Angelina Jolie: American Traitor Bitch
John Kendricks
Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
First we had Hanoi Jane, now we are cursed with Ghazni Angelina.
Rot in hell, Jolie.
Kendricks
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
>Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
>
>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
It's a humanitarian effort to help the refugees so they don't fucking starve to
death on the borders! Gawd!
It's nothing like what that fuck Jane Fonda did, such as revealing secretly
passed messages to the wardens of American prisoners.
--
We can let this bring out the worst on us, use it to vent our frustrations
and our anger whatever they may be, or we can use it to bring out the best in
us, to celebrate what good we can find, to rebuild together. - Jamie D.
fuzzy pink satan
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fuckhead.html
carrie
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ http://fuzzypinksatan.com ~
1,000 lips 1,000 tongues 1,000 throats 1,000 lungs 1,000 ways to make it true
~ i want to do terrible things to you ~
John Kendricks
Half The Battle) wrote:
>>Apparently unconcerned about the carnage in her own country, Angelina
>>Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
>>
>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>
>It's a humanitarian effort to help the refugees so they don't fucking starve to
>death on the borders! Gawd!
>
>It's nothing like what that fuck Jane Fonda did, such as revealing secretly
>passed messages to the wardens of American prisoners.
He he he... You people aren't very quick to pick up on satire, are
you???
Sorry - you gotta have some fun!!!
Kendricks
John Kendricks
organizations, Do you think they are going to say...
our soldiers will go hungry, you guys go ahead and eat?
Our government just shut down finances from over 30 non profit orgs in
United states where people donate money get a American tax break and
the money goes to Bin Laden financed groups...
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
>>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>He he he... You people aren't very quick to pick up on satire, are
>you???
>
>Sorry - you gotta have some fun!!!
Salon...satire.
Sorry. Doesn't go together. Salon is a crappy liberal pile of shit website run
by syphillptic crack monkeys.
Jason G
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 05:30:32 GMT, jd...@yahoo.com (John Kendricks)
>fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>
>>Apparently unconcerned about the carnage in her own country, Angelina
>>Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
>>
>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>>
>>First we had Hanoi Jane, now we are cursed with Ghazni Angelina.
>>
>>Rot in hell, Jolie.
>
>http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fuckhead.html
>
*snicker*
Great link, Carrie.
--
Jason G
"This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people;
they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences
of this resistance. "
-- Philip K. Dick
Dreamspinner3
they don't suffer & giving money to bin Laden and/or his supporters. B
"John Kendricks" <jd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb40ac9....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Paul M. Cook┊
"And Knowing Is Half The Battle" <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote in message
news:20010928031235...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> >From: jd...@yahoo.com (John Kendricks)
>
> >>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>
> >He he he... You people aren't very quick to pick up on satire, are
> >you???
> >
> >Sorry - you gotta have some fun!!!
>
> Salon...satire.
>
> Sorry. Doesn't go together. Salon is a crappy liberal pile of shit website
run
> by syphillptic crack monkeys.
And more power to them!
Paul - reads a lot of syphillptic(sic) crack monkey shit
Jill
I heard that Ange and grandad, sorry husband, are wanting to adopt some kids...
Jill (Childfree in Scotland)
Dalton
> by syphillptic crack monkeys.
And managed by a revoltin' pseudo-human.
Jason G
>There is a difference to giving money to the Afghan people/refugees so that
>they don't suffer & giving money to bin Laden and/or his supporters. B
>
I don't think subtlety is Kendricks' strong point at the moment.
Jeffrey Soreff
> >From: jd...@yahoo.com (John Kendricks)
>
> >>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>
> >He he he... You people aren't very quick to pick up on satire, are
> >you???
> >
> >Sorry - you gotta have some fun!!!
>
> Salon...satire.
>
> Sorry. Doesn't go together. Salon is a crappy liberal pile of shit website run
> by syphillptic crack monkeys.
Umm, consider this fragment from
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/28/saudi_arabia/index.html
Eric Boehlert's article on Salon about the Saudi's:
"But much has changed in Saudi Arabia during the last 20 years. Once run as an
opulent welfare state, where
college graduates were virtually guaranteed cushy, 30-hour-a-week white-collar
jobs, Saudi Arabia today is
battling rising unemployment, particularly among young men. And the Saudis have
too many young men (and
young women). Nearly half the country's 20 million citizens are under the age of
20, products of a baby boom
during the country's heady 1980s oil glory days. Saudi mothers bear an average of
six children apiece, and the
country's annual population growth in recent years has hovered at about 4
percent, among the highest in the
world.
The result is a growing number of discontented, educated natives who may present
more of a danger
than indigent populations do in neighboring countries. "Poor laborers are not the
biggest problem. The
problem are those with some education, the potential professionals," says Voll.
"Look at the
description of the hijackers. They were Saudi middle-class wannabes who expected
to be
professionals and didn't see opportunities they thought should be there. People
like that are much more
dangerous, and can do things peasants can't do. Like blend into a Florida
suburb." (Several of the hijackers
lived and trained as pilots in Florida.) "
This clearly acknowledges that the Saudis BRED themselves
this dilemma. Even oil fields only stretch so far...
I think Boehlert and Salon deserve some credit for noting this
hazard of uberbreeders (six??? on average???). Yes?
Best wishes,
-Jeff
Swan & Rat
> Sorry. Doesn't go together. Salon is a crappy liberal pile of shit website run
> by syphillptic crack monkeys.
Ah! I *knew* there was a reason to subscribe to it! On my way now!!
Swan
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
Dammit!
Um...Salon is Rush Limbaugh's favorite website!
He sacrifices childr...um, puppy dogs in it's badly formatted name!
Paul M. Cook┊
And yet another reason!
pitta patta pitta patta pitta patta
Aynthem
Grim wrote in message <0979rt05mtrker0on...@4ax.com>...
secretly
>>passed messages to the wardens of American prisoners.
>
>
>The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above -- that Fonda
>turned over
> slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the
>North Vietnamese and
> that several POWs were beaten to death as a result -- are
>proveably untrue.
I think the most interesting point of the Jane Fonda story is not that she
actually did endanger and/or act to end the lives of American POW's, but
that it is entirely believable that she would have, and that this story must
be refuted again and again and again because it is, indeed, so easy to
believe that "Hanoi Jane" would have done something as atrocious as this.
It says something about a person's basic presentation to the world that the
world is ready to believe the worst.
Melody
Steve Lamb
>It says something about a person's basic presentation to the world that the
>world is ready to believe the worst.
No, it says something about the guilability of the world. How many times
do the masses read something about some celebrity and believe it without even
the slightest thought. Has no bearing on who the person is.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
To email: Don't despair! | -- Lenny Nero, Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Steve Lamb
<pmBERMUDA_...@gte.net> wrote:
>Paul - reads a lot of syphillptic(sic) crack monkey shit
Gee, we never would have guessed that.
John Kendricks
Well, at least she isn't squeezing out any crotchfruit. I knew there
had to be *something* good to be said about her.
Kendricks
John Kendricks
jrgusenet@REMOVE_ooo_THIS_xxx_PART_yahoo.com (Jason G) wrote:
>*snicker*
From http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html:
4.3.1 Ad hominem
One of the most common ways of trying to cast doubt on a claim or
position which has been argued for by another is to criticize the
person making the argument rather than the argument itself. An ad
hominem is an irrelevant assertion about a person who has taken a
position or made an argument with which one disagrees. The assertion
about the arguer is made in the belief or hope that it will be taken
as relevant evidence against the position one opposes. Rather than
criticize a person's premises or reasoning, an ad hominem asserts
something about the person's character, associations, occupation,
hobbies, motives, mental health, likes or dislikes, etc.
The fallacy in the ad hominem is on the irrelevant nature of the
appeal made, not its falsity. If what is said about the person is
false, in addition to being irrelevant, two fallacies are committed,
false premise and irrelevant premise. Not only do many people make ad
hominem attacks, many more are seduced by them. The appeal of the ad
hominem is that it puts bad doctrines (i.e., those you disagree with)
into the mouths of bad people. So, one can feel that one's opponents
are evil as well as stupid. Attacking a person, rather than the
person's position or argument, is usually easier as well as more
psychologically satisfying to the simple-minded who divide the world
into two classes of people--those who agree with them and are
therefore good and right, and those who disagree with them and are
therefore evil and wrong.
The ad hominem is also attractive to the lazy who would rather
ridicule or belittle a person than seriously examine an opposing
viewpoint. The ad hominem is also a tactic of the clever manipulator
of crowds, the experienced demagogue who knows how to play on the
emotions of people and seduce them into transferring their attitude of
disapproval for a person to a belief in disagreement with that
person's position.
Examples of ad hominem appeals
--"Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity are completely false; after
all, he was insane!"
--"You shouldn't believe a word my opponent says about me since he is
just bitter because I'm ahead in the polls."
--"Of course the American Dental Association advises us to have our
teeth checked twice a year. Their members stand to profit quite a bit
from this bit of advice. Don't listen to them."
--"Reagan's economic policies are absurd; but what should we expect
from an actor."
--"We know communism is an erroneous doctrine, since the only people
who adhere to it are wicked and evil."
--"Samson's views on strategic air command are wrong; what would a
former employee of Disneyworld know about such matters?"
--"Why should we listen to an ignorant fool like you?"
J.W.T. Meakin
>
> Examples of ad hominem appeals
> teeth checked twice a year. Their members stand to profit quite a bit
> from this bit of advice. Don't listen to them."
This one is not ad hominem. It casts a doubt on the motive of the
ADA in issuing the advice, and hence on the validity of the advice itself.
Some of the advice issued by stockbrokers, for instance, has been known
to be (a) unsound, and (b) motivated by the desire for fees rather than
the best interests of their clients. Possibly other businesses are
ever so slightly given to the same actions.
Bill.
John Kendricks
<"soreff"@vnet.ibm.comE...@fishkill.rscsInternal> wrote:
>This clearly acknowledges that the Saudis BRED themselves
>this dilemma. Even oil fields only stretch so far...
>I think Boehlert and Salon deserve some credit for noting this
>hazard of uberbreeders (six??? on average???). Yes?
>
> Best wishes,
> -Jeff
I serious problem, I agree. Nothing a few nukes wouldn't solve,
though....
Robert Myers
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:32:59 GMT,
> jrgusenet@REMOVE_ooo_THIS_xxx_PART_yahoo.com (Jason G) wrote:
>
>
> >*snicker*
>
> From http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html:
>
> 4.3.1 Ad hominem
>
John Kendricks
<rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> From http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html:
>>
>> 4.3.1 Ad hominem
>>
>You mean like calling people pussies? Or traitors?
No, you missed the key sentence:
An ad hominem is an *irrelevant* assertion about a person who has
taken a position or made an argument with which one disagrees.
Kendricks
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
>Well, at least she isn't squeezing out any crotchfruit.
Thank goodness. It'd be a shame to inflict such a thing on such a beautiful
body.
Yeah, I think she's hawt and I don't care.
Chris Petit
@news.cis.dfn.de:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 03:38:45 GMT, "Robert Myers"
> <rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> From http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html:
> An ad hominem is an *irrelevant* assertion about a person who has
> taken a position or made an argument with which one disagrees.
Irrelevancy is in the eye of the beholder. Someone who makes such an
ad hominem assertion clearly believes it to be quite relevant, otherwise
they wouldn't say it.
John Kendricks
wrote:
>> An ad hominem is an *irrelevant* assertion about a person who has
>> taken a position or made an argument with which one disagrees.
>
> Irrelevancy is in the eye of the beholder. Someone who makes such an
>ad hominem assertion clearly believes it to be quite relevant, otherwise
>they wouldn't say it.
No irrelevancy is a fact. If you say, "don't listen to this person
because he is crazy", that is an ad hominem, as the "crazy" label is
meant to trump the substance of the argument.
If you say, "this person's argument reveals him to be a pussy", then
the "pussy" label is proven by the argument itself. It would be an ad
hominem to say, "don't listen to him *because* he is a pussy"!
I hope this has cured your confusion.
Kendricks
John Kendricks
Half The Battle) wrote:
She is a hottie. It's just too bad she's a traitorous bitch, too.
Kendricks
Robert Myers
So , Jane^h^h^hohn, are you an entitlement moo/troll that says
<whine>but it doesn't apply to me</whine>?
> Kendricks
>
Robert Myers
You just fought ad hominem with a circular argument, saying ad hominem
doesn't exist. Please try again.
Chris Petit
There is no way in which a purely logical arguement can reach a
personal value judgement ("this person's argument reveals him to be a
pussy.") without the personal values being assumptions behind the logic. If
the personal values are different, the logical deduction doesn't work,
because the assumptions are different.
So, I stand by the fact that what you said above "this person's
argument proves him to be a pussy" is itself an ad hominem attack. It
attacks the personal values instead of the logic of the speaker, albeit one
step removed.
John Kendricks
You are wrong. To quote myself, 'It would be an ad hominem to say,
"don't listen to him *because* he is a pussy"!'
Try again.
John Kendricks
wrote:
But I did not attack his argument by calling him a pussy; I simply
labeled him as one after refuting the argument.
John Kendricks
<rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>So , Jane^h^h^hohn, are you an entitlement moo/troll that says
><whine>but it doesn't apply to me</whine>?
>
>> Kendricks
Not at all, I am militantly childfree, and snipped.
Thanks for demonstrating why the use of ad hominems is so ineffective,
though! I really enjoy it when people who disagree with me make
complete asses out of themselves.
Kendricks
Robert Myers
You still haven't refuted the argument that everyone is due Due Process.
That was the point you called me a pussy.
I notice you tend to drop things a lot. You've dropped that, and there's
still no answers to some of the other questions you have been asked.
John Kendricks
<rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>there's still no answers to some of the other questions you have been asked.
Like what???
Robert Myers
Go read. You'll find 'em. Or are you still stuck on only being able to
hold one post in your mind at once?
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
>Irrelevancy is in the eye of the beholder. Someone who makes such an
>ad hominem assertion clearly believes it to be quite relevant, otherwise
>they wouldn't say it.
You haven't been online much, have you?
Robert Myers
"Pete" <sl...@jgnvfjhff.com> wrote in message
news:slia-63DCAD.1...@news.bayarea.net...
> In article <nDst7.6556$Kp2.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> "Robert Myers" <rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You still haven't refuted the argument that everyone is due Due
Process.
>
>
> ObL is NOT an American citizen. He is NOT entitled to due process.
That
> part of our legal system has been perverted by the forces of the
> politically correct.
>
I wasn't talking ObL, I was talking the average Arab American "raghead"
and "towelhead" that he was referring to pre-judging in America.
Kendricks seems rather inclined to ignore Due Process and Equal
Protection Under the Law for these people.
> Furthermore, the whole idea of ObL being tried in a western court of
law
> is so laughable as to be insane.
>
> As I told Kendrix, ObL and his ilk LAUGH at the idea of western
justice.
>
> Like it or not, if you want to diminish the threat of such terrorism,
> you must give the terrorists an incentive to stop.
>
> The things you must be willing to do to provide that incentive are, by
> western standards, barbaric.
>
> Just the same, they *must* be done. There is no escaping that central
> point. Those of you who think "bringing him to justice" is either
> putting him in an American prison or even executing him, are just not
> paying attention.
>
> Quit thinking like Americans. You're dealing with a different mindset
> that laughs at you as weaklings...Pete
But being in a western court, maybe McD's will be kind enough to supply
the food for jail. A large supply of McRibs (sans bun)perhaps?
And regardless, there NEEDS TO BE A BURDEN OF PROOF, no matter what is
done. ObL may be worth getting for other reasons as well, but if this is
the excuse, PROVE IT. If we just say "we don't like you and what you
stand for so we are going to bomb the bejeebus out of you", isn't that
terrorism? Supply the proof, then it becomes self-defense and/or
vengence/justice.
John Kendricks
>In article <nDst7.6556$Kp2.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> "Robert Myers" <rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You still haven't refuted the argument that everyone is due Due Process.
>
>Ok Robert, I will.
>
>ObL is NOT an American citizen. He is NOT entitled to due process. That
>part of our legal system has been perverted by the forces of the
>politically correct.
>
>Furthermore, the whole idea of ObL being tried in a western court of law
>is so laughable as to be insane.
>
>As I told Kendrix, ObL and his ilk LAUGH at the idea of western justice.
>
>Like it or not, if you want to diminish the threat of such terrorism,
>you must give the terrorists an incentive to stop.
>
>The things you must be willing to do to provide that incentive are, by
>western standards, barbaric.
>
>Just the same, they *must* be done. There is no escaping that central
>point. Those of you who think "bringing him to justice" is either
>putting him in an American prison or even executing him, are just not
>paying attention.
>
>Quit thinking like Americans. You're dealing with a different mindset
>that laughs at you as weaklings...Pete
Very well said, Pete.
Kendricks
John Kendricks
<rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete" <sl...@jgnvfjhff.com> wrote in message
>news:slia-63DCAD.1...@news.bayarea.net...
>> In article <nDst7.6556$Kp2.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
>> "Robert Myers" <rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You still haven't refuted the argument that everyone is due Due
>Process.
>>
>> Ok Robert, I will.
>>
>> ObL is NOT an American citizen. He is NOT entitled to due process.
>That
>> part of our legal system has been perverted by the forces of the
>> politically correct.
>>
>
>I wasn't talking ObL, I was talking the average Arab American "raghead"
>and "towelhead" that he was referring to pre-judging in America.
>Kendricks seems rather inclined to ignore Due Process and Equal
>Protection Under the Law for these people.
BULLSHIT! Not once have I advocated that innocent Arab-Americans be
held accountable for the acts of foreign terrorists.
I understand your frustration at being on the losing end of an
argument, but attributing such statements to me is reprehensible.
Kendricks
Julie
wrote:
>Apparently unconcerned about the carnage in her own country, Angelina
>Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
>
>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>
>First we had Hanoi Jane, now we are cursed with Ghazni Angelina.
>
>Rot in hell, Jolie.
>
>Kendricks
I cannot understand this 'hatred'. Are you unaware of the suffering
in Afghanistan, by people who want nothing to do with the Taliban but
have to live under their regime. The people affected by the attack
on the WTC towers are going to be financially stable due to all the
donations given, but women (and children) in Afghanistan have been on
the verge of starvation for the past few years. There is no food
getting into Kabul at the present time, and there are hundreds of
thousands of refugees who also need help.
The people of Afghanistan are not the terrorists who flew planes into
the two towers, they are just trying to be normal people, living
normal lives. Unfortunately they have been prohibited from doing that
because of the (US funded) Taliban.
If you believe the Afghani people don't deserve help with their
current plight, then you are as bad as the terrorists who hit the WTC
towers. Those terrorist hated all americans because of what they were
taught and had no thought for individual lives. You appear to be
thinking the same way.
It appears that Angelina Jolie is educated about the plight of the
Afghan people. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you start
throwing out accusations.
Julie
Julie
wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2001 05:39:27 GMT, lot...@aol.comaol.com (And Knowing Is
>Half The Battle) wrote:
>
>>>Apparently unconcerned about the carnage in her own country, Angelina
>>>Jolie has donated $1,000,000 to the Afghans:
>>>
>>>http://salon.com/people/wire/2001/09/27/jolie/index.html
>>
>>It's a humanitarian effort to help the refugees so they don't fucking starve to
>>death on the borders! Gawd!
>>
>>It's nothing like what that fuck Jane Fonda did, such as revealing secretly
>>passed messages to the wardens of American prisoners.
>
>He he he... You people aren't very quick to pick up on satire, are
>you???
>
>Sorry - you gotta have some fun!!!
>
>Kendricks
Is this your attempt at backtracking? If it is, then it's not very
convincing.
Julie
John Kendricks
wrote:
It was my attempt at lightening the mood a little. I am not convinced
that her intent was treasonous, but the result likely will be.
Kendricks
John Kendricks
wrote:
The plight of the afghani people will only be improved by destroying
the taliban, and the public debunking of islam. Sending money and
food that will likely be diverted to their oppressors is obviously not
a viable solution.
Kendricks
Robert Myers
> In article <RUvt7.6782$Kp2.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> "Robert Myers" <rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok Robert, I will.
> > >
> > > ObL is NOT an American citizen. He is NOT entitled to due process.
> > That
> > > part of our legal system has been perverted by the forces of the
> > > politically correct.
> > >
> >
> > I wasn't talking ObL, I was talking the average Arab American
"raghead"
> > and "towelhead" that he was referring to pre-judging in America.
> > Kendricks seems rather inclined to ignore Due Process and Equal
> > Protection Under the Law for these people.
>
> American citizen.
>
> > > Furthermore, the whole idea of ObL being tried in a western court
of
> > law is so laughable as to be insane.
> > >
> >
> > > As I told Kendrix, ObL and his ilk LAUGH at the idea of western
> > justice.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Like it or not, if you want to diminish the threat of such
terrorism,
> > > you must give the terrorists an incentive to stop.
> > >
> > > The things you must be willing to do to provide that incentive
are, by
> > > western standards, barbaric.
> > >
> > > Just the same, they *must* be done. There is no escaping that
central
> > > point. Those of you who think "bringing him to justice" is either
> > > putting him in an American prison or even executing him, are just
not
> > > paying attention.
> > >
> > > Quit thinking like Americans. You're dealing with a different
mindset
> > > that laughs at you as weaklings...Pete
> >
> > But being in a western court, maybe McD's will be kind enough to
supply
> > the food for jail. A large supply of McRibs (sans bun)perhaps?
>
> barbaric. but it works.
>
> > And regardless, there NEEDS TO BE A BURDEN OF PROOF, no matter what
is
> > done. ObL may be worth getting for other reasons as well, but if
this is
> > the excuse, PROVE IT. If we just say "we don't like you and what you
> > stand for so we are going to bomb the bejeebus out of you", isn't
that
> > terrorism? Supply the proof, then it becomes self-defense and/or
> > vengence/justice.
>
>
> Fer chrissake Robert, pay attention, will you please? I'm the guy who
> tried and almost succeded in getting Kendrix to STFU about bombing
> Afhanistan and the ONLY reason he didn't take the last step is because
> he knew he would be admiting that he was wrong in suggesting we bomb
> them, and he wasn't willing to admit his mistake, so he descended back
> into 12-year-old behavior. Or jarhead behavior, 6:1, half dozen to
the
> other.
>
> As far as burden of proof, where would you suggest the proof be
> presented? When?
Mainly, just the fact that it exists is enough. Present it to whomever
asks when it's needed (e.g. UN, Hague, the Taliban (IMHO, Shrub made a
mistake saying FU to them when they asked for evidence), NATO). In the
mean time, still try to snag/kill him. Having the evidence would make it
vigilante, but not terrorism. I don't know about the more recent
evidence, but the earliest looked more like a plant than anything else.
>
> You continue to think like a Westerner.
>
So let's not use Western justice. He is wanted by the Saudi's for
attacks on the royal family, no? Snag him, turn him over to the Saudi's.
This doesn't give the feel good solution of tagging him ourselves, but
it has the desired effect. Then use the time gained to present the
evidence using full formalities, provided he hasn't been executed by
then. The same time can be used to come up with a suitable punishment
that doesn't martyr.
> You are talking about a cultural breach. You must think like them to
> defeat them.
>
> Read http://blueslider.topcities.com/afgh.html.
>
The main new thing I learned here is that no government installed there
(by Western or Middle Eastern forces) will succeed, ever. Something
would need to unite the tribes first, and that doesn't look likely.
Robert Myers
>
> <sigh> He does not fear death at the hands of the non-believer. In
fact,
> he welcomes it.
>
That death I mentioned would've been at the hands of the Saudi's, not
unbelievers.
>
> So, now, why do you continue to think like a Westerner? You must stop
> thinking about the concept of "justice," as you know it. Stop
thinking
> about the gathering and presentation of evidence. They don't care
about
> that shit. Quit thinking about the world court and all that shit. It's
a
> WASTE OF TIME.
>
No, it's not. I'm thinking several moves ahead.
Let's suppose ObL is caught and brought to justice, be this some form of
Western Justice, Middle Eastern or some combination of the two. In all
likelihood, this is going to involve his death and or maiming and or
torture. At this point, what happens if someone comes forward with
incontrovertible proof that it was not ObL? I'm guessing there's a
15-20% chance that it's not, that there is someone else (Hussein?)
behind it. What happens to the dynamics of the Middle East then? What
happens to the Western psyche when it sinks in that a man was tortured
for something he didn't even do?
The gathering of the evidence is as much to protect us as to damn ObL.
> These folks have a different mindset, different cultural fears. If
death
> and imprisonment is not feared, it seems clear to me that you don't
use
> death or imprisonment as a deterrent.
>
Nope, you need to find something else. I quite agree. The problem is
going to be finding something that is both effective and not morally
reprehensible.
> Bombing them is no answer. Slogging it out on the ground with the
82nd,
> the 101st or the Green Berets will only kill a lot of people on both
> sides who have no stake in it.
>
True. And I'm glad Shrub can apparently see this as well. Special Ops /
covert is going to have a much better chance.
> We must do a lot of things the American people (and certainly many
folks
> in the NG) have no stomach for.
>
> It dismays me, Robert, that you can't think more outside the box. I
know
> you're smarter than that. WAY smarter. What must be done, quite
> honestly, is barbaric. It's evil.
The problem is, break the box in the wrong way, and you are no different
than the terrorists. Are morals something that can be shed at the
earliest convenience?
> But the alternative is to turn the US into a police state, which it's
> already well on its way to becoming. But why HASTEN that?
>
It already is, just not run by the gov't.
Kendricks
<rpmy...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete" <sl...@jgnvfjhff.com> wrote in message
>news:slia-CA0C4E.0...@news.bayarea.net...
>>
>> <sigh> He does not fear death at the hands of the non-believer. In
>fact,
>> he welcomes it.
>>
>
>That death I mentioned would've been at the hands of the Saudi's, not
>unbelievers.
That's not going to happen. The Saudis have been trying to play both
sides for years, and are even refusing to allow us to use their land
as a base of operations for strikes against bin Laden and the Taliban.
How's THAT for ingratitude? Just another reason to never trust arabs.
If you think the Saudis are going to try and execute bin Laden, you
are seriously deluded. Their cowardly government is terrified at the
prospect of the backlash.
Kendricks
Rorqhual
French toast and Bavarian smoked cheese anyone?
:o)