Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001 (IN THEIR OWN WORDS) V2.0 R_0911

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Tavish

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 12:00:45 PM9/11/03

Classic Repost from December 27, 2001 (Not all links may be active today)
Recompiled from these two archives July 14, 2003:
Subject: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:25:52 -0600
Subject: SUPPLEMENT: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:26:03 -0600

FOREWORD: My life as well as my family's, relatives', and friends' lives are in
just as much danger as anyone else's so I do take seriously any and all threats
of hostilities against my home country America. What I am now posting should be
examined seriously and with an open mind.

I am in no way siding with the people who killed American citizens on American
soil which is MY country. Think of what follows this way: If someone came up to
you and slugs you on the arm and then he tells you why-- wouldn't you take the
person at their word!? Would any of you doubt the motive if the assaulter told
you why!?

The following proofs are texts of the words and statements of the "assaulter
telling all of us why" and I don't see why people should doubt what he says are
his reasons. The media and other special interest groups don't want the truth
known because it would shine a spotlight some where which would make some people
nervous! I have heard numerous talk shows etc.. which claim America was attacked
because it is a Christian nation and that Islam is hostile toward America
because of that BUT any reasoning person would wonder-- Italy is the seat of the
largest body of Christendom in the world (Roman Catholicism) yet Italy is not
being threatened! Why would that be? What about other countries whose majority
religion is Christian such as many Latin American countries? They aren't
threatened so why would America be threatened? This is a simple answer but it
can't be denied: America is Israel's "bully boy" and Israel's main supporter
militarily and financially.

America defends a "Nation" which has socialist/communist roots and is still
socialist and the facts of how Israel was really Palestine and that Jews were
aggressive to the Palestinians from the start is all contained in this one
archive and most of the material is from Jewish websites.

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Palestine was Changed to a Socialist Jewish State in 1948 by Ben-Gurion
with Communist Soviet Union's Support
Message-ID: <1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com>

Am I an anti_semite because I speak out against the dominant Jews? NO!
Palestinians are semites too! Once again from Jewish web sites:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m7bgevgqkcve6k7of2o6oi8filg55jdaj8%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: JSOURCE Definition of Anti-Semitism & Example of a Pathological
Anti-Semite Date:
Message-ID: <m7bgevgqkcve6k7of...@4ax.com>

I will however post THEIR reason for attacking America in THEIR own words and to
ignore what they claim is turning a blind eye to the root causes why America is
hated by many Middle Eastern people. The root cause is America's support of
Israel. If America supports Israel on account of the false teachings of the
Whores of Babylon then the support must stop immediately!

I.E.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=qf7acvoa8hfn3bi2fttrvo00fhaoi2f8ip%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Old Covenant Vs New -- New Covenant Replaces Old Covenant (Jews NO
Longer God's Chosen People & Entitled to "Israel" So Says the Scripture!)
Message-ID: <qf7acvoa8hfn3bi2f...@4ax.com>

If America is Israel's "bully boy" for a false claim to territory which the
Bible does not even support then the support MUST stop! Israel is not a land
which is favorable to Democratic ideals much less Christianity and it distresses
me greatly that our fine nation who claims to be Christian will support people
are actually identified by scripture as being the Children of the Devil and
anti-Christs:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3crfru9ce2rb0snnls%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Children of the Devil and Anti-Christ[s] Positively Identified Using
Scripture-- Check The Proofs For Yourselves! V2.0
Message-ID: <vd01cvsh9ta3ep7b3...@4ax.com>
Date: 13 May 2003 05:29:00 GMT

Israel is a bastion of Communism/Marxism/Socialism-- all concepts which are
hostile to Christianity so why on Earth does America imperil itself and bring
hatred upon itself by supporting Israel against virtually all of the Middle East
nations?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=dt887v8au48j3e6tqamulsagihh3ns17au%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: Political Parties of Israel (Israel is a Communist Sympathizer Nation!)
R_0316 (Old DejaCom Links Replaced with GOOGLE Links)
Message-ID: <dt887v8au48j3e6tq...@4ax.com>

I am a major fan of talk show hosts such as: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Savage, Gordon Liddy ET AL but I am greatly distressed that they (down
to the very last one) unequivocally support Israel and all it does without even
the slightest criticism! Are we to believe that Israel is faultless-- or in a
more distinct reality all of the above aforementioned know their plug would get
pulled if they didn't trumpet Israel as a nation above criticism and reproach?
I am sickened to death to hear people being called a Nazi or anti-semite and
then getting cut off by the people named above for the slightest criticism of
Israel. It seems almost everyone else is fair game for criticism!

<<END OF July 14, 2003 FOREWORD>>

IN THEIR OWN WORDS HERE IS WHY AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.
THIS POST SHOWS WHY JEWS ARE UNIVERSALLY DISLIKED BY ALL PEOPLE WHO KNOW
WHAT THEY TEACH ABOUT NON-JEWS AND HOW JEWS VIEW THE REST OF HUMANITY.
ALL MATERIAL FULLY DOCUMENTED AND ALL LINKS GIVEN FOR VERIFICATION.

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:47:49 -0500, in
><7fl9storn7pe6ei17...@4ax.com>,
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=7fl9storn7pe6ei17...@4ax.com%3E&lr=&hl=en
>Doc Tavish <doc_t...@my-deja.comREMOVE2MAIL-NO-SPAM> wrote:

>>AND WHY DID THESE NUT CASES ATTACK AMERICA?

According to all of the following articles (and there are many) America was
attacked because of its support for Jews and Israel. Does anyone care to deny
the following and the obvious?

Over 6,000 Americans died because some terrorists protest American foreign
policy- namely being Israel's "bully boys"! America needs to tell Israel they
need to fight their own battles. Jews are no longer God's Chosen People NOR are
they entitled to any land in PALESTINE!

From a GOOGLE web search:

http://www.google.com/advanced_search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bin+Laden+American+support+for+Israel&btnG=Google+Search
Searched the web for bin Laden American support for Israel.
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
ADL Backgrounder - Osama bin Laden
... in Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as ... July 1996 Bin Laden warns that
the ... the result of American behavior against Muslims, its support of Jews ...
www.adl.org/presrele/terrorismintl_93/bin_laden_93.asp

US Intelligence Points to Bin Laden Network (washingtonpost. ...
... But journalists with access to bin Laden said he and his ... United States
in retaliation for American support of Israel. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor ...
a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14366-2001Sep11.html

Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
... interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist ... Islamic
fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ... would attack American
interests in ...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010911/ts/crash_tradecenter_binladen_dc_2.html

CNN - Some in Mideast question US focus on bin Laden ...
... too much exaggeration about bin Laden himself as a person ... economic and
military support for Israel; a perceived American willingness to slap ...
www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/22/terrorism.arab.view/

Arabs exult, but leaders denounce killing -- The Washington ...
... Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who is sheltered by ... divine
vengeance" for American support for Israel. In Lebanon's Ain al ...
www.washtimes.com/world/default-200191242615.htm

frontline: hunting bin laden: who is bin laden?: interview ...
... not know the name bin Laden, but they soon ... the Islamic world. American
presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews ... and helping Israel build
new ... www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

US Official: Attacks May Be Bin Laden-Linked
... on US interests for its support of Israel. ... of Islamic fundamentalists.
Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago ... he would attack American interests in
an ... www.yahoo.com/s/1538

Who is he, and what does he want?
... Bin Laden frequently appeals to US ... process to prevent further support of
Israel. "We say to the ... as people and to American mothers, if they cherish
... www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/010912/obl.shtml

The Jerusalem Post Newspaper : Online News From Israel - ...
... because of its support for Israel. Earlier in the day ... them apparently an
American Airlines 767 hijacked ... terrorist mastermind Osama Bin-Laden is also
... www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/11/News/News.34586.html

Osama bin Laden: Profile
... Times: "The presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia ... shrines,
enraged Mr. bin Laden and other Arab ... blamed the US support for Israel as
anti-Islam ... www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

csmonitor.com
... the following years, bin Laden became more and more ... from the US support
of Israel and the suffering ... to attacking all American civilians," says Post
... www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/earlyWorld1.html

<end>

All of the above were results from: http://www.google.com/advanced_search
using keywords: bin Laden American support for Israel

Do I support terrorism? NO!
Do I support or endorse Bin Laden? Certainly not!
Am I outraged over the cowardly attack against WTC? Most definitely!

All of the above results were from accepted, by many as, credible sources.
Article after article shows America being attacked because of its support for
Israel.

America does side with Jewry against Palestinians almost universally and the
Islamic or even Christian Palestinians and others resent us for ignoring the
wrongs Jews do to them! Think about it- how many times have you heard the terms
Israeli Occupied West Bank, Israelis, and Palestinians used in a news story?
Aren't Palestinians also Israelis? They live in Israel do they not? The news
media would be more accurate to say Jews and Palestinians! Do Palestinian
Israelis have the same rights as Israeli Jews? NO THEY DO NOT! THEY LIVE AS ALL
OTHER OCCUPIED PEOPLE LIVE AND HAVE LIVED. They do not have the same rights of
private property, the same rights of political address, the same rights of due
process, nor do they have the right of free association or free travel. They
have to have work permits whereas Jews do not AND yet people wonder why there is
a powder keg in the Middle East.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/10/10/News/News.35927.html

<<<In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. - FAIR USE INTENDED>>>

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

23 Tishri 5762 02:18 Wednesday October 10, 2001

Israel vs bin Laden in information war
By Herb Keinon

JERUSALEM (October 10) - With Osama bin Laden blaming Israel for his
attacks on America, and a Newsweek poll showing a majority of Americans
believes terror against America has to do with its close ties with
Israel, the Foreign Ministry has begun an information campaign to
disabuse people of this notion.

"We are in a difficult position," one Foreign Ministry official said.
"On the one hand we want to keep a low profile. On the other hand, we
don't want it to be so low that we don't counter attempts to link us to
bin Laden's attacks."

The official described this linkage as "very dangerous."

A Foreign Ministry team on Monday set up three working groups to deal
with the US operation in Afghanistan: the first will coordinate
diplomatic policy toward the US, the second will chart the country's
information campaign during the crisis, and the third will liaison with
Diaspora communities.

In its attempt to show there is no linkage between the attacks on New
York and Washington and Israel, the ministry has drawn up a number of
talking points for representatives abroad. In addition, it is in the
process of sending a number of prominent Israelis abroad to give
briefings on why there is no linkage between bin Laden's attacks and US
ties to Israel.

The talking points distributed to Israeli delegations abroad include
instructions not to bring up the linkage issue, but to be prepared with
answers if it comes up in the local media. The talking points include the
following:

* The attacks on the US were not the result of any specific US policy,
but rather because of what the US represents. The attacks are part of the
war that fundamentalist, undemocratic forces have declared on the
enlightened, democratic world.

* The 1991 Gulf War was an ideological turning point for these
movements, when the US stationed forces in Islam's "holy of holies" -
Saudi Arabia.

A number of years later bin Laden published various religious edicts
against the US, saying that the US was defiling the place where the
Prophet Muhammad lived.

* Bin Laden has been behind a number of terrorist actions in Moslem
states. His basic goal is to replace secular Moslem regimes with regimes
based on Islamic law - all of which has no connection at all with Israel.

* Bin Laden told the Italian newspaper La Republica in August 1998 that
the "International Islamic Front declares that the war has begun." The
preparation for the recent attacks in the US started no later than June
2000, before the Camp David summits, when negotiations between Israel and
the Palestinians were going strong - which shows that the attacks were
divorced from any connection to the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic
process.

* Attempts to show "understanding" for terror must be utterly
rejected, and dismissed as attempts to "justify the unjustifiable." Those
who show an "understanding" for terror are justifying and encouraging it.

<end>

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Israel+vs+bin+Laden+in+information+war&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
Searched the web for Israel vs bin Laden in information war. Results 1 - 10
of about 1,220. Search took 0.36 seconds.
Category: Society > Activism > ... > Radio > Pacifica > WBAI New York, NY >
WBAI in the Media

Israel Daily - daily news and current events
... Israel vs bin Laden in information war The Jerusalem Post JERUSALEM (October
10) - With Osama bin Laden blaming Israel for his attacks on America, and a ...
www.israeldaily.com/

<end>

What the Bible says about Jews being the Chosen and them being entitled to land:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=6sagevs7n51rfd3q2v9o2qovk6sqhopdee%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Jews are NOT Entitled to Israel in Present Days-- So Proves the
Scripture!! Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:28:17 -0500
Message-ID: <6sagevs7n51rfd3q2...@4ax.com>

What the Bible says about Pharisees, their modern counterparts, and how they
view the rest of Non-Jewish humanity:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=1ioifv01joma9fjqpa361host2smg0un2n%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: Today's Judaism is the Same Stuff Jesus Condemned ~2000 Years Ago
(Which Has Had Some Additions Made Since Then) V3.0 R_0625
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:51:27 -0500
Message-ID: <1ioifv01joma9fjqp...@4ax.com>

--Jewish Tradition will NEVER teach Non-Jews as being equals--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b6beevshh8dcr43hk33rafn23fvo2p8c9c%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: All Men Are Created Equal is NOT a Jewish Concept
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:27:38 -0500
Message-ID: <b6beevshh8dcr43hk...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=e9nqgvcrotlgle0l0...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: V2.1 Non-Jew Can't Pour Wine for a Jew -- Only a Fellow Jew Can!
(Classic Repost) New Links Added! R_0710
Message-ID: <e9nqgvcrotlgle0l0...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=tedacvgivel2c573ml73lfdea2mob0ukd5%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Jews Want Legal and Financial Superiority Over the Non-Jew; Who is NOT
a "Brother" in Their Eyes!
Message-ID: <tedacvgivel2c573m...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5f13i0bfp46nhfb257%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Bigoted Reasoning of Jews on Relations with Non-Jews From Chabad
Lubavitch Cyberspace Website
Message-ID: <ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eaade4a.64590087%40tavish-central.net&rnum=5
Subject: Exclusion Entirely of Non-Jews in the Jewish Scheme of Things! R_0426
Message-ID: <3eaade4a...@tavish-central.net>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eca1e34.54088216%40tavish-central.net&rnum=6
Subject: Lessons in Tanya- Hasidism - Only Jews Have Souls & Heavenly
Pre-Earthly Existence? R_0520
Message-ID: <3eca1e34...@tavish-central.net>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=r6qodvco6ecqdnokego4e73qjtqptk2iis%404ax.com&rnum=13
Subject: About Kashrus and Supervision - What Jews Teach Concerning non-Jews (In
Their Own Words Series) R_0603
Message-ID: <r6qodvco6ecqdnoke...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2003 13:03:01 GMT

The televangelists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell want to deny the
terrorist's own words on why America was attacked and here they are spin
doctoring for those who have already given Robertson and Falwell their
"thirty pieces of silver":

(Note: Links were active at the time of the original posting.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14FALW.html

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday's terror
attacks occurred because Americans have insulted God and lost the protection of
heaven.

"We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit
of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality," Robertson wrote in a
three-page statement issued Thursday by his Christian Broadcasting Network.

"It (terrorism) is happening because God Almighty is lifting his
protection from us," said Robertson.

Robertson is host of CBN's "the 700 Club," a religious television program viewed
by 1 million Americans daily. He founded the Christian Coalition and
unsuccessfully ran for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination.

In the statement, Robertson said he was filled with compassion for victims of
Tuesday's attacks, and called for a religious revival in America. "We must come
back to God as a people," Robertson wrote.

Robertson said Americans have insulted God by allowing abortion and "rampant
Internet pornography." He also chided the U.S. Supreme Court for, among other
things, limiting prayer in public schools.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-attacks-robertson0913sep13.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines

Jerry Falwell on the WTC attacks

"The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. And, I know that I'll hear from
them for this. But, throwing God or successfully with the help of the federal
court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The
abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be
mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad.
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and
the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative
lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way--all of them who have tried to
secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this
happen.." <END>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson strongly imply that it is American culture
and morality which brought on these attacks with such statements as:
"..Americans have insulted God and lost the protection of heaven. 'We have
imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ...
health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality...' ...we destroy 40 million
little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and
the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively
trying to make that an alternative lifestyle..."

If those are the reasons America was attacked then why weren't other "Western
Civilizations and Cultures" attacked? What about Canada, UK, and Australia who
more or less share the same language and mores? Also Canada, UK, and Australia
were allies with America in WWII and we share many other histories and pop
culture artifacts such as open homosexuality, abortion on demand, MTV, porn,
Christianity, rock music, movies etc. everything both good, not so good, and the
bad. The reason why Canada, UK, and Australia aren't singled out is because they
aren't Israel's bully boys and supporters with billions of dollars yearly in
financial aid. America was also the first to support the disenfranchisement of
Palestinians from their territory when Palestine was renamed Israel by the edict
of men in 1948.

NEW ADDITION (September 11, 2003):

Points to ponder:

Why should America, which is a predominately Christian nation, defend Israel
which is predominately ruled and inhabited by people who have been adversaries
against Christ and Christians since Day One? The Pharisaic Jews are the people
Jesus publicly declared were the Children of the Devil and who the Apostles
called the "anti-Christ(s)" and the scriptures bring these facts out:

Why should America be put in harm's way on behalf of the very people who
harassed and persecuted the 1st Century Christians and right up to this present
day? Christian proselytizing is still a criminal offense in Israel!!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa8sfa0qfboa6ull055%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Comparing Israel's "Anti-Christ Activism" to Other Middle East Nations
is NOT a Valid Comparison V2.5 R_0821
Message-ID: <upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa...@4ax.com>
Date: 21 Aug 2003 12:22:34 GMT

How First Century Christianity Was Treated by Jews:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=711ucv8tmute29h3gdcgds6ajmd7eekovr%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: The Most Heinous Murder Plot Ever Devised (For Your Archives &
Research) V2 R_0524
Message-ID: <711ucv8tmute29h3g...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 05:30:10 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av6qpr9882esa96oaav%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Babylon the Great - Religious Persecution, Torture, Harassment R_0524
Message-ID: <k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 05:30:17 GMT
<<Notice what Babylon is identified with-- JERUSALEM!! Jerusalem is the birth
place of Christianity so why isn't Christianity a predominant "force" in Israel?
ANSWER: The present day persecution by the Neo-Pharisees!!>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2jgq8d7orrpfhm3j09%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: The Apostle Paul on Judaized Jews R_0524
Message-ID: <i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 05:30:25 GMT

The above should be more than enough proof showing a "Judeo-Christian Alliance"
is a lie! Today's Judaism is the same Judaism Jesus reviled ~2000 years so why
would anyone who claims to be a Christian want to ally themselves with what
Jesus condemned and was persecuted for as well as his Apostles?

If the Zionazis who run Israel truly have G-d's favor and are truly the Chosen
Ones then why is their Temple still in ruins?

The same G-d the current Pharisees claim as the G-d who has been with them since
the days of Moses now allows the Neo-Pharisees to be killed and harassed! Why
weren't Jews killed in Old Testament times when God was actually fighting for
them? "Israel" was to rely solely upon Jehovah for protection and defense and
the accounts of what Jehovah did to the pursuing Egyptians as well as all the
other adversaries of "Israel" were annihilated and not one Israelite perished--
which was a true sign of divine approval which the Neo-Pharisees do not have
today!!

If the current Neo-Pharisees still want to claim they are The Chosen People of
the G-d of Moses then America should by all means let them prove it by fully
withdrawing ALL military and financial aid from Israel! We owe the current crop
of anti-Christs nothing and they are no real allies of America.

Need I say more other than America should stop making itself a target for
terrorism on the behalf of anti-Christs.

BTW here is how the current crop of Pharisees view you the non-Jew and once
again-- in their own words:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=kllghv4i1i04qsl4hc4uva984ad499imdg%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Non-Jews: What is Taught About Them & How They are Viewed by 21st
Century Pharisees V2.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:23:59 -0500
Message-ID: <kllghv4i1i04qsl4h...@4ax.com>

Tavish

Doug Bashford

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 5:22:18 PM9/11/03

In <g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>
On 11 Sep 2003 16:00:45 GMT, Tavish
<Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote about:
Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001 (IN THEIR OWN WORDS) V2.0
R_0911

>- Classic Repost from December 27, 2001 (Not all links may be active today)
>- Recompiled from these two archives July 14, 2003:
>- Subject: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
>- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:25:52 -0600
>- Subject: SUPPLEMENT: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
>- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:26:03 -0600
>-
>- FOREWORD: My life as well as my family's, relatives', and friends' lives are in
>- just as much danger as anyone else's so I do take seriously any and all threats
>- of hostilities against my home country America. What I am now posting should be
>- examined seriously and with an open mind.
>-
>- I am in no way siding with the people who killed American citizens on American
>- soil which is MY country.
>- Think of what follows this way: If someone came up to
>- you and slugs you on the arm and then he tells you why-- wouldn't
>- you take the person at their word!?
>- Would any of you doubt the motive if the assaulter told
>- you why!?

Good question, but here's a better question.

If somebody declare war on the USA in 1998,
and told the world why, then in 2001 attacked,

-- wouldn't you take the person at their word!?

>- Would any of you doubt the motive if the assaulter told
>- you why!?

Suggest you read bin Laden's famous 1998 fatwa.
It's a Declaration of War against the USA, and
a near quasi-declaration of independence.

In summery, while Israel was half-heartedly
mentioned, it was clear that his main gripes
were against 1) US troops in holy Saudi Arabia
2) launching missles, bombs, and "sanctions" against
fellow Muslims in Iraq *after* Desert Storm.
He specifically mentions the 500,000 dead Iraqi
children. Test this.

How important was Israel? Well the Palistinians
often complained because bin Landen&Co ignored them.

>-
>- The following proofs are texts of the words and statements of the "assaulter
>- telling all of us why" and I don't see why people should doubt what he says are
>- his reasons.

You may not be aware you "proved" your assumption,
something easy to do with Google. I suggest instead
you use your own criteria and read what binnie actually
said in his fatwa(s).

Yes, for these reasons, you do come across as anti-semite.

>-The media and other special interest groups don't want the truth
>- known because it would shine a spotlight some where which would make some people
>- nervous! I have heard numerous talk shows etc.. which claim America was attacked
>- because it is a Christian nation and that Islam is hostile toward America
>- because of that BUT any reasoning person would wonder-- Italy is the seat of the
>- largest body of Christendom in the world (Roman Catholicism) yet Italy is not
>- being threatened! Why would that be?

Excellent point. Or as Bush explained away, they hate our
freedom, minidresses, culture etc. If so, why wasn't
Europe the target?

>- What about other countries whose majority
>- religion is Christian such as many Latin American countries? They aren't
>- threatened so why would America be threatened? This is a simple answer but it
>- can't be denied: America is Israel's "bully boy" and Israel's main supporter
>- militarily and financially.

See fatwa.

>- America defends a "Nation" which has socialist/communist roots and is still
>- socialist and the facts of how Israel was really Palestine and that Jews were
>- aggressive to the Palestinians from the start is all contained in this one
>- archive and most of the material is from Jewish websites.
>-
>- http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
>- Subject: Palestine was Changed to a Socialist Jewish State in 1948 by Ben-Gurion
>- with Communist Soviet Union's Support
>- Message-ID: <1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com>
>-
>- Am I an anti_semite because I speak out against the dominant Jews? NO!

But that is not what yer doing. Yer skewing 9-11,
and falsly implicating the US/Israel connection.

Suggest you instead restrain yerself to the facts,
such as Israelii autrocities, they are not in short
supply.

Anyways, I notice that binnie's reasons are given
below, ya just gatta be aware of them.
Chech yer original.

>- Palestinians are semites too! Once again from Jewish web sites:
>-
..............snip
>- I am a major fan of talk show hosts such as: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
>- Michael Savage, Gordon Liddy ET AL but I am greatly distressed that they (down
>- to the very last one) unequivocally support Israel and all it does without even
>- the slightest criticism! Are we to believe that Israel is faultless--

Valid point. But don't break yer arm patting
yerself on the back. It stunts yer perceptions.

>- or in a
>- more distinct reality all of the above aforementioned know their plug would get
>- pulled if they didn't trumpet Israel as a nation above criticism and reproach?
>- I am sickened to death to hear people being called a Nazi or anti-semite and
>- then getting cut off by the people named above for the slightest criticism of
>- Israel. It seems almost everyone else is fair game for criticism!

Valid point. But don't break yer arm patting
yerself on the back. It stunts yer perceptions.

>-
>- <<END OF July 14, 2003 FOREWORD>>
>-
>- <Not all links may be active today because the original postings were made
>- December 27, 2001.>
>-
>- IN THEIR OWN WORDS HERE IS WHY AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.
>- THIS POST SHOWS WHY JEWS ARE UNIVERSALLY DISLIKED BY ALL PEOPLE WHO KNOW
>- WHAT THEY TEACH ABOUT NON-JEWS AND HOW JEWS VIEW THE REST OF HUMANITY.
>- ALL MATERIAL FULLY DOCUMENTED AND ALL LINKS GIVEN FOR VERIFICATION.
>-
>- >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:47:49 -0500, in
>- ><7fl9storn7pe6ei17...@4ax.com>,
>- http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=7fl9storn7pe6ei17...@4ax.com%3E&lr=&hl=en
>- >Doc Tavish <doc_t...@my-deja.comREMOVE2MAIL-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>-
>- >>AND WHY DID THESE NUT CASES ATTACK AMERICA?
>-
>- According to all of the following articles (and there are many) America was
>- attacked because of its support for Jews and Israel. Does
anyone care to deny
>- the following and the obvious?

You betcha, now yer sounding like a whacko.
This is because of yer obvious distortions
of even the evidence YOU present, such as
google search results.
Yes, Israel was mentioned, but that's ALL you
see. You have made no attempt to see what
binnie was thinking, your only attempt is to
frame the Jews.

>-
>- Over 6,000 Americans died because some terrorists protest American foreign
>- policy- namely being Israel's "bully boys"! America needs to tell Israel they
>- need to fight their own battles. Jews are no longer God's Chosen People NOR are
>- they entitled to any land in PALESTINE!
>-
>- From a GOOGLE web search:
>-
>- http://www.google.com/advanced_search
>- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bin+Laden+American+support+for+Israel&btnG=Google+Search
>- Searched the web for bin Laden American support for Israel.
>- Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200.
>- ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thus a hit for "A bin laden with dust, supports American
pillars of old Israel".

Lousy search, dude, to be reporting the "about 13,200."

Try this:
Laden American troops
or
Laden America holy
or
Laden American troops holy children fatwa

So yes, EVERY site below will mention Israel.

>- ADL Backgrounder - Osama bin Laden
>- ... in Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as ... July 1996 Bin Laden warns that
>- the ... the result of American behavior against Muslims, its support of Jews ...
>- www.adl.org/presrele/terrorismintl_93/bin_laden_93.asp
>-
>- US Intelligence Points to Bin Laden Network (washingtonpost. ...
>- ... But journalists with access to bin Laden said he and his ... United States
>- in retaliation for American support of Israel. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor ...
>- a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/
>- http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14366-2001Sep11.html
>-
>- Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
>- ... interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist ... Islamic
>- fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ... would attack American
>- interests in ...
>- http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010911/ts/crash_tradecenter_binladen_dc_2.html
>-
>- CNN - Some in Mideast question US focus on bin Laden ...
>- ... too much exaggeration about bin Laden himself as a person ... economic and
>- military support for Israel; a perceived American willingness to slap ...
>- www.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/22/terrorism.arab.view/
>-
>- Arabs exult, but leaders denounce killing -- The Washington ...
>- ... Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who is sheltered by ... divine
>- vengeance" for American support for Israel. In Lebanon's Ain al ...
>- www.washtimes.com/world/default-200191242615.htm
>-
>- frontline: hunting bin laden: who is bin laden?: interview ...
>- ... not know the name bin Laden, but they soon ... the Islamic world. American
>- presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews ... and helping Israel build
>- new ... www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
>-
>- US Official: Attacks May Be Bin Laden-Linked
>- ... on US interests for its support of Israel. ... of Islamic fundamentalists.
>- Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago ... he would attack American interests in
>- an ... www.yahoo.com/s/1538
>-
>- Who is he, and what does he want?
>- ... Bin Laden frequently appeals to US ... process to prevent further support of
>- Israel. "We say to the ... as people and to American mothers, if they cherish
>- ... www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/010912/obl.shtml
>-
>- The Jerusalem Post Newspaper : Online News From Israel - ...
>- ... because of its support for Israel. Earlier in the day ... them apparently an
>- American Airlines 767 hijacked ... terrorist mastermind Osama Bin-Laden is also
>- ... www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/11/News/News.34586.html
>-
>- Osama bin Laden: Profile
>- ... Times: "The presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia ... shrines,
>- enraged Mr. bin Laden and other Arab ... blamed the US support for Israel as
>- anti-Islam ... www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
>-
>- csmonitor.com
>- ... the following years, bin Laden became more and more ... from the US support
>- of Israel and the suffering ... to attacking all American civilians," says Post
>- ... www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/earlyWorld1.html
>-
>- <end>
>-
>- All of the above were results from: http://www.google.com/advanced_search
>- using keywords: bin Laden American support for Israel
>-
>- Do I support terrorism? NO!
>- Do I support or endorse Bin Laden? Certainly not!
>- Am I outraged over the cowardly attack against WTC? Most definitely!
>-
>- All of the above results were from accepted, by many as, credible sources.
>- Article after article shows America being attacked because of its support for
>- Israel.

Yer fulla shit. Suggest you actually read them.
This one looks like a good bet:
- Osama bin Laden: Profile ... Times: "The presence of American
soldiers in Saudi Arabia ... shrines,- enraged Mr. bin Laden

and other Arab ... blamed the US support for Israel as

- anti-Islam ... www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

>-
>- America does side with Jewry against Palestinians almost universally and the
>- Islamic or even Christian Palestinians and others resent us for ignoring the
>- wrongs Jews do to them! Think about it- how many times have you heard the terms

chop similar ranting and frothing.

--Doug

Yitzchak Goodman

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 8:38:18 PM9/11/03

Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>...
>
[snip]

> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvull7df5rgn2rhai54c%404ax.com&rnum=2
> Subject: Soviets (Communists) Were Jews as Proven by BOOLEAN Operands (Classic
> Repost from 3-31-2000) Abridged Version R_0516
> Message-ID: <ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvu...@4ax.com>
> Date: 16 May 2003 06:36:09 GMT
>

[snip]

The following list of major Gentile Communist figures
was compiled for satiric purposes, but I tried to make
it as accurate as possible.
So here it is: an answer to all the net-Nazis
who try to convince us that the major Communist figures
were "mainly" or "mostly" or "almost exclusively" Jewish.
What follows contains no polemic, but only facts
(aside from a few snide observations). So
without further ado, the list that pushes back
the last frontier of ignorance, the list of
COMMIE GOYIM!!!!!!!

François Noël Babeuf ("French revolutionary, organizer of
a communist uprising against the Directory . . . he formed
a secret society that plotted to overthrow the government;
it became known as the Conspiracy of the Equals . . . ."
"Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that
were similar to later socialism, the first theorist
who may properly be called socialist was François Noël
Babeuf . . . ." Columbia Encyclopedia, articles on Babeuf
and Socialism)

Louis Auguste Blanqui ("Inspired by Babeuf, [Blanqui] coined the
phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and devoted
his life to achieveing it through conspiratorial means. . ."
Pipes, Conspiracy, p. 78.)

Etienne Cabet (French Socialist, author of Voyage en Icarie,
the word "communism" was initially associated with his
ideas)

Engels (Never forget that Das Kapital was written in German
by two guys named Karl and Friedrich.)

BOLSHEVIKS:

Alexander Bogdanov (Important early Bolshevik theorist, Had broken
with Lenin by the time of the revolution.)

Lenin (5th on Rudolph Rummel's list of the "20th Century's Bloodiest
Murderers" http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_murderers.html)

Stalin (Most blood-stained person who ever lived, #1 on Rummel's list)

Georgi Konstantinovich "Sergo" Ordzhonikidze (Soviet leader
in Armenia and Georgia, Politburo member under Stalin, Beria
and Mikoyan both named sons "Sergo" after him)

Felix Dzerzhinsky (Founder, in 1918, of the Checka secret
police agency, precursor organization of the GPU, OGPU, NKVD,
and KGB)

Nikolai Bukharin (Major Bolshevik theoretician, Politburo Member,
Editor of Pravda)

Lev Borisovich Kamenev (Member of the Original Politburo,
Often mistakenly identified as a Jew although mother was non-Jew,
Originally sided with Stalin and Zinoviev against Trotsky but
forced out by Stalin along with Zinoviev in 1926)

Anatoli Vasilyevich Lunacharsky (Revolutionary, Literary Figure,
Commissar of Education 1917–29)

Nikolai N. Krestinski (Member of First Politburo along with Lenin,
Stalin, Kamenev, and Trotsky)

Georgi Vasilyevich Chicherin (Foreign Comissar/Minister,
succeeding Trotsky, until 1928)

Aleksey Ivanovich Rykov (Commissar for the Interior after 1917,
Politburo member under Lenin and Stalin, Premier from 1924-1931,
Sided with Stalin against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky but
fell afoul of Stalin shortly afterwards)

Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin (Chairman of Central Executive Committee
1919-1946, Politburo Member 1925-46)

Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko ("Leading Bolshevik. Commanded storming of
Winter Palace in october 1917; held important military, political,
legal and diplomatic posts after Revolution. Disappeared during
purges" All Stalin's Men, p. 173)

Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya (Mrs. Lenin, Prominent Bolshevik)

Aleksandra Mikhailovna Kollontai (Prominent Bolshevik, Feminist,
People's Commissar for Welfare)

Alexander Shlyapnikov (People's Commissar for Labor until Oct.
1918, later Central Committee Member, Leader--with Kollontai--
of "Worker's Opposition")

Nikolai Vasilyevich Krylenko (Military comissar and
later heavily involved in political trials and purges
until he was purged hinmself in 1938)

Inessa Armand (Prominent Bolshevik, Feminist, Lenin's Mistress)

STALIN'S RULE:

Kliment Voroshilov (Active Bolshevik prior to revolution,
Major Red Army commander during civil war, Close associate
of Stalin, Politburo Member under Stalin, Out of favor under
Khruschev, restored to Central Committee in 1966)

Vyacheslav Rudolfovich Menzhinsky (Succeeded Dzerzhinsky as head
of NKVD in 1926)

Nikolai Yezhov (Head of NKVD 1936-1938, replacing Yagoda,
Wave of terror known as "Yezhovshchina")

Lavrenti Beria (Head of Soviet Georgia and Transcaucasia,
Head of NKVD from 1938 until Stalin's Death, Probably second
most powerful figure in Stalin's government for much
of that time and certainly the most hated and feared,
Deputy Premier under Malenkov)

Nikolai Bulganin (Defense Minister under Stalin, briefly
succeeded Malenkov as Premier)

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (Early editor of Pravda prior
to revolution, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars
after Rykov, then Foreign Minister, negotiated non-agression pact
between Soviets and Nazi Germany, According to Roy Medvedev,
"In 1932 he played a particularly sinister part in the
Ukraine, where he directed the state grain-procurement
opeations in the southern provinces; after his intervention
the southern Ukraine was gripped by a terrible famine that
carried off millions," All Stalin's Men, p. 87)

Georgi Maksimilianovich Malenkov (Politburo member, Deputy
Premier under Stalin, briefly succeeded Stalin as Premier)

Mikhail Tomsky (Politburo Member, Trade Union Leader,
Another major figure in the power struggles that
eventually led to the consolidation of Stalin's power)

Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov (Central Committee Secretary,
Rival of Malenkov, Anti-Semite)

Stanislav Vikent'evich Kosior (Ukrainian First Secretary,
Reported to have said the following: " . . . the peasant
is adopting a new tactic. He refuses to reap the harvest.
He wants the bread grain to die in order to choke the
Soviet government with the bony hand of famine. We will
show him what famine is." Harvest of Sorrow, p. 221)

Pavel Petrovich Postyshev ("Postyshev was, in fact, Stalin's
effective plenipotenitary in the task of 'Bolshevizing' the
Ukrainian party and extracting further grain from the
starving Ukrainian villages" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 241.)

Grigori Ivanovich Petrovsky ("When a factory official told Petrovsky
that his employees were talking of five million people having already
died and asked what he should tell them, he is quoted as answering,
'Tell them nothing! What they say is true. We know millions are dying.
That is unfortunate, but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will
justify that. Tell them nothing!'" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 325.)

Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan (Armenian Communist Party head,
Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium, Politburo
member.)

Sergei Mironovich Kirov (Active in Party from Civil War, Politburo
Member under Stalin, Stalin used his assassination--which he probably
ordered himself--as a pretext for getting rid of Zinoviev, Rykov, and
Kamenev.)

Andrei Yanuarievich Vyshinsky (Chief Prosecutor of Soviet Union
1935-1939)

OTHER POLITBURO MEMBERS UNDER STALIN:

Valerian Vladimirovich Kuibyshev
Vlas Yakovlevich Chubar'
Yan Ernestovich Rudzutak
Aleksandr Sergeevich Shcherbakov
Andrei Andreevich Andreev
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Uglanov
Robert Ivanovich Eikhe
Sergei I. Syrtsov

NKVD OFFICIALS--BERIA PROTEGES (KNOWN AS "BERIA'S GANG"):

Bogdan Kobulov (Deputy head of NKVD under Beria, with Serov oversaw
deportation of Crimean Tartars and other national groups,
Involved in day-to-day operation of the Gulag)

Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov (Deputy Head of NKVD along with Kobulov,
Head of KGB 1954-1958 "Ivan Serov was awarded the Order of Suvorov,
First Class, reserved for major victories in the field, on March 9
1944--that is, immediately after the largest of his deportation
operations, that of the Chechen-Ingush. He was later made a
Hero of the Soviet Union and received a number of other orders."
Conquest, The Nation Killers, p. 82)

Vsevolod Nikolayevich Merkulov (Head of NKGB 1941-1946, briefly head
of MGB in 1946)

Sergei Goglidze (Head of Leningrad NKVD, Later Deputy Minister
of State Security and Chief of Third Directorate of MGB)

Vladimir Dekanozov (Head of GUGB Foreign Department,
1953 Minister MVD Georgia)

Lavrentii Tsanava (1921-33 Checka-OGPU in Caucasus,
1938-1952 Head of Belorussia NKVD)

Grigorii Karanadze ( Head of Crimea NKVD 1938-1942,
1952 People's Commissar NKVD/MVD Georgia)

Aleksei Sadzhaia (Head of Uzbekistan NKVD)

Amaiak Kobulov (Brother of Bogdan, Head of Ukraine NKVD 1939,
NKVD Uzbekistan 1943)

Mikhail Gvishiani (Head of Far East NKVD, His son Dzhermen--
named after Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky--was married to Kosygin's
daughter)

Avksentii Rapava (1941-1948 Head of Georgia NKVD then NKGB, MGB)

M. D. Bagirov (Head of the Communist Party in Azerbaijan)

MVD-MGB-KGB OFFICIALS:

Kruglov, Sergei (Briefly head of NKVD, MVD first deputy, Major
subordinate of Beria, but joined Khrushchev against Beria)

Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov (Head of MGB 1946-1951, Technically
another of Beria's subordinates, but independent of Beria and a rival
to Merkulov)

Sergey Ogoltsov (Head of MGB July 14 1951 - August 9 1951)

Semyon Denisovich Ignatiyev (Head of MGB 1951-1953, Since
he had been part of the Zhdanov faction, his appointment
was a blow to Beria)

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shelepin (Head of KGB 1958-1961,
Supported Khrushchev's rise to power and was also involved
in his removal)

Vladimir Yefimovich Semichastniy (Head of KGB 1961-1967,
Also heavily involved in Khrushchev's removal)

[See "LATER USSR FIGURES" for Andropov]

Vitaliy Vasilyevich Fedorchuk (Head of KGB May 26 1982 - December 17
1982)

Viktor Mikhaylovich Chebrikov (Head of KGB 1982-1988)

Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kryuchkov (Head of KGB 1988-1991)

LATER USSR FIGURES:

Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (Ideological watchdog maintaining purity of
communist doctrine, Central Committee member from 1941, Supported both
Khruschev's rise to power and his downfall)

Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev

Alexei Nikolayevich Kosygin (Succeeded Khrushchev as Premier in 1964,
initially shared power with Brezhnev although power later declined)

Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov (Head of KGB 1967-1982, General Secretary
of Communist Party 1982-1984)
(See: http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/andropov.htm)

Konstantin Chernenko (Party General Secretary and Chairman of
Presiduim after Andropov's death)

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (Chernenko's successor)

MISCELLANEOUS:

Josip Broz Tito (9th on Rummel's list of "20th
Century's Bloodiest Murderers")

Aleksandar Rankovic (Tito's second in command 1948-1966)

Vulko Chervenkov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1950-1956)

Todor Zhikov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1956-1989)

Mao Tse-Tung (2nd on Rummel's list)

Zhou Enlai (Chinese Premier 1949-1976)

Zhu De (Military leader and later Deputy Chairman of Communist China)

Lin Biao (Second only to Mao in China in the late 60's, Compiler of
the Little Red Book)

Liu Shaoqi (Mao's leading deputy in 50's and early 60's)

Kang Sheng (Chinese Secret Police Chief)

Jiang Qing (Mrs. Mao, the rest of the "Gang of Four" follow)

Wang Hongwen

Yao Wenyuan

Zhang Chunqiao

Deng Xiaoping ( http://www.laogai.org/comment/dissent.htm )

Pol Pot (7th on Rummel's list)

Nuon Chea (Deputy General Secretary of Cambodia's
Communist Party, Number Two man in Pol Pot's regime, heavily
implicated in torture, mass-murder, and repression)

Ieng Sary (Pol Pot's brother-in-law, Minister of Foreign Affairs)

Khieu Samphan (Cambodian Head of State under Pol Pot)

János Kádár (Head of Communist Hungary 1956-1988)

Boleslaw Bierut (Leader of Communist Poland:
President of Communist Poland 1947-1952,
First Secretary of Central Committee 1948-1956)

Józef Cyrankiewicz (Polish Politburo member 1948-1971,
Prime Minister 1947-1952, Deputy Premier 1952-1954,
Prime Minister 1954-1970)

Marian Spychalski (Polish General, PPR-PUWP
Politburo member 1945-1949, 1959-1970)

Zenon Nowak (Polish Central Committee, Politburo
member, Secretary of Central Committee 1950-1954,
Deputy Premier until 1968)

Stanislaw Radkiewicz (Polish Minister of Public Security
1945-1954)

Wladyslaw Gomulka (Head of Communist Poland 1956-1970)

Edward Gierek (Head of Communist Poland 1970-1980)

Gheorgehe Gheorghiu-Dej (According to Dennis Deletant,
instituted "police terror" in Communist Romania)

Nicolae Ceausescu (Dej's successor, Head of Communist Romania
1965-1989--why are so many of these guys named "Nikolai"?)

Elena Ceaucescu (Ceaucescu's wife, major figure in Ceaucescu's
government, promoted cult of personality surrounding Ceaucescu)

Tudor Postelnicu (Promoted to Interior Minister of Romania in 1987,
head of dreaded Securitate security service up to that point)

Iulian Vlad (Following Postelnicu's promotion, succeeded him
as Head of Securitate)

George Nicolae Doicaru (Head of Securitate at time of 1978 defection
of
Ion Pacepa)

Walter Ulbricht (Head of East Germany 1950-1971, Built Berlin Wall,
sent troops to help Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia)

Erich Honecker (Succeeded Ulbricht)

Wilhelm Zaisser (Head of Stasi 1950-1953)

Ernst Wollweber (Head of Stasi 1953-1957)

Erich Mielke (Head of Stasi 1957-1989)

Willi Stoph (East German Politburo Member, Minister of Internal
Affairs and Minister for National Defense during 1950's, became
Chairman of Council of Ministers in 1964)

Fidel Castro

Raul Castro (Fidel's younger brother and designated heir, Defence
Minister)

Felipe Perez Roque (Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister)

Carlos Lage (Cuban Vice President)

Kim Il Sung (Head of North Korea 1948–94)

Kim Jong Il (Son of the above)

Kim Yong Nam (Presidium President of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea Supreme People's Assembly, i.e. Kim Jong
Il's second in command--not to be confused with Kim Jong Nam,
KJI's now out-of-favor oldest son)

Jang Song Thaek (KJI's brother in law--Deputy Head
of the Korean Central Committee)

Fusako Shigenobu (Head of Japanese Red Army)

Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof (Baader-Meinhof Gang)

William Z. Foster (U.S. Communist party candidate for President 1924,
1928, 1932)

Earl Russell Browder (U.S. Communist party candidate for President
1936, 1940)

Gus Hall (U.S. Communist Party candidate for President 1972, 1976,
1980, 1984)

Jarvis Tyner (Hall's running mate in 1972 and 1976)

Angela Davis (Civil rights activist and philosopher, Gus Hall's
vice-presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984.)

Enver Hoxha (Leader of Communist Albania 1946-1985)

Ramiz Alia (Hoxha's successor)

Klement Gottwald (President of Communist Czechoslovakia 1948-1953)

Gustave Husak (Leader of Czechoslovakia after suppression of
"Prague Spring.")

Otto Vilgelmovich Kuusinen (Finnish communist, exiled
to the USSR after Finnish independence was consolidated
following WW I and the civil war that ensued, headed failed
Soviet-supported bogus Terijojki government after Soviet
attack on Finland in 1939, eventually rose to be the only
foreign-born member of the Soviet Politburo.)

Hertta Kuusinen (Finnish communist leader, Otto's
daughter, In a notorious 1948 speech shortly after
the communist take-over in Czechoslovakia she
stated "Czechoslovakia's way will be our way.")

Antanas Snieckus (Grand old man of Lithuanian communism,
Lived in exile in the USSR, but tried repeatedly to subvert
the Lithuanian state. Lithuanian Communist Party head after
country incorporated into USSR. Defied Moscow
and built his own brand of Lithuanian communism.)

Arvid Yanovich Pelshe (Latvian Communist Party head, head
of the Soviet Communist Party Control Committee and responsible
for internal migration policies, including deportations,
ethnic dilutions, and policies leading to de facto
Russification of non-Russian republics)

Renato Curcio (Red Brigades)

Alberto Franceschini (Red Brigades)

Mario Moretti (Red Brigades, negotiated mutual aid pact with PLO)

Ho Chi Minh

Do Muoi (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese Communist Party in
1991)

Le Kha Phieu (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese
Communist Party in 1997)

Nong Duc Manh (Current General Secretary of Vietnamese Commuunist
Party)

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, "Carlos the Jackal"

Ernesto Che Guevara

George Habash, PFLP

Wadi Haddad, PFLP

Leila Khaled, PFLP

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albats, Yevgenia. The State Within a State: The KGB and
Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present, and Future. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994

Conquest, Robert. Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization
and the Terror-Famine. Oxford, 1986.

-----. Inside Stalin's Secret Police: NKVD Politics 1936-1939.
Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press, 1985.

-----. Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps. Viking Press, 1978.

-----. The Nation Killers: The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities.
MacMillan, 1960.

Columbia Encyclopedia

Courtois, Stephane, et. al. The Black Book of Communism.
Harvard, 1999.

Deletant, Dennis. Ceausescu and the Securitate: Coercion
and Dissent in Romania, 1965-1989.
Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1995

Jansen, Marc and Nikita Petrov. Stalin's Loyal Executioner:
People's Commissar Nikolai Ezhov 1895-1940.
Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press, 2002.

Knight, Amy. Beria: Stalin's first Lieutenant. Princeton, 1993.

Medvedev, Roy. All Stalin's Men: Six Who Carried Out the Bloody
Policies. Trans. Harold Shukman. Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984.

Pipes, Daniel. Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where
it Comes From. The Free Press, 1997

Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution.
Vintage Books, 1996.

Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography. Harvard, 2000.

WEB SOURCES RELEVANT TO MORE THAN ONE ENTRY:

Source for MGB, KGB entries: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

"20th Century's Bloodiest Murderers"
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_murderers.html

********************************************************************
(Thanks to Eugene Holman for entries on Mikoyan, Suslov,
the Kuusinens, Pelshe, Snieckus, and Angela Davis)

Hope you enjoyed it,

Yitz

Tavish

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 10:20:49 PM9/11/03

On 11 Sep 2003 17:38:18 -0700, <c338b5c0.03091...@posting.google.com>
yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote:

>Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>...
>>
>[snip]
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvull7df5rgn2rhai54c%404ax.com&rnum=2
>> Subject: Soviets (Communists) Were Jews as Proven by BOOLEAN Operands (Classic
>> Repost from 3-31-2000) Abridged Version R_0516
>> Message-ID: <ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvu...@4ax.com>
>> Date: 16 May 2003 06:36:09 GMT
>>
>[snip]
>
>The following list of major Gentile Communist figures

Can't stand those hard hitting truths so you delete them and post different
material to escape the issue-- Typical Jew Behavior!

Tavish

david_michael

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 10:27:10 PM9/11/03

Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>...

> Classic Repost from December 27, 2001 (Not all links may be active today)
> Recompiled from these two archives July 14, 2003:
> Subject: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:25:52 -0600
> Subject: SUPPLEMENT: Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001...
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:26:03 -0600
>
> FOREWORD: My life as well as my family's, relatives', and friends' lives are in
> just as much danger as anyone else's so I do take seriously any and all threats
> of hostilities against my home country America. What I am now posting should be
> examined seriously and with an open mind.
>
> I am in no way siding with the people who killed American citizens on American
> soil which is MY country. Think of what follows this way: If someone came up to
> you and slugs you on the arm and then he tells you why-- wouldn't you take the
> person at their word!? Would any of you doubt the motive if the assaulter told
> you why!?

I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
America, because the government of America, elected by the people of
America, is a the government of a nation that has spread murder and
death and despair over all the Earth. The dear, wonderful man widely
accused of being behind the 'attack' on America has already reportedly
told the world of his motives in the following beautiful words:

<begin quote>
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those
(believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and
surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who
disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other
than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan;
ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what
basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of
responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on
Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the
truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward,
seeking success and support from Him.

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions
directed at the Americans:

Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The
answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than
80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your
support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years;
years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing,
expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation
of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of
its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the
degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a
crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have
become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay
its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet
tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a
historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the
Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused
of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious,
widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are
pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the
inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real
Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the
Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and
blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have
been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are
the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans,
Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the
Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right
to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes
in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and
we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You
must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not
widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities
against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir,
and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our
countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic
Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us
in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you
at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them
most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the
dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a
necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law
and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is
not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you
international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the
biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases
throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our
sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the
continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every
day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have
died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet
when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet
sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their
eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help
and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the
Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered
the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and
destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your
oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion
and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the
aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and
revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has
attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her
to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify
aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and
offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America
is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the
American people are the ones who choose their government by way of
their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its
policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and
affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians,
the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous
killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The
American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of
their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the
planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy
our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the
Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These
tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and
penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the
attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure
of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected
candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this
very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against
us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and
their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the
crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to
take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to
attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we
have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen
our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And
whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill
theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the
question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men
of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and
principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we
calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from
associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love
of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the
discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which
contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and
makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous
religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the
best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It
is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice
between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed
and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and
forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the
religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and
religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement
on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people,
without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained
preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages
have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment.
Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten
verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies,
immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and
purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality,
intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you
have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive
lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you
to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization
witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah
in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you
will and desire. You separate religion from your policies,
contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the
Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed
to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His
creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them
all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most
in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden
by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on
Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the
Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then
taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life
making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense;
precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage
of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of
them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you
consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to
sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread
amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor
your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the
official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to
account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything
passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which
your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The
companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming
active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or
advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use
women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your
profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of
women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its
forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments
are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism
and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as
a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past.
Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS
as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases
more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to
sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your
greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway
in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with
their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies,
media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is
that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other
nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten
to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb
on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war.
How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried
out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your
duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and
principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one
for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and
for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon
them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you
call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing
democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice
democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the
Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to
imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book
of democracy'!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass
destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries
which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries
you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use
such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect
might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call
them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of
International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone
else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing
UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of
America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts
for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!!
However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed
against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed
in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame
that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you
of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated
innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on
mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the
heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the
agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in
Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through
suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by
torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the
Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your
Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing
statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However,
all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then
implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you
used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and
Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor
even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and
its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is
the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with
yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a
nation without principles or manners, and that the values and
principles to you are something which you merely demand from others,
not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your
support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens
and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims
in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands.
We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not
force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt
leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method
of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and
Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis
of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub
dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of
supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for
you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight
with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete
trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is
addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has
more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight
against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace
them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing
people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah
accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing,
All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]

The Nation of honour and respect:

"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger
(Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will
be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran
3:139]

The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you
desire life:

"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay,
they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They
rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and
rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are
left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor
shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah,
and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran
3:169-171]

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with
guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over
all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]

"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be
victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous
evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks,
wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are
well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul,
despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness,
guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that
you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous
Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen,
fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans
do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled
from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political
breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they
now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the
permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?
<end quote>

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 10:27:12 PM9/11/03

Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>...

I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of

Tavish

unread,

Sep 11, 2003, 10:41:06 PM9/11/03

>Good question, but here's a better question.
>
>If somebody declare war on the USA in 1998,
>and told the world why, then in 2001 attacked,
>-- wouldn't you take the person at their word!?

America is still singled out because America is the only "Western European
Nation" which gives Israel the massive support they get! I thought the Old
Testament spoke that God was the one who fought for Israel and that Israel was
to form NO alliances with other nations but to rely on G-d alone. There are
plenty of instances where G-d "fought for Israel" and that Israel lost not one
man in battle but the enemy was totally destroyed. In fact when Israel sinned
and G-d withdrew his support the Israelites lost their battles and their lives
such as what the Assyrians and Babylonians did to them!

>>- Would any of you doubt the motive if the assaulter told
>>- you why!?
>
>Suggest you read bin Laden's famous 1998 fatwa.
>It's a Declaration of War against the USA, and
>a near quasi-declaration of independence.
>
>In summery, while Israel was half-heartedly
>mentioned, it was clear that his main gripes
>were against 1) US troops in holy Saudi Arabia
>2) launching missles, bombs, and "sanctions" against
>fellow Muslims in Iraq *after* Desert Storm.
>He specifically mentions the 500,000 dead Iraqi
>children. Test this.
>
>How important was Israel? Well the Palistinians
>often complained because bin Landen&Co ignored them.

You still ignore the material I posted and the Palestinian complaints mean
nothing seeing how none of them get along with each other anyway due to their
own power struggles among themselves.

>>- The following proofs are texts of the words and statements of the "assaulter
>>- telling all of us why" and I don't see why people should doubt what he says are
>>- his reasons.
>
>You may not be aware you "proved" your assumption,
>something easy to do with Google. I suggest instead
>you use your own criteria and read what binnie actually
>said in his fatwa(s).
>
>Yes, for these reasons, you do come across as anti-semite.

Ahh the old anti-Semite gambit has been pulled! The Palestinians are Semites too
and I am not criticizing them BUT I will expose the hypocrisy and wickedness of
the Zionazis.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m7bgevgqkcve6k7of2o6oi8filg55jdaj8%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: JSOURCE Definition of Anti-Semitism & Example of a Pathological
Anti-Semite

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:15:50 -0500
Message-ID: <m7bgevgqkcve6k7of...@4ax.com>

>>-The media and other special interest groups don't want the truth
>>- known because it would shine a spotlight some where which would make some people
>>- nervous! I have heard numerous talk shows etc.. which claim America was attacked
>>- because it is a Christian nation and that Islam is hostile toward America
>>- because of that BUT any reasoning person would wonder-- Italy is the seat of the
>>- largest body of Christendom in the world (Roman Catholicism) yet Italy is not
>>- being threatened! Why would that be?
>
>Excellent point. Or as Bush explained away, they hate our
>freedom, minidresses, culture etc. If so, why wasn't
>Europe the target?

Because Europe is not a bankroller and supplier of weapons to Israel like the
USA is. Also they hate our culture-- especially Hollywood and it is almost
exclusively run by Jews!

>>- What about other countries whose majority

>>- religion is Christian such as many Latin American countries? They aren't
>>- threatened so why would America be threatened? This is a simple answer but it
>>- can't be denied: America is Israel's "bully boy" and Israel's main supporter
>>- militarily and financially.
>
>See fatwa.
>
>>- America defends a "Nation" which has socialist/communist roots and is still
>>- socialist and the facts of how Israel was really Palestine and that Jews were
>>- aggressive to the Palestinians from the start is all contained in this one
>>- archive and most of the material is from Jewish websites.
>>-
>>- http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
>>- Subject: Palestine was Changed to a Socialist Jewish State in 1948 by Ben-Gurion
>>- with Communist Soviet Union's Support
>>- Message-ID: <1g60hvoj0b21pn339...@4ax.com>
>>-
>>- Am I an anti_semite because I speak out against the dominant Jews? NO!
>
>But that is not what yer doing. Yer skewing 9-11,
>and falsly implicating the US/Israel connection.

It is America which primarily claims a "Judeo-Christian Alliance_US/Israel"
connection when the dominant ones are opposed to Christianity.

>Suggest you instead restrain yerself to the facts,

Which I have done!

>such as Israelii autrocities, they are not in short
>supply.
>
>
>Anyways, I notice that binnie's reasons are given
>below, ya just gatta be aware of them.
>Chech yer original.

I offered enough confirmations.

>>- Palestinians are semites too! Once again from Jewish web sites:
>>-
>..............snip

Can't deal with facts can you?

>>- I am a major fan of talk show hosts such as: Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
>>- Michael Savage, Gordon Liddy ET AL but I am greatly distressed that they (down
>>- to the very last one) unequivocally support Israel and all it does without even
>>- the slightest criticism! Are we to believe that Israel is faultless--
>
>Valid point. But don't break yer arm patting
>yerself on the back. It stunts yer perceptions.

It lets me know I am on the narrow road instead of the broad and spacious one.

>>- anyone care to deny the following and the obvious?

>
>You betcha, now yer sounding like a whacko.

Personal attacks don't refute what I posted and my premise.

>This is because of yer obvious distortions
>of even the evidence YOU present, such as
>google search results.
>Yes, Israel was mentioned, but that's ALL you
>see. You have made no attempt to see what
>binnie was thinking, your only attempt is to
>frame the Jews.

I posted what he said many times and gave the means to verify from many sources
which you dismiss in your attempt to shield people from the blame which they
rightfully deserve.

>>-
>>- Over 6,000 Americans died because some terrorists protest American foreign
>>- policy- namely being Israel's "bully boys"! America needs to tell Israel they
>>- need to fight their own battles. Jews are no longer God's Chosen People NOR are
>>- they entitled to any land in PALESTINE!
>>-
>>- From a GOOGLE web search:
>>-
>>- http://www.google.com/advanced_search
>>- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bin+Laden+American+support+for+Israel&btnG=Google+Search
>>- Searched the web for bin Laden American support for Israel.
>>- Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200.
>>- ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>Thus a hit for "A bin laden with dust, supports American
>pillars of old Israel".
>
>Lousy search, dude, to be reporting the "about 13,200."

I posted the return search as GOOGLE showed it.

Here is what the same search returned just now:

Searched the web for bin Laden American support for Israel. Results 1 - 10 of
about 323,000

Stay in denial BUT insulting me won't make the cold hard truth go away!

Can't stand the truth can you and here it is again:

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/10/10/News/News.35927.html

<end>

<end>
Tavish

>
>--Doug

Yitzchak Goodman

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 3:06:12 AM9/12/03

Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<vnb2mvkd62faidihu...@4ax.com>...

> On 11 Sep 2003 17:38:18 -0700, <c338b5c0.03091...@posting.google.com>
> yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote:
>
> >Tavish <Tav...@AMERICAN-TAVISH-CENTRAL.NET> wrote in message news:<g161mv41pbnercgof...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> [snip]
> >> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvull7df5rgn2rhai54c%404ax.com&rnum=2
> >> Subject: Soviets (Communists) Were Jews as Proven by BOOLEAN Operands (Classic
> >> Repost from 3-31-2000) Abridged Version R_0516
> >> Message-ID: <ek19cv4ei9cf2nrvu...@4ax.com>
> >> Date: 16 May 2003 06:36:09 GMT
> >>
> >[snip]
> >
> >The following list of major Gentile Communist figures
>
> Can't stand those hard hitting truths so you delete them and post different
> material to escape the issue-- Typical Jew Behavior!
>

Speaking of wanting to "escape the issue," you
never adequately replied to the following:

[begin repost]

Tavish wrote:
> (Archived locally as: weber_jewCOM)
>
> The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik "Revolution" and Russia's Early Soviet Regime
> Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism
>
> by Mark Weber
>
[Snip Weber garbage to get to lying Wilton lists]

> "According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important
> functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in
> 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts
> [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns,
> one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews."

According to Benjamin Pinkus (The Jews of the Soviet Union,
Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 83.):

"If we take all three sectors of the administration,
it emerges that of the 417 people who constituted the
ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s (the
members of the Central Executive Committee, the Party
Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the
Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the Ministers,
and the Chairman of the Executive Committee),
twenty-seven (that is 6%) were Jews."

> "If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of
> the assassination of the Russian Imperial family, he must bear in mind the
> formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration," Wilton
> went on to write.
>
> Effective governmental power, Wilton continued (on pages 136-138 of the same
> edition) is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918, he
> reported, this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and
> three were of Russian ancestry. The nine Jews were: Bronstein (Trotsky),
> Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Lurie (Larine),

Lurie was not a member of the Central Committee according to
the Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution (Ed.
Harold Shukman, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1988, p. 168)
(I am assuming Wilton is referring to the Seventh Party
Congress in March of 1918)

>Uritsky,

Not a voting a member. A list of voting and non-voting members
would contain 23 names.

>Volodarski,

Not a member

>Rosenfeld (Kamenev),

> Smidovich,

Not a member

>Sverdlov (Yankel), and

>Nakhamkes (Steklov).

Not a member

The three Russians were:
> Ulyanov (Lenin), Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

The full voting members not listed by Wilton
include Stalin, Bukharin, Dzerzhinksy, and Krestinsky!

[more deletia]

> The Soviet government, or "Council of People's Commissars' (also known as the
> "Sovnarkom") was made up of the following, Wilton reported:
>
> Peoples Commissariat (Ministry)
> Name
> Nationality
>
> Chairman
> V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin)
> Russian
>
> Foreign Affairs
> G.V. Chicherin
> Russian
>
> Nationalities
> J. Dzhugashvili [Stalin]
> Georgian
>
> Agriculture
> Protian
> Armenian
>
> Economic Council
> Lourie (Larin)
> Jew
>
> Food Supply
> A.G. Schlikhter
> Jew
>
> Army and Navy [Military]
> L.D. Bronstein (Trotski)
> Jew
>
> State Control
> K.I. Lander
> Jew
>
> State Lands
> Kaufmann
> Jew
>
> Works [Labor]
> V. Schmidt
> Jew
>
> Social Relief
> E. Lilina (Knigissen)
> Jew
>
> Education
> A. Lunacharsky
> Russian
>
> Religion
> Spitzberg
> Jew
>
> Interior
> Apfelbaum [Radomyslski] (Zinoviev)
> Jew
>
> .Hygiene
> Anvelt
> Jew
>
> Finance
> I. E. Gukovs [and G. Sokolnikov]
> Jew
>
> Press
> Voldarski [Goldstein]
> Jew
>
> Elections
> M.S. Uritsky
> Jew
>
> Justice
> I.Z. Shteinberg
> Jew
>
> Refugees
> Fenigstein
> Jew
>
> Refugees
> Savitch (Assistant)
> Jew
>
> Refugees
> Zaslovski (Assistant)
> Jew
>
>
>
> Out of these 22 "Sovnarkom" members, Wilton summed'up, there were three
> Russians, one Georgian, one Armenian, and 17 Jews.

According to the Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution
(pp. 170-171), the Sovnarkom consisted of the following people
in 1917 and 1918:

[1918 members--replacing the earlier ones--are in brackets]
[1917 members who never actively served are in curly braces]

Foreign Affairs: Trotsky [Chicherin]
Internal Affairs: Rykov, Petrovsky [Dzerzhinsky]
Local Government: Trutovsky
Nationalities: Stalin
Justice: {Lomov} Steinberg [Stuchka, Kursky]
State Control: Essen [Lander]
Finance: {Skvortsov-Stepanov} Menzhinsky [Gukovsky, Krestinsky]
Labor: Shlyapnikov [Shmidt]
Welfare: Kollontai
Education: Lunacharsky
Posts and Telegraphs: Avilov [Proshyan, Podbelsky]
Properties of the Republic: Karelin
Agriculture: Milyutin, Kolegaev [Sereda]
Food Supplies: Tedorovich, Shlichter [Tsyrupa]
Transport: Elizarov [Rogov, Kobozev, Nevsky]
Trade and Industry: Nogin [Smirnov, Krasin]
VSNKh (Probably Wilton's "Economic Council"): Osinsky [Rykov]
Army: Podvoisky
Navy: Dybenko [Army and Navy replaced by "War": Trotsky]
[1918 Commissar for Social Security: Vinokurov]

The percentage of Jews is vastly smaller here,
needless to say. Using Blackwell as the standard,
Wilton (for whatever time we take him as talking about)
appears to leave out some Commissars, to list some
non-standard Commissariats, to
list some Commissars incorrectly, and to list
Steinberg and Shmidt as if they served at the same time.
And what about those "assistants" listed by Wilton--
why are "assistants" only listed for one Commissariat?

Get your facts straight!

Yitz

[end repost]

Jason James

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 4:22:14 PM9/12/03

"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com...

[ snip copy]

Here we have Michael, an Englishman who resides in his home country secure
in the knowledge that the US forces helped save his home country and the
right to exist there.

Jason James

david_michael

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 10:13:11 PM9/12/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<WVp8b.97387$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

Of course it should not be forgotten that the anonymous poster called
'Jason James', who attacks me in newsgroups that he thinks I don't
read in the hope of avoiding a response, does not hesitate to approve
of the American mass murder of 270,000 or more mostly innocent
civilians in its wholly unnecessary bombings of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Roger

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 11:28:51 PM9/12/03

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message <b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com>:

>"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<WVp8b.97387$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

>> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com...

>> > I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of

>> > America, because the government of America, elected by the people of
>> > America, is a the government of a nation that has spread murder and
>> > death and despair over all the Earth. The dear, wonderful man widely
>> > accused of being behind the 'attack' on America has already reportedly
>> > told the world of his motives in the following beautiful words:

[ snip copy]

>> Here we have Michael, an Englishman who resides in his home country secure
>> in the knowledge that the US forces helped save his home country and the
>> right to exist there.

>Of course it should not be forgotten that the anonymous poster called

>'Jason James', who attacks me in newsgroups that he thinks I don't
>read in the hope of avoiding a response, does not hesitate to approve
>of the American mass murder of 270,000 or more mostly innocent
>civilians in its wholly unnecessary bombings of Nagasaki and
>Hiroshima.

Nor should it be forgotten that Jason James is not anonymous, and that
the "wholly unnecessary" exists only in what passes for the mind of
the eight legged one, nor that it does not hesitate to lie to further
it's agenda...

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 12, 2003, 11:31:06 PM9/12/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
> America

Well, that's obvious. You positively revel in it.

[delete over 400 lines Al Qaeda propaganda in David's latest troll attempt]

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more tedious.

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

steve wolk

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 1:06:38 AM9/13/03

"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:412abddce22f78b2...@news.teranews.com...

He ALWAYS lies.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 9:37:25 AM9/13/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<_bw8b.444118$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

> In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
> > America
>
> Well, that's obvious. You positively revel in it.
>
> [delete over 400 lines Al Qaeda propaganda in David's latest troll attempt]
>
> Just when I thought you couldn't get any more tedious.

Since when, Mr McFee, have you been opposed to making alt.revisionism
tedious?

I see you felt moved to delete Osama's words. You don't like people
drawing attention to the crimes of America?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 1:11:29 PM9/13/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:

'Information', a.k.a LITTLE FLUFFY BOT, a.k.a David E. Michael, is a
net-thug, a Nazi sympathizer, a terrorist sympathizer and *an*
amoral thug.

Here are some of the his own words to prove these assertions:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk

he gloated over the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians,
hundreds of them his own countrymen.

<quote>
Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This
afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of
the earth have turned around and have shown that they do not have
to be nature's eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the
downtrodden, and the powerless can strike back at the very heart
of the dark forces that are oppressing them. This time it was not
Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came from the
skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who
sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those
very military men who mastermind the attacks on the women and
children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they planned
death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade
Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will
never forget.

Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.

Death to American capitalism!

Death to international finance!

</quote>

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e28e1%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk

he responded to the remark that this terrorist act was an 'act of
war against the U.S.' with the remark:

'I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment.'

How many times have we heard terrorists using *precisely* this sort
of moral casuistry? How many times have terrorists declared that
their actions were 'actions of war?'

Clearly, David Michael agrees with this assessment. He's at war with
the 'liberal Establishment' and he's willing to celebrate the deaths
of thousands when someone actually does what he can only wish to do.

But this is all part and parcel of the overmastery of his morality
by his political agenda. From my reading of DEM's posts going back
to 1998, one thing is abundantly clear: whenever there's a conflict
between his political ideology and his morality, it's the latter
that suffers.

And the recent spate of posting in response to his paean to death of
11 Sept shows us that he is even willing to subvert his morality to
salve a wounded pride.

Regarding David E. Michael's Nazi sentiments, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35F99AAA.126E%40cableinet.co.uk

<quote>
Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?

</quote>

--
David E. Michael comments on the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, where
Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airlines and crashed them, complete
with crew and passengers, two into the two World Trade Center's and
one into the Pentagon, the fourth crashing after the passengers had
been informed of their fate and decided to risk death to save innocent
civilisans. These four attacks had a combined death toll of over 3000
civilians. He writes, approvingly:

"It was not a terrorist attack. It was an extremely well-targeted military
operation in which there were unfortunate civilian casualties. And if that
operation makes the American government think twice about sponsoring murder
and oppression overseas then it may indeed save lives in the long run."

David E. Michael's idea of a 'military operation.'

The full post is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7%24-_-_-%24%24__%25_-%24%24%25%24%40news.noc.cabal.int&oe=ISO-8859-1

russky

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 2:25:35 PM9/13/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<_bw8b.444118$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Osama Bin Laden was interviewed a few years back by a journalist.Since
his crusade is supposedly directed at Americans and non-Moslems,the
journalist asked him how he felt about the Moslems killed by his bombs
in Africa(Sudan).He said "It was the will of Allah".

This presumptuous clown imagines himself a prophet and obviously has
little regard for human life.It appears his stated objective is just
so much bullshit.

Jason James

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 6:28:12 PM9/13/03

Once again Michael offers his war strategy ie invading the home islands of
Japan would have been a pushover,....but then again this strategy seems at
odds with his affirmation of Al Quada's 'war strategy' ie flying fuel loaded
passenger aircraft into buildings full of civilians which he presumabley
endorses.

Jason James

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 13, 2003, 8:22:25 PM9/13/03

In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<_bw8b.444118$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
>>> America
>>
>> Well, that's obvious. You positively revel in it.
>>
>> [delete over 400 lines Al Qaeda propaganda in David's latest troll
>> attempt]
>>
>> Just when I thought you couldn't get any more tedious.
>
> Since when, Mr McFee, have you been opposed to making alt.revisionism
> tedious?

Alt.revisionism has become tedious, whether I like it or not. The deniers
have been utterly routed. Hence, the switch to rabid antisemitism,
terrorist worship and the rest. You are an example of that.

> I see you felt moved to delete Osama's words. You don't like people
> drawing attention to the crimes of America?

I see you kept them deleted. Ashamed of yourself?

steve wolk

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 2:14:00 AM9/14/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message

news:0SM8b.99603$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

You might want to ask the Nazi sympathizer and apologist if he's aware of
how many men were killed (on both sides) during the invasion of Okinawa ande
then see if he still thinks an invasion of the home islands would have been
a pushover.
>
>
>
>

Jason James

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 7:09:04 AM9/14/03

"steve wolk" <Bar...@Seville.com> wrote in message
news:Mf2cnV5rGth...@comcast.com...

In previous exchanges I've told him the casualty figues and he just ignores
them as if they are of no relevence, yet he'll play up some anecdote that
Truman apparently 'smiled' when given news of the first bomb's success as if
this was indicative of some maniacal intent on his part.
As Hilary says : Amazing, quite simply amazing.

Jason

david_michael

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 9:55:29 AM9/14/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<5xO8b.18290$DZ.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:<_bw8b.444118$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> >> In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
> >> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
> >>> America
> >>
> >> Well, that's obvious. You positively revel in it.
> >>
> >> [delete over 400 lines Al Qaeda propaganda in David's latest troll
> >> attempt]
> >>
> >> Just when I thought you couldn't get any more tedious.
> >
> > Since when, Mr McFee, have you been opposed to making alt.revisionism
> > tedious?
>
> Alt.revisionism has become tedious, whether I like it or not. The deniers
> have been utterly routed.

You mean you've convinced everyone that God's in his Heaven and all's
right with the political world?

Or could it be that your opponents have just found more effective
tactics?

> Hence, the switch to rabid antisemitism,
> terrorist worship and the rest. You are an example of that.

Rabid antisemitism? Is that being entirely honest?

For the record, I don't have a problem with the Jewish people having
their own homeland. However, when those that have such a homeland
elect governments that 'deny' (to use your favourite bit of Newspeak)
other peoples the same privilege, and when those governments engage in
mass murder with impunity (no criticisms of 'terrorism' there from you
and your fellow travellers) then we might certainly ask whether their
political wings need to be clipped.

> > I see you felt moved to delete Osama's words. You don't like people
> > drawing attention to the crimes of America?
>
> I see you kept them deleted. Ashamed of yourself?

No just can't be bothered to cut and paste. You'll find the two Osama
articles plus many other interesting articles on

http://wwww.nationalanarchist.com/links2.html

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 10:02:21 AM9/14/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<0SM8b.99603$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

The anonymous poster calling himself Jason James is again obliged to
tell lies in order to try to justify his manifest hypocrisy (dropping
atom bombs on cities full of civilians OK; flying planes into the
Pentagon not OK). Nowhere have I advocated invading the home islands
of Japan. This is what I actually advocated:

<begin quote>
There were other options.

(a) Try pushing a little harder for a surrender -- e.g. by allowing
the Japs
to keep the
emperor (a concession that was eventually made anyway).
(b) Just stop fighting. Full stop.
(c) If you have to drop atom bombs, drop ONE -- not two.
(d) If you have to drop atom bombs, first drop them over uninhabited
areas.

Those options were discounted out of hand.

And when Truman heard of the destruction of those cities, he smiled.
<end quote>

The anonymous poster calling himself Jason James has no answer to that
demolition of his position. All he can do is ignore it and pretend
that I said something else.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 10:59:09 AM9/14/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<5xO8b.18290$DZ.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<_bw8b.444118$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>>>> In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
>>>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> I do not share your squeamishness about siding with the enemies of
>>>>> America
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's obvious. You positively revel in it.
>>>>
>>>> [delete over 400 lines Al Qaeda propaganda in David's latest troll
>>>> attempt]
>>>>
>>>> Just when I thought you couldn't get any more tedious.
>>>
>>> Since when, Mr McFee, have you been opposed to making
>>> alt.revisionism tedious?
>>
>> Alt.revisionism has become tedious, whether I like it or not. The
>> deniers have been utterly routed.
>
> You mean you've convinced everyone that God's in his Heaven and all's
> right with the political world?

None of that has ever been my intention.

> Or could it be that your opponents have just found more effective
> tactics?

No, it could be that they have fled and been replaced by third stringers. I
mean, do you see Moran, Bellinger, William Wolfe, Scott Bradbury, and Kurt
Knoll as the "flower" of revisionism? Do you see Irving, Faurisson, Weber,
Smith or Tobin posting here where they can be challenged and where they
don't control the rules? Of course not. Many of them used to, you know.
They have been routed and have retreated to websites where they can spew
their venom unchallenged.

>> Hence, the switch to rabid antisemitism,
>> terrorist worship and the rest. You are an example of that.
>
> Rabid antisemitism? Is that being entirely honest?

Yes. I didn't say *you* were a rabid antisemite.

[...]

David Christian

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 11:56:15 AM9/14/03

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:09 GMT, "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com>
wrote:

why not? He is.

dudalb

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 3:49:03 PM9/14/03

David "Cuddles" Michael screams about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
but keeps quiet about the Millions slaughtered by his beloved Nazis.
Oh, I forgot, Michael is a Holocaust Denier.

Byker

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 4:36:37 PM9/14/03

"dudalb" <dalb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PC39b.3175$UN4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> David "Cuddles" Michael screams about the bombing of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki but keeps quiet about the Millions slaughtered by his beloved
> Nazis. Oh, I forgot, Michael is a Holocaust Denier.

Watch out, doodlebug:

http://www.fineartpublishing.com/images/artists/williams/thumpertlg.jpg

The monster in closet is about to get loose...

Jason James

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 4:45:22 PM9/14/03

Are you claiming some type of equivalence argument here? If so, please
elaborate.

Nowhere have I advocated invading the home islands
> of Japan. This is what I actually advocated:

That is correct.

> <begin quote>
> There were other options.
>
> (a) Try pushing a little harder for a surrender -- e.g. by allowing
> the Japs
> to keep the
> emperor (a concession that was eventually made anyway).
> (b) Just stop fighting. Full stop.
> (c) If you have to drop atom bombs, drop ONE -- not two.
> (d) If you have to drop atom bombs, first drop them over uninhabited
> areas.
>
> Those options were discounted out of hand.
>
> And when Truman heard of the destruction of those cities, he smiled.
> <end quote>
>
> The anonymous poster calling himself Jason James has no answer to that
> demolition of his position. All he can do is ignore it and pretend
> that I said something else.

Every so-called 'option' was answered the *last* time you paraded them on
26th June this year. You had no response to my answers except a 3 line
diatribe.

Quote from the thread: Re: GORD MCFEE'S SUPERVISOR which incidently, was
started in response to you posting details on how to contact Gord's
supervisor. Typical net-thuggery by yourself.

Quote 26/6/03::
--------------------------START -----------------------------------------
> (a) There was no need for a land invasion as the Japs may well have
> been
> trying to surrender anyway.

There may have been some elements which did, but in the main the Honour
system prevailed over any rational decision making by the Japanese.

> (b) It was not a simple case of EITHER a land invasion OR two nuclear
> bombs
> over cities full of civilians. There were numerous other policy
> options:
>
> 1. Wait and see. The Japs may have been about to surrender anyway.
> 2. Stop fighting. Cease fighting altogether.

Unbelieveable. Some Japanese soldiers were discovered years later inthe
jungles of the Okinawa prefecture, still fighting an imaginery war.

You display a complete failure in understanding the Japanese Imp Command's
psyche, the mind-set that is ingrained into the fighting soldier.

> 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> uninhabited
> territory.

The US had only 2 bombs.

> 4. If 3. is unacceptable then drop two nuclear weapons over
> uninhabited
> territory.

Perhaps they could time it to co-incide with one of the Japanese
celebaratory events, thus saving on fireworks.

> 5. If you really want to be a murderous scummy bastard -- the sort of
> person
> who was hanged at Nuremberg -- go and drop your filthy bombs over ONE
> city
> full of civilians.

Truman/Roosevelt saved your scabby arse Michael.

> What was NOT necessary was to drop two nuclear bombs over two Japanese
> cities, killing around 270,000 largely innocent civilians.
> <end quote>

Or the equivalent amount of US soldiers who died fighting the Japanese up
until that point.

The Japs needed to present a timely surrender. They took the choice not to.

Jason James

-----------------------------END -------------------------------------------
--
:unquote

Jason

> David

david_michael

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 5:16:16 PM9/14/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<1n%8b.455838$4UE.3...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Web sites are a far more efficient way of getting information across.
If I post a decent argument here, it's covered up by other posts
within minutes and lost in a sea of trolling and spamming and
'drowning out'. My Web site gets a steady flow of visits from all over
the world, many of whom read the articles and some of whom are clearly
influenced by those articles (as can be seen by their own writings).
If people want to challenge the arguments there's a Yahoo! group where
they can go argue their case. If the aim is to convince people, that's
the route to take. I think that earlier on a lot of us didn't realize
how easy it is to take that route.

At the end of the day, the existence of an aggressive and organized
body of anti-revisionists who believe that one should not argue with
revisionists but should merely 'show their real nature' (as if all
revisionists have the same 'real nature') means that any really free
debate about revisionism in a forum like this is impossible. As soon
as such a debate begins then the trolling and spamming start and the
whole thing loses its focus.

If driving people out of an inefficient medium (Usenet) and onto a
more effective one (WWW) by intimidation, drowning out, spamming,
trolling and generally making sensible discussion impossible is a
'victory' then enjoy your 'victory'!

As for revisionism, I think you'll find that the creature has shifted.
Instead of being a principally 'far right' phenomenon it is
increasingly becoming a Muslim phenomenon, an anarchist phenomenon,
and a 'far left' phenomenon. That's going to seriously mess up the
anti-revisionist brigade because (a) there's a helluva lot more of
them then there are of you so drowning them out isn't really an
option, and (b) the tactic of ignoring their arguments and making out
that they're all really closet Hitlerites isn't really going to work
given that they are so obviously NOT Hitlerites. It's still possible
for you guys to whip up a lot of emotion about World War II but
that'll fade over the coming decades as new generations of journalists
and politicians emerge who take a wider and more critical historical
perspective.

> >> Hence, the switch to rabid antisemitism,
> >> terrorist worship and the rest. You are an example of that.
> >
> > Rabid antisemitism? Is that being entirely honest?
>
> Yes. I didn't say *you* were a rabid antisemite.
>
> [...]

You said:

'You are an example of that.'

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 14, 2003, 9:47:18 PM9/14/03

Exactly. Take the route of running away to the safety of a web page where
you are not obliged to defend and rationalize your position, and where you
call the shots. That's exactly what I said.

> At the end of the day, the existence of an aggressive and organized
> body of anti-revisionists who believe that one should not argue with
> revisionists but should merely 'show their real nature' (as if all
> revisionists have the same 'real nature') means that any really free
> debate about revisionism in a forum like this is impossible. As soon
> as such a debate begins then the trolling and spamming start and the
> whole thing loses its focus.

Pathetic. Your record of describing any attempt to either challenge your
position or get you to provide evidence for it as trolling is unbroken.

> If driving people out of an inefficient medium (Usenet) and onto a
> more effective one (WWW) by intimidation, drowning out, spamming,
> trolling and generally making sensible discussion impossible is a
> 'victory' then enjoy your 'victory'!

I have not claimed a victory. I have merely observed that the revisionists
have run away.

> As for revisionism, I think you'll find that the creature has shifted.
> Instead of being a principally 'far right' phenomenon it is
> increasingly becoming a Muslim phenomenon, an anarchist phenomenon,
> and a 'far left' phenomenon. That's going to seriously mess up the
> anti-revisionist brigade because (a) there's a helluva lot more of
> them then there are of you so drowning them out isn't really an
> option, and (b) the tactic of ignoring their arguments and making out
> that they're all really closet Hitlerites isn't really going to work
> given that they are so obviously NOT Hitlerites. It's still possible
> for you guys to whip up a lot of emotion about World War II but
> that'll fade over the coming decades as new generations of journalists
> and politicians emerge who take a wider and more critical historical
> perspective.

In other words, "run away"!

>>>> Hence, the switch to rabid antisemitism,
>>>> terrorist worship and the rest. You are an example of that.
>>>
>>> Rabid antisemitism? Is that being entirely honest?
>>
>> Yes. I didn't say *you* were a rabid antisemite.
>>
>> [...]
>
> You said:
>
> 'You are an example of that.'

Correct. You are an example of "terrorist worship". If this is unclear,
read up on the use of a comma.

steve wolk

unread,

Sep 15, 2003, 1:11:47 AM9/15/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message

news:1n%8b.455838$4UE.3...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

I did. And I'm right.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 15, 2003, 9:19:26 AM9/15/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<Cr49b.102154$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

No, I am not 'claiming some type of equivalence argument'. I am merely
pointing out the hypocrisy of your approach to moral indignation,
which appears to be, as I said, 'dropping atom bombs on cities full of
civilians OK; flying planes into the Pentagon not OK'.

Trying to change the subject won't help you.

> Quote 26/6/03::
> --------------------------START -----------------------------------------
> > (a) There was no need for a land invasion as the Japs may well have
> > been
> > trying to surrender anyway.
>
> There may have been some elements which did, but in the main the Honour
> system prevailed over any rational decision making by the Japanese.

No, the Japs were trying to surrender. Which, of course, left the door
wide open for one of the strategies that I suggested above:

(a) Try pushing a little harder for a surrender -- e.g. by allowing
the Japs to keep the emperor (a concession that was eventually made
anyway).

> > (b) It was not a simple case of EITHER a land invasion OR two nuclear
> > bombs
> > over cities full of civilians. There were numerous other policy
> > options:
> >
> > 1. Wait and see. The Japs may have been about to surrender anyway.
> > 2. Stop fighting. Cease fighting altogether.
>
> Unbelieveable. Some Japanese soldiers were discovered years later inthe
> jungles of the Okinawa prefecture, still fighting an imaginery war.

Writing random sentences unrelated to the point being made does not
alter the fact that there were numerous other policy options apart
from unleashing nuclear bombs over heavily populated cities full of
largely innocent civilians whose influence over government policy was
presumably very slight. Two of these options were

1. Wait and see. The Japs were about to surrender anyway, and the
Americans would have known this.

2. Stop fighting.

> You display a complete failure in understanding the Japanese Imp Command's
> psyche, the mind-set that is ingrained into the fighting soldier.

You display a complete failure in understanding that

1. The Japs were about to surrender.

2. The Americans knew it.

3. The Americans dropped two atom bombs on cities full of civilians in
any case (and Truman smiled when he heard of the results).

4. Your wish to whitewash the above makes your condemnations of the
WTC attack appear hypocritical to the point of surrealism.

> > 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> > uninhabited
> > territory.
>
> The US had only 2 bombs.

So why not drop ONE over uninhabited territory? (Duh!)

'Look guys -- THIS is what we've got. The next one lands on the
emperor's bedroom.'

> > 4. If 3. is unacceptable then drop two nuclear weapons over
> > uninhabited
> > territory.
>
> Perhaps they could time it to co-incide with one of the Japanese
> celebaratory events, thus saving on fireworks.

You seem to think that the mass murder of 270 thousand innocent
civilians is funny. And you come here to OPPOSE Nazism?

> > 5. If you really want to be a murderous scummy bastard -- the sort of
> > person
> > who was hanged at Nuremberg -- go and drop your filthy bombs over ONE
> > city
> > full of civilians.
>
> Truman/Roosevelt saved your scabby arse Michael.

No they didn't. I wasn't around at the time but both of my parents
were British. Hitler had no axe to grind with Britain. He wanted an
alliance WITH Britain AGAINST Russia. The British government chose to
ally with the bigger war criminal, Stalin, against the lesser evil,
Hitler.

> > What was NOT necessary was to drop two nuclear bombs over two Japanese
> > cities, killing around 270,000 largely innocent civilians.
> > <end quote>
>
> Or the equivalent amount of US soldiers who died fighting the Japanese up
> until that point.

As I have indicated above, it was not an EITHER/OR choice. But I see
you've been reduced to chanting slogans and ignoring the responses.

> The Japs needed to present a timely surrender. They took the choice not to.

(a) They did not. They intended to surrender.

(b) If they were tardy in so doing, perhaps it is because they never
dreamed that the Americans would commit such a monstrous crime against
civillians.

(c) Is failure of an opponent at war to surrender an excuse for
massive extermination of a civilian population? If so, the case
against the Nazis appears to collapse.

> Jason James
>
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

russky

unread,

Sep 15, 2003, 7:24:35 PM9/15/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<Cr49b.102154$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

David doesn't mention all the civilians the Japanese slaughtered in
China and the Phillipines.
>
>
> -----------------------------END -------------------------------------------

david_michael

unread,

Sep 16, 2003, 12:24:08 PM9/16/03

rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote in message news:<2a0a014c.03091...@posting.google.com>...

Very true. But then, I didn't mention all the civilians the Americans
slaughtered in Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia, Africa, Latin America, and
the Middle East.

Your point?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Jason James

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 7:05:59 PM9/17/03

"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com...

> "Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message
news:<Cr49b.102154$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message
> > news:<0SM8b.99603$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message
> > news:<WVp8b.97387$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > >

Your whole argument is based on equivalence. You simply see no wrong in 9/11
because the US happened to have ended a bloody war with the bomb. You
disregard the circumstances leading up to it. You give no creedance to the
100,000s of US personel dead and injured fighting a country who declared war
by an act rather than by political statement.

I am merely
> pointing out the hypocrisy of your approach to moral indignation,
> which appears to be, as I said, 'dropping atom bombs on cities full of
> civilians OK; flying planes into the Pentagon not OK'.

This argument is rooted in definitions ie Pearl Harbour was in essence a
strategic act, but it was also a terrorist act with the essential ingredient
of no warning (Japanese diplomats were in Washington negotiating friendly
relations) as was 9/11.

I said the *last* time. I can't help it if the thread was name as above.

> > Quote 26/6/03::
>
--------------------------START -----------------------------------------
> > > (a) There was no need for a land invasion as the Japs may well have
> > > been
> > > trying to surrender anyway.
> >
> > There may have been some elements which did, but in the main the Honour
> > system prevailed over any rational decision making by the Japanese.
>
> No, the Japs were trying to surrender. Which, of course, left the door
> wide open for one of the strategies that I suggested above:

If so, why did it take 2 bombs for them to surrender?

> <begin quote>
> (a) Try pushing a little harder for a surrender -- e.g. by allowing
> the Japs to keep the emperor (a concession that was eventually made
> anyway).
> <end quote>
>
> > > (b) It was not a simple case of EITHER a land invasion OR two nuclear
> > > bombs
> > > over cities full of civilians. There were numerous other policy
> > > options:
> > >
> > > 1. Wait and see. The Japs may have been about to surrender anyway.
> > > 2. Stop fighting. Cease fighting altogether.
> >
> > Unbelieveable. Some Japanese soldiers were discovered years later inthe
> > jungles of the Okinawa prefecture, still fighting an imaginery war.
>
> Writing random sentences unrelated to the point being made does not
> alter the fact that there were numerous other policy options apart
> from unleashing nuclear bombs over heavily populated cities full of
> largely innocent civilians whose influence over government policy was
> presumably very slight. Two of these options were

Unrelated? That sentence of fact supported the maniacal attitude of death
before the dishonour of surrender.

> 1. Wait and see. The Japs were about to surrender anyway, and the
> Americans would have known this.
>
> 2. Stop fighting.
>
> > You display a complete failure in understanding the Japanese Imp
Command's
> > psyche, the mind-set that is ingrained into the fighting soldier.
>
> You display a complete failure in understanding that
>
> 1. The Japs were about to surrender.
>
> 2. The Americans knew it.
>
> 3. The Americans dropped two atom bombs on cities full of civilians in
> any case (and Truman smiled when he heard of the results).
>
> 4. Your wish to whitewash the above makes your condemnations of the
> WTC attack appear hypocritical to the point of surrealism.

There's the magic-intercepts: From the Japanese emperor:

"The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly
worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept
unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to
inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the
restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter."

note the Atlantic Charter was not framed to deal with Japan in '45, rather
it was a presentation of the ideals involved in maintaining a peaceful world
order.

> > > 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> > > uninhabited
> > > territory.
> >
> > The US had only 2 bombs.
>
> So why not drop ONE over uninhabited territory? (Duh!)
>
> 'Look guys -- THIS is what we've got. The next one lands on the
> emperor's bedroom.'
>
>
>
> > > 4. If 3. is unacceptable then drop two nuclear weapons over
> > > uninhabited
> > > territory.
> >
> > Perhaps they could time it to co-incide with one of the Japanese
> > celebaratory events, thus saving on fireworks.
>
> You seem to think that the mass murder of 270 thousand innocent
> civilians is funny. And you come here to OPPOSE Nazism?

A convenient interpretation on your part. It was however designed to make
light of your 'options'.

> > > 5. If you really want to be a murderous scummy bastard -- the sort of
> > > person
> > > who was hanged at Nuremberg -- go and drop your filthy bombs over ONE
> > > city
> > > full of civilians.
> >
> > Truman/Roosevelt saved your scabby arse Michael.
>
> No they didn't. I wasn't around at the time but both of my parents
> were British. Hitler had no axe to grind with Britain. He wanted an
> alliance WITH Britain AGAINST Russia. The British government chose to
> ally with the bigger war criminal, Stalin, against the lesser evil,
> Hitler.

There you have it folks: side with the power who started the whole
thing,.........

> > > What was NOT necessary was to drop two nuclear bombs over two Japanese
> > > cities, killing around 270,000 largely innocent civilians.
> > > <end quote>
> >
> > Or the equivalent amount of US soldiers who died fighting the Japanese
up
> > until that point.
>
> As I have indicated above, it was not an EITHER/OR choice. But I see
> you've been reduced to chanting slogans and ignoring the responses.
>
>
> > The Japs needed to present a timely surrender. They took the choice not
to.
>
> (a) They did not. They intended to surrender.
>
> (b) If they were tardy in so doing, perhaps it is because they never
> dreamed that the Americans would commit such a monstrous crime against
> civillians.
>
> (c) Is failure of an opponent at war to surrender an excuse for
> massive extermination of a civilian population? If so, the case
> against the Nazis appears to collapse.

Within the realities of the times it was the only way to stop Japan in her
tracks. You have failed to address the honour system underpinning the
Japanese military psyche. As this forms the basis of my position, I wonder
why you have ignored it?

Jason James

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 17, 2003, 8:34:22 PM9/17/03

And David disappears.

steve wolk

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 1:36:18 AM9/18/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message

news:i47ab.54820$DZ.5...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

That's not a bad thing.

russky

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 6:41:41 AM9/18/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<Cr49b.102154$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

David's so-called "solution" was evaluated and rejected by
Truman.Truman's commanders in the Pacific Theater estimated that,
since the Japanese were fanatical about not surrendering, a land
invasion of the Japanese islands would cost alot more Japanese and
American lives than dropping the bomb.
This was rather confirmed by our experience on Okinawa, where
civilians were jumping off cliffs holding their children by the hand
after our troops landed there. The fact is that hundreds of people
were dying in the Pacific war daily and waiting was an undesirable
option for that reason.

David Michael has heard all this before, but of course he isn't
interested in historical fact. He's a lying piece of shit whose only
accomplishment is to irritate people. He's the English equivalent of a
flea or a mosquito.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 11:46:26 AM9/18/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<rN5ab.108784$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of you condemning the attacks on
the Pentagon and the WTC while applauding the unleashing of two
nuclear bombs over built up areas, slaughtering some 270,000 largley
innocent civilians. If you want to waffle on about 'equivalence
arguments' by all means do so but it doesn't lessen the hypocrisy of
your position.

> You simply see no wrong in 9/11
> because the US happened to have ended a bloody war with the bomb. You
> disregard the circumstances leading up to it. You give no creedance to the
> 100,000s of US personel dead and injured fighting a country who declared war
> by an act rather than by political statement.

Actually I don't disregard the circumstances leading up to it. You
seem to believe that if country A starts a war against country B then
country B is justified in committing atrocities against the civilians
of country A. Not only is this not recognized in international law
(indeed, it is specifically outlawed by it) but, given the tendency of
states such as the US, Israel and Britain to wage aggressive war
against innocent countries, your argument would appear to justify the
use of nuclear weapons against the civilian populations of the US,
Israel and Britain!

> I am merely
> > pointing out the hypocrisy of your approach to moral indignation,
> > which appears to be, as I said, 'dropping atom bombs on cities full of
> > civilians OK; flying planes into the Pentagon not OK'.
>
> This argument is rooted in definitions ie Pearl Harbour was in essence a
> strategic act, but it was also a terrorist act with the essential ingredient
> of no warning (Japanese diplomats were in Washington negotiating friendly
> relations) as was 9/11.

So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?

The contortions you get yourself into in trying to defend the US use
of bombs that kill civilians while condemning the use of bombs by
others are quite hilarious.

As I pointed out before, these two bombs were simply not necessary to
attain a surrender. They were trying to negotiate a surrender anyway
and the Americans knew it from their intercepts. Had America amended
the terms (as they did anyway eventually) they got a quicker
surrender. And I suspect that the Japs never seriously believed that
the Americans would massacre civilians in their hundreds of thousands
rather than negotiate. After all, that's precisely the sort of
behaviour that they were putting the Nazis on trial for.

> > <begin quote>
> > (a) Try pushing a little harder for a surrender -- e.g. by allowing
> > the Japs to keep the emperor (a concession that was eventually made
> > anyway).
> > <end quote>
> >
> > > > (b) It was not a simple case of EITHER a land invasion OR two nuclear
> > > > bombs
> > > > over cities full of civilians. There were numerous other policy
> > > > options:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Wait and see. The Japs may have been about to surrender anyway.
> > > > 2. Stop fighting. Cease fighting altogether.
> > >
> > > Unbelieveable. Some Japanese soldiers were discovered years later inthe
> > > jungles of the Okinawa prefecture, still fighting an imaginery war.
> >
> > Writing random sentences unrelated to the point being made does not
> > alter the fact that there were numerous other policy options apart
> > from unleashing nuclear bombs over heavily populated cities full of
> > largely innocent civilians whose influence over government policy was
> > presumably very slight. Two of these options were
>
> Unrelated? That sentence of fact supported the maniacal attitude of death
> before the dishonour of surrender.

As far as I am aware, the Japanese soldiers concerned were simply
unaware that the war had ended. How does that have any bearing on the
hypocrisy of your position of applauding nuclear destruction of entire
cities, but having moral orgasms about the destruction of part of the
Pentagon and of the WTC?

> > 1. Wait and see. The Japs were about to surrender anyway, and the
> > Americans would have known this.
> >
> > 2. Stop fighting.
> >
> > > You display a complete failure in understanding the Japanese Imp
> Command's
> > > psyche, the mind-set that is ingrained into the fighting soldier.
> >
> > You display a complete failure in understanding that
> >
> > 1. The Japs were about to surrender.
> >
> > 2. The Americans knew it.
> >
> > 3. The Americans dropped two atom bombs on cities full of civilians in
> > any case (and Truman smiled when he heard of the results).
> >
> > 4. Your wish to whitewash the above makes your condemnations of the
> > WTC attack appear hypocritical to the point of surrealism.
>
> There's the magic-intercepts: From the Japanese emperor:
>
> "The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly
> worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible for us to accept
> unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but it is our idea to
> inform them by some appropriate means that there is no objection to the
> restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter."
>
> note the Atlantic Charter was not framed to deal with Japan in '45, rather
> it was a presentation of the ideals involved in maintaining a peaceful world
> order.

The message in that intercept is clear: we'll surrender but not
unconditionally. We want to negotiate.

America's response was not to negotiate but to massacre hundreds of
thousands of civilians.

That's why I feel like vomiting when you people moan and groan about
the WTC. You guys got the bloody nose you richly deserved. Let's hope
it makes future US governments think twice before murdering the
innocent civilians of other countries.

> > > > 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> > > > uninhabited
> > > > territory.
> > >
> > > The US had only 2 bombs.
> >
> > So why not drop ONE over uninhabited territory? (Duh!)
> >
> > 'Look guys -- THIS is what we've got. The next one lands on the
> > emperor's bedroom.'
> >

No answer, Mr 'James'?

> > > > 4. If 3. is unacceptable then drop two nuclear weapons over
> > > > uninhabited
> > > > territory.
> > >
> > > Perhaps they could time it to co-incide with one of the Japanese
> > > celebaratory events, thus saving on fireworks.
> >
> > You seem to think that the mass murder of 270 thousand innocent
> > civilians is funny. And you come here to OPPOSE Nazism?
>
> A convenient interpretation on your part. It was however designed to make
> light of your 'options'.
>

It failed.

>
> > > > 5. If you really want to be a murderous scummy bastard -- the sort of
> > > > person
> > > > who was hanged at Nuremberg -- go and drop your filthy bombs over ONE
> > > > city
> > > > full of civilians.
> > >
> > > Truman/Roosevelt saved your scabby arse Michael.
> >
> > No they didn't. I wasn't around at the time but both of my parents
> > were British. Hitler had no axe to grind with Britain. He wanted an
> > alliance WITH Britain AGAINST Russia. The British government chose to
> > ally with the bigger war criminal, Stalin, against the lesser evil,
> > Hitler.
>
> There you have it folks: side with the power who started the whole
> thing,.........

(a) The principle that aggression by country A against country B
entitled country B (or country C) to massacre hundreds of thousands of
civilians of country A is bestial and contrary to both international
law and common sense, as pointed above. It would, for example, entitle
any country on Earth to massacre hundreds of thousands of American
civilians because of its interference in countries such as Iraq.

(b) Had the alliance been with Hitler, rather than with Stalin, this
could well have saved lives:

(i) An amicable solution could have been found regarding the Jewish
question. I think it is uncontroversial now that PRIOR TO THE WAR
Hitler would have settled for deportation (even 'in luxury ships') of
the Jews. (Some would argue that he was still prepared to countenance
this later.)

(ii) The murderous reign of Stalin would have been curbed. The even
bloodier regime of Mao would never have seen the light of day, and Pol
Pot wouldn't have got a look in. Tito would not have taken power in
Yugoslavia and hence the Balkan conflicts would never have occurred.
In short, most of the principal democides and alleged democides of the
twentieth century would have been nipped in the bud.

> > > > What was NOT necessary was to drop two nuclear bombs over two Japanese
> > > > cities, killing around 270,000 largely innocent civilians.
> > > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > Or the equivalent amount of US soldiers who died fighting the Japanese
> up
> > > until that point.
> >
> > As I have indicated above, it was not an EITHER/OR choice. But I see
> > you've been reduced to chanting slogans and ignoring the responses.
> >
> >
> > > The Japs needed to present a timely surrender. They took the choice not
> to.
> >
> > (a) They did not. They intended to surrender.
> >
> > (b) If they were tardy in so doing, perhaps it is because they never
> > dreamed that the Americans would commit such a monstrous crime against
> > civillians.
> >
> > (c) Is failure of an opponent at war to surrender an excuse for
> > massive extermination of a civilian population? If so, the case
> > against the Nazis appears to collapse.
>
> Within the realities of the times it was the only way to stop Japan in her
> tracks.

You can chant this over and over again, Mr 'James', but as I have
demonstrated clearly, it is patently untrue. I'm sorry that this makes
you feel uncomfortable, but your discomfort is as nothing compared to
that of the familes who have had their loved ones slaughtered by the
government that you mindlessly support.

> You have failed to address the honour system underpinning the
> Japanese military psyche. As this forms the basis of my position, I wonder
> why you have ignored it?

You might also wonder why I have ignored the breeding habits of the
albino lobster but it still doesn't lessen the breathtaking hypocrisy
and bloodiness of the argument that you have advanced -- an argument
that tells us much about the psychology behind war crimes, whoever
perpetrates them.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 4:31:37 PM9/18/03

rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote in message news:<2a0a014c.03091...@posting.google.com>...

Presumably the purpose of this message is to attempt to deceive
readers into supposing that I have not already answered the point
about an 'invasion'. In fact I have. I said that there was not an
either/or scenario -- drop the bombs or invade. There were other
possible actions.

1. Stop fighting. Simple as that.
2. Negotiate a surrender. As 'Jason James' has pointed out, the
Japanese wanted to surrender and the Americans knew it.
3. If you HAD to drop atom bombs, drop them on open territory, not on
cities crammed full of largely innocent civilians.
4. If you HAD to drop atom bombs on civilians, and are a mass
murderer, drop one, not two.

These were all alternatives. But no -- Truman decided to massacre
270,000 civilians instead. And when told of the results of the
bombings, he smiled.

That is what 'Jason James' and Mr Arthur Tandy support. Such are the
ethics of the anti-revisionists.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 18, 2003, 11:07:48 PM9/18/03

In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

[...]

> So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
> country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?

That is why war is to be avoided. Aggressors need to understand that when
invaded or attacked, some people fight back.

[...]

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

david_michael

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 9:12:56 AM9/19/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<8quab.498142$4UE.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
> > country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?
>
> That is why war is to be avoided. Aggressors need to understand that when
> invaded or attacked, some people fight back.
>
> [...]

I'd say that the ends justify the means. If by launching a war that
will kill, say, 200 people you can rid the world of a future Stalin,
would that not be justified? What irks me is the sheer hypocrisy of
those who bleat about war and violence when it's the OTHER SIDE that's
doing it but don't give a toss when it's their OWN SIDE. To say
'Himmler good, Churchill bad', or 'Hitler bad, Truman good', or 'Osama
bad, Bush good' is to display precisely the sort of hypocritical
mentality that makes 'mainstream' politics utterly incomprehensible to
me.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 9:33:39 AM9/19/03

Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<i47ab.54820$DZ.5...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

What do you expect me to say? The weakness of your argument is so
self-evident as to require no further comment!

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Roger

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:09:03 AM9/19/03

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message <b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com>:

>"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<8quab.498142$4UE.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

>> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

[...]

>> > So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
>> > country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?

>> That is why war is to be avoided. Aggressors need to understand that when
>> invaded or attacked, some people fight back.

[...]

>I'd say that the ends justify the means. If by launching a war that
>will kill, say, 200 people you can rid the world of a future Stalin,
>would that not be justified?

The problem being, of course, how one *knows* one is ridding the world
of a future Stalin.

But that's one of those pesky details mr michael prefers not to think
about -- zie is a "big picture" kind of nazi, you see...

>What irks me is the sheer hypocrisy of
>those who bleat about war and violence when it's the OTHER SIDE that's
>doing it but don't give a toss when it's their OWN SIDE. To say
>'Himmler good, Churchill bad', or 'Hitler bad, Truman good', or 'Osama
>bad, Bush good' is to display precisely the sort of hypocritical
>mentality that makes 'mainstream' politics utterly incomprehensible to
>me.

Of course, mr michael cannot comprehend any politics more complex than
jack booted thuggery...

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 9:27:46 PM9/19/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03091...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<8quab.498142$4UE.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
>>> country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country
>>> A?
>>
>> That is why war is to be avoided. Aggressors need to understand
>> that when invaded or attacked, some people fight back.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I'd say that the ends justify the means.

I see. So, it follows logically that you agree that the "ends" (the
bringing to a halt of World War II) justified the means (the dropping of two
atomic bombs on Japanese cities). I always thought you held the opposite
view.

> If by launching a war that
> will kill, say, 200 people you can rid the world of a future Stalin,
> would that not be justified?

How would you know ahead of time that the person was a future Stalin?

> What irks me is the sheer hypocrisy of
> those who bleat about war and violence when it's the OTHER SIDE that's
> doing it but don't give a toss when it's their OWN SIDE.

Perhaps you could name a few people who do that. You seem to have done it
in this very post.

> To say
> 'Himmler good, Churchill bad', or 'Hitler bad, Truman good', or 'Osama
> bad, Bush good' is to display precisely the sort of hypocritical
> mentality that makes 'mainstream' politics utterly incomprehensible to
> me.

Who is doing that?

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 9:30:52 PM9/19/03

I expected you to say exactly what you did. No attempt at discussion and an
empty victory proclamation. I guess I am getting to know you, David.

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

Jason James

unread,

Sep 19, 2003, 10:49:54 PM9/19/03

Perhaps you are, butyour argument (out of convenience) is predicated on a
simplistic logic system ie ''country A" etc. So it is futile contextualising
(on my part) and thus bringing the argument to life with you while you play
this game.

> > You simply see no wrong in 9/11
> > because the US happened to have ended a bloody war with the bomb. You
> > disregard the circumstances leading up to it. You give no creedance to
the
> > 100,000s of US personel dead and injured fighting a country who declared
war
> > by an act rather than by political statement.
>
> Actually I don't disregard the circumstances leading up to it.

Yes you have. Japan knew unconditional surrender was required but she
prevaricated. To allow conditional surrender was not an option, for the
allies believed that would have opened the door of possibility for a
re-armed Japan as they had with Germany.

You
> seem to believe that if country A starts a war against country B then
> country B is justified in committing atrocities against the civilians
> of country A.

Not by your simplistic logic, no.

Not only is this not recognized in international law
> (indeed, it is specifically outlawed by it) but, given the tendency of
> states such as the US, Israel and Britain to wage aggressive war
> against innocent countries, your argument would appear to justify the
> use of nuclear weapons against the civilian populations of the US,
> Israel and Britain!

Bzzzzt,....the A-bomb was used during one narrow chink of time. Why do you
think nuclear weapons were not used again and as such has proven to be an
effective deterent during the cold-war?

> > I am merely
> > > pointing out the hypocrisy of your approach to moral indignation,
> > > which appears to be, as I said, 'dropping atom bombs on cities full of
> > > civilians OK; flying planes into the Pentagon not OK'.
> > This argument is rooted in definitions ie Pearl Harbour was in essence a
> > strategic act, but it was also a terrorist act with the essential
ingredient
> > of no warning (Japanese diplomats were in Washington negotiating
friendly
> > relations) as was 9/11.
>
> So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
> country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?
>
> The contortions you get yourself into in trying to defend the US use
> of bombs that kill civilians while condemning the use of bombs by
> others are quite hilarious.

Your point is rooted in schoolyard logic which you have fiercely opposed any
expansion of to real situations.

Answer the question.

Or they were so afraid to adopt any other position other than combative, no
matter what the real outcome of the war.

The US has a record of not showing weakness, once attacked, by giving in to
conditions.

> That's why I feel like vomiting when you people moan and groan about
> the WTC. You guys got the bloody nose you richly deserved. Let's hope
> it makes future US governments think twice before murdering the
> innocent civilians of other countries.

You will never get a 'bloody nose' for it is your nature to hide behind the
safety procured in no small part by the US.

> > > > > 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> > > > > uninhabited
> > > > > territory.
> > > >
> > > > The US had only 2 bombs.
> > >
> > > So why not drop ONE over uninhabited territory? (Duh!)
> > >
> > > 'Look guys -- THIS is what we've got. The next one lands on the
> > > emperor's bedroom.'
> > >
>
> No answer, Mr 'James'?

Not to that childish interpretation of the point.

Provided we all accepted Hitler and his ideologies? Yes, that's it, for it
was you that wrote the following:

<quote>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?

-------------------------------------------------------------
:unquote

That's right Michael, avoid the question by repeating your adopted
philosophy behind the covert evilness you represent,...an evilness that
accepts the possibility of the allies siding with the Nazis rather than
taking common purpose with Stalin a man who subsequently turned out to be
every bit as evil as Hitler after his reign, but at the time participated in
stopping the war in the east, something the allies would probably have not
been able to do within a reasonable time-frame.

You operate in a selfish void of your own imagination. You have no loyalty
for any country it would seem, especially those which helped keep your
birth-country safe during WW2. This position then allows you to critisise
all governments, past and present, it allows you to apply that simplistic
''country A...."argument.
Normal people argue from a position of loyalty to their country and in the
context of the times.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 11:21:39 AM9/20/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<mfPab.113175$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

> > > > >
> > > > > Are you claiming some type of equivalence argument here? If so,
> please
> > > > > elaborate.
> > > >
> > > > No, I am not 'claiming some type of equivalence argument'.
> > >
> > > Your whole argument is based on equivalence.
> >
> > I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of you condemning the attacks on
> > the Pentagon and the WTC while applauding the unleashing of two
> > nuclear bombs over built up areas, slaughtering some 270,000 largley
> > innocent civilians. If you want to waffle on about 'equivalence
> > arguments' by all means do so but it doesn't lessen the hypocrisy of
> > your position.
>
> Perhaps you are, butyour argument (out of convenience) is predicated on a
> simplistic logic system ie ''country A" etc.

No it isn't. It's simply a case of pointing out the hypocrisy of
condoning (and thrashing about desperately for excuses to support) the
totally unnecessary nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities on one hand
and condemning the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC on the other hand.

>So it is futile contextualising
> (on my part) and thus bringing the argument to life with you while you play
> this game.

The only game I'm playing, anonymous poster calling himself 'Jason
James', is exposing the sheer hypocrisy of your argument. How can you
sit there with a straight face and get all holier than thou about 9/11
when you support the unnecessary nuclear bombing of entire cities.

> > > You simply see no wrong in 9/11
> > > because the US happened to have ended a bloody war with the bomb. You
> > > disregard the circumstances leading up to it. You give no creedance to
> the
> > > 100,000s of US personel dead and injured fighting a country who declared
> war
> > > by an act rather than by political statement.
> >
> > Actually I don't disregard the circumstances leading up to it.
>
> Yes you have. Japan knew unconditional surrender was required but she
> prevaricated.

(a) Japan was trying to surrender and was putting out feelers to that
end as your own quote illustrated.
(b) I put it to you that the fact that Japan tried to negotiate,
rather than surrendering IMMEDIATELY, hardly justifies the slaughter
of 270,000 largely innocent civilians.

The principle you seem to be advocating here is that the mass
slaughter of civilians is acceptable if an opposing force seeks to
negotiate terms of surrender rather than surrendering immediately.
Again, not only does that have no foundation in international law but
it portrays a willingness to snuff out civilian lives on a massive
scale that tells us much about the mentality behind mass murder and
genocide generally.

> To allow conditional surrender was not an option, for the
> allies believed that would have opened the door of possibility for a
> re-armed Japan as they had with Germany.

(a) Let us suppose you are correct. Then surely the obvious response
to Japan's feelers was to respond to 'can we surrender on these
terms?' with a decisive 'no'. The massacre of 270,000 largely innocent
civilians is, I suggest, hardly a reasonable, fair, proportionate, or
legal response.

(b) In fact you are incorrect. Conditions were eventually allowed
anyway -- the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor.

> You
> > seem to believe that if country A starts a war against country B then
> > country B is justified in committing atrocities against the civilians
> > of country A.
>
> Not by your simplistic logic, no.

So what is the relevance of your observations about the issue of who
started the war?

> Not only is this not recognized in international law
> > (indeed, it is specifically outlawed by it) but, given the tendency of
> > states such as the US, Israel and Britain to wage aggressive war
> > against innocent countries, your argument would appear to justify the
> > use of nuclear weapons against the civilian populations of the US,
> > Israel and Britain!
>
> Bzzzzt,....the A-bomb was used during one narrow chink of time.

And MY argument was that your support of such use renders your
condemnation of the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon (which also
occurred 'during one narrow chink of time') hypocritical.

> Why do you
> think nuclear weapons were not used again

Because the Russians and others eventually also acquired nuclear
technology and the logic of 'mutually assured destruction' came into
play.

> and as such has proven to be an
> effective deterent during the cold-war?

> > > I am merely
> > > > pointing out the hypocrisy of your approach to moral indignation,
> > > > which appears to be, as I said, 'dropping atom bombs on cities full of
> > > > civilians OK; flying planes into the Pentagon not OK'.
> > > This argument is rooted in definitions ie Pearl Harbour was in essence a
> > > strategic act, but it was also a terrorist act with the essential
> ingredient
> > > of no warning (Japanese diplomats were in Washington negotiating
> friendly
> > > relations) as was 9/11.
> >
> > So if country A attacks country B with NO WARNING, that entitles
> > country B to massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians of country A?
> >
> > The contortions you get yourself into in trying to defend the US use
> > of bombs that kill civilians while condemning the use of bombs by
> > others are quite hilarious.
>
> Your point is rooted in schoolyard logic which you have fiercely opposed any
> expansion of to real situations.

Heh. So you employ an argument, I point out that it is based on dodgy
logic, and you respond with 'your point is rooted in schoolyard
logic'. That would be amusing had it not occurred in the context of
you attempting to defend the American mass murder of 270,000
civilians.

<snip old stuff>

> >
> --------------------------START -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > (a) There was no need for a land invasion as the Japs may well
> have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > trying to surrender anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > There may have been some elements which did, but in the main the
> Honour
> > > > > system prevailed over any rational decision making by the Japanese.
> > > >
> > > > No, the Japs were trying to surrender. Which, of course, left the door
> > > > wide open for one of the strategies that I suggested above:
> > >
> > > If so, why did it take 2 bombs for them to surrender?
> >
> > As I pointed out before, these two bombs were simply not necessary to
> > attain a surrender.
>
> Answer the question.

As I pointed out before, these two bombs were simply not necessary to

attain a surrender. The Japs were trying to surrender, as the material
you quoted shows, and were seeking clarity on the terms.

I don't understand that sentence.

The same could be said for the Nazis, right? They were hanged as war
criminals.

Presumably the same could be said for Al Qaeda.

What bearing does this have on the fact that it is hypocritical in the
extreme for you to denounce the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC
(seemingly by people who do not show appear to weakness by giving in)
while supporting the unnecessary nuclear bombing of two cities?

>
> > That's why I feel like vomiting when you people moan and groan about
> > the WTC. You guys got the bloody nose you richly deserved. Let's hope
> > it makes future US governments think twice before murdering the
> > innocent civilians of other countries.
>
> You will never get a 'bloody nose' for it is your nature to hide behind the
> safety procured in no small part by the US.

Personal attacks on me will not detract from the force of the argument
that your position is fundamentally hypocritical. I put it to you yet
again that it is totally hypocritical for you to condemn as immoral
the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC while supporting the completely
unnecessary nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> > > > > > 3. If 2. is unacceptable, then drop a nuclear weapon first over
> > > > > > uninhabited
> > > > > > territory.
> > > > >
> > > > > The US had only 2 bombs.
> > > >
> > > > So why not drop ONE over uninhabited territory? (Duh!)
> > > >
> > > > 'Look guys -- THIS is what we've got. The next one lands on the
> > > > emperor's bedroom.'
> > > >
> >
> > No answer, Mr 'James'?
>
> Not to that childish interpretation of the point.

Let's put the point to you again. I have asked you why the US could
not have dropped one bomb on uninhabited territory. You replied that
the US only had two bombs. I then asked why the US could not have
dropped ONE of them on uninhabited territory. Your only response so
far has been to say that my point (by which I assume you mean my
question) is 'childish'.

'We all' (i.e. the Americans and British) entered into an alliance
with Stalin. I don't recall either Britain or America following
Stalinist ideologies. Why should an alliance with Germany entail us
all following Hitler's ideologies when an alliance with Russia did not
entail us all following those of Stalin?

<lengthy, dishonest and irrelevant personal attack on me ignored>

It is not me, sir, who is attempting to defend the completely
unnecessary nuclear attacks on the defenceless population of two
Japanese cities. It's you. I leave it for our readers and your
conscience to decide which of the two of us represents 'evil'.

>an evilness that
> accepts the possibility of the allies siding with the Nazis rather than
> taking common purpose with Stalin a man who subsequently turned out to be
> every bit as evil as Hitler after his reign, but at the time participated in
> stopping the war in the east, something the allies would probably have not
> been able to do within a reasonable time-frame.

(a) Churchill was under no illusions about the 'evilness' of Stalin.
Read his memoirs. Read the Hewet memo that I've cited many times in
this forum in which the media and the churches in Britain were urged
by the British government to play up German atrocities to distract
attention from the atrocities that the British antipicated the
Russians would perpetrate.

(b) As I have just pointed out to you, an alliance with Hitler against
Stalin, rather than with Stalin against Hitler, could well have saved
many lives.

-- an amicable solution could have been found to the Jewish question
rather than the horrible bloodfest that eventually emerged;
-- the terror perpetrated by Stalin could have been brought to an end;
-- Mao, whose record of terror eclipses even Stalin, would never have
seen the light of day, nor would Pol Pot or Tito.

You might well denounce these considerations as 'evil' but your own
alternative certainly appears to have cost a very large number of
human lives.

> You operate in a selfish void of your own imagination. You have no loyalty
> for any country it would seem, especially those which helped keep your
> birth-country safe during WW2. This position then allows you to critisise
> all governments, past and present, it allows you to apply that simplistic
> ''country A...."argument.

Your personal attacks are very entertaining, anonymous poster, but
your inability to produce counter-arguments is hardly masked by them.

> Normal people argue from a position of loyalty to their country and in the
> context of the times.

The Nazis did that. They were hanged as war criminals for their
efforts.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

John Morris

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 5:18:24 PM9/20/03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 20 Sep 2003 08:21:39 -0700,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:

[snip]

> No it isn't. It's simply a case of pointing out the hypocrisy of
> condoning (and thrashing about desperately for excuses to support)
> the totally unnecessary nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities on
> one hand and condemning the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC on the
> other hand.

[snip]

On the other hand, David E. Michael took a rather different view with
regards to Serb intransigence in the 1990s:

<quote>
From: David <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:53:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3710EFB9...@cableinet.co.uk>

It shows the paucity [sic] of the liberal mind when dealing
with people of Mr Milosevic's ilk. Had I been in Tony Blair's
place my response would have been very different. I would
have invited Uncle Slobodan over for tea and excellent cream
cakes. I would have laid out the best silver. I would have
shaken him warmly by the hand. I would have told him of my
admiration of the Serbian people and my understanding of his
views on Kosovo. I would further have agreed with him
wholeheartedly that Nato, in setting itself up as a world
police force, is a danger to all free nations on earth and
that Nato should be opposed outright.

Then I would have looked him straight in the eye, and I would
have told him with the utmost sincerity that I would give
him 24 hours to get out of Kosovo, failing which not one
house, factory, church, building, tree, or blade of grass
would be left standing in Belgrade or Novi Sad. I would duly
warn the citizens of Belgrade and Novi Sad and then I would
wait.

I can guarantee that Milosevic would have got out of Kosovo
within the 24 hour deadline.

And I can guarantee that if he didn't, then by now Yugoslavia
would be a wasteland.

Such a path might, if Yugoslavia were particularly stubborn,
oblige Britain to have killed thousands of people -- those who
did not heed my warning and leave Belgrade and Novi Sad. However
it would have saved tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of
thousands. What the liberal mind cannot accept is that it is
as damnable to kill people through inaction as it is through
pulling the trigger. This is one of those cases where pulling
the trigger seriously, rather than prancing about, could have
saved many, many lives.
</quote>

Ironic, isn't it?

- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP2zDxpQgvG272fn9EQLeeACgu0FeNf5YMGmdDjnLs4C6QDK6dGoAoIpj
upuwZpuQDfhHX58+qAZhrq0F
=PsjH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

russky

unread,

Sep 20, 2003, 8:49:38 PM9/20/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<mfPab.113175$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

David Michael, in equating the 9/11 attacks with the bomb drop on
Hiroshima, ignores international law on the Rules of War, as specified
in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.I'll post them here in the vain
hope that the Hamster Freak actually wants to connect with reality
occasionally:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

As far as the bombing of Dresden and other German cities is
concerned(Since David brings that up frequently), it was the Allies
only alternative.
The Nazis bombed and/or shelled Warsaw, London,Coventry, Rotterdam,
Leningrad, and Stalingrad, intentionally killing helpless civilians.

In modern war, you cannot hide your civilians in caves or put a
bombproof cover over entire cities to protect civilians.The only way
to discourage air attacks on your civilians is to retaliate. It seems
so logical to me, but of course, David Michael is an idiot to whom
practical common sense has no meaning.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 1:24:04 PM9/21/03

rus...@indystart.com (russky) wrote in message

> David Michael, in equating the 9/11 attacks with the bomb drop on
> Hiroshima,

That's error number 1. I do not 'equate' them. Hiroshima was the
brutal and senseless slaughter by the US government of a large
civilian population. It was a war crime. The attack on the Pentagon
and WTC appears to have been an attack on key military and economic
centres.

> ignores international law on the Rules of War, as specified
> in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.I'll post them here in the vain
> hope that the Hamster Freak actually wants to connect with reality
> occasionally:
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

(a) Which specific law of rule do you feel that 9/11 violated?

(b) Are you seriously maintaining that a massive attack on a civilian
population that had no military necessity whatsoever was not a war
crime?

> As far as the bombing of Dresden and other German cities is
> concerned(Since David brings that up frequently), it was the Allies
> only alternative.

No it wasn't. Dresden had no military significance whatsoever in
February 1945. The bomb attacks singled out the city centre, which was
packed full of civilians and refugees (and priceless works of art),
and ignored the military installations around the edges of the city.
The attack on Dresden was a revenge attack on a civilian population.
It was a war crime. Churchill and Harris should have hanged for it.

> The Nazis bombed and/or shelled Warsaw, London,Coventry, Rotterdam,
> Leningrad, and Stalingrad, intentionally killing helpless civilians.

You raised this point in April 2002 and I responded thus:

<begin quote>
Typing the words 'Coventry' and 'munitions' into Google's search
engine
yields, inter alia, the following historical website:

http://www.gsn.uk.com/golden2.html

Note the words:

'Coventry with its great factories engaged in making munitions of
every kind
could not hope to escape bombardment. Indeed our district was looked
upon by
the Germans as one of their most important targets and their pilots
were
given aerial photographs showing very clearly all the important Works
in and
around the City.'
<end quote>

With regard to Rotterdam I cited Boog's essay at the front of the Cass
edition of Harris's Despatch on War Operations.

<begin quote>
Rotterdam was -- also in accordance with Noble Frankland -- a defended
city in the front line. Its bombardment on 14 May 1940 remained within
the
limits set by articles 25 and 27 of the Hague Convention on Land
Warfare of 1907, and in correspondence with the law of war
precondition that an immediate military advantage would be gained: in
this case, as in Warsaw, the capitulation of the enemy troops.
<end quote>

With regard to Leningrad and Stalingrad I observed: 'The strategic
importance of these cities may be observed from the fact that the
entire course of the war changed when the Germans were repelled. (And
you don't repel them from undefended cities.)'

With regard to Warsaw, I cited Boog again:

<begin quote>
Warsaw was a defended city in the front line, as Noble Frankland has
confirmed, when it was attacked after several futile requests for
surrender had been made. Goring had forbidden air raids on industrial
targets in the suburbs on 1 September 1939. The French air attache
reported to his government on 14 September, when the city had not yet
been encircled, that until then the Germans had tried to bomb only
targets of military and industrial relevance.
<end quote>

As I said in the same post, I entirely accept that the Nazis probably
did barbaric things. My case is not that they were angels. Merely that
your lot -- the Americans, British and Russians -- were apparently
just as bad, if not worse.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima are all the evidence I need to substantiate
THAT.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 1:30:45 PM9/21/03

John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message news:<iugpmvsn6d9kp7l9u...@4ax.com>...

1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.

2. 'Jason James' made noises of support regarding the American
slaughter of some 270,000 people with nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.

3. I pointed out the inconsistency between 1. and 2.

4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against Serb
imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to expel every
last Kosovar from their land, relate to that discussion?

Go on . . . run away from it.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 3:15:43 PM9/21/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:

Amazing! Simply amazing!

whd
--
David E. Michael comments on the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, where
Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airlines and crashed them, complete
with crew and passengers, two into the two World Trade Center's and
one into the Pentagon, the fourth crashing after the passengers had
been informed of their fate and decided to risk death to save innocent
civilisans. These four attacks had a combined death toll of over 3000
civilians. He writes, approvingly:

David E. Michael's idea of a 'military operation.'

The full post is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7%24-_-_-%24%24__%25_-%24%24%25%24%40news.noc.cabal.int&oe=ISO-8859-1

Gerald

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 6:20:39 PM9/21/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...

>
>
>1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
>the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.
>
>2. 'Jason James' made noises of support regarding the American
>slaughter of some 270,000 people with nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and
>Hiroshima.
>
>3. I pointed out the inconsistency between 1. and 2.
>
>4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against Serb
>imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to expel every
>last Kosovar from their land, relate to that discussion?
>

>David

These two cases have nothing in common other than that loss of lives and
explosions were involved.

Regarding (2), The US had been attacked by the Japanese. From the battles of
Iwo Jima and Okinawa, toward the end of the war, we can draw inferences from
expected casualties were the Japanese islands be invaded. Nimitz and MacArthur
agreed that for Kyushu and then then Honshu (the main island) should be invaded.
Admiral Leahy figured that the invasion of Kyushu would involve a force of over
750,000 Americans. The invasion of Honshu where thousands of carefully
husbanded aircraft and numerous kamikaze awaited could easily involve 2.25
million more. American casualties at IJ and O ran about 35 percent so that
about a million American casualties could be expected from an invasion of Japan.
At IJ the ratio of American wounded to American deaths was 2.9 so that about
350,000 of the one million casualties would translate to 340,000 Americans
killed.

At IJ 3.1 Japanese were killed for each American death. At O the ratio was 5.8.
If we do a simple unweighted average we get about 3 so that around one million
Japanese dead could be expected. In the face of these grim realities, Truman
made the only decision that made sense. It was right for Americans and it was
right for the Japanese.

As far as (1), the attacks on the WTC etc is concerned i will confess that there
may be a certain karma at work. However, on their face they were murderous
attacks on wholly innocent people carried out by Christian hating Muhammadans.
We must not forget the celebrations on the Arab streets of the ME. We should
also bear in mind that the attacks were planned, financed, and mostly carried
out by Muslims of SA supplemented by a few Egyptians. Our own glorious leaders
never miss a chance to tell us what great friends of the US these two deranged
countries are.

Gerald

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 7:25:29 PM9/21/03

In news:z6GdnY9jrcY...@giganews.com,
William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote:

One wonder if he *ever* gets it?

david_michael

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 11:39:47 PM9/21/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bkl87...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> says...
> >
> >
> >1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
> >the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.
> >
> >2. 'Jason James' made noises of support regarding the American
> >slaughter of some 270,000 people with nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and
> >Hiroshima.
> >
> >3. I pointed out the inconsistency between 1. and 2.
> >
> >4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against Serb
> >imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to expel every
> >last Kosovar from their land, relate to that discussion?
> >
> >David
>
> These two cases have nothing in common other than that loss of lives and
> explosions were involved.

Absolutely.

> Regarding (2), The US had been attacked by the Japanese. From the battles of
> Iwo Jima and Okinawa, toward the end of the war, we can draw inferences from
> expected casualties were the Japanese islands be invaded. Nimitz and MacArthur
> agreed that for Kyushu and then then Honshu (the main island) should be invaded.
> Admiral Leahy figured that the invasion of Kyushu would involve a force of over
> 750,000 Americans. The invasion of Honshu where thousands of carefully
> husbanded aircraft and numerous kamikaze awaited could easily involve 2.25
> million more. American casualties at IJ and O ran about 35 percent so that
> about a million American casualties could be expected from an invasion of Japan.
> At IJ the ratio of American wounded to American deaths was 2.9 so that about
> 350,000 of the one million casualties would translate to 340,000 Americans
> killed.
>
> At IJ 3.1 Japanese were killed for each American death. At O the ratio was 5.8.
> If we do a simple unweighted average we get about 3 so that around one million
> Japanese dead could be expected. In the face of these grim realities, Truman
> made the only decision that made sense. It was right for Americans and it was
> right for the Japanese.

As I explained earlier in the thread, this argument (if we gloss over
the somewhat flawed methodology in calculating the statistics -- one
can never predict such conflicts with anything like that level of
accuracy because conflicts generally reach a certain point before you
get a sudden total collapse of one side and the critical point is
difficult to identify in advance) assumes that there is an either/or
scenario: EITHER drop two atom bombs on cities full of civilians OR
invade.

Unfortunately for this famous propaganda line, there were other
alternatives.

(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.

(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
that the Americans knew it.

(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.

What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
of innocent civilians.

> As far as (1), the attacks on the WTC etc is concerned i will confess that there
> may be a certain karma at work. However, on their face they were murderous
> attacks on wholly innocent people carried out by Christian hating Muhammadans.
> We must not forget the celebrations on the Arab streets of the ME. We should
> also bear in mind that the attacks were planned, financed, and mostly carried
> out by Muslims of SA supplemented by a few Egyptians. Our own glorious leaders
> never miss a chance to tell us what great friends of the US these two deranged
> countries are.

We do not know for sure who was behind these attacks. If it was Al
Qaeda, and if Osama's various videos are genuine, then we know
precisely why he carried out those attacks:

http://www.nationalanarchist.com/links2.html

I do not share his religious beliefs but his criticisms of the
American regime seem sound enough to me and if these attacks and their
sequelae persuade future American regimes to get their noses out of
the Middle East then the events of 11 September 2001 could actually

save lives in the long run.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 11:43:45 PM9/21/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<g5Oab.507798$4UE.4...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

'I expected you to say exactly what you did.' Sounds familiar. Gord --
you've been taking trolling lessons from Lomenzo!

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 21, 2003, 11:45:25 PM9/21/03

William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message news:<z6GdnY9jrcY...@giganews.com>...

Over 3000 Daffer?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 10:06:19 AM9/22/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> writes:
[snip]

>>> 1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks
>>> on
>>> the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.
>>>
>>> 2. 'Jason James' made noises of support regarding the American
>>> slaughter of some 270,000 people with nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and
>>> Hiroshima.
>>>
>>> 3. I pointed out the inconsistency between 1. and 2.
>>>
>>> 4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against
>>> Serb
>>> imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to expel every
>>> last Kosovar from their land, relate to that discussion?
>>>
>>> Go on . . . run away from it.
>>
>> Amazing! Simply amazing!
>
> One wonder if he *ever* gets it?

Oh, he won't. I'm certain.

whd
--
Richard Phillips, in <3BA0C85C...@earthlink.net> show's his
humanity by saying:

As for your priceless World Trade Center... my only regret
is that they didn't demolish the obscenities totally by
crashing into them at a much lower point."

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 10:08:19 AM9/22/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:

[snip]

As predicted.

whd
--
On 9 February 2000, David E. Michael wrote:
"I have never in all my life intentionally set out to mislead anyone."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38A0B5D0.F69F22CC%40btinternet.com&output=gplain

Steven Mock

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 12:23:50 PM9/22/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in message news:<b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>...

What's there to run away from? By your own standards, you stand
exposed as the biggest flaming hypocrite on the planet.

Steven Mock

david_michael

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 12:42:00 PM9/22/03

William Daffer <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message news:<KqacnY3xo6S...@giganews.com>...

Mr Daffer and Mr McFee are now attempting to clutter up the thread to
try to obscure the fact that Mr 'James' has now fled from the
discussion and Mr Morris has still not responded to the following
reflections about his argument:

1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.

2. 'Jason James' made noises of support regarding the American
slaughter of some 270,000 people with nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.

3. I pointed out the inconsistency between 1. and 2.

4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against Serb
imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to expel every
last Kosovar from their land, relate to that discussion?

Go on . . . run away from it.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Jason James

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 5:51:47 PM9/22/03

"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message

news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com...

> Mr Daffer and Mr McFee are now attempting to clutter up the thread to
> try to obscure the fact that Mr 'James' has now fled from the
> discussion and Mr Morris has still not responded to the following
> reflections about his argument:

Anybody,.....who wasted their time reading these series of exchanges between
you and I would have inexorabley come to the conclusion that I spent too
much time trying to reason with you.

> 1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
> the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.

If you are going to use apostrophes to imply my second screen name is
assumed,...you are quite wrong.

Jason

Gerald

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 6:47:08 PM9/22/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...
>
>

>As I explained earlier in the thread, this argument (if we gloss over
>the somewhat flawed methodology in calculating the statistics -- one
>can never predict such conflicts with anything like that level of
>accuracy because conflicts generally reach a certain point before you
>get a sudden total collapse of one side and the critical point is
>difficult to identify in advance) assumes that there is an either/or
>scenario: EITHER drop two atom bombs on cities full of civilians OR
>invade.
>
>Unfortunately for this famous propaganda line, there were other
>alternatives.
>

OK, let's hear them.

>(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.
>

Yes, this theoretically could have been an option but as far as i know this
possibility was never discussed. You have to appreciate the psychology of the
time. The US, which considered itself special and had never lost a war, was
attacked by a country with an alien philosophy and of a different racial
make-up. This might not have been so bad but the Japanese went crazy for
several months, out-fighting us and outsmarting us. Our slow inefficiency
seemed no match for their thorough planning and rapid maneuvering. America was
partially in a state of trauma which carried over even after we got our act
together. Also, we recalled how the Japanese won their war against Russia (a
Caucasian power) and had little problem in invading China. America had been
scared. It is not realistic to believe that walking away was an option that the
American public would have tolerated.

>(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
>surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
>that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
>that the Americans knew it.
>

Yes, we knew of it and terms were offered to Japan at the Casablanca Conference
and at the Potsdam Conference. The problem was that the Japanese wanted
assurances that their emperor could keep his special status whereas the
Americans wanted to make over the Japanese political culture. They remained
silent on the emperor though of course, in the event, Hirohito was kept though
the public was instructed during the occupation that he was not a god.

>(c) If (b) is politically unacceptable, drop ONE atom bomb over
>uninhabited territory.
>

This was discussed and the scientists urged this option be taken. The problem
was that the US had only one bomb. If the Japanese military had been
unimpressed and the second bomb was a dud for whatever reason, it would have
been a fiasco.

>(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
>ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.
>

Of course this was done.

>What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
>of innocent civilians.
>

There was no response to the first bomb. So it was deemed advisable to proceed
with the second. Why the principal Christian city of Japan (not to mention its
reputation for beauty) was selected is a mystery but it suggests shallowness and
stupidity on the part of the selectors. It is important to consider that even
after the second bomb, the Imperial Army leadership wanted to fight on. It took
the emperor himself to face up to reality.

>
>We do not know for sure who was behind these attacks. If it was Al
>Qaeda, and if Osama's various videos are genuine, then we know
>precisely why he carried out those attacks:
>

He hopes to chase us out of SA.

>http://www.nationalanarchist.com/links2.html
>
>I do not share his religious beliefs but his criticisms of the
>American regime seem sound enough to me and if these attacks and their
>sequelae persuade future American regimes to get their noses out of
>the Middle East then the events of 11 September 2001 could actually
>save lives in the long run.
>

Our presence in SA has been only good for the Arabs. except for the oil, they
have little that anyone wants. The only reason oil has value is because of the
West. SA could not even get it out of the ground. I would agree that it is
criminal that our politicians have not even tried hard, except for JC, to rescue
us from such heavy dependence on ME oil. I can believe that democracy is the
answer to the sickness in the Arab countries but that cannot occur until they
give up Islam. No visible hope and yet hope is valid still.

Gerald
>David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 7:49:51 PM9/22/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

As predicted. And as also predicted, you are wrong as usual. The death
toll was 3,030, often considered to be more than 3000. See:

http://www.september11news.com/911Art.htm

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 7:50:49 PM9/22/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

Yet, you flee the inconsistency between your position on the two events.

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 7:52:58 PM9/22/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

Merciful God, you are tedious.

John Morris

unread,

Sep 22, 2003, 11:44:55 PM9/22/03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 22 Sep 2003 09:42:00 -0700,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:

> > [snip]
> >

> > >> >> Ironic, isn't it?

[snippage]

> 4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against
> Serb imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to
> expel every last Kosovar from their land, relate to that
> discussion?

> Go on . . . run away from it.

Run from what? An idiot "White" separatist who can't see his own
hypocrisy in advocating the complete destruction of Belgrade while
weeping crocodile tears over Hiroshima?

Why would I even bother to answer that kind of fool?

- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP2/Bq5QgvG272fn9EQKvjgCfSIPvmXiuA5S7oHlpjKk1BA3OA6cAoK4C
qU59Aqe3gUtzDoJA/lM046QO
=KAc1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

david_michael

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 6:03:37 AM9/23/03

John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message news:<u7gvmvsa1r3uhuppn...@4ax.com>...

Go misrepresent someone else, Morris. You're getting boring.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 7:06:28 AM9/23/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bknu5...@drn.newsguy.com>...

Can you imagine the Nazis using a similar defence? 'Ja, well . . . it
voss ze psychology off ze times!'

Certainly, you've produced a fair explanation. However, it is hardly a
compelling justification.

> >(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
> >surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
> >that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
> >that the Americans knew it.
> >
> Yes, we knew of it and terms were offered to Japan at the Casablanca Conference
> and at the Potsdam Conference. The problem was that the Japanese wanted
> assurances that their emperor could keep his special status whereas the
> Americans wanted to make over the Japanese political culture. They remained
> silent on the emperor though of course, in the event, Hirohito was kept though
> the public was instructed during the occupation that he was not a god.

So surely instead of dropping the nukes, it would have made sense
simply to continue to negotiate.

> >(c) If (b) is politically unacceptable, drop ONE atom bomb over
> >uninhabited territory.
> >
> This was discussed and the scientists urged this option be taken.

The Franck Report.

> The problem
> was that the US had only one bomb. If the Japanese military had been
> unimpressed and the second bomb was a dud for whatever reason, it would have
> been a fiasco.

We're talking about the obliteration of two cities -- the slaughter of
270,000 people. If the reasoning you suggest HAD been used -- if the
bombs were dropped on inhabited areas because the Japanese MIGHT not
have responded to the first bomb and the second MIGHT have failed --
this would have been atrocious enough. To kill ten people because 'the
equipment might fail' would perhaps be acceptable. But 270,000? In
fact, however, the reasoning you suggest was not the reasoning behind
it. The reasoning was far more sinister.

In May 1945 the Interim Committee of the Manhatten Project stated that
the bomb should be 'sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the
weapon to be recognized when publicity on it was released'. It further
advocated that the bomb be dropped on an area surrounded by houses or
other buildings most susceptible to damage. The aim was to show the
world: America has a weapon, we can destroy your cities, sit up and
take notice.

The planning documents show that of the various cities considered for
targeting, discussion was centred on how to cause maximum destruction
-- to show the maximum effect of the bombs. This was all about sending
a message to Stalin.

I put it to you that the use of weapons of mass destruction and the
elimination of 270,000 civilians for this purpose was neither a
military necessity, nor was it lawful. It makes a complete mockery of
the decision to single out the Nazis for trial as 'war criminals'.

> >(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
> >ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.
> >
> Of course this was done.
>
> >What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
> >of innocent civilians.
> >
> There was no response to the first bomb. So it was deemed advisable to proceed
> with the second. Why the principal Christian city of Japan (not to mention its
> reputation for beauty) was selected is a mystery but it suggests shallowness and
> stupidity on the part of the selectors. It is important to consider that even
> after the second bomb, the Imperial Army leadership wanted to fight on. It took
> the emperor himself to face up to reality.

That is incorrect. CIA director Dulles had been in contact with the
Japanese prior even to the dropping of the first bomb. He confirmed
that they were willing to surrender if some assurance could be given
regarding the safety of the emperor. He passed this information on to
Secretary of State Stimson at Potsdam 20 July 1945.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 notes that prior to 31
December 1945 'Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs
had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even
if no invasion had been planned or contemplated'.

The two bombs were dropped only three days apart. The Japanese quite
literally did not know what had hit them. Their earlier attempts to
negotiate a surrender had been ignored. Tokyo itself had been
virtually obliterated in conventional bombing.

Moreover, if, as you claim, the Japanese had 'not responded' to the
first bomb (or the near eradication of Tokyo in conventional
firebombing that had slaughtered more people than the two atom bombs
together), why should anyone suppose they would respond to a second?

How can America, a nation that engages in such savagery, such total
contempt for its own 'international law', claim any moral superiority
to the Nazis, let alone Osama bin Laden?

> >
> >We do not know for sure who was behind these attacks. If it was Al
> >Qaeda, and if Osama's various videos are genuine, then we know
> >precisely why he carried out those attacks:
> >
> He hopes to chase us out of SA.

That's George Bush's version. Read Osama's version at:

http://www.nationalanarchist.com/links2.html
> >
> >I do not share his religious beliefs but his criticisms of the
> >American regime seem sound enough to me and if these attacks and their
> >sequelae persuade future American regimes to get their noses out of
> >the Middle East then the events of 11 September 2001 could actually
> >save lives in the long run.
> >
> Our presence in SA has been only good for the Arabs.

Has anyone asked them? Were they given a referendum on the subject?

It is ironic how when the Americans were slaughtering Afghan civilians
they were bleating about how women in Afghanistan had so few rights,
as if this justified their invasion. In Iraq they also talk about
freedom and rights. In Saudi Arabia women are not permitted even to
drive -- and yet there is not one squeak of protest from America.

America does not care about the Arabs. It cares only about what's
underneath them.

> except for the oil, they
> have little that anyone wants.

Except for the oil.

They are the world's largest supplier.

> The only reason oil has value is because of the
> West. SA could not even get it out of the ground.
> I would agree that it is
> criminal that our politicians have not even tried hard, except for JC, to rescue
> us from such heavy dependence on ME oil. I can believe that democracy is the
> answer to the sickness in the Arab countries but that cannot occur until they
> give up Islam. No visible hope and yet hope is valid still.

Western 'democracy' is a sick joke. Only those with pro-Western,
neo-liberal opinions and vast financial resources are permitted to
play to any realistic extent. Everyone else is marginalized. It's a
tool for rich businessmen to con ignorant people into believing that
they have some say in how they are governed. In Britain we have three
main political parties. In essence they cover a smaller spectrum of
opinion than was encapsulated within the former Communist Party of the
Soviet Union -- and this is not an exaggeration (contrast, say,
Yeltsin and Suslov)!

It is said that what makes Nazism evil is that it made Auschwitz
possible.

If this is the case, can it not also be said that what makes Western
democracy evil is that it made Nagasaki possible?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 9:02:15 AM9/23/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<tVLbb.24280$Lnr1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

You flee any attempt at intelligent discussion of anything.

Watch, dear readers!

OK, Mr McFee sir. Please illustrate the 'inconsistency' from which you
feel I am fleeing . . .

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 9:08:41 AM9/23/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<T9Kbb.117234$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Mr Daffer and Mr McFee are now attempting to clutter up the thread to
> > try to obscure the fact that Mr 'James' has now fled from the
> > discussion and Mr Morris has still not responded to the following
> > reflections about his argument:
>
> Anybody,.....who wasted their time reading these series of exchanges between
> you and I would have inexorabley come to the conclusion that I spent too
> much time trying to reason with you.

Here's the argument.

1. You make noises of moral outrage about the attacks on the WTC and
the Pentagon in which under 3000 people died.

2. You support the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in which 270,000
people died.

3. When informed of alternative options to the attacks on Nagasaki and
Hiroshima you produce no coherent response -- you freeze like a small
mammal caught in the headlamps of an approaching vehicle.

Go 'reason' with that.

> > 1. 'Jason James' made noises of moral outrage regarding the attacks on
> > the WTC and the Pentagon in September 2001.
>
> If you are going to use apostrophes to imply my second screen name is
> assumed,...you are quite wrong.

The ghost of Sid . . .

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 10:08:36 AM9/23/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:

Yes, you're just that stupid and ineffectual.

whd
--
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in message
<3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, David E. Michael expressed support
for the craven cowards who hijacked four airliners, flying two into
the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and simply crashing the fourth,
with an attendant loss of life estimated in the thousands, with the
words:

"This afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened . . . Today was
a glorious day. May there be many others like it."

For the complete post of this terrorist sympathizer, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk

Orac

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 3:30:55 PM9/23/03

In article <u7gvmvsa1r3uhuppn...@4ax.com>,
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 22 Sep 2003 09:42:00 -0700,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:

>
> > 4. How does my support for the Kosovars in their struggle against
> > Serb imperialism, at a time when the Serb filth were trying to
> > expel every last Kosovar from their land, relate to that
> > discussion?
>
> > Go on . . . run away from it.
>
> Run from what? An idiot "White" separatist who can't see his own
> hypocrisy in advocating the complete destruction of Belgrade while
> weeping crocodile tears over Hiroshima?
>
> Why would I even bother to answer that kind of fool?

David Michael is basically the kind of fool who has no trouble with mass
slaughter, as long as it's done by those whose politics he agrees with
(the Nazis, for instance) or as long as the victims are those whom he
detests (Americans or Israelis, for instance). He's also the same kind
of fool who would gladly jump in and support terrorists who advocate a
Muslim theocracy (Osama bin Laden) and are bent on mass slaughter of
Americans to achieve it--if it serves his political agenda, of course.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Gerald

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 5:20:21 PM9/23/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...
>
>

>Certainly, you've produced a fair explanation. However, it is hardly a
>compelling justification.
>

>So surely instead of dropping the nukes, it would have made sense
>simply to continue to negotiate.
>

That seems reasonable to you now but in 1945 the atomic bomb was seen as an
important military advantage that had fallen into the hands of the Allies, a new
weapon that could decisively end the war to the advantage of the Allies.

>We're talking about the obliteration of two cities -- the slaughter of
>270,000 people. If the reasoning you suggest HAD been used -- if the
>bombs were dropped on inhabited areas because the Japanese MIGHT not
>have responded to the first bomb and the second MIGHT have failed --
>this would have been atrocious enough. To kill ten people because 'the
>equipment might fail' would perhaps be acceptable. But 270,000? In
>fact, however, the reasoning you suggest was not the reasoning behind
>it. The reasoning was far more sinister.
>

WWII was about a very serious attempt to bring 2000 years of Western values and
culture to an end, it was a war against Christendom. The outcome was not
assured by any means. It was important to win decisively leaving no doubt that
the criminal empires of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had been smashed into
the dust forever.

>
>I put it to you that the use of weapons of mass destruction and the
>elimination of 270,000 civilians for this purpose was neither a
>military necessity, nor was it lawful. It makes a complete mockery of
>the decision to single out the Nazis for trial as 'war criminals'.
>

The Nuremberg trials were not about punishing the Nazis for making war against
us. They were about prosecuting the responsible Nazis for crimes against
natural morality, for committing acts that would be wrong in the eyes of any
people quite apart from the laws on books. The state sanctioned crimes of
murder betrayal, thievery, wanton destroying, rape, pillage, genocide, and
slavery had to be faced up to or there could be no historical closure.

>
>How can America, a nation that engages in such savagery, such total
>contempt for its own 'international law', claim any moral superiority
>to the Nazis, let alone Osama bin Laden?
>

I don't think you are being fair here, David. The US had never done anything
against OBL and yet, out of the blue, he piloted missiles into the WTC bringing
these massive buildings to the ground. It was a partially effective wake-up
call to the US and to the West generally. We created a nursery for terrorists
in Afghanistan through the stupidity and short sightedness of our political
leaders and the entire West will pay the price. OBL trained Muslim terrorists
originating from a number of countries have been pouring through Bosnia and into
Europe for years and now out of Kosovo as well. They supplement the forces in
Chechnya as well. They have also been arriving in the US. The buildup to WWIII
is well under-way.

>
>Has anyone asked them? Were they given a referendum on the subject?
>

Are you kidding me? Do you think referendums are allowed in Muslim countries?
There is not a single democracy in the Muslim states.

>It is ironic how when the Americans were slaughtering Afghan civilians
>they were bleating about how women in Afghanistan had so few rights,
>as if this justified their invasion. In Iraq they also talk about
>freedom and rights. In Saudi Arabia women are not permitted even to
>drive -- and yet there is not one squeak of protest from America.
>

In Afghanistan the object was to put the Taliban down since they were protectors
of OBL operations. The bleating stuff was propaganda. It's not that we would
not like to see ME women freed from the oppression they are under. It's that it
is difficult to imagine an Islamic society allowing women to have civil rights.
In other words neither the US nor the UN can impose liberalization on the
Muslims without somehow destroying Muhammadanism, a task so formidable that it
is not worth the trying.

>America does not care about the Arabs. It cares only about what's
>underneath them.

>Except for the oil.

>
>They are the world's largest supplier.
>

True enough but this is not a bad thing for the Saudis. I once worked in SA and
a young man told me that we were not there because we liked their beautiful
eyes. I told him that that was correct and that he should be happy about that.
Our relationship was on a business basis. When Muslims conquer a people such as
when they recently entered the few Christian localities that existed in the
carved out Bosnia, they take the property, rape the women and kill a few men
putting the rest to second class status. We have not touched the folks in SA
and, in fact, lean over backwards to comply with their various screwball
restrictions meant to convey an inferior status to Christians. We do not take
their oil and we pay a fair price for it. We only ask to control it so that our
economy will be protected from what otherwise would be a grave vulnerability.

>
>Western 'democracy' is a sick joke. Only those with pro-Western,
>neo-liberal opinions and vast financial resources are permitted to
>play to any realistic extent. Everyone else is marginalized. It's a
>tool for rich businessmen to con ignorant people into believing that
>they have some say in how they are governed. In Britain we have three
>main political parties. In essence they cover a smaller spectrum of
>opinion than was encapsulated within the former Communist Party of the
>Soviet Union -- and this is not an exaggeration (contrast, say,
>Yeltsin and Suslov)!
>

Yes, political power could be more widely shared even in the Western democracies
but nonetheless you and i are fortunate to be where we are. We have much more
say about things than those in the dictatorships.

>It is said that what makes Nazism evil is that it made Auschwitz
>possible.
>
>If this is the case, can it not also be said that what makes Western
>democracy evil is that it made Nagasaki possible?
>

Again, i think you are not being fair. +Remember that the A bomb was only
developed because the European scientists who had fled Nazi Europe to America
were alarmed. Germany was a powerhouse in physics and had already done some of
the state of the art groundwork concerning atomic nuclei and radioactivity.
What haunted this concerned group of scientists was the possibility of AH
getting there first. In a larger sense it is the culture of the West that made
the A bomb possible - the capacity and freedom for critical thinking and the
discipline to adhere to the scientific method.

Gerald

>David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Joebruno

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 10:07:36 PM9/23/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bkqde...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> says...
> >
> >
> >Certainly, you've produced a fair explanation. However, it is hardly a
> >compelling justification.
> >
> >So surely instead of dropping the nukes, it would have made sense
> >simply to continue to negotiate.
> >
> That seems reasonable to you now but in 1945 the atomic bomb was seen as an
> important military advantage that had fallen into the hands of the Allies, a new
> weapon that could decisively end the war to the advantage of the Allies.
>
>

Hundreds of soldiers, sailors and fliers were dying every day in the
Pacific War and the closer we got to Japan, the worse it got. It was
therefore important to end the war as soon as possible. Endless
negotiations would have produced lots of dead. War colleges teach our
military that the best way to save lives is by ending the war quickly.

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 23, 2003, 10:41:10 PM9/23/03

Please note the rep[ly David Michael gives John Morris when he does exactly
what he is now telling me to do:

<quote>

Go misrepresent someone else, Morris. You're getting boring

</quote>

David doesn't really mean to debate anything. He realizes what a colossal
gaffe he committed with his blunder about Japan and the Serbs and is
slithering away as quickly as he can.

Troll denied.

Jason James

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 1:25:32 AM9/24/03

"Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:bf3896a1.0309...@posting.google.com...

The famous photograph of raising the Stars and Stripes at Iowa Jima was
actually prior to total victory there. Most of the soldiers in that
photograph were dead before the battle was over such was the death toll
fighting the JIA.

Jason

david_michael

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 7:44:53 AM9/24/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bkqde...@drn.newsguy.com>...

I don't dispute this. I merely point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
Americans condemning others for 'war crimes' and mass murder of
civilians when they engage in precisely the same behaviour themselves.
It was not necessary to use those bombs. It was an act of mass murder
on a vast scale. And yet we have the Americans bleating because they
lose 3000 civilians when someone else decides to give them a dose of
their own medicine!

> >We're talking about the obliteration of two cities -- the slaughter of
> >270,000 people. If the reasoning you suggest HAD been used -- if the
> >bombs were dropped on inhabited areas because the Japanese MIGHT not
> >have responded to the first bomb and the second MIGHT have failed --
> >this would have been atrocious enough. To kill ten people because 'the
> >equipment might fail' would perhaps be acceptable. But 270,000? In
> >fact, however, the reasoning you suggest was not the reasoning behind
> >it. The reasoning was far more sinister.
> >
> WWII was about a very serious attempt to bring 2000 years of Western values and
> culture to an end, it was a war against Christendom. The outcome was not
> assured by any means. It was important to win decisively leaving no doubt that
> the criminal empires of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had been smashed into
> the dust forever.

I think here you're getting to the heart of why genocides, mass
murders, war crimes and massive atrocities occur. Typically it
requires a conviction (real or manufactured) that something massive is
at stake for the nation or for the whole of mankind. The Nazis --
specifically Goebbels -- justified their harshness in terms of an
apocalyptic vision of what would happen should the Bolsheviks and
their (alleged) Jewish masters win the war. (Indeed, history has
proven him partially correct.) Stalin and other communists would
justify their excesses in terms of vast historical necessities --
saving the world from capitalism. And yes . . . the Americans too felt
that 'saving the world for (American-style) democracy' was a vast
historical necessity. When leaders start thinking in this way they
feel that the historical imperatives are so great that they can simply
put considerations about 'international law', war crimes, and
criminality to one side. They can massacre whoever they like, as
brutally as they wish -- they think. And that's why you get
atrocities.

It is worth noticing that this invariably turns them into raving
hypocrites. You say that America was fighting for Christendom -- but
how Christian was the dropping of those atom bombs? You refer to
'criminal empires', but was not the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima (not to mention subsequent American antics in places like
Cambodia) also 'criminal'?

> >
> >I put it to you that the use of weapons of mass destruction and the
> >elimination of 270,000 civilians for this purpose was neither a
> >military necessity, nor was it lawful. It makes a complete mockery of
> >the decision to single out the Nazis for trial as 'war criminals'.
> >
> The Nuremberg trials were not about punishing the Nazis for making war against
> us. They were about prosecuting the responsible Nazis for crimes against
> natural morality, for committing acts that would be wrong in the eyes of any
> people quite apart from the laws on books. The state sanctioned crimes of
> murder betrayal, thievery, wanton destroying, rape, pillage, genocide, and
> slavery had to be faced up to or there could be no historical closure.

Why was 'historical closure' necessary for Auschwitz but not for
Nagasaki and Hiroshima (and Dresden and Hamburg and Frankfurt and
Tokyo and Cambodia and . . .)?

> >
> >How can America, a nation that engages in such savagery, such total
> >contempt for its own 'international law', claim any moral superiority
> >to the Nazis, let alone Osama bin Laden?
> >
> I don't think you are being fair here, David. The US had never done anything
> against OBL and yet, out of the blue, he piloted missiles into the WTC bringing
> these massive buildings to the ground.

The US had done (or is perceived to have done) much against Islam and
Osama, judging from the texts of what we assume are his videos, goes
into great depth about this. Osama sees himself as fighting for Islam,
for Allah, not for himself.

> It was a partially effective wake-up
> call to the US and to the West generally. We created a nursery for terrorists
> in Afghanistan through the stupidity and short sightedness of our political
> leaders and the entire West will pay the price. OBL trained Muslim terrorists
> originating from a number of countries have been pouring through Bosnia and into
> Europe for years and now out of Kosovo as well. They supplement the forces in
> Chechnya as well. They have also been arriving in the US. The buildup to WWIII
> is well under-way.

Indeed. And I can tell you that these guys are hopping mad with the
Americans.

> >
> >Has anyone asked them? Were they given a referendum on the subject?
> >
> Are you kidding me? Do you think referendums are allowed in Muslim countries?
> There is not a single democracy in the Muslim states.

I don't think they want democracy -- they regard it as a sham. I have
only my own experience to go by, but my impression is that they want
ISLAM. Not democracy. Not America.

> >It is ironic how when the Americans were slaughtering Afghan civilians
> >they were bleating about how women in Afghanistan had so few rights,
> >as if this justified their invasion. In Iraq they also talk about
> >freedom and rights. In Saudi Arabia women are not permitted even to
> >drive -- and yet there is not one squeak of protest from America.
> >
> In Afghanistan the object was to put the Taliban down since they were protectors
> of OBL operations.
> The bleating stuff was propaganda. It's not that we would
> not like to see ME women freed from the oppression they are under. It's that it
> is difficult to imagine an Islamic society allowing women to have civil rights.

Depends on how you interpret the Koran I suppose. Large bits of
Indonesia are Muslim (except Bali etc.) and women seem to have rights
there. I suppose we could quibble about specific examples. Don't
forget that Pakistan, for all its faults on the female liberation
front, had a female president recently.

> In other words neither the US nor the UN can impose liberalization on the
> Muslims without somehow destroying Muhammadanism, a task so formidable that it
> is not worth the trying.

I agree. I don't think they want to destroy it. I think they want to
co-opt it and control it.

> >America does not care about the Arabs. It cares only about what's
> >underneath them.
>
> >Except for the oil.
> >
> >They are the world's largest supplier.
> >
> True enough but this is not a bad thing for the Saudis. I once worked in SA and
> a young man told me that we were not there because we liked their beautiful
> eyes. I told him that that was correct and that he should be happy about that.
> Our relationship was on a business basis. When Muslims conquer a people such as
> when they recently entered the few Christian localities that existed in the
> carved out Bosnia, they take the property, rape the women and kill a few men
> putting the rest to second class status. We have not touched the folks in SA
> and, in fact, lean over backwards to comply with their various screwball
> restrictions meant to convey an inferior status to Christians. We do not take
> their oil and we pay a fair price for it. We only ask to control it so that our
> economy will be protected from what otherwise would be a grave vulnerability.

Yes.

> >Western 'democracy' is a sick joke. Only those with pro-Western,
> >neo-liberal opinions and vast financial resources are permitted to
> >play to any realistic extent. Everyone else is marginalized. It's a
> >tool for rich businessmen to con ignorant people into believing that
> >they have some say in how they are governed. In Britain we have three
> >main political parties. In essence they cover a smaller spectrum of
> >opinion than was encapsulated within the former Communist Party of the
> >Soviet Union -- and this is not an exaggeration (contrast, say,
> >Yeltsin and Suslov)!
> >
> Yes, political power could be more widely shared even in the Western democracies
> but nonetheless you and i are fortunate to be where we are. We have much more
> say about things than those in the dictatorships.

I think there are just different ways of saying things. In the Soviet
Union you had your say via the Party organs. You approach someone in
the Party. In Britain you work through the newspapers and Parliament,
which are every bit as tightly controlled as the Party organs in the
Soviet Union.

> >It is said that what makes Nazism evil is that it made Auschwitz
> >possible.
> >
> >If this is the case, can it not also be said that what makes Western
> >democracy evil is that it made Nagasaki possible?
> >
> Again, i think you are not being fair. +Remember that the A bomb was only
> developed because the European scientists who had fled Nazi Europe to America
> were alarmed. Germany was a powerhouse in physics and had already done some of
> the state of the art groundwork concerning atomic nuclei and radioactivity.
> What haunted this concerned group of scientists was the possibility of AH
> getting there first.

No it wasn't. By the time the A bombs were dropped, Mr H was dead.

> In a larger sense it is the culture of the West that made
> the A bomb possible - the capacity and freedom for critical thinking and the
> discipline to adhere to the scientific method.

It was the scientific culture that made it technically possible. But
it was the politicians who decided to drop it. And it was the liberal
democratic system that failed to stop them beforehand, or punish them
subsequently.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 7:49:12 AM9/24/03

br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.0309...@posting.google.com>...

And the best way to have ended the war quickly would have been to
accept Japan's surrender overtures half a year earlier!!! (Duh!)

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gerald

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 8:22:02 PM9/24/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...
>

>I don't dispute this. I merely point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
>Americans condemning others for 'war crimes' and mass murder of
>civilians when they engage in precisely the same behaviour themselves.
>It was not necessary to use those bombs. It was an act of mass murder
>on a vast scale. And yet we have the Americans bleating because they
>lose 3000 civilians when someone else decides to give them a dose of
>their own medicine!
>

I believe that the bombs saved lives against the acceptable alternative. Of
course the atmosphere of the times was not only formed by the the attack on
Pearl Harbor and other attacks that followed (on Americans, British,
Australians, French, Dutch, Vietnamese...) but by the Japanese behavior before
the US got into it and during the war. In Nanking, between 260000 and 350000
civilians were butchered by the Japanese. The JIA POW camps were formed in
hell. A greater percentage of prisoners died in these camps than in the Nazi
camps. From the first time the Japanese ventured out toward the Allies, their
fleet headed toward PH, the picked up 3 Americans from a fishing boat,
interrogated them, tied them and hung scrap iron on them and threw them
overboard from the carrier. This set the tone for subsequent Japanese behavior
where the Allies were concerned. Flesh and blood men don't forget this because
it tells them that they are up against beasts and that they can survive only if
they slaughter the beasts.

David, i cannot think of a country that would not react in both word and, to the
extent they are able, in deed when they are suddenly attacked resulting in 3000
dead. Of course the very graphic nature of the attack even added to the
determination to track the attacker down and try them, it was carried out in
broad daylight in the most populous of US cities against twin towers that seemed
to reach for the sky filled with a great deal of the financial intelligentsia of
the nation. We were all astounded as the British probably were as well,
especially since 84 of the dead were Brits.

>
>
>
>I think here you're getting to the heart of why genocides, mass
>murders, war crimes and massive atrocities occur. Typically it
>requires a conviction (real or manufactured) that something massive is
>at stake for the nation or for the whole of mankind. The Nazis --
>specifically Goebbels -- justified their harshness in terms of an
>apocalyptic vision of what would happen should the Bolsheviks and
>their (alleged) Jewish masters win the war. (Indeed, history has
>proven him partially correct.) Stalin and other communists would
>justify their excesses in terms of vast historical necessities --
>saving the world from capitalism. And yes . . . the Americans too felt
>that 'saving the world for (American-style) democracy' was a vast
>historical necessity. When leaders start thinking in this way they
>feel that the historical imperatives are so great that they can simply
>put considerations about 'international law', war crimes, and
>criminality to one side. They can massacre whoever they like, as
>brutally as they wish -- they think. And that's why you get
>atrocities.
>

You mention bot Nazism and Stalinism or Communism. Both are pretty much
history. These two ISMs along with Imperial Rome and Muhammadanism have been
the primary challengers to Christianity in history. Three of these are pretty
much history. They are all severe challengers because they want not just a
mindless obedience but the soul of the people they oppress. Communism and
Nazism used bureaucracy and machinery to achieve their ends but Islam uses lies,
white hot hatred, and the sword. Rome was also coercive in demanding worship.
Christianity is incompatible with systems having a complete world view with
attitudes of take it or die.

When we look at these four competing systems, it is apparent that Three of them
have left behind hundreds of thousands of murdered victims, millions of slaves
and oppressed, massive amounts of stolen property. One of the three is still
alive doing its thing and in fact seems to be having a bit of a revival. Does
this not concern you just a little bit?

>It is worth noticing that this invariably turns them into raving
>hypocrites. You say that America was fighting for Christendom -- but
>how Christian was the dropping of those atom bombs? You refer to
>'criminal empires', but was not the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and
>Hiroshima (not to mention subsequent American antics in places like
>Cambodia) also 'criminal'?
>

Yes, Cambodia was a crime on our part and i could mention others as well. I
have no intention of defending Nixon for turning Cambodia into a house of
carnage.

>
>Why was 'historical closure' necessary for Auschwitz but not for
>Nagasaki and Hiroshima (and Dresden and Hamburg and Frankfurt and
>Tokyo and Cambodia and . . .)?
>

It was not appreciated then but Dresden and Hamburg were not necessary. A post
war commission found that these bombings did little or nothing to shorten the
war. Of course AH made the same mistake (?) by sending rockets with warheads
against London. Tokyo and Frankfurt made sense. Incidentally, i and my family
had an opportunity to visit Frankfurt some years ago and found the city truly
impressive. Every building and other infrastructure was essentially near new.
We took our children to zoos whenever we had a chance and the Frankfurt zoo was
the most modern we had ever seen

>
>
>The US had done (or is perceived to have done) much against Islam and
>Osama, judging from the texts of what we assume are his videos, goes
>into great depth about this. Osama sees himself as fighting for Islam,
>for Allah, not for himself.
>

Yes, the US has not done anything against Islam but it may before all is said
and done. OBL has his work cut out for him, the destruction of Christianity.

>
>
>Indeed. And I can tell you that these guys are hopping mad with the
>Americans.
>
>

>I don't think they want democracy -- they regard it as a sham. I have
>only my own experience to go by, but my impression is that they want
>ISLAM. Not democracy. Not America.
>

Indeed, democracy and freedom is wholly incompatible with Islam.

>
>
>Depends on how you interpret the Koran I suppose. Large bits of
>Indonesia are Muslim (except Bali etc.) and women seem to have rights
>there. I suppose we could quibble about specific examples. Don't
>forget that Pakistan, for all its faults on the female liberation
>front, had a female president recently.
>

Benazir was fortunate to escape with her life. Of course her father did not.

>
>I agree. I don't think they want to destroy it. I think they want to
>co-opt it and control it.
>

Yes, our most foolish politicians think this is possible.

>
>
>I think there are just different ways of saying things. In the Soviet
>Union you had your say via the Party organs. You approach someone in
>the Party. In Britain you work through the newspapers and Parliament,
>which are every bit as tightly controlled as the Party organs in the
>Soviet Union.
>

In the SU, if your opinion did not follow the line you would end up in a
Siberian camp or dead. Hardly an equivalent system. Of course this holds for
Islam as well.

>
>No it wasn't. By the time the A bombs were dropped, Mr H was dead.
>

When the scientists sent their letter to FDR and the bomb project started, AH
was still alive.

>
>It was the scientific culture that made it technically possible. But
>it was the politicians who decided to drop it. And it was the liberal
>democratic system that failed to stop them beforehand, or punish them
>subsequently.
>

Truman should be praised for it.

>David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 24, 2003, 10:39:33 PM9/24/03

In news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:<bkqde...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>,
>> david_michael says...
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly, you've produced a fair explanation. However, it is
>>> hardly a compelling justification.
>>>
>>> So surely instead of dropping the nukes, it would have made sense
>>> simply to continue to negotiate.
>>>
>> That seems reasonable to you now but in 1945 the atomic bomb was
>> seen as an important military advantage that had fallen into the
>> hands of the Allies, a new weapon that could decisively end the war
>> to the advantage of the Allies.
>
> I don't dispute this. I merely point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
> Americans condemning others for 'war crimes' and mass murder of
> civilians when they engage in precisely the same behaviour themselves.
> It was not necessary to use those bombs. It was an act of mass murder
> on a vast scale. And yet we have the Americans bleating because they
> lose 3000 civilians when someone else decides to give them a dose of
> their own medicine!

[...]

I am going to make the same point to you that I made the other day to see if
you will address it this time, or run away again.

You said that the end justifies the means. The end in this case was the
termination of the war and the saving of an estimated 1,000,000 dead in
combat if Japan had been invaded. The means was the atomic bomb. Why does
the end in this case not justify the means?

david_michael

unread,

Sep 25, 2003, 7:05:34 AM9/25/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bktcf...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> says...
> >
> >I don't dispute this. I merely point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
> >Americans condemning others for 'war crimes' and mass murder of
> >civilians when they engage in precisely the same behaviour themselves.
> >It was not necessary to use those bombs. It was an act of mass murder
> >on a vast scale. And yet we have the Americans bleating because they
> >lose 3000 civilians when someone else decides to give them a dose of
> >their own medicine!
> >
> I believe that the bombs saved lives against the acceptable alternative.

Unfortunately for this famous propaganda line, there were other
alternatives.

(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.

(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese

surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
that the Americans knew it.

(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop

ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.

What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
of innocent civilians.

> Of

> course the atmosphere of the times was not only formed by the the attack on
> Pearl Harbor and other attacks that followed (on Americans, British,
> Australians, French, Dutch, Vietnamese...) but by the Japanese behavior before
> the US got into it and during the war. In Nanking, between 260000 and 350000
> civilians were butchered by the Japanese. The JIA POW camps were formed in
> hell. A greater percentage of prisoners died in these camps than in the Nazi
> camps. From the first time the Japanese ventured out toward the Allies, their
> fleet headed toward PH, the picked up 3 Americans from a fishing boat,
> interrogated them, tied them and hung scrap iron on them and threw them
> overboard from the carrier. This set the tone for subsequent Japanese behavior
> where the Allies were concerned. Flesh and blood men don't forget this because
> it tells them that they are up against beasts and that they can survive only if
> they slaughter the beasts.

And I suppose the Nazis could make a similar argument, invoking
Bolshevik and allied atrocities -- particularly after Arthur Harris's
terror bombing campaign. 'Ja, well . . . it vos ze spirit off ze
times!'

Can the 'spirit of the times' be invoked to justify atrocities? Or
should it only be invoked when the AMERICANS perpetrate atrocities?

> David, i cannot think of a country that would not react in both word and, to the
> extent they are able, in deed when they are suddenly attacked resulting in 3000
> dead.

The question, surely, is whether such reaction makes a mockery of the
very 'international law' and moral outrage that the Americans (and
British) display when confronted by the excessive 'reactions' of
others.

> Of course the very graphic nature of the attack even added to the
> determination to track the attacker down and try them, it was carried out in
> broad daylight in the most populous of US cities against twin towers that seemed
> to reach for the sky filled with a great deal of the financial intelligentsia of
> the nation. We were all astounded as the British probably were as well,
> especially since 84 of the dead were Brits.

It was quite spectacular.

> >
> >
> >
> >I think here you're getting to the heart of why genocides, mass
> >murders, war crimes and massive atrocities occur. Typically it
> >requires a conviction (real or manufactured) that something massive is
> >at stake for the nation or for the whole of mankind. The Nazis --
> >specifically Goebbels -- justified their harshness in terms of an
> >apocalyptic vision of what would happen should the Bolsheviks and
> >their (alleged) Jewish masters win the war. (Indeed, history has
> >proven him partially correct.) Stalin and other communists would
> >justify their excesses in terms of vast historical necessities --
> >saving the world from capitalism. And yes . . . the Americans too felt
> >that 'saving the world for (American-style) democracy' was a vast
> >historical necessity. When leaders start thinking in this way they
> >feel that the historical imperatives are so great that they can simply
> >put considerations about 'international law', war crimes, and
> >criminality to one side. They can massacre whoever they like, as
> >brutally as they wish -- they think. And that's why you get
> >atrocities.
> >
> You mention bot Nazism and Stalinism or Communism. Both are pretty much
> history. These two ISMs along with Imperial Rome and Muhammadanism have been
> the primary challengers to Christianity in history.

I don't think that Nazism and communism were challengers of
Christianity, although it suffered severe repression under some forms
of communism. Catholicism flourished in Poland and was quite critical
of the state. I recall that the Christians were falling over
themselves in the 1980s to enter into 'dialogue' with various
communist regimes and their front organizations. But what's wrong with
challenging Christianity anyway?

> Three of these are pretty
> much history. They are all severe challengers because they want not just a
> mindless obedience but the soul of the people they oppress.

That's not true of Nazism. In fact Nazism is very much devoid of
ideology.

> Communism and
> Nazism used bureaucracy and machinery to achieve their ends but Islam uses lies,
> white hot hatred, and the sword.

And Christianity doesn't?

> Rome was also coercive in demanding worship.
> Christianity is incompatible with systems having a complete world view with
> attitudes of take it or die.

So historians imagined the Spanish Inquisition.

> When we look at these four competing systems, it is apparent that Three of them
> have left behind hundreds of thousands of murdered victims,

And Christianity didn't?

Tell that to the South Americans.

Heck, man, you've only got to look at Northern Island to see the
glaring hole in THAT argument.

> millions of slaves
> and oppressed,

Like Christianity in Africa and South America, right?

> massive amounts of stolen property. One of the three is still
> alive doing its thing and in fact seems to be having a bit of a revival. Does
> this not concern you just a little bit?

I don't see Islam as being the main danger to the world, although it
has the potential to become that. The military and economic dominance
of America, and its sheer brutality and hypocrisy, make it the primary
danger. Read the essay at

http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html

and you'll see the nature of this danger outlined clearly.

> >It is worth noticing that this invariably turns them into raving
> >hypocrites. You say that America was fighting for Christendom -- but
> >how Christian was the dropping of those atom bombs? You refer to
> >'criminal empires', but was not the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and
> >Hiroshima (not to mention subsequent American antics in places like
> >Cambodia) also 'criminal'?
> >
> Yes, Cambodia was a crime on our part and i could mention others as well. I
> have no intention of defending Nixon for turning Cambodia into a house of
> carnage.
> >
> >Why was 'historical closure' necessary for Auschwitz but not for
> >Nagasaki and Hiroshima (and Dresden and Hamburg and Frankfurt and
> >Tokyo and Cambodia and . . .)?
> >
> It was not appreciated then but Dresden and Hamburg were not necessary. A post
> war commission found that these bombings did little or nothing to shorten the
> war. Of course AH made the same mistake (?) by sending rockets with warheads
> against London.

Absolutely.

> Tokyo and Frankfurt made sense.

Again, you need to look at the extent of these operations and the
motive behind them. Did they meet the criterion of a 'proportionate'
response? Arthur Harris's Despatch on War Operations shows that one
British motivation for bombing Germany was to cause 'destruction and
the fear of death' -- in other words to terrorize the civilian
population. I put it to you that terror bombing of civilians is
neither lawful nor 'Christian'. That there were ALSO military motives
does not detract from the criminal nature of the British and American
governments in this strategy of 'terror bombing'.

> Incidentally, i and my family
> had an opportunity to visit Frankfurt some years ago and found the city truly
> impressive. Every building and other infrastructure was essentially near new.
> We took our children to zoos whenever we had a chance and the Frankfurt zoo was
> the most modern we had ever seen

I've seen a fair bit of Warsaw. They seem to have made a good job of
rebuilding. They also have an excellent zoo. I particularly recommend
the baboons.

> >The US had done (or is perceived to have done) much against Islam and
> >Osama, judging from the texts of what we assume are his videos, goes
> >into great depth about this. Osama sees himself as fighting for Islam,
> >for Allah, not for himself.
> >
> Yes, the US has not done anything against Islam but it may before all is said
> and done. OBL has his work cut out for him, the destruction of Christianity.

I wish him well.

> >
> >Indeed. And I can tell you that these guys are hopping mad with the
> >Americans.
> >
> >
> >I don't think they want democracy -- they regard it as a sham. I have
> >only my own experience to go by, but my impression is that they want
> >ISLAM. Not democracy. Not America.
> >
> Indeed, democracy and freedom is wholly incompatible with Islam.

AMERICAN 'democracy' and AMERICAN 'freedom'.

> >
> >Depends on how you interpret the Koran I suppose. Large bits of
> >Indonesia are Muslim (except Bali etc.) and women seem to have rights
> >there. I suppose we could quibble about specific examples. Don't
> >forget that Pakistan, for all its faults on the female liberation
> >front, had a female president recently.
> >
> Benazir was fortunate to escape with her life. Of course her father did not.
> >
> >I agree. I don't think they want to destroy it. I think they want to
> >co-opt it and control it.
> >
> Yes, our most foolish politicians think this is possible.
> >
> >
> >I think there are just different ways of saying things. In the Soviet
> >Union you had your say via the Party organs. You approach someone in
> >the Party. In Britain you work through the newspapers and Parliament,
> >which are every bit as tightly controlled as the Party organs in the
> >Soviet Union.
> >
> In the SU, if your opinion did not follow the line you would end up in a
> Siberian camp or dead. Hardly an equivalent system. Of course this holds for
> Islam as well.

That's not strictly accurate. I know that in communist Poland you
could get away with a heck of a lot so long as you didn't draw
attention to yourself -- or so I'm told by people who lived there and
were by no means pro-communist. This, of course, is post-Stalin. I
accept that the techniques of repression are different. The West is
far more subtle -- it governs by manipulating information rather than
by direct terror. Perhaps this makes it more dangerous because it
allows massive concentrations of power to accumulate unchallenged.

> >
> >No it wasn't. By the time the A bombs were dropped, Mr H was dead.
> >
> When the scientists sent their letter to FDR and the bomb project started, AH
> was still alive.

But the bombs were not dropped out of fear that Adolf Hitler would
develop the bomb.

> >
> >It was the scientific culture that made it technically possible. But
> >it was the politicians who decided to drop it. And it was the liberal
> >democratic system that failed to stop them beforehand, or punish them
> >subsequently.
> >
> Truman should be praised for it.

I'm sure you'd have said the same about Himmler had THAT side won the
war!

> >David
> >http://www.nationalanarchist.com

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 25, 2003, 7:09:49 AM9/25/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Fzscb.112137$DZ.4...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Because:

Unfortunately for this famous propaganda line, there were other
alternatives.

(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.

(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese

surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
that the Americans knew it.

(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop

ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.

What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
of innocent civilians.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gerald

unread,

Sep 25, 2003, 7:45:23 PM9/25/03

In article <b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...

>
>Can the 'spirit of the times' be invoked to justify atrocities? Or
>should it only be invoked when the AMERICANS perpetrate atrocities?
>

David, it was not exactly a matter of the tenr of the times, it was a reaction
of kill or be killed.

>
>The question, surely, is whether such reaction makes a mockery of the
>very 'international law' and moral outrage that the Americans (and
>British) display when confronted by the excessive 'reactions' of
>others.
>

The attack by OBL et al was not a reaction. OBL is 90 percent a product of
Islam but he is 10 percent a creation of the US. We trained him and supplied
him with arms and money. If anything he should have been thanking us profusely,
not kicking us in the groin. His stated reason was to drive the US out of the
Middle East, especially from Saudi Arabia, his home country and the location of
the Muslim holy sites. We are not fit to be in a Muslim country with standing
that is superior to the Muslims. Superior because we are there to protect them
in addition to protecting their principal asset involving no little self
interest. Many Arabs find their position vis a vis the Americans humiliating.

The reaction of the US was, of course, the toppling of the Afghan regime that
was protecting OBL and his Al Qaeda organization. we have experienced a whole
series of button down security measures at home. There are some restrictions
and the possibility for civil rights abuse down the line. Hopefully the
measures will result in the ferreting out and tracking and suppression of
Islamic terrorists as well as the destruction of their cells in the US. We can
only hope, but based upon the massive failure of our intelligence services one
wonders. Of course it hardly need be said that we do not over-react when we
attempt to defend ourselves even if that means the death of a murderous
attacker.

>
>
>I don't think that Nazism and communism were challengers of
>Christianity, although it suffered severe repression under some forms
>of communism. Catholicism flourished in Poland and was quite critical
>of the state. I recall that the Christians were falling over
>themselves in the 1980s to enter into 'dialogue' with various
>communist regimes and their front organizations. But what's wrong with
>challenging Christianity anyway?
>

Yes there was much talk about detente in the 1980s. It came to nothing because
there can be no lasting truce with a totalitarian state. Sooner or later the
dictatorship will revert to form. Although certainly talk is better than war.

There's nothing wrong with challenging Christianity as long as it is done in a
civil manner. Christians understand that all challengers will eventually fade.

>
>
>That's not true of Nazism. In fact Nazism is very much devoid of
>ideology.
>

The Nazis were full of ideology - from the notion that they were the master race
to the notion that slavs are fated to serve Germany by doing the dirty work and
serving as guinea pigs for experiments, to making a demi-god of AH who was
supposedly not merely going to head up Germany but was destined to be the first
of many Germans to rule Europe, Africa, and the ME.
>
>
>And Christianity doesn't?
>

No. In fact Christians are generally singled out for death or submission by the
monsters of history.
>

>So historians imagined the Spanish Inquisition.

The SI was, in a sense, the opposite. It's purpose was to uncover and drive out
various Jews and Muslims who were feigning Christianity in order to secure a
higher social position and financial opportunities by association with the now
dominant group in Spain. Incidentally, BBC broadcast a documentary on the SI in
1994. it was broadcast in America on the Arts and Entertainment channel.
British scholars had been given access to the Vatican archives and they
concluded that the inquisition was carried out in a rather restrained manner for
its time. The deaths were in the 5000 to 7000 range, not the millions of
mythology. The story of the SI we still hear is the creation of British
protestants. Unfortunately, BBC will not release the video tape for sale
through the various distribution channels. Apparently it is too controversial.

>
>
>And Christianity didn't?
>
>Tell that to the South Americans.
>

Yes, the South American Indians were murdered, enslaved, and their lands which
were alloted to them by the governor were stolen. However, that was not
Christianity. In fact the reason The Indians are Christian today was that the
priests were the only people who would look out for them and speak for their
interests. What shreds they received were mostly thanks to the Church.

>
>
>I don't see Islam as being the main danger to the world, although it
>has the potential to become that. The military and economic dominance
>of America, and its sheer brutality and hypocrisy, make it the primary
>danger. Read the essay at
>
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html
>
>and you'll see the nature of this danger outlined clearly.
>

America has created its share of havoc in the world but its been in the right
more often especially when it really counted.

>
>
>Again, you need to look at the extent of these operations and the
>motive behind them. Did they meet the criterion of a 'proportionate'
>response? Arthur Harris's Despatch on War Operations shows that one
>British motivation for bombing Germany was to cause 'destruction and
>the fear of death' -- in other words to terrorize the civilian
>population. I put it to you that terror bombing of civilians is
>neither lawful nor 'Christian'. That there were ALSO military motives
>does not detract from the criminal nature of the British and American
>governments in this strategy of 'terror bombing'.
>

The British were subjected to horrific bombing in their homeland. They were
nearly cut off from their lifeline of supplies by the Nazi submarine fleet.
With Christian civilization at stake not to mention the endangered existence of
Britain, the bombing of Germany was wholly justifies. The only argument against
it was possible to make in hindsight. I'm satisfied about our participation so
that it could be nearly round the clock. Thank God the Allies won the war
against the Axis powers. Naturally many innocent people died, war is simply
killing and destroying. That's why war should be a last resort and only if it
meets the criteria for a just war.

>
>I wish him well.
>
We'll get the SOB, it's only a matter of time.

>
>
>AMERICAN 'democracy' and AMERICAN 'freedom'.
>

No, any freedom and democracy is anathema to Islam. Sharia has no place for
such. There's the pity - an impossible fit.

>
>That's not strictly accurate. I know that in communist Poland you
>could get away with a heck of a lot so long as you didn't draw
>attention to yourself -- or so I'm told by people who lived there and
>were by no means pro-communist. This, of course, is post-Stalin. I
>accept that the techniques of repression are different. The West is
>far more subtle -- it governs by manipulating information rather than
>by direct terror. Perhaps this makes it more dangerous because it
>allows massive concentrations of power to accumulate unchallenged.
>

Hell, the communists manipulated information also. You know David, I once
viewed a depressing documentary about an attempt by the SU to lay a railroad
track across the very northern extent of Russia. It was Stalin's idea. Young
men who speculated and asked too many questions were pressed into service for
this impossible task. The tracks would become tipped and turned as the state of
the frozen soil changed. Finally even Stalin gave up on it. To save face a few
apparatchiks were sentenced to die. It was sad to hear the men who tried to lay
the railroad speak about their experience. They were all well spoken and
impressively intelligent and uninhibited in their thinking. I remarked to my
wife how much Russia lost by taking the best years of these men's lives and she
said yes but their promise was precisely why they were selected to be removed
from society.

>
>I'm sure you'd have said the same about Himmler had THAT side won the
>war!
>

Perhaps. Thank God he didn't allow that outcome.

Gerald
> >David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 25, 2003, 8:23:49 PM9/25/03

In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

Thank you for inadvertantly revealing your outrageous double standard. The
person who said "the end justify the means" was *you*, not me.

> (a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.
>
> (b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
> surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
> that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
> that the Americans knew it.
>
> (c) If (b) is politically unacceptable, drop ONE atom bomb over
> uninhabited territory.
>
> (d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
> ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.
>
> What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
> of innocent civilians.

I see. So the ends only justify the means when you want them to.

Pathetic, David.

steve wolk

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 1:01:03 AM9/26/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message

news:pGLcb.72582$Lnr1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

He's ALWAYS pathetic.

david_michael

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 11:19:51 AM9/26/03

"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<pGLcb.72582$Lnr1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

I take it you were attempting to distract attention from my argument
rather than raise a clear objection to it?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

david_michael

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 11:48:04 AM9/26/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bkvum...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> says...
> >
> >Can the 'spirit of the times' be invoked to justify atrocities? Or
> >should it only be invoked when the AMERICANS perpetrate atrocities?
> >
> David, it was not exactly a matter of the tenr of the times, it was a reaction
> of kill or be killed.

As I explained earlier -- you seem to be working very hard at ignoring
the point -- there were other alternatives. You can snip them and
ignore them as much as you like but they won't go away. Here they are
again. Rather than nuking TWO cities full of civilians, or invading
Japan, the Americans had the following options:

(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.

(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.

What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
of innocent civilians.

Go on . . . ignore it again.

> >
> >The question, surely, is whether such reaction makes a mockery of the
> >very 'international law' and moral outrage that the Americans (and
> >British) display when confronted by the excessive 'reactions' of
> >others.
> >
> The attack by OBL et al was not a reaction.

He says it was.

> OBL is 90 percent a product of
> Islam but he is 10 percent a creation of the US. We trained him and supplied
> him with arms and money.

Correct.

> If anything he should have been thanking us profusely,
> not kicking us in the groin.

Why? There was a temporary confluence of interest -- you and he both
wanted the Soviets out of the Islamic world.

Problem was, he also wanted YOU out of the Islamic world.

> His stated reason was to drive the US out of the
> Middle East, especially from Saudi Arabia, his home country and the location of
> the Muslim holy sites. We are not fit to be in a Muslim country with standing
> that is superior to the Muslims.

Frankly, I don't think that the US should 'be in' anyone else's
country. Certainly not against the wishes of the people.

> Superior because we are there to protect them

Tell that to the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghans who get butchered
daily by your troops or the troops of your allies.

> in addition to protecting their principal asset involving no little self
> interest. Many Arabs find their position vis a vis the Americans humiliating.

Correct. And they want you out. Their message is clear: AMERICANS OUT!

> The reaction of the US was, of course, the toppling of the Afghan regime that
> was protecting OBL and his Al Qaeda organization. we have experienced a whole
> series of button down security measures at home. There are some restrictions
> and the possibility for civil rights abuse down the line. Hopefully the
> measures will result in the ferreting out and tracking and suppression of
> Islamic terrorists as well as the destruction of their cells in the US. We can
> only hope, but based upon the massive failure of our intelligence services one
> wonders. Of course it hardly need be said that we do not over-react when we
> attempt to defend ourselves even if that means the death of a murderous
> attacker.

Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

> >I don't think that Nazism and communism were challengers of
> >Christianity, although it suffered severe repression under some forms
> >of communism. Catholicism flourished in Poland and was quite critical
> >of the state. I recall that the Christians were falling over
> >themselves in the 1980s to enter into 'dialogue' with various
> >communist regimes and their front organizations. But what's wrong with
> >challenging Christianity anyway?
> >
> Yes there was much talk about detente in the 1980s. It came to nothing because
> there can be no lasting truce with a totalitarian state. Sooner or later the
> dictatorship will revert to form. Although certainly talk is better than war.
>
> There's nothing wrong with challenging Christianity as long as it is done in a
> civil manner. Christians understand that all challengers will eventually fade.

I'd argue that the mere existence of challengers refutes the notion of
an all powerful and perfectly good God.

> >That's not true of Nazism. In fact Nazism is very much devoid of
> >ideology.
> >
> The Nazis were full of ideology - from the notion that they were the master race
> to the notion that slavs are fated to serve Germany by doing the dirty work and
> serving as guinea pigs for experiments, to making a demi-god of AH who was
> supposedly not merely going to head up Germany but was destined to be the first
> of many Germans to rule Europe, Africa, and the ME.

I quote from Count 1 of the IMT indictment (Nuremberg trials): 'The
aims and purposes of the Nazi conspirators were not fixed or static
but-evolved and expanded as they acquired progressively greater power
and became able to make more effective application of threats of force
and threats of aggressive war. '

They were 'playing it by ear', not proceeding in accordance with a
recipe.

> >And Christianity doesn't?
> >
>
> No. In fact Christians are generally singled out for death or submission by the
> monsters of history.

Your statement might well be true of the twentieth century. I hardly
think it was true of earlier centuries.

> >So historians imagined the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> The SI was, in a sense, the opposite. It's purpose was to uncover and drive out
> various Jews and Muslims who were feigning Christianity in order to secure a
> higher social position and financial opportunities by association with the now
> dominant group in Spain. Incidentally, BBC broadcast a documentary on the SI in
> 1994. it was broadcast in America on the Arts and Entertainment channel.
> British scholars had been given access to the Vatican archives and they
> concluded that the inquisition was carried out in a rather restrained manner for
> its time. The deaths were in the 5000 to 7000 range, not the millions of
> mythology. The story of the SI we still hear is the creation of British
> protestants. Unfortunately, BBC will not release the video tape for sale
> through the various distribution channels. Apparently it is too controversial.

And the Crusades?

And the anti-witchcraft campaigns?

And the slaughter of heretics?

And the factional battles between Catholics and Protestants?

> >And Christianity didn't?
> >
> >Tell that to the South Americans.
> >
> Yes, the South American Indians were murdered, enslaved, and their lands which
> were alloted to them by the governor were stolen. However, that was not
> Christianity.

It was done in the name of Christ, right?

Modern communists argue that Stalinism was 'not communism'.

> In fact the reason The Indians are Christian today was that the
> priests were the only people who would look out for them and speak for their
> interests. What shreds they received were mostly thanks to the Church.

The Church dispossessed and enslaved them. Why should they thank it
for that?

>I don't see Islam as being the main danger to the world, although it
> >has the potential to become that. The military and economic dominance
> >of America, and its sheer brutality and hypocrisy, make it the primary
> >danger. Read the essay at
> >
> >http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html
> >
> >and you'll see the nature of this danger outlined clearly.
> >
> America has created its share of havoc in the world but its been in the right
> more often especially when it really counted.

As I have shown with the Nagasaki example, that is patently false.

> >
> >Again, you need to look at the extent of these operations and the
> >motive behind them. Did they meet the criterion of a 'proportionate'
> >response? Arthur Harris's Despatch on War Operations shows that one
> >British motivation for bombing Germany was to cause 'destruction and
> >the fear of death' -- in other words to terrorize the civilian
> >population. I put it to you that terror bombing of civilians is
> >neither lawful nor 'Christian'. That there were ALSO military motives
> >does not detract from the criminal nature of the British and American
> >governments in this strategy of 'terror bombing'.
> >
> The British were subjected to horrific bombing in their homeland.

So were the Germans. Does that justify atrocities and war crimes?

> They were
> nearly cut off from their lifeline of supplies by the Nazi submarine fleet.
> With Christian civilization at stake not to mention the endangered existence of
> Britain, the bombing of Germany was wholly justifies.

What was Christian about the bombing of Dresden or Nagasaki?

> The only argument against
> it was possible to make in hindsight.

People, including churchmen, were arguing against it right after it
happened. Not all Christians are hypocrites.

> I'm satisfied about our participation so
> that it could be nearly round the clock. Thank God the Allies won the war
> against the Axis powers.

I think far fewer people would have died had the British entered an
alliance with Hitler against Stalin rather than with Stalin against
Hitler. You'd have moderated the response to the Jews, you could have
cut Stalin's reign of terror by a decade or more, and the conditions
leading to the emergence of Mao and Pol Pot would not have arisen.

> Naturally many innocent people died, war is simply
> killing and destroying. That's why war should be a last resort and only if it
> meets the criteria for a just war.

Which can, of course, be bent to suit America's interests, right?

> >I wish him well.
> >
> We'll get the SOB, it's only a matter of time.

It won't do you any good. A million will replace him.

> >
> >AMERICAN 'democracy' and AMERICAN 'freedom'.
> >
> No, any freedom and democracy is anathema to Islam. Sharia has no place for
> such. There's the pity - an impossible fit.

A lot of people seem to prefer it to what the Americans have on offer.

> >
> >That's not strictly accurate. I know that in communist Poland you
> >could get away with a heck of a lot so long as you didn't draw
> >attention to yourself -- or so I'm told by people who lived there and
> >were by no means pro-communist. This, of course, is post-Stalin. I
> >accept that the techniques of repression are different. The West is
> >far more subtle -- it governs by manipulating information rather than
> >by direct terror. Perhaps this makes it more dangerous because it
> >allows massive concentrations of power to accumulate unchallenged.
> >
> Hell, the communists manipulated information also.

Agreed.

You know David, I once
> viewed a depressing documentary about an attempt by the SU to lay a railroad
> track across the very northern extent of Russia. It was Stalin's idea. Young
> men who speculated and asked too many questions were pressed into service for
> this impossible task. The tracks would become tipped and turned as the state of
> the frozen soil changed. Finally even Stalin gave up on it. To save face a few
> apparatchiks were sentenced to die. It was sad to hear the men who tried to lay
> the railroad speak about their experience. They were all well spoken and
> impressively intelligent and uninhibited in their thinking. I remarked to my
> wife how much Russia lost by taking the best years of these men's lives and she
> said yes but their promise was precisely why they were selected to be removed
> from society.

And right now some of America's best are giving their lives in 50
degrees centigrade so that their President can save face over Iraq.
Where's the difference? Stalin, Bush . . . same thing.

> >I'm sure you'd have said the same about Himmler had THAT side won the
> >war!
> >
> Perhaps. Thank God he didn't allow that outcome.

But he allowed Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

Why?

> Gerald

William Daffer

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 9:02:44 PM9/26/03

david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:

Yes, you would be that stupid.

whd
--
In <3b87...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>,

David E. Michael, in response to my observation that "the Nazis didn't kill
. . ." 33,000 Jewish men, women and children of Kiev by marching them to a
ditch at Babi-Yar, forcing them to undress and shooting them in the head
"for 'military purposes.' They killed them for *racialist* purposes"
said:

(a) How the f*** would you know?
(b) So what?

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 10:48:16 PM9/26/03

In news:nbidnfWbqY9...@comcast.com,
steve wolk <Bar...@Seville.com> wrote:

Pathetically so. He, like the other deniers, is reduced to slogans and
rote.

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

Gerald

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 10:30:35 PM9/26/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
says...
>

>As I explained earlier -- you seem to be working very hard at ignoring
>the point -- there were other alternatives. You can snip them and
>ignore them as much as you like but they won't go away. Here they are
>again. Rather than nuking TWO cities full of civilians, or invading
>Japan, the Americans had the following options:
>
>(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.
>
>(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
>surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
>that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
>that the Americans knew it.
>
>(c) If (b) is politically unacceptable, drop ONE atom bomb over
>uninhabited territory.
>
>(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
>ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.
>
>What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
>of innocent civilians.
>
>Go on . . . ignore it again.
>

OK.

>
>
>Why? There was a temporary confluence of interest -- you and he both
>wanted the Soviets out of the Islamic world.
>

Yes, it was colossally short sighted of JC and Brzezinski not to say near
criminal to finance, train, and arm a group of Muslims.

>Problem was, he also wanted YOU out of the Islamic world.
>
>

>Frankly, I don't think that the US should 'be in' anyone else's
>country. Certainly not against the wishes of the people.
>

I have mixed feelings about this. As long as our present economic structure
exists, ie our dependence on ME oil, we must stay in the faces of the despots of
the ME not to mention the street Arabs. The stupidity of our situation is that
the oil industry corporations control our politicians to the extent that nothing
serious is done to decrease that dependence, dependence upon unstable deranged
fanatics and governments that may be overthrown at any time. Somebody help us,
our electorate can't see straight. JC wasn't perfect but he clearly saw the
handwriting.

>
>Tell that to the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghans who get butchered
>daily by your troops or the troops of your allies.
>

You said a mouthful.

We were right to go into Afghanistan for reasons i've mentioned.

The invasion of Iraq did not have honestly stated motivation. In fact the lies
told to us were patently false. Many of us realized and said that the true
reasons were to insure the reelection of W, save the honor of Bush I, and
perhaps most of all, to place us in a position to control not only the oil
sources of the Persian Gulf but also extending into the central Asian states.
With this leverage, the US and UK will effectively control the world oil
economy. Along with many others i believed the invasion should not be carried
out. Now that we are there, the schemes of the rabid oil men had better come to
fruition because i doubt that the other nations are going to clean up the mess
that we have made. In fact they would be stupid to place the lives of their
young men and some of their treasure in our obviously incompetent hands.

The tragedy of Israel is that the depraved Muslims cannot stand to have
non-Muslims around them. The Israelis must die or submit to dhimmi status.
Isn't it strange that the corrupt Western media thinks the bad guys are the Jews
because they attempt to defend themselves.

>
>Correct. And they want you out. Their message is clear: AMERICANS OUT!
>

Perhaps, but based upon the history of Islam, i suspect that their message is a
bit stronger. Something like we are growing stronger and more confident by the
day. We now have begun to resume the jihad that was brought to a temporary end
at the entry to Vienna in 1683. The previous thousand years experienced an
expansion starting from Medina to finally encompass two thirds of Christendom.

>
>
>Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.
>

War is a terrible thing. When the Japanese attacked us, we did everything we
could to win the war. Of course, unlike the Japanese, we did not demonstrate
surgery on unsedated men and then shoot the patient or other such medical
practice.

>
>
>I'd argue that the mere existence of challengers refutes the notion of
>an all powerful and perfectly good God.
>

Not hardly. Free will is part of God's economy.

>
>I quote from Count 1 of the IMT indictment (Nuremberg trials): 'The
>aims and purposes of the Nazi conspirators were not fixed or static
>but-evolved and expanded as they acquired progressively greater power
>and became able to make more effective application of threats of force
>and threats of aggressive war. '
>
>They were 'playing it by ear', not proceeding in accordance with a
>recipe.
>

Have you read Mein Kampf?

>
>Your statement might well be true of the twentieth century. I hardly
>think it was true of earlier centuries.
>

When Egypt fell in jihad part 1, the inhabitants of three towns were all
occupants were killed, at another, Cilicia, they were enslaved. When they
invaded Syria, something lke 640 monasteries were pillaged while the monks and
local townspeople were killed.in Tripoli, Christians had to hand over their
women and children to be slaves to the Arab army. Carthage was destroyed and
most of the people killed. All together, the Muslims conquered about 30 million
Christians including those in what is now Iraq and Iran. There had been both
Jewish and Christians towns on the Arabian Peninsula in both SA and Yemen.
Where are they now? Asia minor was well populated with Greeks.

Incidentally, you mentioned how free the Indonesians seem despite being Muslims.
After Australia handed West Papua , with a Christian population, to Indonesia,
The Indonesians killed something like 100,000 from 1962 – 1990. When Suharto
overthrew Sukarno, about 500,000 perished , including a significant number of
Christians.. When Indonesia invaded Christian East Timor in 1989, they killed
about 200,000 souls. Muslims kicked the entire population of some 100,000
Christians off the Indonesian island of Ambon in 2000. When it comes to Islam,
whether the history is old or recent it is same old same old.
>
>And the Crusades?
>
The crusades were an attempt to recover a bit of what had been forcibly take.
They are best seen as analogous to the Allied invasion at Normandy.

>And the anti-witchcraft campaigns?
>
We learn as we go.

>And the slaughter of heretics?
>
>And the factional battles between Catholics and Protestants?
>

The first great schism was the when the Easter churches broke away. The Reform
damaged the effort to deal with Islam. It was motivated by the princes of
northern Europe desiring monastery lands and chaffing under Catholic
restrictions. Some day there will be a coming together.

>
>It was done in the name of Christ, right?
>

No, it was done in the name of greed which drove the secular community then as
well as now.

>Modern communists argue that Stalinism was 'not communism'.
>

They have some theory in mind but it is best to go by reality.

>
>The Church dispossessed and enslaved them. Why should they thank it
>for that?
>

This seems to be a non sequiter.

>
>As I have shown with the Nagasaki example, that is patently false.
>

You have done no such thing.

>
>So were the Germans. Does that justify atrocities and war crimes?
>

It means that the Brits had better do everything in their power to defeat the
Satanic Nazis. For their own sake and for civilization as well.

>
>What was Christian about the bombing of Dresden or Nagasaki?
>

Christianity is not a religion of pacifism or at least not to most of us. Self
defense is allowed.

>People, including churchmen, were arguing against it right after it
>happened. Not all Christians are hypocrites.
>

Well no, However it is not hypocritical to defeat a savage attacker even though
some innocents may be killed. What's important is the good accomplished
outweigh the harm.

>
>I think far fewer people would have died had the British entered an
>alliance with Hitler against Stalin rather than with Stalin against
>Hitler. You'd have moderated the response to the Jews, you could have
>cut Stalin's reign of terror by a decade or more, and the conditions
>leading to the emergence of Mao and Pol Pot would not have arisen.
>

Truman once jokingly said that we should have just helped whoever seemed to be
losing as far as Garmany and Russia were concerned. Naturally, doing such a
thing would be an act of genocide, hopefully never forgotten in history. Of
course Hitler was the greater imminent threat to Christian Civilization. To do
as you suggest would have been stupid but that choice was not there for the US,
Germany declared war on us. Britain did the honorable thing even though it
placed them at great risk.

It would not have impacted Mao. We were doing everything we could to shut him
down by giving massive amounts of weaponry to Chiang Kai-shek but the good
generals of the Kuomintang sold it to Mao without even bothering to unpack it.
Dang, backed the wrong horse again.

Pol Pot was partly on the US. Our glorious leaders backed him because they were
still smarting about Vietnam and Vietnam recognized that PP was one dangerous
cookie and wanted to keep him in check. This is a completely different matter
than WWII but is a sorry part of the Cold War.

>
>Which can, of course, be bent to suit America's interests, right?
>

I would say that W and Tony Blair just proved that except the invasion of Iraq
is not to America’s interest, only to the interest of W and the oil
corporations.

>
>It won't do you any good. A million will replace him.
>

Yes, we must not flag but continue to knock them down, one after the other,
until they no longer get up.

>
>A lot of people seem to prefer it to what the Americans have on offer.
>

They have been taken in just as many were taken in by Nazism and Communism.
?

>And right now some of America's best are giving their lives in 50
>degrees centigrade so that their President can save face over Iraq.
>Where's the difference? Stalin, Bush . . . same thing.
>

Well, at least right now, the US has a volunteer army. But you are ignoring the
elephant in the living room when you compare Stalin with Bush. You need to read
a bit about Stalin’s record. David, you really sound like a nihilist.

>
>But he allowed Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.
>
>Why?
>

God has created the entire universe along with all physical phenomena.. If
there are multiple universes, he created them as well. He created not only the
inanimate things and the laws of nature but he created every living thing. He
created not only the material world but he also created the spiritual world
including the angels and demons and he keeps the human dead. He can do all
things. He knows the past, the present and the future. He has infinite
knowledge and understanding. We cannot fathom the entirety of an infinite being
who does such things. We can no more comprehend his purposes than an ant can
apprehend our motivations. We believe that God is good and that he loves us.
We believe that at the end of the day God will set all things right and turn
each thing that harms us into a blessing to us. We can only have faith. God
help mine unbelief.
>
>David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Gord McFee

unread,

Sep 26, 2003, 10:52:11 PM9/26/03

Not at all. Your argument, from which you are now fleeing at the speed of
light, was that the ends justify the means.

You know David, every time I am stupid enough to attempt a real discussion
with you, you resort to this kind of rubbish. And then you complain that no
one will discuss issues with you.

And you can't see the double standard in that. *That's* why I say
"pathetic". You have so much more to offer.

Hilary Ostrov

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 12:46:19 AM9/27/03

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:52:11 GMT, in
<vX6db.143514$DZ.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "Gord
McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote:

>In news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com,
>david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:<pGLcb.72582$Lnr1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>>> In news:b7fe1abc.0309...@posting.google.com,
>>> david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message

[...]

>>> I see. So the ends only justify the means when you want them to.

>>> Pathetic, David.

>> I take it you were attempting to distract attention from my argument
>> rather than raise a clear objection to it?

>Not at all. Your argument, from which you are now fleeing at the speed of
>light, was that the ends justify the means.

>You know David, every time I am stupid enough to attempt a real discussion
>with you, you resort to this kind of rubbish. And then you complain that no
>one will discuss issues with you.

>And you can't see the double standard in that. *That's* why I say
>"pathetic". You have so much more to offer.

He does?! On what do you base that assertion, Gord? His "load of
bollocks" doctoral thesis? His 9/11/98 "beautiful dream"? His
9/11/01 paean to OBL and Al Qaeda, "Today was a glorious day. May
there be many others like it."? Or his more recent (9/25/03), "Nazism
is very much devoid of ideology."?

Methinks you were right the first time, Gord: he's pathetic.

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the
annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will
have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example
- as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged
indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they
will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon
as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on
down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated.
Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all
Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." Adolf Hitler, 1922

"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from
lamp-posts. And in so doing they have my complete support." - Dr.
David E. Michael, September 11, 1998

"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human
in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are an
image of the devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the
nations." - Adolf Hitler, 1923

"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype
of the Jews seems to be." - Dr. David E. Michael, September 11, 1998

hro
--
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/

Jason James

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 3:21:58 AM9/27/03

"Hilary Ostrov" <hos...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:e73anvcjuulrrbgmg...@4ax.com...

Michael's intellect has been hijacked by his rubbish beliefs on how the
human race should be racialised and then the chosen ones converted to a form
of neo-socialism based on an anarchic process. It's either that or he has
lost his marbles.

Jason

Jason James

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 3:26:55 AM9/27/03

"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com...

Notice how Michael has predictabley, personalised his replies with Gerald?

Jason James

Hilary Ostrov

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 4:00:50 AM9/27/03

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:21:58 GMT, in
<qUadb.125657$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Jason James"
<fl...@byplane.com> wrote:

[...]

>Michael's intellect has been hijacked by his rubbish beliefs on how the
>human race should be racialised and then the chosen ones converted to a form
>of neo-socialism based on an anarchic process. It's either that or he has
>lost his marbles.

I wasn't aware that those who are blessed with the "brain of a guinea
pig" had any marbles to lose ;>)

Jason James

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 8:24:45 AM9/27/03

"Hilary Ostrov" <hos...@telus.net> wrote in message

news:nlganv8kq77sh7uo8...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:21:58 GMT, in
> <qUadb.125657$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Jason James"
> <fl...@byplane.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Michael's intellect has been hijacked by his rubbish beliefs on how the
> >human race should be racialised and then the chosen ones converted to a
form
> >of neo-socialism based on an anarchic process. It's either that or he has
> >lost his marbles.
>
> I wasn't aware that those who are blessed with the "brain of a guinea
> pig" had any marbles to lose ;>)

Those poor G/pigs!

Jason

> hro
> --
> Hilary Ostrov

david_michael

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 11:58:48 AM9/27/03

Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bl2so...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> says...
> >
> >As I explained earlier -- you seem to be working very hard at ignoring
> >the point -- there were other alternatives. You can snip them and
> >ignore them as much as you like but they won't go away. Here they are
> >again. Rather than nuking TWO cities full of civilians, or invading
> >Japan, the Americans had the following options:
> >
> >(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.
> >
> >(b) If (a) is politically unacceptable, negotiate a Japanese
> >surrender. From the material that 'Jason James' has posted we know
> >that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and we know
> >that the Americans knew it.
> >
> >(c) If (b) is politically unacceptable, drop ONE atom bomb over
> >uninhabited territory.
> >
> >(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
> >ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.
> >
> >What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
> >of innocent civilians.
> >
> >Go on . . . ignore it again.
> >
> OK.
> >
> >
> >Why? There was a temporary confluence of interest -- you and he both
> >wanted the Soviets out of the Islamic world.
> >
> Yes, it was colossally short sighted of JC and Brzezinski not to say near
> criminal to finance, train, and arm a group of Muslims.

I don't think it was. I think that what was colosally short sighted
was to have failed to learn from history that if you maintain
unpopular empires then the indigenous population rebels. Having
defeated Soviet imperialism the Americans should have got the heck out
of the Middle East.

> >Problem was, he also wanted YOU out of the Islamic world.
> >
> >
> >Frankly, I don't think that the US should 'be in' anyone else's
> >country. Certainly not against the wishes of the people.
> >
> I have mixed feelings about this. As long as our present economic structure
> exists, ie our dependence on ME oil, we must stay in the faces of the despots of
> the ME not to mention the street Arabs.

I don't see why you can't trade honestly with them. You have money.
They have oil. You give them money. They give you oil. You don't need
to 'be in' their country at all.

> The stupidity of our situation is that
> the oil industry corporations control our politicians to the extent that nothing
> serious is done to decrease that dependence, dependence upon unstable deranged
> fanatics and governments that may be overthrown at any time. Somebody help us,
> our electorate can't see straight. JC wasn't perfect but he clearly saw the
> handwriting.

> >Tell that to the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghans who get butchered
> >daily by your troops or the troops of your allies.
> >
> You said a mouthful.
>
> We were right to go into Afghanistan for reasons i've mentioned.

The reason given initially was to catch Osama. The overthrow of the
Taleban was said to be not a primary aim at the time.

You haven't caught him.

Islamic fundamentalism still thrives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and
beyond, stronger than ever.

Karzai's rule extends no further than the borders of Kabul.

What have you accomplished for all the innocent Muslim blood you have
spilled there?

What have you accomplished for all the American money you have spent
there?

Do you sleep more safely in your beds now than you did on 10 September
2001?

> The invasion of Iraq did not have honestly stated motivation. In fact the lies
> told to us were patently false. Many of us realized and said that the true
> reasons were to insure the reelection of W, save the honor of Bush I, and
> perhaps most of all, to place us in a position to control not only the oil
> sources of the Persian Gulf but also extending into the central Asian states.
> With this leverage, the US and UK will effectively control the world oil
> economy. Along with many others i believed the invasion should not be carried
> out. Now that we are there, the schemes of the rabid oil men had better come to
> fruition because i doubt that the other nations are going to clean up the mess
> that we have made. In fact they would be stupid to place the lives of their
> young men and some of their treasure in our obviously incompetent hands.

Perhaps the incompetence of the Bush regime is one glimmer of hope.
They simply lack the brains to turn the situation to their advantage.

> The tragedy of Israel is that the depraved Muslims cannot stand to have
> non-Muslims around them.

No, the tragedy of Israel is that the depraved Israelis cannot resist
murdering Palestinians. It's a cultural thing. The urge to humiliate
the opponent. Giving into that urge creates resentment and the desire
for revenge. That's the problem.

> The Israelis must die or submit to dhimmi status.

Actually, it's the one part of the world where 'Western democracy'
would improve things. Forget 'Jews' and 'Palestinians'. Give everyone
in 'Israel' and 'Palestine' one vote each. See what you end up with.

Funny how democracy is a BAD thing when it does NOT serve American
interests, eh?

The national-anarchist solution would be to forget about 'states'
completely here. Let Israelis live in Israeli communities. Let
Palestinians live in Palestinian communities. Abolish all
supra-community institutions. Problem solved.

> Isn't it strange that the corrupt Western media thinks the bad guys are the Jews
> because they attempt to defend themselves.

Very, given that most of it is owned by them!

> >Correct. And they want you out. Their message is clear: AMERICANS OUT!
> >
> Perhaps, but based upon the history of Islam, i suspect that their message is a
> bit stronger. Something like we are growing stronger and more confident by the
> day. We now have begun to resume the jihad that was brought to a temporary end
> at the entry to Vienna in 1683. The previous thousand years experienced an
> expansion starting from Medina to finally encompass two thirds of Christendom.

I don't think that most Muslims want that. Maybe a minority do. Take
away American imperialism and the minority will lose its support.

> >Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.
> >
> War is a terrible thing. When the Japanese attacked us, we did everything we
> could to win the war.

Including the perpetration of war crimes, which you support.

> Of course, unlike the Japanese, we did not demonstrate
> surgery on unsedated men and then shoot the patient or other such medical
> practice.

No, you just liquidated 270,000 of them in a fraction of a second with
nuclear bombs (leaving hundreds of thousands more horribly maimed and
homeless), and killed twice as many in your murderous conventional
firebombing of Tokyo.

> >
> >I'd argue that the mere existence of challengers refutes the notion of
> >an all powerful and perfectly good God.
> >
> Not hardly. Free will is part of God's economy.

We don't have free will. I cannot will myself into a banana. If my
will is restricted THAT far, why cannot it be restricted yet further.

How does human free will explain natural evil, such as the pain
evidently felt by the small animal as the large animal sinks its teeth
in?

> >I quote from Count 1 of the IMT indictment (Nuremberg trials): 'The
> >aims and purposes of the Nazi conspirators were not fixed or static
> >but-evolved and expanded as they acquired progressively greater power
> >and became able to make more effective application of threats of force
> >and threats of aggressive war. '
> >
> >They were 'playing it by ear', not proceeding in accordance with a
> >recipe.
> >
> Have you read Mein Kampf?

I have. Are you saying that the IMT are incorrect?

> >Your statement might well be true of the twentieth century. I hardly
> >think it was true of earlier centuries.
> >
> When Egypt fell in jihad part 1, the inhabitants of three towns were all
> occupants were killed, at another, Cilicia, they were enslaved. When they
> invaded Syria, something lke 640 monasteries were pillaged while the monks and
> local townspeople were killed.in Tripoli, Christians had to hand over their
> women and children to be slaves to the Arab army. Carthage was destroyed and
> most of the people killed. All together, the Muslims conquered about 30 million
> Christians including those in what is now Iraq and Iran. There had been both
> Jewish and Christians towns on the Arabian Peninsula in both SA and Yemen.
> Where are they now? Asia minor was well populated with Greeks.

Fair point. Nevertheless, Christianity is not exactly free from
bloodshed itself, is it?

> Incidentally, you mentioned how free the Indonesians seem despite being Muslims.
> After Australia handed West Papua , with a Christian population, to Indonesia,

> The Indonesians killed something like 100,000 from 1962 ? 1990. When Suharto

> overthrew Sukarno, about 500,000 perished , including a significant number of
> Christians.. When Indonesia invaded Christian East Timor in 1989, they killed
> about 200,000 souls. Muslims kicked the entire population of some 100,000
> Christians off the Indonesian island of Ambon in 2000. When it comes to Islam,
> whether the history is old or recent it is same old same old.

Could I just point out that when Suharto took over he did so with the
knowledge, assent and connivance of the American 'Christians'!

> >And the Crusades?
> >
> The crusades were an attempt to recover a bit of what had been forcibly take.
> They are best seen as analogous to the Allied invasion at Normandy.
>
> >And the anti-witchcraft campaigns?
> >
> We learn as we go.
> >And the slaughter of heretics?
> >
> >And the factional battles between Catholics and Protestants?
> >
> The first great schism was the when the Easter churches broke away. The Reform
> damaged the effort to deal with Islam. It was motivated by the princes of
> northern Europe desiring monastery lands and chaffing under Catholic
> restrictions. Some day there will be a coming together.
> >
> >It was done in the name of Christ, right?
> >
> No, it was done in the name of greed which drove the secular community then as
> well as now.

Ah, so the name of Christ was not used to justify this. I stand
corrected.

> >Modern communists argue that Stalinism was 'not communism'.
> >
> They have some theory in mind but it is best to go by reality.

Could not the same be said with regard to those who say that the
atrocities perpetrated by the Spaniards in South America were not done
in the name of Christ?

> >The Church dispossessed and enslaved them. Why should they thank it
> >for that?
> >
> This seems to be a non sequiter.

Not at all.

1. (Assumption) If Christians dispossessed and enslaved South American
Indians then it would be unreasonable to expect those Indians to thank
Christians for anything.

2. (Assumption) Christians dispossed and enslaved South American
Indians.

THEREFORE

3. (1, 2 modus ponendo ponens)It would be unreasonable to expect those
Indians to thank Christians for anything.

> >
> >As I have shown with the Nagasaki example, that is patently false.
> >
> You have done no such thing.

Truthfulness is not a strong point among Christians. Here is what I
wrote and what you have pointedly ignored above.

<begin quote>
The Americans had the following options:

(a) Stop fighting. No invasion. No bomb. No more killing. Just stop.

(d) If (c) is politically unacceptable and one is a war criminal, drop
ONE atom bomb over a city full of innocent civilians.

What was NOT necessary was to drop two atom bombs over two cities full
of innocent civilians.

Go on . . . ignore it again.

Now you can stick your fingers in your ears and squeal I DON'T WANT TO
HEAR, but that won't make argument go away.

> >So were the Germans. Does that justify atrocities and war crimes?
> >
It means that the Brits had better do everything in their power to
defeat the Satanic Nazis. For their own sake and for civilization as
well.

EVERYTHING in their power? Including perpetrating unnecessary
atrocities? Is that a Christian position?

> >What was Christian about the bombing of Dresden or Nagasaki?
> >
> Christianity is not a religion of pacifism or at least not to most of us. Self
> defense is allowed.

But, as I have shown, Dresden and Nagasaki were not perpetrated in
self-defence. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender when
Nagasaki was bombed. Dresden was bombed in February 1945 and was of no
military significance to the war -- in any case, the centre of the
city was targeted (full of refugees) whereas the barracks around the
edges were unscathed by the attack.

Is defending such crimes Christian, sir?

> >People, including churchmen, were arguing against it right after it
> >happened. Not all Christians are hypocrites.
> >
> Well no, However it is not hypocritical to defeat a savage attacker even though
> some innocents may be killed.

But it is certainly hypocritical to defend what you now know to be
senseless and unnecessary mass murder and to profess to be a
Christian.

> What's important is the good accomplished
> outweigh the harm.

So if the elimination of 6,000,000 Jews were to save the lives of
6,000,001 Jews then on balance you'd say it was a good thing, right?

I'm not disagreeing with your logic -- I'm merely wondering whether it
is CHRISTIAN logic!

I would also question whether any good WAS accomplished by the attacks
on Dresden and Nagasaki. OK, the Japs surrendered . . . but they were
going to do that anyway.

> >I think far fewer people would have died had the British entered an
> >alliance with Hitler against Stalin rather than with Stalin against
> >Hitler. You'd have moderated the response to the Jews, you could have
> >cut Stalin's reign of terror by a decade or more, and the conditions
> >leading to the emergence of Mao and Pol Pot would not have arisen.
> >
> Truman once jokingly said that we should have just helped whoever seemed to be
> losing as far as Garmany and Russia were concerned. Naturally, doing such a
> thing would be an act of genocide, hopefully never forgotten in history.

I don't see why. The Jews could have been resettled 'in luxury ships'
(as Hitler had offered to a world that rebuffed the offer at the Evian
conference). Years of Stalinism could have been avoided saving
millions of lives. Mao and Pol Pot would never have seen the light of
day.

> Of
> course Hitler was the greater imminent threat to Christian Civilization.

I don't think he was a threat to Christian Civilization. I certainly
didn't see any hatred there for Christianity.

> To do
> as you suggest would have been stupid

No it wouldn't. The Jews could have been resettled 'in luxury ships'
(as Hitler had offered to a world that rebuffed the offer at the Evian
conference). Years of Stalinism could have been avoided saving
millions of lives. Mao and Pol Pot would never have seen the light of
day.

> but that choice was not there for the US,
> Germany declared war on us.

The choice was there for Britain.

> Britain did the honorable thing even though it
> placed them at great risk.

How was taking the course of action that led to the greater overall
bloodshed 'honourable'?

> It would not have impacted Mao. We were doing everything we could to shut him
> down by giving massive amounts of weaponry to Chiang Kai-shek but the good
> generals of the Kuomintang sold it to Mao without even bothering to unpack it.
> Dang, backed the wrong horse again.

With a German/American/British alliance on their backs the Chinese
communists wouldn't have got far.

> Pol Pot was partly on the US. Our glorious leaders backed him because they were
> still smarting about Vietnam and Vietnam recognized that PP was one dangerous
> cookie and wanted to keep him in check. This is a completely different matter
> than WWII but is a sorry part of the Cold War.

Actually it isn't completely different from WWII. The communists did
what they did in Cambodia as a direct result of the Vietnam War. The
Vietnam War wouldn't have got off the ground without the Soviets. The
Soviets would not have existed had the battle of Stalingrad gone the
other way. It's all interconnected.

> >Which can, of course, be bent to suit America's interests, right?
> >
> I would say that W and Tony Blair just proved that except the invasion of Iraq

> is not to America?s interest, only to the interest of W and the oil

> corporations.
> >
> >It won't do you any good. A million will replace him.
> >
> Yes, we must not flag but continue to knock them down, one after the other,
> until they no longer get up.

You don't seem to be having a lot of success at that in Palestine,
Afghanistan and Iraq.

> >A lot of people seem to prefer it to what the Americans have on offer.
> >
> They have been taken in just as many were taken in by Nazism and Communism.
> ?

So their wishes should be ignored?

> >And right now some of America's best are giving their lives in 50
> >degrees centigrade so that their President can save face over Iraq.
> >Where's the difference? Stalin, Bush . . . same thing.
> >
> Well, at least right now, the US has a volunteer army. But you are ignoring the
> elephant in the living room when you compare Stalin with Bush. You need to read

> a bit about Stalin?s record.

I'm familiar with it. Second biggest murderer of all time after Mao,
if the historians are to be believed. But more people die of
starvation-related causes every three years than died in the whole of
World War II under the West's New World Order. Your political system
is killing as many as Stalin -- it just does it in different ways. The
slow starvation rather than the bullet in the back of the neck.

> David, you really sound like a nihilist.

Because I draw attention to the hypocrisy of those who condemn, and
have moral orgasms about, the supposed crimes of their opponents while
falling over backwards to try to justify the same sorts of crime
perpetrated by their own side? I don't think it's 'nihilist'. It's
merely a natural human reaction to inconsistency. The human mind
abhors an inconsistent position -- read Festinger on 'cognitive
dissonance'. Either war crimes and atrocities are OK or they're not
OK. If they're OK, then you can't criticize the Nazis or the Muslims
or the communists. If they're not OK then you've got to put the
Americans and British in the same league as the Nazis and Muslims and
communists. This may be painful for someone from a Christian American
background, but to do otherwise forces you into a position where you
have to stand there (as you do at the outset of this post) pretending
that you haven't seen the important part of the argument! Standing
there with your fingers in your ears saying 'I won't listen to that
argument, I won't hear it, I don't want it to exist' is hardly a
compelling defence of the Christian American position.

> >But he allowed Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> God has created the entire universe along with all physical phenomena..

Including evil?

Is that perfectly good?

> If
> there are multiple universes, he created them as well. He created not only the
> inanimate things and the laws of nature but he created every living thing. He
> created not only the material world but he also created the spiritual world
> including the angels and demons and he keeps the human dead. He can do all
> things. He knows the past, the present and the future. He has infinite
> knowledge and understanding. We cannot fathom the entirety of an infinite being
> who does such things. We can no more comprehend his purposes than an ant can
> apprehend our motivations.

And yet you make all sorts of statements about him. If you cannot
comprehend him, how can you do this?

Are you just inventing it all? Telling stories?

> We believe that God is good and that he loves us.
> We believe that at the end of the day God will set all things right and turn
> each thing that harms us into a blessing to us. We can only have faith. God
> help mine unbelief.

In fact there is an alternative to faith.

Healthy scepticism.

Orac

unread,

Sep 27, 2003, 3:57:40 PM9/27/03

In article <b7fe1abc.03092...@posting.google.com>,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:

> Gerald <Gerald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:<bl2so...@drn.newsguy.com>...

> > The tragedy of Israel is that the depraved Muslims cannot stand to have
> > non-Muslims around them.
>
> No, the tragedy of Israel is that the depraved Israelis cannot resist
> murdering Palestinians. It's a cultural thing. The urge to humiliate
> the opponent. Giving into that urge creates resentment and the desire
> for revenge. That's the problem.

Notice how David blames the tragedy of Israel completely on the Israelis
and does not assign one whit of blame to the Palestinians. It takes two
to fight, you know. And David NEVER criticizes the utter depravity of
Palestinian suicide bombers who intentionally pick out targets where
there are women and children, like buses, shopping centers, etc.

> > The Israelis must die or submit to dhimmi status.
>
> Actually, it's the one part of the world where 'Western democracy'
> would improve things. Forget 'Jews' and 'Palestinians'. Give everyone
> in 'Israel' and 'Palestine' one vote each. See what you end up with.
>
> Funny how democracy is a BAD thing when it does NOT serve American
> interests, eh?
>
> The national-anarchist solution would be to forget about 'states'
> completely here. Let Israelis live in Israeli communities. Let
> Palestinians live in Palestinian communities. Abolish all
> supra-community institutions. Problem solved.

Oh, please. How naive and idiotic can you get? This wouldn't stop. Those
communities would start having disagreements and fighting each other,
just like humans have always done throughout history and prehistory
prior to the rise of nation-states, after which the nation-states
started to fight each other. Indeed, nation-states evolved because the
stronger "communities" would conquer more and more of their neighbors.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

david_michael

unread,

Sep 28, 2003, 7:58:45 AM9/28/03

"Jason James" <fl...@byplane.com> wrote in message news:<3Zadb.125661$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

An observation, of course, which is entirely devoid of personlization!

Notice how the anonymous poster 'Jason James' is frantically trying to
distract attention from the fundamental inconsistency of his position
whereby he feels that the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC were morally
outrageous yet falls over backwards to defend the American bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages