not all of et al., none of whose torts are mentioned as
under cover of any official capacity except by the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and the judges..
> 2) Lawsuit is thrown out as frivolous. (In other words ther plaintiff
> did not have enough of a case to even justify a trial.)
batteries against the civil plaintiff. Witnesses were each and all
prevented from testimony by procedural ploys. The "assassinations" were
simply mentioned in complaints as indicators of the depravity of Federal
employees charged with civil torts.
>
> 3) Miller appeals.
>
> 4) Appeals court hears the appeal and finds the lawsuit frivolous.
>
America in the matter, which to then had never been cited in the case by
the plaintiff.
> 5) Miller appeals.
>
> 6) Supreme Court declines to hear the case.
>
pretends that assassination is a function of the government of the
United States of America, is American Law.
> Are you related to hinderloser by any chance?
Pennsylvania from Germany in 1710 and 11 and his wife, a daughter of
John Perkins. The charges in “Miller v Silverstein et al.” still stand
under penalty of perjury.
>
> References:
>
> http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/miller.htm
> http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/September97/s96-6303.html
>
fails to say that your neighbors' inherent rights to assassinate you are
no longer reserved by the individual members of the tinfoil hat brigade
that elected and maintains William Jefferson Clinton as Commander In
Chief of the all volunteer armed forces in which most citizens are
unwilling to serve.
> For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
> easy to understand and wrong answer.
>
Witness the “facts” as presented by col...@linkline.com and “Soldier
of Fortune” magazine in “Thrill of the Kill” August 1998.
Do the starving but militarily informed denizens of countries whose
mineral wealth is being stolen - presumtively by grace of Askins style
exploits in Africa etc. - have the same rights to assassination as
Americans exercise? Have you completed your anthrax vaccinations?
Ranger One Five
decides mik...@buffnet.net is vile has the same inherent right. The
land occupied by denizens of the United States of America was seized and
held under the pretext the aboriginal tribes condoned assassination.
Even Israel does not claim a “right” to assassinate. And any nation
that does will be destroyed. I know from experience how difficult,
costly and unpleasant killing is. But your policy of
condoning assassination establishes you will never be able to maintain
any of your kills have been or ever will be moral.
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Bald faced lie. The United States Government is nowhere mentioned in
>the case except as employer of William Jefferson
>Clinton and not all of et al., none of whose torts are mentioned as
>under cover of any official capacity except by the United States
>Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and the judges..
Please see the references I posted. And notice who the defending
attorney was working for.
>Another bald faced lie. Actual charges were for witnessed assaults and
>batteries against the civil plaintiff. Witnesses were each and all
>prevented from testimony by procedural ploys. The "assassinations" were
>simply mentioned in complaints as indicators of the depravity of Federal
>employees charged with civil torts.
I expect you to provide verifiable references.
>> 4) Appeals court hears the appeal and finds the lawsuit frivolous.
>>
>And in doing so gratiously joins The Congress of The United States of
>America in the matter, which to then had never been cited in the case by
>the plaintiff.
In your opinion. The fact is that the lawsuit was found to be
frivolous by two courts.
>> 5) Miller appeals.
>>
>> 6) Supreme Court declines to hear the case.
>>
>And in doing so establishes that decision of the appellate judge, which
>pretends that assassination is a function of the government of the
>United States of America, is American Law.
Incorrect. There was no precedent set by this case since the only
decisions made by the courts were that the lawsuit was frivolous.
If you want to make claims otherwise I expect you to produce the court
documents showing where the court officials actually said what you
claim.
>> Are you related to hinderloser by any chance?
>I am seventh generation descendant of Ulysses Müller who was brought to
>Pennsylvania from Germany in 1710 and 11 and his wife, a daughter of
>John Perkins. The charges in “Miller v Silverstein et al.” still stand
>under penalty of perjury.
Actually the case was thrown out of court. If the charges still
stand, then they only do so in the minds of the tinfoil hat brigade.
>Unfortunately, the written Constitution of The United States of America
>fails to say that your neighbors' inherent rights to assassinate you are
>no longer reserved by the individual members of the tinfoil hat brigade
>that elected and maintains William Jefferson Clinton as Commander In
>Chief of the all volunteer armed forces in which most citizens are
>unwilling to serve.
FYI, the tinfoil hat brigade refers to people who make wild
accusations for which they cannot substantiate.
Either provide verifiable references that support your claims (ie.
court documents), withdraw your claims, or be award the 'tinfoil hat'
award.
Ranger One Five
col...@linkline.com wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:41:09 GMT, Ranger One Five
> <one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> . . . [Read] references . . . posted. . . . .
>
> >Another bald faced lie. Actual charges were for witnessed assaults
and
> >batteries against the civil plaintiff. Witnesses were each and all
> >prevented from testimony by procedural ploys. The "assassinations"
were
> >simply mentioned in complaints as indicators of the depravity of
Federal
> >employees charged with civil torts.
>
> I expect you to provide verifiable references.
They are available from clerks of the courts. They will even certify
them for you.
>
> >> 4) Appeals court hears the appeal and finds the lawsuit frivolous.
> >>
>
> In your opinion. The fact is that the lawsuit was found to be
> frivolous by two courts.
>
The fact is that both courts worked very hard at never looking as any of
the evidence, videotapes, and testimony available from many witnesses to
the charges actually presented in the civil petition. And the courts
worked very hard at getting as many unsupported statements as possible
into their decisions entirely favorable to the defendants; the
decisions do not even address the actual charges presented.
> >> 5) Miller appeals.
> >>
> >> 6) Supreme Court declines to hear the case.
> >>
> >And in doing so establishes that decision of the appellate judge,
which
> >pretends that assassination is a function of the government of the
> >United States of America, is American Law.
>
> Incorrect. There was no precedent set by this case since the only
> decisions made by the courts were that the lawsuit was frivolous.
The precedents are set by the untried murders. Find EVIDENCE of the
assassinations of American soldiers attributed to Salt And Pepper teams
by “sources” such as Soldier of Fortune magazine and gentlemen by act of
Congress.
>
> If you want to make claims otherwise I expect you to produce the court
> documents showing where the court officials actually said what you
> claim.
>
Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
> >> Are you related to hinderloser by any chance?
>
> >I am seventh generation descendant of Ulysses Müller who was brought
to
> >Pennsylvania from Germany in 1710 and 11 and his wife, a daughter of
> >John Perkins. The charges in “Miller v Silverstein et al.” still
stand
> >under penalty of perjury.
Everyone with experience knows that gentlemen by act of Congress are
liars.
>
> Actually the case was thrown out of court. If the charges still
> stand, then they only do so in the minds of the tinfoil hat brigade.
>
The untried charges are each and all current, and each and all stand
under penalty of perjury, in Federal claim file C-23-232-065 of the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs now being administratively reviewed. Any
resident of the U.S. who wishes to do so may have his U.S. Senators and
Member of Congress disprove the particular charges that they receive
Federal Election Campaign Fund Contributions from distribution of
narcotics fostered by “assassinations” similar to the work of killers
who have managed to arrange third world mineral wealth is under thumb of
“patriotic” or friendly cartels that insure supply of commodities for
U.S. Dept of Defense. Your failure do so in view of your stated
opinions would be indefensible allowing of fraud that would have to be
object of the file. “My” lawful representatives, Danny Davis,
Fitzgerald and Durbin have sworn affidavits including authorization to
extend their colleagues courtesy of direct access to the file on behalf
of their colleagues' constituents.
> >Unfortunately, the written Constitution of The United States of
America
> >fails to say that your neighbors' inherent rights to assassinate you
are
> >no longer reserved by the individual members of the tinfoil hat
brigade
> >that elected and maintains William Jefferson Clinton as Commander In
> >Chief of the all volunteer armed forces in which most citizens are
> >unwilling to serve.
>
> FYI, the tinfoil hat brigade refers to people who make wild
> accusations for which they cannot substantiate.
Roger that.
>
> Either provide verifiable references that support your claims (ie.
> court documents), withdraw your claims, or be award the 'tinfoil hat'
> award.
>
They are already available to "your" Members of Congress.
> For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
> easy to understand and wrong answer.
>
Put your identity where your email is col...@linkline.com; or find
another way to post reasonably credible trash.
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I expect you to provide verifiable references.
>
>They are available from clerks of the courts. They will even certify
>them for you.
You are sounding more and more like hinderloser. It is not my
responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
claims.
Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick web
search already indicates that you are wrong?
>> In your opinion. The fact is that the lawsuit was found to be
>> frivolous by two courts.
>>
>
>The fact is that both courts worked very hard at never looking as any of
>the evidence, videotapes, and testimony available from many witnesses to
>the charges actually presented in the civil petition. And the courts
>worked very hard at getting as many unsupported statements as possible
>into their decisions entirely favorable to the defendants; the
>decisions do not even address the actual charges presented.
Untrue. The courts merely found that the case was frivolous. When
appealed the higher court found that the suit was without merit.
>> Incorrect. There was no precedent set by this case since the only
>> decisions made by the courts were that the lawsuit was frivolous.
>
>The precedents are set by the untried murders. Find EVIDENCE of the
>assassinations of American soldiers attributed to Salt And Pepper teams
>by “sources” such as Soldier of Fortune magazine and gentlemen by act of
>Congress.
I would not regard SOF as a reliable source of information. And you
need to find out more about what a legal precedent is - unless it is
an actual statement made by the courts to that effect you cannot claim
that it is a precedent.
This sort of talk does damage your credibility.
>> If you want to make claims otherwise I expect you to produce the court
>> documents showing where the court officials actually said what you
>> claim.
>>
>
>Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
Then you should have no problem producing them.
>Everyone with experience knows that gentlemen by act of Congress are
>liars.
What does this have to do with this thread?
>The untried charges are each and all current, and each and all stand
>under penalty of perjury, in Federal claim file C-23-232-065 of the U.S.
>Department of Veterans Affairs now being administratively reviewed. Any
>resident of the U.S. who wishes to do so may have his U.S. Senators and
>Member of Congress disprove the particular charges that they receive
>Federal Election Campaign Fund Contributions from distribution of
>narcotics fostered by “assassinations” similar to the work of killers
>who have managed to arrange third world mineral wealth is under thumb of
>“patriotic” or friendly cartels that insure supply of commodities for
>U.S. Dept of Defense.
The above would be similar to myself accusing you of child molestation
and requiring you to 'prove' that you are not. They do not have to
prove a thing - as the accuser it is up to you to prove your claims.
Else you can have somebody accusing you of child molestation - and you
facing the logical impossibility of 'proving' your innocence. (You
are aware of the fact that logically, you can never prove a negative?)
>> FYI, the tinfoil hat brigade refers to people who make wild
>> accusations for which they cannot substantiate.
>
>Roger that.
>
>>
>> Either provide verifiable references that support your claims (ie.
>> court documents), withdraw your claims, or be award the 'tinfoil hat'
>> award.
>>
>
>They are already available to "your" Members of Congress.
Red, please issue this man a tinfoil hat.
>Put your identity where your email is col...@linkline.com; or find
>another way to post reasonably credible trash.
Or you can get a better newsreader. My newsreader resolves
col...@linkline.com to 'Colin Campbell.' I do find it amusing that
somebody who posts under a pseudonym accuses me of hiding my identity.
Mike
decides mik...@buffnet.net is vile has the same inherent right. <<
Sorry. I don't accept your premise of moral equivalence between democracies
and totalitarianism (Fascism and Communism).
>>The land occupied by denizens of the United States of America was seized
and
held under the pretext the aboriginal tribes condoned assassination.<<
I think it had more with two completely different cultures, one Stone Age
Tribal and the other Western Judeo-Christian with strong property rights.
>>Even Israel does not claim a "right" to assassinate. <<
Yeah, right. OK, they call it self defense.
>>And any nation
that does will be destroyed. <<
I disagree (and fail to see any logic supporting your conclusion).
>>But your policy of
condoning assassination establishes you will never be able to maintain
any of your kills have been or ever will be moral.
<<
I disagree. Selective killing is often necessary in war. Such limited
killing could easily have stopped the slaughter of 9000 Muslims in
Srebrinecia. But the West didn't care. The Clinton News Network wasn't
there, so it didn't happen. . .
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Ranger One Five
col...@linkline.com wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:11:46 GMT, Ranger One Five
> <one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> I expect you to provide verifiable references.
> >
> >They are available from clerks of the courts. They will even certify
> >them for you.
>
> responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
> your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
> claims.
court records. They are uncontested although suppressed. If you want
them tried have your Members of Congress do it for you.
>
> Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick web
> search already indicates that you are wrong?
Because you pretended to demand the research.
>
> >> In your opinion. The fact is that the lawsuit was found to be
> >> frivolous by two courts.
> >>
> >
> >The fact is that both courts worked very hard at never looking as any
of
> >the evidence, videotapes, and testimony available from many witnesses
to
> >the charges actually presented in the civil petition. And the courts
> >worked very hard at getting as many unsupported statements as
possible
> >into their decisions entirely favorable to the defendants; the
> >decisions do not even address the actual charges presented.
The specific charges addressed by the courts were nothing but background
information, though triable in other forums. And the courts never
addressed the civil charges actually presented in the complaint.
> . . . .
> >> . . . .
> >The precedents are set by the untried murders. Find EVIDENCE of the
> >assassinations of American soldiers attributed to Salt And Pepper
teams
> >by “sources” such as Soldier of Fortune magazine and gentlemen by act
of
> >Congress.
>
> I would not regard SOF as a reliable source of information. And you
> need to find out more about what a legal precedent is - unless it is
> an actual statement made by the courts to that effect you cannot claim
> that it is a precedent.
What sorry son of a bitch claimed that I take Col. Brown's publications
as "reliable." But they are part of your "history." And myth is far more
politically critical than truth.
>
> . . . .
> >> . . . . I expect you to produce the
court
> >> documents showing where the court officials actually said what you
> >> claim.
> >>
> >
> >Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
>
> Then you should have no problem producing them.
>
Soldier of Fortune advertisers can produce "documents" as
"credible" looking as any clerk of court; and for less than the
advertisers charge. Send your own agent to the court.
> >Everyone with experience knows that gentlemen by act of Congress are
> >liars.
>
> What does this have to do with this thread?
>
> >The untried charges are each and all current, and each and all stand
> >under penalty of perjury, in Federal claim file C-23-232-065 of the
U.S.
> >Department of Veterans Affairs now being administratively reviewed.
Any
> >resident of the U.S. who wishes to do so may have his U.S. Senators
and
> >Member of Congress disprove the particular charges that they receive
> >Federal Election Campaign Fund Contributions from distribution of
> >narcotics fostered by “assassinations” similar to the work of killers
> >who have managed to arrange third world mineral wealth is under thumb
of
> >“patriotic” or friendly cartels that insure supply of commodities for
> >U.S. Dept of Defense.
>
> The above would be similar to myself accusing you of child molestation
> and requiring you to 'prove' that you are not. They do not have to
> prove a thing - as the accuser it is up to you to prove your claims.
>
> Else you can have somebody accusing you of child molestation - and you
> facing the logical impossibility of 'proving' your innocence. (You
> are aware of the fact that logically, you can never prove a negative?)
>
> >> FYI, the tinfoil hat brigade refers to people who make wild
> >> accusations for which they cannot substantiate.
> >
> >Roger that.
> >
> >>
> >> Either provide verifiable references that support your claims (ie.
> >> court documents), withdraw your claims, or be award the 'tinfoil
hat'
> >> award.
> >>
Very interesting snipping!
> >
> >They are already available to "your" Members of Congress.
>
> Red, please issue this man a tinfoil hat.
> >Put your identity where your email is col...@linkline.com; or find
> >another way to post reasonably credible trash.
>
> Or you can get a better newsreader. My newsreader resolves
> col...@linkline.com to 'Colin Campbell.' I do find it amusing that
> somebody who posts under a pseudonym accuses me of hiding my identity.
The "pseudonym" was most frequently assigned to the clearly undersigned
by Second Field Force when I was LRPing for D/75.
>
> For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
> easy to understand and wrong answer.
Roger that.
Ranger One Five
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> >>And "assassinating" them establishes that each and every perosn who
> decides mik...@buffnet.net is vile has the same inherent right. <<
>
> Sorry. I don't accept your premise of moral equivalence between
democracies
> and totalitarianism (Fascism and Communism).
>
> >>The land occupied by denizens of the United States of America was
seized
> and
> held under the pretext the aboriginal tribes condoned assassination.<<
>
> I think it had more with two completely different cultures, one Stone
Age
> Tribal and the other Western Judeo-Christian with strong property
rights.
>
> >>Even Israel does not claim a "right" to assassinate. <<
>
> Yeah, right. OK, they call it self defense.
Actually, they deny they do it.
>
> >>And any nation
> that does will be destroyed. <<
>
> I disagree (and fail to see any logic supporting your conclusion).
>
> >>But your policy of
> condoning assassination establishes you will never be able to maintain
> any of your kills have been or ever will be moral.
> <<
>
> I disagree. Selective killing is often necessary in war. Such
limited
> killing could easily have stopped the slaughter of 9000 Muslims in
> Srebrinecia. But the West didn't care. The Clinton News Network
wasn't
> there, so it didn't happen. . .
Operative qualification is "in war." Establishing "assassination" as a
people's policy establishes them at war with anyone and everyone. What
other peoples then find expedient is truly fascinating; especially when
also profitable.
You and yours are "at war" with anyone whose putative kith or kin have
been "assassinated" by U.S. Special Ops commands. And most of the
assassinations will be mythical as the "Thrill of the Kill" story in
1998 August issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine. You really should
make sure that such claims are liable to get people indicted for felony
if they actually were gentlefolk by act of Congress. That requires
legislation now.
>
> --
> -Mike
> mik...@buffnet.net
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> You are sounding more and more like hinderloser. It is not my
>> responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
>> your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
>> claims.
>My claims are already supported by sworn testimony and evidence cited in
>court records. They are uncontested although suppressed. If you want
>them tried have your Members of Congress do it for you.
So you cannot provide evidence to support your claims?
>> Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick web
>> search already indicates that you are wrong?
>Because you pretended to demand the research.
This is called the 'hinderloser tap-dance' you make a claim then
refuse to support it.
>> >Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
>>
>> Then you should have no problem producing them.
>>
>Soldier of Fortune advertisers can produce "documents" as
>"credible" looking as any clerk of court; and for less than the
>advertisers charge. Send your own agent to the court.
Another dodge. Again you seem to be unable to provide any sort of
evidence supporting your claims. Why should we believe you?
>> >Put your identity where your email is col...@linkline.com; or find
>> >another way to post reasonably credible trash.
>>
>> Or you can get a better newsreader. My newsreader resolves
>> col...@linkline.com to 'Colin Campbell.' I do find it amusing that
>> somebody who posts under a pseudonym accuses me of hiding my identity.
>The "pseudonym" was most frequently assigned to the clearly undersigned
>by Second Field Force when I was LRPing for D/75.
So? The (supposed) source of your pseudonym is not at issue. My
comments are that you are accusing me of hiding my identity while you
refuse to even post under your real name. Just a little bit of
hypocrisy.
Ranger One Five
col...@linkline.com wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:02:46 GMT, Ranger One Five
known by other veterans of operations of F/51, D/51, D/75 as
formerly, Sgt., Harry Miller, then most frequently contacted
as "Ranger One Five," now reachable thru 312-787-0565 and
easily contacted directly at the address listed in telephone books
> <one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are sounding more and more like hinderloser. It is not my
> >> responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
> >> your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
> >> claims.
Actually, col...@linkline.com wrote that. Harry Miller, MACV Recondo
number 1981 / RA16611568 wrote:
> >My claims are already supported by sworn testimony and evidence cited
> >in court records. They are uncontested although suppressed. If you
> >want them tried have your Members of Congress do it for you.
>
> So you cannot provide evidence to support your claims?
Another lie! col...@linkline.com writes like a gentleman by act of
Congress.
>
> >> Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick web
> >> search already indicates that you are wrong?
>
> >Because you pretended to demand the research.
And competent people know how reliable quick web searches are.
Fess up col...@linkline.com: are you a gentleman by act of Congress?
>
> This is called the 'hinderloser tap-dance' you make a claim then
> refuse to support it.
>
> >> >Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
by Harry Miller, RA16611568.
> >>
> >> Then you should have no problem producing them.
> >>
> >Soldier of Fortune advertisers can produce "documents" as
> >"credible" looking as any clerk of court; and for less than the
> >advertisers
[sic] should be: > >court clerks
> >charge. Send your own agent to the court.
I have supported the relevant claims in court as frequently and
extensively as enabled by judges who uphold partial birth abortion as an
American right, and whose kin are addicted to narcotics distributed
under cover of Federal "assassinations." They are not very competent and
have enabled placement of my charges in their court files, untried
during several years. I must admit though - that post natal abortions
are probably much more satisfying. Assassination can be very
profitable, except for the suckers who get snookered into being blamed
for the kills.
>
> Another dodge. Again you seem to be unable to provide any sort of
> evidence supporting your claims. Why should we believe you?
Some will believe because reviewable evidence you claim is unprovidable
is cited in the court records. Those who have followed leads from the
cited evidence believe because the facts are not refutable. The charges
are not the kind of negatives you pretend to be proving.
>
> >> >Put your identity where your email is col...@linkline.com; or
> >> >find another way to post reasonably credible trash.
> >>
> >> Or you can get a better newsreader. My newsreader resolves
> >> col...@linkline.com to 'Colin Campbell.' I do find it amusing that
> >> somebody who posts under a pseudonym accuses me of hiding my
identity.
Is 'Colin Campbell' a gentleman by act of Congress?
>
> >The "pseudonym" was
[radio callsign]
> >most frequently assigned to the clearly undersigned
> >by Second Field Force when I was LRPing for D/75.
>
> So? The (supposed) source of your pseudonym is not at issue.
Observations of the "assassinations" were then being collected for
Justice Department. FBI told us the Department considered the murders
to be "properly sanctioned."
> My comments are that you are accusing me of hiding my identity while
> you refuse to even post under your real name. Just a little bit of
> hypocrisy.
Get a better newsreader. All the internet terminals in Chicago I have
been using show my postings clearly signed
Harry Miller 312-787-0565
150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
Chicago IL 60610
that is the same Harry Miller, plaintiff, whose address on record
during the court proceedings was
104-60 Queens Blvd., Apt 4V
Forest Hills NY 11375
But perhaps Chicago needs better newsreader too. None of their internet
terminals give a useful identity for 'Colin Campbell.'
>
> For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
> easy to understand and wrong answer.
>
As again demonstrated by 'Colin Campbell'
de
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> You are sounding more and more like hinderloser. It is not my
>> >> responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
>> >> your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
>> >> claims.
>
>Actually, col...@linkline.com wrote that. Harry Miller, MACV Recondo
>number 1981 / RA16611568 wrote:
>
>> >My claims are already supported by sworn testimony and evidence cited
>> >in court records. They are uncontested although suppressed. If you
>> >want them tried have your Members of Congress do it for you.
>>
>> So you cannot provide evidence to support your claims?
>
>Another lie! col...@linkline.com writes like a gentleman by act of
>Congress.
If you can support your claims - please post the material.
You keep claiming that this 'proof' is easy to come by. If so then
you should have not difficulty in presenting it to us.
>
>>
>> >> Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick web
>> >> search already indicates that you are wrong?
>>
>> >Because you pretended to demand the research.
>
>And competent people know how reliable quick web searches are.
>Fess up col...@linkline.com: are you a gentleman by act of Congress?
If you have better information that what I have please show it to me.
>>
>> Another dodge. Again you seem to be unable to provide any sort of
>> evidence supporting your claims. Why should we believe you?
>
>Some will believe because reviewable evidence you claim is unprovidable
>is cited in the court records. Those who have followed leads from the
>cited evidence believe because the facts are not refutable. The charges
>are not the kind of negatives you pretend to be proving.
If it can be provided - please provide it.
>Is 'Colin Campbell' a gentleman by act of Congress?
I suspect that you are the only person in this newsgroup that does not
know the answer to this question.
>> My comments are that you are accusing me of hiding my identity while
>> you refuse to even post under your real name. Just a little bit of
>> hypocrisy.
>
>Get a better newsreader. All the internet terminals in Chicago I have
>been using show my postings clearly signed
And where does this signature appear on your postings. Please take a
copy of one of your pervious posts from dejanews and indicate where
this information appeared.
> Harry Miller 312-787-0565
> 150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
> Chicago IL 60610
>that is the same Harry Miller, plaintiff, whose address on record
>during the court proceedings was
> 104-60 Queens Blvd., Apt 4V
> Forest Hills NY 11375
BTW, are you aware that it is considered to be a very bad idea to post
your address and phone number on Usenet?
>But perhaps Chicago needs better newsreader too. None of their internet
>terminals give a useful identity for 'Colin Campbell.'
Maybe because that is all the personal information I am willing to
release on Usenet. (And if you have a problem with this - ask the
rest of this newsgroup if they think giving out your address and phone
number on Usenet is a good idea.)
Colin Campbell
<one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Oh - By the way, since you no longer are amusing.
<ploink>
CJ
(Cicero)
Colin Campbell wrote in message
<0pumnsst3ndev4ksl...@4ax.com>...
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:08:02 GMT, Ranger One Five
><one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Oh - By the way, since you no longer are amusing.
When are ANY of these usenet PSD frutekakes amusing?
Stop teasing those with illnesses of the mind....They'll end up trying to
sue you under the ADA.
>
><ploink>
Yeff
CJ<un...@mindspring.com> wrote in
us.military.army:
> "Salus populi suprema est lex"
> (Cicero)
> Colin Campbell wrote in message
> <0pumnsst3ndev4ksl...@4ax.com>...
> >On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:08:02 GMT, Ranger One Five
> ><one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >Oh - By the way, since you no longer are amusing.
>
> When are ANY of these usenet PSD frutekakes amusing?
> Stop teasing those with illnesses of the mind....They'll end up trying to
> sue you under the ADA.
LOL!
CJ, you've been far too quiet. Where ya been?
Found a link that might interest you (actually,
everyone with a dial-up who hates ads). A way
to use the Windows hosts file to kill off the
ads to speed your surfing:
http://members.aol.com/ojatex/admad.htm
Also, another way to kill ads is Naviscope,
free for the taking: http://www.naviscope.com/
I know, not tools to hunt down and kill trolls
but useful none-the-less.
Enjoy.
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
ABNZX9
F/51 as in Pontiac MI?
D/51 as in Muncie Indian now in Indianapolis?
Ranger One Five
abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> >known by other veterans of operations of F/51, D/51, D/75
was one of first from regular Army assigned as replacement for NGs who
did not get to Benning or Nam. F/51 took us on our first missions in
Nam; last I heard reconstituted as long range surveillance and stationed
in Germany. Veterans of F/51, D/151 and D/75 are sometimes members of
75th Ranger Regiment Association, Inc.; used to be www.75thassoc.org,
might now be www.75thrangers.org.
>
> F/51 as in Pontiac MI?
Don't know.
> D/51 as in Muncie Indian now in Indianapolis?
No. But D/151 had members from Muncie and Indianapolis; however, most
of the Company were supposed to be from southern Indiana.
>
--
Harry Miller 312-787-0565
150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
Chicago IL 60610
ABNZX9
D/151st has since moved their HQ to Indianapolis I went down and talked to them
a few years ago.
Mike
This is idiotic. By your definition, we've illegally killed since WWII.
>>Establishing "assassination" as a
people's policy establishes them at war with anyone and everyone. What
other peoples then find expedient is truly fascinating; especially when
also profitable.
<<
I find it expedient to kill evil-doers (ex. Nazi & Communists) who are also
strongly opposed to American interests. Your above bloviation has is a
moronic simplification. You sound like a tenured academic.
>>You really should
make sure that such claims are liable to get people indicted for felony
if they actually were gentlefolk by act of Congress. That requires
legislation now.
<<
Henceforth, learn to write before you reply to me.
-
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
branch?<<
Army. Mech Infantry. Four years, 88-92. Germany, Fort Hood, The Gulf. It
was OK.
>>In the Army, we don't always set up shop in a nice place where
everyone is friendly. Every so often, we are working and living in places
far from the things we take for granted in life. <<
Yup. Obvious.
>>You feel we should hire
private civilians to follow us around (paying them *much* more to do so) and
cook for us? <<
First of all, I don't FEEL anything about how the Army should be organized.
I THINK.
Second, I NEVER said the above horsecrap. In tactical and/or non-garrison
situations, support troops would have to 'cook'. Given that, I THINK that
the advances in food storage/preparation and heating, the cook MOS should be
blended into a general support function.
>>I doubt the cooks working in the
Army now feel working in a dining facility is a distraction from their
mission since their mission is to cook.<<
I doubt that an Army dining facility could compete in the private sector.
It would be more efficient to have cooking duties taken over by some general
support MOS.
>>"Field cooking" consists of heating
up the MRE, but since eating those for days (weeks) on end tends to suck, a
hot A Ration does worlds for morale. :-)
<<
"A hot A Ration" is often pigswill. I ate the crap enough.
It makes NO SENSE with todays' food storage and preparation technologies to
make cook complete meals in field kitchens. It is moron management.
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
<<
Yeah. They do suck. There are better ways. . .
>>What is the longest time you have been in the field without A-rations?
<<
Three weeks, give or take a day.
Now I'm gonna ask an irrelevant, smart-ass question:
"What's the cube root of 5 to seventeen thousand decimal places?"
>>For every complex problem there is a simple, concise,
easy to understand and wrong answer.<<
OK. Let me distill my point down to a question:
Don't you think that an army based on the unionized factory model of strict
labor division is outdated?
I do. There are jobs that technology can replace.
A few months back, The Wall Street Journal demolished the US Navy regarding
it's shipboard food preparation. Where there's no incentive for quality and
efficency, you get 1/5 of the ship involved at some point in putting meals
together. Idiotic. . .
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
Mike
boost to morale and unit effectiveness gained from a hot meal is
worth any price.
<<
That's fine. I think the hot meal can be made without a cook MOS, that's
all.
Example: There are exquisite pre-made frozen dinners available. There are
similar meals available in a semi- MRE-type form that can be readily
micowaved. Expensive: yes. More expensive than maintaining the fat in the
present system: no.
>> Further, there are times when the enemy is not so kind as to
sit out in the front where the line-doggies can shoot them. The
battle of the Bulge comes to mind where, "cooks and baker's,"
got to shoulder the rifles they thought not much more than a
nuisance to maintain and fought like lions.
<<
So we should maintain cooks and bakers because they fought well in a battle
over a half century ago?!?
While I'm open to reasonable argument, the above is not.
>>There is no way a completely untrained civilian can do the
same.<<
Let me be crystal clear.
It is NOT my position to have CIVILIANS COOKING IN COMBAT ZONES. I never
said such a thing.
I said that the cook MOS could be blended (into a general support MOS) with
the aid of food storage and preparation technologies.
>>I for one, don't want men in my rear who CAN'T, in a pinch, be
counted on to hold my life worth saving. Civilians have not
been asked to make that promise, nor should they be expected to.
<<
I completely agree with that. I NEVER said otherwise.
--
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
.
Ranger One Five whined in message <8lfmrh$dla$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <l6imnss0v5jlf6aq6...@4ax.com>,
> col...@linkline.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:02:46 GMT, Ranger One Five
>
>known by other veterans of operations of F/51, D/51, D/75 as
>formerly, Sgt., Harry Miller, then most frequently contacted
>as "Ranger One Five," now reachable thru 312-787-0565 and
>easily contacted directly at the address listed in telephone books
>
>> <one...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> responsibility to investigate your claims. If you fail to support
>> >> your claims then it is probably because you cannot support your
>> >> claims.
>
>number 1981 / RA16611568 wrote:
>
>> >in court records. They are uncontested although suppressed. If you
>> >want them tried have your Members of Congress do it for you.
>>
>
>Another lie! col...@linkline.com writes like a gentleman by act of
>Congress.
>
>>
>> >> search already indicates that you are wrong?
>>
>> >Because you pretended to demand the research.
>
>Fess up col...@linkline.com: are you a gentleman by act of Congress?
>
>>
>> refuse to support it.
>>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Then you should have no problem producing them.
>> >>
>> >Soldier of Fortune advertisers can produce "documents" as
>> >"credible" looking as any clerk of court; and for less than the
>> >advertisers
>
>extensively as enabled by judges who uphold partial birth abortion as an
>American right, and whose kin are addicted to narcotics distributed
>under cover of Federal "assassinations." They are not very competent and
>have enabled placement of my charges in their court files, untried
>during several years. I must admit though - that post natal abortions
>are probably much more satisfying. Assassination can be very
>profitable, except for the suckers who get snookered into being blamed
>for the kills.
>
>>
>> evidence supporting your claims. Why should we believe you?
>
>Some will believe because reviewable evidence you claim is unprovidable
>is cited in the court records. Those who have followed leads from the
>cited evidence believe because the facts are not refutable. The charges
>are not the kind of negatives you pretend to be proving.
>
>>
>> >> >find another way to post reasonably credible trash.
>> >>
>> >> Or you can get a better newsreader. My newsreader resolves
>> >> col...@linkline.com to 'Colin Campbell.' I do find it amusing that
>> >> somebody who posts under a pseudonym accuses me of hiding my
>identity.
>
>
>>
>[radio callsign]
>> >by Second Field Force when I was LRPing for D/75.
>>
>
>Observations of the "assassinations" were then being collected for
>Justice Department. FBI told us the Department considered the murders
>to be "properly sanctioned."
>
>> you refuse to even post under your real name. Just a little bit of
>> hypocrisy.
>
>Get a better newsreader. All the internet terminals in Chicago I have
>been using show my postings clearly signed
>during the court proceedings was
> 104-60 Queens Blvd., Apt 4V
> Forest Hills NY 11375
>terminals give a useful identity for 'Colin Campbell.'
>
>>
>> easy to understand and wrong answer.
>>
>
>de
>Harry Miller 312-787-0565
>150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
>Chicago IL 60610
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I think, "Harry Miller", that you are going to find that in the real world,
if you make assertions you're going to have to back them up. You apparently
can't do it, therefore your assertions are merely cowardly accusations
without substance.
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> I find it expedient to kill evil-doers (ex. Nazi & Communists) who are
also
> strongly opposed to American interests. Your above bloviation has is a
> moronic simplification. You sound like a tenured academic.
You sound like a wacko.
Dave
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> First of all, I don't FEEL anything about how the Army should be
organized.
> I THINK.
>
> Second, I NEVER said the above horsecrap. In tactical and/or non-garrison
> situations, support troops would have to 'cook'. Given that, I THINK that
> the advances in food storage/preparation and heating, the cook MOS should
be
> blended into a general support function.
Obviously, you haven't spent much time in the field lately.
> I doubt that an Army dining facility could compete in the private sector.
> It would be more efficient to have cooking duties taken over by some
general
> support MOS.
Probably true. Since our mechanics also can't seem to do as good a job as
the civilians were always depending on to prepare us for deployment, why not
get rid of the 63 series MOS also? Just remember, the tax increase when a
war happens will be to pay the higher salaries of these civilians. Not to
mention the added manpower to protect these civilians since they can't carry
weapons (at least they couldn't in Kosovo).
> "A hot A Ration" is often pigswill. I ate the crap enough.
Actually, I think you've got A Rations and T Rations confused. I much
prefer steak (A Rations, and I have had steak in the field quite often
actually) to something stored in a metal tin for a few years and then thrown
into a pan of hot water. Maybe it's just us Signal troops.
> It makes NO SENSE with todays' food storage and preparation technologies
to
> make cook complete meals in field kitchens. It is moron management.
You didn't notice the lack of common sense during your four years in the
Army or what?
Dave
Yeff
David Casey<davidcas...@hotmail.DPC> wrote in
us.military.army:
> Actually, I think you've got A Rations and T Rations confused. I much
> prefer steak (A Rations, and I have had steak in the field quite often
> actually) to something stored in a metal tin for a few years and then thrown
> into a pan of hot water. Maybe it's just us Signal troops.
Nope, not just Signal troops. During the last who-shot-who I
ever got to play (held at Camp Bullis in San Antonio) they
served us a steak dinner one of the nights.
Crappy cut of meat from a crappy cow that was probably served
crappy feed.
Best steak I ever ate.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>"A hot A Ration" is often pigswill. I ate the crap enough.
Maybe this is because your cooks were combined into 'general support
functions?'
My experience has been that chow in the field will vary
(unpredictably) from excellent to terrible.
V-Man
>
>Maybe this is because your cooks were combined into 'general support
>functions?'
As a Mech Troop 1986-88, *EVERY* hot A I got in the field was the best meal
I'd had. Hands down. Even the dinner I got at 2330 hrs.
"Hold 'em by the nose so you can kick 'em in the butt."
- George S Patton, Jr, General, USA
Ranger One Five
"." <p...@garlic.com> wrote:
>
> Ranger One Five whined in message <8lfmrh$dla$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <l6imnss0v5jlf6aq6...@4ax.com>,
> > col...@linkline.com wrote:
. . . .
> >> >My claims are already supported by sworn testimony and evidence
> >> >cited in court records. They are uncontested although suppressed.
> >> >If you want them tried have your Members of Congress do it for
> >> >you . . . .
[Ranger One Five]
> >> >> Why should I waste my time researching this stuff when a quick
> >> >> web search already indicates that you are wrong?
> >> >Because you pretended to demand the research.
> >And competent people know how reliable quick web searches are.
> >. . . .
[Ranger One Five]
> >> This is called the 'hinderloser tap-dance' you make a claim then
> >> refuse to support it.
> >> >> >Documentation is filed in open records of the courts.
> >by Harry Miller, RA16611568.
[Ranger One Five]
> >> >> Then you should have no problem producing them.
> >I have supported the relevant claims in court as frequently and
> >extensively as enabled by judges . . . . whose kin are addicted to
narcotics
> >distributed under cover of Federal "assassinations." They are not
very
> >competent and have enabled placement of my charges in their court
files,
> >untried during several years. . . . . Assassination can be very
> >profitable, except for the suckers who get snookered into being
> >blamed for the kills.
[Ranger One Five]
> >> Another dodge. Again you seem to be unable to provide any sort of
> >> evidence supporting your claims. Why should we believe you?
> >Some will believe because reviewable evidence you claim
> >is unprovidable is cited in the court records. Those who have
> >followed leads from the cited evidence believe because the facts
> >are not refutable. The charges are not the kind of negatives you
> >pretend to be proving.
> >> >> >Put your identity where your email is . . . ; or
> >> >> >find another way to post reasonably credible trash.
[Ranger One Five]
> I think, "Harry Miller", that you are going to find that in the
> real world, if you make assertions you're going to have to back
> them up. You apparently can't do it, therefore your assertions
> are merely cowardly accusations without substance.
"." <p...@garlic.com>
>
My relevant assertions have been fully backed up in courts. When you
get your head out of Clinton's ass you might notice the clerks have
cited accusations denied only by liars. Your government's attorney
was able to have the judges play silly games but was not dumb enough
to have any of the accusations actually brought to trial. The
accusations are all positive statements about verifiable facts.
And your denials will be used as evidence of complicity in cowardly
murders by "terrorists" who are even unhappier about the real world than
you are. You might have to try to back up your own assertions
without intervention of the world wide web and pseudonymns.
And life can get terribly substantive.
My accusations are always backed up as vigorously as my LRPs.
The accusations have been presented in open court and under
penalty of perjury. Are you willing to pay for representations?
And how are they to be presented for you "." <p...@garlic.com>?
de
--
Harry Miller 312-787-0565 [sometimes Ranger One Five]
Ranger One Five
veterans get together every year in Indiana, often at Indianapolis. I
haven't been in touch with them but believe the "Unit Director" for the
151st vets in 75th Ranger Regiment Association, Inc., is Tom Blandford.
And they are generally happy to oblige people who want to correspond
with them. The 75th Assoc. does have web page at www.75thrangers.org
through which some Nam veterans of 151st can be contacted.
--
Harry Miller 312-787-0565
ABNZX9
Robb D. Shimp
> As a Mech Troop 1986-88, *EVERY* hot A I got in the field was the best meal
>I'd had. Hands down. Even the dinner I got at 2330 hrs.
There is nothing better in the world than hot soup made up of the week's left
over soups and vegetables... when served at 2am, with the snow falling, while
rail loading a Bn of tanks in Freidberg, FRG.
Add coffee and a cocoa packet and it's Heaven...
"We're all here, 'cause we ain't all there!"
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain
Ranger One Five
abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> actually last I knew there was still one of the Nam guys in the unit.
>
current contacts. I generally use harryp...@yahoo.com for personal
mail.
V-Man
>>I'd had. Hands down. Even the dinner I got at 2330 hrs.
>
>There is nothing better in the world than hot soup made up of the week's left
>over soups and vegetables...
Our cooks and 1SG were bettr than that. i don't remember what the 2330 meal
was, but the 1SG finally found C Co during our "Winter Warrior" exercise
(annual event), and it was mm-mm good. there was a hot, saucy meat entree, the
works.
Mike
<<
American Patriots have been called worse.
What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the United
States (quietly) dead?
Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel Castro,
Saddam Hussein?
-Mike
mik...@buffnet.net
V-Man
Just curious, does my thinking that Joe McCarthy's witch hunt in the 50s for
Communists was an infringement of personal rights make me wrong, in your view?
What do you define as an "American Patriot"? Are those that don't agree
with disqualified?
Seriously, I am merely curious...
V-Man
>States (quietly) dead?
It is, currently, illegal. Small issue, but an important one.
David Casey
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> American Patriots have been called worse.
>
> What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the United
> States (quietly) dead?
> Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel Castro,
> Saddam Hussein?
No I don't like people like that, but who is to say they have given up their
right to life? You? HA! When does it stop? What if suddenly the
government feels that certain Americans are an enemy? Is it okay then for
this government to assassinate them? Just because our government doesn't
agree with what another does doesn't give anyone the right to have them
killed. I hope you don't own any handguns and suddenly find a dislike for
your neighbor. People who think like you scare me.
Dave
Oberon
Mike skrev i meddelandet ...
>>>You sound like a wacko.
><<
>
>
>What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the United
>States (quietly) dead?
>Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel Castro,
>Saddam Hussein?
>
>
>mik...@buffnet.net
>
>
All in all. Even thought I am not US or even military, I think I can see at
the least one of them that though he might need dying is needed alive for
sheer stability of the area he is in.
Saddam Hussein. Consider this.
If US had dropped a bomb down his chimney or put a sniper to the test of
putting holes into him. (Look alikes or no look alikes, sooner or later if
you shoot all he will be gone.) There would have been a new leader, perhaps
someone more directed and charismatic. As it is now, the people of the area,
the leaders of his neighbouring countries hate and fear him, but what if
they would find a leader they could work with? And believe me... death tends
to give even dictators the halo and the wings, making them martyrs. Enough
so that whomever followed could easily play on the hate for foreigners and
the westerners to maybe create an alliance with the other leaders of the
area. Which all things considered would not be a good thing for the
stability down there...
- Adam
Ranger One Five
"Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> >>You sound like a wacko.
> <<
>
> American Patriots have been called worse.
>
> What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the
United
> States (quietly) dead?
> Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel
Castro,
> Saddam Hussein?
>
> -Mike
> mik...@buffnet.net
>
>
on to distribute heroin for subsequent Fuehrers of American Patriots -
and cocaine as well for your current Commander In Chief.
I "like" people such as Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic and Saddam
Hussein better than your leaders because they're less likely than
Clinton's cronies and loyal oppsition to claim to represent me.
Ranger One Five
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (V-Man) wrote:
> >What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the
United
> >States (quietly) dead?
>
>
And it is not a small issue.
> "Hold 'em by the nose so you can kick 'em in the butt."
> - George S Patton, Jr, General, USA
>
However unreliabel publications by gentlemen by act of Congress are, the
story about Patton's murder claimed in "Thrill of the Kill" of Soldier
of Fortune magazine's August 1998 issue is more effective as mythology
than the accurate history of that homicide.
Robb D. Shimp
>What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the United
>States (quietly) dead?
Because then it wouldn't be the same US I grew up in... we'll kill people if
we have to, not because it's expedient.
tkarney@hotmail...com
Different TDY, this time I have a kitchenette.
You are confusing what I said, as; so you claim, I did yours,
I do not aver the cooking MOSs should be retained because some
have had to fight, but because civilians (as I said) are not
only not expected to, but are completely untrained in the art.
Different question: Have you ever been a cook?
I have, used to be in catering. It is not a trivial task.
If you think the level of variety (though not infinite, at
least variable by human initiative) a kitchen can provide is
replicable with frozen meals (a la the microwave I lived with as
my only tool for preparation) you are deluded as to the savings,
the quality and the merit of the system.
The only variety we would have would be limited to the amount
we were willing to pay for in formulation.
I, as a cook, can do an awful lot with a chunk of beef, some
potatoes, onions, spices, green beans, flour and sugar. The
only real limits are my skill and the willingness to do the work.
As a preparer of frozen meals I am able to heat them. That is
a T-Rat.
TK
Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
tkarney@hotmail...com
>>>You sound like a wacko.
><<
>
>American Patriots have been called worse.
>
True, some (protesters against the war {pick one, any one,
they have all had protesters), flag-burners, myself, have been
called traitors.
>What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of
>the United States (quietly) dead?
>Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel
>Castro, Saddam Hussein?
>
No, but I like a world in which we justify the use of such
tactics even less. If we allow that such a thing is justifiable
how can we protest should some country/group decide to use such
methods against us?
Ranger One Five
calgu...@aol.comspamless (Robb D. Shimp) wrote:
> >From: "Mike" mik...@buffnet.net
>
> >What is your problem with making the totalitarian enemies of the
United
> >States (quietly) dead?
>
people if
> we have to, not because it's expedient.
U.S. Presidents since F.D.R. have been "assassinating" when they thought
it expedient. J.F.K.'s attempts on Castro were just tip of a very dirty
berg. Until Clinton, the murders were sanctioned by the broadcasters
and publishers who suppressed or falsified "news." But under L.B.J.
Federal assassins were generally fostering distribution of Laotian
heroin. Since the Bush administration most of the money has been going
into election campaign contributions rather than funding of "freedom
fighters." And innocent bystanders have been deliberately killed and
maimed in attempts to eliminate "tyrants." Another problem you are
saddled with is that ever since WWII Federal assassinations were
employed to insure control of third world strategic mineral wealth is in
pockets of "friendly" cartels. The media moguls got cold feet and
established that THE PEOPLE have been ultimately authorizing
assassinations supposedly sanctioned by Members of the U.S. Congress.
Check out the treatment patriots in this forum have given the case of
"Miller v Silverstein, . . . Clinton, . . . et al." 97-667 U.S.
Supreme Court. Then take a look at actual records available from the
clerks of court.
I recommend you try to make sure the next Congress establishes clear law
affirming the fact assassinations are only murder conspiracies with
officials in violation of their offices; and pretence that The People
had authorized such murder will be an effectively prosecuted Federal
felony.
If you take a close look at how the land you are living on was acquired,
you will generally find the tribe holding it was accused of sanctioning
assassinations.
Ranger One Five
tkarney@hotmail...com <tka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike" <mik...@buffnet.net> wrote:
> >>>You sound like a wacko.
> ><<
> >
> >American Patriots have been called worse.
> >
>
> True, some (protesters against the war {pick one, any one,
> they have all had protesters), flag-burners, myself, have been
> called traitors.
>
> >the United States (quietly) dead?
> >Castro, Saddam Hussein?
> >
>
> No, but I like a world in which we justify the use of such
> tactics even less. If we allow that such a thing is justifiable
> how can we protest should some country/group decide to use such
> methods against us?
>
> TK
>
> Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry.
Very unfortunately true. And the claims made in "Soldier of Fortune"
magazine are even more dangerous as mythology than truth. Ask your
Members of Congress to get the official story behind soldier's of
fortune "Thrill of the Kill" in the magazine's August 1998 issue.
That kind of thing creates a very dangerous image of your all voulnteer
armed forces. It needs a legislative fix for the sake of your children.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <20000725015247...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> > There is a F/151st in Pontiac that is LRSD NG
> >
F/151 LRSD was redesignated, and has moved to a new location.
Since this is an international communications facility, I will
refrain from giving the details.
> > D/151st has since moved their HQ to Indianapolis I went down and
> talked to them
> > a few years ago.
> >
> Thanks; I did not know the Company is in Indianapolis now. It's Nam
> veterans get together every year in Indiana, often at Indianapolis. I
> haven't been in touch with them but believe the "Unit Director" for the
> 151st vets in 75th Ranger Regiment Association, Inc., is Tom Blandford.
> And they are generally happy to oblige people who want to correspond
> with them. The 75th Assoc. does have web page at www.75thrangers.org
> through which some Nam veterans of 151st can be contacted.
> --
> Harry Miller 312-787-0565
> 150 West Maple St., Apt. 513
> Chicago IL 60610
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
Aaron R. Kulkis
> > States (quietly) dead?
> > Do you LIKE people like Vaclad Radic, Slobodon Milosivic, Fidel Castro,
> > Saddam Hussein?
>
> right to life? You? HA! When does it stop? What if suddenly the
Murderers surrender their right to life.
> government feels that certain Americans are an enemy? Is it okay then for
> this government to assassinate them? Just because our government doesn't
> agree with what another does doesn't give anyone the right to have them
> killed. I hope you don't own any handguns and suddenly find a dislike for
> your neighbor. People who think like you scare me.
>
> Dave
CJ
"Salus populi suprema est lex"
(Cicero)
>> >Oh - By the way, since you no longer are amusing.
>>
>> When are ANY of these usenet PSD frutekakes amusing?
>> Stop teasing those with illnesses of the mind....They'll end up trying to
>> sue you under the ADA.
>
>LOL!
>
>CJ, you've been far too quiet. Where ya been?
90 Hour work weeks and the American Cichlid Association convention in
Cleveland (the mistake on the lake).
>
>Found a link that might interest you (actually,
>everyone with a dial-up who hates ads). A way
>to use the Windows hosts file to kill off the
>ads to speed your surfing:
>http://members.aol.com/ojatex/admad.htm
>
>Also, another way to kill ads is Naviscope,
>free for the taking: http://www.naviscope.com/
>
>I know, not tools to hunt down and kill trolls
>but useful none-the-less.
Wielan Danke'
>
>Enjoy.
redc1c4
>
> Ranger One Five wrote:
> >
> > In article <20000725015247...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> > abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> > > There is a F/151st in Pontiac that is LRSD NG
> > >
>
> F/151 LRSD was redesignated, and has moved to a new location.
>
> Since this is an international communications facility, I will
> refrain from giving the details.
no doubt this just means you don't really know.
details on the location of ALL Michigan ARNG units can be found @:
http://www.michguard.com/units.htm
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Eunuch Engineer
redc1c4,
fuck you're stupid.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Ranger One Five wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <20000725015247...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> > > abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> > > > There is a F/151st in Pontiac that is LRSD NG
> > > >
> >
> > F/151 LRSD was redesignated, and has moved to a new location.
> >
> > Since this is an international communications facility, I will
> > refrain from giving the details.
>
> no doubt this just means you don't really know.
>
> details on the location of ALL Michigan ARNG units can be found @:
> http://www.michguard.com/units.htm
>
This list is not up to date. Specifically, the unit under discussion
is listed in the wrong location.
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Eunuch Engineer
>
> redc1c4,
> fuck you're stupid.
David Casey
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
> > No I don't like people like that, but who is to say they have given up
their
> > right to life? You? HA! When does it stop? What if suddenly the
>
> Murderers surrender their right to life.
Only in your opinion. I'm not a super religious person, but even I know
that no physical person on this planet has the right to determine when one
no longer has the right to life. As this is big time off-topic (as opposed
to the other semi off-topic posts), I'll no longer post on this topic.
Dave
billh
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Since this is an international communications facility, I will
> > > refrain from giving the details.
> >
> > no doubt this just means you don't really know.
> >
> > details on the location of ALL Michigan ARNG units can be found @:
> > http://www.michguard.com/units.htm
> >
>
> This list is not up to date. Specifically, the unit under discussion
> is listed in the wrong location.
Just call the TAG's office. They will gladly give you the unit's location.
redc1c4
>
> redc1c4 wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ranger One Five wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <20000725015247...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> > > > abn...@aol.comNOSPAM (ABNZX9) wrote:
> > > > > There is a F/151st in Pontiac that is LRSD NG
> > > > >
> > >
> > > F/151 LRSD was redesignated, and has moved to a new location.
> > >
> > > refrain from giving the details.
> >
> > no doubt this just means you don't really know.
> >
> > details on the location of ALL Michigan ARNG units can be found @:
> > http://www.michguard.com/units.htm
> >
>
> This list is not up to date. Specifically, the unit under discussion
> is listed in the wrong location.
>
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Eunuch Engineer
> >
> > redc1c4,
> > fuck you're stupid.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
a minor detail that can be cured by calling the numbers listed for
various HQ's.
you carefully ignore the basic fact the the information you were so
carefully "protecting" is public information, oh sooper sekrit one.
redc1c4,
can't wait til your next security review; the deja records of your
bragging should go over well.
Robb D. Shimp
>I'm not a super religious person, but even I know
>that no physical person on this planet has the right to determine when one
>no longer has the right to life.
Gotta argue with you there... when they do something that my ROE card says I
can shoot, they just lost the right.
Same in the civilian world... if they do something where the law says i can
shoot, they've lost the right.
I might not shoot, depending on the situation, but that's up to me.
ABNZX9
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> > > No I don't like people like that, but who is to say they have given up
> their
> > > right to life? You? HA! When does it stop? What if suddenly the
> >
> > Murderers surrender their right to life.
>
The laws of every nation on the face of the earth agree with my opinion.
GAME
SET
MATCH
YOU LOSE
> that no physical person on this planet has the right to determine when one
> no longer has the right to life. As this is big time off-topic (as opposed
> to the other semi off-topic posts), I'll no longer post on this topic.
>
> Dave
Aaron R. Kulkis
Still no reason to broadcast it to the entire world.