Bush and Blair: History will Damn Them
Gandalf Grey
History will damn them
We must not accept our leaders' illegal occupation of a sovereign state
Richard Overy
Saturday March 20, 2004
The Guardian
Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario. American and British troops
battle their way into Iraqi territory, sprayed with anthrax shells and gas
bombs. In Cyprus and Tel Aviv, rockets explode, loaded with biological
agents. After a bitter struggle, coalition forces seize control of the
country. They find concealed rocket silos with missiles primed for attacks
on distant European targets; plans are found for rocket attacks on London.
At other sites they find an advanced nuclear bomb project and barrels full
of chemical weapons. They flush out an al-Qaida stronghold where they find
the battle plan of world terrorism. Saddam and Bin Laden were, after all, in
cahoots.
A year ago this was the fanciful vision that pushed Blair to side with Bush
and go to war in Iraq. They braced their troops and populations for the
worst, and the more gullible believed them (I talked to Londoners planning
their evacuation route from the capital). The rest of us saw the arguments
for the claptrap they were. The reality from March 20 last year to March 20
this year has been grotesquely different. Two of the world's most
sophisticated armed forces brushed aside a tinpot army of soldiers without
boots, smashed Iraq's cities to pieces, killed thousands of civilians and
captured Iraq's oil more or less intact. There were, as any intelligent
observer could have told them, no WMD, no centre of world terrorism, no
aggressive intent.
In the past 12 months, deserters from the Bush/Blair cause have revealed
piecemeal the reality. War was planned long in advance against a soft Arab
target that nobody much liked. The intelligence services knew that they were
being asked to endorse fairy tales. The attorney general has come clean on
how he was forced to turn an illegal war into a lawful war of defence
against the Iraqi threat. The duplicity was systematic, and remains so.
Blair has no regrets. He bays defiant nonsense about the terrible menace
that has been removed, and the greater terrorist menace still at large. Not
once has he expressed regret for what a dozen years of sanctions and war
inflicted on the Iraqi people. Enough that his cause is just.
There is no pleasure in saying, a year on, that we told you so. Invasion
invited worldwide hostility, divided (and still divides) Europe, weakened
the UN and, above all, provoked precisely the confrontation with terror that
the war was supposed to alleviate. I have been told to stop carping and let
the British and Americans get on with the job of ruling Iraq now they are
there. But this is tantamount to endorsing the war. Why are the US and
Britain there, in illegal occupation of a sovereign state? Why should we
accept this reality and knuckle down to Blair's call to arms? Today's
demonstration is a reminder that what was a war of unprovoked aggression a
year ago has not been changed by victory.
I have had many arguments, too, about the vexed question of oil. The view
that oil is some kind of Marxist red herring is widespread. But in this case
there can be no other conclusion. Oil installations and oil lines were
captured and guarded first; the oil ministry was protected while priceless
art treasures were being ransacked. The second largest oil reserves are now
safe once again for the wider world market and the global oil companies.
Popular ignorance about the nature of oil politics has played into coalition
hands, just as popular indifference to the use of major US companies in
rebuilding what the US armed forces knocked down has deflected debate from
issues that should shock international opinion.
The most familiar argument in favour of the war, repeated mantra-like in all
circles, is that a much-hated dictator has been overthrown. This week's
opinion poll purports to show how grateful the Iraqis now are for their
liberation. No one would wish Saddam Hussein back. The problem is that the
reason for going to war was quite different. If unseating tyrants was the
priority, Saddam should have been unseated long ago. War in 2003 was about
protecting British and American interests, not liberating Iraq, a posture of
self-interest rather than magnanimity. This was the same motive for
declaring war on Hitler in 1939. It was not dictators that the west could
not stomach, but the threat to their interests and way of life (again).
In this sense, the analogy drawn last year that Saddam had to be confronted
like Hitler was truer than might have been supposed. Parliament was
bamboozled into accepting that Saddam posed an immediate threat to Britain.
There were honourable motives for declaring war on Hitler, as there are for
unseating Saddam, but that is not what, a year ago, we were offered.
Liberation was the means to dress war up as legitimate. So much so that
there must be a large number in Britain and the US who think that unseating
Saddam really was the reason that war began.
One more battery turns on the anti-war lobby: look at Madrid, look at the
daily attacks in Iraq or Israel. Blair was right. Terrorism is the chief
threat we face, and the war against terror must unite us all. This has
little to do with Iraq. Attacks against the occupiers were provoked by war.
Attacks in Israel are part of a different struggle for Palestinian
liberation. The assault in Madrid is part of a longer confrontation between
militant Islam and western cultural and economic imperialism. Lumping them
all together as evidence that a war against terror is the primary object of
our foreign policy is nonsense.
"Terror" is not an organisation or a single force. It is related to a
variety of political confrontations, each of which has to be understood in
its own terms. "Terror" cannot be fought as if it were a war against a
hidden, global and undifferentiated enemy. The threat, such as it is, has
been exacerbated by the arrogant display of naked power shown by the US,
Britain and its motley coalition. But the real changes to "our way of life"
are the consequence of the panicky western response to terrorism, which has
eroded civil liberties and the rule of law and threatens to smother us with
a security net that will undermine the so-called "democratic" values that
the west is pledged to preserve. This is an unnecessary price to pay, but we
will all see the surveillance state grow unless democratic non-compliance
reasserts itself.
What, then, are the alternatives? Could anything different have been done?
Should something different be done now? Of course. War should have been
avoided and other ways explored to get Iraq to re-enter the world economy,
and to feed and supply its population properly. The west could show that it
is serious about tackling the question of a Palestinian state, instead of
using it as a figleaf to clothe its ambitions in the region. Blair could
show that he values a commitment to a common European defence and foreign
policy, which might have avoided war altogether.
Today we could confront terrorism differently. It is a profound irony that
Blair has helped to defuse the Ulster crisis and reduce terrorism by the
very means that he has abandoned in his crusading zeal against the world
enemy. Terrorists do not blow people up just because they are nihilistic
thugs. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face
of the massive power and cultural expansion of the west; it is about real
issues for those who perpetrate its acts of violence. Palestinians die
because they want to free Palestine. Understanding those issues on their own
terms and adjusting our politics in order to do so does not mean that we
endorse violence.
Last year Blair told the British people: "Let history be my judge." The
history of the past year has been damning, but there is an opportunity for
the people to judge as well. The same message that the Spanish people sent
to José Aznar can also be sent to Bush and Blair. It will not solve the
world's problems, but it might make the world a safer place.
· Richard Overy is professor of modern history at King's College London, and
author of The Dictators, to be published by Penguin in June
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
Johnny Asia
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1173989,00.html
>
>History will damn them >>
And so will their god.
Jesus will personally beat the hell out of them for
giving him a bad name.
Selah
Johnny B Jesus
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
The First Church of Common Sense
Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html
The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
Jim Austin
<Snip> URL.
> History will damn them
Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
<Snip> Posted article.
Gandalf Grey
Johnny Asia
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> <Snip> URL.
>
> > History will damn them
>
> Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
>
Maybe it's time to start having IQ tests for voters.
See what happens when millions of morons are allowed to vote?
The stupid lying bastard Bush is in power because of morons.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Johnny Asia, Pope-About-Town
The First Church of Common Sense
Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html
The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
At night I went out into the dark; saw a glimmering star; heard a
frog; Nature seemed to say, Well do these not suffice? - Ralph Waldo
Emerson
Gandalf Grey
"Johnny Asia" <pope_ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b4ec0c2.04032...@posting.google.com...
> b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote in message
news:<bc3dd28f.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> > <Snip> URL.
> >
> > > History will damn them
> >
> > Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
> >
>
>
> Maybe it's time to start having IQ tests for voters.
>
> See what happens when millions of morons are allowed to vote?
>
> The stupid lying bastard Bush is in power because of morons.
Don't go down that road. That's the road the right wing hopes we'll end up
on. It's an elitist road that allows only some people the right to vote.
Regardless of the actual name of the political party--Republican, Tory,
Whig, Democratic--the reactionary right wing of politics has always been
anti-democratic. The right is exclusionary by nature. That exclusionary
attitude is born of its brand of elitism. To them only 'some' should have
power. They are Orwell's pigs who believe that "some animals are more equal
than others."
Liberals and progressives cannot afford to adopt their own form of elitism
as a response to the elitism of the right. For example, the right is
historically anti-intellectual. The solid following of the intellectually
uncurious George Bush is an excellent example of how anti-intellectualism
has remained at the center of the right wing mindset in American politics.
But we can't counter that anti-intellectualism with an insistence that, say,
only intellectuals should have power in America, [even the power to vote].
All that leads to is a different brand of tyranny. All that would make us
is the mirror image of the right wing. Not a true opposite.
In my opinion and experience, the modern right wing has NO good ideas at
heart! That means there's literally nothing we can take from their core
philosophy and make use of for the good of all. And that includes their
elitism as well. In a democracy, there is no validity to the idea that only
"some" should vote. That's why you'll always hear the right wing insist
that America is a "Republic" and not a Democracy. They're correct, of
course in at least a narrow definition of the phrase. Technically, America
is a Representative democracy, or [if you prefer] a Democratic Republic.
But the right wing's rabid insistence on the term "Republic" is a code
phrase for the underlying elitism of the right. Although the president's
and great legislators of this country have never had a problem with
referring to American "democracy," the right wing avoids the word like a
vampire avoids garlic. They simply cannot stand the very notion of a system
in which the other guy has the same right to vote that they do. The freedom
of democracy is a mystery to the right wing. It's what they fear most.
The problem we have today, the very reason Bush is in the oval office is
because millions of people DID NOT vote and many people were prevented from
voting. The worst problem we've had in America in the recent past is voter
apathy, and in the future I fear the biggest problem will be right wing
voter fraud and voter intimidation.
What we need are fair elections in which everyone with a legal right to vote
is allowed AND encouraged to vote, and a law repealing the electoral college
method of electing a president. We are long past the time when the college
made sense. The office that represents the People of the United States
should be elected by a system in which each citizen's vote counts equally
and each citizen's vote is counted.
I sometimes think that if there were one positive law that people had to
obey in this country, it should be that citizens MUST vote, they must
participate in the decision making process. But then it passes, I shake my
head and realize that's going too far. It's hopeful that people will see
with positive encouragement that it's their duty to vote as American
citizens, but they must also have the right to ignore that duty. A
democratic form of government must always center around the rights and not
the duties of its people. As the famous saying goes: "there's nothing wrong
with democracy that more democracy wouldn't cure."
Elitism is exclusionary by its very nature. Whether it takes the form of
fundamentalist religious activism, fascism, plutocracy, autocracy,
McCarthyism or George Bush's oxymoronic "Compassionate Conservatism," right
wing conservatism is ALWAYS about exclusion--social, economic, religious,
political exclusion of the many in favor of the chosen few.
Progressivism is about inclusion, about democracy, about freedom. The best
way to battle the right today is the same as it always has been. Work
toward more inclusion and more rights for more people. Elitism is at the
center of the dark heart of right wing conservatism. Fight against any form
of elitism in America and you'll never be far from the right path.
|//
T.Carr
> b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote in message news:<bc3dd28f.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> > <Snip> URL.
> >
> > > History will damn them
> >
> > Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
> >
>
>
pope_ab...@yahoo.com (Johnny Asia)
> Maybe it's time to start having IQ tests for voters.
>
> See what happens when millions of morons are allowed to vote?
>
> The stupid lying bastard Bush is in power because of morons.
How do you explain Al Gore receiving the vast majority of the non HS Grad vote?
T.Carr
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
T.Carr
> "Johnny Asia" <pope_ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8b4ec0c2.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote in message
> news:<bc3dd28f.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > <Snip> URL.
> > >
> > > > History will damn them
> > >
> > > Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Maybe it's time to start having IQ tests for voters.
> >
> > See what happens when millions of morons are allowed to vote?
> >
> > The stupid lying bastard Bush is in power because of morons.
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> Don't go down that road. That's the road the right wing hopes we'll end up
> on. It's an elitist road that allows only some people the right to vote.
> Regardless of the actual name of the political party--Republican, Tory,
> Whig, Democratic--the reactionary right wing of politics has always been
> anti-democratic. The right is exclusionary by nature. That exclusionary
> attitude is born of its brand of elitism. To them only 'some' should have
> power. They are Orwell's pigs who believe that "some animals are more equal
> than others."
>
> Liberals and progressives cannot afford to adopt their own form of elitism
> as a response to the elitism of the right. For example, the right is
> historically anti-intellectual. The solid following of the intellectually
> uncurious George Bush is an excellent example of how anti-intellectualism
> has remained at the center of the right wing mindset in American politics.
> But we can't counter that anti-intellectualism with an insistence that, say,
> only intellectuals should have power in America, [even the power to vote].
> All that leads to is a different brand of tyranny. All that would make us
> is the mirror image of the right wing. Not a true opposite.
>
> In my opinion and experience, the modern right wing has NO good ideas at
> heart! That means there's literally nothing we can take from their core
> philosophy and make use of for the good of all.
You bias is well documented "gandalf" Quite a interesting view of
life when you close your eyes, ears, and mind to what the opposition
proposes.
And that includes their
> elitism as well. In a democracy, there is no validity to the idea that only
> "some" should vote.
The right to the franchise needs to be restricted to adults.
That's why you'll always hear the right wing insist
> that America is a "Republic" and not a Democracy. They're correct, of
> course in at least a narrow definition of the phrase. Technically, America
> is a Representative democracy, or [if you prefer] a Democratic Republic.
How about a Democratic Constitutional Republic?
> But the right wing's rabid insistence on the term "Republic" is a code
> phrase for the underlying elitism of the right.
Damn..you found the secret decoder ring.
Although the president's
> and great legislators of this country have never had a problem with
> referring to American "democracy," the right wing avoids the word like a
> vampire avoids garlic.
Interesting that the current administration uses the word.
They simply cannot stand the very notion of a system
> in which the other guy has the same right to vote that they do. The freedom
> of democracy is a mystery to the right wing. It's what they fear most.
Actually what they "fear" what several of the founding fathers
feared wrt simple democracies.
>
> The problem we have today, the very reason Bush is in the oval office is
> because millions of people DID NOT vote and many people were prevented from
> voting.
Dont forget those people who voted who should not have been allowed
to vote as well. The Florida debacle went both ways.
The worst problem we've had in America in the recent past is voter
> apathy, and in the future I fear the biggest problem will be right wing
> voter fraud and voter intimidation.
I disagree. With the ever increasing lengths of campaigns, and the
increasing mud slinging, apathy is still going to be the most
significant issue.
Both parties have shown increasing ability to encourage fraud.
>
> What we need are fair elections in which everyone with a legal right to vote
> is allowed AND encouraged to vote, and a law repealing the electoral college
> method of electing a president.
Relative to your first point... the only way to "encourage" people
to vote to to encourage people to reconnect with the political
process. Simply sending out public service announcements the day
before the election telling everyone one to "vote" is not going to
work. We need people to start paying attemtion at all levels of
government.
My dad (bless his heart) never thought about a election or politics
in his life..he simply voted staight 'dem because that what his union
told him to do. I suspect you would support the outcome given your
political views, but is that really the way the government and process
get better?
We are long past the time when the college
> made sense. The office that represents the People of the United States
> should be elected by a system in which each citizen's vote counts equally
> and each citizen's vote is counted.
The elimination of the electoral college does not appear to be a
high priority for either party
>
> I sometimes think that if there were one positive law that people had to
> obey in this country, it should be that citizens MUST vote, they must
> participate in the decision making process. But then it passes, I shake my
> head and realize that's going too far.
Votes based on ignorance and apathy will not produce favorable
results (imo. How many people walk into a voting booth and dont know
who their congresscritter is, the current judges in their state,
etc... Yet they still vote.
It's hopeful that people will see
> with positive encouragement that it's their duty to vote as American
> citizens, but they must also have the right to ignore that duty. A
> democratic form of government must always center around the rights and not
> the duties of its people. As the famous saying goes: "there's nothing wrong
> with democracy that more democracy wouldn't cure."
It goes along with another old saying.."We get the government we
deserve" When people vote based on which candidate "looks better" or
"sounds better", or last minute smear ads, instead of doing their
homework, we end up the the types of politicians we do.
>
> Elitism is exclusionary by its very nature. Whether it takes the form of
> fundamentalist religious activism, fascism, plutocracy, autocracy,
> McCarthyism or George Bush's oxymoronic "Compassionate Conservatism," right
> wing conservatism is ALWAYS about exclusion--social, economic, religious,
> political exclusion of the many in favor of the chosen few.
>
> Progressivism is about inclusion, about democracy, about freedom.
Inclusion by promoting racial discrimination in college admissions,
not to remedy past discrimination, but to pursue a PC goal?
Right "Gandalf"
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey
"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
Your comment once again proves that you're a liar and a moron, and that just
lost you any validity in a conversation like this.
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> Your comment once again proves that you're a liar and a moron, and that just
> lost you any validity in a conversation like this.
Where is the lie gollum? Are you going to state for the record that
you do not have any bias?
Dont even bother
As far as "conversation", it appears that you can only "debate" with
those that agree with you.
Now "snip snip snip" like the disingenous twit you are
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey
> Where is the lie gollum?
Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't in
you.
Eltanin
Everything that comes out of that toycarr is pure nonsensical tripe.
Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
In article <405fa6fd$0$43940$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>, Gandalf
Gandalf Grey
"Eltanin" <elt...@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
news:220320042311400063%elt...@boxfrog.com...
>
> Everything that comes out of that toycarr is pure nonsensical tripe.
> Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
It would be too cruel to add more insult to what nature has already injured.
Jim Austin
> b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote in message
> news:<bc3dd28f.04032...@posting.google.com>...
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> > <Snip> URL.
> >
> > > History will damn them
> >
> > Only if history is written by terrorists and/or their apologists.
Asia doesn't challenge that. He just spews out his petulant malice.
> Maybe it's time to start having IQ tests for voters.
>
> See what happens when millions of morons are allowed to vote?
>
> The stupid lying bastard Bush is in power because of morons.
Asia hasn't forgiven Bush for inconveniencing terrorists and dictators.
T.Carr
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Where is the lie gollum?
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't in
> you.
Your inablilty to provide any evidence to back your personal attack
is duly noted gollum
So much for the so called "independent thinking" you claim to
support
Perhaps you should quit projecting your own shortcomings on others?
T.Carr
T.Carr
> Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
Which is why you run away when challenged?
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey
news:<220320042311400063%elt...@boxfrog.com>...
> > Everything that comes out of that toycarr is pure nonsensical tripe.
> > Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
>
> Which is why you run away when challenged?
Oh yes. It's always everyone else, isn't it Tiny Brain? I'm beginning to
wonder if ANYONE thinks you've any credibility.
Gandalf Grey
"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:<405fa6fd$0$43940$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Where is the lie gollum?
> >
>
> Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
>
> > Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't
in
> > you.
>
> Your inablilty to provide any evidence
Your every post is proof of your lack of truth, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't
in you.
Tempest
He's a useful idiot of the GOP.
He knows not what he does.
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
Isle Of The Dead
>
> Oh yes. It's always everyone else, isn't it Tiny Brain? I'm beginning to
> wonder if ANYONE thinks you've any credibility.
It's so sad to watch Hanson devolve into
a caricature of angry spite, jamming the
newsgroup with gigabytes of his rage.
Sigh. That's what happens when you
enter into a Faustian Deal of Deceit
with the Myth Of Clinton's Goodness.
Hanson had to eat to crow once too many
times, and down deep inside, he knows
that he chose a Bad Path, supporting the
lies and trickery of Beelzabubba himself,
foolishly misled into squandering his own
credibility and faith and hope on a second
rate huckster from Arkansas.
Very sad.
The whole little ragtag cadre here, slowly
disintegrating into their own virtual worlds
of self-delusion and anger.
Alas.
T.Carr
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > Eltanin <elt...@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
> news:<220320042311400063%elt...@boxfrog.com>...
> > > Everything that comes out of that toycarr is pure nonsensical tripe.
> > > Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
> >
> > Which is why you run away when challenged?
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> Oh yes. It's always everyone else, isn't it Tiny Brain?
You have no problem with your "snips" and one liner replies
Eltanin isnt even capable of that
I'm beginning to
> wonder if ANYONE thinks you've any credibility.
Hopefully your beginning to "wonder" will lead to actual thought and
not cause you too much pain.
T.Carr
T.Carr
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<405fa6fd$0$43940$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Where is the lie gollum?
> > >
> >
> > Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> >
> > > Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't
> in
> > > you.
> >
> > Your inablilty to provide any evidence
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> Your every post is proof of your lack of truth, Tiny Brain. The truth isn't
> in you.
Your inablilty to provide any evidence to back your personal attack
Gandalf Grey
"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:<40637adf$0$6500$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<405fa6fd$0$43940$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Where is the lie gollum?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> > >
> > > > Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth
isn't
> > in
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > Your inablilty to provide any evidence
> >
>
> Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
>
> > Your every post is proof of your lack of truth, Tiny Brain. The truth
isn't
> > in you.
>
> Your inablilty to provide any evidence
And Tiny Brain has another attack of echolalia.
Gandalf Grey
"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:<406374d4$0$6502$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > Eltanin <elt...@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
> > news:<220320042311400063%elt...@boxfrog.com>...
> > > > Everything that comes out of that toycarr is pure nonsensical tripe.
> > > > Gandalf is too polite when calling this shithead "tiny brain".
> > >
> > > Which is why you run away when challenged?
> >
>
> Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
>
> > Oh yes. It's always everyone else, isn't it Tiny Brain?
>
> You have no problem with your "snips" and one liner replies
> Eltanin isnt even capable of that
>
> I'm beginning to
> > wonder if ANYONE thinks you've any credibility.
>
> Hopefully your beginning to "wonder" will lead to actual thought
Not that you'd know anything about "actual thought."
T.Carr
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<40637adf$0$6500$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<405fa6fd$0$43940$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > > > "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8c213b2e.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Where is the lie gollum?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > Everything that comes out of you is a lie, Tiny Brain. The truth
> isn't
> in
> > > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > Your inablilty to provide any evidence
> > >
> >
> > Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> >
> > > Your every post is proof of your lack of truth, Tiny Brain. The truth
> isn't
> > > in you.
> >
> > Your inablilty to provide any evidence
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> And Tiny Brain has another attack of echolalia.
And gollum snips, and runs again
Apparently a standard MO for a so called "independent thinker" on the left fringe
T.Carr