[OT] Newspapers Across the Country Drop Dilbert

[Quadibloc]

In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
them.
This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
phrase "It's OK to be white".
That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
genocide of white people.
So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
going to be on Gocomics any more either.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/dilbert-distributor-severs-ties-to-creator-over-race-remarks-1.6290533

John Savard

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On 2023-02-27, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> them.
>

> Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
> going to be on Gocomics any more either.
>

Adams Sowing: Hell yeah, this is awesome! I rule!!

Adams Reaping: What the hell? This sucks. I'm the victim!!

--
dgold <ne...@dgold.eu>

[pete...@gmail.com]

Adams has been looking for an excuse to retire for a while, and
has predicted he'd do so by being 'cancelled'. He seems to have
got his wish.

Dilbert.com is still up as of this morning. He may be forced to retreat
to http://scottadams.locals.com

I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
same clean and cutsey art style.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:08:23?AM UTC-5, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
>> On 2023-02-27, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25?AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> >> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> >> them.
>> >
>> > Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
>> > going to be on Gocomics any more either.
>> >
>> Adams Sowing: Hell yeah, this is awesome! I rule!!
>>
>> Adams Reaping: What the hell? This sucks. I'm the victim!!
>
>Adams has been looking for an excuse to retire for a while, and
>has predicted he'd do so by being 'cancelled'. He seems to have
>got his wish.

Kind of like the morons who were forcasting a culture war and, now
that its here, they are now whining because they are losing. Whine
away, guys and gals, whine away.

"National Divorce" is not their victory dance. It is an admission of
defeat.

>Dilbert.com is still up as of this morning. He may be forced to retreat
>to http://scottadams.locals.com

Up and still entertaining.

>I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>same clean and cutsey art style.

--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

[WolfFan]

On Feb 26, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<1362c026-e754-4bed...@googlegroups.com>):

Dilbert.com has noticed that I use an ad-blocker. (Took them long enough.)
Every ever so often I have to go through a multi-step procedure to see the
comic. Sooner rather than later I won’t bother. No, I’m not turning off
my ad-blocker.

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
> same clean and cutsey art style.

I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
victims or all-powerful witches.

I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.

I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.

We haven't seen "the reality zone" in quite a while.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[James Nicoll]

In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m1...@4ax.com>,

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>> same clean and cutsey art style.
>
>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
>victims or all-powerful witches.
>
>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
>
>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
>

Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
that who then recovered?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[pete...@gmail.com]

IIRC, the 'Maga Mom' from last year's 2022 thread had more than
a little agency.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:35:51 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m1...@4ax.com>,
>Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>>> same clean and cutsey art style.
>>
>>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
>>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
>>victims or all-powerful witches.
>>
>>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
>>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
>>
>>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
>>
>Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
>that who then recovered?

Writers, shmiters. Are there examples of /anyone/ who has gone the
deep end like this who then recovered?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 17:32:41 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:35:51 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m1...@4ax.com>,
> >Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
> >>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
> >>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
> >>> same clean and cutsey art style.
> >>
> >>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
> >>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
> >>victims or all-powerful witches.
> >>
> >>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
> >>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
> >>
> >>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
> >>
> >Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
> >that who then recovered?
> Writers, shmiters. Are there examples of /anyone/ who has gone the
> deep end like this who then recovered?

I'm not clear what "to go off the deep end" means - or why.
A dictionary definition is "to become furiously angry".
But we appear to be discussing "to hold and express
prejudices that society rejects".

There does come to mind Adolf Hitler, although he's mostly
unpopular again now. But he did go from crazy guy on a
political fringe, to being in government. I don't know his story
well enough to say whether he "recovered" in a personal
sense, or whether he only benefitted from society coming
round to his point of view. As may many other people with a
political aspiration and a nightmare vision for the world.

I think it can be said that the reputation of Roman Polanski
has had ups and downs over the years.

[Andrew McDowell]

There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").

I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

[Alan]

There is no "free speech issue" here.

People are free to decide whether or not they wish to associate
themselves with an asshole such as Adams.

Many are freely choosing... ...not.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 12:00:05 AM UTC-7, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it
> a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access
> to public debate because of the views that they have expressed?

While, in general, it is not, if one's livelihood depends on one's reputation,
and one has expressed views seen as noxious, as individual members of the
public are free to choose what they consume, what could possibly be done?

> One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That the mainstream news media does not choose to devote space to
utter nonsense clumsily concocted for political purposes does not seem
to me to be a bug, but a feature.

> Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak
> hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken
> seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

And yet the Centers for Disease Control have not joined in. Wouldn't
that be the _competent_ government agency on this issue?

I think the issue here can be expressed succinctly: can you say
"Trump appointee"?

However, be that as it may, from what has appeared in the *mainstream
media*, it is clear that the People's Republic of China _is_ to blame
for the COVID-19 pandemic. The doctors who first encountered the
outbreak in Wuhan were threatened with imprisonment for "spreading
rumors" when they initially sought to sound the alarm - thus, by the time
Communist Party officials in a position to authorize warnings about the
virus took it seriously, it had spread too far to stop.

So we had the pandemic because of the totalitarian nature of the PRC.

Given that, there is no need for speculation about unprovable theories
for which we have no evidence... and no means of obtaining any. Of
course, it _can_ be safely noted that the lab leak hypothesis has not been
_disproven_ either.

John Savard

[William Hyde]

Indeed. Many years ago the Globe dropped the far better cartoon, "Alex" for Dilbert,
by then already well past its prime. Now they've dropped Dilbert. The creators of
neither have had their free speech impaired.

Mind you, if they bring Alex back it will be a bonus for me. Alex is best during a
financial crisis (Alex is a merchant banker) so at the moment it's only about
twice as good, for me (he stresses) as Dilbert.

William Hyde

[David Johnston]

The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.

>Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

It was always a credible possibility. What is incredible is that it was
a deliberately engineered biological warfare agent. Also now that the
DOE has expressed an opinion, I'm eager to find out what the National
Mint, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Weights and
Measures thinks.

[John Halpenny]

A person is free to associate with, or not, anyone he wishes to. How does that work if the person's books are burned, or, the modern equivalent, his internet channels are closed?

John

[David Johnston]

https://i1.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/silenced.png

[Andrew McDowell]

I view Alex most mornings at https://www.alexcartoon.com/ (delayed and I think with a few days missing for non-subscribers like me).

[Chris Buckley]

On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>
>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>
> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.

The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
Biden's debate point:
Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
Rudy Giuliani.

You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
year) issued statements concurring with him.

Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
(silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
"volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
campaign!

Chris

[Scott Lurndal]

Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
>The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
>it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
>and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

A bald assertion without appropriate citations...

As the bard wrote, 'much ado about nothing'.

[Alan]

On 2023-03-02 07:23, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
> and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

Give an example.

>
> And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
> Biden's debate point:
> Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
> what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
> that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
> the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
> garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
> Rudy Giuliani.
>
> You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
> it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
> statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
> knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
> Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
> Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
> Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
> year) issued statements concurring with him.

You mean DNI, John Ratcliffe...

...the Republican appointed by Trump?

>
> Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
> (silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
> about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
> "volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
> change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
> campaign!

So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
websites like:

USAToday:

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>

CNN:

<hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>

The Washington Post:

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>

Like those?



Oh and Ratcliffe was accused of abusing his position to benefit Trump's
campaign...

...by retired intelligence officials employed by both Democrat and
Republican presidents.


<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/12/trumps-intel-chief-is-undermining-us-intelligence-he-should-resign/>

'While the 2020 debates and President Trump contracting covid-19
dominated everyone’s attention over the past week, Director of National
Intelligence John Ratcliffe has been up to no good — undertaking the
most blatant and egregious politicization of intelligence that we, two
career intelligence officers, have ever seen.'



<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/brennan-ratcliffe-declassifying-intelligence-clinton-russia/index.html>

'“John Ratcliffe is anything but an intelligence professional. It is
appalling his selective declassification of information. It is designed
to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who
are aligned with him,” Brennan said of the director of national
intelligence.'

That would be John Brennan...first appointed by Bush.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 14:51:28 -0800 (PST), John Halpenny
<j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:43:34?PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:

If you are talking about the 1st amendment, that applies mostly to
forming groups:

the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization
without any constraint or external restriction:
"it would violate their First Amendment rights of free association and
free expression"

It does not confer immunity to book banning, never mind burning, or
ejection from the internet.

And that's not noting that the 1st Amendment only applies to the
/Federal Government/ (and, by extension, the States), not to private
organizations.

And it is not a right to /force/ yourself on others.

The newspapers dropping Dilbert have the right to decide to /not/
associate with it.

As I said elsewhere, actions have consequences.

Make speeches that cause damage to the campus and you can expect to
get billed for the damages and maybe required to pre-pay a fee or be
bonded in the future. If you are allowed to speak there in the future
at all.

[Chris Buckley]

On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-03-02 07:23, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>>
>>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>>
>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>>
>> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
>> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
>> and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.
>
> Give an example.

I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
If you want a high profile example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
"for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
Post's article.
Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
tweet to regain access to her account.

>> And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
>> Biden's debate point:
>> Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
>> what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
>> that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
>> the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
>> garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
>> Rudy Giuliani.
>>
>> You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
>> it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
>> statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
>> knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
>> Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
>> Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
>> Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
>> year) issued statements concurring with him.
>
> You mean DNI, John Ratcliffe...
>
> ...the Republican appointed by Trump?

Oh, how unusual that a Presidential advisor be appointed by the President!
I never would have expected that (more sarcasm).
(Obama, Trump, and Biden all appointed their own DNI upon taking office.
DNI was started under Bush due to the failings of the CIA).
The DNI is the person supposedly in charge of all the intelligence
agencies and would be the top person who could make such a statement.

>> Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
>> (silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
>> about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
>> "volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
>> change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
>> campaign!
>
> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
> websites like:
>
> USAToday:
>
><https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
>
> CNN:
>
><hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>
>
> The Washington Post:
>
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
>
> Like those?

Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.

I'll ask the readership here:
How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?

>
> Oh and Ratcliffe was accused of abusing his position to benefit Trump's
> campaign...
>
> ...by retired intelligence officials employed by both Democrat and
> Republican presidents.
>
>
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/12/trumps-intel-chief-is-undermining-us-intelligence-he-should-resign/>
>
> 'While the 2020 debates and President Trump contracting covid-19
> dominated everyone’s attention over the past week, Director of National
> Intelligence John Ratcliffe has been up to no good — undertaking the
> most blatant and egregious politicization of intelligence that we, two
> career intelligence officers, have ever seen.'
>
>
>
><https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/brennan-ratcliffe-declassifying-intelligence-clinton-russia/index.html>
>
> '“John Ratcliffe is anything but an intelligence professional. It is
> appalling his selective declassification of information. It is designed
> to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who
> are aligned with him,” Brennan said of the director of national
> intelligence.'
>
> That would be John Brennan...first appointed by Bush.

That's a typical "Alan" argument from you: you have no way to attack the
message (that the laptop was not Russian disinformation) so you attack the
messenger instead. You ignore the fact that none of the criticism you cite
or that I've seen, in any way suggests that Ratcliffe will lie. And you
ignore the fact that the FBI and Justice Department supported Ratcliffe's
statement. I really don't know what you are trying to prove here!

Chris

[David Johnston]

On 2023-03-02 8:23 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,

We were denied dick pics! This outrage will not stand!

[Paul S Person]

On 2 Mar 2023 20:20:24 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

<snippo mucho>

>> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
>> websites like:
>>
>> USAToday:
>>
>><https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
>>
>> CNN:
>>
>><hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>
>>
>> The Washington Post:
>>
>><https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
>>
>> Like those?
>
>Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.
>
>I'll ask the readership here:
>How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
>the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
>Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?

I never understood why something Biden's son did when Biden was VP was
of any significance whatsoever. We no longer hold parents responsible
for their children's actions; indeed, God Himself disavows this policy
in the Bible, so the Republicans, being so religious, should certainly
not have been trying to do so.

Trump's treatment of Zelensky, OTOH, was front and center whenever I
thought of the Ukraine.

I never wanted Trump removed, BTW; that would have left Pence in
charge, whose views are no better than Trump's but who is an
/effective/ leader, something Trump is not and never will be.

<snippo more>

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:45:19 -0700, David Johnston

Can I take it that which pictures are available depends on which
version (IIRC, there are at least three) of the contents of the drive
is being discussed.

That's a neat trick -- one device, one drive, three versions. Can you
spell "hoax"?

[Chris Buckley]

Yes. Hoax. Your insinuation here is a complete hoax. You seem to take
great delight in insinuating things that you don't believe. I'm not
sure why you are that fond of deception.

Chris

[Andrew McDowell]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:05:05 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2023 20:20:24 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> <snippo mucho>
> >> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
> >> websites like:
> >>
> >> USAToday:
> >>
> >><https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
> >>
> >> CNN:
> >>
> >><hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>
> >>
> >> The Washington Post:
> >>
> >><https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
> >>
> >> Like those?
> >
> >Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.
> >
> >I'll ask the readership here:
> >How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
> >the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
> >Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?
> I never understood why something Biden's son did when Biden was VP was
> of any significance whatsoever. We no longer hold parents responsible
> for their children's actions; indeed, God Himself disavows this policy
> in the Bible, so the Republicans, being so religious, should certainly
> not have been trying to do so.
>

(trimmed)
Ted Cruz spent some time on this, and you can look at old episodes of his podcast "Verdict" to hear it for yourselves. Cruz claimed that he was never interested in Hunter's less than exemplary behaviour for itself. His argument was that the foreign businesses paying Hunter for his supposed skills were not really buying his skills, but his influence with Joe Biden. Cruz tried to show that there was evidence of money transfers from Hunter to Biden passing on these payments. There is also the question of how Joe Biden might support Hunter if Hunter wasn't making all of this money. Cruz also got hold of a report that Hunter had produced I think as a combined initial piece of work and sales brochure. Cruz claimed that the language and general professionalism of the report suggested that this was in fact a cut and paste job from something like a background briefing given to Joe Biden. The classification or otherwise of the report and of any sections cut and pasted was a subject of Cruz's surmise, but he had no real evidence for the report's existence, least of all its classification.

[David Johnston]

On 2023-03-03 10:06 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:45:19 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-03-02 8:23 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>>>
>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>>>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>>>
>>> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
>>> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
>>
>> We were denied dick pics! This outrage will not stand!
>
> Can I take it that which pictures are available depends on which
> version (IIRC, there are at least three) of the contents of the drive
> is being discussed.

There was supposedly more than one drive although the others were
discarded with just some data retrieved.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:29:24 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell
<mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:

None of which suggests that the "story" is worth pursuing.

[Paul S Person]

IIRC, it is the original "discoverer" of "the laptop" that has stated
publicly that he has provided multiple versions (not copies,
versions).

But I could be mis-remembering, or the source might be ... Fox or
someone even less reliable.

[Dimensional Traveler]

It is pursued because they are throwing rotten spaghetti at the wall
trying to get anything to stick. Hunter Biden's behavior isn't the
point of the exercise, the damage to their opposition that they can use
the appearance of it to cause is the point.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Chris Buckley]

All of which doesn't increase the likelihood of a h-o-a-x one bit.

As I said, I'm not sure why you suggest all these liberal conspiracy
theories when it's clear you don't believe them.

I don't for an instance think that you now believe Hunter's laptop
is a hoax.

Chris

[Paul S Person]

I agree with that analysis of the situation.

But /is/ there any damage to their opposition? Or are they shooting
themselves in the foot, so to speak?

[Paul S Person]

I have no doubt he had a laptop. Possibly more than one, if only
sequentially.

But that the laptop in question was his, or that any of the various
versions of the contents are real, is a different issue entirely.

And the relevance of it to anything that matters is even more obscure.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Depends on who you ask. The MAGA base believes them but then the base
believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
to be whipped up to vote Republican. The main effect appears to be
whipping them up to do more than just vote.

Everyone else? Probably very little effect other than the casualties
suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.

[Chris Buckley]

I admite I am much more concerned about the censorship and deliberate
disinformation aspects than what the contents of the laptop show.

But I remain bemused by your objections here and elsewhere to the
Republicans "throwing spaghetti against the wall" when you spend
so much time and posts here spreading disinformation that you
don't believe in.

Chris

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".

This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
local problem.

[Dimensional Traveler]

What's this "may, eventually" bit? Right wing extremist groups have
long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.

[Lynn McGuire]

Those numbers are patently false. The single largest terrorist event in
the last 50 years in the USA was muslim extremists in New York City who
killed 2,977 innocent souls and destroyed several billion dollars of
real estate property and air planes in a single event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are many other events with deaths and property destruction by
muslims in the USA. Many.

If you want to extend the time period to 100 years then we can talk
about Pearl Harbor.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 3/6/2023 2:31 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

>>>> Depends on who you ask.  The MAGA base believes them but then the base
>>>> believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
>>>> to be whipped up to vote Republican.  The main effect appears to be
>>>> whipping them up to do more than just vote.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else?  Probably very little effect other than the casualties
>>>> suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.
>>>
>>> Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".
>>>
>>> This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
>>> local problem.
>>
>> What's this "may, eventually" bit?  Right wing extremist groups have
>> long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
>> are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.
>
>Those numbers are patently false.

Only if you don't actually read _WHAT WAS WRITTEN_. "#1 domestic terrorist problem"
is what was written; as 9/11 wasn't a domestic terrorism event, it's not
relevent to WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE.

All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
techniques are not anathema when in support of their
religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
one or the other.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <tu5mf4$2ejs$6...@dont-email.me>,

(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm... Depends on whether or not you consider said Muslim
extremists to be right wing or not. (Alternatively, that attack
was not by *domestic* terrorists.)

>If you want to extend the time period to 100 years then we can talk
>about Pearl Harbor.

I think Perl Harbor in generally considered to be a *military*
attack rather than a terrorist attack, much less a domestic
terrorist attack.

Personally, I classify the attack on Pearl Harbor as a failed
attempt to finesse then-prevailing rules of engagement as the
Japanese goverment intent was to deliver an ultimatum/de facto
declaration of war before the attack but too late to take any
action against it.

[Lynn McGuire]

Ah, this is a gotcha statement with a carefully designed criteria to
ignore reality. Gotcha.

Lynn

[WolfFan]

On Mar 6, 2023, Lynn McGuire wrote
(in article <tu5mf4$2ejs$6...@dont-email.me>):

Not a _domestic_ terror incident.

#1 _domestic_ terror event would be Timmy McVeigh blowing up the Federal
Building in Oklahoma City. That’s way above terror events such as the
Weather Underground and Puerto Rican Nationalists, who are fighting it out
for #2 behind right-wingers. And, yes, Timmy-boy was, by far, the #1 domestic
terror boy.

>
>
> There are many other events with deaths and property destruction by
> muslims in the USA. Many.

Not _domestic_ terror events.

>
>
> If you want to extend the time period to 100 years then we can talk
> about Pearl Harbor.

Not a terror event.
>
>
> Lynn

[WolfFan]

On Mar 6, 2023, Lynn McGuire wrote

(in article <tu5p2r$33mj$1...@dont-email.me>):

No. It was a statement about _domestic_ terror events. And it was perfectly
factual. Timmy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist. He was right-wing. He blew
up a Federal Building, killing _children_ in the day-care center, for
political purposes. It doesn’t get any more domestic terror than that. Even
the mad-dog Puerto Ricans didn’t blow up day-care centers.
>
>
> Lynn

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
> techniques are not anathema when in support of their
> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
> one or the other.

This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
numerous other incidents of that nature.

It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists
have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized
countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith
for quite some time now.

John Savard

[WolfFan]

On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):

Only if you don’t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&
associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boil
over again.

And, of course, you’re restricting the to ‘western industrialized
countries’. Assorted religious nutjobs, nominally Hindu and Buddhist, are
still doing naughty things in India, for just one example. (India has Muslim
nutjobs, too, of course; the Indian Muslim nutjobs and Hindi nutjobs feed off
each other; the Buddhists are self-starting. And don’t like the Muslims,
either. It’s a legacy of the Mughals.)

[pete...@gmail.com]

Muslim-American domestic terrorism exists, but its at a very low level, and dropping.

https://tcths.sanford.duke.edu/2021/01/14/muslim-american-involvement-with-violent-extremism-2001-2020/

pt

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20 AM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >
> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their
> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
> > > one or the other.
> >
> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
> > numerous other incidents of that nature.
> >
> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists
> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized
> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith
> > for quite some time now.
> >
> > John Savard
> Only if you don’t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&
> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boil
> over again.

Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, killing
386 people.

Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:31:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

I was trying to not be attacked for exaggerating. Thanks for taking on
that burden.

My last line, of course, only makes sense if you remember Ronnie's
reaction to the early abortion clinic bombings.

As to the statistic ... I'll see how the discussion develops.

It reminds me of a claim that came out, once again, with 6 months of
the 9/11 catastrophe -- that air travel was the safest mode of travel
and most deaths occurred from problems when landing or taking off.

The problem was, of course, that the "safest mode" only makes sense if
the 3K or so who died in the buildings are somehow not attributed to
the fact that flying bombs (aka airplanes) were flown into them. and
the second part only makes sense if the planes were trying to land.

Of course, the claim came out because it came out periodically and it
was time to put it out again, being basically propaganda promoting air
travel by brainless persons, now revealed to be tactless as well.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 06:33:55 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31?PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
>> techniques are not anathema when in support of their
>> religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
>> one or the other.
>
>This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
>terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
>context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
>numerous other incidents of that nature.

Only if the statement "cats can be trained to use litter boxes" is
relevant to the topic "how to housebreak your dog".

[Scott Lurndal]

"pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote=20
>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):
>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wro=
>te:=20
>> >=20
>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist=20
>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their=20
>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out=20
>> > > one or the other.=20
>> >=20
>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic=20
>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the=20
>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and=20
>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.=20
>> >=20
>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists=20
>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized=20
>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith=20
>> > for quite some time now.=20
>> >=20
>> > John Savard
>> Only if you don=E2=80=99t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&=
>=20
>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boi=
>l=20
>> over again.=20
>
>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, kil=
>ling
>386 people.=20

>
>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.

One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
east by the USA.

[Dimensional Traveler]

You are welcome. ;)

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> east by the USA.

The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.

If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
something is wrong with them.

Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

It stems from their concept of "dhimmi". In Egypt, for example,
Coptic Christians don't have equal rights. If the United States
were to empower the Coptic Christians to enjoy full equality
by making them citizens of a sovereign state, strong enough
to resist any potential attack by Egypt, I'm sure that this, too,
would be considered objectionable.

Or look at the blasphemy law in Pakistan.

Basically: a lot of the Muslims living in majority-Muslim countries
see nothing wrong with a situation where if a Muslim commits
a crime there against a non-Muslim, he can get away with it,
and if the non-Muslims resist, it's a crime against nature!

So the fact that the Jews of Israel successfully resisted, by
armed force, an attempt to put them under Muslim misrule of that
sort... instead of being accepted as getting what they deserved,
and resolving to do better and wipe out discrimination against
non-Muslims in their countries in future... resulted in them
doubling down on their wrong thinking.

This led to further losses of territory to Israel after subsequent
attempts to commit aggression against it.

If only the Soviet Union could have fallen back in 1973, just
after the Yom Kippur War had started, instead of much later.

There would have been an end to the oil embargo, and all the
countries that participated in the attack on Israel, or the breaking
of contracts for export of oil... would have ended up under U.S. or
Israeli occupation. Peace in the Middle East would then have
resulted.

After the Holocaust, only a truly sick evil person wants to kill
Jews. We just have to get the entire Muslim world agreeing
with this sentiment the same way people in the Northeastern
United States do.

And, of course, when the Soviet Union did fall, China didn't have
nuclear submarines yet. So the U.S. could have destroyed its
nuclear capability, and carried out regime change - giving the
mainland back to Taiwan, except for Tibet and Uighuristan,
which would become independent. Then Russia would no longer
have any need of nuclear weapons to defend itself from China.

And so with an agreement to impose a Peace Constitution on
Russia like that of Japan, the current issue in Ukraine would
no longer have happened.

Instead, we have a world order that, as dramatized in Ukraine,
still holds the possibility of war that the world's sensible
democratic nations can't simply say "Stop right now, or else"
to and get immediate results.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:20:30 PM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> > Give an example.

> I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
> blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
> If you want a high profile example:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
> The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
> personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
> "for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
> Post's article.
> Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
> tweet to regain access to her account.

And how is that misconduct on the part of Twitter?

They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.

> I'll ask the readership here:
> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?

I'll have to look up the details to see if this is genuinely trustworthy.

However, it's still disinformation. That the Republican Party,
or QAnon, or somebody else is at fault doesn't change it from
being a lie.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote=

>
>
>Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

Ask Lord Balfour.

[pete...@gmail.com]

One could argue that, but OBL and others in his group explicitly
linked 9/11 to the blasphemy of non-Muslim soldiers being
present in the land of the Two Holy Mosques.

Pt

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:14:20?AM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
>> (in article<707e1ea9-4b71-453d...@googlegroups.com>):

>> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:15:31?PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >
>> > > All religions have (or have had) those to whom terrorist
>> > > techniques are not anathema when in support of their
>> > > religion (Irgun comes to mind, for example); no need to single out
>> > > one or the other.
>> >
>> > This is true, but in the context of 9/11, as opposed to domestic
>> > terrorism, it could be considered misleading. Or rather, in the
>> > context of the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, 9/11, and
>> > numerous other incidents of that nature.
>> >
>> > It certainly appears that terror attacks from Muslim extremists
>> > have been a much bigger problem for Western industrialized
>> > countries than terror attacks related to any other religious faith
>> > for quite some time now.
>> >
>> > John Savard
>> Only if you don’t count terror attacks mounted by, say, the IRA&
>> associated murderers. The IRA has cooled down, lately, but can easily boil
>> over again.
>
>Wikipedia finds 20 Muslim terrorist attacks in the EU during 2014-2020, killing
>386 people.
>
>Not trivial. The US has actually managed much better.

That's because we aren't going out of our way to antagonize them.

It's still the terrorists who are responsible for the deaths, to be
sure.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 17:12:31 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ah, blaming the victim.

Sorry, no sale!

And, besides, what was /actually/ cited by Bin Laden was the Crusades.
The USA had nothing to do with the Crusades.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:37:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you want to extend the time period to 100 years then we can talk
>about Pearl Harbor.

I well remember the morning of 9/11/2001 when my wife asked me who I
thought might have done it.

I said there were really only 2 groups of people who had done suicidal
attacks "and the Japanese haven't done too many since 1945..."

(I was specifically thinking of the attack on the Beirut embassy but
there were of course plenty of other potential examples)

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:12:54 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 3/6/2023 2:31 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2023 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 09:09:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>
>>>>> Depends on who you ask.  The MAGA base believes them but then the base
>>>>> believes anything they say and already hates "outsiders" so doesn't need
>>>>> to be whipped up to vote Republican.  The main effect appears to be
>>>>> whipping them up to do more than just vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone else?  Probably very little effect other than the casualties
>>>>> suffered from the "more than just vote" MAGA contingent.
>>>>
>>>> Who may, eventually, move into the category "domestic terrorist".
>>>>
>>>> This isn't the 80's. And Ronnie isn't in charge to claim it's only a
>>>> local problem.
>>>
>>> What's this "may, eventually" bit?  Right wing extremist groups have
>>> long since moved into the #1 domestic terrorist problem in the US and
>>> are responsible for over 90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US.
>>
>>Those numbers are patently false.
>
>Only if you don't actually read _WHAT WAS WRITTEN_. "#1 domestic terrorist problem"
>is what was written; as 9/11 wasn't a domestic terrorism event, it's not
>relevent to WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE.

Actually "90% of all terrorist caused deaths in the US" doesn't filter
out terrorist caused deaths done by foreign nationals in the US.

One definition includes 9/11 (done by foreign nationals but definitely
taking place in the US). You've muddied the waters by limiting things
to domestic terrorists on the one hand and not the other.

A good example being the Boston Marathon bombers - who were definitely
mass murderers (or trying to be - and I'd argue an unsuccessful
attempt should also count) though not native born Americans.

(Heck if I drive my car into a crowd of people in Seattle vs
Vancouver.bc.ca is it fundamentally different aside from the police
force that is involved?)

(In the unlikely event you've forgotten about Boston I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing )

[Chris Buckley]

Do you have a cite for that? I haven't seen that before!

He said on several occasions, both before and after, that he was going
to attack the US to drive it off its military bases in Saudi Arabia.
He also had mentioned the Iraq sanctions and Israel and other
interferences in the Middle East by the USA. Sounds pretty
consistent to me!

Chris

[pete...@gmail.com]

OBL regarded non-Muslim armies in KSA as new Crusaders.

Pt

[Chris Buckley]

On 2023-03-07, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:20:30 PM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> > Give an example.
>
>> I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
>> blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
>> If you want a high profile example:
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
>> The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
>> personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
>> "for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
>> Post's article.
>> Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
>> tweet to regain access to her account.
>
> And how is that misconduct on the part of Twitter?
>
> They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
> to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.

What lies were being spread? Be precise. What harm is being caused?

>> I'll ask the readership here:
>> How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
>> the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
>> Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?
>
> I'll have to look up the details to see if this is genuinely trustworthy.
>
> However, it's still disinformation. That the Republican Party,
> or QAnon, or somebody else is at fault doesn't change it from
> being a lie.

Who is it fault for this disinformation? What is the disinformation
being spread? My claim was that this time it was the Democrats
spreading it, and the liberal press was supporting them. Yes, it was
a lie.

I don't understand your point.

If you look at the post-last-debate factchecks from the liberal press,
they don't generally mention Biden's lie at all.

Chris

[Titus G]

On 10/03/23 01:11, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-07, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

snip

>> They have a perfect right not to allow their social media platform
>> to be misused for spreading lies with the intent of causing harm.
>
> What lies were being spread? Be precise. What harm is being caused?

You are addressing Fourbricks-In-An-Otherwise-Empty-Skull who fervently
subscibes to the belief that anything that questions US propaganda is by
definition a lie and harmful to World Peace and Freedom.

[Lynn McGuire]

My thought also.

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 5:11:15 AM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
> My claim was that this time it was the Democrats
> spreading it, and the liberal press was supporting them.

That is unsupported by any credible source of information.

Of _course_ it helps if one defines the liberal press as
trustworthy, and the Republicans as worthless liars whose
words hold no weight whatever.

Explaining _why_ I came to such a conclusiion, however,
in a convincing manner, might well be difficult. If it was
easy, both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would have won
their respective elections in landslides, and today the
Democrats would control 80% of both Houses of Congress.

I was just reading an article in the Washington Post, that
bastion of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat sentiment.
I don't think the statements of fact in that article were
falsified.

What it said was that, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,
several U.S. states - and they're all, no surprise, states controlled
by Republicans - have passed laws stripping their public health
officials of the power to order mask mandates, to quarantine
people, to require proof of vaccination to engage in certain
activities with the potential to spread disease, and so on.

Which means that, if there is another pandemic, it won't be
possible to react in time to prevent it from spreading
catastrophically.

So I have reached the conclusion that Republicans are a danger
to my life, and my objectivity has been skeweed accordingly.

And then there's January 6th.

A violent mob tries to prevent the will of the American
people in selecting their next President from being
carried out.

But that's not what they believe they're doing. They believe they're
instead _defending_ the will of the American people, because
the votes had been counted fraudulently.

Americans who had enough courage to be heroes, but,
unfortunately, not enough brains to avoid being made dupes
of by the real villains.

But why did it look convincingly like the election was stolen?

Because the results that time were unusual. Thanks to the
pandemic, a lot of the votes were sent in by mail-in ballots.

And that let black people vote, without having to stand in line
for hours and hours - because in some states, the Republicans
deliberately ensure there aren't enough polling stations in
neighborhoods where black people live.

The Republican Party today has fallen far from the days of
Abraham Lincoln. Today, it is the party of lies and racism.

As far as Hunter Biden, the information that I have is that he
was acting properly on the behalf of the Obama Administration,
and the claims otherwise by Republicans haven't been substantiated
with a shred of evidence - and those claims also keep
contradicting each other as well. And the liberal press has
maintained that story consistently, without contradicting
themselves.

Which, of course, doesn't prove it's the truth.

But given that it's the *Republican* Party that contains those who would
obstruct and hinder aid to the heroic defenders of Ukraine,
why anything they might say is even worth a few seconds of my
time to listen to is a mystery.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:59:15 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> And of course OBL's objection to the Crusades completely ignores the
> Muslim invasions of the Balkans and Iberia a few hundred years prior.

It's certainly true that the Muslims were fundamentally the aggressors
in the overall conflict.

That doesn't mean, though, that the Crusades weren't questionable.

The original Muslim aggression was beaten back. Peace treaties were
signed.

Then, fifty years later, the Pope decided that invading the Muslim world
would be a salutary exercise for Christendom, and the Crusades started.

Thus, to view the Crusades as a subsequent aggression by the Christian
world, rather than a defensive action against Muslim aggression... is not
a point of view that exactly puts any strain on credulity.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Don't forget the muslim attempted invasion of Austria, under 400 years
ago in 1683.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Lynn

[Hamish Laws]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22 AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> > east by the USA.
> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>
> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
> something is wrong with them.

You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank

>
> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?

Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...

[Scott Lurndal]

Which was far more about territory than religion.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:12:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Even if we don't blame it on Islam, per se, there is the political
doctrine known as "Islamism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Sorta like the difference between members of mainstream Christian sects
and the Rushdoonian Dominionists/Theonomists/Reconstructionists..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

--
Kevin R

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:08:11 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22?AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:

>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>> > east by the USA.
>> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
>> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>>
>> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
>> something is wrong with them.
>
>You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank
>
>>
>> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?
>
>Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...

Israel's behavior has indeed become unacceptable and ultimately
suicidal. And stokes well-motivated hatred.

But Israel was hated before it was born. It was hated because it was
for Jews, and a lot of Muslims can't have that. Nice, quiet,
self-effacing, extra tax-paying Jews they can stomach, but not Jews
strutting about as if they were actually human beings.

An article in /Smithsonian/ about 3 decades ago was by a truck driver
who worked in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One of the books he found
was titled "Saddam -- the New Hitler". Adolf was a hero to these
people; their only compaint was that he didn't finish the job.

But, as I say, Israel has long gone down a path of repression which
will eventually result in its own destruction.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:55:45 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

And this matters ... how?

We aren't discussing the proposition "all religions start wars". We
are discussing whether 9/11 being revenge for the Crusades, or even
for supporting Israel, makes any sense at all.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 12:59:13 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/9/2023 12:31 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/8/2023 11:32 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

It also ignores the fact that the Mongols are the ones who destroyed
the Muslim civilizations in Central Asia, not the Crusaders.

9/11 would have made a /lot/ more sense, historically, in Ulan Bator.
Or perhaps Beijing, as China was controlled by the Mongols then.

The destruction, BTW, was so bad that the civilizations collapsed and
became the cramped and angry culture touted by the radical Muslims.

Libraries were burned. Irrigation systems were destroyed. Conquerors
sat on hills ("mountains") of skulls.

Much as the Counter-reformation did to Roman Catholicism. People tend
to cower down and get strict when their civilization dies.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Wikipedia summarizes OBLs 2002 'Letter to America' thus:

"These motivations were published in bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[4][5]
in which he said that al-Qaeda's motives for the attacks included Western support for
attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya,
supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, condoning the 1982
massacres in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[5][6][7] US support of
Israel,[8][9] and sanctions against Iraq.[10]"

...so the real answer appears to be "all of the above".

Pt

[Alan]

Yup. Pretty much spot on.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 3/10/2023 8:29 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:08:11 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22?AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
>>>> so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
>>>> east by the USA.
>>> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
>>> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>>>
>>> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
>>> something is wrong with them.
>>
>> You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank
>>
>>>
>>> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?
>>
>> Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...
>
> Israel's behavior has indeed become unacceptable and ultimately
> suicidal. And stokes well-motivated hatred.
>
> But Israel was hated before it was born. It was hated because it was
> for Jews, and a lot of Muslims can't have that. Nice, quiet,
> self-effacing, extra tax-paying Jews they can stomach, but not Jews
> strutting about as if they were actually human beings.
>
> An article in /Smithsonian/ about 3 decades ago was by a truck driver
> who worked in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One of the books he found
> was titled "Saddam -- the New Hitler". Adolf was a hero to these

> people; their only complaint was that he didn't finish the job.
>
Saddam's political party started out literally as a WW2 Nazi party local
to the Middle East and actively supporting the Third Reich in its war on
the rest of Europe.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:38:22 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> > east by the USA.
> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
>
> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
> something is wrong with them.
>

> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?
>

> It stems from their concept of "dhimmi". In Egypt, for example,
> Coptic Christians don't have equal rights. If the United States
> were to empower the Coptic Christians to enjoy full equality
> by making them citizens of a sovereign state, strong enough
> to resist any potential attack by Egypt, I'm sure that this, too,
> would be considered objectionable.
>
> Or look at the blasphemy law in Pakistan.
>
> Basically: a lot of the Muslims living in majority-Muslim countries
> see nothing wrong with a situation where if a Muslim commits
> a crime there against a non-Muslim, he can get away with it,
> and if the non-Muslims resist, it's a crime against nature!
>
> So the fact that the Jews of Israel successfully resisted, by
> armed force, an attempt to put them under Muslim misrule of that
> sort... instead of being accepted as getting what they deserved,
> and resolving to do better and wipe out discrimination against
> non-Muslims in their countries in future... resulted in them
> doubling down on their wrong thinking.
>
> This led to further losses of territory to Israel after subsequent
> attempts to commit aggression against it.
>
> If only the Soviet Union could have fallen back in 1973, just
> after the Yom Kippur War had started, instead of much later.
>
> There would have been an end to the oil embargo, and all the
> countries that participated in the attack on Israel, or the breaking
> of contracts for export of oil... would have ended up under U.S. or
> Israeli occupation. Peace in the Middle East would then have
> resulted.
>

This totally ignores an underlying cause of the oil shiekdoms wanting
to break those contracts: the inflation of the 1960s and 1970s, which
culminated with Nixon severing the link between the US dollar and gold
for foreign holders of the currency.

> After the Holocaust, only a truly sick evil person wants to kill
> Jews. We just have to get the entire Muslim world agreeing
> with this sentiment the same way people in the Northeastern
> United States do.
>
> And, of course, when the Soviet Union did fall, China didn't have
> nuclear submarines yet. So the U.S. could have destroyed its
> nuclear capability, and carried out regime change - giving the
> mainland back to Taiwan, except for Tibet and Uighuristan,
> which would become independent. Then Russia would no longer
> have any need of nuclear weapons to defend itself from China.
>

> And so with an agreement to impose a Peace Constitution on
> Russia like that of Japan, the current issue in Ukraine would
> no longer have happened.
>
> Instead, we have a world order that, as dramatized in Ukraine,
> still holds the possibility of war that the world's sensible
> democratic nations can't simply say "Stop right now, or else"
> to and get immediate results.
>
>

Once again, Quaddie reports from cloud cuckoo land.
China had ballistic missile capabilities by the second half
of the 1960s, and any attempt to eradicate her nuclear
capability would have resulted in counter-value strikes, in
an era without anti-ballistic missiles more sophisticated
than Nike-Zeus. "Blow a nuke up in the upper atmosphere
to stop incoming nukes" is not going to protect folks from
fallout, in the long run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus

We couldn't successfully occupy Afghanistan nor Iraq. Do
you think we could have lorded it over all Russia and China?

--
Kevin R

[Lynn McGuire]

Russia is dead, China is dying. Both are undergoing population implosions.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/04/russias-population-nightmare-is-going-to-get-even-worse
and

https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-not-yet-crisis-beijings-response-could-make-it-one

Lynn

[William Hyde]

In fact he wanted Spain back. As the old saying goes:

"What's yours is mine and what's mine is me own".

William Hyde

[Dimensional Traveler]

Humph. I hadn't heard that but somehow I am not surprised by it.

[Dimensional Traveler]

And one notes the damage to others from the "dying" countries thrashing
around.

[Lynn McGuire]

Yup. I am hoping that China does not trash Taiwan on its way down.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Rhetoric, not fact. Yes, there is a demographic decrease in
most first and second world countries. Given current economic
structures built on the idea of infinite growth, that is indeed
a problem.

It, however, in no way imply that either Russia or China are dying.

Desperation to preserve their current system(s) will inevetiably
lead to lashing out, as we already seen in Ukraine.

[Lynn McGuire]

If you ain't growing, you are dying. There is no such thing as
maintaining the current status for countries.

And as you have pointed out, Russia has lashed out at Ukraine causing
million(s) of young men to flee Russia.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:21:42 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 2:43 PM, Kevrob wrote:

[snip]

> > We couldn't successfully occupy Afghanistan nor Iraq. Do
> > you think we could have lorded it over all Russia and China?
> Russia is dead, China is dying. Both are undergoing population implosions.
>
> https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/04/russias-population-nightmare-is-going-to-get-even-worse
> and
>
> https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-not-yet-crisis-beijings-response-could-make-it-one
>
>

Yeah, now. Was that the case before, say, 1975? Hardly.

Russia is certainly underperforming in Ukraine, compared to the reputation
of the old Soviet Union.

China as much better tech than in the period we were discussing.
It's current battlefield prowess is a question mark, though.
India is producing more military-age folks, annually.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/manpower-reaching-military-age-annually.php

China still has the most in uniform, though.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-size-by-country

--
Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:53:49 PM UTC-5, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 1:39 PM, William Hyde wrote:

[snip]

> > "What's yours is mine and what's mine is me own".
> >
> Humph. I hadn't heard that but somehow I am not surprised by it.

Remember this one?

[quote]

The Russians also tended to follow the maxim that
''What’s mine is mine; what’s yours is negotiable,” ....

[/quote] - Former Ambassador and Lt. Gen. (ret.) Edward L. Rowny

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/22/negotiating_with_the_soviets_112815.html

I could say the same about US negotiations with the native tribes
of North America, BITD.

--
Kevin R

[Dimensional Traveler]

Realistically, we would be incredibly lucky if China only trashes Taiwan
during its collapse. Considering how much of the world's manufacturing
is done in China I expect it will trash the world economy.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <tug8t8$24hv9$2...@dont-email.me>,

(Hal Heydt)
Both Russia (as run by Putin) and China have the same attitude.
Any area that has been at any time in history, been part of the
country, they believe should be part of the country *now* and
into the future.

Hence the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, with eyes on the
Baltics, Poland, much of central Asia, and some other countries.
China wants Taiwan back, plus (at least) the former province of
Annam. They tried for the later, but the Vietnamese beat them
back.

Smaller countries have the same idea. Note Serbia being
unwilling to concede that Kosovo is an indepenedent country.

The only country I know of, off hand, that hasn't behaved that
way in recent times in Denmark. The Danes did NOT take up to
offer of the WW2 Allies to give them back all of
Schleswig-Holstein and actually advanced Iceland independence
from the planned 1947 to saying it appeared to be a done deal
when WW2 ended.

[Chris Buckley]

On 2023-03-09, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 5:11:15 AM UTC-7, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> My claim was that this time it was the Democrats
>> spreading it, and the liberal press was supporting them.
>
> That is unsupported by any credible source of information.

How convenient for you that you snipped what the claims are and
all the supporting evidence. I admit I'm surprised that you
consider the FBI and Justice Department not to be "credible".

And how convenient for you that you snipped all of the direct
questions I had about your position. You even had to snip
mid-paragraph to give my quote above out of context (what is the "it"
being referred to, for instance), since it followed questions from me
that you evidently can't answer.

Once again, please identify the disinformation being spread that you are so
concerned about.

The rest of your article is a completely yet another completely
off-subject screed from you saying how you do not believe in
democracy. But whether you like it or not, it is elected officials
who are in charge of weighing the benefits and costs of changing
policies, not health officials.

Chris

[Hamish Laws]

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 3:30:15 AM UTC+11, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:08:11 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:38:22?AM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 10:12:35?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>
> >> > One might also argue that 9/11 wasn't "Muslim" terrorism
> >> > so much as it was a reaction to interference in the middle
> >> > east by the USA.
> >> The United States of America helped Kuwait defend itself
> >> from aggression, and helps Israel defend itself from aggression.
> >>
> >> If people are angry about that, clearly they're perverse, and
> >> something is wrong with them.
> >
> >You really should look at what's happening in Israel and Palestine before you go off on a bullshit rank
> >
> >>
> >> Why is so much of the Middle East hostile to the state of Israel?
> >
> >Because Israel is killing Palestinians, destroying their housing, blocking medicines, supplies etc...
> Israel's behavior has indeed become unacceptable and ultimately
> suicidal. And stokes well-motivated hatred.
>
> But Israel was hated before it was born. It was hated because it was
> for Jews, and a lot of Muslims can't have that. Nice, quiet,
> self-effacing, extra tax-paying Jews they can stomach, but not Jews
> strutting about as if they were actually human beings.

could also have something to do with European powers + the US redrawing the map again

Also there were jewish terrorist organisations operating in the area before Israel was established and Mossad has always been active in assassinations

>
> An article in /Smithsonian/ about 3 decades ago was by a truck driver
> who worked in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One of the books he found
> was titled "Saddam -- the New Hitler".

I can't find any reference to a book called that.

> Adolf was a hero to these
> people; their only compaint was that he didn't finish the job.

"These people" seems to be doing a lot of work there.
and your evidence is completely lacking

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:15:48 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> Realistically, we would be incredibly lucky if China only trashes Taiwan
> during its collapse. Considering how much of the world's manufacturing
> is done in China I expect it will trash the world economy.

For a value of "trash" that means "reinvigorate", some might say, although
there would certainly be painful short-term adjustments.

If Americans bought radios and TV sets and smartphones that were made
in the USA, there would be plenty of jobs once again. We would return to
the heady days of the 1960s, and then America _would_ be great again.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:14:26 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> And as you have pointed out, Russia has lashed out at Ukraine causing
> million(s) of young men to flee Russia.

And so Russia is _not_ dead. The dead are quite incapable of lashing out
at anything. Instead, it is very much a living menace, capable of causing
serious harm.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 07:48:50 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

But what will we do for workers?

Russia and China aren't the /only/ countries experiencing a decline.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 05:10:07 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <tug8t8$24hv9$2...@dont-email.me>,
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 3/10/2023 1:39 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> "What's yours is mine and what's mine is me own".
>>>
>>Humph. I hadn't heard that but somehow I am not surprised by it.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Both Russia (as run by Putin) and China have the same attitude.
>Any area that has been at any time in history, been part of the
>country, they believe should be part of the country *now* and
>into the future.
>
>Hence the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, with eyes on the
>Baltics, Poland, much of central Asia, and some other countries.
>China wants Taiwan back, plus (at least) the former province of
>Annam. They tried for the later, but the Vietnamese beat them
>back.
>
>Smaller countries have the same idea. Note Serbia being
>unwilling to concede that Kosovo is an indepenedent country.

But Kosovo contains the /only/ historically important Serb battle.

OK, they lost, but still ...

>The only country I know of, off hand, that hasn't behaved that
>way in recent times in Denmark. The Danes did NOT take up to
>offer of the WW2 Allies to give them back all of
>Schleswig-Holstein and actually advanced Iceland independence
>from the planned 1947 to saying it appeared to be a done deal
>when WW2 ended.

[Robert Carnegie]

It would be in Iraqish, of course.

> > Adolf was a hero to these
> > people; their only compaint was that he didn't finish the job.

Ah.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Mesopotamian Arabic.