Anti-American White Racists Support Osama bin Laden
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
ASSAULT ON AMERICA
Many American Right-Wing Racial Extremists Applaud
Sept. 11 Attacks
By JIM NESBITT
c.2001 Newhouse News Service
With the towers of the World Trade Center fatally
damaged but still standing, a leader in one of the
many splinter groups of the Far Right fringe of
American politics posted a Web site message praising
the "Islamic freedom fighters" and hoping the
terrorist attacks were the first shots in a racial
holy war that would topple the U.S. government.
"May the WAR be started," wrote August Kreis,
webmaster of the neo-Nazi Sheriff's Posse Comitatus
group, based in Ulysses, Pa. "DEATH to His (God's)
enemies, may the World Trade Center BURN TO THE
GROUND! ... We can blame no others than ourselves for
our problems due to the fact that we allow ... Satan's
children, called jews today, to have dominion over our
lives."
While many Americans are swept up in the patriotic
fervor that has followed the Sept. 11 jetliner
assaults on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center,
the loose and fractious network of neo-Nazis,
skinheads, Klansmen, Christian patriots,
neo-Confederates and white separatists have had a far
different reaction.
In newsgroup postings, Web site articles and Internet
radio broadcasts,they have expressed everything from
outright admiration for the Arab terrorists to more
measured communiques. The latter condemn the
terrorists,but blame the attacks on an American
foreign policy that unabashedly backs Israel, calling
for an "America First" shift toward isolationism.
The most hardcore response comes from groups that see
themselves at war with the U.S. government, which they
have dubbed the Zionist Occupation Government, or ZOG.
Despite their racial and religious beliefs, they
express solidarity with anyone who attacks what they
see as the common enemy.
It is a sign of a pronounced generational shift of
beliefs in the radical American Right and increased
willingness to monitor international events to find
philosophical allies in groups that an earlier wave of
racists dismissed as "mud people."
War against ZOG -- the U.S. government -- is the
ultimate target of America's racial revolutionaries
and overrides all other considerations. ZOG is a
tagline from "The Turner Diaries," a novel of racist
revolution by neo-Nazi National Alliance leader
William Pierce that has become a guidebook for many
racists and anti-government zealots, including
executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
In a bulletin board message documented by KlanWatch,
the investigative arm of the civil rights watchdog
group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, National
Alliance deputy Billy Roper wrote: "The enemy of our
enemy is, for now at least, our friends. We may not
want them marrying our daughter, just as they would
not want us marrying theirs. We may not want them in
our societies, just as they would not want us in
theirs. But anyone who is willing to drive a plane
into a building to kill jews is alright by me. I wish
our members had half as much testicular fortitude."
On his daily Web site bulletin board, White Aryan
Resistance (WAR) leader Tom Metzger wrote: "This
operation took some long-term planning, and,
throughout the entire time, these soldiers were aware
that their lives would be sacrificed for their cause.
If an Aryan wants an example of `Victory or Valhalla,'
look no further."
Civil rights watchdogs who monitor these groups say
sentiments like those expressed by Metzger and Roper
are common among white separatists and anti-government
zealots and are a marked departure from the fanatical
patriotism, anti-Communist fervor and white supremacy
espoused by movement founders like William Potter
Gale, the ex-Army colonel who formed the Posse
Comitatus, or 1960s-era Klan leaders like Robert
Shelton of Alabama.
There is also a parroting of the anti-free trade,
anti-global capitalism rhetoric commonly found among
the left-leaning street protesters who have hounded
meetings of the World Trade Organization and World
Bank, sparking riots in Seattle and in Italy, experts
say.
"Thirty years ago, these people wrapped themselves in
the flag, were rabidly anti-Communist and fought
against the civil rights movement," said Mark Potok,
KlanWatch spokesman and editor of its quarterly
Intelligence Report.
"Today, these people despise America, they despise
capitalism, they despise globalism and racial and
religious diversity. What was essentially a
restorationist movement, like the Klan wanting to
restore Southern apartheid ... is an utterly
revolutionary radical right today."
Paired with an increasing awareness of international
events and the Internet-driven ability to communicate
instantly with like-minded groups in Europe, America's
racially driven activists have expressed support for
the "ethnic cleansing" campaigns of deposed Serbian
leader Slobodan Milosevic and the push for a
Palestinian homeland and the "intifada" against
Israel.
Common philosophical ground can be found between the
radical Islamic fundamentalists of Osama bin Laden,
prime suspect in the jetliner attacks, and the radical
racists of the American right, said Brian Levin,
director of the Center for the Study of Hate and
Extremism at the California State University at San
Bernardino.
"It turns on religious purity, geographic purity and a
rigid philosophy on how society should be ordered,"
Levin said. "Both want their own homeland,
hermetically sealed, where they can practice their own
exclusionary, religion-based social order. In many
ways, American racial radicals mirror the intolerant,
extremist groups you see on the international scene."
Not everyone in the Far Right supports the terrorists
who attacked America.
"That's unfortunate," former Alabama Klan leader Don
Black said of Billy Roper's expression of admiration.
Black now runs a string of white separatist Web sites
called Stormfront out of his West Palm Beach, Fla.,
home. He and fellow former Klan leader David Duke, an
unsuccessful candidate for governor and U.S. senator
in Louisiana, condemn the attacks, but use them as a
platform for sharp criticism of American support of
Israel and a call for a more isolationalist foreign
policy.
Duke, in an article entitled "Will Anyone Dare to Ask
Why?" that is posted on both his and Black's Web
sites, calls Israel's increasingly bloody fight with
the Palestinians "a policy of ethnic cleansing," and
invokes the history of Israel's own terrorist
campaigns against the British and Arab residents of
what was then called Palestine.
"Let me be very, very blunt," Duke writes of the Sept.
11 attacks on America. "The ultimate cause of this
terrorism stems directly from our involvement in and
support of the criminal behavior of Israel."
Black downplayed the number of "white nationalists"
expressing support for the terrorists who attacked
America and called for swift punishment of those
responsible. But at the same time, he found common
ground with Palestinian nationalists.
"We don't have too many people who are sympathetic to
the terrorists, but there are people who are
sympathetic to the Palestinian cause," he said. The
Palestinians "have their own agenda, but we certainly
do share their dislike of American foreign policy
being controlled by Israel."
Militia groups and neo-Confederate organizations like
the League of the South also condemn the attacks and
call for swift revenge. But they, too, use this deadly
incident as a platform to launch broadsides on their
own pet topics, be it immigration policy that they see
as too open and destructive of traditional American
values or concern that war fever will cause the
government to clamp down on civil liberties.
In an article documented by KlanWatch, League of the
South president Michael Hill wrote: "In part, these
events sprang from an `open borders' policy that has
for the past four decades encouraged massive Third
World immigration and thus cultural destabilization.
... This is America's wake-up call to forsake its
idolatry and to return to its true Christian and
Constitutional foundations."
Hill's sentiments were amplified by a more mainstream
public figure, conservative evangelist Jerry Falwell,
one of the founders of the politically active Moral
Majority. "I really believe that the pagans, and the
abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
lesbians. ... I point the finger in their face and say
`You helped this happen,"' Falwell said during the
week of the attacks.
Falwell and fellow religious conservative Pat
Robertson, who expressed support for Falwell's
position, were roundly criticized for these remarks
and backed off them.
But where mainstream religious leaders see a public
relations nightmare, leaders of Far Right fringe
organizations see an opportunity.
In a Web site post documented by KlanWatch, Matt Hale,
leader of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator,
wrote: "The time is at hand to preach ... why these
attacks: the control of the United States government
by International Jewry. ... We must NOT allow this
opportunity to be squandered."
=====
HEATHENS FOR AMERICA
--------------------
STAND PROUD TODAY!
P2®
news:64218a5b.01102...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1a092601.html
>
>
> ASSAULT ON AMERICA
>
> Many American Right-Wing Racial Extremists Applaud
> Sept. 11 Attacks
>
> By JIM NESBITT
>
> c.2001 Newhouse News Service
>
>
> With the towers of the World Trade Center fatally
> damaged but still standing, a leader in one of the
> many splinter groups of the Far Right fringe of
> American politics posted a Web site message praising
> the "Islamic freedom fighters" and hoping the
> terrorist attacks were the first shots in a racial
> holy war that would topple the U.S. government.
What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Which side
you stand for.
And why do they call these groups the far-right when in fact, they are
far-left racist groups?
> Black now runs a string of white separatist Web sites
> called Stormfront out of his West Palm Beach, Fla.,
> home. He and fellow former Klan leader David Duke, an
> unsuccessful candidate for governor and U.S. senator
> in Louisiana, condemn the attacks, but use them as a
> platform for sharp criticism of American support of
> Israel and a call for a more isolationalist foreign
> policy.
As do millions of others.
> Militia groups and neo-Confederate organizations like
> the League of the South also condemn the attacks and
> call for swift revenge. But they, too, use this deadly
> incident as a platform to launch broadsides on their
> own pet topics, be it immigration policy that they see
> as too open and destructive of traditional American
> values or concern that war fever will cause the
> government to clamp down on civil liberties.
Every group uses events to promote their causes.
--PB
Infowolf1
>What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Which side
>you stand for.
>
Not entirely there are some people with ethics. Any time
you run around with bombs and machine guns you are
bound to hit innocent people, but calculated atrocities are
not uniformly practiced by all rebel organizations.
>And why do they call these groups the far-right when in fact, they are
>far-left racist groups?
>
Because regardless of some taking a socialist position
or anything else, they do represent a rightist position in
its most literal sense - a preservation of or return to an earlier
system. And that system is pagan, if you go back far enough,
and racist fairly recently.
>
>Every group uses events to promote their causes.
The issue is, how do they so use them?
William Daffer
> "Milton John Kleim, Jr." <mj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:64218a5b.01102...@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1a092601.html
> >
> >
> > ASSAULT ON AMERICA
> >
> > Many American Right-Wing Racial Extremists Applaud
> > Sept. 11 Attacks
> >
> > By JIM NESBITT
> >
> > c.2001 Newhouse News Service
> >
> >
> > With the towers of the World Trade Center fatally
> > damaged but still standing, a leader in one of the
> > many splinter groups of the Far Right fringe of
> > American politics posted a Web site message praising
> > the "Islamic freedom fighters" and hoping the
> > terrorist attacks were the first shots in a racial
> > holy war that would topple the U.S. government.
>
> What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
> Which side you stand for.
>
Is that where you think the difference lies? Is it just a matter of
correctly defining your terms? Or which group you 'identify'
with. Is this distinction all just a matter of 'identity politics'
to you?
> And why do they call these groups the far-right when in fact, they
> are far-left racist groups?
>
Because he was talking about the far-right ones.
> > Black now runs a string of white separatist Web sites
> > called Stormfront out of his West Palm Beach, Fla.,
> > home. He and fellow former Klan leader David Duke, an
> > unsuccessful candidate for governor and U.S. senator
> > in Louisiana, condemn the attacks, but use them as a
> > platform for sharp criticism of American support of
> > Israel and a call for a more isolationalist foreign
> > policy.
>
> As do millions of others.
>
Really? So you're saying these millions of others are also insincere
in their use of mideast tensions? Or if not insincere, then they too
are knownothing racists?
Well duuuhhhhhhh!
>
> > Militia groups and neo-Confederate organizations like
> > the League of the South also condemn the attacks and
> > call for swift revenge. But they, too, use this deadly
> > incident as a platform to launch broadsides on their
> > own pet topics, be it immigration policy that they see
> > as too open and destructive of traditional American
> > values or concern that war fever will cause the
> > government to clamp down on civil liberties.
>
> Every group uses events to promote their causes.
Yes. And some of them do so cynically. That's the point.
whd
--
Joe Bellinger alters posts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ce84994e260d85fb,16&start=10&ic=1
Compare Msgs #12 and #13 for proof
P2®
news:m2bsizg...@ulysses.localdomain...
> "P2®" <0...@0.com> writes:
>
> > "Milton John Kleim, Jr." <mj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:64218a5b.01102...@posting.google.com...
> > > http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1a092601.html
> > >
> > >
> > > ASSAULT ON AMERICA
> > >
> > > Many American Right-Wing Racial Extremists Applaud
> > > Sept. 11 Attacks
> > >
> > > By JIM NESBITT
> > >
> > > c.2001 Newhouse News Service
> > >
> > >
> > > With the towers of the World Trade Center fatally
> > > damaged but still standing, a leader in one of the
> > > many splinter groups of the Far Right fringe of
> > > American politics posted a Web site message praising
> > > the "Islamic freedom fighters" and hoping the
> > > terrorist attacks were the first shots in a racial
> > > holy war that would topple the U.S. government.
> >
> > What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
> > Which side you stand for.
> >
>
> Is that where you think the difference lies? Is it just a matter of
> correctly defining your terms? Or which group you 'identify'
> with. Is this distinction all just a matter of 'identity politics'
> to you?
It depends on which side of the fence you look at things.
Just a year ago, the US was calling the Cheynan rebels freedom fighters
while they were committing acts of terrorism like blowing up apartment
buildings in Moscow.
Just an example.
To me, there is no such thing as a "freedom fighter".
>
>
> > And why do they call these groups the far-right when in fact, they
> > are far-left racist groups?
> >
>
> Because he was talking about the far-right ones.
I claim they are far left ones.
> > Every group uses events to promote their causes.
>
>
> Yes. And some of them do so cynically. That's the point.
All of them do cyincally if you think about it.
--PB
William Daffer
Blakely, a.r's resident third grader, sputters:
Which implies that there always exists a political coordinate
transform which maps a 'freedom figher' into a 'terrorist.'
Do you *really* believe this? Is it *always* the case that a
'freedom fighter' becomes a 'terrorist' under a suitable political
'change of coordinate system?' Do such a coordinate transform
*always* exist?
Or is there a way to make a disctinction *with* a difference?
> Just a year ago, the US was calling the Cheynan rebels freedom fighters
> while they were committing acts of terrorism like blowing up apartment
> buildings in Moscow.
>
> Just an example.
>
That doesn't prove that there is *no* meaningful definition. It's
just an example of political expediency. Hardly controversial or
conclusive.
> To me, there is no such thing as a "freedom fighter".
>
Really? The Palestinians aren't 'freedom fighters" but "terrorists?'
Interesting.
> >
> >
> > > And why do they call these groups the far-right when in fact, they
> > > are far-left racist groups?
> > >
> >
> > Because he was talking about the far-right ones.
>
> I claim they are far left ones.
>
So? He wasn't talking about them. It's hardly a meaningful criticism
to say that someone isn't discussing something they never intended
to discuss.
> > > Every group uses events to promote their causes.
> >
> >
> > Yes. And some of them do so cynically. That's the point.
>
> All of them do cyincally if you think about it.
How cynical of you. Given your pronouncements, I can understand why
you'd say this.
whd
--
Tom Moran, in 3bc8b09e....@news.pacificnet.net,
giving us ample reason why we should consider him a
'scientific' investigator into the Holocaust:
Lets forget about all your joules and moles and equations with "*"
and no '=' signs ....
P2®
news:m26697g...@ulysses.localdomain...
> > It depends on which side of the fence you look at things.
> >
>
> Which implies that there always exists a political coordinate
> transform which maps a 'freedom figher' into a 'terrorist.'
It does if you think about it. In the eyes of most in Pakistan according to
a poll, most support Bin-Laden thus they would probably view the US as
terrorist and Laden as a Moslem-freedom-fighter. In the 1940's Zionist
terrorist struck against the Western world in Palestine. But to the
pro-Israel people, the Zionist were Israeli freedom fighters.
>
> Do you *really* believe this? Is it *always* the case that a
> 'freedom fighter' becomes a 'terrorist' under a suitable political
> 'change of coordinate system?' Do such a coordinate transform
> *always* exist?
Name one that doesn't. Remember to view things the way the enemy would view
them when responding.
<rest of Laffy's babbling snipped>>
--PB
SW
William Daffer <whda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:m26697g...@ulysses.localdomain...
>
> Blakely, a.r's resident third grader, sputters:
Third grader? When did he pass second grade?
sw
William Daffer
> "Laffy Daffy" <whda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:m26697g...@ulysses.localdomain...
>
> > > It depends on which side of the fence you look at things.
> > >
> >
> > Which implies that there always exists a political coordinate
> > transform which maps a 'freedom figher' into a 'terrorist.'
>
> It does if you think about it. In the eyes of most in Pakistan according to
> a poll, most support Bin-Laden thus they would probably view the US as
> terrorist and Laden as a Moslem-freedom-fighter. In the 1940's Zionist
> terrorist struck against the Western world in Palestine. But to the
> pro-Israel people, the Zionist were Israeli freedom fighters.
>
>
Do you *really* believe this? Do you actually believe there is *no*
way to defined terrorism so that struggles for liberation can be
differentiated from terrorist acts?
Do that mean that Ghandi was a terrorist? That Martin Luther King
was a terrorist? That the leaders of the American Revolution were
terrorists?
>
> >
> > Do you *really* believe this? Is it *always* the case that a
> > 'freedom fighter' becomes a 'terrorist' under a suitable political
> > 'change of coordinate system?' Do such a coordinate transform
> > *always* exist?
>
> Name one that doesn't.
Sure. The American revolution.
> Remember to view things the way the enemy
> would view them when responding.
Solipsism is a poor defense. It may be the case that the British
said that the revolution was unjust, but that's not the same
thing as being 'terrorism.'
It may even be the case, and I suspect that it was, that the
revolutionaries committed attrocities, but that doesn't make the
revolutionary leaders terrorists.
Moreover, even if they did call it 'terrorism' that doesn't mean
that it is. People use inflamatory, but imprecise language all the
time. The fact that they do so places no restriction on us.
You seem to think that we're required to think in everyone else's
categories, when the problem is to transcend the operational and
strictly parochial definitions people make in light of their special
circumstances to see if there is a universal quality which
distinquishes the one case from the other.
I maintain that there is something fundamentally different in these
two categories.
> <rest of Laffy's babbling snipped>>
>
And one of the questions in that babbling' you snipped. I see why
you did.
<quote>
> To me, there is no such thing as a "freedom fighter".
>
Really? The Palestinians aren't 'freedom fighters" but "terrorists?'
Interesting.
</quote>
You said there were 'no such thing as a "freedom fighter." That
makes all the Palestinians 'terrorists.'
Please explain yourself.
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
P2®
news:m28ze3f7...@ulysses.localdomain...
> "P2®" <0...@0.com> writes:
>
> > "Laffy Daffy" <whda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:m26697g...@ulysses.localdomain...
> >
> > > > It depends on which side of the fence you look at things.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which implies that there always exists a political coordinate
> > > transform which maps a 'freedom figher' into a 'terrorist.'
> >
> > It does if you think about it. In the eyes of most in Pakistan according
to
> > a poll, most support Bin-Laden thus they would probably view the US as
> > terrorist and Laden as a Moslem-freedom-fighter. In the 1940's Zionist
> > terrorist struck against the Western world in Palestine. But to the
> > pro-Israel people, the Zionist were Israeli freedom fighters.
> >
> >
>
> Do you *really* believe this? Do you actually believe there is *no*
> way to defined terrorism so that struggles for liberation can be
> differentiated from terrorist acts?
>
> Do that mean that Ghandi was a terrorist? That Martin Luther King
> was a terrorist? That the leaders of the American Revolution were
> terrorists?
Daffy seems to lack comprehension.
Ghandi was not a freedom fighter, he was a Indian nationalist.
To racist, MLK was a terrorist. He was out to destroy their way of life.
The leaders of the American Revolution did many "terrorist" acts to British
property here in the US including blowing up ships, stealing their property
etc. etc. To us, they were fighting for freedom, to the British, they were
terrorist.
It all depends how you look at things Laffy.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Do you *really* believe this? Is it *always* the case that a
> > > 'freedom fighter' becomes a 'terrorist' under a suitable political
> > > 'change of coordinate system?' Do such a coordinate transform
> > > *always* exist?
> >
> > Name one that doesn't.
>
> Sure. The American revolution.
Read the above.
> Really? The Palestinians aren't 'freedom fighters" but "terrorists?'
Only an idiot would group all Palestinians as terrorist. Do you like it when
we call all Jews money hungry bastards? No. Then don't do it to the
Palestinians.
Now of course the Palestinians that do cause violence on purpose are of
course "terrorist"
However to them, this is the equalvent to the American Revolution in their
eyes. They want a Palestinian state, we wanted an American state.
But your still missing the point. It depends on what you believe in on
rather a group or person is a terrorist or not.
--PB
Jerome Gregory
Daffy,
When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, killing 20,000 innocent
civilians, was that an act of terrorism? Do you support
that act? Yes or no will suffice.
J.
William Daffer
Regarding your change of the subject line: no, I didn't. *You*
did. You're the one saying that it's just a matter of 'point of
view.' That means that *you* are saying that the Palestinians are
terrorists, provided you have the right 'point of view.'
Remember, I'm the one arguing that you can distinguish the cases.
Try to keep up with the conversation.
> "William Daffer" <whda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:m28ze3f7...@ulysses.localdomain...
> > "P2®" <0...@0.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Laffy Daffy" <whda...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:m26697g...@ulysses.localdomain...
> > >
> > > > > It depends on which side of the fence you look at things.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which implies that there always exists a political coordinate
> > > > transform which maps a 'freedom figher' into a 'terrorist.'
> > >
> > > It does if you think about it. In the eyes of most in Pakistan according
> to
> > > a poll, most support Bin-Laden thus they would probably view the US as
> > > terrorist and Laden as a Moslem-freedom-fighter. In the 1940's Zionist
> > > terrorist struck against the Western world in Palestine. But to the
> > > pro-Israel people, the Zionist were Israeli freedom fighters.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Do you *really* believe this? Do you actually believe there is *no*
> > way to defined terrorism so that struggles for liberation can be
> > differentiated from terrorist acts?
> >
> > Do that mean that Ghandi was a terrorist? That Martin Luther King
> > was a terrorist? That the leaders of the American Revolution were
> > terrorists?
>
> Daffy seems to lack comprehension.
>
> Ghandi was not a freedom fighter, he was a Indian nationalist.
>
Does this mean he was a 'terrorist?'
It seems abundantly clear to me that he was striving for the freedom
of his country. It is beyond dispute that he succeeded in chasing
the British out of India, one of the most important holdings in
their empire and one which they had, over the course of their
history there, fought quite a bit to keep. What *additional*
characteristic transforms someone who's fighting for the freedom of
their country from merely a nationalist into a 'freedom fighter?'
> To racist, MLK was a terrorist. He was out to destroy their way of life.
>
Then, by your argument, MLK was also a 'freedom fighter.'
I find it interesting that you claim Ghandi isn't, but MLK
is. Clearly Ghandi was out to destroy the British way of life, in
the sense that his goal was the independence of India. Considering
how important India was to the British empire, it seems remarkable
to me that you would claim of MLK that he was out to destroy a way
of life and Ghandi wasn't.
Moreover, MLK was a pacifist, and the commonsense understanding of
terrorism is that it somehow involves violence. Please comment on
this discrepency.
> The leaders of the American Revolution did many "terrorist" acts to British
> property here in the US including blowing up ships, stealing their property
> etc. etc. To us, they were fighting for freedom, to the British, they were
> terrorist.
>
> It all depends how you look at things Laffy.
>
I think all you've demonstrated is that your view of things is very
shallow. Just about the third grade level.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you *really* believe this? Is it *always* the case that a
> > > > 'freedom fighter' becomes a 'terrorist' under a suitable political
> > > > 'change of coordinate system?' Do such a coordinate transform
> > > > *always* exist?
> > >
> > > Name one that doesn't.
> >
> > Sure. The American revolution.
>
> Read the above.
>
That is no answer. What you wrote above is self contradictory.
Please tell me, how were the leaders of the American revolution
'terrorists?' As opposed to 'freedom fighters?' What political
'coordinate system' is required that transforms them from 'freedom
fighters' into 'terrorists?'
> > Really? The Palestinians aren't 'freedom fighters" but "terrorists?'
>
> Only an idiot would group all Palestinians as terrorist.
No. Only an idiot would parse my question that way.
> Do you like
> it when we call all Jews money hungry bastards? No. Then don't do it
> to the Palestinians.
>
*laff*. Nothing like a demonstration of how your misreading controls
your 'thinking' process, such as it is.
> Now of course the Palestinians that do cause violence on purpose are of
> course "terrorist"
Glad you finally got the question right. You're a paragraph too late.
> However to them, this is the equalvent to the American Revolution in
> their eyes. They want a Palestinian state, we wanted an American
> state.
>
So, despite your claim above that 'there is no such thing as a
freedom fighter', you want to claim that these Palestinians are, in
fact, 'freedom fighters.'
They are 'terrorists' *and* 'freedom fighters.'
Moreover, so are the American Founding Fathers.
How are the founding fathers 'terrorists?'
And, at the very least you've just contradicted your previous claim
of the non-existence of 'freedom fighters;' clearly, you believe
that there are freedom fighters; the Palestinians being one such
case.
Moreover, you've shown that you think in contradictions. Things are
and are not something, simultaneously.
> But your still missing the point. It depends on what you believe in on
> rather a group or person is a terrorist or not.
That sentence is fairly incomprehensible, but I'll take it that
you're reiterating your claim that there is no objective way to
distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. So
all Palestinians freedom fighters are terrorists, by suitable
transformation of political coordinate system.
Do you have anything more to add to the conversation, other than a
simple restatement of your claim?
May I suggest that you develop the argument that MLK was a terrorist.
whd
p.s. The following section of the post is known as the signature, okay?
You've seem to have a problem with this distinction.
--
<quote>
xganon, in 360dc87da7c02e27...@xganon.com, under the subject line:
"The Horror of the gas chambers", says:
It's too bad that they still don't do that. I would love to see most
of the oppressive Zion nazi regime and the rest of the Jew assasins
put there. For every non jew killed 100 jews should be slaughtered
like pigs. They don't belong there, the temples should be burned and
the people shot. They are all soldiers of zion and deserve one fate.
They are the chosen to die people. God has chosen the jews to be
persecuted and slaughtered. IT IS THE WAY
</quote>
PA DUDE
Navy Kurt
> Sure they do! Right wing people like the ones in this group need to be
> investigated for stating they would kick people to death!
> NG have stated that skinheads or other anti-American groups may be
> responsible for Anthrax!
>
>
> --
are you retarded? you know goddamn good and well that it was some
muslim spreading that anthrax.
Dan...@webtv.net
period!
This is where USA hate within the USA comes from! I know this statement
may upset some fanatics, but FUCK EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan...@webtv.net
they aregoing to control the USA! Wake up morons! NEVER!!!!!!
PA DUDE
Michael Sharkey
Dan...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Militia groups think they are a bunch of macho men(FAGGOTS)
Dan,
Macho men faggots are people too! Be tolerant of others.
Raine Carraway
Dan...@webtv.net wrote:
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of
the people I had to kill because they pissed me off