Just Because Your The Worlds Only Super Power............
headkase
You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
Dave Hillstrom
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, "headkase"
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
>it doesn't mean you can do what you want
>
>You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
what was the name of your little country again?
--
Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 meow
"Quotes can't be forced. They just come to you, like diarrhea."
-Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4
http://www.flonk.org ICQ# 1598403
mimus
>it doesn't mean you can do what you want
Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
--
smeeter 14
mp 10
mhm 29x13
I wonder what I have been up to.
< _Beyond Apollo_
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
trippy
<3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, said the following
tripped out things:
> it doesn't mean you can do what you want
Actually, it does.
>
> You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
>
With our big fat olive green death things.
--
Trippy
tri...@XspamblockXthetrippy.com
Just another fuckin' ray of sunshine, to brighten your fuckin' day.
Meow
WeeSaul
popped:
>it doesn't mean you can do what you want
Who's gonna stop us?
>You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
--
-Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori-
WeeSaul mhm15x5
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/anticrust/
http://www.usaor.net/users/weesaul/
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/anticrust/icecream.html
-Simple ideas from simple folk(TM)-
-Idle thoughts from idle minds(TM)-
-Quia ursus pusilli ingenii sum verba difficilia fastidio-
little toad
"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bd22332...@news.ezwv.com...
> "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
>
> Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
so we can break our own laws in the dark and act like a buncha
sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks in the sunshine?
mimus
Yeah. Yeah!
little toad
> "little toad" <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3bd22332...@news.ezwv.com...
> >
> >> "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> >>
> >> Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
> >
> >so we can break our own laws in the dark and act like a buncha
> >sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks in the sunshine?
>
> Yeah. Yeah!
wow! I GOT ONE RIGHT.
headkase
little toad <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:9quqdn$hmd$0...@pita.alt.net...
headkase
WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> popped:
>
> >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
>
> Who's gonna stop us?
>
> >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
>
> Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
>
> --
i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of power
at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of democracy
and freedom
headkase
little toad
> > >
> > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > >
> > > Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
> >
> > so we can break our own laws in the dark and act like a buncha
> > sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks in the sunshine?
i lub you too, headkase and fantasize about having
hot-three-way lesbian (or at least bi-curious on my part)
sex with you and alyssa milano (whom we no doubt would
have to restrain).
little toad
±
>
> WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
> news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> > popped:
> >
> > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> >
> > Who's gonna stop us?
> >
> > >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
> >
> > Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
> >
> > --
>
> i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of power
Yes, they were.
> at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of democracy
> and freedom
I think we should call it capitalism and be honest about it.
> headkase
--
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000################000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000##### #####0000000000000000000
000000000000000#### The ####000000000000000
0000000000000## Fine Family of Snuh ##0000000000000
0000000000### Newsgroups: ###0000000000
000000000# #000000000
0000000## ##### ###### ##0000000
000000# ####### ######## #000000
00000# ######### ########## #00000
0000# ######### ########## #0000
000# ######### ########## #000
00# ####### ######## #00
0# ##### ###### #0
0# #0
0# news:alt.snuh #0
0# news:alt.tv.simpsons.snuh #0
0# news:alt.binaries.snuh #0
0# news:alt.snuh-made-cascades #0
0# news:alt.support.snuh-acceptance #0
0# news:alt.folklore.snuh #0
00# # news:alt.swnet.snuh # #00
00# ## news:alt.gossip.snuh ## #00
000# ### ### #000
0000# ###### ###### #0000
00000# ###################### #00000
000000# #000000
0000000## ##0000000
000000000# http://www.geocities.com/buhsnuh #000000000
0000000000### ###0000000000
0000000000000## ##0000000000000
000000000000000#### ####000000000000000
0000000000000000000##### #####0000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000################000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000 Harvey Ball, 1922-2001 RIP :( 00000000000000
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
|S|a|y| |D|u|h| |t|o| |S|n|u|h|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
From: en_mog <en_...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Goodbye :-)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 08:05:45 -0500
If I have any integrity at all, I must leave.
I welcome others to do so as well if they refuse to be led by a group of
unthinking drones that are stuck in such a mindnumbingly predictable
pattern of
snuh/attack/snuh/attack/penises/attack/snuh/rectum/attack/.
From: TGOS <tg...@spamcop.net>
Newsgroups: alt.hentai.sailor-moon
Subject: Re: Great Newsgroup!
Date: 27 Nov 2000 02:23:19 -0600
Nobody can control the snuh.
Ready to create a new newsgroup?
Everything you need is here:
http://www.aghltfc.com/usenet
pleace add to yuor lits: snuh music
http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/770/770142.html
this has been another unique, handcrafted and thoughtful psot from the
Snuh family of fine psoters.
ad88888ba 88 ad88888ba
d8" "8b 88 d8" "8b
Y8, 88 "" a8P
`Y8aaaaa, 8b,YHBTba, 88 88 88,dPPYba, ,a8P"
`"""""8b, 88P' `"8a 88 88 88P' "8a d8"
`8b 88 88 88 88 88 88 ""
Y8a a8P 88 88 "8a, ,a88 88 88 88
"Y88888P" 88 88 `"YbbdP'Y8 88 Get Snuhy!
headkase
little toad <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote in message
biggest grin*
i is stumped for words
the thought has been planted and i is going back to bed
headkase
>
>
little toad
news:3bd34176$0$26998$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
sweet dreams. :)
headkase
ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BD34324...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> headkase wrote:
> >
> > WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
> > news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> > > popped:
> > >
> > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > >
> > > Who's gonna stop us?
> > >
> > > >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
> > >
> > > Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of power
>
> Yes, they were.
>
Nahhh they werent
they didnt hide there intentions behind the propaganda of freedom
they didnt champion civil liberties with one hand while taking those
liberties away with the other
> > at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of
democracy
> > and freedom
>
> I think we should call it capitalism and be honest about it.
i think we should call it terrorism and be honest about it
±
Ooooo!
I love Milano cookies!
>
> little toad
±
>
> ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD34324...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> > headkase wrote:
> > >
> > > WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
> > > news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> > > > popped:
> > > >
> > > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > >
> > > > Who's gonna stop us?
> > > >
> > > > >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
> > > >
> > > > Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of power
> >
> > Yes, they were.
> >
>
> Nahhh they werent
> they didnt hide there intentions behind the propaganda of freedom
Yeah, just the throne.
> they didnt champion civil liberties with one hand while taking those
> liberties away with the other
They just took as much GNP as possible.
> > > at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of
> democracy
> > > and freedom
> >
> > I think we should call it capitalism and be honest about it.
>
> i think we should call it terrorism and be honest about it
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
little toad
"ą" <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> little toad wrote:
> >
> > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote
> > > little toad <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote
> > > > "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
> > > >
> > > > so we can break our own laws in the dark and act like a buncha
> > > > sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks in the sunshine?
> >
> > i lub you too, headkase and fantasize about having
> > hot-three-way lesbian (or at least bi-curious on my part)
> > sex with you and alyssa milano (whom we no doubt would
> > have to restrain).
>
> Ooooo!
>
> I love Milano cookies!
LOL!
headkase
ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> headkase wrote:
> >
> > ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BD34324...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> > > headkase wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
> > > > news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> > > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> > > > > popped:
> > > > >
> > > > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > > >
> > > > > Who's gonna stop us?
> > > > >
> > > > > >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of
power
> > >
> > > Yes, they were.
> > >
> >
> > Nahhh they werent
> > they didnt hide there intentions behind the propaganda of freedom
>
> Yeah, just the throne.
which isnt a princaple or an ideal
>
> > they didnt champion civil liberties with one hand while taking those
> > liberties away with the other
>
> They just took as much GNP as possible.
and......... America champions globalisation and pushes it onto third world
countries whilst at the same time protecting there own indsutries with
regulations and subsidies
>
> > > > at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of
> > democracy
> > > > and freedom
> > >
> > > I think we should call it capitalism and be honest about it.
> >
> > i think we should call it terrorism and be honest about it
>
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"i can retain neither respect nor affection for a government which has been
moving from wrong to wrong to defend its immorality. " ghandi
headkase
±
But who gets to be the filling?
±
>
> ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD35C19...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> > headkase wrote:
> > >
> > > ą <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3BD34324...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> > > > headkase wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > WeeSaul <Ąmhm...@iname.com!> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3bd2d75b...@news.stargate.net...
> > > > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> had a seizure and out
> > > > > > popped:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who's gonna stop us?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank ye much, Wee shall hoist the Union Jack proudly, ma'am...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > i don't think they British were half as offensive in there hour of
> power
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they were.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nahhh they werent
> > > they didnt hide there intentions behind the propaganda of freedom
> >
> > Yeah, just the throne.
>
> which isnt a princaple or an ideal
Does that matter at the end of the day?
Exploitation wears many colors - it can be in the form of Willie the
Pimp or dressed-up as Freedom Fighter.
> > > they didnt champion civil liberties with one hand while taking those
> > > liberties away with the other
> >
> > They just took as much GNP as possible.
>
> and......... America champions globalisation and pushes it onto third world
> countries whilst at the same time protecting there own indsutries with
> regulations and subsidies
Sure.
But we don't fly planes loaded with civilians into office buildings.
You don't think that a major part of bin Laden's plan is to force the
overthrow of the Saudi government?
And what would that bring?
Control of the oil - which happens to make-up about 20% of the US
stockpiles and also brings untold riches *and* military control of
region.
Sounds like he wants to be just like what he hates.
> > > > > at least they didn't hide their intentions behind the concepts of
> > > democracy
> > > > > and freedom
> > > >
> > > > I think we should call it capitalism and be honest about it.
> > >
> > > i think we should call it terrorism and be honest about it
> >
> > Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
> "i can retain neither respect nor affection for a government which has been
> moving from wrong to wrong to defend its immorality. " ghandi
Tell that to Osma and friends - there's better ways of getting attention
than driving three planes full of innocents into three buildings of
civilians.
He's managed one thing - he made the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
look somewhat honorable, at least their targets were the military and
not civilians.
little toad recently posted about how she felt about the Oklahoma City
bombing, I was a bit taken aback by her strong feelings of death to the
perpetrators.
It was hard for me to make any sort of personal connection, it took
place in a part of the country that I don't pay much attention to;
little toad had a loved one die in the bombing and that's about as
personal as it gets.
I was born in NYC and raised there the early part of my life, my dad
doesn't live far away from the WTC. I've been to it myself and know
people that have worked there over the years - now, this is involving
*my* life and I feel badly for somewhat marginalizing little toad's
feelings, it's not something that one gets over in a short amount of
time, the absolute terror that these peoples last few moments were.
I realize how horribly most people in the region live, but this isn't
about that - this is about spreading their vision of fundamentalist
Islam.
Look at these people as the French, but with arms; the French go about
encroachments on their culture by having their silly *offical* French
words sanctioned in place of English - these Islamic extremists are
handing their homogenization by turning passenger jets filled with woman
and children into weapons.
Yes, US business and industry tries to rape and pillage as much of the
world as possible, unfettered by US laws, with the backing of the US
government.
But don't for a second condone the actions of terrorists as some sort of
New Age Robin Hoods.
Flaagg
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
"holy fuck, i'm hungry." ghandi
--
Aaron M. Henne -flaagg mhm9x2-
PLANET F - http://frontpage.home.net/flgz1/
"OTHER PROSTITUTES guess who stole the police
wallet before immolation!! THE ANSWER IS ME"
- drew, Lego Porn Series 6
Flaagg
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> it doesn't mean you can do what you want
Watch us.
WeeSaul
Wee believe that thou hast misquoted Ghandi...
The quote should read as follows:
"Holy cow, I sure could go for a steak." Ghandi
Decaying Atheist
> it doesn't mean you can do what you want
>
> You Big Fat Red White and Blue Bastards
>
>
Yes it does *Thwap!!*
--
Decaying Atheist
smeeter 36
Sponsored by ScrewU Inc.
UGWC Moderator -Ask about it!
Signature # 46399
12:23:49 PM ---- Monday, October 22, 2001
"Don't mess with the dead, boy, they have eerie powers." -Homer Simpson
little toad
"ą" <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> little toad wrote:
> >
> > "ą" <h0plib...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BD356B4...@NOSPAMPLEACEOKhotmail.com...
> > > little toad wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote
> > > > > little toad <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote
> > > > > > "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > > > > "headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then why the Hell are we a super-power? Dammitall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so we can break our own laws in the dark and act like a buncha
> > > > > > sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks in the sunshine?
> > > >
> > > > i lub you too, headkase and fantasize about having
> > > > hot-three-way lesbian (or at least bi-curious on my part)
> > > > sex with you and alyssa milano (whom we no doubt would
> > > > have to restrain).
> > >
> > > Ooooo!
> > >
> > > I love Milano cookies!
> >
> > LOL!
>
> But who gets to be the filling?
whoever creams first.
headkase
little toad <littl...@this.is.invalid> wrote in message
now.....
that would be Dean
i am sure there would be no competition
headkase
headkase
Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.163d70b56e1cdbda98974c@news...
> In article <3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
>
> > it doesn't mean you can do what you want
>
> Watch us.
Watch you die from Anthrax
thats what i will be doing
headkase
±
Whose place - mine, yours, toad'ies, or Alyssa's?
I've always wanted to meet the gal behind Teen Steam.
> headkase
Flaagg
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
>
> Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.163d70b56e1cdbda98974c@news...
> > In article <3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> > <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> >
> > > it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> >
> > Watch us.
>
> Watch you die from Anthrax
> thats what i will be doing
I don't think you will. It's simply not possible to kill off the entire
population of the US with Anthrax. Now that the US is on 'high alert',
it won't be possible to kill off the entire population of an old VW bus
with the stuff.
It -is- possible to decide enough is enough and kill off the entire
population of a country the size of...oh, let's say Afghanistan...with a
few *nuclear weapons*, if you've got the spare nukes and the mood
strikes. But that just brings us right back to "The World's Only Super
Power Can Do Pretty Much Whatever It Wants", doesn't it?
Scott Campbell
"Flaagg" <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> In article <3bd49292$0$7909$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
>
> >
> > Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.163d70b56e1cdbda98974c@news...
> > > In article <3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> > > <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> > >
> > > > it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > >
> > > Watch us.
> >
> > Watch you die from Anthrax
> > thats what i will be doing
>
> I don't think you will. It's simply not possible to kill off the entire
> population of the US with Anthrax. Now that the US is on 'high alert',
> it won't be possible to kill off the entire population of an old VW bus
> with the stuff.
>
> It -is- possible to decide enough is enough and kill off the entire
> population of a country the size of...oh, let's say Afghanistan...with a
> few *nuclear weapons*, if you've got the spare nukes and the mood
> strikes. But that just brings us right back to "The World's Only Super
> Power Can Do Pretty Much Whatever It Wants", doesn't it?
If they trace the Anthrax back to our new pals, turn the place into a glass
ashtray.
--
Scott Campbell - mhm 24x12
headkase
Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> In article <3bd49292$0$7909$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
>
> >
> > Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.163d70b56e1cdbda98974c@news...
> > > In article <3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> > > <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> > >
> > > > it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > >
> > > Watch us.
> >
> > Watch you die from Anthrax
> > thats what i will be doing
>
> I don't think you will. It's simply not possible to kill off the entire
> population of the US with Anthrax. Now that the US is on 'high alert',
> it won't be possible to kill off the entire population of an old VW bus
> with the stuff.
>
> It -is- possible to decide enough is enough and kill off the entire
> population of a country the size of...oh, let's say Afghanistan...with a
> few *nuclear weapons*, if you've got the spare nukes and the mood
> strikes. But that just brings us right back to "The World's Only Super
> Power Can Do Pretty Much Whatever It Wants", doesn't it?
>
> --
You and I both know that Nuclear weapons are not an option
all that international support the US has beeen shoring up would abandon you
faster then rats on a sinking ship
Rats On a Sinking Ship, now that describes this alliance against terrorism
if i have ever tried to
headkase
Scott Campbell
>
> Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.163ed99c2e4b80db989757@news...
> > In article <3bd49292$0$7909$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, headkase
> > <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> >
> > >
> > > Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.163d70b56e1cdbda98974c@news...
> > > > In article <3bd1e8c1$0$26097$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
headkase
> > > > <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> > > >
> > > > > it doesn't mean you can do what you want
> > > >
> > > > Watch us.
> > >
> > > Watch you die from Anthrax
> > > thats what i will be doing
> >
> > I don't think you will. It's simply not possible to kill off the entire
> > population of the US with Anthrax. Now that the US is on 'high alert',
> > it won't be possible to kill off the entire population of an old VW bus
> > with the stuff.
> >
> > It -is- possible to decide enough is enough and kill off the entire
> > population of a country the size of...oh, let's say Afghanistan...with a
> > few *nuclear weapons*, if you've got the spare nukes and the mood
> > strikes. But that just brings us right back to "The World's Only Super
> > Power Can Do Pretty Much Whatever It Wants", doesn't it?
> >
> > --
>
> You and I both know that Nuclear weapons are not an option
They damn sure are, as well they should be.
> all that international support the US has beeen shoring up would abandon
you
> faster then rats on a sinking ship
Fuck "international support". I don't give a crap if the rest of the world
pisses and moans about it forever, as long as they know our retribution
against killing *6,000* innocent civilians is too terrible a price to pay to
contemplate further attacks. Worrying and fretting over fucking
"international support" is why we are where we are.
Just like a bully, these brainwashed, religious primitives understand one
thing and one thing only. There is no reasoning or compromise possible.
Either Americans will be allowed to go about their business without having
buildings crash down on their heads or death -will- become every swinging
dick in the region.
> Rats On a Sinking Ship, now that describes this alliance against terrorism
> if i have ever tried to
You write like a goddamned imbecile, headkase.
Flaagg
> news:MPG.163ed99c2e4b80db989757@news...
> > > Watch you die from Anthrax
> > > thats what i will be doing
> >
> > I don't think you will. It's simply not possible to kill off the entire
> > population of the US with Anthrax. Now that the US is on 'high alert',
> > it won't be possible to kill off the entire population of an old VW bus
> > with the stuff.
> >
> > It -is- possible to decide enough is enough and kill off the entire
> > population of a country the size of...oh, let's say Afghanistan...with a
> > few *nuclear weapons*, if you've got the spare nukes and the mood
> > strikes. But that just brings us right back to "The World's Only Super
> > Power Can Do Pretty Much Whatever It Wants", doesn't it?
>
> You and I both know that Nuclear weapons are not an option
Crap.
> all that international support the US has beeen shoring up would abandon you
> faster then rats on a sinking ship
The words 'Whoopdie', 'Fuckin', and 'Doo' leap to mind.
America nuked Japan -twice- in the same -week-, and the rest of the
world learned to deal with it just fine. And here's the lesson: Japan
hasn't sent one single Kamikaze pilot this way for over half a CENTURY,
now.
headkase
Scott Campbell <thunderin...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9r4r57$rac$0...@pita.alt.net...
and you reckon i write like an imbecile
American Propaganda does not equate to truth
>
> Just like a bully, these brainwashed, religious primitives understand one
> thing and one thing only.
now reverse this statement so we is talking about the Americans as
brainwashed bullies in a geographical region that aint theirs
and hey
guess what
now you have the reason behind the WTC disaster
There is no reasoning or compromise possible.
> Either Americans will be allowed to go about their business without having
> buildings crash down on their heads or
this is what they would like you to believe
if i hear democracy and freedom equated with this war once more
i am just going to vomit
death -will- become every swinging
> dick in the region.
let me guess, and a Muslim to you is just a rag head
>
> > Rats On a Sinking Ship, now that describes this alliance against
terrorism
> > if i have ever tried to
>
> You write like a goddamned imbecile, headkase.
true
but at least i have not joined a nation of imbeciles braying for blood.
headkase
headkase
Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
LOL
what you are doing is unprecedented
no examples form the last 100 years can be used to shore up your beliefs
especially examples you have twisted to support a very weak argument
headkase
trippy
<3bd8649b$0$8349$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, said the following
tripped out things:
You DO know that dropping those two atomic bombs on Japan took less
lives that a conventional ground war would have, right? Right?
--
Trippy
tri...@XspamblockXthetrippy.com
Just another fuckin' ray of sunshine, to brighten your fuckin' day.
Meow
Flaagg
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
> Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.163fc7d231471706989760@news...
> > America nuked Japan -twice- in the same -week-, and the rest of the
> > world learned to deal with it just fine. And here's the lesson: Japan
> > hasn't sent one single Kamikaze pilot this way for over half a CENTURY,
> > now.
>
> LOL
>
> what you are doing is unprecedented
How so? We drop food and bombs on other countries all the time. We're
getting *really* good at it.
> no examples form the last 100 years can be used to shore up your beliefs
> especially examples you have twisted to support a very weak argument
America doesn't *need* to shore up it's beliefs OR waste time supporting
it's arguments, weak or otherwise: it's gonna do exactly what it wants,
whether you agree or not. That's the whole point here.
headkase
trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> wrote in message
news:MPG.164221f7...@news.chorus.net...
lets talk about nuclear fallout and the social, economic and human
repercussions of that
lets talk about deformed unborn babies
and how the radiation in the milk you drink and the food you grow will
slowly poison you
yeah
nuclear weapons save lives
My Ass
headkase
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
headkase
Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
>
> it's arguments, weak or otherwise: it's gonna do exactly what it wants,
> whether you agree or not. That's the whole point here.
>
> --
And that
my friend
is exactly the reason you do not have the world trade centre anymore
headkase
jet
[...]
>and how the radiation in the milk you drink and the food you grow will
>slowly poison you
>
will kill you. I hope you aren't one of those people who think irradiating
milk is dangerous.
psychowhore
to would-be molesters:
they do save lives in the long run and in the bigger picture. violence is
the only language some people understand, and fear is the byproduct of
violence. you score a big enough hit on someone, you can make them sit down
and shut the fuck up, and realize that they fucked up. is it something
pleasant or likeable? no. one of the greatest rules of life is you cannot
save every life, but save as many lives as you can. sadly, that gets
distorted by economic policies and greed...
--
psychowhore
mhm27x19 mp#44
ICQ#34579920 smeeter #3
http://welcome.to/this_midnight_parade
http://www.deepgreensoul.cjb.net/
trippy
Let's talk about this instead.
If the US didn't drop the atomic bomb, Germany would have. They were
very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days. Do you think
that nazi Germany would have any qualms about lobbing the nuclear fire
around? No, they wouldn't have.
The US dropped the bomb first for two reasons.
1) To show the world the US had them.
2) To save from having to invade Japan which would have taken, by
conservative estimates 250,000 lives. That happened by the threat of
having more nuclear bombs dropped on their head. Hirohito surrendered 2
days after Nagasaki.
>
> yeah
> nuclear weapons save lives
> My Ass
They did, despite your I hate the US stance.
In short, you're blowing words out your ass and being a fuckhead.
--
Trippy
tri...@XspamblockXthetrippy.com
Just another fuckin' ray of sunshine, to brighten your fuckin' day.
Penguin Bastard Army rank: Field Marshall.
Ari Asikainen
>If the US didn't drop the atomic bomb, Germany would have.
Germany surrendered in May of 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed
in August, some three months later.
Besides, the knowledge that the US had the nuclear bomb wouldn't have
stopped Germany. After the US dropped a bomb on Japan, it would have
been clear to the Nazis that the Americans will lob a couple at them,
too, no matter whether they use theirs.
"An invasion of the home islands would have cost more lives" is a much
better argument. Stick with that one. The above is wildly inaccurate.
>They were very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days.
Do you have any proof for this? I'd have said it was a more likely to
be a matter of years than days.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Flaagg
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> says...
>
> Flaagg <flgz1@_REMOVE_TO_MAIL_home.com> wrote in message
> >
> > America doesn't *need* to shore up it's beliefs OR waste time supporting
> > it's arguments, weak or otherwise: it's gonna do exactly what it wants,
> > whether you agree or not. That's the whole point here.
>
> And that
> my friend
> is exactly the reason you do not have the world trade centre anymore
We don't have the WTC anymore because some *extremely* naive lunatics
believed knocking them down would change the way America deals with the
rest of the world. It doesn't look like it worked, does it?
Scott Campbell
You do, you fucking imbecile. And feel free to try and point out any
imbecility in that last sentence of mine, my little hand-wringing friend.
> American Propaganda does not equate to truth
So, I suppose images of the World Trade Center towers collapsing are merely
"American Propaganda"? And you think us wacky Americans are simply being
duped by our government to think we're under attack? We're all just being
played by -staged- destruction?
> > Just like a bully, these brainwashed, religious primitives understand
one
> > thing and one thing only.
>
> now reverse this statement so we is talking about the Americans as
> brainwashed bullies in a geographical region that aint theirs
Hey, dig this, I don't give a shit about the religious nuts on -either- side
of the fence. The day Americans are hijacking Arabian aircraft and flying
them into Arabian skyscrapers is the day fuck-ups like yourself can attempt
to justify this latest terrorist attack.
You're feebly trying to say our military presence in Saudi Arabia, the
Islamic holy land, is justification to attack America.
> and hey
> guess what
> now you have the reason behind the WTC disaster
You're so stupid it's painful to watch. Do you even know what bin Laden's
#1 beef with the United States is? It sure as hell isn't the Palestinian
struggle with Israel. It's based purely on the Koran and the explicit
directives to slay the infidels who pollute the areas near Mecca.
And I'm sick of people watering down the WTC attack to the point where it's
now merely a "disaster". A disaster is a hurricane, this was cold, hard,
butchery of 6,000 Americans.
> There is no reasoning or compromise possible.
> > Either Americans will be allowed to go about their business without
having
> > buildings crash down on their heads or
>
> this is what they would like you to believe
Who is "they", you simpleton? Trust me on this one, Americans *will*
preserve the right live in peace. If it takes war first to achieve peace,
guess what?
> if i hear democracy and freedom equated with this war once more
> i am just going to vomit
I've never equated this war with "democracy or freedom" other than I've
stated that Americans will have the freedom to mind their own business and
not die, and we really don't care whether it harelips the Pope or not.
This is a jihad that's been declared on -us-. We have a duty to those that
will come later to finish this thing properly.
> death -will- become every swinging
> > dick in the region.
>
>
> let me guess, and a Muslim to you is just a rag head
No. But -Islam- is a dangerous, vile religion. Have you ever read the
_Recitation_ or the literal name for the Koran? I have. Unlike the
Bible, one can get through the entire Koran in a reasonable length of time.
Many people claim to have similarly read the Bible straight through, but one
needs to be very skeptical of such boasts. Texts of this sort attract
followers and rabid fanatics for this very reason, that they are so
impenetrable in their dense mass. Not having actually read it and feeling
guilty about the failure to do so, must constitute a powerful impulse to
leap to the defense of things these followers do not actually know. At
least with the Koran, comprehending the whole thing is a relatively trivial
exercise.
Like the Book of Mormon, the Koran purports to be the further chronicles of
what God wants you to do. It recognizes the existence of the Bible or
Scriptures and Torah, and states as its reason for being, that the
Christians and Jews had too far split into sects and had fallen away from
proper observance of "God's" laws. Also, like the Book of Mormon, this one
is supposedly the transcript of a tablet preserved in heaven.
Allah didn't dictate the whole thing at once, though; more chapters came
through as situations made them necessary. There are 114 of these,
generally arranged by length, with the shortest last. The longer chapters
at the beginning of the arbitrary (and non-chronological) arrangement drag
rather badly; Mohammed saves his deadliest rantings for the somewhat
shorter ones.
However, all chapters have in common the same type of basic presentation,
which is comprised of three ingredients: stories, commands, and threats.
Especially threats. All float and bubble to the surface again and again in
a broth of astounding amounts of repetition. For example, in one chapter,
no. 55, which is something less than three pages long, the interrogation,
"Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?" is repeated 31 times, many
of these being complete non sequiturs, such as "Flames of fire shall be
lashed at you, and molten brass. Which of your Lord's blessings would you
deny?" Well, for starters, I'd want to deny that one. Other repetitions
include the story of Noah with certain embellishments, about six or eight
times, Pharoah and Moses, maybe ten, Abraham, Joseph, et alia, many more.
Commands go forward at a blinding rate, thick and fast, (and more about
those in a moment) but first this word from the First Islamic Bank of
Sadistic Threats: Mohammed can hardly write two consecutive paragraphs
without at least one fairly horrifying promise that infidels, unbelievers,
apostates, "People of the Book" (Christers), fornicators and others are
going to burn in hell, drink boiling water, eat putrid filth for all
eternity, have melted metal poured all over them, roast their skins in
blazing flame and then be provided immediately with more skin by his
eminence, *The Compassionate*, *The Merciful*, so that they can be burned
some more, and so forth. When I was in school years ago and writing a
paper on this subject, I had wanted to count the number of threats, but
bogged down in what seemed like a never-ending mire, so was forced to resort
to a statistical method. By this I compute the total to be around 1200 to
1500, including such ones as these:
"Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water
shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in
their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron. Whenever, in
their torment, they try to escape, back they shall be dragged, and will be
told, "Taste the torment!'"
"Those who deny our revelations we will burn in fire. No sooner will their
skins be consumed than we shall give them other skins, so that they may
truly taste the scourge."
Atheists are to be crucified or else have their hands and feet cut off.
Commands a person would have to obey in order to avoid these demented
tanning sessions range from lawful eating to lawful sexual practices to
treating the orphans of infidels properly. Slavery is permitted, in fact,
definitely cited approvingly, and a master is allowed to compel his
slave-girl to have intercourse with him; but he is not allowed to prostitute
her for money to others.
More commands order the faithful not to be friends with Christians or
anybody else who is not Islamic, and especially not with unbelievers. The
arguments of unbelievers should not be listened to. Their *cities* should
be destroyed.
Women are not addressed in the Koran; the reader is explicitly and
implicitly male. Women are indeed spoken of, but not to, and they are
stated to be inferior and subservient. Girl infants are not lawful to
kill, but otherwise it is definitely to to be mourned when one is born
instead of a son.
Contraception is stated (several times) to take place when ejaculated semen
turns into a clot of blood that Allah makes into a human being inside the
mere vessel, the female. Other scientific thought has the sky as an actual
dome, perfect as there are no cracks. The far western setting place of the
sun is a pool of mud. Mohammed thinks there are two seas on the planet,
and lightning is a sign from God.
Sometimes he is apocalyptic: "On that day there shall be faces veiled with
darkness, covered with dust. These shall be the faces of the wicked and
the unbelieving."
But always he is monstrous and insane. His recitation is one of gross,
turgid evil, and the impact of his "Koran" upon Arab culture and the world
has been profoundly, unrelievedly bad.
Also, there's no such creature as "fundamentalist Islam"; there is either
the Islam that is founded on this book, the Koran, or there is something
else - some other religion - which has nothing to do with this book at all.
In any case, THIS recitation, by Mohammed, leaves absolutely no room for any
latitude, any "interpretation", any individual opinions at all. It
eradicates, indeed, any traces of free will and only proffers to male
fanatics several hundred paragraphs cajoling them to follow orders so that
after death they will live endlessly in "gardens watered by running streams"
where dark-eyed, explicitly "high bosomed virgins" will have sexual
relations with them throughout infinity on green silken cushions and lush
carpets. The repetition constitutes a pretty good technique of hypnosis;
the threats drive home the consequences of disobedience, and the commands
are those of an ignorant, insane priesthood operating as the heirs to a
lunatic's pretensions to speak for a nonexistent god.
We have witnessed the result.
> > > Rats On a Sinking Ship, now that describes this alliance against
> terrorism
> > > if i have ever tried to
> >
> > You write like a goddamned imbecile, headkase.
>
> true
> but at least i have not joined a nation of imbeciles braying for blood.
Good for us, then. Stay the fuck out of our way.
Scott Campbell
"Ari Asikainen" <as...@iobox.fi> wrote in message
news:Ez9C7.123$Ea4....@read2.inet.fi...
It wasn't days, but the Germans were getting close. They were up to the
hard water process and were perhaps maybe a year or less away.
But I agree with your assessment that the bombing of Japan had nothing to do
with Germany. It had everything to do with convincing an enemy that had
sworn never to surrender, to do just that. Also, remember, the Japanese
didn't know we only had two weapons. The Japanese couldn't risk calling
our bluff as they were sure we'd nuke every city in Japan.
Ari Asikainen
>"Ari Asikainen" <as...@iobox.fi> wrote...
>> trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> did this:
>> >They were very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days.
>>
>> Do you have any proof for this? I'd have said it was a more likely to
>> be a matter of years than days.
>
>It wasn't days, but the Germans were getting close. They were up to the
>hard water process and were perhaps maybe a year or less away.
At the end of the war the Germans hadn't managed to produce even a
contained nuclear chain-reaction, something that Fermi achieved in
1942. They calculated the critical mass as considerably larger than in
reality. Their main efforts were directed at building a reactor. Like
that wasn't enough, the Manhattan Project was just plain bigger in
scale than the their efforts.
The German scientists were shocked in 1945 when the Americans dropped
one on Hiroshima. Werner Heisenberg, the scientist in charge of the
program, even speculated that the explosion might have been achieved
through more conventional means, and that the Americans were bluffing.
After the war there was some controversy over whether Heisenberg
messed things up on purpose or out of incompetence.
I very much doubt the Germans could have succeeded in less than a
year.
>But I agree with your assessment that the bombing of Japan had nothing to do
>with Germany. It had everything to do with convincing an enemy that had
>sworn never to surrender, to do just that. Also, remember, the Japanese
>didn't know we only had two weapons. The Japanese couldn't risk calling
>our bluff as they were sure we'd nuke every city in Japan.
Agreed, though one can always speculate on how big of a reason sending
a message to the Russians was at that point.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Jesus Slut Fucker
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted to push back
the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>"Scott Campbell" <thunderin...@msn.com> did this:
>>"Ari Asikainen" <as...@iobox.fi> wrote...
>>> trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> did this:
>
>>> >They were very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days.
>>>
>>> Do you have any proof for this? I'd have said it was a more likely to
>>> be a matter of years than days.
>>
>>It wasn't days, but the Germans were getting close. They were up to the
>>hard water process and were perhaps maybe a year or less away.
>
>At the end of the war the Germans hadn't managed to produce even a
>contained nuclear chain-reaction, something that Fermi achieved in
>1942. They calculated the critical mass as considerably larger than in
>reality. Their main efforts were directed at building a reactor. Like
>that wasn't enough, the Manhattan Project was just plain bigger in
>scale than the their efforts.
>
>The German scientists were shocked in 1945 when the Americans dropped
>one on Hiroshima. Werner Heisenberg, the scientist in charge of the
>program, even speculated that the explosion might have been achieved
>through more conventional means, and that the Americans were bluffing.
>After the war there was some controversy over whether Heisenberg
>messed things up on purpose or out of incompetence.
>
>I very much doubt the Germans could have succeeded in less than a
>year.
It is probably worth bearing in mind that the US wasn't having the
living shit bombed out of it's industrial base, or being invaded on
two fronts, at the time. It could be argued that the Germans would
*never* have developed the bomb under those conditions.
>>But I agree with your assessment that the bombing of Japan had nothing to do
>>with Germany. It had everything to do with convincing an enemy that had
>>sworn never to surrender, to do just that. Also, remember, the Japanese
>>didn't know we only had two weapons. The Japanese couldn't risk calling
>>our bluff as they were sure we'd nuke every city in Japan.
>
>Agreed, though one can always speculate on how big of a reason sending
>a message to the Russians was at that point.
Some people have argued that the Japanese would have surrendered
anyway, on account of the Russians massing troops for an invasion.
This probably underestimates the stubbornness of the Japanese psyche.
The real argument should be about how the bomb was used. Many
Manhattan project scientists favoured a demonstration of the bomb out
to sea or even inviting Japanese observers to Nevada (or wherever they
did the initial test). The reason this wasn't done was because they
only had two bombs, or that is what is generally said these days.
It is easy to complain now, but the atmosphere of the second world war
was something else, I would think. By 1945 many Japanese POW camps had
been liberated. The Kamikaze attacks were continuing... WWII brought
the "new" concept of 'total war' Neither the Japanese nor the Germans,
or even the allies were above deliberately bombing civilian targets.
On the other hand, what matters now, is not whether or not atomic
weapons were justifiably used in WWII, what matters is that act of
aggression is seen by many as the very first in a series of US govt.
actions over the subsequent 50 years, that are most definitely *not*
justifiable in the eyes of the detractors of US foreign policy. Again
this issue is not about right or wrong, it's about propaganda, and how
that can be and is used. The rationale of the CIA's covert operations
was to prevent another Pearl Harbour, and therefore WWIII. As could be
expected, the CIA's activities were soon co-opted for commercial
purposes and crass political gains.
The arguing that is going on here, isn't going to resolve the issue.
Some US citizens are pissed and think the Big-Stick approach is the
best one. Ten years from now, I wonder what the flonkers will be
saying about the reasons for the decline and fall of the US Empire,
assuming there are any US flonkers left by then.
The point of the story of David and Goliath isn't that god is on the
side of the little guy when the little guy is a devout god botherer,
the point is that the little guy can only take so much, before he or
she makes their weapons accurate. It really doesn't matter a fuck that
you 'world's only super-power' people think you can do whatever you
like because no-one can stop you. People who disagree with this kind
of arrogance are already taking steps to prove you wrong.
As Sun Tzu tells us, give your enemies a way to escape when you are
winning, because men who have nothing to lose fight with a great deal
of concentrated violence. This is not a question of morality, it is a
question of pragmatism.
The next question that will undoubtedly be leveled at these comments
is something like: What the fuck should we be doing, then, smart arse?
I suspect all you can do is what you are doing, it quite probably
won't work, may well make the situation worse, but you have no other
options. None that your national face-saving exercise would permit
anyway. It's way too late to change what is happening here.
The likely outcome is the death and injury of many more innocent
civilians on both sides. If you think I am in favour of this, because
I can't see any other outcome, you are sadly caught up in your own
propaganda. Maybe if the US had busied itself infiltrating terrorist
cells all over the world during the last decade, instead of cynically
manipulating foreign Governments, maybe the WTC would never have
happened. If you think this a species of "you deserved it", again you
are sadly mistaken. There is no justice in any of this, only cause and
effect.
--
Optional Identity
mhm 27x11 (Digital Bush-Ranger)
Wee Saul Disciple #31
Smeeter #40
alt.lamenet "voted" Moron of the Year 2001
Another Fine Post From the Petitmorte
Family of Fine Posters.
Have you had your little death today?
alt.usenet.kooks for when plonking is just not enough
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk for when life isn't
quite what teh brochure promised.
alt.fan.scarecrow for when your life just plain sucks, and you need
someone to point that out to you.
Skepticult Colonel SN: 321-29337-833 BoB Slave 266 and 308
Support Nekkid flonkers!!!!!
Go ahead make my day! annoyme!!!
Thread Liberation Front © ® (tm) 2001
NUKE FRANCE
>headkase
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
wine me, dine me, 69 me.
Dan Nelson
>
[...]
I've thought about these issues *a lot* since 9/11. The following are
some conclusions I've reached pretty firmly:
* The US has been a prick to a lot of countries.
* A lot of other countries have been pricks to the US.
* Some people killed *a lot* of Americans.
* The worst those people did was show up for work on time.
* The perps, and all like them. are mass murderers on a grand scale and
should die.
* I volunteer to pull the trigger or lever or whatever to send them to
allah.
* People resent that we are some kind of "superpower".
* I don't care that we are some kind of "superpower".
* I just want to be left alone to live my life.
* They want me to die, regardless of whether I did anything to them or
theirs.
* That view is documented in no uncertain terms on videotape and was
broadcast.
* They therefore should die.
* Given the opportunity, they would turn the entire world into a cinder.
* Given the opportunity, they would unleash horrible diseases in all
countries but theirs.
* We have the ability to hurt them. Bad.
* They have given us as good a reason as any in history to hurt them.
Bad.
* Let's hurt them. Really Bad.
Honestly, all the bullshit about "superpowers" aside, most Americans
just want to be left alone to live our lives. It is now manifestly
evident that these coward (here I mean "coward" in the philosophical
sense rather than the physical) terrorist bastards can't live with
that. I almost understood the Cole, and maybe even the embassies, as
political statements. The WTC thing crossed a huge, gaping chasm. A
lot of people out there seem to think the US is going to puss out of
this one like we have let other things mostly slide in the past. The
only thing that will tell is time, but it may interest some of you
Aussies and others that we have some US radio talk shows now discussing
whether EMP or neutron bombs would be most effective in eliminating life
from all the caves of Afghanistan.
To my shock, I found myself seriously comparing the relative merits of
the two approaches. One lady I heard just decided we should nuke them,
and Mecca while we're at it. Not the most educated approach, but then
neither is anything the Taliban has ever done, and they managed to make
it stick. Frightening.
Oh...and when it became clear to me that we'd be going to war in
Afghanistan, my initial estimate was a minimum of 5,000 dead on our side
in the first year, maybe 10,000 if it got bad. That still sounds like a
real estimate to me.
Everybody keeps talking about how Big And Bad the Mujahadeen are, and
how they'll kick our ass. I guess we're not too far from finding out
whether the US has been underestimated. AGAIN. Apparently it is
necessary to occasionally kick some ass or people rapidly forget that
you *can*. I guess this is what we get for trying to limit our military
engagements. From now on, I vote we try as hard as we can to avoid
armed conflict in favor of diplomacy, but then when we're given no
choice, like right this very moment, ignore the bastards who whine about
civilian casualties and just kick ass in a way that sends the right kind
of message such that we don't have to do this again for a long, long
time.
</rant>
--
mhm27x20, smeeter #11
"... a lack of Stuff really sucks."
- Sergi
trippy
<Ez9C7.123$Ea4....@read2.inet.fi>, said the following tripped out
things:
> trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> did this:
>
> >If the US didn't drop the atomic bomb, Germany would have.
>
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed
> in August, some three months later.
You are correct.
> >They were very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days.
>
> Do you have any proof for this? I'd have said it was a more likely to
> be a matter of years than days.
>
I got it from 'Day of the bomb', it was a book I had to read for my
history class when I went to MATC.
Obviously I've forgotten a lot. Perhaps you are right, maybe it wasn't
days, however I do remember that they were close.
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> This dude "Ari Asikainen" as...@iobox.fi, in article
> <Ez9C7.123$Ea4....@read2.inet.fi>, said the following tripped out
> things:
> > trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> did this:
> >
> > >If the US didn't drop the atomic bomb, Germany would have.
> >
> > Germany surrendered in May of 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed
> > in August, some three months later.
>
> You are correct.
>
>
>
>
> > >They were very close to completing their bomb by a matter of days.
> >
> > Do you have any proof for this? I'd have said it was a more likely to
> > be a matter of years than days.
> >
>
> I got it from 'Day of the bomb', it was a book I had to read for my
> history class when I went to MATC.
>
> Obviously I've forgotten a lot. Perhaps you are right, maybe it wasn't
> days, however I do remember that they were close.
i remember reading something very similar, but can't for the life of me
remember what book it was i read it in.
Ari Asikainen
>It is probably worth bearing in mind that the US wasn't having the
>living shit bombed out of it's industrial base, or being invaded on
>two fronts, at the time. It could be argued that the Germans would
>*never* have developed the bomb under those conditions.
Seeing as they never did manage to do it under those conditions, few
would argue against you. The unsaid assumption was that they could
carry out their program with the same resources they enjoyed before
things turned sour for them.
>On the other hand, what matters now, is not whether or not atomic
>weapons were justifiably used in WWII, what matters is that act of
>aggression is seen by many as the very first in a series of US govt.
>actions over the subsequent 50 years, that are most definitely *not*
>justifiable in the eyes of the detractors of US foreign policy.
First one, eh? I guess many don't know much about history, or they
could find earlier actions to froth over, with better justification
too.
>The arguing that is going on here, isn't going to resolve the issue.
You don't say.
>Some US citizens are pissed and think the Big-Stick approach is the
>best one.
Until this point you managed to be quite reasonable, but...
>Ten years from now, I wonder what the flonkers will be
>saying about the reasons for the decline and fall of the US Empire,
Some of them will be annoyed by the use of the word "Empire", and the
rest are probably going to say, "What decline and fall?"
>assuming there are any US flonkers left by then.
That's not much of an assumption.
>The point of the story of David and Goliath isn't that god is on the
>side of the little guy when the little guy is a devout god botherer,
That pretty much is the point of the story in the bible, but do go on.
>the point is that the little guy can only take so much, before he or
>she makes their weapons accurate. It really doesn't matter a fuck that
>you 'world's only super-power' people think you can do whatever you
>like because no-one can stop you. People who disagree with this kind
>of arrogance are already taking steps to prove you wrong.
It's a story in the bible. In the real world, there isn't a single
stone that would allow the little guy to take down the US. The US, on
the other hand, has lots and lots of stones that allow it to take down
the little guys from here to Cape Town.
>As Sun Tzu tells us, give your enemies a way to escape when you are
>winning, because men who have nothing to lose fight with a great deal
>of concentrated violence. This is not a question of morality, it is a
>question of pragmatism.
Actually, the object is to make the enemy believe that there's a safe
way out rather than allow the enemy to escape. This prevents them from
fighting with the courage of despair. After that, the enemy can be
crushed.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted to push back
the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>
>>It is probably worth bearing in mind that the US wasn't having the
>>living shit bombed out of it's industrial base, or being invaded on
>>two fronts, at the time. It could be argued that the Germans would
>>*never* have developed the bomb under those conditions.
>
>Seeing as they never did manage to do it under those conditions, few
>would argue against you. The unsaid assumption was that they could
>carry out their program with the same resources they enjoyed before
>things turned sour for them.
Ok, lets assume D-Day failed or something like that? Even then,
without the second front, the allied bombers would still be pounding
Germany. Still, let us assume that their industrial base was intact...
Still doesn't look good for the Germans. Anyway, it's a moot point
really, since the Japanese explosions are the case in point.
>>On the other hand, what matters now, is not whether or not atomic
>>weapons were justifiably used in WWII, what matters is that act of
>>aggression is seen by many as the very first in a series of US govt.
>>actions over the subsequent 50 years, that are most definitely *not*
>>justifiable in the eyes of the detractors of US foreign policy.
>
>First one, eh? I guess many don't know much about history, or they
>could find earlier actions to froth over, with better justification
>too.
Sure, but most people think that in WWII whatever was done was fair
enough, and US *covert* operations in major foreign governments mostly
post date WWII, the creation of the CIA does, for instance.
Anyway, my point is not about the facts, so much as about the use
these facts have already been put to in the propaganda campaign. It
isn't about the essential rightness of US foreign policy, it is about
the way the US is perceived as the result of 50 odd years of covert
activities. I am trying to look at what that perception is, not
whether the perception is fair enough or not.
>>The arguing that is going on here, isn't going to resolve the issue.
>
>You don't say.
>
>>Some US citizens are pissed and think the Big-Stick approach is the
>>best one.
>
>Until this point you managed to be quite reasonable, but...
>
>>Ten years from now, I wonder what the flonkers will be
>>saying about the reasons for the decline and fall of the US Empire,
>
>Some of them will be annoyed by the use of the word "Empire", and the
>rest are probably going to say, "What decline and fall?"
>
>>assuming there are any US flonkers left by then.
>
>That's not much of an assumption.
All right, I will cop to some hyperbole here. Then again a little
sarin and small pox... anything could happen. My point is that the
terrorists would hardly stop at such actions if they were able to
carry them out. The only consideration that helps, imo, is that
presumably, use of such agents would have been done by now if they had
them. What happens after sufficient civilians are killed that the
propaganda war starts removing muslim countries from their current
grudging support of the US, and terrorist organisations get control of
chemical, biological and or nuclear weapons stockpiles, cannot be
accurately predicted at this time.
Sure the outcome where the USA is laid waste to, is unlikely. However,
the more the muslim world believes the US deserves to be punished and
or stopped, the harder and more expensive it will be to defend against
the insidious sorts of attacks that are going on even now.
There are quite a few people of my acquaintance who think that the WTC
tragedy was terrible, but who also think the US did deserve it. When
challenged they hastily say that "the innocent victims didn't deserve
it, but.." These are civilised, non muslim, non US, citizens who feel
this way. Small wonder, then, that the attitude of the average person
in the muslim third world is much closer to the Taliban's view.
>>The point of the story of David and Goliath isn't that god is on the
>>side of the little guy when the little guy is a devout god botherer,
>
>That pretty much is the point of the story in the bible, but do go on.
Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
at all takes any of it seriously.
>>the point is that the little guy can only take so much, before he or
>>she makes their weapons accurate. It really doesn't matter a fuck that
>>you 'world's only super-power' people think you can do whatever you
>>like because no-one can stop you. People who disagree with this kind
>>of arrogance are already taking steps to prove you wrong.
>
>It's a story in the bible. In the real world, there isn't a single
>stone that would allow the little guy to take down the US. The US, on
>the other hand, has lots and lots of stones that allow it to take down
>the little guys from here to Cape Town.
You think? Well that remains to be seen. Although I agree a single
stone is unlikely to work. What the allies are fighting is not a
nation, not really. Sure, they are fighting the Taliban today, and
even if Afghanistan were turned into a nice black glass ashtray
tomorrow, it wouldn't destroy the terrorist organisation's cells
already operating and set up in other countries. Maybe their potential
for destructive capability is limited, but it was underestimated quite
recently, I believe. Look at it in economic terms, the cost of that
which is destroyed and the overall cost of waging a war of retaliation
and defending against further attacks. The possibility that US
economic superiority can be seriously interfered with over time is
important when attempting to assess likely strategies of the enemies.
Also, the more destruction, especially of civilians, that is done in
Afghanistan and elsewhere the more desperate the muslim people
everywhere feel, and the easier it is for the loony factions to
recruit agents. These people will keep working for generations if
necessary, let alone mere years.
>>As Sun Tzu tells us, give your enemies a way to escape when you are
>>winning, because men who have nothing to lose fight with a great deal
>>of concentrated violence. This is not a question of morality, it is a
>>question of pragmatism.
>
>Actually, the object is to make the enemy believe that there's a safe
>way out rather than allow the enemy to escape. This prevents them from
>fighting with the courage of despair. After that, the enemy can be
>crushed.
The magnanimous gesture in victory is completely lost on you isn't it?
Nevermind. The point here is that the enemy, i.e fundamentalist
terrorists, can't be crushed. Not via the big stick approach, anyway.
headkase
Yadda yadda blah blah woof woof snipped for the sake of sanity
>
> --
> Scott Campbell - mhm 24x12
>
>
>
Scott
by insulting me because you disagree with me
makes you look like the idiot
but hey
i don't care
my beef with America at the moment is the fact they are going into
Afghanistan with the intention of replacing the government with a puppet one
of their own
watch anything but American news and i am sure you will see them all run,
the former king of Afghanistan, the northern alliance, and *Allah* knows who
else is fucking sucking up for the position of united western world lap dog,
very handy region Afghanistan
now you can quote all the religious texts you want at me and i will quote
political ones back at you
ever heard on macheiavelli
you went to great lengths to prove in your reply what a smart chap you are
scott so i am sure you have
"How cities or principalities are to be governed that previous to being
conquered lived under their own laws, excerpt from chapter five Machiavelli
The Prince
Conquered states that have been accustomed to liberty and the government of
their own laws can be held by the conqueror in three different ways. The
first is to ruin them, the second, for the conqueror to go and reside there
in person; and the third is to allow them to continue to live under their
own laws, subject to a regular tribute, and to create in them a government
of a few, who will keep the country friendly to the conqueror. Such a
government having been established by the new prince, knows that it cannot
maintain itself without the support of his power and his friendship, and it
becomes it interest, therefore to sustain him"
now scott
do i have to point out how this applies to the current situation in the
middle east
step by step
remember i have mentioned this *new Afghanistan government that will replace
the taliban*
or are you big enough and ugly enough to work out for yourself?
headkase
headkase
> are sadly mistaken. There is no justice in any of this, only cause and
> effect.
yeah
i say what he said
headkase
headkase
Thread Liberation Front © ® (tm) 2001 <Thread_Libe...@meow.com>
wrote in message news:udujtt8i5md9comai...@4ax.com...
NUKE FUcKING FRANCE
TWICE
Ari Asikainen
>>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>>>The point of the story of David and Goliath isn't that god is on the
>>>side of the little guy when the little guy is a devout god botherer,
>>
>>That pretty much is the point of the story in the bible, but do go on.
>
>Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>at all takes any of it seriously.
That doesn't change the intended point of the story one jot.
>>In the real world, there isn't a single
>>stone that would allow the little guy to take down the US. The US, on
>>the other hand, has lots and lots of stones that allow it to take down
>>the little guys from here to Cape Town.
>
>You think?
Yep.
>>>As Sun Tzu tells us, give your enemies a way to escape when you are
>>>winning, because men who have nothing to lose fight with a great deal
>>>of concentrated violence. This is not a question of morality, it is a
>>>question of pragmatism.
>>
>>Actually, the object is to make the enemy believe that there's a safe
>>way out rather than allow the enemy to escape. This prevents them from
>>fighting with the courage of despair. After that, the enemy can be
>>crushed.
>
>The magnanimous gesture in victory is completely lost on you isn't it?
I was paraphrasing Tu Mu above. No, magnanimous gestures are not lost
on me, but they have no place in the Art of War.
According to Sun Tzu soldiers that have no option but to fight or die
fight much better than soldiers that have some other outlet. He even
advocates putting your own troops in such desperate situations.
However, letting your enemy escape to fight another day is not
pragmatic either. Luckily one can crush an enemy without killing all
its soldiers.
>Nevermind. The point here is that the enemy, i.e fundamentalist
>terrorists, can't be crushed.
Nonsense. Any organization can be crushed. Occasionally it's just
really, really hard.
>Not via the big stick approach, anyway.
It's not the best method, anyway.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Ari Asikainen
>my beef with America at the moment is the fact they are going into
>Afghanistan with the intention of replacing the government with a puppet one
>of their own
>
>watch anything but American news and i am sure you will see them all run,
>the former king of Afghanistan, the northern alliance, and *Allah* knows who
>else is fucking sucking up for the position of united western world lap dog,
Try as I may, I'd still prefer a "western world lap dog" over those
terrorist supporting, women mutilating, opposition torturing,
closed-minded bunch of religious freaks that have made their country
into one big, famished refugee camp.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted to push back
the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>>as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted:
>>>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>
>>>>The point of the story of David and Goliath isn't that god is on the
>>>>side of the little guy when the little guy is a devout god botherer,
>>>
>>>That pretty much is the point of the story in the bible, but do go on.
>>
>>Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>at all takes any of it seriously.
>
>That doesn't change the intended point of the story one jot.
Nor does your saying that, change the point of the story as described
by me. Since that was an illustration of a psychological point about
human nature. As opposed to a sunday school, make you feel that god is
good, kind of a thing. hth.
>>>>As Sun Tzu tells us, give your enemies a way to escape when you are
>>>>winning, because men who have nothing to lose fight with a great deal
>>>>of concentrated violence. This is not a question of morality, it is a
>>>>question of pragmatism.
>>>
>>>Actually, the object is to make the enemy believe that there's a safe
>>>way out rather than allow the enemy to escape. This prevents them from
>>>fighting with the courage of despair. After that, the enemy can be
>>>crushed.
>>
>>The magnanimous gesture in victory is completely lost on you isn't it?
>
>I was paraphrasing Tu Mu above. No, magnanimous gestures are not lost
>on me, but they have no place in the Art of War.
I don't think Sun Tzu (bless him) really had the whole modern warfare
and modern propaganda thing sussed all that well. Understandably,
since CNN and the Internet and the Pakistani Press, were largely
absent in the middle ages in China. I don't doubt though, that in this
situation he would not be advocating what is happening.
Don't mistake me here. He probably wouldn't find tactical fault with
the way the US and allies are behaving in Afghanistan, but he might
have a problem with the strategic necessity for doing it at all. I
also doubt he would counsel inaction.
>According to Sun Tzu soldiers that have no option but to fight or die
>fight much better than soldiers that have some other outlet. He even
>advocates putting your own troops in such desperate situations.
>However, letting your enemy escape to fight another day is not
>pragmatic either. Luckily one can crush an enemy without killing all
>its soldiers.
Yes, of course, and my point was that an enemy that feels it has
nothing left to lose, employs desperate measures like suicide bombers
etc, to try and take as many of the "tormenters" with it or whatever
their insane rationale and goals are. When that enemy is not a state
as such, and is the much weaker power, however insane it is, it plays
to its strengths. The terrorists don't really give a fuck for the
Afghani population anymore than they did for the US population. In
fact the more civilians killed the better it is for them.
>>Nevermind. The point here is that the enemy, i.e fundamentalist
>>terrorists, can't be crushed.
>
>Nonsense. Any organization can be crushed. Occasionally it's just
>really, really hard.
>
>>Not via the big stick approach, anyway.
>
>It's not the best method, anyway.
It's not the best method in this case.
It is the method being employed in this case.
A better method would have been to start infiltrating terrorist
organisations back in '93 when the first WTC bombing happened. Lacking
that initiative then, and being forced by public outcry now, the
current method is being employed. Will it work? Probably not. Will the
consequences be nasty, probably.
James McNamara
> Scott
>
>
> by insulting me because you disagree with me
> makes you look like the idiot
> but hey
> i don't care
[...]
> or are you big enough and ugly enough to work out for yourself?
Mhehehe. You just made yourself look like an idiot by your own definition.
--
James McNamara (mhm33x33)
Ari Asikainen
[...]
>Dune Coons simply can't fight there way out of a paper bag.
Your attention seeking is becoming increasingly pathetic, you linty
loiterer.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
"You are not fit to hold Jack's bong while he carries out his scared and
holy task."
-- Jesus Slut Fucker <drap...@home.com> delivers the Slurp to End All
Slurps in <3AFE9509...@home.com>
"I love you Jack."
-- drap...@home.com finally confesses in <3B35BC22...@home.com>
"I had a little problem with the shit tastie at first
but teh I gots to like it."
-- No wonder ppa...@home.com slurps.
<3B9B52B6...@home.com>
Ari Asikainen
>as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted:
>>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>>>Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>>heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>>the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>>at all takes any of it seriously.
>>
>>That doesn't change the intended point of the story one jot.
>
>Nor does your saying that, change the point of the story as described
>by me. Since that was an illustration of a psychological point about
>human nature. As opposed to a sunday school, make you feel that god is
>good, kind of a thing. hth.
You didn't describe a story. You named a story, that of David and
Goliath. The closest you got to describing it was claiming that its
point is something different than in the definitive version of it.
>>>The magnanimous gesture in victory is completely lost on you isn't it?
>>
>>I was paraphrasing Tu Mu above. No, magnanimous gestures are not lost
>>on me, but they have no place in The Art of War.
>
>I don't think Sun Tzu (bless him) really had the whole modern warfare
>and modern propaganda thing sussed all that well.
How come you quoted him as an authority on the subject of modern
warfare tactics, then?
>>>Not via the big stick approach, anyway.
>>
>>It's not the best method, anyway.
>
>It's not the best method in this case.
>
>It is the method being employed in this case.
No, it's not. The stick is quite small compared to some others
available to the US.
>A better method would have been to start infiltrating terrorist
>organisations back in '93 when the first WTC bombing happened.
Do you think no one tried?
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted to push back
the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>>as...@iobox.fi (Ari Asikainen) attempted:
>>>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>
>>>>Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>>>heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>>>the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>>>at all takes any of it seriously.
>>>
>>>That doesn't change the intended point of the story one jot.
>>
>>Nor does your saying that, change the point of the story as described
>>by me. Since that was an illustration of a psychological point about
>>human nature. As opposed to a sunday school, make you feel that god is
>>good, kind of a thing. hth.
>
>You didn't describe a story. You named a story, that of David and
>Goliath. The closest you got to describing it was claiming that its
>point is something different than in the definitive version of it.
Will I go to hell now? For daring to challenge the traditional
interpretation? How do you know the bible version is the "definitive"
version? You are just splitting hairs now, Ari!
>>>>The magnanimous gesture in victory is completely lost on you isn't it?
>>>
>>>I was paraphrasing Tu Mu above. No, magnanimous gestures are not lost
>>>on me, but they have no place in The Art of War.
>>
>>I don't think Sun Tzu (bless him) really had the whole modern warfare
>>and modern propaganda thing sussed all that well.
>
>How come you quoted him as an authority on the subject of modern
>warfare tactics, then?
As an authority on the Strategy and Tactics of Warfare he is
unsurpassed, for those who can't interpret Lao Tzu, anyway. Lao Tzu,
of course, was on about something more interesting than mere warfare,
something that includes warfare, though. My point was that Sun Tzu
really didn't have modern propaganda in mind. So I was attempting to
include such things in my position. I go to all this trouble to update
Sun Tzu for you, and I give you a much more interesting interpretation
of a fable, and you mention my doing so as some sort of demerit.
>>>>Not via the big stick approach, anyway.
>>>
>>>It's not the best method, anyway.
>>
>>It's not the best method in this case.
>>
>>It is the method being employed in this case.
>
>No, it's not. The stick is quite small compared to some others
>available to the US.
It's a fairly big stick, nevertheless.
>>A better method would have been to start infiltrating terrorist
>>organisations back in '93 when the first WTC bombing happened.
>
>Do you think no one tried?
I think they didn't try hard enough, if they tried at all.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: The CIA doesn't have
the best interests of the USA as it's real raison d'tre.
Jesus Slut Fucker
Mysterian2001
"headkase" <wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Yadda yadda blah blah woof woof snipped for the sake of sanity
> >
> > --
>
> Scott
>
>
> by insulting me because you disagree with me
> makes you look like the idiot
> but hey
> i don't care
>
> my beef with America at the moment is the fact they are going into
> Afghanistan with the intention of replacing the government with a puppet one
> of their own
A government run by Twatt Campbells? <Shudder>
the_critic
Why don't youy go suck a duck and shut the fuck up little boy, before
you make a bigger fool of yourself like reverting back into the same
old titty baby you were. So fuck you and shut the fuck up you are
either with us or against us!
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
headkase
James McNamara <president...@theovaloffice.REMOVEcom> wrote in message
news:9red4p$mrj$0...@pita.alt.net...
oh yeah that insult sent him home crying to momma????????
ever heard of facetiousness?
headkase
>
>
headkase
You have made a vary valid point here
But
i still cant agree that it is ok to do this
it is setting precedents that disgust and scare me
headkase
headkase
Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote in message
news:3BDA0A37...@black-hole.com...
this would be fine if this was true
you as a person
that is what you want
and i don't doubt that
but you
as a nation
don't do that
America does not leave other countries to live their life to how they choose
if they had the taliban might never have reached to position of power it
held
it funnelled billions of dollars into the taliban to buy arms so they could
defeat the russians
america, with its oil driven economy did not want a firmly established
russia in the area
when that was done they packed up and left the country and its newly bought
military hardware in the hands of religious fanatics who were already on a
holy war
and this is only one example
headkase
david g. jones
and modern propaganda thing sussed all that well.
Incorrectomundo.
Despite the mistaken notion that Sun Tzu is (only) about war, Master
Sun's observations on deception and communications are are applicable
today as they were 2300 years ago.
jet
[...]
>my beef with America at the moment is the fact they are going into
>Afghanistan with the intention of replacing the government with a puppet one
>of their own
>
a possible post-Taliban government and who was kidnapped and brutally
murdered by the Taliban, the other day?
trippy
tripped out things:
>
Actually, they do.
I talk to people everyday at my job, and you'd be surprised how many
people would just as soon "glass 'em all".
<snip> -- more of headkase's "I hate america" bullshit
jet
<wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>America does not leave other countries to live their life to how they choose
>if they had the taliban might never have reached to position of power it
>held
>it funnelled billions of dollars into the taliban to buy arms so they could
>defeat the russians
>america, with its oil driven economy did not want a firmly established
>russia in the area
>when that was done they packed up and left the country and its newly bought
>military hardware in the hands of religious fanatics who were already on a
>holy war
>and this is only one example
>
provided the Muhajadeen with old, largely Russian, first gen technology
weapons, so it would appear the weapons had been salvaged from
battlefields. The only relatively new tech weapons that were provided
were Stingers (I -think- the SA-7 "Grail") and a few CIA guys to teach
the Muhajadeen to use them. Contrary to popular opinion, the CIA was not
"training" the Afghans in guerilla warfare tactics (and the Afghans still,
for the most part, don't use modern warfare tactics). All this was done
at the -request- of the, then, current ruling body in Afganistan, to
defend themselves against a Russian takeover.
headkase
jet <morr...@ogoense.net> wrote in message
news:9rfbgk$7rn$1...@paradoxa.ogoense.net...
when was this?
the only leader i know who died was the one who was murdered by a suicide
bomber on the eve of the wtc bombing?
headkase
headkase
trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> wrote in message
but i dont hate America
and can you refute what i am saying
you forget that what i say about you is true about my own country
i am a fat elitist western world pig sucking 20 times my fair share of the
worlds finate resources and my country is going to do all it can so that can
continue
i am not in denial
that is all
headkase
jet
>
>jet <morr...@ogoense.net> wrote in message
>news:9rfbgk$7rn$1...@paradoxa.ogoense.net...
>> In article <3bda8b51$0$8346$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "headkase"
><wog...@optusnospamnet.com.au> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >my beef with America at the moment is the fact they are going into
>> >Afghanistan with the intention of replacing the government with a puppet
>one
>> >of their own
>> >
>> YM like the leader of the Northern Alliance, who was trying to organise
>> a possible post-Taliban government and who was kidnapped and brutally
>> murdered by the Taliban, the other day?
>
>when was this?
>
former mujahedeen commander Abdul Haq. He was working on behalf of
Mohammad Zahir Shah. I suspect Hamid Karzai, who's trying to organize
anti-Taliban forces in Kandahar, will be next, if they can catch him.
>the only leader i know who died was the one who was murdered by a suicide
>bomber on the eve of the wtc bombing?
>
The Taliban is trying to capture every anti-Taliban leader they can.
They arrest, take to trial and execute them, all within a matter of hours.
headkase
i don't approve of the taliban
just like i don't approve of the oppressive military government in Burma
or the Chinese occupation of Tibet
but i cant condone nato (ie the American alliance) removing a government
jet
way it goes. Besides, there's a difference of perspective, here. To
a lot of us, the US is assisting the citizens of Afghanistan retake
their country from the totalitarian religious organization that's
oppressing it. To be brutally honest, Afghanistan is such a primitive
country that they don't really -have- a government, as such. There's just
a particular family alliance controlling the rest by force of arms. The
king, at least, is educated and intelligent enough to establish some
sort of relationship with the rest of the world.
trippy
What was it you were saying, except a bunch of bullshit about how 6,000
people deserved to die because they were americans living in america?
>
> you forget that what i say about you is true about my own country
> i am a fat elitist western world pig sucking 20 times my fair share of the
> worlds finate resources and my country is going to do all it can so that can
> continue
>
>
> i am not in denial
> that is all
>
I'd rather be here than anywhere.
little toad
> <snip> -- more of headkase's "I hate america" bullshit
i've never gotten that impression from headkase's posts on this topic. she
has a different opinion than many people do, and that's ok with me anyway.
just my 2 cents. :)
little toad
Dan Nelson
Then let them attack the nation, if that's what they have a problem
with. That's why I said I could almost understand the Cole or the
embassies, and it's why we didn't get our panties in this kind of twist
when they did those things. But they didn't. They attacked citizens.
They attacked the "innocent civilians" everybody is whining about over
in Afghanistan. Personally, I don't want to hear it until their numbers
of innocents killed is higher than ours, and I won't accept Taliban lies
as proof that their numbers are higher. If we took the Taliban at their
word, then they had at least 10,000 innocents killed by the heathen
unbeliever satanic America before the first bomb was dropped.
You and a few others spend a lot of time talking about how evil America
is and how great the Taliban is. Fine. If you ever decide to move
overseas and have to choose between the U.S. and Afghanistan, I assume
you'll be going there, where you can hide under that damned veil and get
shot if it accidently falls off or something.
Dan Nelson
You got *that* right. And we may consume a lot more than other
countries, but we *produce* a lot more, too. So I've stopped even
trying to refute a lot of the bullshit people have slung at me.
Try talking to the peaceniks sometime. Try to get just *ONE* of them to
propose a realistic alternative to what we're doing. JUST ONE of them.
I can't find one that can say more than "but people are dying!!! AS WE
SPEAK!!!!" I just tell them "Well, I hope it's the right ones dying,
then".
Honest to god, people call us "cowboys" and tell us we're arrogant.
Whatever. I just know that most other nations have rolled over and let
terrorists have their way. This is the first time we've been hit in a
big way (and true to American form, we did it in absolutely spectacular
fashion). We don't have a policy for this situation, so we're making it
up as we go, but I do know we've already done more against terror than
all the rest of the nations of the world combined would have if we
weren't here.
I used to laugh at people who were ultranationalists, but I find myself
thinking that we almost *have* to be ultranationalists to successfully
prosecute this war. Chrissake, tomorrow I might get the mail and die of
anthrax. We've gotta hang together or we're dead.
Dan Nelson
>
> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
> at all takes any of it seriously.
*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
merit is intelligent.
I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
jet
>Optional Identity wrote:
>>
>
>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>
>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>
>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>merit is intelligent.
>
>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>
Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
Dan Nelson
It doesn't scare me in the least. Both the U.S. *and* Australia were
puppet governments at one time. If a country has a sound foundation, it
grows into its own thing over time. So then look at the available
countries to model Afghanistan. Who has the time, inclination,
leadership ability, etc. to bother with helping them get started?
Besides which, I personally know that the US government would like
nothing better than to slip a strike team in, kill the few dozen people
who badly need killing, and get the hell out of dodge, never to set foot
in Afghanistan again. World opinion won't allow that, of course, but
it's probably what we most want to do. Afghanistan has large natural
gas reserves and some oil, but they're not worth it. Besides which, in
the next 50-100 years, there's going to be a sea change in energy
production. Arab oil makes a few countries' leaders rich now, but it
won't last. Developments are speeding up for finding alternative energy
sources. Pretty soon the world will get really tired of the people who
control most of the world's energy reserves behaving like children, and
we'll all just go solar, or fusion, or whatever.
The arabs say they just want to be left alone, and they want to be paid
fairly for their oil. I wonder what they'll say when the day comes that
they bring their oil, and they can't get us to trade with them because
they simply have little or nothing of interest to us? If you stop
burning oil, oil is basically nothing but greasy, smelly crap somebody
dug out of the ground.
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll morr...@ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push back the
boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>In article <3BDB7214...@black-hole.com>, Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>>Optional Identity wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>>
>>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>>
>It also defies a great deal of archaeological evidence.
What utter bullshit this is.
>>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>>merit is intelligent.
>>
>>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
>>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>>
>Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
Yep, you god botherer's will believe all manner of bullshit.
Optional Identity
-0500, the Troll Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> attempted to push
back the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>Optional Identity wrote:
>>
>
>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>
>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Dan, I have been discussing the perception of "American arrogance" in
the muslim third world. There is a difference.
>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>merit is intelligent.
>
>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
You really think there is any truth in that book of self contradictory
stupidity?
Oh well, whatever.
psychowhore
patient, hillbilly or chimpanzee!:
>According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:58:16
>GMT, the Troll morr...@ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push back the
>boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>
>>In article <3BDB7214...@black-hole.com>, Dan Nelson
>><dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>>>Optional Identity wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous
>>>> that the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can
>>>> think at all takes any of it seriously.
>>>
>>>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>>>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>>>
>>It also defies a great deal of archaeological evidence.
>
>What utter bullshit this is.
>
>>>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>>>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>>>merit is intelligent.
>>>
>>>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the
>>>world's population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>>>
>>Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
>
>Yep, you god botherer's will believe all manner of bullshit.
>
I've run across a lot of weird terms in my time, but this one takes the
cake. What the fuck is a god botherer?
--
psychowhore
mhm27x19 mp#44
ICQ#34579920 smeeter #3
http://welcome.to/this_midnight_parade
http://www.deepgreensoul.cjb.net/
jet
>According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:58:16
>GMT, the Troll morr...@ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push back the
>boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>
>>In article <3BDB7214...@black-hole.com>, Dan Nelson
> <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>>>Optional Identity wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>>>
>>>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>>>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>>>
>>It also defies a great deal of archaeological evidence.
>
>What utter bullshit this is.
>
>>>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>>>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>>>merit is intelligent.
>>>
>>>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
>>>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>>>
>>Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
>
>Yep, you god botherer's will believe all manner of bullshit.
>
You really are a major bigot, aren't you?
jet
>According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:48:52
>-0500, the Troll Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> attempted to push
>back the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>
>>Optional Identity wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>>
>>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>
>Dan, I have been discussing the perception of "American arrogance" in
>the muslim third world. There is a difference.
>
Of course you, being a religious bigot, have to translate it into your
own personal secular views to understand it. How could you possibly
relate to the perceptions of Muslims, if you don't understand Muslims?
Their entire political and social system is based on their religious
beliefs.
headkase
trippy <tri...@spam.sucks> wrote in message
i didn't say that
i didn't say that once
don't put words into my mouth
do i have to do the post proof or retract
headkase
headkase
giggle snort
now its my turn to get patriotic
its a silly little point really
but
Australia was and has never been a puppet government
not as Australia anyway
maybe when it was 6 or 7 separate colonies
but even then the queen was the sovereign leader
and her representees were the government
there was no opposition from England when Australia federated in 1901
and the Queen said "Go On Do it you dirty colonist bastards"
in the last referendum for us to become a republic
but uhmm the monarchists won, and we have England and the Queen as our
figurehead still
but this does not make a puppet government
>
> Besides which, I personally know that the US government would like
> nothing better than to slip a strike team in, kill the few dozen people
> who badly need killing, and get the hell out of dodge, never to set foot
> in Afghanistan again. World opinion won't allow that, of course, but
> it's probably what we most want to do. Afghanistan has large natural
> gas reserves and some oil, but they're not worth it. Besides which, in
> the next 50-100 years, there's going to be a sea change in energy
> production. Arab oil makes a few countries' leaders rich now, but it
> won't last. Developments are speeding up for finding alternative energy
> sources. Pretty soon the world will get really tired of the people who
> control most of the world's energy reserves behaving like children, and
> we'll all just go solar, or fusion, or whatever.
>
> The arabs say they just want to be left alone, and they want to be paid
> fairly for their oil. I wonder what they'll say when the day comes that
> they bring their oil, and they can't get us to trade with them because
> they simply have little or nothing of interest to us? If you stop
> burning oil, oil is basically nothing but greasy, smelly crap somebody
> dug out of the ground.
yeah Oil sux
i think we is in the decline as a whole
the western world that is
its not going to happen over night
but it will happen
headkase
headkase
Don't put words into my mouth
please post proof of any support that has passed my keyboard for the taliban
please post proof of my essays in the evils of America
fuck me
get off your emotional high horse and see that all i am doing i posting my
reaction to what i am seeing as world events, something i have every right
to do, my problem with this precedent is that it allows this alliance to do
this to any nation they see as dissenting form the popular world view
i am not saying all Americans are Evil
America as a nation may be an opportunistic predator, but wether or not that
be evil is a moral judgement i am not willing to make
headkase
Dan Nelson
>
> According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:58:16
> GMT, the Troll morr...@ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push back the
> boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>
> >In article <3BDB7214...@black-hole.com>, Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
> >>Optional Identity wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
> >>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
> >>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
> >>> at all takes any of it seriously.
> >>
> >>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
> >>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
> >>
> >It also defies a great deal of archaeological evidence.
>
> What utter bullshit this is.
>
> >>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
> >>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
> >>merit is intelligent.
> >>
> >>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
> >>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
> >>
> >Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
>
> Yep, you god botherer's will believe all manner of bullshit.
Heh. Well, I'm not really religious, and I'm not sure I'm even
Christian, although I suppose I lean that way just by virtue of a strong
Lutheran upbringing. I think it's fair to say I'm a theist, though I
don't know the form or nature of God...maybe the Muslims are right. How
the fuck should I know? But I personally believe the Bible, Koran, and
other religious texts have a lot to teach about how to live.
You, on the other hand are an obvious atheist. I've known atheists
before, and they generally fall into two camps. I have a friend Brett.
He is very vocal about his atheism. If I say "thank God", he gets on my
case about it and makes a snide comment or something, even though it's
just a figure of speech. He roundly denounces any and all religions.
I've avoided him since 9/11 just so I didn't have to listen to it. This
is the type of atheist that has fits when they see a Christmas tree and
boycott all businesses who display or sell them, raise hell when they
find out somebody has the chutzpah to put up a sign saying "God Bless
America", and hate any and all clergy, accusing them (as a class) of
being child molesters, tax evaders, etc.
The other camp of athiest is the thoughtful type who has been through
the available facts, maybe done some reading, searched their soul and
just can't find a god there. They fit that into their world view and
that's that. No trumpets, no fanfare, they just tolerate such
horrendous impositions on their Rights As An American as a fucking
Christmas tree in the courthouse. They see a sign that says "God Bless
America" and think to themselves "how quaint" and go about their
business. They refrain from publicly trampling on other people's
beliefs because it's the thing a kind person does. I prefer this kind,
and I think they could teach some Christians I know a thing or two about
the correct way to live a life.
The world would be a much better place if people would just lighten the
fuck up.
Optional Identity
GMT, the Troll morr...@pyrophore.ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push
back the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>In article <3kumttoq6pid4mhru...@4ax.com>, optional...@petitmorte.net wrote:
>>According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:58:16
>>GMT, the Troll morr...@ogoense.net (jet) attempted to push back the
>>boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>>
>>>In article <3BDB7214...@black-hole.com>, Dan Nelson
>> <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>>>>Optional Identity wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
>>>>> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
>>>>> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
>>>>> at all takes any of it seriously.
>>>>
>>>>*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
>>>>"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>>>>
>>>It also defies a great deal of archaeological evidence.
>>
>>What utter bullshit this is.
>>
>I see. This is yet another subject about which you know nothing
That's right Jet, a subject about which I know nothing, indeed.
So, you think you can prove the validity of the bible as some sort of
accurate historical document do you?
What do you know of the council of Nicea during the Reign of the
Emperor Constantine? For instance.
>>>>Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
>>>>is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
>>>>merit is intelligent.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
>>>>population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>>>>
>>>Me too but Opie is an intelek...intulec...intilex...smart ass.
>>
>>Yep, you god botherer's will believe all manner of bullshit.
>>
>You really are a major bigot, aren't you?
This is rich coming from you. I am a bigot because I don't believe the
lies you accept as truth?
Dan Nelson
>
> According to the old (pre-meow) calendar, on Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:48:52
> -0500, the Troll Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> attempted to push
> back the boundaries of post-contemporary UPA by poasting this in
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk :
>
> >Optional Identity wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Yes, yes, but the bible is a hastily cobbled together collection of
> >> heavily edited fairy stories, designed to convince the credulous that
> >> the priesthood is right about having god's ear. No-one who can think
> >> at all takes any of it seriously.
> >
> >*Wow*. This is really harsh, coming from someone talking about
> >"American arrogance". The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
>
> Dan, I have been discussing the perception of "American arrogance" in
> the muslim third world. There is a difference.
Okay, but to claim a firm knowledge that God doesn't exist is roughly
equivalent to the goddamned Muslim extremists who claim a man should be
shot if his beard isn't just the right length because God said so. I'm
always wary of anyone taking a very firm position on the specifics of
theism. It's something that's unknowable.
I mean, have you ever seen my cat? I have. And I'm telling you about
it. So now you know I have a cat (two, actually). But you're taking
that on my say-so...much the way theists take God's existence on the
say-so of some people that lived a long time ago. Now, stuff seen then
and taken as a miracle might seem pretty ordinary today, so a lot of it
was probably exaggerated, and other parts of it are stuff that was added
later to support the particular neurosis of whatever leader was in power
at the time, but there obviously was a bunch of really cool stuff that
happened around the year 0 in what is now Israel. I wasn't there, so
all I have to go by is the archeological and literary/recordkeeping
evidence, which suggests that a lot of people have believed all along
that some rabbi thought he was the son of God and a lot of people then
and now agreed with him.
A lot of very smart people have believed both ways in the past and
present, so there's no help trying to look at which way most "educated"
people go.
So I just go with what feels right to me. And I have a hunch that while
the world religions' dogma is likely a far bit off the mark, God is
there, and he/she/it does take an interest in the affairs of men,
although it may be the type of interest college students take in soap
operas.
> >Let me paraphrase, to make sure I understand you correctly. The Bible
> >is a worthless bunch of fairy stories, and nobody who believes it has
> >merit is intelligent.
> >
> >I suppose that makes me, and statistically well over 90% of the world's
> >population, morons. *shrug* I can live with that.
>
> You really think there is any truth in that book of self contradictory
> stupidity?
Well, there absolutely *is* truth in it...there's also misdirection.
There's a lot of allegory, metaphor, poetry, mistranslation, deception
or bias by translators, and a lot of other shit.
But I really, truly, down deep in my soul believe that the greatest and
truest part of the Bible reads something like "The greatest command I
give to you is that you love your neighbor as yourself". The golden
rule, baybee. If everybody lived by it, we'd already have figured out a
virtually endless source of energy and we would have figured out
interstellar (and possibly intergalactic) travel. The amount of loss
due to combat between people is unbelievable.
> Oh well, whatever.
Indeed.
Dan Nelson
And therein lies our major beef with each other. We are convinced that
religion should not be the basis for government. They cannot conceive
of any law but God's. Jesus' comment about "give to Ceaser what is
Ceaser's and give to God what is God's" was obviously lost on these
people.
And you're correct that they think we're kin of Satan, but that's just
the radicals. The moderates (and many non-muslims) *do* think we're
arrogant, and they're right. Most of us are also unapologetic about it,
and don't intend to change. What the hell does it hurt? I think my
country is the greatest in the world, and I don't *want* to live
anywhere else. Lots of other countries feel the same way.
You know what really pricks my spleen about that whole "American
arrogance" thing? WHAT THE HELL ABOUT FRENCH ARROGANCE???!!!11! The
French, pound for pound, are the most arrogant bastards that ever walked
the planet, and we're catching shit in the face while doing everything
we can to solve the world's problems in a politically correct way that
won't offend anyone. I've come to the conclusion that for the current
conflict, there's no way we can win unless we get *really* arrogant, and
just do what needs to be done as quickly as possible using all means
necessary. Compared with what happened in Iraq, the Taliban has had a
picnic in the park. I say we jack up the bombings to maximum heat for
about a week. Don't target civilians, but don't go to super pains to
avoid them. If troops are hiding among the civilians, damn the
civilians and bomb the troops. Any way we approach it, we're coming out
of this with a mouthful of shit, so we might as well achieve our
objective in the process.
How's that for un-PC? Christ, I'm turning into a right-wing nut as I
sit here.