Islamofascists: "Krag 'em and bag 'em."
Bill Levinson
"Like present-day Islamic extremists, the Moros [Spanish for
Islamofacists] believed they would be granted carnal rewards in the
afterlife if they shed the blood of infidels on Earth. Some Moros
reportedly bound their limbs with cords to inhibit blood loss if wounded
and worked themselves into religious frenzy before 'going Juarmentado.'"
The Americans then used the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifle, which had
serious trouble stopping one of these fanatics. The Americans resorted
to measures like filing off the tips of their bullets (turning them into
dum-dum rounds-- this was before the Hague and Geneva Conventions) but
it didn't help. "...the third, shot through the chest, continues his
rush. The corporal thrust with his bayonet, and the Moro Moslem frenzy
forced his body to receive the whole of it, clear to the muzzle. The
downword swing of the kris split the corporal's skull to the teeth. The
cartridges had been dum-dum."
So, like a crazed rabid dog or spitted boar, even shooting and then
bayoneting a frenzied Islamofascist was not enough to stop him. They are
indeed mad dogs.
--Bill
Peter H Proctor
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
> From "The American Rifleman," July 2004.
>The Americans then used the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifle, which had
>serious trouble stopping one of these fanatics.
Actually, the main complaint was the relative weakness of the
38 cal. army revolver. One result was that the next US military
handgun came in 45 ACP, with much more stopping power.
A ditty from this war: went: "Underneath the starry flag, civilize
'em with an Krag".
PHP
Bill Levinson
Peter H Proctor wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:52:16 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>From "The American Rifleman," July 2004.
>
>
>>The Americans then used the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifle, which had
>>serious trouble stopping one of these fanatics.
>
>
> Actually, the main complaint was the relative weakness of the
> 38 cal. army revolver. One result was that the next US military
> handgun came in 45 ACP, with much more stopping power.
The article says that obsolete .45 Colt revolvers were brought back into
service for the Philippine campaign. The .45 ACP was introduced in 1911
for exactly this reason.
> A ditty from this war: went: "Underneath the starry flag, civilize
> 'em with an Krag".
>
> PHP
Sounds good to me!
--Bill
Peter H Proctor
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>Peter H Proctor wrote:
>> A ditty from this war: went: "Underneath the starry flag, civilize
>> 'em with an Krag".
>Sounds good to me!
To this day, the song is sung at meetings of an organization
of US military officers called the "order of the carabao".
http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/insurrecto/empire_strikes_back.html
"This Saturday, more than a thousand of America's top military and
government leaders and their guests are scheduled to gather at the
Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, for a secretive tribal rite
called the 103rd Annual Wallow of the Military Order of the Carabao.
And they won't be singing "Kumbaya."......."
A Guns and Ammo article on the Krag:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/1896_krag/
In the mid-50's, you could buy a pretty good Krag thru the NRA
civilian marksmanship program for about $10.
PHP
phantom
Nothing a little Sarin or VX gas won't fix.
You know - the kind that causes convulsions so severe it snaps bones
likes twigs.
Now that's my idea of a dance party - 4 or 5 hundred million ragheads
doing that horizontal "break" dance all in one shot.
I bet it would feel like a stampede.
Pat H.
Interesting that you'd bring up the war into which the USG inserted
itself illegally, killing 200,000 filipinos in the process, sometimes
whole villages.
Must you flaunt your warmongering?
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You might want to look at all the lyrics and verses. This is not the
>song of an army with good morale.
snip.....
>Damn, Damn, Damn the Filipinos!
>Cross-eyed kakiac ladrones!
>Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
>And return us to our own beloved homes!
Good perception--- The song apparently originated with
volunteer militia forces (a la the "Rough Riders") assigned to the
Phillipines right after the Spanish-American war. They were
resentful because they had signed up to free Cuba and not for a messy
colonial war.
Thus, the ironic reference to their nominal goal of
"civilizing" the natives, so they could go home. They were soon
mostly replaced by regular troops who took up the song.
This same war gave rise to Ripling's straight-faced poetic
injunction to "Take up the White Man's Burden".
"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."
"Civilize em with a Krag" directly expressed the same goals.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
>> http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
>
>Interesting that you'd bring up the war into which the USG inserted
>itself illegally, killing 200,000 filipinos in the process, sometimes
>whole villages.
>
>Must you flaunt your warmongering?
Not so simple. The war against the Moros was a separate war
from the Phillipine insurrection per se. These were not nice
people--- Major US goals were the supression of the slave trade,
raiding, and piracy. Interesting history at
http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html
The Moros continue to cause problems for the Phillipines to this day.
PHP
Pat H.
The problem you'd have...is me.
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
That's true, Peter, it's a Philippine problem now, just as it
was then. The filipino's know what to do with them.
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised at the USG's actions
suppressing the filipino's bid for self government, it had been
less than 40 years since it's aggressive suppression of the
Confederacy's attempt at freedom.
Pat
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:58:13 -0500, Peter H Proctor
><d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
>>>Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
>>>And return us to our own beloved homes!
>>
>> Good perception--- The song apparently originated with
>>volunteer militia forces (a la the "Rough Riders") assigned to the
>>Phillipines right after the Spanish-American war. They were
>>resentful because they had signed up to free Cuba and not for a messy
>>colonial war.
>
>I do Military History and one of my specialties is how Units over time
>build cohesion and morale by tradition and ritual. Lessons which the
>American Military has forgotten.
The ultimate irony is that a song invented by resentful and bitter
volunteer troops has become the centerpiece of the "ritual and
tradition" of the most Regular of Military clubs, the Order of the
Carabao.
PHP
Christopher Morton
wrote:
Pat's got that whole "Orwellian" thing down, slavery is freedom, etc.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Pat H.
On the contrary, my sympathies lie with the seekers of self government
and in opposition to the centralized, fascist state.
You, on the other hand, are a diehard fascist of the first order,
supporting global wars of aggression for the glory of the warfare
state.
Pat Hines
Bill Levinson
Pat H. wrote:
I would be very much against using these weapons on enemy SOLDIERS--
ordinary guys who just have the misfortune to be wearing the wrong color
uniforms.
As for subhuman filth that saw off hostages' heads-- if someone were to
use Sarin, VX, the stuff that was used in WWI, sawtooth bayonets, or
dum-dum bullets on them, I would not care one little bit. Gas 'em like
cockroaches; they deserve it.
Bill Levinson
Peter H Proctor wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2004 15:52:57 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
>>
>>Interesting that you'd bring up the war into which the USG inserted
>>itself illegally, killing 200,000 filipinos in the process, sometimes
>>whole villages.
>>
>>Must you flaunt your warmongering?
>
>
> Not so simple. The war against the Moros was a separate war
> from the Phillipine insurrection per se. These were not nice
> people--- Major US goals were the supression of the slave trade,
> raiding, and piracy.
Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
Polaris
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
>slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
>
America is ruled by the Jews and its only motive is to serve the
Jew devils.
An Israeli Bulldozer killed an American student, Rachel Corrie, trying
to
stop the destruction of Palestinian homes.
Excerpts from an e-mail from Rachel Corrie to her family on
February 7, 2003 from the Gaza Strip.
I have been in Palestine for two weeks and one hour now, and I
still have very few words to describe what I see. It is most difficult
for me to think about what's going on here when I sit down to write
back to the United States--something about the virtual portal into
luxury. I don't know if many of the children here have ever existed
without tank-shell holes in their walls and the towers of an occupying
army surveying them constantly from the near horizons. I think,
although I'm not entirely sure, that even the smallest of these
children
understand that life is not like this everywhere. An eight-year-old
was
shot and killed by an Israeli tank two days before I got here, and
many
of the children murmur his name to me, Ali--or point at the posters of
him on the walls. The children also love to get me to practice my
limited Arabic by asking me "Kaif Sharon?" "Kaif Bush?" and they
laugh when I say "Bush Majnoon" "Sharon Majnoon" back in my
limited Arabic. (How is Sharon? How is Bush? Bush is crazy. Sharon
is crazy.) Of course this isn't quite what I believe, and some of the
adults who have the English correct me: Bush mish Majnoon... Bush
is a businessman. Today I tried to learn to say "Bush is a tool", but
I
don't think it translated quite right. But anyway, there are
eight-year-
olds here much more aware of the workings of the global power
structure than I was just a few years ago--at least regarding Israel.
Nevertheless, I think about the fact that no amount of reading,
attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of
mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here.
You just can't imagine it unless you see it, and even then you are
always well aware that your experience is not at all the reality: what
with the difficulties the Israeli Army would face if they shot an
unarmed
US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the
army destroys wells, and, of course, the fact that I have the option
of
leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a
rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my
hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean.
Ostensibly it is still quite difficult for me to be held for months or
years
on end without a trial (this because I am a white US citizen, as
opposed
to so many others). When I leave for school or work I can be
relatively
certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting half
way
between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint?a soldier
with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and
whether I can get home again when I'm done. So, if I feel outrage
at arriving and entering briefly and incompletely into the world in
which these children exist, I wonder conversely about how it would
be for them to arrive in my world.
They know that children in the United States don't usually have their
parents shot and they know they sometimes get to see the ocean.
But once you have seen the ocean and lived in a silent place, where
water is taken for granted and not stolen in the night by bulldozers,
and once you have spent an evening when you haven't wondered if
the walls of your home might suddenly fall inward waking you from
your sleep, and once you've met people who have never lost anyone--
once you have experienced the reality of a world that isn't surrounded
by murderous towers, tanks, armed "settlements" and now a giant
metal wall, I wonder if you can forgive the world for all the years of
your childhood spent existing--just existing--in resistance to the
constant stranglehold of the world's fourth largest military--backed
by
the world's only superpower--in it's attempt to erase you from your
home. That is something I wonder about these children. I wonder
what would happen if they really knew.
As an afterthought to all this rambling, I am in Rafah, a city of
about
140,000 people, approximately 60 percent of whom are refugees--
many of whom are twice or three times refugees. Rafah existed prior
to 1948, but most of the people here are themselves or are descendants
of people who were relocated here from their homes in historic
Palestine--now Israel. Rafah was split in half when the Sinai returned
to Egypt. Currently, the Israeli army is building a
fourteen-meter-high
wall between Rafah in Palestine and the border, carving a no-mans land
from the houses along the border. Six hundred and two homes have
been completely bulldozed according to the Rafah Popular Refugee
Committee. The number of homes that have been partially destroyed
is greater.
Today as I walked on top of the rubble where homes once stood,
Egyptian soldiers called to me from the other side of the border,
"Go! Go!" because a tank was coming. Followed by waving and
"what's your name?". There is something disturbing about this
friendly curiosity. It reminded me of how much, to some degree, we
are all kids curious about other kids: Egyptian kids shouting at
strange
women wandering into the path of tanks. Palestinian kids shot from
the tanks when they peak out from behind walls to see what's going
on. International kids standing in front of tanks with banners.
Israeli
kids in the tanks anonymously, occasionally shouting-- and also
occasionally waving--many forced to be here, many just aggressive,
shooting into the houses as we wander away.
In addition to the constant presence of tanks along the border and
in the western region between Rafah and settlements along the coast,
there are more IDF towers here than I can count--along the horizon,at
the end of streets. Some just army green metal. Others these strange
spiral staircases draped in some kind of netting to make the activity
within anonymous. Some hidden,just beneath the horizon of buildings.
A new one went up the other day in the time it took us to do laundry
and to cross town twice to hang banners. Despite the fact that some of
the areas nearest the border are the original Rafah with families who
have lived on this land for at least a century, only the 1948 camps in
the center of the city are Palestinian controlled areas under Oslo.
But
as far as I can tell, there are few if any places that are not within
the
sights of some tower or another. Certainly there is no place
invulnerable to apache helicopters or to the cameras of invisible
drones we hear buzzing over the city for hours at a time.
I've been having trouble accessing news about the outside world here,
but I hear an escalation of war on Iraq is inevitable. There is a
great
deal of concern here about the "reoccupation of Gaza." Gaza is
reoccupied every day to various extents, but I think the fear is that
the
tanks will enter all the streets and remain here, instead of entering
some of the streets and then withdrawing after some hours or days to
observe and shoot from the edges of the communities. If people aren't
already thinking about the consequences of this war for the people of
the entire region then I hope they will start.
I also hope you'll come here. We've been wavering between five
and six internationals. The neighborhoods that have asked us for
some form of presence are Yibna, Tel El Sultan, Hi Salam, Brazil,
Block J, Zorob, and Block O. There is also need for constant night-
time presence at a well on the outskirts of Rafah since the Israeli
army destroyed the two largest wells. According to the municipal
water office the wells destroyed last week provided half of Rafah's
water supply. Many of the communities have requested internationals
to be present at night to attempt to shield houses from further
demolition. After about ten p.m. it is very difficult to move at night
because the Israeli army treats anyone in the streets as resistance
and shoots at them. So clearly we are too few.
I continue to believe that my home, Olympia, could gain a lot and
offer
a lot by deciding to make a commitment to Rafah in the form of a
sister-community relationship. Some teachers and children's groups
have expressed interest in e-mail exchanges, but this is only the tip
of
the iceberg of solidarity work that might be done. Many people want
their voices to be heard, and I think we need to use some of our
privilege as internationals to get those voices heard directly in the
US,
rather than through the filter of well-meaning internationals such as
myself. I am just beginning to learn, from what I expect to be a very
intense tutelage, about the ability of people to organize against all
odds,
and to resist against all odds.
Thanks for the news I've been getting from friends in the US. I just
read a report back from a friend who organized a peace group in
Shelton, Washington, and was able to be part of a delegation to the
large January 18th protest in Washington DC. People here watch the
media, and they told me again today that there have been large
protests in the United States and "problems for the government" in the
UK. So thanks for allowing me to not feel like a complete polyanna
when I tentatively tell people here that many people in the United
States
do not support the policies of our government, and that we are
learning
from global examples how to resist.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
wrote:
Yo, Chrissie! Where y'all been, boy?
Asmodeus
news:sv6kd0hdit5uq86qj...@4ax.com:
> An Israeli Bulldozer killed an American student, Rachel Corrie, trying
> to stop the destruction of Palestinian homes
Too bad that doesn't happen here more often, with all the greenie
morons squatting in trees.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
Christopher Morton
Trying to get my foot out of your ass.
Bill Levinson
John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>>As for subhuman filth that saw off hostages' heads-- if someone were to
>>use Sarin, VX, the stuff that was used in WWI, sawtooth bayonets, or
>>dum-dum bullets on them, I would not care one little bit. Gas 'em like
>>cockroaches; they deserve it.
>
>
> Sarin and VX were not used in WWI. In fact the gases used in WWI
> were relatively ineffective.
I know that Sarin and VX were developed later but the stuff they had in
WWI (chlorine, bromine, mustard) were pretty horrible. They could cause
internal and external chemical burns. Phosgene kills by changing the
blood pH (making it acidic) as I recall.
> I see to you buy into the myth of the dum-dum. Not had much
> experience with the real weapons war and what works and what doesn't.
Myth? Dum-dums were outlawed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions because
they inflict unnecessarily horrible wounds.
> As for any bayonet, if you have to use one, you have screwed up
> monumentally and should be stripped of rank and drummed out.
With a bolt-action weapon, you might only get off one shot before the
other guy is on top of you.
The Russian marshal Suvorov (18th century) liked bayonet attacks due to
their shock value. Even Patton (recognizing the greater influence of
fire) pointed out that sabres and bayonets could still demoralize the
enemy but you had to get close enough to use them.
Suvorov's record was, by the way, 63-0.
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:22 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
> >slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
> >
> America is ruled by the Jews and its only motive is to serve the
> Jew devils.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
> >slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
> >
> America is ruled by the Jews and its only motive is to serve the
> Jew devils.
Christopher Morton
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I know that Sarin and VX were developed later but the stuff they had in
>>WWI (chlorine, bromine, mustard) were pretty horrible. They could cause
>>internal and external chemical burns. Phosgene kills by changing the
>>blood pH (making it acidic) as I recall.
>
>And none were very effective weapons.
Anybody who was at Ypres would disagree.
SpeedTyrd's hero Hitler would disagree too.
>>> As for any bayonet, if you have to use one, you have screwed up
>>> monumentally and should be stripped of rank and drummed out.
>>
>>With a bolt-action weapon, you might only get off one shot before the
>>other guy is on top of you.
>
>We don't fight with bolt action weapon today.
That would suprise Marine and Army snipers... and the Taliban and
Iraqi militias as well.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Polaris <Polar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sv6kd0hdit5uq86qj...@4ax.com>...
Yeah, but you'd need a proctologist to find it....
Bill Levinson
John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:09:32 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Bill Levinson
>>><wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>snipped
>>>
>>>
>>>>As for subhuman filth that saw off hostages' heads-- if someone were to
>>>>use Sarin, VX, the stuff that was used in WWI, sawtooth bayonets, or
>>>>dum-dum bullets on them, I would not care one little bit. Gas 'em like
>>>>cockroaches; they deserve it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sarin and VX were not used in WWI. In fact the gases used in WWI
>>>were relatively ineffective.
>>
>>I know that Sarin and VX were developed later but the stuff they had in
>>WWI (chlorine, bromine, mustard) were pretty horrible. They could cause
>>internal and external chemical burns. Phosgene kills by changing the
>>blood pH (making it acidic) as I recall.
>
>
> And none were very effective weapons.
>
>
>>>I see to you buy into the myth of the dum-dum. Not had much
>>>experience with the real weapons war and what works and what doesn't.
>>
>>Myth? Dum-dums were outlawed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions because
>>they inflict unnecessarily horrible wounds.
>
>
> Do you even know what a Dum Dum is?
>
> http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html
>
> It's great power is a myth.
> Go learn something about wound ballistics.
>
>
>>>As for any bayonet, if you have to use one, you have screwed up
>>>monumentally and should be stripped of rank and drummed out.
>>
>>With a bolt-action weapon, you might only get off one shot before the
>>other guy is on top of you.
>
>
> We don't fight with bolt action weapon today.
>
> The purpose of the bayonet was to give infantry the ability which
> pikes had before the invention of firearms. You need to study more
> about the development of arms.
This was indeed a principal purpose of the bayonet. And bolt-action
rifles were state-of-the-art during the Moro Uprising. Great Britain and
Germany, in fact, got along quite well through WWII with bolt-action
weapons.
>>The Russian marshal Suvorov (18th century) liked bayonet attacks due to
>>their shock value. Even Patton (recognizing the greater influence of
>>fire) pointed out that sabres and bayonets could still demoralize the
>>enemy but you had to get close enough to use them.
>
>
> You don't fight 21tst century war with the ideas of 18th century
> Russian Generals.
Suvorov would have easily recognized Patton's doctrine and tactics,
albeit modified in accordance with prevailing military technology.
Mobility, maneuver, and shock were still paramount although the shock
was delivered by armor instead of horse cavalry.
Suvorov used bayonet charges very effectively against contemporary
infantry but he would not have tried them on infantry with even the
firing power of the late 19th century. He would have modified his
tactics to account for the increased firepower of rifles and machine
guns. (The French and even British failed to do this in 1914.)
> Patton was a romantic. Harim Maxim and John Browning ended the need
> for the bayonet.
Patton beat the &(*&# out of every German army he fought.
Yes, machine guns are quite deadly if you charge them head-on, the way
the French did in WWI. (No wonder they always got beaten.) If you can
outmaneuver or silence them, however, it becomes another matter.
Peter H Proctor
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>I know that Sarin and VX were developed later but the stuff they had in
>WWI (chlorine, bromine, mustard) were pretty horrible. They could cause
>internal and external chemical burns.
Mustard gas causes chemical burns. It was in use until fairly late
as a potential "area denial weapon"
> Phosgene kills by changing the blood pH (making it acidic) as I recall.
Mainly it causes really bad pulmonary edema. BTW, Phosgene is a
significant chemical precurser in industry.
>Myth? Dum-dums were outlawed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions because
>they inflict unnecessarily horrible wounds.
Actually, Dumm-Dumms were the precurser of expanding ammo, which is
still legal for domestic use. BTW, cast lead bullets are also
illegal-- FMJ only. A more recent "work-around" has been to
lighten the front of long bullets to make the tumbel in flesh. BTW,
to the usual suspects-- I said "In Flesh", not in flight an I heard
this at a pathologist's convention presented by researchers for the
AFIP. The horses mouth....
PHP
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Bill Levinson
><wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>Sarin and VX were not used in WWI. In fact the gases used in WWI
>were relatively ineffective.
Chemical weapons in general are not of much battlefield use.
While on paper, they seem to be extraordinarily effective, this
requires some very special rare circumstances. Further, they can be
protected against relatively easily--- "Armor" is a sheet of rubber
and the antidotes are pretty effective if given in a timely manner.
Thus, most of the time, given the choice between a given
weigh of TNT or a chemical weapon in a bomb or artillery shell, the
obvious choice will be TNT. In fact, the primary military use is
area denial ( mustard agents hang around ) and forcing troops into
protective gear, which degrades their performance.
The main direct miltary use of chemical weapons is agaist
unprotected civilian or military populations. In fact, this is how
Saddam used them.
Dr Proctor-- medical Toxicologist
Christopher Morton
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:56:05 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:17:56 GMT, John A. Stovall
>><johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>I know that Sarin and VX were developed later but the stuff they had in
>>>>WWI (chlorine, bromine, mustard) were pretty horrible. They could cause
>>>>internal and external chemical burns. Phosgene kills by changing the
>>>>blood pH (making it acidic) as I recall.
>>>
>>>And none were very effective weapons.
>>
>>Anybody who was at Ypres would disagree.
>
>Didn't change to course of the war.
Neither did rifles and machineguns.
They were however of some importance.
Christopher Morton
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>Suvorov would have easily recognized Patton's doctrine and tactics,
General principles are the same whether you're fighting with obsidian
axes or armored vehicles.
Patton and Suvorov understood the fundamentals: speed, decisiveness,
economy of force, unity of command, etc.
>Patton beat the &(*&# out of every German army he fought.
He out Rommeled Rommel, and frequently with inferior equipment.
>Yes, machine guns are quite deadly if you charge them head-on, the way
>the French did in WWI. (No wonder they always got beaten.) If you can
>outmaneuver or silence them, however, it becomes another matter.
Actually, the French saw the handwriting on the wall, and threw in the
towl after the Nivelle debacle. The Brits stuck with it to the bitter
end. It was only fresh American manpower that prevented a collapse
into a negotiated settlement.
Christopher Morton
<d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>Actually, Dumm-Dumms were the precurser of expanding ammo, which is
>still legal for domestic use. BTW, cast lead bullets are also
>illegal-- FMJ only. A more recent "work-around" has been to
>lighten the front of long bullets to make the tumbel in flesh. BTW,
>to the usual suspects-- I said "In Flesh", not in flight an I heard
>this at a pathologist's convention presented by researchers for the
>AFIP. The horses mouth....
Lately, Army lawyers have determined that the Sierra Matchking target
bullet isn't an "expanding" bullet, even though it has a hollow point.
In practical terms, they're right. I haven't shot anybody with one
(maybe the Nazis will grow a testicle between them, and I'll get to
write a review) but those 175gr. Sierras sure shoot well at 600 yards.
Polaris
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> believe the very heart and soul
> of conservatism is libertarianism
> --Ronald Reagan
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Polaris
by Edgar J. Steele
Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to
say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to
Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings
from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's
safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.
From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had
proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to
death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia?s Beth Shalom
synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark,
hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's
anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard
denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America
carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such
classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."
The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements
particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they
had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course,
that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's
favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector -
$366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin -
$564,858).
What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls?
Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to
him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to
listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any
wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby
groups.
There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er,
contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just
to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews
who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions,
such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel
was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look,
you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just
make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn
that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now
come from Jews?
Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman
from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in
the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you
know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it
took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been
paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in
America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The
coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for
good.
I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really
want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz?
And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the
river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting
their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with
whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and
against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile,
on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching
back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first
American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed
low before Zionism.
"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry
- which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against
them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and
small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another."
Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6,
1991.
John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.
Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word
on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's
available once again, in a new, expanded edition at
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf. Do yourself a
favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give
your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid
upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print
because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the
water).
During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred
to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing
behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The
faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind
before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them
every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this
specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so
many.
Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been
a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing,
the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being
blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let
alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into
question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all,
but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary
discussions.
George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those
assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the
same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny.
They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill
without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the
innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something
with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Problem is, we are the terrorists, because it is America that burns
with hatred these days. America that hates those who reject its grim
vision of democracy. America that hates so many who know the real
meaning of freedom. America that kills women without mercy. America
that kills children without shame. You and the Jewish organ grinders
for whom you are but a dancing monkey count your victories in the
deaths of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis. You have shamed us and
you have condemned us all to Hell, right along with you and your
Jewish masters.
George the Second also told the AIPAC audience that "(W)e have a duty
to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found." He
followed that up with "The demonization of Israel...can be a flimsy
cover for anti-Semitism." With those two statements, George the
Second made crystal clear where his loyalties lie with regard to the
mushrooming portion of America's population that objects to our Middle
Eastern campaign of conquest: With Israel and against America, that's
where.
Could it be any more clearly stated, folks? Of course, George is the
same fellow who gave new life to the phrase, "yer either with us or
agin us." At least, now we know what he meant by "us," and it most
assuredly isn't us, fellow Americans.
In contrast to what George the Second thinks, I rather liked what
Fritz Hollings had to say in response to his Jewish critics from the
Senate floor two days ago: "I want them to apologize to me. Talking
about 'anti-Semitic.' They're not getting by with it."
Finland avoided military invasion and conquest by Joseph Stalin's
Soviet Union back in the 1940s by adopting a Soviet-style government,
paying fealty to the USSR and otherwise acting just as it would, had
it been conquered by force. Today, the US has gone along with
International Zionism in precisely the same fashion: installing
Jewish and Christian Zionists in all governmental power points, bowing
to the wishes of Israel's lobbyists, removing Christianity from
America's culture by edict of an increasingly-Jewish judiciary,
fighting Israel's fights and even purging those who disagree with
foreign Jews pushing Zionism by imprisoning its own citizen political
dissidents on phony charges. Of course, Finland had the example of
20-80 million Russian Christians executed right next door early last
century, simply for being anti-Semitic, a lesson that America seems to
have forgotten. The term "Finlandization" has come to refer to
quislings like Finland and, now, America.
I will be speaking at the Duke International European American Unity
and Leadership Conference in New Orleans this next weekend, May 28-30.
Call 985-626-7714 or go here to reserve on line. From David Duke's
web site promoting the conference: "The leaders who will be present
at the conference recognize that the enormous media and financial
power of Zionism is not just a Palestinian problem, but the greatest
single threat to the European and other peoples of the world. The
Unity and Leadership conference is about setting an effective agenda
for the restoration of our rights, freedoms and heritage." You who
follow this list regularly know that I will be pulling no punches in
pursuit of this very agenda during my speech. And, yes, it is that
David Duke: the ex-Congressman.
For those who have indicated an interest in going, but been reluctant
to sign up because my name does not appear on the list of scheduled
speakers, rest easy. It's right there - I'm one of the "other
prominent speakers." Be assured that I will be speaking, even if I
have to do it on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And I make it a
point of honor at these affairs to attend all proceedings and to be
available to members of this list at all times throughout.
Already, Mark Potok of the very Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center,
one of Zionism's many American apologist-cum-attack dogs, is calling
this a world-class gathering of anti-Semites. To him, I say: Unlike
Mr. Hollings, no apology to me is necessary. Just remember, though,
that's Mr. Anti-Semite to you!
New America. An idea whose time has come.
Subscribe: Send email with "subscribe" in subject line to
subs...@conspiracypenpal.com
Polaris
wrote:
> Do you have any proof?
>
Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused
to
help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express
this
conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the
catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the
past
35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until
Israel
withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any
determined
president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win
overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these
facts
before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to
annex
the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become
Greater
Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli
politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater
Israel is a
reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed,
aggressive, and
influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined
to
prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West
Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of
eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing
the
territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism,
Israeli
forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere
to be
found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured.
Some
are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed.
Entire
cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting
for
weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are
routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are
undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration
camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps
Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most
Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in
most
countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli
violations of
the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all
major
religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S.
lobby
began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S.
role in
the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public
awareness
the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to
Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open
discussion
of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government
all
these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the
House
of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli
military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as
well
as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16
years
and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in
either
chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East
policy.
No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been
offered for
20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more
than a
handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in
private
conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic,
if not
anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when
those
few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and
Reps. Paul
"Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were
defeated
at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily
biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs
year
after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally
lop-sided
in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if
it
were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news
media
candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's
complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my
dear
friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated
arms,
completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide
anger
against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or
listens to
BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin
Laden,
believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S.
complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a
principal
complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express
their
opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity,
especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against
Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every
government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions
of
higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S.
Jews who
object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality...
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to
redress
grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene
far
worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an
alliance
that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the
fact
that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of
Palestinians
as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in
authority will
admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the
American
people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered
9/11
and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because
U.S.
policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of
helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should
suspend
all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in
1967.
The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal
from
office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister
who is
at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can
justify
the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in
winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a
worthy
precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that
freed
only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the
restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long
years of
bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois
for
22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of
the
American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
Also See: http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Citizens for Fair Legislation ALERT: NO NEW AID TO ISRAEL
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1556560.php
Congressman Paul Findley: Liberating America From Israel
http://www.mediamonitors.net/findley2.html
Pat Buchanan: Why Politicians Prefer Israel over American
Interest?
http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html
Israeli Minister - 'We've Become Barbarians'
http://rense.com/general33/become.htm
Wales Politician Compares Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12498073
&method=full&siteid=50082
Israel's image of liberal democracy takes a battering
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/04/wisr04.xml&s
Sheet=/news/2003/01/04/ixworld.html
Israel Bans Christian Politician and Party from Election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1845530.stm
Israel to Expel Christian Politician and non-Jewish Parties from
Knesset
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,866348,00.html
Row over Arabs' election ban
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/01/wisr01.
xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/01/ixnewstop.html
How Americas Zionist controlled media spin the facts.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/98414_comment.php
American Media Controlled by Israeli Supporters
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Eric+Alterman+MSNBC+Israel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3caaa1d0_1%40news.tm.net.my&rnum=1
The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer
http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
Direct Financial Cost of Israel to US: $1.6 trillion and
growing
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
MAKING MERCHANDISE OUT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD: SELLING THE UPCOMING
WAR IN
IRAQ http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/m2_s1.html
Zionism Unbound - Vidal Gored 16 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm
'It's Time To Get Tough With Israel' - Patriotic US Army Brig
General
http://www.rense.com/general33/tough.htm
Israel's Policy Of 'Covert Aggression'
http://www.rense.com/general31/ze.htm
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/rokach.html
The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
http://rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM
Christian Coalition Abandonment of Palestinian Christians is
Hypocritical http://www.mediamonitors.net/sherri64.html
Where does world-famous televangelist's money go?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845747.asp#BODY
Christian Patriarch of Holy Land calls for end of Oppressive
Israeli
occupation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604761.stm
Zionism versus the Bible - Peace and Jutice on Earth or the
Extremism of
the 'Christian' Right? http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson4.html
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - Christianity & The NWO
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
No Joy in Bethlehem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,865083,00.html
'Saddest Christmas Ever' in Bethlehem
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021225&cat=news&st=newsmideas
tdc
For Unbiased News, visit:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.rense.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.thenation.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.counterpunch.com/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.progressive.org/
http://www.yellowtimes.org/
http://www.latimes.com/
For Good Analysis and Commentary, visit:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
http://www.iacenter.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
http://www.nader.org/public_interest.html
http://reese.king-online.com/
http://fair.org/media-beat/
http://avnery-news.co.il/english/
Please distribute....
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
wrote:
You hallucinating again, boy. Just say NO to drugs.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
wrote:
The nigra's been in the crack den again?
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On 24 Jun 2004 09:10:15 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito)
> wrote:
>
>
> > Do you have any proof?
> >
> Liberating America From Israel
>
> by Paul Findley
>
> Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused
> to
> help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express
> this
> conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the
> catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the
> past
> 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until
> Israel
> withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On 24 Jun 2004 09:09:46 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito)
> wrote:
>
> >Polaris <Polar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sv6kd0hdit5uq86qj...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:22 GMT, Bill Levinson
> >> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
> >> >slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
> >> >
> >> America is ruled by the Jews and its only motive is to serve the
> >> Jew devils.
> > Do you have any proof?
>
> Yeah, but you'd need a proctologist to find it....
their word for it.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:42:22 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yankee pigs won't let those Islamofascists have any fun... stamping out
> >slavery and piracy? How awful of us!
> >
> America is ruled by the Jews and its only motive is to serve the
> Jew devils.
>
>
> to
> stop the destruction of Palestinian homes.
>
Rachel Corrie was a stupid bitch who played chicken with a bulldozer and lost.
Michael
Pat H.
The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
the United States sought war with them via an invasion, just as it did
with western indians, Spain, Germany in WWI, and now Iraq.
> Or militarist Japan?
> Michael
Yes, just like Japan in the 1930's, the USG seeks war all around the
globe.
Pat Hines
Pat H.
> On 23 Jun 2004 08:00:10 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito)
> wrote:
>
> >"Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines" <fas...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<%y7Cc.91511$eu.34878@attbi_s02>...
> >> Peter H Proctor wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 22 Jun 2004 15:52:57 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
> >> >>
> >> >>Interesting that you'd bring up the war into which the USG inserted
> >> >>itself illegally, killing 200,000 filipinos in the process, sometimes
> >> >>whole villages.
> >> >>
> >> >>Must you flaunt your warmongering?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Not so simple. The war against the Moros was a separate war
> >> > from the Phillipine insurrection per se. These were not nice
> >> > people--- Major US goals were the supression of the slave trade,
> >> > raiding, and piracy. Interesting history at
> >> >
> >> > http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html
> >> >
> >> > The Moros continue to cause problems for the Phillipines to this day.
> >> >
> >> > PHP
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's true, Peter, it's a Philippine problem now, just as it
> >> was then. The filipino's know what to do with them.
> >>
> >> I guess we shouldn't be too surprised at the USG's actions
> >> suppressing the filipino's bid for self government, it had been
> >> less than 40 years since it's aggressive suppression of the
> >> Confederacy's attempt at freedom.
> >>
> >> Pat
> > Your sympathies lie with the slavemasters,whatever their ethnicity.
>
Actually, that'd be you and the other sociofascist warmongers writing
in this newsgroup wherein "War is Peace", they waged war against Iraq
to force peace upon them, killing approximately 60,000 Iraqi soldiers
and 15,000 civilians. Those are really peaceful now.
Pat Hines
Bill Levinson
Polaris wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:29:05 GMT, Asmodeus
> <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>believe the very heart and soul
>> of conservatism is libertarianism
>> --Ronald Reagan
>
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
> corrupt the culture of the nation.
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will.
That is libertarians, not leftists.
> This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
Poisoning people harms others. Neither Libertarians nor Wiccans would
condone it.
> The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Which harms whom? (Prostitution must be regulated, of course, to prevent
abuse of the women by their pimps and the spread of VD. Drugs also
require regulation.)
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
> the nation better.
PLEASE STOP EQUATING LIBERTARIANS WITH DIRTY COERCIVE COLLECTIVIST LEFTISTS!
> There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
That should be illegal, just as it is illegal for heterosexual couples
to have sex in public.
> This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
> who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
> should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
> stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
> philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
>
> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want.
And leftist coercive collectivists want to steal the money of the
wealthy (and middle class) to squander on government programs.
> They have the same philosophy
> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
> that the state can't tell them what they can't do.
You would hate our Founding Fathers, then.
> People don't like
> laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
> that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
> want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
> but good laws would make a nation good.
>
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
> Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
> that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
> Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
No, the Communists wanted to rule the world like Nazis and Fascists.
They are just two sides of the same (bad) coin.
Christopher Morton
>Actually, that'd be you and the other sociofascist warmongers writing
>in this newsgroup wherein "War is Peace", they waged war against Iraq
>to force peace upon them, killing approximately 60,000 Iraqi soldiers
>and 15,000 civilians. Those are really peaceful now.
Fortunately, I think we killed a lot more Confederates.
Christopher Morton
>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
...Which turned out to be somewhat of an error in judgement... like
Pearl Harbor and 9/11. But then the enemies of liberty such as Tojo,
Bin Laden and Jeff Davis tend to be a bit dim.
Polaris
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
>> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
>> harm none, do what will you will.
>
>That is libertarians, not leftists.
I don't see a difference.
>
>> This sounds nice, but like the apple
>> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within.
>
>Poisoning people harms others. Neither Libertarians nor Wiccans would
>condone it.
The apple had literal poison, while the Wiccans views have symbolic
poison. The apple kills an individual, while the Wiccans kill a
society.
>
>> The Rede of
>> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
>> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
>
>Which harms whom? (Prostitution must be regulated, of course, to prevent
>abuse of the women by their pimps and the spread of VD. Drugs also
>require regulation.)
They should be outlawed.
>
>> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
>> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
>> the nation better.
>
>PLEASE STOP EQUATING LIBERTARIANS WITH DIRTY COERCIVE COLLECTIVIST LEFTISTS!
You are for legalizing prostitution and heroin. You are what I call
a leftist.
>
>> There are beaches where normal families will not go
>> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
>
>That should be illegal, just as it is illegal for heterosexual couples
>to have sex in public.
Almost good. But you are for legalized homosexual perversion. You
are liberal. It's true that the whole country is liberal. but a
hundred years ago you would be the far left.
>>
>> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
>> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want.
>
>And leftist coercive collectivists want to steal the money of the
>wealthy (and middle class) to squander on government programs.
>
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
>
>> They have the same philosophy
>> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
>> that the state can't tell them what they can't do.
>
>You would hate our Founding Fathers, then.
America wasn't very liberal in the past. In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was
arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>
>No, the Communists wanted to rule the world like Nazis and Fascists.
>They are just two sides of the same (bad) coin.
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."
Peter H Proctor
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:36:22 -0500, Peter H Proctor
><d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, Dumm-Dumms were the precurser of expanding ammo, which is
>>still legal for domestic use. BTW, cast lead bullets are also
>>illegal-- FMJ only. A more recent "work-around" has been to
>>lighten the front of long bullets to make the tumbel in flesh. BTW,
>>to the usual suspects-- I said "In Flesh", not in flight an I heard
>>this at a pathologist's convention presented by researchers for the
>>AFIP. The horses mouth....
>
>Lately, Army lawyers have determined that the Sierra Matchking target
>bullet isn't an "expanding" bullet, even though it has a hollow point.
>In practical terms, they're right. I haven't shot anybody with one
>(maybe the Nazis will grow a testicle between them, and I'll get to
>write a review) but those 175gr. Sierras sure shoot well at 600 yards.
A long light foreward bullet, such as some .223's, will
upset in flesh. This cause it to dissipate energy very fast (
technically, it lowers the effective ballistic coefficient ), as
well as making a bigger hole. Another result of this strong
interaction with flesh is that the bullet may fragment, which further
decreases the ballistic coefficient and increases LET ("linear energy
transfer" ) and so forth.
So a hollow point bullet doesn't necessarily have to enlarge
to be more effecitve. If you want an example, try reloading a
hollow base wadcutter with the hollow out-- at least in my hands,
they go thru the target sideways half the time.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Actually, Dumm-Dumms were the precurser of expanding ammo, which is
>>still legal for domestic use. BTW, cast lead bullets are also
>>illegal-- FMJ only. A more recent "work-around" has been to
>>lighten the front of long bullets to make the tumbel in flesh. BTW,
>>to the usual suspects-- I said "In Flesh", not in flight an I heard
>>this at a pathologist's convention presented by researchers for the
>>AFIP. The horses mouth....
>
>Dr. P. you need to read this:
>
>"Military rifle bullet wound patterns"
>by Martin L. Fackler
>
>http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
>
>You will find it interesting and do take a look at this.
See my comments above. BTW, the original long and lean 6.5 mm
Japanese military cartrige was specifially made to tumble in flesh.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
No they did not. In fact, the South stupidly allowed Lincoln
to maneuver them into firing on an US military installation. This
enraged a lot of people in the North who really didn't care much about
southern secession per se.
It also was 1) An act of rebellion ( if you beleive secession
is illegal) or 2) an attack of one nation on the military
installation of another, if you believe secession is legal.. In
either case, sufficient causus belli for Lincoln to call out the
troops.. Without this stupid move, the damnyankees would have to
have passports to come down here<G>.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
wrote:
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
>prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
>good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
>corrupt the culture of the nation.
Not the "old right" We are for individual liberties, small gummit
and the US consitution. When ever I hear "good of the nation first",
I think "socialist".
PHP
Peter H Proctor
wrote:
>>That is libertarians, not leftists.
>
> I don't see a difference.
Obvious communist....
PHP
Asmodeus
news:83kpd0tim232o4hh3...@4ax.com:
> I don't see a difference
Then you're just not very bright.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
Asmodeus
news:qanpd05e0b8e22vgn...@4ax.com:
> A long light foreward bullet, such as some .223's
I have a .22-250 ... does that work?
Bill Levinson
Peter H Proctor wrote:
And when they start talking about "the world," I think (spit!) "United
Nations."
Peter H Proctor
<asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>Peter H Proctor <d...@drproctor.com> wrote in
>news:qanpd05e0b8e22vgn...@4ax.com:
>
>> A long light foreward bullet, such as some .223's
>
>I have a .22-250 ... does that work?
It depends on the bullet. Long bullets for their caliber
tend to upset (tumble) anyway. The classic example is the old 6.5 mm
Japanese round. If you make the tip light ( say, by an airspace or
a light alloy ) tumbling is even more likely.
This is just the opposite of a shuttlecock or a pellet gun
pellet, where the light and/or draggy back end stabilizes the
projectile. For increased stability, move the center of aerodynamic
force as far back as possible behind the center of mass, The most
extreme case is a parachute. Do just the opposite if you want a
projectile to tumble.
PHP
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>
>
>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>
>
> ...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
time line:
1. December 20, 1860-South Carolina lawful secedes from the
United States.
2. December 26, 1860-During the night of the 26th of December,
1860, Maj. Robert Anderson dismantled Fort Moultrie and removed
his command by boats over to Fort Sumter. This is an act of war
and in violation of an agreement between South Carolina and the
Union government
(http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/civilwar/cw26.htm).
3. January 8, 1861-Union Navy attempts to land 200 troops at Fort
Sumter to reinforce the garrison illegally occupying the fort.
This was an additional act of war, still the Confederacy chose to
seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis forced on them.
4. Numerous attempts, first by South Carolina, then by the
Confederate States of America, were made to have the illegal
invasion of Fort Sumter reversed peacefully. All were rebuffed
by both the local Union troop commander, the federal government,
then by Lincoln after taking office. Food and necessary living
supplies were obtained by the Union troops at Fort Sumter during
all but the last few days of their illegal occupation of the fort.
5. April 11th ultimatum issued by local CSA commander:
Headquarters Provisional Army, C. S. A.
Charleston, April 11, 1861.
Sir: The government of the Confederate States has
hitherto foreborne from any hostile demonstrations against Fort
Sumter, in hope that the government of the United States, with a
view to the amicable adjustment of all questions between the two
governments, and to avert the calamities of war, would
voluntarily evacuate it.
There was reason at one time to believe that such
would be the course pursued by the government of the United
States, and under that impression my government has refrained
from making any demand for the surrender of the fort. But the
Confederate States can no longer delay assuming actual possession
of a fortification commanding the entrance of one of their
harbors and necessary to its defense and security.
I am ordered by the government of the Confederate
States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel
Chestnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of
you. All proper facilities will be afforded for the removal of
yourself and command, together with company arms and property,
and all private property, to any post in the United States which
you may select. The flag which you have upheld so long and with
so much fortitude, under the most trying circumstances, may be
saluted by you on taking it down. Colonel Chestnut and Captain
Lee will, for a reasonable time, await your answer.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General Commanding.
6. Reply by the Union garrison commander illegally occupying Fort
Sumter:
Fort Sumter, S.C.,
April 11, 1861.
General: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of
your communication demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to
say, in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret
that my sense of honor, and of my obligations to my government,
prevent my compliance. Thanking you for the fair, manly and
courteous terms proposed, and for the high compliment paid me,
I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
7. Additional attempt to remove illegal occupation forces from
Fort Sumter made:
"Major Anderson, while conversing with the messengers of
General Beauregard, having remarked that he would soon be starved
into a surrender of the fort, or words to that effect, General
Beauregard was induced to address him a second letter, in which
he proposed that the major should fix a time at which he would
agree to evacuate, and agree also not to use his guns against the
Confederate forces unless they fired upon him, and so doing, he,
General Beauregard, would abstain from hostilities. To this
second letter Major Anderson replied, naming noon on the 15th,
provided that no hostile act was committed by the Confederate
forces, or any part of them, and provided, further, that he
should not, meanwhile, receive from the government at Washington
controlling instructions or additional supplies."
8. Union resupply fleet is spotted outside Charleston Harbor,
forcing the Confederate commander to begin force of arms against
the occupation troops in Fort Sumter.
The Union wanted war and sought it. The Confederacy avoided war
as long as possible.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>
>
>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>
>
> No they did not.
Yes, they did. Read my reply to Chris Morton for the time line.
> In fact, the South stupidly allowed Lincoln
> to maneuver them into firing on an US military installation.
Fort Sumter wasn't a USG military installation when South
Carolina lawful seceded from the Union.
> This enraged a lot of people in the North who really didn't care much about
> southern secession per se.
Newspapers that carried an opposing viewpoint to Lincoln's were
quickly closed down.
>
> It also was 1) An act of rebellion ( if you beleive secession
> is illegal)
Of course, secession by a state from the Union was entirely
legal in 1860, and so it remains to this day. Since the
Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the federal
government by the states, and specifically says that all powers
not expressly forbidden to the states remain state powers, then
one cannot logically and reasonably assert that secession was or
is illegal.
> or 2) an attack of one nation on the military
> installation of another,
Since I've demonstrated that the Confederacy was responding to a
series of attacks by the Union, including acting to prevent an
imminent invasion by a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter, your view
is wrong.
> if you believe secession is legal.. In
> either case, sufficient causus belli for Lincoln to call out the
> troops..
Lincoln's call for troops was illegal and caused the secession
of several states, states that would likely not have seceded.
> Without this stupid move, the damnyankees would have to
> have passports to come down here<G>.
> PHP
Don't tease me with such heavenly ideas, Peter. As you know, or
may have figured out, I'm a proponent of lawful secession by one
or several states, including New Hampshire if the Free State
Project is successful.
http://www.freestateproject.org/index.jsp I'd advocate little or
no government interference with people from other states visiting
my state (no, it's not New Hampshire), provided they return home
after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Say 90 days.
Pat Hines
Polaris
<d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
>Not the "old right" We are for individual liberties, small gummit
>and the US consitution. When ever I hear "good of the nation first",
>I think "socialist".
>
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jun 2004 09:32:29 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, that'd be you and the other sociofascist warmongers writing
>>>in this newsgroup wherein "War is Peace", they waged war against Iraq
>>>to force peace upon them, killing approximately 60,000 Iraqi soldiers
>>>and 15,000 civilians. Those are really peaceful now.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately, I think we killed a lot more Confederates.
>
> What's this "we" shit, projecting how you'd like to kill some
>white southerns? Again?
We as in the LOYAL citizens of this country who opposed slavery and
treachery.
And indeed we killed a lot of Confederates... just not nearly enough.
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>>
>>
>> ...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
>
> As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
>time line:
Are you denying that there was a Ft. Sumter, or that traitors fired on
it?
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>No, the Sovereign Confederate States of America fired on one of their
>forts which was occupied by a foreign power.
Arguable. but both parties had legiitmate claims, like the
Brits and Spanish for Gibralter. Trued, thland had orginally been
South carolina. But the Feds had paid for the fort on land ceded
specifically to them. So it was legally theirs by any reasoabke
criteria,.
To make a political point, the south short-circuited the
normal process by which such claims are resolved. The fort was
useless anyway, as events proved. The issue of residual US
property in the South could exasily have been resolved by tradeoffs,
such as money payments or free access to New orleans.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Peter H Proctor wrote:
>> In fact, the South stupidly allowed Lincoln
>> to maneuver them into firing on an US military installation.
>
> Fort Sumter wasn't a USG military installation when South
>Carolina lawful seceded from the Union.
South Carolia had officially ceded the land, on which the US Gummit
had built a fort. By any reasonable legal definition, it was US
property and a bargoning chip. Most important, norther citizens
_beleived_it to be US property abd reacted accordingly attack on it.
>
>> This enraged a lot of people in the North who really didn't care much about
>> southern secession per se.
>
> Newspapers that carried an opposing viewpoint to Lincoln's were
>quickly closed down.
That was later, after the firing on Sumter enabled Lincoln to declair
Martial law..
>> It also was 1) An act of rebellion ( if you beleive secession
>> is illegal)
>
> Of course, secession by a state from the Union was entirely
>legal in 1860, and so it remains to this day.
Certanly true, by "orginal intent" secession is legal. Ergo, at
the time of the firing in sumbter Siuth Carolina was sovereign. Ergo,
the attack on Sumpter was the deliberate attack of one country on the
military installation of another. A classic Causus belli, just
like Pearl Harbor...
> Since I've demonstrated that the Confederacy was responding to a
>series of attacks by the Union, including acting to prevent an
>imminent invasion by a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter, your view
>is wrong.
A country has a legal right to reenforce a military installation.
There is also a common-law right to accesst property, even if
surrounded by the property of another.. See what happens if the
cubans try to stop us from reinforcieng Gurantanami, and that is just
a lease.
>
>> if you believe secession is legal.. In
>> either case, sufficient causus belli for Lincoln to call out the
>> troops..
>
> Lincoln's call for troops was illegal
The president can supress rebellion or invasion and respond to attacks
on US soil. You can argue all day whether Sumter represented either,
but northern public thought it did.
and caused the secession
>of several states, states that would likely not have seceded.
Also true. Virginia for one....
PHP
Christopher Morton
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:50:08 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:11:32 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
>><fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>>> On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
>>>
>>> As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
>>>time line:
>>
>>Are you denying that there was a Ft. Sumter, or that traitors fired on
>>it?
>
>No, the Sovereign Confederate States of America fired on one of their
There was never any such thing, just a bunch of traitors who got their
asses kicked.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:49:48 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
><fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Jun 2004 09:32:29 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, that'd be you and the other sociofascist warmongers writing
>>>>in this newsgroup wherein "War is Peace", they waged war against Iraq
>>>>to force peace upon them, killing approximately 60,000 Iraqi soldiers
>>>>and 15,000 civilians. Those are really peaceful now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately, I think we killed a lot more Confederates.
>>
>> What's this "we" shit, projecting how you'd like to kill some
>>white southerns? Again?
>
>We as in the LOYAL citizens of this country who opposed slavery and
>treachery.
>
>And indeed we killed a lot of Confederates... just not nearly enough.
Exactly how many Confederates did y'all kill, boy?
Asmodeus
news:i1ord0ht7kc0hmlva...@4ax.com:
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad
One out of two ain't bad.
Peter H Proctor
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> True, president Buchannon ( who beleived secession was legal)
>>let these go, not wanting to precipitate a conflict. . However, he
>>still kept a number of island forts, more defensible and reachable by
>>water..
>>
>> There was colorable argument that these were still US
>>territory, They were not directly connected to the seceeding states
>>and contained nothing but US troops. They were also potentially
>>useful bargaining chips-- e.g., for access to New Orleans.
>
>But in the case of Sumter, it was not. S. Carolina agreed to leave
>all Federal forts as they were on Dec. 9th. There were no Federal
>Forces in the fort on that date.
What there was was a half-built fort. This was on land ceded
to the feds by South Carolina, as was (e.g.) DC by Maryland and
Virginia. It was being built (off and on) with federal funds.
I.e., Sumter was _colorably_ a US military installation and
should have been the subject of negotiations. Lincoln deliberately
had the fort occupied in an attempt to goad the South into firing the
first shot.
>
>It was not until Dec. 26th under the cover of darkness (without
>orders) Major Anderson moved his force from Ft. Moultrie to the
>uncompleted works on Sumter.
>
>http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm
>
>"An understanding had been established between the authorities in
>Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the
>forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper
>negotiations for their cession to the State had been made and had
>failed; provided that they were not reinforced, and their military
>status should remain as it was at the time of this understanding,
>viz., on December 9, 1860."
As I said, Lincoln wanted the South to attack the fort to
enrage Northern public opinion. This "understanding" was not
generally known or given much import in the North and was lost in the
subsequent noise.
Besides which, unlike Lincoln, northerners did not
understand the extreme "honor culture" of the South. They thought
Southerners must be flat nuts to make so much out of an insignificant
issue. This was particularly so since secession had worked so
peacefully and successfully to this point.
PHP
Dave Simpson
5]
Pat H. wrote:
> The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
> the United States sought war with them via an invasion, just as it did
> with western indians, Spain, Germany in WWI, and now Iraq.
> Yes, just like Japan in the 1930's, the USG seeks war all around the
> globe.
Wrong, obviously, though you were closer to the truth about the
Civil War. (The USA is not imperialist, and the ridiculously false
and slanderous analogy with imperial Japan -- you may as well have
also claimed Nazi Germany and its Lebensraum -- is so worthless it is
comical.)
With the Civil war, it was an invasion and conquest just as it was
with the northern and northwestern part of Mexico, and the Oregon
Territory, with many wanting to go as far north as 54-40 (which only
added insult to injury in the Alaska boundary settlement).
The South had the right to leave, but lost to might and Manifest
Destiny. There was no way an expansionist USA, growing greatly at the
time, "destined" to do so, would tolerate loss of terroritory along
with loss of face -- notably when some of the seceding territory was
part of the original thirteen colonies.
It was Manifest Destiny and the common view at the time that
motivated our friendly but nervous neighbors to the north to
confederate. Our nation truly was imperialist in North America at
that time (mid-1800s) and we resorted to imperialism to prevent
secession.
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/301/nlc-bnc/cdn_confederation-ef/1997/fear.htm
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/301/nlc-bnc/cdn_confederation-ef/1997/docs/doc00004.htm
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/301/nlc-bnc/cdn_confederation-ef/1997/caricat.htm
The South lost to Manifest Destiny. This is not surprising if you
reconsider the history in the previous twenty years. The government
of a growing nation, "destined" to encompass sea to sea if not also
range from the Arctic to the Isthmus (of Panama), was not about to let
close-in territory be lost and the government in power and what was
evolving there be slapped in the face by a society that no longer was
dominant and losing domination every year. If you know US history and
expansionism and the sentiment in support of expansionism, it is not
(or should not be) difficult to place Washington's resort to
imperialist invasion and re-annexation after re-conquest into its
proper historical perspective, or context.
The main thing that is unfortunate about our Second American
Revolution (the Civil War) was the rise of "Yankee Leviathan" in
Washington, that set a precedent which was pushed in twentieth-century
changed US liberalism and gave us Franklin Roosevelt's Third American
Revolution -- the New Deal, replacing constitutional federalism. (It
was wrong for FDR and his friends to simply do what they felt needed
to be done -- his people admitted they defied the Constitution, which
was "obsolescent" and an "encumbrance" -- and we were set for much
worse error and failure with 1960s and 1970s activist liberalism in
Washington.) But even then we were much luckier and our nation was
much different than the fascist and imperialist governments and
nations elsewhere. Anyone who is against Big Government or
illegitimate (unconstitutional, anti-federal) government nevertheless
cannot honestly say that FDR and the USA were the equal of
totalitarian governments and nations elsewhere.
Dave Simpson
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:11:32 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>>>
>>>
>>>...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
>>
>> As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
>>time line:
>
>
> Are you denying that there was a Ft. Sumter,
There was and still is a Fort Sumter, it's located just inside
the mouth of Charleston Harbor, which on December 8, 1860 became
the territory of South Carolina.
> or that traitors fired on it?
There were no traitors to fire on it during the month of April,
1861, of which I'm aware. If there were traitors loose during
that time, it was Abraham Lincoln and his regime.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:59:18 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No, the Sovereign Confederate States of America fired on one of their
>>forts which was occupied by a foreign power.
>
>
> Arguable. but both parties had legiitmate claims,
No, the only argument would be over how the return of funds for
the land and construction would be made. No argument over
possession of the Fort other than by the Confederate government
are legitimate.
> like the
> Brits and Spanish for Gibralter.
The British are illegally occupying Gibraltar, and still rebuff
claims by Spain, to this day. Spain should retake Gibraltar by
whatever is required, but Britain would wage war to retain it.
> True, the land had orginally been
> South carolina. But the Feds had paid for the fort on land ceded
> specifically to them. So it was legally theirs by any reasoabke
> criteria.
No, once South Carolina seceded from the Union, the land upon
which the fort stood was theirs by law, the Union had a
legitimate right to reimbursement for all moneys expended for the
land and construction. South Carolina, initially, and then the
Confederacy took all reasonable avenues to negotiate a peaceful
end to the crisis thrust upon them by the Union government.
> To make a political point, the south short-circuited the
> normal process by which such claims are resolved.
That's simply not true based on the facts, Peter. Two events
demonstrate that the Union wanted war. First, they tried to land
between 200 and 300 troops on Fort Sumter to reinforce the
garrison; and second, were assembling an assault force off the
mouth of Charleston Harbor to take the fort by force. The
short-circuiting was entirely by the USG.
> The fort was
> useless anyway, as events proved. The issue of residual US
> property in the South could exasily have been resolved by tradeoffs,
> such as money payments or free access to New orleans.
> PHP
All those tradeoffs, and many more, were offered and refused by
the USG under Lincoln.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:59:18 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:50:08 -0400, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:11:32 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
>>><fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
>>>>time line:
>>>
>>>Are you denying that there was a Ft. Sumter, or that traitors fired on
>>>it?
>>
>>No, the Sovereign Confederate States of America fired on one of their
>
>
> There was never any such thing, just a bunch of traitors who got their
> asses kicked.
In order for the Confederates to have been traitors, there must
be evidence of treason.
There was no evidence of treason, and no Confederate was tried
for treason.
Please state your evidence of treason, and then to ice the cake,
please state the constitutional provision that prohibits
secession to any state.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:23:44 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter H Proctor wrote:
>
>
>>>In fact, the South stupidly allowed Lincoln
>>>to maneuver them into firing on an US military installation.
>>
>> Fort Sumter wasn't a USG military installation when South
>>Carolina lawful seceded from the Union.
>
>
> South Carolia had officially ceded the land, on which the US Gummit
> had built a fort. By any reasonable legal definition, it was US
> property and a bargoning chip. Most important, norther citizens
> _beleived_it to be US property abd reacted accordingly attack on it.
Actually, no, once South Carolina seceded the only claim the USG
had was for repayment of funds expended for the land, the funds
for construction of the fort, and for return of all USG property
located in the fort, and to allow all personal property of the
soldiers to be taken with them unimpeded. South Carolina offered
all those to the USG and was rebuffed, not once, but many times
over four months.
>>>This enraged a lot of people in the North who really didn't care much about
>>>southern secession per se.
>>
>> Newspapers that carried an opposing viewpoint to Lincoln's were
>>quickly closed down.
>
>
> That was later, after the firing on Sumter enabled Lincoln to declair
> Martial law..
No, it was immediate upon Lincoln's inauguration. Any newspaper
with a pro-Confederate view was assaulted; frequently by thugs
encouraged by pro-war newspapers.
>
>>> It also was 1) An act of rebellion ( if you beleive secession
>>>is illegal)
>>
>> Of course, secession by a state from the Union was entirely
>>legal in 1860, and so it remains to this day.
>
>
> Certanly true, by "orginal intent" secession is legal. Ergo, at
> the time of the firing in sumbter Siuth Carolina was sovereign. Ergo,
> the attack on Sumpter was the deliberate attack of one country on the
> military installation of another. A classic Causus belli, just
> like Pearl Harbor...
No, not remotely like Pearl Harbor. Hawaii had no relationship
with (beyond the substantial Japanese immigrant population) or
desire to affiliate with the Japanese government or country.
It's more like the USG bases in the Philippines. If that
government had asked the USG to leave and it had refused, that
would have been an act of war by the USG. MOre specifically, it
would be like a base in the Philippines that had no USG troops
within it and the USG had agreed to not place any troops in it
and did so anyway AFTER having been asked to leave the
Philippines altogether.
>
>> Since I've demonstrated that the Confederacy was responding to a
>>series of attacks by the Union, including acting to prevent an
>>imminent invasion by a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter, your view
>>is wrong.
>
>
> A country has a legal right to reenforce a military installation.
Only those legitimately owned by and within USG territory.
> There is also a common-law right to access property, even if
> surrounded by the property of another.
Common law does not apply to government property at all.
Property is owned by the USG at the discretion of the states
within which it lies, excepting the District of Columbia which is
not in a state.
> See what happens if the
> cubans try to stop us from reinforcieng Gurantanami, and that is just
> a lease.
That's a bad example, Gitmo is held by force and nothing else.
In point of fact, there needs to be a movement within America to
abandon Gitmo since it's proved to be of no value except as a USG
gulag, a thoroughly illegal gulag.
>>>if you believe secession is legal.. In
>>>either case, sufficient causus belli for Lincoln to call out the
>>>troops..
>>
>> Lincoln's call for troops was illegal
>
>
> The president can supress rebellion or invasion and respond to attacks
> on US soil. You can argue all day whether Sumter represented either,
> but northern public thought it did.
I can argue because under the law, of the time, and now the
states that seceded in 1860 and 1861 did so lawfully. Ever seen
an explanation of how the USG invaded Virginia via the law?
> and caused the secession
>
>>of several states, states that would likely not have seceded.
>
>
> Also true. Virginia for one....
> PHP
>
And Maryland if Lincoln hadn't arrested the majority of the
state legislature.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:49:48 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 25 Jun 2004 09:32:29 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, that'd be you and the other sociofascist warmongers writing
>>>>in this newsgroup wherein "War is Peace", they waged war against Iraq
>>>>to force peace upon them, killing approximately 60,000 Iraqi soldiers
>>>>and 15,000 civilians. Those are really peaceful now.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately, I think we killed a lot more Confederates.
>>
>> What's this "we" shit, projecting how you'd like to kill some
>>white southerns? Again?
>
>
> We as in the LOYAL citizens of this country who opposed slavery and
> treachery.
The best known abolitionist opposed the War against the
Confederacy, are you telling me that they were stupid? There was
no treachery committed by anyone other than Lincoln and his
associates, treachery that we're living with to this day.
> And indeed we killed a lot of Confederates... just not nearly enough.
About 250,000 Confederates were killed; among them the "best and
brightest" living in and loyal to the South. Confederates killed
400,000 invaders, Lincoln knew no morals that compelled him to
cease the invasion.
Almost 350,000 civilians died as well, including about 100,000
black men, women, and children.
Again, any thoughts in your mind about killing Confederates
today should simply be banished, for your own health.
Pat Hines
Christopher Morton
Terence Fformby-Smythe) wrote:
>Exactly how many Confederates did y'all kill, boy?
One too few.
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:11:32 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
>> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25 Jun 2004 09:29:49 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Confederate States of America worked long and hard to avoid war,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>...by firing on Ft. Sumter.
>>>
>>> As usual, you're playing fast and loose with the facts. A short
>>>time line:
>>
>>
>> Are you denying that there was a Ft. Sumter,
>
> There was and still is a Fort Sumter, it's located just inside
And it was attacked by traitors.
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In order for the Confederates to have been traitors, there must
>be evidence of treason.
Such as unlawful rebellion against the legally constituted government
of the United States.
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The best known abolitionist opposed the War against the
>Confederacy, are you telling me that they were stupid? There was
Yes.
Peter H Proctor
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> That's simply not true based on the facts, Peter. Two events
>demonstrate that the Union wanted war.
Of course the Lincoln administration wanted war. Lincoln
saw that secession was working smoothly. Majority public opinion
in the North would not have supported the use of force.. So he had
to goad the south into doing something stupid.
Lincoln had been born and partially raised a southerner (100
miles from Jeff Davis). His inlaws were even slave owners. He knew
how to manipulate the southern honor code to get them to do his
bidding. .
>....The short-circuiting was entirely by the USG.
Arguable. But, that is not how Lincoln's audience,
northern public opinion, saw it.
PHP
Peter H Proctor
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Peter H Proctor wrote:
>> South Carolia had officially ceded the land, on which the US Gummit
>> had built a fort. By any reasonable legal definition, it was US
>> property and a bargoning chip. Most important, norther citizens
>> _beleived_it to be US property abd reacted accordingly attack on it.
>
> South Carolina offered
>all those to the USG and was rebuffed, not once, but many times
>over four months.
So over the minor issue of allowing the North to occupy a
useless fort for a few months longer, they put a permanent end to
secession, which had been going fairly smoothly to that point. Ony
the first of the ways in which incompetent civilian leadershp
destroyed the Confederacy.
There is a principle in both politics and medicine: "You
can't do better than good" also expressed as "The Best is the enemy
of the good".
>> That was later, after the firing on Sumter enabled Lincoln to declair
>> Martial law..
>
> No, it was immediate upon Lincoln's inauguration. Any newspaper
>with a pro-Confederate view was assaulted; frequently by thugs
>encouraged by pro-war newspapers.
So what. Until Sumter, Northern public opinion did not
support the use of military force. Even many abolitionists welcomed
secession because this would end the fugitive slave laws, the only
way in which southern slavery directly affected Northerners.
>> the attack on Sumter was the deliberate attack of one country on the
>> military installation of another. A classic Causus belli, just
>> like Pearl Harbor...
>
>No, not remotely like Pearl Harbor.
Exactly like Pearl Harbor, at least according to Northern
public opinion, which is what counted. At this stage, the Lincoln
administration didn't care what the merits of their case were..
They just saw their last opportunity to keep the seceeding
states in the union quickly disappearing. Sumter was put out as
last desparation bait and, much to their surprise, the South took
it.
>> A country has a legal right to reenforce a military installation.
>
>Only those legitimately owned by and within USG territory.
Certainly arguable and an issue that any sensible southern
administration would have put aside temporarily while it accomplished
more important things... Particualrly when it was readily apparent
that the Lincoln Administration was actively goading the South into
attacking the fort.
>> The president can supress rebellion or invasion and respond to attacks
>> on US soil. You can argue all day whether Sumter represented either,
>> but northern public thought it did.
>
> I can argue because under the law, of the time, and now the
>states that seceded in 1860 and 1861 did so lawfully.
Likely true. Which is why Lincoln had to goad NC into
attacking Sumter. One nation attacking the military installation
of another is an act of war. . Again, according to Northern
public opinion. Which is the only thing that counts here.
> Ever seen an explanation of how the USG invaded Virginia via the law?
1) to supress rebellion<G> if secession is illegal or
2) In response to an act of war, if secession is legal.
PHP
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:21:17 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> In order for the Confederates to have been traitors, there must
>>be evidence of treason.
>
>
> Such as unlawful rebellion against the legally constituted government
> of the United States.
Since that did not happen in any state that seceded in 1860 and
1861, there is no evidence of treason on account of the secession
action.
There was treason against the United States of America, however,
that was committed by Lincoln and his regime. The declaration of
marshal law in the Union states and the suspension of habeas
corpus by Lincoln are two well known examples of his treason
against the lawful government.
Pat Hines
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:21:17 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
>> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In order for the Confederates to have been traitors, there must
>>>be evidence of treason.
>>
>>
>> Such as unlawful rebellion against the legally constituted government
>> of the United States.
>
> Since that did not happen in any state that seceded in 1860 and
It happened in EVERY state which attempted to destroy the Constitution
of the United States by their sham secession.
Pat H.
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:43:29 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Morton wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:21:17 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> >> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> In order for the Confederates to have been traitors, there must
> >>>be evidence of treason.
> >>
> >>
> >> Such as unlawful rebellion against the legally constituted government
> >> of the United States.
> >
> > Since that did not happen in any state that seceded in 1860 and
>
> It happened in EVERY state which attempted to destroy the Constitution
> of the United States by their sham secession.
No, Chris, that's simply mythology that you continue to buy off on. I
suppose you have to cling to that, to do otherwise means you have to
admit that issues with the federal state that plague us today owe
their beginnings to Lincoln. In other words, your beliefs are based
on lies that you must have intact.
Since there's no language in the US Constitution forbiding secession,
it's legal. Further multiple references to the legality of secession
are in the historical record, to ignore those means you must ignore
historical references to the Constitutional guarantees of the right to
be armed. You cannot ignore one and cling to the other. Are you
prepared to ignore the historical record?
Interestingly, I just learned a couple of days ago that a
Constitutional Amendment to make slavery permanent and unrevokable was
passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives on March 2,
1861. For the record, that was AFTER all of the seceded southern
state representatives and Senators had left. I wonder what the record
of the debate on that one would reveal.
Fascinating, don't you think?
Pat Hines
Peter H Proctor
>Interestingly, I just learned a couple of days ago that a
>Constitutional Amendment to make slavery permanent and unrevokable was
>passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives on March 2,
>1861.
Ironically, this was the original 13th amendment. As
Frederick Douglaas noted, Lincoln became an abolitionist quite late.
Northern slave states included Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, and
Delaware. Not to mention Washington DC itself.... Allegedly,
the dome of the capital was completed by slave labor.
Interestingly, New Jersey was also technically a slave state.
Decades before the war, it had freed all slave offspring and forbid
importation of new slaves. However, New Jersey never strictly
outlawed slavery and reported a dozen or two slaves in the 1860
census.
PHP
Christopher Morton
>No, Chris, that's simply mythology that you continue to buy off on. I
It's too bad Lincoln didn't have the hydrogen bomb. He could have
dropped it on Richmond... or had it sent via teamster wagon.
Peter H Proctor
<d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, New Jersey was also technically a slave state.
>Decades before the war, it had freed all slave offspring and forbid
>importation of new slaves. However, New Jersey never strictly
>outlawed slavery and reported a dozen or two slaves in the 1860
>census.
Re Slavery in New Jersey !
http://www.phillyburbs.com/undergroundrailroad/NJabolition.shtml
"In 1846 the state passed its second major emancipation law,
which formally outlawed slavery. While the law outlawed slavery, it
didn’t protect all slaves. Under the act, all black children born
after the act’s passage were free, but those blacks were to be
"apprentices" for life. The act did offer former slaves greater legal
protection; they could sue for their freedom if abused or mistreated
and they could not be sold without written consent. This act was
eventually superceded in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which abolished slavery nationally.
http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm
"In 1830, of the 3,568 Northern blacks who remained slaves, more than
two-thirds were in New Jersey. The institution was rapidly declining
in the 1830s, but not until 1846 was slavery permanently abolished. At
the start of the Civil War, New Jersey citizens owned 18 "apprentices
for life" (the federal census listed them as "slaves") -- legal slaves
by any name. "
"New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property
rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of
young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the
right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to
another like other personal property.' "[10]
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:09:45 -0500, Peter H Proctor
> <d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Interestingly, New Jersey was also technically a slave state.
>>Decades before the war, it had freed all slave offspring and forbid
>>importation of new slaves. However, New Jersey never strictly
>>outlawed slavery and reported a dozen or two slaves in the 1860
>>census.
>
>
> Re Slavery in New Jersey !
>
> http://www.phillyburbs.com/undergroundrailroad/NJabolition.shtml
>
> "In 1846 the state passed its second major emancipation law,
> which formally outlawed slavery. While the law outlawed slavery, it
> didn’t protect all slaves. Under the act, all black children born
> after the act’s passage were free, but those blacks were to be
> "apprentices" for life. The act did offer former slaves greater legal
> protection; they could sue for their freedom if abused or mistreated
> and they could not be sold without written consent. This act was
> eventually superceded in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S.
> Constitution, which abolished slavery nationally.
>
I knew New Jersey citizens continued to hold a few slaves, the
details of the method is interesting.
> http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm
>
> "In 1830, of the 3,568 Northern blacks who remained slaves, more than
> two-thirds were in New Jersey. The institution was rapidly declining
> in the 1830s, but not until 1846 was slavery permanently abolished. At
> the start of the Civil War, New Jersey citizens owned 18 "apprentices
> for life" (the federal census listed them as "slaves") -- legal slaves
> by any name. "
>
> "New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property
> rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of
> young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the
> right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to
> another like other personal property.' "[10]
>
Responding to your previous message, the slaves not only worked
on the federal building in the District of Columbia, they weren't
freed until the ratification of the Amendment that became the
13th Amendment, just like all slaves not in the occupied Confederacy.
Pat Hines
Pat "Bearkiller" Hines
> On 1 Jul 2004 09:34:26 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>
>
>>No, Chris, that's simply mythology that you continue to buy off on. I
>
>
> It's too bad Lincoln didn't have the hydrogen bomb. He could have
> dropped it on Richmond... or had it sent via teamster wagon.
Like I said, you're still required to believe the myth; nothing
or no one will set you free until you've given it up. You're
enslaving yourself with the myth.
Christopher Morton
<fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> On 1 Jul 2004 09:34:26 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, Chris, that's simply mythology that you continue to buy off on. I
>>
>>
>> It's too bad Lincoln didn't have the hydrogen bomb. He could have
>> dropped it on Richmond... or had it sent via teamster wagon.
>
> Like I said, you're still required to believe the myth; nothing
The only myth is that of the Confederacy as anything but a corrupt
slave state. But hey, if you love the CSA, you'd obviously love
Saddam's Iraq.
Pat H.
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:34:04 GMT, "Pat \"Bearkiller\" Hines"
> <fas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Morton wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Jul 2004 09:34:26 -0700, fas...@comcast.net (Pat H.) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>No, Chris, that's simply mythology that you continue to buy off on. I
> >>
> >>
> >> It's too bad Lincoln didn't have the hydrogen bomb. He could have
> >> dropped it on Richmond... or had it sent via teamster wagon.
> >
> > Like I said, you're still required to believe the myth; nothing
>
> The only myth is that of the Confederacy as anything but a corrupt
> slave state.
As opposed to the United States Government which was a corrupt slave
state with a well known racist as it's head, one that invaded another
country in order to stop self government and no tariffs. No matter
what you have to say about the USG, it was and remains much worse than
the Confederacy ever was.
It's no wonder that you approve of the illegal military operations
against another country, you love the illegal actions of the most
tyrannical president in American history, one responsible for the
murders of more Americans than any other.
> But hey, if you love the CSA, you'd obviously love
> Saddam's Iraq.
Actually the only interest I have in Iraq is the extent to which the
corrupt Bush Junta is involved in killing both young American's and
Iraqi's, and methods of reducing the carnage, which in turn will
increase freedom and decrease the danger to all Americans.
To directly respond to your statement though, it was Lincoln and now
Bush, and of course you by your advocacy of both tyrants, that are the
most like Saddam Hussein.
Pat Hines