AGAIN! U.S. Troops Fire on Iraq Protesters Again
Mike T
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. troops opened fire on anti-American demonstrators for the
second time this week as Iraqis marched Wednesday to protest the previous
shooting. At least two Iraqis were seen to be wounded.
The gunfire came less than 48 hours after a shooting during a demonstration
Monday night that hospital officials said killed 13 Iraqis.
There was no immediate indication of any American casualties.
About 1,000 residents were marching down Fallujah's main street and stopped in
front of a battalion headquarters of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division.
They were carrying signs condemning Monday night's shooting.
When some protesters started throwing rocks and shoes at the U.S.-held compound
— a former office of Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party — troops inside
suddenly opened fire at about 10:30 a.m., according to Associated Press
reporters on the scene.
The demonstrators scattered, leaving two of their number fallen. Others came
back and picked up the wounded and carried them off.
U.S. Capt. Jeff Wilbur, 25, of Annapolis, Md., a civil affairs officer for the
1st Battalion's 325 Airborne regimen, said the United States was investigating
whether protesters had fired on troops. He said it was not clear whether any
Americans were hurt in Wednesday's incident.
Iraqi city officials who witnessed the gunfire said they saw or heard no
shooting from among the protesters.
U.S. Apache attack helicopters circled the site throughout the march and the
aftermath, but did not open fire.
"Why? The demonstrators didn't use guns, so why should the soldiers start
attacking them?" asked the imam of the Grand Fallujah Mosque, Jamal Shaqir
Mahmood.
He said the Americans should pull out of Fallujah — or at least cut back their
forces.
"There is no (Iraqi) military presence here. Why is there an American military
presence? We just want a reduction in the numbers," he said.
The incident, coupled with the deaths Monday outside a school in Fallujah, a
conservative Sunni Muslim city and Baath Party stronghold 30 miles west of the
capital, are increasing tension as American troops try to keep the peace in
Iraq.
In the Monday night clash, U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd
Airborne were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated
crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound where the troops were staying.
Demonstrators said no gunfire came from their side during the Monday night
incident.
R. Foreman
Substitute Ba'ath party militia. These are the ones who melted into
the population, and the ones we need to find and kill.
Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> Spat the Words
Mike T
wrote:
>Substitute Ba'ath party militia. These are the ones who melted into
>the population, and the ones we need to find and kill.
Right, like 10 years old kids. One thing is clear; Iraqi civilians hate American
thieves on their land. Sweet.
R. Foreman
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:02:34 GMT, "R. Foreman"
I stand corrected. Ba'ath militia marching 10 year old kids in
front of them towards the American troops.
Sweet? You must be a brit.
gato2002
R. Foreman escribió::
Dani
wrote:
Then why the fuck did they help tear-down Saddam's statue? Why didn't
they celebrate his b-day? Why are they practicing old rituals and
traditions that were once forbidden under Saddam's rule, now? And so
very *happy* to be now able to do so? Why are they saying they hated
Saddam and are now glad that he's gone?
So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we never
went over there, they would still be suffering! What, no "Thank you."
Just.."Hey, job well done! Now get out!" Talk about wanting your
cake and eating it too.
Yeah, real sweet, "Mike T".. by the way, you sound very familiar to
me.. can't put my finger on it just yet - but you sound like someone
else who used to post here.. "10 years old" instead of 10 year old..
Only one other person always made that same mistake.
Dani
Dee
Dani wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:07:14 GMT, Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:02:34 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Substitute Ba'ath party militia. These are the ones who melted into
>>>the population, and the ones we need to find and kill.
>
>>Right, like 10 years old kids. One thing is clear; Iraqi civilians hate
American
>>thieves on their land. Sweet.
>
>Then why the fuck did they help tear-down Saddam's statue? Why didn't
>they celebrate his b-day? Why are they practicing old rituals and
>traditions that were once forbidden under Saddam's rule, now? And so
>very *happy* to be now able to do so? Why are they saying they hated
>Saddam and are now glad that he's gone?
>
>So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
>rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we never
>went over there, they would still be suffering! What, no "Thank you."
>Just.."Hey, job well done! Now get out!" Talk about wanting your
>cake and eating it too.
Yep. They want their cake and eat it too apparently. Plus they know the
media is watching them. They know they are in the spottlight and people in
the world care. It's a propaganda war.
I don't know who will win. But civilians are often casualties. Example would
be the Israelis and Palestinians. Saddam might get on tape and try to stoke
up Arab resentment. It's a tar pit.
.............
Mike T
>Dani wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:07:14 GMT, Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Right, like 10 years old kids. One thing is clear; Iraqi civilians hate
>American
>>>thieves on their land. Sweet.
>>
>>Then why the fuck did they help tear-down Saddam's statue?
Who were the people who teared down Sadam statue? A couple of dozen of Kurds and
Shiite. How do you conclude from that that ALL IRAQIS love foreign thieves on
their land?
>Why didn't they celebrate his b-day?
Many did. It was on TV.
>Some did. It was on TV.
>>So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
>>rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we never
>>went over there, they would still be suffering!
FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was about WMD. Your
government lied about that. Americans are liars. Iraqis have suffered most by
the hands of Americans. Two wars and crippling sanctions killed hundreds of
thousands.
Whether Sadam was bad or good, that was their problem, not yours. Even if they
hate Sadam, they have every right to hate America who killed literally hundreds
of thousands Iraqis.
The US invaded their country by lying. Why? For oil. Thieves, to put it mildly.
Dani
wrote:
>FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was about WMD. Your
>government lied about that. Americans are liars.
FUCK YOU better! "My" Government is YOUR Government too! Don't
give me this shit. I know exactly who you are. From your writing
style. I haven't forgotten. You're an American too - I told you last
year, and I'm telling you again.
Dani
R. Foreman
>
>
>>Dani wrote in message ...
>>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:07:14 GMT, Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>Right, like 10 years old kids. One thing is clear; Iraqi civilians
>>>>hate
>>American
>>>>thieves on their land. Sweet.
>>>
>>>Then why the fuck did they help tear-down Saddam's statue?
>
> Who were the people who teared down Sadam statue? A couple of dozen of
> Kurds and Shiite. How do you conclude from that that ALL IRAQIS love
> foreign thieves on their land?
>
>
>>Why didn't they celebrate his b-day?
>
> Many did. It was on TV.
That's right, I saw it too. Those are the individuals we need to
round up, or better yet send the Chalabi hit squads after them.
(De-Ba'aathification is a dirty thing).
>
>>Some did. It was on TV.
>>>So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
>>>rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we
>>>never went over there, they would still be suffering!
>
> FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was about
> WMD.
No. The legal basis was WMD, the real reasons for the war included
more than just WMD's.
> Your government lied about that. Americans are liars. Iraqis
> have suffered most by the hands of Americans. Two wars and crippling
> sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
It's estimated saddam killed several million over the decades. We
killed maybe a few thousand. Which is the smaller number? Saddam
Hussein is of the same ilk as Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler - He's
a mass murderer.
>
> Whether Sadam was bad or good, that was their problem, not yours.
Maybe you don't understand responsibility (neither does most of the
UN for that matter), but the United State does. Saddam was our problem.
> Even
> if they hate Sadam, they have every right to hate America who killed
> literally hundreds of thousands Iraqis.
I think we already talked about the numbers.
>
> The US invaded their country by lying. Why? For oil. Thieves, to put
> it mildly.
Saddam invited us in by ignoring UN resolutions.
Mike T
>>FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was about WMD. Your
>>government lied about that. Americans are liars.
>
>FUCK YOU better! "My" Government is YOUR Government too!
No it isn't. I don't believe in governments, especially one run by liars.
Getting back to the topic. How did you conclude from two dozen people tearing
down Sadam's statue that ALL Iraqis, a country of 25 million, hate Sadam?
How do you know if even a MAJORITY of Iraqis hate Sadam? Maybe they loved him.
Even if they hated him, it was not America's business to change a regime.
Why did US invade Iraq, killing thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)? Why are
they occupying Iraq? Try to answer these questions.
R. Foreman
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 02:56:48 GMT, Dani <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was
>>>about WMD. Your government lied about that. Americans are liars.
>>
>>FUCK YOU better! "My" Government is YOUR Government too!
>
> No it isn't. I don't believe in governments, especially one run by
> liars.
Nobody would want you as part of their country anyway.
>
> Getting back to the topic.
What, Nostradamus?
> How did you conclude from two dozen people
> tearing down Sadam's statue that ALL Iraqis,
I don't know of anyone who has made that assumption. Are you putting
words into our mouth again?
> a country of 25 million,
> hate Sadam? How do you know if even a MAJORITY of Iraqis hate Sadam?
Let's do a census poll.
> Maybe they loved him. Even if they hated him, it was not America's
> business to change a regime.
I beg to differ. World peace and security is our business. We've been
in that business for 85 years (but we never asked for the job).
>
> Why did US invade Iraq, killing thousands (maybe hundreds of
> thousands)? Why are they occupying Iraq? Try to answer these
> questions.
UN resolutions, 12 years of violating of resolutions.
Why did saddam kill millions? Why don't you go ask him.
Mike T
On Thu, 01 May 2003 03:41:37 GMT, "R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com>
wrote:
>>>Some did. It was on TV.
>>>>So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
>>>>rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we
>>>>never went over there, they would still be suffering!
>>
>> FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was about
>> WMD.
>
>No. The legal basis was WMD, the real reasons for the war included
>more than just WMD's.
Right, reasons like thieves steeling oil. And the "legal" reason was a lie
(making Americans liars).
>> Your government lied about that. Americans are liars. Iraqis
>> have suffered most by the hands of Americans. Two wars and crippling
>> sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
>
>It's estimated saddam killed several million over the decades. We
>killed maybe a few thousand. Which is the smaller number? Saddam
>Hussein is of the same ilk as Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler - He's
>a mass murderer.
America killed several millions over decades all over the world, from South
America, Japan, to Middle East. Sadam can't be worse than that.
>> Whether Sadam was bad or good, that was their problem, not yours.
>
>Maybe you don't understand responsibility (neither does most of the
>UN for that matter), but the United State does. Saddam was our problem.
No he wasn't. All the "problems" were lies. Only reason was greed for oil.
sUSAn
WHO THE HECK IS THIS GUY?
sUSAn
Mike T
On Thu, 01 May 2003 04:01:41 GMT, "R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com>
wrote:
>> Maybe they loved him. Even if they hated him, it was not America's
>> business to change a regime.
>
>I beg to differ. World peace and security is our business. We've been
>in that business for 85 years (but we never asked for the job).
"Peace" like killing millions all over the world.
>> Why did US invade Iraq, killing thousands (maybe hundreds of
>> thousands)? Why are they occupying Iraq? Try to answer these
>> questions.
>UN resolutions, 12 years of violating of resolutions.
If he destroyed WMD, he wasn't violating any UN resolution, but the US violated
UN resolutions, including the ones regarding Iraq. UN Resolution 687 says,
starting from paragraph 14, (1991 UN resolution about Iraq):
"Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear- weapons-free zone in
the region of the Middle East,
"Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and
security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the
Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,
"Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control
of armaments in the region,"
The resolution (687) calls for regional disarmament as the basis for reducing
Iraq’s arsenal. However, by arming Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East, (Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, Israel), the US violated the same UN resolution with which it
maintains arguments for sustaining the sanctions. Israel possesses more than 200
thermonuclear weapons.
The US violated UN resolutions, not Sadam (who apparently destroyed WMD).
dreamwalker
Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> wrote in article
<24d25e40e81cef30e9c2696b729cdd4c@TeraNews>...
>
>
>
>
blah, blah, blah.-dw
neocon and damn proud of it.
R. Foreman
>
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 03:41:37 GMT, "R. Foreman"
> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Some did. It was on TV.
>>>>>So let me get this straight - they hate America there, but they are
>>>>>rejoicing over the fact that we took Saddam out of power? If we
>>>>>never went over there, they would still be suffering!
>>>
>>> FUCK YOU. The war was never about their "suffering." The war was
>>> about WMD.
>>
>>No. The legal basis was WMD, the real reasons for the war included
>>more than just WMD's.
>
> Right, reasons like thieves steeling oil. And the "legal" reason was a
> lie (making Americans liars).
The 'legal' reason was a lie? You callin the UN liars?
>
>
>>> Your government lied about that. Americans are liars. Iraqis
>>> have suffered most by the hands of Americans. Two wars and crippling
>>> sanctions killed hundreds of thousands.
>>
>>It's estimated saddam killed several million over the decades. We
>>killed maybe a few thousand. Which is the smaller number? Saddam
>>Hussein is of the same ilk as Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler - He's
>>a mass murderer.
>
> America killed several millions over decades all over the world, from
> South America, Japan, to Middle East. Sadam can't be worse than that.
They were all BAD people.
>
>>> Whether Sadam was bad or good, that was their problem, not yours.
>>
>>Maybe you don't understand responsibility (neither does most of the
>>UN for that matter), but the United State does. Saddam was our
>>problem.
>
> No he wasn't. All the "problems" were lies. Only reason was greed for
> oil.
That's quite original. The wealthiest country in the world being called
greedy. Haven't heard that one before.
R. Foreman
He probably came from under a rock somewhere. Slithered out,
hopped on a computer, now spitting venom.
R. Foreman
>
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 04:01:41 GMT, "R. Foreman"
> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe they loved him. Even if they hated him, it was not America's
>>> business to change a regime.
>>
>>I beg to differ. World peace and security is our business. We've been
>>in that business for 85 years (but we never asked for the job).
>
> "Peace" like killing millions all over the world.
>
>
>>> Why did US invade Iraq, killing thousands (maybe hundreds of
>>> thousands)? Why are they occupying Iraq? Try to answer these
>>> questions.
>
>>UN resolutions, 12 years of violating of resolutions.
>
> If he destroyed WMD, he wasn't violating any UN resolution, but the US
> violated UN resolutions, including the ones regarding Iraq. UN
> Resolution 687 says, starting from paragraph 14, (1991 UN resolution
> about Iraq):
You know, lots of countries violate UN resolutions. Saddam's real
mistake was making an enemy of the United States. We didn't like
him, we didn't trust him, we thought he was dangerous. We decided
to take him out.
ooo wwww
Mike T
wrote:
>> If he destroyed WMD, he wasn't violating any UN resolution, but the US
>> violated UN resolutions, including the ones regarding Iraq. UN
>> Resolution 687 says, starting from paragraph 14, (1991 UN resolution
>> about Iraq):
>
>You know, lots of countries violate UN resolutions. Saddam's real
>mistake was making an enemy of the United States. We didn't like
>him, we didn't trust him, we thought he was dangerous. We decided
>to take him out.
You are changing stories every time I rebut your argument. At least now you are
saying something that is more truthful. The war was not about violations of UN
resolutions, or "liberation" of Iraqis. It was about personal vendetta and
control of oil.
Pretty pathetic (and disgraceful) reasons for a war.
R. Foreman
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 05:06:07 GMT, "R. Foreman"
The moral of the story is, if you're going to break rules its best
to be on the moral high-ground, and have lots of friends.
:)
Dee
R. Foreman wrote in message ...
Saddam is not a good person, but that was not the reason stated for
attacking Iraq. We attacked because Bush and Blair stated Iraq was a direct
threat to the US and UK because of their wmds. As for poison gas, it's
illegal according to the Geneva Convention and protocols. But cluster bombs
are not. Neither are Daisy Cutters or MOAB's.
We did not declare that the war was to save the Kurds or the Shiites. That
was a civil war on and off not unlike our own in the 1800's. The people of
Iraq apparently don't like Saddam, the Shiites and Kurds don't, nor American
presence there. So will the US get out and let a UN peacekeeping force keep
fairness and elections there if they could. Of course not, because Rumdfeld
wants a US presence there to guard Gulf oil.
Where I disagree with Mike are his statements concerning 9-11.
...............
Dee
Dani wrote in message <1s21bvsva7s7mg1s4...@4ax.com>...
His citizenship may be US, but he could be posting from anywhere. His first
language is probably not American.
>Dani
R. Foreman
>
> R. Foreman wrote in message ...
>>Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> Spat the Words
>>It's estimated saddam killed several million over the decades. We
>>killed maybe a few thousand. Which is the smaller number?
>
>
> Saddam is not a good person, but that was not the reason stated for
> attacking Iraq. We attacked because Bush and Blair stated Iraq was a
> direct threat to the US and UK because of their wmds. As for poison
> gas, it's illegal according to the Geneva Convention and protocols.
> But cluster bombs are not. Neither are Daisy Cutters or MOAB's.
>
> We did not declare that the war was to save the Kurds or the Shiites.
> That was a civil war on and off not unlike our own in the 1800's. The
> people of Iraq apparently don't like Saddam, the Shiites and Kurds
> don't, nor American presence there. So will the US get out and let a
> UN peacekeeping force keep fairness and elections there if they could.
> Of course not, because Rumdfeld wants a US presence there to guard
> Gulf oil.
>
> Where I disagree with Mike are his statements concerning 9-11.
You think the UN is capable of keeping peace and fair elections in
Iraq? The UN appointed Libya head of antiterrorism committee and
saddam's Iraq head of WMD disarmament committee. I'd say that the
UN seems a little bit confused right now. The UN has proven itself
incapable of enforcing its own resolutions.
The UN is not a federation, its more like a confederation where power
still rests with the individual member states. It's only as strong
as its strongest member states. As the big guy on the block, the US
has to guard against being used by the UN or by any of the other
smaller non-permanent members.
I won't say there's no place for the UN, but the other members
have to get their head screwed on straight about just exactly what
the UN is.
Dani
(sUSAn) wrote:
>Tell me! Tell me! (I'm slow)
You're not slow - I just remember everything.. even tiny little things
in a posters writing style that nobody else would normally pick up
on.. little mistakes (like writing ten years old kids rather than ten
year old kids.. someone else *always* wrote it that way. And the
repeated, excessive use of a certain word.)
> WHO THE HECK IS THIS GUY?
I'll email you (if you don't mind?) I don't want to announce it
just yet. I'd rather wait and see if anyone else picks up on it.
Let me know if you don't mind me emailing you.. and I'll tell you.
Dani
Mike T
>And the
>repeated, excessive use of a certain word.)
LIAR
Dee
There are 5 nations in the UNSC with veto power. That matters most. They are
giants. Libya was not appointed head of an anti-terrorism committee in the
UN. A female Libyan diplomat was named head of the Human Rights Committee.
That doesn't mean she will always side with Kadaffi, anymore than Kofi Annan
would always side with Ghana. As far as Saddam's Iraq heading a UN
conference (not committee, there's a difference) on wmd disarmament; that
seems like an urban legend sprung from a website. There aren't any reputable
links which back up that claim. here are two links. The first is reputable;
the second seems like the originator of the urban myth:
http://www.un.org/av/radio/news/2003/jan/03012000.htm
UN Radio Broadcasts at 17:30 GMT Monday to Friday
Monday, 20 January 2003
Listen to entire program - Real AudioMP3
Libya Elected Head of UN Human Rights Panel
The UN Commission on Human Rights has elected a Libyan diplomat as its
president for this year. The Commission, meeting under a new procedure two
months before its annual session, elected Ms. Najat Al-Hajjaji by secret
ballot. She urged the Commission to send a message that it would deal with
human rights in all countries, and not just some of them. She said the
Commission would take into account the world's many different religious,
cultural and historical backgrounds, adding that among its tasks was to
reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, and complementarity of human
rights.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5409
1/28/2003: Iraq Heads UN Disarmament Conference
Due to a “purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order,” the chair and
co-chair of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament will be ... Iraq
and Iran.
Note: this entry is not a joke.
posted by Charles at 5:54 PM PST
email this article
replies: 60 comments
Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may
be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of
Little Green Footballs.
#34 Bender 1/28/2003 08:32PM PST
OK - for those too ignorant - the history of this conference:
• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
• Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques
• Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their
Destruction
• Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling
and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction
• Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Dani
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2003 19:08:27 GMT, Dani <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>LIAR
LOL! *There it is!* That's the repeated, excessive word that I
was referring to. Remember I told you that last year? That you
constantly, constantly say that word too much? Look at the amount
of times you have said that word in your most recent posts.."Americans
are liars.. your governement is lying to you.. the Iraqis don't want
liars on their land.." Over and over and over..(and..)
And it's not a lie - it's a hunch - it's spotting the similarities.
I could be wrong; but I really *really* don't think I am. And if I
am.. you, my friend, have a clone.
Dani
sUSAn
opinions, but now you've got my curiousity going.
And I *do* love a mystery!
;)
sUSAn
Sean
scratched their head and muttered:
Wonder if he could be a re-born razzi?
Sean
Jean Guernon
Sean a écrit :
Mike T is a fucking razzist. Disinformation propagandists love to call
an authority in truth liars, like the anti-semites love to call those
that denouce them Nazis. But I am surprise to see you being nice. Have
you become like that for long?
J.
Sean
<jgue...@globetrotter.net> scratched their head and muttered:
>> Wonder if he could be a re-born razzi?
>>
>> Sean
>
>Mike T is a fucking razzist. Disinformation propagandists love to call
>an authority in truth liars, like the anti-semites love to call those
>that denouce them Nazis. But I am surprise to see you being nice. Have
>you become like that for long?
>
>J.
Jean, I've been like that since I first came here, the only problem
was what happened a little over a year ago. There was a time when you
tony myself, and a few others had to rebut razzi and a few followers
every day.
Now we have mike t and daniel, who exhibit a lot of razzi. I'm
wondering if any of them are him, they use the liar stance a lot and a
few other of his signature markings.
Sean
sUSAn
>Now we have mike t and daniel, who
> exhibit a lot of razzi. I'm wondering if
> any of them are him, they use the liar
> stance a lot and a few other of his
> signature markings.
Ask them the old "so how is your auntie?" line.
See if they answer you.
;)
sUSAn
>Sean
Dani
Well Razii did the following:
#1. Constantly made the mistake of writing "10 years old kids" or
"seven years old kids.".. rather than the correct 10 year old kids.
I've noticed since I called "Mike T" on this "10 years old kids" bit,
and how it had a striking resemblance to "someone else who used to
post here" (didn't come directly out and give a name..) I haven't seen
him write it since.
#2. He repeatedly used the words "Liar!" "Lie".. and "lying".
(a lot of people here say "You're lying, you're a liar etc..)
but he would go OVER-KILL with the word.. excessive,
excessive use of those words.
I've also noticed that since I called him on that similarity, he's
also toned down a bit on the word.
#3. Razii would always respond to a post and say:
"What does this have to do with what I wrote?"
Another thing I've spotted "Mike T" doing.
It's just little things like that, that I've noticed.
Razii is an American living in California.. "Mike T"
claims not to be an American...
Hmmmm???
I think it's Raziist.
Dani
Dani
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2003 05:06:07 GMT, "R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com>
The Iraqi people are liberated and happy now, are they not?
If it was just about *oil* the American and British soldiers
would never have given even 1/2 a shit about the Iraqi civilians.
But unlike the Barbarians who boarded our airplanes killing thousands
upon thousands of innocent, every-day people - we go after the
*culprits*.. NOT the innocent people.
You should be proud, as you are also an American, that we have
changed the lives of the Iraqi and Afghani civilians for the better.
The little girls in Afghanistan can now go to school; the children in
Iraq will not be raised under a hideous dictator like Saddam.
Dani
WH
"Dani" <dani...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:q34ebvg3hr5bjbo98...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 05:47:23 GMT, Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 01 May 2003 05:06:07 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> If he destroyed WMD, he wasn't violating any UN resolution, but the US
> >>> violated UN resolutions, including the ones regarding Iraq. UN
> >>> Resolution 687 says, starting from paragraph 14, (1991 UN resolution
> >>> about Iraq):
> >>
> >>You know, lots of countries violate UN resolutions. Saddam's real
> >>mistake was making an enemy of the United States. We didn't like
> >>him, we didn't trust him, we thought he was dangerous. We decided
> >>to take him out.
>
> >You are changing stories every time I rebut your argument. At least now
you are
> >saying something that is more truthful. The war was not about violations
of UN
> >resolutions, or "liberation" of Iraqis. It was about personal vendetta
and
> >control of oil.
>
> >Pretty pathetic (and disgraceful) reasons for a war.
>
> The Iraqi people are liberated and happy now, are they not?
No!
>
> If it was just about *oil* the American and British soldiers
> would never have given even 1/2 a shit about the Iraqi civilians.
> But unlike the Barbarians who boarded our airplanes killing thousands
> upon thousands of innocent, every-day people - we go after the
> *culprits*.. NOT the innocent people.
Bullshit Dani
> You should be proud, as you are also an American, that we have
> changed the lives of the Iraqi and Afghani civilians for the better.
> The little girls in Afghanistan can now go to school; the children in
> Iraq will not be raised under a hideous dictator like Saddam.
No they're not. So now they have a hideous dictator like Dubya eh?
Must be better for them eh?
> Dani
WH
Jean Guernon
Sean a écrit :
I agree. But you don't get the gist of my question.
I mean nice to Dani and me.
Like SuSan too has become nice too.
Is it the Iraqi war that showed the true colors of the real patriots of
the cause of Freedom?
J.
Jean Guernon
Dani a écrit :
Interesting observations. :-)
J.
Sean
<jgue...@globetrotter.net> scratched their head and muttered:
>
>I agree. But you don't get the gist of my question.
>
>I mean nice to Dani and me.
>
>Like SuSan too has become nice too.
>
>Is it the Iraqi war that showed the true colors of the real patriots of
>the cause of Freedom?
>
>J.
Before the flame war, I was always nice, hell, i was even nice to
razzi until it was plain that he would never stop saying liar, and
just repeating his bs propaganda.
And I for one have no desire to enter into another war, and hold no
grudges. For the first week or so, I think the flame war was a little
fun, if not actually funny, but got boring and then was just standing
on principle.
I still love it when you get upset with someone and start 'trying' to
type fast, I know english is not your first language, but it is funny
to read when you don't take the time to 'get it right'.
Also in my personal life, I treat everyone with respect, it is just
common sense and courtesy, which I have noticed is really going down
hill in this country, I don't know about canada and elsewhere.
For instance, I was in mcdonalds the other day, and a 19 year old girl
or so told a lady 'you will just have to wait' after she asked for a
sunday. And you should have seen her attitude and mannerisms that
went with it. I'm not sure this girl was raised by a human being, but
that is the way of the younger generation.
Anyway, long enough post for now,
Later
Sean
Danirl Robinson
> >
> > Sean
>
> I agree. But you don't get the gist of my question.
>
> I mean nice to Dani and me.
>
> Like SuSan too has become nice too.
>
> Is it the Iraqi war that showed the true colors of the real patriots of
> the cause of Freedom?
>
> J.
Don't you mean Democarcy Jean?
A patriot. Maybe you need to study history more to find out what Patritism
and war does to great nations.
Its funny your statement reminds me of a song. It was written from a poem I
believe, but I think you should study it Jean, you need to be reminded just
what blind patritism does.
Green Fields of France.
Well, how do you do Private William McBride?
Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside?
And rest for awhile neath the warm summer sun
I've been walking all day, and I'm nearly done
And I see by your gravestone, you're only nineteen
When you joined the great fallen in nineteen sixteen
Well I hope you died quickly, I hope you died clean
Or poor Willy Mcbride, was it slow and obscene?
Chorus:
Did they beat the drums slowly?
Did they play the pipes lowly?
Did they bugles carry you over as they lowered you down?
And did the band play 'The Last Post' in chorus?
Did the pipes play 'The Flowers Of The Forest'?
And did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind?
In some loyal heart is your memory enshrined?
And though you died back in nineteen-sixteen
In that faithful heart are you always nineteen?
Or are you a stranger without a name?
Forever enshrined behind some glass pane
In an old photograph, torn and tattered, and stained.
And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame.
Well the sun's shining down on these green fields of France
The warm wind blows gently, and the red poppies dance
The trenches have vanished long under the plow
There's no gas, no barb wire, there's no guns firing now
But here in this graveyard that's still no-man's land
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man
The whole generation was butchered and damned
And I can't help but wonder young Willy McBride
Do those that lie here know why that they died?
And did they really believe you when you told them the cause
Did they really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, and the sorrow, the glory of pain
The killing and dying they were all done in vain
For young Willy McBride it's all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again...
Heres another one for you
The Band played Waltzing Matilda.
Now when I was a young man I carried me pack
And I lived the free life of the rover.
From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback,
Well, I waltzed my Matilda all over.
Then in 1915, my country said, "Son,
It's time you stop ramblin', there's work to be done."
So they gave me a tin hat, and they gave me a gun,
And they marched me away to the war.
And the band played "Waltzing Matilda,"
As the ship pulled away from the quay,
And amidst all the cheers, the flag waving, and tears,
We sailed off for Gallipoli.
And how well I remember that terrible day,
How our blood stained the sand and the water;
And of how in that hell that they call Suvla Bay
We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter.
Johnny Turk, he was waitin', he primed himself well;
He showered us with bullets, and he rained us with shell --
And in five minutes flat, he'd blown us all to hell,
Nearly blew us right back to Australia.
But the band played "Waltzing Matilda,"
When we stopped to bury our slain,
Well, we buried ours, and the Turks buried theirs,
Then we started all over again.
And those that were left, well, we tried to survive
In that mad world of blood, death and fire.
And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive
Though around me the corpses piled higher.
Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head,
And when I woke up in me hospital bed
And saw what it had done, well, I wished I was dead --
Never knew there was worse things than dying.
For I'll go no more "Waltzing Matilda,"
All around the green bush far and free --
To hump tents and pegs, a man needs both legs,
No more "Waltzing Matilda" for me.
So they gathered the crippled, the wounded, the maimed,
And they shipped us back home to Australia.
The armless, the legless, the blind, the insane,
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla.
And as our ship sailed into Circular Quay,
I looked at the place where me legs used to be,
And thanked Christ there was nobody waiting for me,
To grieve, to mourn and to pity.
But the band played "Waltzing Matilda,"
As they carried us down the gangway,
But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared,
Then they turned all their faces away.
And so now every April, I sit on my porch
And I watch the parade pass before me.
And I see my old comrades, how proudly they march,
Reviving old dreams of past glory,
And the old men march slowly, all bones stiff and sore,
They're tired old heroes from a forgotten war
And the young people ask "What are they marching for?"
And I ask meself the same question.
But the band plays "Waltzing Matilda,"
And the old men still answer the call,
But as year follows year, more old men disappear
Someday, no one will march there at all.
Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda.
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?
And their ghosts may be heard as they march by the billabong,
Who'll come a-Waltzing Matilda with me?
Study the song's carefully Jean.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
petty interest of most of the world will get Bush and Blair a Nobel
Peace prize.
J.
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
Danirl Robinson
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3EBC621C...@globetrotter.net...
> Check out how applying a UN resolution by oblitarating a regime despite
> petty interest of most of the world will get Bush and Blair a Nobel
> Peace prize.
Jean. No mater how you twist it, the war in Iraq was never sancationed by
the UN. America couldn't even get the required votes for a majorty.
Hussan was evil, no one will dispute that, but are America's reasons for
wageing war, totally pure.
If the US was invadeing Syria right now, you would be the first to say it
was a wonderful thing.
Daniel
> J.
Ed Cregger
Ed Cregger
"Danirl Robinson" <Dan...@yeahright.com> wrote in message
news:qI_ua.6653$vZ1....@news.xtra.co.nz...
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> news:3EBC621C...@globetrotter.net...
> > Check out how applying a UN resolution by obliterating a regime despite
> > petty interest of most of the world will get Bush and Blair a Nobel
> > Peace prize.
>
> Jean. No mater how you twist it, the war in Iraq was never sancationed by
> the UN. America couldn't even get the required votes for a majorty.
> Hussan was evil, no one will dispute that, but are America's reasons for
> wageing war, totally pure.
The majority voted for 1441 which was the integral application without
any further delay of 687e. Saddam after that broke the resolution 3
times towards kuwait, and one time by subsidizing terrorism. 1441 called
for the counsel to consider only the gravity ion the case of the
resolutions concerning WMD.
They didn't need to go back to inspectors, or the SC, for other blatant
breaking of the resolution.
It is written black on white in 1441.
>
> If the US was invadeing Syria right now, you would be the first to say it
> was a wonderful thing.
The US has no such justification to invade Syria. And no, Syria seems to
cooperate and it gives results. This was hardly the case with Saddam
until the last day when it was really to late. If the US invades Syria,
it won't be through the UN. They have had it with the UN. I hope it will
change but it is not to the US to change. It is to all other countries
to make amend if the UN is to remain the world viable resolution body.
This is a precedent.
J.
>
> Daniel
>
> > J.