Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
gatt
Al Queda and the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front bombs another civilian
building in Turkey.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20/istanbul.blast/index.html
Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that liberals
didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even when it bombed New York
City, so it won't be on at eleven.
-c
Darrell Fuhriman
> Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that
> liberals didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even
> when it bombed New York City, so it won't be on at eleven.
What does that have to do with anything? why *should* Americans
be protesting against things that bad people do to other people.
Or for that matter, bad things done to us?
*No one,* liberal or conservative, took to the streets in the US
to protest against Al-Qaeda after 9/11, because it just wasn't
necessary. Plenty of people, liberal and conservative, went out
of their way to support the victims of 9/11.
Protest would have been stupid in that context.
Why would "liberals" be protesting against the bombings in
Turkey? Conservatives aren't either. Protest is stupid in that
context, too.
So, I guess my question is, what the hell's your point?
Darrell
gatt
"Darrell Fuhriman" <dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote in message
> > Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that
> > liberals didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even
> > when it bombed New York City, so it won't be on at eleven.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? why *should* Americans
> be protesting against things that bad people do to other people.
> Or for that matter, bad things done to us?
They don't have to protest anything, but they do. Or, in your terms, why
*should* Americans be protesting against things that bad people [Bush] do to
other people?
> *No one,* liberal or conservative, took to the streets in the US
> to protest against Al-Qaeda after 9/11, because it just wasn't
> necessary.
And it's equally unnecessary to voice worldwide dissent of the extremist
bombing in Turkey, either, apparently.
> So, I guess my question is, what the hell's your point?
My point is that in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in anything
else but what Bush does. That gives the impression to the extreme
fundamentalists that what they do is fine, but what America does isn't.
Or, as an Iraqi said right before the Gulf War, Iraq TV loved to show
anti-war protests because of all the anti-Bush or anti-US sentiment, which
Hussein used to justify his position and rally people against America. If
there had been a single "PUNISH SADDAM" or, in this case "NO AL QUEDA"
banners or graphics in there, the film could not have been used for their
propaganda purposes.
Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
-c
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> My point is that in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in anything
> else but what Bush does.
They are protesting his actions, not his words. Just what other
criterion of Bush do they have? He is what he has done. And, many
people across the world believe that Bush is a loose cannon with a large
army and therefor a menace to peace. They also believe him to be an
opponent of a clean and sustainable environment, as do many Americans.
You protest actions, not personalities.
> That gives the impression to the extreme
> fundamentalists that what they do is fine, but what America does isn't.
No, I am sure when ObL or Saddam comes to England for a state visit,
they will do the same.
> Or, as an Iraqi said right before the Gulf War, Iraq TV loved to show
> anti-war protests because of all the anti-Bush or anti-US sentiment, which
> Hussein used to justify his position and rally people against America.
Now just what else should a targeted person do? He had little else but
invective and futile mirth to use against the US.
> Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
Why don't the conservatives march in the streets against ObL, Saddam,
the Turkish bombers? Such demonstrations are of no use.
WinGuru
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:r_avb.428$Ul1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Liberals do NOT protest against America. That is a falsehood. We protest
against an anti-democratic, anti-American, wannabe dictator who stole an
election and who is destroying this country. That is NOT protesting against
America - it is clearly an effort to support and defend America instead of
trying to raid the treasury and force intrusion into people's personal
lives.
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-43801C.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>> in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> > media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in
anything
> > else but what Bush does.
>
> They are protesting his actions, not his words. Just what other
> criterion of Bush do they have?
*sigh* So, why are they not protesting the actions of Al Queda and Great
Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front. Not their words, but their actions. Just
what other criterion of the Great Eastern Islamic
Raiders' Front do they have other than it bombs civilians without even
attempting to hit a more appropriate target?
What's all this nonsense about protesting his actions, not his words? What
does that have to do with the fact that they haven't uttered a single
fucking peep to suggest that it's wrong to blow up a synagogue in Turkey?
>He is what he has done.
So you're saying that the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, who launched
terrorist attacks in Instanbul twice in a week, is NOT what they have done?
> And, many people across the world believe that Bush is a loose cannon
with a large
> army and therefor a menace to peace.
And Al Queda and the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front are not loose
cannons and a menace to the peace?
>They also believe him to be an opponent of a clean and sustainable
environment, as do many >Americans.
I agree with them.
> You protest actions, not personalities.
Oh. Well excuse me. I thought a terrorist attack against civilians by a
fundamentalist religious group was an "action", not a personality.
> No, I am sure when ObL or Saddam comes to England for a state visit,
> they will do the same.
They, in London, protest Bush regardless of whether he's there. Americans
protest him regardless as well, and it's broadcast worldwide. In Turkey,
they're seeing Londoners protest the militant actions of Bush but NOT the
militant actions of Al Queda. This could quite easily be used as propaganda
to demonstrate to would-be terrorists that even LONDON hates America. If
they hated the terrorist bombing of Turkish synagogues, wouldn't they
protest that too?
> Now just what else should a targeted person do?
How about tell the truth? If Bush is "targeted" does that give HIM an
excuse to lie, using the Hussein precedent?
> > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
>
> Why don't the conservatives march in the streets against ObL, Saddam,
> the Turkish bombers? Such demonstrations are of no use.
So why protest Bush then, thus giving ObL, Saddam and the Turkish bombers
video propaganda to say "See, even the western world hates Bush. He's
wrong, we're right, now strap this to your belly and go blow up a church."?
-c
gatt
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:3fbd72a0$1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> Liberals do NOT protest against America. That is a falsehood.
That is not a falsehood. At the anti-war rally in downtown in March I
witnessed the burning of flags, the chanting of slogans such as "Hey Hey My
My GI Joe is gonna die"--by a person wearing a hammer and sickle on the back
of his jacket--I have video of all--and the waving of upside down American
flags with the word "RIOT" spray painted on them.
Watch this very newsgroup for the vitriol against our servicemen, accused of
genocide, drug addiction, looting, plundering...it won't take long before
Baxter, Cor, Juan, Beaver or one of those assholes takes a shot at our
servicefolk. Not at Bush, not at the Pentagon, but at our soldiers.
> That is NOT protesting against America - it is clearly an effort to
support and defend America >instead of trying to raid the treasury and force
intrusion into people's personal
> lives.
Which accomplishes...what...? Might as well protest Al Queda.
-c
Darrell Fuhriman
> They don't have to protest anything, but they do. Or, in your terms, why
> *should* Americans be protesting against things that bad people [Bush] do to
> other people?
Because it's *their* democracy. Protesting against Al-Qaeda
doesn't matter a bit to AQ. Protesting against Bush at least
stands a chance of changing something.
And you can bet that if Osama bin Laden was on a state visit to
the US, there would be plenty of protesters, liberal and
conservative out there.
The point is that it matters to whom the protest is directed, not
just that a protest happens.
> And it's equally unnecessary to voice worldwide dissent of the extremist
> bombing in Turkey, either, apparently.
There is plenty of condemnation of the bombings in Turkey. It's
just not happening on the streets. Now, if the Turks wanted to
protest, that might make a difference. Americans or British
people protesting won't matter one whit.
> My point is that in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in anything
> else but what Bush does.
OK, think about this very slowly, so it sinks in. People are
protesting against Bush in London because that's where Bush is.
The same thing would have happened to Chirac if he had come to
the US on a state visit in March. Heck, it may well happen if he
came tomorrow.
Here's another to think about. It is entirely possible to be
both anti-Bush and anti-terrorism. I can be anti-bush and
anti-saddam.
> banners or graphics in there, the film could not have been used for their
> propaganda purposes.
Big deal. Our media does stupid things, too. In Palestine they
went around trying to find small groups of anti-american
protesers after 9/11 -- not because they made up the majority of
palestinians, but because they made the most noise. that's what
media does -- go to where the most onise is. Which is why you
shouldn't accept as gospel anything our, or Iraqi media tells
you.
> Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
Why don't conservatives? They aren't barred from going to the
protests.
The simple fact is, people aren't protesting those things,
because it's not the right place to be protesting them.
There's no hidden agenda, nor is there any love of terrorism on
display.
The concept is just not that hard to grasp.
Darrell
Lobby Dosser
news:r_avb.428$Ul1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
Have you noticed that Liberal and Liberty have the same root: liber,
meaning free. Free to choose whether or not to protest and free to choose
what they protest. That freedom and the exercise of that freedom makes
Free Western Societies both a Beacon to the world and a target for
terrorists. Give the folks in the less free nations credit for enough
intelligence to recognize that such an activity would never be possible
in their own country.
The first time I visited the Pentagon I came up out of the subway into
the Main Concourse (you can't even do *that* in Britain) to find a half
dozen folks sitting on the floor singing anti-war songs. The military
folks were wandering around unconcerned and some even stopped to listen.
I get the same goose bumps and surge of Pride in our country now writing
about this as I did then experiencing it. Where else could this possibly
happen? Literally nowhere.
Just what result could you expect from a protest of Al Queda? They
certainly wouldn't care. As a Nation we we were 'protesting' Al Queda
quite well in Afghanistan and very few took the streets Anywhere to
protest that action. Following that, Bush got some extremely bad advice
and wandered off the rails into Iraq. The net result of that action is
that Bush, and by extension the US, is now seen by some as the single
greatest threat to world peace. Those who have the Freedom to do so,
Liberals and Conservatives, protest what they perceive to be the greatest
threat. Whether they are right or wrong is moot. They are exercising
Liberty.
LD
>
> -c
>
>
>
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:r_avb.428$Ul1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
Your bitch is that other people have different priorities than you?
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:_Kdvb.99341$p9.6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> news:clw-43801C.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>
> >> in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> > > media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in
> anything
> > > else but what Bush does.
> >
> > They are protesting his actions, not his words. Just what other
> > criterion of Bush do they have?
>
> *sigh* So, why are they not protesting the actions of Al Queda and Great
> Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front.
So why aren't YOU out there protesting Al Queda, etc? Why aren't YOU
putting your actions where your mouth is?
Chris Havel
> > > liberals didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even
> > > when it bombed New York City, so it won't be on at eleven.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything? why *should* Americans
> > be protesting against things that bad people do to other people.
> > Or for that matter, bad things done to us?
>
> They don't have to protest anything, but they do. Or, in your terms, why
> *should* Americans be protesting against things that bad people [Bush] do to
> other people?
Hm. Because what their government does, it does in their name. Any
American has the freedom to speak up a bit when they feel their
government is acting in a way contrary to what those selfsame Americans
feel is in the best interests of the people of the country. "Of, by and
for the people" and all that, right?
--
C
cor
Lets bomb more civilians?
cor
gatt wrote:
...
> Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
>
> -c
Do you go out and protest robberies and assaults?
Bob Tiernan
gatt wrote:
> *sigh* So, why are they not protesting the actions of
> Al Queda and Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front.
It's because of a love affair with non-Eurocentric
people (provided they aren't pro-American). But
don't forget that the Left has done some rethinking
since 9/11 and that as a result there are many lefties
who do *not* go to these rallies anymore. They
got sick of theor fellow lefties who seemed to be
doing nothing but apologists rationalizing mass murder.
And keep in mind that 9/11 and the Iraq situation
are two different things, and that even with the latter
there were many lefties who refused to protest what
was about to happen (earlier in the year) because
Saddam Hussein was not "poor little Belgium".
> Not their words, but their actions. Just what other criterion of the
> Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front do they have other than it bombs
> civilians without even attempting to hit a more appropriate target?
But Gatt--the ice cream parlors, Red Cross facilities,
Bali nightclubs, buses, college cafeterias etc *are*
appropriate targets to these scum bags.
> What's all this nonsense about protesting his actions, not his words?
> What does that have to do with the fact that they haven't uttered a
> single fucking peep to suggest that it's wrong to blow up a synagogue
> in Turkey?
They'll often mouth some "I'm opposed to that" kind of line
in a low tone, but they really can't bring themselves to
criticize these people because they've made excuses for them
for too long already, and they'll say, "Well, they're desperate
you know, and we made 'em do it".
> > They also believe him to be an opponent of a clean
> > and sustainable environment, as do many Americans.
> I agree with them.
Interesting that CLW forgets that Al Qaeda will poison
the environment in ways no one else will, once they
get the ability to detonate some large nukes somewhere,
or fly a bomb-filled cargo plane into a nuclear power
plant.
Bob t
Bob Tiernan
gatt wrote:
> "WinGuru" wrote:
> > Liberals do NOT protest against America. That
> > is a falsehood.
> That is not a falsehood. At the anti-war rally in downtown
> in March I witnessed the burning of flags, the chanting of
> slogans such as "Hey Hey My My GI Joe is gonna die"--by a person
> wearing a hammer and sickle on the back of his jacket...
Yup, Gatt. There's been a core anti-war/US crowd
protesting anything the US has done in response
to 9/11. As the crowds get larger, though,
many of the protesters who latch on are hardly the
same as the core group. An example of the core
group would be that little shit Sarah Sloane who
was a protester back in late 2001 when the
protesters were barely visible. Her comments
on the Michael Medved show at that time revealed
where she was coming from--and there's no
doubt that people like her hate America. The
group she represents is International Action Center
which dedicates itself to: "Information, Activism,
and Resistance to U.S. Militarism, War, and Corporate
Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism"
(see www.iacenter.org/).
Here's the previously mentioned exchange
that Medved couldn't believe he was hearing.
A minute or two earlier he asked her to
compare 1940 Soviet Union with 1940 America,
and after she wandered he got her back on track:
MEDVED: Do you believe that the Soviet Union was a
more just, more righteous society, during
World War II, than America?
SLOANE: Well, I think, if you think about things that
existed in the Soviet Union, like that there
was full employment; that everyone had free
lifetime health care; uh, had free lifetime
access to education; that women had two years
paid maternity leave, uh...
MEDVED: This, this is truly unbelievable. I've never
spoken to such a stupid person in my life, and
I repeat, that you are scum and filth.
-----------------------------------
Bob Tiernan
cor
Bob Tiernan wrote:
....
> Interesting that CLW forgets that Al Qaeda will poison
> the environment in ways no one else will, once they
How can he forget stuff that has not happened?
Is it much alike the Bush administration detaining people
for crimes that they might commit in the future?
Bob Tiernan
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Have you noticed that Liberal and Liberty have the
> same root: liber, meaning free.
Sorry, Lobby, but "liberal" today in America bears
little relationship to the group known as liberals
who first appeard in Europe in the 18th century
and who influenced many of the Founders of this
country, and who continued to call themselves
liberals until about the 1930s when the New Dealers
and other collectivist progressive types hijacked
the word.
"Liberals" of the past 50 years are hardly champions
of individual liberties. They use the word "liberal",
but never believed in what they stood for.
That's why I prefer to use the term lefties or
progressives instead of liberal. That's because
I want to use a term for people whose belief
in individual liberties includes the whole package
of personal as well as economic liberties (which
aren't really separate when you get right down to it).
And I don't particularly want to use the term
"libertarian" but I do prefer "Classical Liberal"
which means *real* liberal, pre-hijacking.
Yes, the word "liberal" uses the root "liber"
I guess, but the belief system of those
calling themselves "liberal" has nothing at
all to do with "liber". You can call a
steaming pile of cow flop "liberal", too,
but that won't make it so.
Bob t
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, cor wrote:
> So our strategy should be to make more enemies?
> Lets bomb more civilians?
Of course.
We can't find bin Laden. We can't find Saddam. We can't find Mullah
Omar.
But we sure as hell can find more civilians.
And what's the sense of having the world's finest air force iffen it
isn't allowed to drop bombs on someone?
Ya' take yer targets where ya' can. Iffen ya' can't find the really
-good- targets (bin Laden, etc.), ya' gotta take what's available.
Peace and justice,
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net:
You have anyone with a brain that interviewed her?
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Bob Tiernan
>
>
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net:
>
And, I might add, the same applies to the hijacking of the term
Conservative by a bunch of ignorant thugs.
>
> Bob t
>
>
>
Lobby Dosser
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03112...@lab.oregonvos.net:
Wouldn't it have been nice if we'd bombed the WMDs while we Knew where
they were? Now that would have been a Good Use of all that technology.
>
> Peace and justice,
>
>
>
>
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> news:clw-43801C.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>
> >> in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> > > media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in
> anything
> > > else but what Bush does.
> >
> > They are protesting his actions, not his words. Just what other
> > criterion of Bush do they have?
>
> *sigh* So, why are they not protesting the actions of Al Queda and Great
> Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front. Not their words, but their actions.
Because Bush is there and they hope by their protest to show him that
his support is not monolithic (like his chickenhawk advisers want him to
believe).
If the leader of the " Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front" was in
London people would also act out their feelings on him/her.
And, I am sure they are also sending a message to Blair.
>
> What's all this nonsense about protesting his actions, not his words? What
> does that have to do with the fact that they haven't uttered a single
> fucking peep to suggest that it's wrong to blow up a synagogue in Turkey?
Because it would be futile. You use your energy where you think it
might do some good.
> > You protest actions, not personalities.
>
> Oh. Well excuse me. I thought a terrorist attack against civilians by a
> fundamentalist religious group was an "action", not a personality.
And, as soon as the personality responsible for those actions is in
London, I am sure they would protest. Otherwise such actions would be
only to the amusement of the leaders of the "Great Eastern Islamic
Raiders' Front".
>
> > No, I am sure when ObL or Saddam comes to England for a state visit,
> > they will do the same.
>
> They, in London, protest Bush regardless of whether he's there.
No, they are protesting the actions of Blair for supporting Bush.
> > Now just what else should a targeted person do?
>
> How about tell the truth? If Bush is "targeted" does that give HIM an
> excuse to lie, using the Hussein precedent?
You sure took my comment out of context!
> > Why don't the conservatives march in the streets against ObL, Saddam,
> > the Turkish bombers? Such demonstrations are of no use.
>
> So why protest Bush then, thus giving ObL, Saddam and the Turkish bombers
> video propaganda to say "See, even the western world hates Bush. He's
> wrong, we're right, now strap this to your belly and go blow up a church."?
ObL, Sadam etc do not need any pictures of a Bush protest to fire up
their mendicants. The leaders know exactly what those protests mean.
And, I am sure they do not assume that it is a message of support for
them. One can be both ani-Bush and anti-terrorist.
c...@oblivion.world
<Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDI...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> Interesting that CLW forgets that Al Qaeda will poison
> the environment in ways no one else will, once they
> get the ability to detonate some large nukes somewhere,
> or fly a bomb-filled cargo plane into a nuclear power
> plant.
Absolutely realize such. But, Bush is doing such right now and being
against those actions it is within my power to make some resistance.
Such as keeping his anti-environmental and social conservative actions
in the open and to be able to vote against him and his kind.
You and Gatt need to recognize that one can be anti-Bush and
anti-terrorist at the same time.
I am cynical enough to not blindly follow a "leader" because he is
wrapped in the flag.
c...@oblivion.world
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, cor wrote:
>
> > So our strategy should be to make more enemies?
> > Lets bomb more civilians?
>
> Of course.
> Ya' take yer targets where ya' can. Iffen ya' can't find the really
> -good- targets (bin Laden, etc.), ya' gotta take what's available.
Made sense to LeMay.
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Wouldn't it have been nice if we'd bombed the WMDs while we Knew where
>they were? Now that would have been a Good Use of all that technology.
We did.
Lobby Dosser
gatt
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
> But don't forget that the Left has done some rethinking since 9/11 and
that as a result there are >many lefties who do *not* go to these rallies
anymore.
I believe that. And increasingly, I've noticed, they turn their backs on
things like flag burning. For example, there were only two flags burned at
the March protest but, nationwide, it was all you saw on television leading
people to believe that the whole thing was one big flag-burning riot.
(...now, apply that sort of graphic sensationalism to the situation in Iraq
and you might believe that all they do there is protest America and blow up
buildings.)
> But Gatt--the ice cream parlors, Red Cross facilities, Bali nightclubs,
buses, college cafeterias >etc *are* appropriate targets to these scum bags.
Sure seems. Hell, at least the Libyans had the balls to aim for the Marines.
-c
gatt
"cor" <corDELETET...@exchangenet.net> wrote in message > >
Interesting that CLW forgets that Al Qaeda will poison
> > the environment in ways no one else will, once they
>
> How can he forget stuff that has not happened?
Ya see, Bob? Some people are just so fanatically and single-mindedly
irrational that you can't talk about Al Qaeda without them turning it into a
Bush thing. Watch:
> Is it much alike the Bush administration detaining people for crimes that
they might commit in the >future?
Shut up, Cor. You're like a creepy, redneck preacher infatuated with Ozzy
Osbourne. It's that damned rock music and pornography!
-c
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-840572.0...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> Absolutely realize such. But, Bush is doing such right now and being
> against those actions it is within my power to make some resistance.
> Such as keeping his anti-environmental and social conservative actions
> in the open and to be able to vote against him and his kind.
I have no problem with and in fact completely support that. I'm referring
specifically to protests against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Increasingly referred to by protestors as "World War III")
> You and Gatt need to recognize that one can be anti-Bush and
> anti-terrorist at the same time.
Yes, but it would just be nice to see all these people with the time and
energy to organize a protest to actually speak out against terrorism and
demonstrate to the world that terrorism isn't cool. If enough people did
that, maybe there wouldn't be the kind of terrorism that causes people like
Bush to fight a war. If people could stop a war by having a protest,
wouldn't they?
-c
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <eno...@spam.com> wrote in
>news:51fsrvc58tcjk0i3l...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:22:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Wouldn't it have been nice if we'd bombed the WMDs while we Knew where
>>>they were? Now that would have been a Good Use of all that technology.
>>
>> We did.
>
>Oh, *that* Henny Youngman.
Why do you see it as a joke?
We actually did do that.
Afterwards, it is now clear, we didn't Know where any WMDs were.
Still don't.
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-37DD68.0...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> Because Bush is there and they hope by their protest to show him that
> his support is not monolithic (like his chickenhawk advisers want him to
> believe).
>
> If the leader of the " Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front" was in
> London people would also act out their feelings on him/her.
That's a pretty good answer. Thanks. So it sounds like what the protestors
in American and the UK need to realize is that the perimeter of "there" has
widened. Protests now get worldwide coverage. Every anti-western slogan
visible by camera will be displayed on Islamic propaganda television and
newspapers. But Iraqis are increasingly picking up satellite TV, and a
massive public demonstration would be a great way to get messages to Iraqi
people that are displayed on western television.
The liberal protestors (and, God forbid, conservative protestors that are
wise enough to lay aside their differences) could send a powerful olive
branch to the common people of Iraq, at least, that the all we--the common
people of the west--want is peace and prosperity for the common people of
Iraq.
> And, as soon as the personality responsible for those actions is in
> London, I am sure they would protest. Otherwise such actions would be
> only to the amusement of the leaders of the "Great Eastern Islamic
> Raiders' Front".
Well they can't protest in Instanbul because they'd probably get blown up.
TV is a good place to start.
> ObL, Sadam etc do not need any pictures of a Bush protest to fire up
> their mendicants. The leaders know exactly what those protests mean.
> And, I am sure they do not assume that it is a message of support for
> them. One can be both ani-Bush and anti-terrorist.
Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their people with
whatever spin they want.
-c
Lobby Dosser
news:Wwtvb.997$Cw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
Lockerbie?
>
> -c
>
>
>
gatt
"Darrell Fuhriman" <dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote in message
> There is plenty of condemnation of the bombings in Turkey. It's
> just not happening on the streets. Now, if the Turks wanted to
> protest, that might make a difference.
Except of course they run the high risk of being the target for the NEXT
terrorist attack there.
"Lookie, Osama! They're packing together nicely. Ready?" If I was a
terrorist leader, a protest against me is the FIRST place I'd send my
suicide bombers. Kent State. HA!
> OK, think about this very slowly, so it sinks in. People are
> protesting against Bush in London because that's where Bush is.
Do you not understand the impression that I--as a nonpassionate liberal
protester--am telling you that these people are giving? It's like a Roman
Catholic church preaching in Latin when the population they're trying to
convert only speak English. The choir understand, but what's the point?
> The same thing would have happened to Chirac if he had come to
> the US on a state visit in March. Heck, it may well happen if he
> came tomorrow.
I find that difficult to believe but it would sure be interesting to see!
:>
> Here's another to think about. It is entirely possible to be
> both anti-Bush and anti-terrorism. I can be anti-bush and
> anti-saddam.
That's fair. But if you never speak out against Saddam, and you only speak
out against Bush, then you're not reaching a potentially huge worldwide
anti-Saddam audience. What if the world had heard the protests and done
something about Saddam before Bush had a chance to have his war?
America will take care of Bush soon enough, one way or another.
> > banners or graphics in there, the film could not have been used for
their
> > propaganda purposes.
>
> Big deal. Our media does stupid things, too. In Palestine they
> went around trying to find small groups of anti-american
> protesers after 9/11
Exactly. I'm not saying we need to justify the media, I'm saying we need to
learn how to manipulate it. Bush knows and Saddam knows, which is why
there has been a totalitarian dictatorship and, now, a war. Someday, when
the protestors learn to use the media more effectively, they will succeed.
For example, I was at a timber protest near Detroit Lake one time with a
friend--a GW1 combat vet who had just finally moved home from the Army. We
took a deadfall branch, tied an American flag to it and raised the pole by
tying it off between vehicles. The liberals looked at us, the Forest
Service looked at us, their hired security looked at us and right next to
us, a motorcycle touring group on the highway looked at us and honked and
waved. Some pulled in to find out what the hell was going on. "See that
road?" we told them. "That's an American taxpayer built road, but we can't
go on it because a private company is going to the public forest using that
road, and they've closed it months in advance so we can't go see what it is
they're going to cut."
Then, a group of people decided to willingly cross the line and volunteer to
be arrested. (All charges were later thrown out by the judge as patently
unconstitutional, by the way.) I suggested that they take the American flag
in them, on the pole and flying just as if it were waving over a
battlefield. Let the AMERICAN POLICE have to arrest and AMERICAN on a road
paid for by AMERICANS and it just might make a dent in the wall of
misperception that the forest service cops have been given to live by.
We're not terrorists, we're Americans. Just imagine a good ol' all-American
cop realizing that he's confiscating and, in effect, taking prisoner, an
American flag on American public land. Unconstitutionally, it turns out.
But...no...the protesters were suspicious--even the the flag drew a greater
reaction from the passing tourists than the protest itself-- and would have
none of it. Instead they were suspicious of me.
> > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
>
> Why don't conservatives? They aren't barred from going to the
> protests.
Have you ever seen a conservative protest? They have 'em...they're just not
very good at it. Having seen both conservative AND liberal protests, I'll
tell you straight up that the liberals are better at it.
Or, as some will surely poing out, conservatives don't go to protests, they
go to war.
-c
Lobby Dosser
news:ZNtvb.1069$Cw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
An admirable thought, but demonstrations against terrorism are far less
likely to influence the terrorists than demonstrations against wars are
likely to influence the governments conducting the wars. The terrorists
just don't care what you think. The politicians want everyone to love
them.
>
> -c
>
>
>
gatt
"cor" <corDELETET...@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
> > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
> >
>
> Do you go out and protest robberies and assaults?
Try robbing or assaulting me.
You can't answer the question, can you?
-c
Lobby Dosser
news:mVtvb.1095$Cw...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
How can you possibly spin the fact that those people are out there
demonstrating against their own government and Not being shot, or even
beaten? Now what's your average subject of your average despot supposed
to think about that? "Let's see, how long would I have lived if I'd held
up a 'Stop Saddam' sign in public?"
>
> -c
>
>
>
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their people with
> whatever spin they want.
All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did with the
"intelligence" data to get congress to vote him the authority to invade
Iraq and to convince the American people to support the war. It is what
Blair did with the 45 minute launch of weapons statement.
Such actions are reprehensible no matter who does it.
Lobby Dosser
gatt
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
> Yup, Gatt. There's been a core anti-war/US crowd
> protesting anything the US has done in response
> to 9/11.
I noticed this most profoundly when a friend I've known for a very long time
decided that it was Bush, not Al Queda (who was praising 9/11 and promising
more) that was behind the terrorist attacks.
It's an irrational reaction to fear, I think. Kinda like going to war
against the wrong guy based on bad information, but, there it is.
Then there's the whole Noam Chomksy blahblahblah I-braid-my-armpit-hair
fringe, but nobody really takes them seriously.
-c
gatt
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cTjvb.100372
> > SLOANE: Well, I think, if you think about things that
> > existed in the Soviet Union, like that there
> > was full employment; that everyone had free
> > lifetime health care; uh, had free lifetime
> > access to education; that women had two years
> > paid maternity leave, uh...
>You have anyone with a brain that interviewed her?
The subject was not the interviewer (who was way out of line and the
interview was probably an ambush for ratings), but the interviewee who is
woefully f'in STUPID.
Perhaps she can justify the Stalinist purges that happened while the
Russians who weren't being used as human minesweepers were receiving "free
lifetime access to education."
What a dumb bitch. She should talk to my Latvian stepfather. He gets angry
at jews because he says they've drawn so much attention to their Holocaust
that the world overlooks the fact that twice as many Russians and other
baltic people were killed by Stalin.
-c
Darrell Fuhriman
> That's a pretty good answer. Thanks. So it sounds like what the protestors
> in American and the UK need to realize is that the perimeter of "there" has
> widened. Protests now get worldwide coverage. Every anti-western slogan
Good. Wanna help support democracy -- let 'em broadcast pictures
of protests. *That's* democracy in action. You can pretty much
guarantee that, even in Iraq, when they see those protesters,
they think, "Hey, I wish *I* could do that without getting
killed" and not "Boy, Saddam was right."
*That* is a far more important message. The ability to disagree
with what is going on and try to change is *exactly* what
democracy is about.
Let the world see it in action. Broadcast it everywhere. Who
gives a shit what the signs say. The fact that the signs are
there is by far the more important message.
> Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among
> their people with whatever spin they want.
You know, people outside the US are not idiots. They can see
through the propaganda at least as well as a USians can.
Probably even better.
Again, the fact the there *are* protesters is far more important,
and the state-controlled media can't hide that fact and still
show the protests.
In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that a rally in support of
the government would be disbelieved -- plenty of undemocratic
places can and do create rallies in *favor* of their local
dictatorship.
Darrell
gatt
No, stupid. Protest against a terrorist once in your life. That's all.
Maybe if stupid shits like you got the message out to the rest of the world
that terrorism is not tolerable for any reason, we wouldn't have wars.
Instead, you sit around whining until the war has already started, and then
you stand around and protest like that's going to stop it 'cause that's what
you think mama and daddy did during Vietnam. Which, by the way, took a
decade to end. Maybe if enough people start protesting now, we'll be out
of Iraq in a decade too. Brilliant.
-c
"cor" <corDELETET...@exchangenet.net> wrote in message \
> So our strategy should be to make more enemies?
> Lets bomb more civilians?
>
> gatt wrote:
> >
> > Al Queda and the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front bombs another
civilian
> > building in Turkey.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20/istanbul.blast/index.html
> >
> > Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that
liberals
> > didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even when it bombed New
York
> > City, so it won't be on at eleven.
> >
> > -c
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-048FF3.0...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > Ya' take yer targets where ya' can. Iffen ya' can't find the really
> > -good- targets (bin Laden, etc.), ya' gotta take what's available.
>
> Made sense to LeMay.
Turns out it ended a world war, too. Which has nothing to do with the
subject.
Why don't liberals protest terrorism?
-c
Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:ZNtvb.1069$Cw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
<snip> If enough people did
> that, maybe there wouldn't be the kind of terrorism that causes people
like
> Bush to fight a war.
Wasn't terrorism that caused Bush to fight a war. He was wanting that war
long before terrorism gave him the excuse.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:3Cuvb.2052$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
> That's fair. But if you never speak out against Saddam, and you only
speak
> out against Bush,
I didn't know that Saddam was running for President of the US.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:XEuvb.2095$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
You didn't answer his question.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:tXuvb.2298$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> No, stupid. Protest against a terrorist once in your life.
When and where is your protest scheduled? What other groups do you have on
board?
> That's all.
> Maybe if stupid shits like you got the message out to the rest of the
world
> that terrorism is not tolerable for any reason, we wouldn't have wars.
Maybe if you weren't a stupid shit you'd realize that war won't work agains
terrorism.
> Instead, you sit around whining until the war has already started, and
then
> you stand around and protest like that's going to stop it 'cause that's
what
> you think mama and daddy did during Vietnam. Which, by the way, took a
> decade to end. Maybe if enough people start protesting now, we'll be out
> of Iraq in a decade too. Brilliant.
>
How about handling is as a -Criminal- matter instead of as a military
matter? There's at least one prominent general that thinks if any
large-scale terrorist attack occurs in the US, that Bush will make the US a
Military Dictatorship.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:bZuvb.2303$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Why don't conservatives protest terrorism? Quite plainly, gatt, I've not
seen you nor any conservative out there demonstrating against terrorism.
gatt
> An admirable thought, but demonstrations against terrorism are far less
> likely to influence the terrorists than demonstrations against wars are
> likely to influence the governments conducting the wars. The terrorists
> just don't care what you think. The politicians want everyone to love
> them.
Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of the
enemy."
By logical extension, that could include "We can't catch Osama so let's bomb
Saddam."
Okay. He deserves to be bombed. But it doesn't really address the issue with
regard to 9/11, which was the point in the first place, does it?
-c
gatt
> > Sure seems. Hell, at least the Libyans had the balls to aim for the
> > Marines.
>
> Lockerbie?
Good point. I was thinking of the barracks in Beirut.
-c
gatt
> How can you possibly spin the fact that those people are out there
> demonstrating against their own government and Not being shot, or even
> beaten?
Show footage of pepper spray and riots and riot gear and, above all, people
screaming "police brutality."
> Now what's your average subject of your average despot supposed
> to think about that?
That the thug cops beat their own people in America. Or, depending on how
you decide to spin it, that allowing protests invites riots and destruction
of private property.
There are all sorts of possibilities that become available when there's not
anti-Saddam or anti-OBL messages within the protest imagery.
>"Let's see, how long would I have lived if I'd held up a 'Stop Saddam'
sign in public?"
Doesn't matter. Instead, they allowed themselves to be conscripted to
defend him and then abandoned to be crushed and destroyed by an overwhelming
military force. Maybe because they bought the spun rhetoric out of the west
that Bush was a tyrant set out to conquer the world and take the Iraqi oil.
Hell...I'd fight that if I were Iraqi but then, of course, I'd die.
-c
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their people
with
> > whatever spin they want.
>
> All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without somebody
saying "Well, Bush did it." Like you can't talk to a conservative about
Bush without him going "Well, Clinton..."
> Such actions are reprehensible no matter who does it.
So that makes the attempt to thwart a tyrannical dictator who absolutely
dominates his national media pointless. 'Cause Bush did it.
Kinda reminds me of that South Park episode. "Simpsons did it! Simpsons
did it!"
-c
Don Homuth
>
>"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:VDuvb.293
>
>> An admirable thought, but demonstrations against terrorism are far less
>> likely to influence the terrorists than demonstrations against wars are
>> likely to influence the governments conducting the wars. The terrorists
>> just don't care what you think. The politicians want everyone to love
>> them.
>
>Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of the
>enemy."
>By logical extension, that could include "We can't catch Osama so let's bomb
>Saddam."
And as nearly as anyone can tell, that was what happened.
>Okay. He deserves to be bombed. But it doesn't really address the issue with
>regard to 9/11, which was the point in the first place, does it?
Thus far, there is No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Even Dubya has finally conceded that fact.
And it's clear that the Afghanistan operation has become one massive
clusterfuck, pretty much across the board.
We always did have more to be concerned about there than in Iraq.
gatt
"Darrell Fuhriman" <dar...@grumblesmurf.net> wrote in message
> > That's a pretty good answer. Thanks. So it sounds like what the
protestors
> > in American and the UK need to realize is that the perimeter of "there"
has
> > widened. Protests now get worldwide coverage. Every anti-western slogan
>
> Good. Wanna help support democracy -- let 'em broadcast pictures
> of protests. *That's* democracy in action. You can pretty much
> guarantee that, even in Iraq, when they see those protesters,
> they think, "Hey, I wish *I* could do that without getting
> killed" and not "Boy, Saddam was right."
Yeah, but it didn't really work, did it? We were at war in 1991 and the
protests (which weren't aimed at getting Saddam out of Kuwait, but, rather
getting Bush Sr. out of Iraq) didn't work either.
Call me kookie, but it didn't work the first time. Ain't gonna work this
time with an even -more- clueless administration. Meanwhile, maybe
protesting invasion of Kuwait, rather than the subsequent invasion of Iraq,
would have conserved the protester's creativity. 'Cause they lost my
support and the support of a whole lot of other voters and voices.
> In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that a rally in support of
> the government would be disbelieved -- plenty of undemocratic
> places can and do create rallies in *favor* of their local
> dictatorship.
That's a valid possibility. But it hasn't accomplished a thing. Saddam,
for example, was kicked out of Kuwait by good ol' fashioned redneck gunships
and artillery, not peace activists.
-c
Bill Shatzer
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, gatt wrote:
> Why don't liberals protest terrorism?
Why don't conservatives?
Perhaps neither desires to engage in exercises in futility?
Democratic governments can, after all, be influenced by popular movements.
Protests have some hope of influencing the policies of such governments.
They have none at all of influencing the policies of profoundly
anti-democratic organizations such as al-Qaeda.
One might as well protest the common cold.
Peace and justice,
gatt
"Don Homuth" <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of the
> >enemy."
> >By logical extension, that could include "We can't catch Osama so let's
bomb
> >Saddam."
>
> And as nearly as anyone can tell, that was what happened.
So how can one protest it if one, in one form or another, is doing it?
> >Okay. He deserves to be bombed. But it doesn't really address the issue
with
> >regard to 9/11, which was the point in the first place, does it?
>
> Thus far, there is No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings, Don? Why, in 1991, did the
liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq but not the invasion of
Kuwait?
> And it's clear that the Afghanistan operation has become one massive
> clusterfuck, pretty much across the board.
>
> We always did have more to be concerned about there than in Iraq.
I agree 100%
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:mrwvb.2493$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
So why do you think anti-war demonstrations are directed against the wrong
party? Clearly, if we went to war with the wrong party (Iraq) then the
anti-war demonstrations are right on target. It's your rant that's entirely
off target.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:pzwvb.2504$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>
> > > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their
people
> with
> > > whatever spin they want.
> >
> > All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
>
> Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without somebody
> saying "Well, Bush did it."
Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
>Like you can't talk to a conservative about
> Bush without him going "Well, Clinton..."
Bush is current affairs, Clinton is past history.
>
> > Such actions are reprehensible no matter who does it.
>
> So that makes the attempt to thwart a tyrannical dictator who absolutely
> dominates his national media pointless. 'Cause Bush did it.
So why didn't we use the Rule of Law instead of Might Makes Right? Your
path opens the possibility of Bush becomming a tyrannical dictator.
>
> Kinda reminds me of that South Park episode. "Simpsons did it! Simpsons
> did it!"
You remind us of blithering idiots.
lein
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> > news:clw-43801C.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> >
> > >> in London, they're protesting Bush. They're not giving the
> > > > media the appearance of a single damn that they're interested in
> anything
> > > > else but what Bush does.
> > >
> > > They are protesting his actions, not his words. Just what other
> > > criterion of Bush do they have?
> >
> > *sigh* So, why are they not protesting the actions of Al Queda and Great
> > Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front.
>
> So why aren't YOU out there protesting Al Queda, etc? Why aren't YOU
> putting your actions where your mouth is?
Because if he goes to an Al Queda camp and protests, they'll cut out his
tounge and hang him by his wennie.
why aren't YOU over in the middle east acting as a human SHIELD?
lein
> "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Al Queda and the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front bombs another
> civilian
> > building in Turkey.
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20/istanbul.blast/index.html
> >
> > Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that liberals
> > didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even when it bombed New
> York
> > City, so it won't be on at eleven.
> >
>
Yeah, and you don't break windows of starbucks stores either.
lein
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> > Have you noticed that Liberal and Liberty have the
> > same root: liber, meaning free.
>
>
> Sorry, Lobby, but "liberal" today in America bears
> little relationship to the group known as liberals
> who first appeard in Europe in the 18th century
> and who influenced many of the Founders of this
> country, and who continued to call themselves
> liberals until about the 1930s when the New Dealers
> and other collectivist progressive types hijacked
> the word.
>
> "Liberals" of the past 50 years are hardly champions
> of individual liberties. They use the word "liberal",
> but never believed in what they stood for.
sort of like those old democratic republics of <insert easthern European
county her> when they were under communist tyranny.
lein
>
> >
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >
> >> Have you noticed that Liberal and Liberty have the
> >> same root: liber, meaning free.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, Lobby, but "liberal" today in America bears
> > little relationship to the group known as liberals
> > who first appeard in Europe in the 18th century
> > and who influenced many of the Founders of this
> > country, and who continued to call themselves
> > liberals until about the 1930s when the New Dealers
> > and other collectivist progressive types hijacked
> > the word.
> >
> > "Liberals" of the past 50 years are hardly champions
> > of individual liberties. They use the word "liberal",
> > but never believed in what they stood for.
> >
> > progressives instead of liberal. That's because
> > I want to use a term for people whose belief
> > in individual liberties includes the whole package
> > of personal as well as economic liberties (which
> > aren't really separate when you get right down to it).
> > And I don't particularly want to use the term
> > "libertarian" but I do prefer "Classical Liberal"
> > which means *real* liberal, pre-hijacking.
> >
> > Yes, the word "liberal" uses the root "liber"
> > I guess, but the belief system of those
> > calling themselves "liberal" has nothing at
> > all to do with "liber". You can call a
> > steaming pile of cow flop "liberal", too,
> > but that won't make it so.
>
> And, I might add, the same applies to the hijacking of the term
> Conservative by a bunch of ignorant thugs.
If you watch the Flintstones, you'll have a gay old time.
lein
> So our strategy should be to make more enemies?
> Lets bomb more civilians?
>
If the goal was to bomb civilians, we're doing a poor job of it.
gatt
> > Why don't liberals protest terrorism?
>
> Why don't conservatives?
What do you call the war in Afghanistan? (ELF terminology: "Direct
Action")
-c
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
>
> > Yup, Gatt. There's been a core anti-war/US crowd
> > protesting anything the US has done in response
> > to 9/11.
>
> I noticed this most profoundly when a friend I've known for a very long time
> decided that it was Bush, not Al Queda (who was praising 9/11 and promising
> more) that was behind the terrorist attacks.
Your friend need psychiatric help. I do not remember anyone on this
group who even came close to making the statement you quote above.
>
> It's an irrational reaction to fear, I think. Kinda like going to war
> against the wrong guy based on bad information, but, there it is.
And, that seems to be exactly what we did.
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
Surely you are not considering our current war actions in Afghanistan
and Iraq as being "conservative" rather than American.
You claim you are a vetran of the USMC. Did you or any of your squad
(or any level of Corps organization) think even for a moment that you
were fighting for a political agenda?
Cummon, the reality of the personal committments, morality and
justification in the American military has never been political nor
religious (I throw that in to twitch the RRR who think our troops go
into battle singing the Battle hymn of the Republic).
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> So how can one protest it if one, in one form or another, is doing it?
There is a vast difference between what ones country is doing and what
one believes that country should be doing. That is the basis of
anti-war protests since the 1960's. It is Americans using the last
clause of the First Amendment.
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
> Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings, Don?
Not Don, but will put in .02.
Both the liberals and the conservatives (neither of whom are taking to
the streets) realize that such actions are futile. They will send no
message to the perpetrators of the terrorist actions. Those people know
that all Americans (and all intelligent people world wide) find their
actions reprehensible.
> Why, in 1991, did the
> liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq but not the invasion of
> Kuwait?
Now where did you get that mal-fact? I remember no such actions on the
popular level. Gatt, you are getting carried away with your rhetoric.
gatt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > So why aren't YOU out there protesting Al Queda, etc? Why aren't YOU
> > putting your actions where your mouth is?
Baxter hasn't figured out that I ignore him.
> Because if he goes to an Al Queda camp and protests, they'll cut out his
> tounge and hang him by his wennie.
I did my service in the USMC between 1987 and 1990. With all due respect to
Commandant and Corps, I'm done. They didn't ask me to go to Afghanistan but
if they had, I've have gone.
My brother just turned 18 and enlisted in the Marine Corps and ships out on
January 12. He wants and looks to have been scheduled for the MOS of machine
gunner, and as such he may find himself protesting Al Queda in Afghanistan
by this time next year. Baxter will still be crapping through his head on
the internet and top-post hawking his code while expecting other people to
protect him from terrorism.
-c
Lobby Dosser
news:mrwvb.2493$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:VDuvb.293
>
>> An admirable thought, but demonstrations against terrorism are far
>> less likely to influence the terrorists than demonstrations against
>> wars are likely to influence the governments conducting the wars. The
>> terrorists just don't care what you think. The politicians want
>> everyone to love them.
>
> Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of
> the enemy."
No, it's saying influence what you can and don't waste time trying to
infuence that which you cannot.
Lobby Dosser
news:NWwvb.2512$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> "Don Homuth" <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>> >Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of
>> >the enemy."
>> >By logical extension, that could include "We can't catch Osama so
>> >let's
> bomb
>> >Saddam."
>>
>> And as nearly as anyone can tell, that was what happened.
>
> So how can one protest it if one, in one form or another, is doing it?
>
>> >Okay. He deserves to be bombed. But it doesn't really address the
>> >issue
> with
>> >regard to 9/11, which was the point in the first place, does it?
>>
>> Thus far, there is No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
>
> Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings, Don? Why, in 1991, did
> the liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq but not the
> invasion of Kuwait?
Probably because they thought it was all about oil. Ask a liberal.
Lobby Dosser
news:LUuvb.2292$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cTjvb.100372
>
>> > SLOANE: Well, I think, if you think about things that
>> > existed in the Soviet Union, like that there
>> > was full employment; that everyone had free
>> > lifetime health care; uh, had free lifetime
>> > access to education; that women had two years
>> > paid maternity leave, uh...
>
>>You have anyone with a brain that interviewed her?
>
> The subject was not the interviewer (who was way out of line and the
> interview was probably an ambush for ratings), but the interviewee who
> is woefully f'in STUPID.
>
> Perhaps she can justify the Stalinist purges that happened while the
> Russians who weren't being used as human minesweepers were receiving
> "free lifetime access to education."
>
> What a dumb bitch. She should talk to my Latvian stepfather. He gets
> angry at jews because he says they've drawn so much attention to their
> Holocaust that the world overlooks the fact that twice as many
> Russians and other baltic people were killed by Stalin.
Way More than twice as many.
>
> -c
>
>
>
Bob Tiernan
CLW wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Ya' take yer targets where ya' can. Iffen ya' can't
> > find the really -good- targets (bin Laden, etc.), ya'
> > gotta take what's available.
> Made sense to LeMay.
Made sense to many Air Corps leaders and even FDR
himself (not that they were right). Better heads
did exist (they even referred to the bombing campaign
as "baby killing") in the AAF and even top leadership
like Admiral Leahy, but they were ignored.
What was you point, Charlie? Are we supposed
to conclude that LeMay was alone in this way
of thinking, and that it was done without the
"great" and "noble" FDR being able to stop it?
Bob T
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <eno...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>> >Which seems like of like saying "aim for the easy target instead of the
>> >enemy."
>> >By logical extension, that could include "We can't catch Osama so let's
>bomb
>> >Saddam."
>>
>> And as nearly as anyone can tell, that was what happened.
>
>So how can one protest it if one, in one form or another, is doing it?
Well, one might reasonably try to differentiate between a Genuine CAPD
from ObL and a non-existent Threat from Iraq, for starters.
>> >Okay. He deserves to be bombed. But it doesn't really address the issue
>with
>> >regard to 9/11, which was the point in the first place, does it?
>>
>> Thus far, there is No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
>
>Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings, Don? Why, in 1991, did the
>liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq but not the invasion of
>Kuwait?
I dunno -- you might ask them.
Alternatively, you might take a look at the discussion URL I posted
here this afternoon for a relatively less het up discussion of how to
differentiate.
>> And it's clear that the Afghanistan operation has become one massive
>> clusterfuck, pretty much across the board.
>>
>> We always did have more to be concerned about there than in Iraq.
>
>I agree 100%
Then why aren't Conservatives protesting That?
See how the question is empty?
Don Homuth
I call it a justified strike.
What do you call the war in Iraq?
curtis j. erickson
>
>MEDVED: Do you believe that the Soviet Union was a
>
> more just, more righteous society, during
>
> World War II, than America?
>
>
>SLOANE: Well, I think, if you think about things that
>
> existed in the Soviet Union, like that there
>
> was full employment; that everyone had free
>
> lifetime health care; uh, had free lifetime
>
> access to education; that women had two years
>
> paid maternity leave, uh...
>
>
>
> spoken to such a stupid person in my life, and
>
> I repeat, that you are scum and filth.
Hahahaha.. Michael Medved, gentleman and scholar.
A classier act would have found a better guest to attack--one that could
defend herself. Anyone can win an argument with a dork.
-Curt
curtis j. erickson
>
>They don't have to protest anything, but they do. Or, in your terms, why
>
>*should* Americans be protesting against things that bad people [Bush] do
>to
>
>other people?
But when you protest the actions of your own gummint, you're actually
(possibly) making a difference. You're letting your elected officials
know you care about something they vote on.
And if you go to the Icelandic Consulate (do they have one?) to protest,
say, whaling, you're letting Iceland know that you, a voter in a nation
that has economic ties to theirs, wants them to stop whaling (say). Maybe
with enough protests they decide, well, we really like selling whitefish
to Oregon, maybe we'll back off on the whaling thing.
But if you'd gone to the Iraqi Consulate (again, given that you could even
find one) to protest Saddam.. uh.. they wouldn't have cared. They didn't
have economic ties to us. We were sanctioning the crap out of them for the
last ten years. Do they care that voters in Portland were mad at them?
And where in the world would you go to protest al Q? They don't have an
embassy. They probably don't have anyone here who cares if you protest
them.
-Curt
Bill Shatzer
> > Why don't conservatives?
I believe the resolution authorizing the Afghanistan intervention passed
congress with but a single dissenting vote. Even Teddy Kennedy and
Maxine Waters voted for it.
That was hardly an exclusively conservative action.
And, iffen Afghanistan counts, it was a fine example of liberals
"protesting" terrorism.
Peace and justice,
david parsons
gatt <ga...@jxgFUbxt.com> wrote:
>
>"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>> > So why aren't YOU out there protesting Al Queda, etc? Why aren't YOU
>> > putting your actions where your mouth is?
>
>Baxter hasn't figured out that I ignore him.
>
>> Because if he goes to an Al Queda camp and protests, they'll cut out his
>> tounge and hang him by his wennie.
>
>I did my service in the USMC between 1987 and 1990. With all due respect to
>Commandant and Corps, I'm done. They didn't ask me to go to Afghanistan but
>if they had, I've have gone.
>
>My brother just turned 18 and enlisted in the Marine Corps and ships out on
>January 12. He wants and looks to have been scheduled for the MOS of machine
>gunner, and as such he may find himself protesting Al Queda in Afghanistan
>by this time next year.
More likely he'll find himself cooling his heels in Iraq, enjoying the
nightly rain of incoming mortar fire as he slowly slides into the nasty
little hell that George W Bush has prepared for him.
____
david parsons \bi/ Unless Kucinich wins and evacuates Iraq, of course.
\/
david parsons
gatt <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote:
>
>Al Queda and the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front bombs another civilian
>building in Turkey.
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20/istanbul.blast/index.html
>
>Liberals protest against America. Which isn't news, given that liberals
>didn't take to the streets to protest Al Queda even when it bombed New York
>City, so it won't be on at eleven.
I don't think that the people who direct Al Queda give a rats ass
whether or not people in the West hate them or not. If 100,000
Christians did a "we hate Al Queda!" demonstration (as opposed to
the "we love Al Queda!" demonstration produced and directed by
Maximum Leader Genius and his dimwitted neocon friends), Osama would
probably look up from his checkwriting, snicker, and add an extra
zero or two to the grants for buying an atomic bomb and shipping it
to Los Angeles for the Easter Surprise.
I believe that large protests against your enemies is more the
territory of nasty little dictators in penny-ante third world
countries. And, as the former Maximum Leader of Iraq could
tell you, they certainly work at scaring off ones enemies.
____
david parsons \bi/ The quagmire of Iraq? An optical illusion.
\/
c...@oblivion.world
<Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net>,
Bob Tiernan <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
> CLW wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > > Ya' take yer targets where ya' can. Iffen ya' can't
> > > find the really -good- targets (bin Laden, etc.), ya'
> > > gotta take what's available.
>
>
> > Made sense to LeMay.
>
> What was you point, Charlie? Are we supposed
> to conclude that LeMay was alone in this way
> of thinking, and that it was done without the
> "great" and "noble" FDR being able to stop it?
LeMay was (IRRC) the only one to lament the dwindling of targets big
enough to use his fire bombing tactics upon.
Bob Tiernan
curtis j. erickson wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >MEDVED: Do you believe that the Soviet Union was a
> >
> > more just, more righteous society, during
> >
> > World War II, than America?
> >
> >
> >SLOANE: Well, I think, if you think about things that
> >
> > existed in the Soviet Union, like that there
> >
> > was full employment; that everyone had free
> >
> > lifetime health care; uh, had free lifetime
> >
> > access to education; that women had two years
> >
> > paid maternity leave, uh...
> >
> >
> >MEDVED: This, this is truly unbelievable. I've never
> >
> > spoken to such a stupid person in my life, and
> >
> > I repeat, that you are scum and filth.
> Hahahaha.. Michael Medved, gentleman and scholar.
>
> A classier act would have found a better guest to
> attack--one that could defend herself.
You mean one who could better articulate why
Stalinist Russia of 1940 was more righteous
than America of 1940? Golly, curtis.
> Anyone can win an argument with a dork.
curtis, I think the content of her
answers for the whole hour was the
problem, not any dorkiness on her
part Others in her group shared the
same views.
Bob t
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <ga...@jxgFUbxt.com> wrote in message
news:9Hyvb.2551$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> > > So why aren't YOU out there protesting Al Queda, etc? Why aren't YOU
> > > putting your actions where your mouth is?
>
> Baxter hasn't figured out that I ignore him.
gatt hasn't figured out that he's not the Center of the Universe.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8ozvb.3023$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in
> news:NWwvb.2512$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
> >
> > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings, Don? Why, in 1991, did
> > the liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq but not the
> > invasion of Kuwait?
>
> Probably because they thought it was all about oil. Ask a liberal.
Hell, the Iraqi's probably think it's about the oil.
--------------
Analysis of a Gallup Poll of Iraqis finds that fewer than 10 percent of them
believe that the US invaded to help Iraqis, and even fewer believe that the
US objective was to establish a true democracy in their land.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"david parsons" <o...@pell.portland.or.us> wrote in message
news:bpnck5$7...@pell.portland.or.us...
If he does make it to Afghanistan, he'll likely find the same fate - the
insurgents in Afghanistan will be learning from the insurgents in Iraq.
WinGuru
"gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
news:XEuvb.2095$b91...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...> > > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
> > >
> >
> > Do you go out and protest robberies and assaults?
>
> Try robbing or assaulting me.
>
> You can't answer the question, can you?
>
Bush/Cheney's policies are robbing you every day. That's worth protesting
isn't it?
curtis j. erickson
>
>> Hahahaha.. Michael Medved, gentleman and scholar.
>
>>
>
>> A classier act would have found a better guest to
>
>> attack--one that could defend herself.
>
>
>You mean one who could better articulate why
>
>Stalinist Russia of 1940 was more righteous
>
>than America of 1940? Golly, curtis.
But it's easy to find someone who's not too bright, and believes something
goofy, and belongs to a group you don't like, and invite them on your
show, and demolish them, and then make it sound like you made points
against the group you don't like. Remember when Tom Leykis used to invite
the anti-gays on his show and make the whole crew of them look like
toothless inbreeders? That's all Medved did here, it sounds like.
>
>
>
>
>> Anyone can win an argument with a dork.
>
>
>
>curtis, I think the content of her
>
>answers for the whole hour was the
>
>problem, not any dorkiness on her
>
>part Others in her group shared the
>
>same views.
How many others? And how big is her group? I mean, come on. Do you really
thing the monolithic "left wing" believes Stalin's Russia was a better
place to live than 40s America?
-Curt
Jon
"Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vrt842q...@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> > news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> >
> > > > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their
> people
> > with
> > > > whatever spin they want.
> > >
> > > All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
> >
> > Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without somebody
> > saying "Well, Bush did it."
>
> Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
> Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
Thats bullshit. You guys would bitch no matter what. It doesnt matter what
Bush does.
You bitch because he is Bush. You are all still held up on the fucking
election that he WON.
>
> >Like you can't talk to a conservative about
> > Bush without him going "Well, Clinton..."
>
> Bush is current affairs, Clinton is past history.
>
> >
> > > Such actions are reprehensible no matter who does it.
> >
> > So that makes the attempt to thwart a tyrannical dictator who absolutely
> > dominates his national media pointless. 'Cause Bush did it.
>
> So why didn't we use the Rule of Law instead of Might Makes Right? Your
> path opens the possibility of Bush becomming a tyrannical dictator.
>
> >
> > Kinda reminds me of that South Park episode. "Simpsons did it!
Simpsons
> > did it!"
>
> You remind us of blithering idiots.
>
>
Dave Thompson
"Jon" <cal_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0P7wb.10144$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vrt842q...@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzwvb.2504$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >
> > > <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> > > news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > >
> > > > > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their
> > people
> > > with
> > > > > whatever spin they want.
> > > >
> > > > All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
> > >
> > > Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without
somebody
> > > saying "Well, Bush did it."
> >
> > Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
> > Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
>
> Thats bullshit. You guys would bitch no matter what. It doesnt matter what
> Bush does.
> You bitch because he is Bush. You are all still held up on the fucking
> election that he WON.
You pathetic conservative crybaby. "Waaaaah, he criticized the president!"
Like conservatives didn't spend eight years complaining about every time
Clinton spit on the ground. You don't like Bush being criticized. Too bad.
All you hear on conservative radio is "They're Bush bashing! They're Bush
bashing!" Well no shit. You think that because you hang on every word this
dunce says and fall into line that everybody has to do it? What a bunch of
idiots. There's a reason it's called opposition. So why don't you take your
own advice and get over it. There's people out there that don't like him and
they have every right to criticize him if they want.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jon" <cal_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0P7wb.10144$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vrt842q...@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
> > "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzwvb.2504$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >
> > > <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> > > news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > >
> > > > > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their
> > people
> > > with
> > > > > whatever spin they want.
> > > >
> > > > All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
> > >
> > > Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without
somebody
> > > saying "Well, Bush did it."
> >
> > Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
> > Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
>
> Thats bullshit. You guys would bitch no matter what. It doesnt matter what
> Bush does.
Don't project your RR behavior onto everybody else.
> You bitch because he is Bush. You are all still held up on the fucking
> election that he WON.
He didn't win that election by democratic means (by just counting the
votes).
nobody
"Jon" <cal_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Baxter" <lbax01.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vrt842q...@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "gatt" <ga...@jugFUrbot.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzwvb.2504$b91....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >
> > > <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> > > news:clw-602A89.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > >
> > > > > Yes, but they can edit it, package it and deliver it among their
> > people
> > > with
> > > > > whatever spin they want.
> > > >
> > > > All administrations do such. It is exactly what Bush did
> > >
> > > Here we go again. You can't talk about Saddam or Osama without somebody
> > > saying "Well, Bush did it."
> >
> > Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
> > Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
>
> Thats bullshit. You guys would bitch no matter what. It doesnt matter what
> Bush does.
> You bitch because he is Bush. You are all still held up on the fucking
> election that he WON.
Amen!!!
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-522F67.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > Why, in 1991, did the liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq
but not the invasion of
> > Kuwait?
>
> Now where did you get that mal-fact? I remember no such actions on the
> popular level. Gatt, you are getting carried away with your rhetoric.
In 1990, there were few if any protests, at least in America, against the
invasion of Kuwait by Hussein. In any case, there were a fraction as many
as there were protests against the Coalition action against Iraq.
Graffitti and sloganism written or tagged everywhere said the familiar
phrase "No Blood for Oil" but there are few, if any, such examples of such
things regarding the invasion of Kuwait by Hussein.
Now, some have argued that 'all the protesting in the world won't stop
somebody like Saddam Hussein or terrorists.' I'll buy that completely,
which is exactly why I prefer the more direct action.
-c
gatt
"Jon" <cal_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0P7wb.10144
> > Well, he did do it. That's the probem. If Bush had stopped with
> > Afghanistan, the political landscape would look entirely different now.
>
> Thats bullshit.
Entirely accurate. Baxter bitched before the election, before 9/11, before
Afghanistan and before Iraq, and since, about Bush.
It doesn't matter what happens. Nobody listens anymore because "Wolf!" has
been cried once too often.
-c
gatt
"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
>You don't like Bush being criticized.
I do. :>
> All you hear on conservative radio is "They're Bush bashing! They're Bush
> bashing!" Well no
I agree with you here. The important point, however, is that the same
degree of rhetoric and contempt exists whether or not there is a war.
Before Afghanistan and Iraq we STILL heard how Bush was destroying the
economy, stole the election, was going to destroy the nation and all of
that.
It goes both ways; for eight years the Republicans had little more than a
blowjob and taxes to rant about, but they spent billions of dollars on it
and completely undermined their credibility and leadership to guys like me.
Now it is -some- of the liberals that have gone completely over the edge and
started ranting dishonest nonsense and disinformation about the draft,
WWIII, invasions of Syria and North Korea, genocide by US troops (we heard
that in March and April) and, on top of all of it, the same old shit
about Bush we grew saturated with hearing before the war. And, still, the
election.
Now it's a Repub in the White House so we have to endure 4 years of petty
nonsense, dishonesty and hysteria from his opposition. When a Democrat wins,
it'll swing the other way but the same dishonesty and nonsense will exist by
professional critics regardless of whether we have a healthy economy,
recession, war or peace.
-c
gatt
<c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
news:clw-9B28D9.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > I noticed this most profoundly when a friend I've known for a very long
time
> > decided that it was Bush, not Al Queda (who was praising 9/11 and
promising
> > more) that was behind the terrorist attacks.
>
> Your friend need psychiatric help. I do not remember anyone on this
> group who even came close to making the statement you quote above.
Just wait. You have heard it and you will hear it again. Guys like Cor
will be around shortly to convince you that Bush knew about the bombings and
did nothing, and that Bin Laden or Hussein's relatives were the only people
allowed to fly in the US the day after the bombing, blah blah blah...
> > It's an irrational reaction to fear, I think. Kinda like going to war
> > against the wrong guy based on bad information, but, there it is.
>
> And, that seems to be exactly what we did.
There you go.
-c
gatt
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:3fbfb055$1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> > > > Why don't liberals protest terrorist bombings?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you go out and protest robberies and assaults?
> >
> > Try robbing or assaulting me.
> >
> > You can't answer the question, can you?
> >
> Bush/Cheney's policies are robbing you every day. That's worth protesting
> isn't it?
My taxes went down except for in the state of Oregon; a state that plunged
further into economic decay under the governorship of a Democrat. If
"robbery" was the issue than we'd have been protesting Kitz.
You still can't answer the question, can you? Yet again, a liberal is asked
a tough question about his own ideology and diverts the question by
referrign to Bush/Cheney.
Noted. This is, what, three times in a row now?
-c
Don Homuth
>
>"Dave Thompson" <dav1...@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
>
>>You don't like Bush being criticized.
>
>I do. :>
>
>> All you hear on conservative radio is "They're Bush bashing! They're Bush
>> bashing!" Well no
>
>I agree with you here. The important point, however, is that the same
>degree of rhetoric and contempt exists whether or not there is a war.
That's Politics -- and the GOP lowered the bar to practice it that
way.
>Before Afghanistan and Iraq we STILL heard how Bush was destroying the
>economy,
Seems to have worked out that way.
>... stole the election,
I keep telling you -- he "stole" nothing of the sort. It was given to
him as a Gift, fair and square.
>... was going to destroy the nation and all of that.
Think of it as a work in progress.
>It goes both ways; for eight years the Republicans had little more than a
>blowjob and taxes to rant about, but they spent billions of dollars on it
>and completely undermined their credibility and leadership to guys like me.
And are still working at it to folks like me.
>Now it is -some- of the liberals that have gone completely over the edge and
>started ranting dishonest nonsense and disinformation about the draft,
>WWIII, invasions of Syria and North Korea, genocide by US troops (we heard
>that in March and April) and, on top of all of it, the same old shit
>about Bush we grew saturated with hearing before the war. And, still, the
>election.
Extremism in the defense of Republicans is no vice; Moderation in an
attack on D's no virtue.
It started in 1984.
>Now it's a Repub in the White House so we have to endure 4 years of petty
>nonsense, dishonesty and hysteria from his opposition. When a Democrat wins,
>it'll swing the other way but the same dishonesty and nonsense will exist by
>professional critics regardless of whether we have a healthy economy,
>recession, war or peace.
At some point, cooler heads need to call a truce. But you don't get
to harangue for years and then complain when someone else does it back
to you.
Don Homuth
>It doesn't matter what happens. Nobody listens anymore because "Wolf!" has
>been cried once too often.
It's OK, Chris.
Figure that Tom Ridge will be changing the alert status back to Orange
just any day now. It doesn't matter what happens -- we'll "hear"
something.
c...@oblivion.world
"gatt" <ga...@jxgFUbxt.com> wrote:
> <c...@oblivion.world> wrote in message
> news:clw-522F67.1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>
> > > Why, in 1991, did the liberals worldwide protest the invasion of Iraq
> but not the invasion of
> > > Kuwait?
> >
> > Now where did you get that mal-fact? I remember no such actions on the
> > popular level. Gatt, you are getting carried away with your rhetoric.
>
> In 1990, there were few if any protests, at least in America, against the
> invasion of Kuwait by Hussein. In any case, there were a fraction as many
> as there were protests against the Coalition action against Iraq.
OK, but none in the US. In 1990, SH had invaded another country. in
2003, he had invaded no-one.
>
> Graffitti and sloganism written or tagged everywhere said the familiar
> phrase "No Blood for Oil" but there are few, if any, such examples of such
> things regarding the invasion of Kuwait by Hussein.
I would hope you can see the difference between those episodes. In one
case, SH had invaded another country, and there was wide support across
the world for driving him out. In 2003, there was only (what turned out
to actually be ) mis-statements for support of an invasion of Iraq
(which not not invaded anyone) and a lot of countries which saw thru the
US rationale.
>
> Now, some have argued that 'all the protesting in the world won't stop
> somebody like Saddam Hussein or terrorists.' I'll buy that completely,
> which is exactly why I prefer the more direct action.
But, the problem is that when someone is defined to be a threat to world
peace as a rationale for military action, there should be some basis for
the claim. The "direct action" scenario is fraught with much danger
particularly when one country goes it alone.
You claim to have been a Marine. Just how willing would you have been
to be sent into combat because of the hubris of one man?