[OT] Poll: consequences for war?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 10:03:54 PM3/18/03
to
What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?

Tick the appropriate box below:

a) [ ] nothing. Life will go on

b) [ ] increased terror attacks in US/UK

c) [ ] decreased terror attacks in US/UK

d) [ ] armageddon

e) [ ] clashes of civilizations

f) [ ] other - please specify

little D

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 10:24:03 PM3/18/03
to
> f) [ ] other - please specify

Hopefully the consequence is that you stop posting polls like this. :)

d


James Allnutt

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 10:29:47 PM3/18/03
to
> f) [X] other - please specify

OT quotient on RSS lifts above its traditional 87.2% towards 99.8%.

Richard

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 10:46:26 PM3/18/03
to
> > f) [ ] other - please specify
>
> Hopefully the consequence is that you stop posting polls like this. :)

Sorry.
I thought it was relevant to the current situation in the world :)


Lléo

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 10:44:53 PM3/18/03
to
"Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
> f) [ x ] other - please specify

No more polls about wars.

--
Lléo


Greycat Sharpclaw

unread,
Mar 18, 2003, 11:12:59 PM3/18/03
to
Meow.

There is an allegation that "Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
>
>Tick the appropriate box below:
>
>a) [ ] nothing. Life will go on

Pretty much so for Europe and North America. Iraq will be changed,
obviously.

>b) [ ] increased terror attacks in US/UK
>
>c) [ ] decreased terror attacks in US/UK

Neither will happen majorly, but given any incident or lack of
incidents, someone will credit/blaim the war for it.

>d) [ ] armageddon

No, Saddam's war machine isn't that capable. The US casualties will
be much over the last war, however, due to the urban fighting in
Bagdad.

>e) [ ] clashes of civilizations

No... the potential for that has already reached a peak, overall.

>f) [ ] other - please specify

The US will call in the UN to help with the peace... how they handle
it will determine UN credability for quite some time.

--------
Greycat Sharpclaw

Cats of the world unite; all you have to lose is your collars!

Remove the "killspam" in my address to e-mail me

boumtje brown

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 1:46:47 AM3/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:03:54 GMT, "Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
>
>Tick the appropriate box below:

>b) [ X] increased terror attacks in US/UK

mr.tim
----------------------------
rmhiphop.tripod.com
the rec.music.hiphop website
----------------------------
now ask yourself who's the one with the most to gain (BUSH!)
'fore 9-11 motherfuckers couldn't stand his name (BUSH!)
-paris

Robbie

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 5:47:21 AM3/19/03
to
In article <u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
spam_y...@yahoo.com says...

(f) [ X ] other - please specify

Just for you, idiot.

The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.

That's the only important thing you need to understand.

Benny

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 8:14:09 AM3/19/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of

There is a big difference between being a fundamentalist and an
extremist. This war will only increase Muslim's hatred towards the west.
Early in this century, I believe a report predicted within the next
10-15 years, Islam will become the biggest religion in terms of
followers in the World. Right now 60% of Muslims are aged 15 or under.
Far from being a dead duck I would be very worried if I were you when
our people unit.

>this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.

The only deeply repugnant ideology is Capitalism.

"There are three sides to every story - your side, my side and the truth"
Tom Zenk

http://soccer-europe.com

Robbie

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 9:00:17 AM3/19/03
to
In article <yOMXv4Ah...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
>
> There is a big difference between being a fundamentalist and an
> extremist.

Not in my book.

You want to impose the writings of a desert nomad on the rest of the world; I
(and others) will make sure you don't.

True if a people choose to dismantle liberal democracy by a majority vote who
am I say to say otherwise.

However, apart from the situation in Algeria where we never saw what have
happened, this hasn;t hasn't occurred.

> This war will only increase Muslim's hatred towards the west.

It really doesn't matter.

Many Muslims hate the West anyway.

We (the West) don't care.

And our will is stronger than yours.

Not that I'm anti-Muslim of course.

I just loathe bin Laden and a few levels of fanaticism lower too which you
may consider fundamentalist.

> Early in this century, I believe a report predicted within the next
> 10-15 years, Islam will become the biggest religion in terms of
> followers in the World. Right now 60% of Muslims are aged 15 or under.
> Far from being a dead duck I would be very worried if I were you when
> our people unit.

Don't project wishful thinking on to reality.

And you'll never unite.

That's a given.

> >this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.
>
> The only deeply repugnant ideology is Capitalism.

Capitalist ideologues are few and far between and most people see capitalism
as the natural order of things with a few rough edges.

Benny

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 9:33:28 AM3/19/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>Not in my book.

A fundamentalist is someone who follows the fundamentals - the basics.
The basic principal of Islam is belief in the oneness of God.

>You want to impose the writings of a desert nomad on the rest of the world; I
>(and others) will make sure you don't.

For starters the prophet (peace be upon him) didn't write but I digress,
how did you come to that conclusion? The only people who want to
establish Islamic law in the west are deviant sects such as the Hizb
ut-Tahrir.

>Many Muslims hate the West anyway.
>
>We (the West) don't care.
>
>And our will is stronger than yours.

Right now, yes.

>I just loathe bin Laden and a few levels of fanaticism lower too which you
>may consider fundamentalist.

Bin Laden isn't a fundamentalist, he is an extremist who follows another
deviant sect.

>And you'll never unite.
>
>That's a given.

History shows otherwise. The Muslims united under Salah Udeen to defeat
the crusaders and liberate Jerusalem. Right now of course there isn't
such a leader but if you think for one minute the long term aim is to
conquer the World and spread Islam by the sword you need to stop
worrying.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 10:22:47 AM3/19/03
to
In article <ifKDLRB4...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >Not in my book.
>
> A fundamentalist is someone who follows the fundamentals - the basics.
> The basic principal of Islam is belief in the oneness of God.

OK.



> >You want to impose the writings of a desert nomad on the rest of the world; I
> >(and others) will make sure you don't.
>
> For starters the prophet (peace be upon him) didn't write

So you religious people say.

> but I digress,
> how did you come to that conclusion? The only people who want to
> establish Islamic law in the west are deviant sects such as the Hizb
> ut-Tahrir.

> >Many Muslims hate the West anyway.
> >
> >We (the West) don't care.
> >
> >And our will is stronger than yours.
>
> Right now, yes.
>
> >I just loathe bin Laden and a few levels of fanaticism lower too which you
> >may consider fundamentalist.
>
> Bin Laden isn't a fundamentalist, he is an extremist who follows another
> deviant sect.

That's your judgement.

> >And you'll never unite.
> >
> >That's a given.
>
> History shows otherwise. The Muslims united under Salah Udeen to defeat
> the crusaders and liberate Jerusalem.

Temporary unity means nothing.

> Right now of course there isn't
> such a leader

> but if you think for one minute the long term aim is to
> conquer the World and spread Islam by the sword you need to stop
> worrying.

It's not what 'moderates' think that is a problem, is it?

The problem is what 'extremists' do.

Paul C

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 11:13:19 AM3/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:47:21 -0000, Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>spam_y...@yahoo.com says...
>
>(f) [ X ] other - please specify
>
>Just for you, idiot.
>
>The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
>this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.

I'm more concerned about the Texan christian fundamentalists.


--
Paul

Robbie

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 11:50:10 AM3/19/03
to
In article <3e7896fd...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>, pa...@easynet.co.uk says...

More?

I'm concerned about them too.

However, there influence can be voted out.

Paul C

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 12:21:44 PM3/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:50:10 -0000, Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <3e7896fd...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>, pa...@easynet.co.uk says...
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:47:21 -0000, Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> >spam_y...@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >(f) [ X ] other - please specify
>> >
>> >Just for you, idiot.
>> >
>> >The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
>> >this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about the Texan christian fundamentalists.
>
>More?
>
>I'm concerned about them too.
>
>However, there influence can be voted out.

Really? Does Al Gore know?


--
Paul

Manuel Freitas

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 12:41:09 PM3/19/03
to
"Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
>
> Tick the appropriate box below:
>
> e) [ x ] clashes of civilizations
>

Saddam will either die or be exhiled. Bush will loose re-election. US
will not find any WMD and the next administration will have no choice
but to abandon Iraq. Civil war will ensue soon after that. Complete
chaos will rule the region.
Many thousands more will die. But hey, who cares, they'll be free
right?

- Manuel.

Benny

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 2:24:11 PM3/19/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>> For starters the prophet (peace be upon him) didn't write

> So you religious people say.

The prophet (peace be upon him) narrated the verses of the Qur'an to his
companions who in turn wrote it. The Qur'an was compiled under the
third Caliph Uthman ibn 'Affan in 651.

>That's your judgement.

Bin Laden He and his followers have beliefs different from the prophet
(peace be upon him) so that makes him a deviant. I could post more on
this but it will all go over your head.

>It's not what 'moderates' think that is a problem, is it?
>
>The problem is what 'extremists' do.

Terrorism was a big problem in the 70's and early 80's ultimately they
achieved nothing. These deviants are the main reason that there is no
unity among the Muslims. I would be more concerned about North Korea.

Benny

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 4:57:17 PM3/19/03
to
> From : Paul C <pa...@easynet.co.uk>

> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>I'm more concerned about the Texan christian fundamentalists.

What's their story?

Paul C

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 7:57:38 PM3/19/03
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:57:17 +0000, Benny <Be...@soccer-europe.com>
wrote:

>> From : Paul C <pa...@easynet.co.uk>
>> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
>>I'm more concerned about the Texan christian fundamentalists.
>
>What's their story?

You know - the kind of people who proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day
in Texas.

George Dubya Bush


--
Paul

Mike

unread,
Mar 19, 2003, 8:28:01 PM3/19/03
to
Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
> this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.

What does Muslim fundamentalism have to do with Iraq?

Mike

--
** replace deadspam.com with cantab.net to email me **

Lucky Devin

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 12:10:54 AM3/20/03
to
> "Richard" spam_y...@yahoo.com
wrote:


g) You shut the fuck up and get out of our soccer/football newsgroup with this
fucking garbage.

There are political newsgroups you can 'discuss' this at, we have enough damn
flame wars as it is, thanks for adding fuel to the fire you dumbass.


--
...tell me why...oh why...do they build castles in the sky...
Devin Tregre

http://forums.hpoa.org LuckyDT'slude


*Ibiza!*

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:14:54 AM3/20/03
to
In article <3e78a706...@news.CIS.DFN.DE>, pa...@easynet.co.uk says...

Had they infiltrated the Clinton gov?

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:15:54 AM3/20/03
to
In article <c9fe2f11.03031...@posting.google.com>,
mmfr...@attbi.com says...

I'm a bit older than you and these kind of scenarios are regularly aired.

Clearly they don't happen.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:23:57 AM3/20/03
to
In article <dky8FrBb...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >> For starters the prophet (peace be upon him) didn't write
>
> > So you religious people say.
>
> The prophet (peace be upon him) narrated the verses of the Qur'an to his
> companions who in turn wrote it. The Qur'an was compiled under the
> third Caliph Uthman ibn 'Affan in 651.

OK.


> >That's your judgement.
>
> Bin Laden He and his followers have beliefs different from the prophet
> (peace be upon him) so that makes him a deviant.

What about the Wabbi Sect which the Sauds adhere to?

I could post more on
> this but it will all go over your head.

Depends how you approach it. You can email me if you wish.

> >It's not what 'moderates' think that is a problem, is it?
> >
> >The problem is what 'extremists' do.
>
> Terrorism was a big problem in the 70's and early 80's ultimately they
> achieved nothing. These deviants are the main reason that there is no
> unity among the Muslims. I would be more concerned about North Korea.

You're right to dismiss them as less dangerous than hyped. However, that
gives no comfort to the victims.

They are still an impediment to peace. With them operating Israel can do what
it wishes; without them Israel will be reigned in and a Palestinian state
should be created.

And you are right about North Korea.

A preemptive strike without warning on them would be a very good idea.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:26:10 AM3/20/03
to
In article <b5b5f1$88a$2...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, md...@deadspam.com says...

> Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
> > this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.
>
> What does Muslim fundamentalism have to do with Iraq?

It gives them the extremists ammo.

The jihad proclaims that Islam is under attack and all Muslims are targets
for the Crusader/Jewish alliance.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:27:51 AM3/20/03
to

> The Muslims united under Salah Udeen to defeat


> the crusaders and liberate Jerusalem.

Did you watch that recent C4 program about Richard 1 and Salah Udeen.

Excellent program.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:32:24 AM3/20/03
to
In article <20030320001054...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
devincom...@aol.comeBABY says...

> > "Richard" spam_y...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
> >
> >Tick the appropriate box below:
> >
> >a) [ ] nothing. Life will go on
> >
> >b) [ ] increased terror attacks in US/UK
> >
> >c) [ ] decreased terror attacks in US/UK
> >
> >d) [ ] armageddon
> >
> >e) [ ] clashes of civilizations
> >
> >f) [ ] other - please specify
>
>
> g) You shut the fuck up and get out of our soccer/football newsgroup with this
> fucking garbage.
>
> There are political newsgroups you can 'discuss' this at, we have enough damn
> flame wars as it is, thanks for adding fuel to the fire you dumbass.

You are quite the censorious one aren't you 'Lucky'?

Funny...I thought people like you that whines about black people complaining
about racist comments would be one of these high priests of free speech which
the US seems to be infected with nowadays. You know - the ones that have the
the idea of freedom of a 5 year old.


Karel Stokkermans

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 8:34:12 AM3/20/03
to
mmfr...@attbi.com (Manuel Freitas) wrote in message news:<c9fe2f11.03031...@posting.google.com>...

> "Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?

[...]



> Saddam will either die or be exhiled.

Saddam will die sooner or later. Whether in this war is very
questionable, but even if he does, so what?

> Bush will loose re-election.

Only if enough Americans die in this war.

> US will not find any WMD

Oh, they'll find something, don't worry. Whether it was there
before George 'Daddy, look' Bush and Tony BPlair started their
quest for securing the oil fields is another matter.

> and the next administration will have no choice
> but to abandon Iraq.

As long as there's oil, there's a choice called staying
(or controlling indirectly).

> Civil war will ensue soon after that. Complete
> chaos will rule the region.

Possibly, certainly the Kurds will draw the short end again.

> Many thousands more will die. But hey, who cares, they'll be free
> right?

And, more importantly to any US administration, Israel will be
happy again, having gotten rid of the only serious military power
east of it, and they can concentrate on finding more excuses not
to make peace with the Palestinians, keep colonising stolen land,
destroying houses, ignoring basic human rights and generally
driving the Palestinians to such despair that the remaining
ones also leave the 'Holy Country' - the openly admitted goal
of basically every Israeli government since they terrorised the
Brits out of the place.

Cheers,
Karel

Manuel Freitas

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 9:34:58 AM3/20/03
to
Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.18e3a5359...@news.ntlworld.com>...

That was just a prediction, I was not basing it on precedent because
there isn't one. Never before has the US preemptively attacked another
sovereign nation for economic gains and with plans to use THEIR
natural resources to pay for OUR war. Vietnam comes close but that
woldn't really support your claim either 'cause we know Vietnam hasn't
exactly been the most prosperous nation in the World.

- Manuel.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 10:43:02 AM3/20/03
to
In article <c9fe2f11.03032...@posting.google.com>,
mmfr...@attbi.com says...

> Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.18e3a5359...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > In article <c9fe2f11.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> > mmfr...@attbi.com says...
> > > "Richard" <spam_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?
> > > >
> > > > Tick the appropriate box below:
> > > >
> > > > e) [ x ] clashes of civilizations
> > > >
> > >
> > > Saddam will either die or be exhiled. Bush will loose re-election. US
> > > will not find any WMD and the next administration will have no choice
> > > but to abandon Iraq. Civil war will ensue soon after that. Complete
> > > chaos will rule the region.
> > > Many thousands more will die. But hey, who cares, they'll be free
> > > right?
> >
> > I'm a bit older than you and these kind of scenarios are regularly aired.
> >
> > Clearly they don't happen.
>
> That was just a prediction, I was not basing it on precedent because
> there isn't one. Never before has the US preemptively attacked another
> sovereign nation for economic gains

Um...you need me to agree with you on this one and I don't.

Iraq is being punished for defying the world.


> and with plans to use THEIR
> natural resources to pay for OUR war. Vietnam comes close but that
> woldn't really support your claim either 'cause we know Vietnam hasn't
> exactly been the most prosperous nation in the World.

I really can't see your argument.

Shussbar

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 5:34:18 PM3/20/03
to
>Iraq is being punished for defying the world.

I don t think sooooo.

Richard

unread,
Mar 20, 2003, 6:19:48 PM3/20/03
to

"Robbie" <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18e25b17d...@news.ntlworld.com...

Hey Loser, the stock market went up soon as your friends attacked.
Doesn't it make you think that the reason for the attack was economical, and
not political?

Knowing how the americans think (money before people) I think this is the
case.
Shame.


Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 5:50:06 AM3/21/03
to
In article <20030320173418...@mb-bh.aol.com>,
crys...@aol.comnospam says...

> >Iraq is being punished for defying the world.
>
> I don t think sooooo.

I do. :))

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 5:51:27 AM3/21/03
to
In article <o0sea.8752$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
spam_y...@yahoo.com says...

>
> "Robbie" <the_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18e25b17d...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > In article <u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > spam_y...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > (f) [ X ] other - please specify
> >
> > Just for you, idiot.
> >
> > The Muslim fundamentalist movement is a dead duck and the last twitches of
> > this deeply repugnant ideology will twitch a few times.
> >
> > That's the only important thing you need to understand.
>
> Hey Loser, the stock market went up soon as your friends attacked.
> Doesn't it make you think that the reason for the attack was economical, and
> not political?

No, retard, no.


> Knowing how the americans think (money before people) I think this is the
> case.
> Shame.

Plonk!

I like an argument but you are too stupid to argue with.

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 6:23:56 AM3/21/03
to
In article <b5b5f1$88a$2...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, md...@deadspam.com says...
>> What does Muslim fundamentalism have to do with Iraq?

Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
in <news:MPG.18e3a79ff...@news.ntlworld.com> replied:

> It gives them the extremists ammo.
>
> The jihad proclaims that Islam is under attack and all Muslims are
> targets for the Crusader/Jewish alliance.

Let say the truth, the pictures of the US soldiers praying in the sand of a
desert storm showed continuosly from CNN aren't helping that much in that
matter ..

--
Ale
E` in corso la CFV per per
*it.comp.programmare.dotnet*,
Si può leggere il manifesto su
_it.news.annunci_ o _it.news.votazioni_

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 6:42:22 AM3/21/03
to
In article <b5esod$27op4n$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
says...

> In article <b5b5f1$88a$2...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, md...@deadspam.com says...
> >> What does Muslim fundamentalism have to do with Iraq?
>
> Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> in <news:MPG.18e3a79ff...@news.ntlworld.com> replied:
>
> > It gives them the extremists ammo.
> >
> > The jihad proclaims that Islam is under attack and all Muslims are
> > targets for the Crusader/Jewish alliance.
>
> Let say the truth, the pictures of the US soldiers praying in the sand of a
> desert storm showed continuosly from CNN aren't helping that much in that
> matter ..

The truth is not that it is a crusade.

Give me a break.

Should we assume that Muslims praying at the mosque are interested in jihad?

The West went to war to save Muslim Albanians just a couple of years ago and
before that helped the Bosnian Muslims too.

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 7:25:18 AM3/21/03
to

Richard, from <spam_y...@yahoo.com>,
in <news:u6Rda.5552$L57....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> What do you think the consequences for war in Iraq might be?

> f) [ x ] other - please specify

I think this war is essentially against European interests. Iraq is selling
oil for Euro, and as long as it would have not switched back to USD, the
veto of the France over any possible switch of governament in Bagdad it is
fully understandable. UK is not in the Euro, the pound is nowadays pretty
weak so it is not convenient to join the Euro and Mr.Blair has to be fully
awared of that, so also its position is pretty understandable. The position
of Mr. Aznar and Mr. Berlusconi is instead pretty weak (their countries's
interest would have to be the end of embargo on Iraq, saving the status
quo), I think both of them have not the right perception of what is
happening. From its standpoint instead Mr. Bush's gamble (also if I am not
sure he was the one who ideated that) is much more clever, especially if the
invasion and the lecture of the Iraq will stop Libia and especially Iran
wishes to switch to Euro, and it will get a jackpot if this war will reach
its ultimate target, to break Opec. The doctrine of Enduring Freedom is
instead pretty ridicule, it is the faithful copy of the doctrine of the
Defensive Imperialism tought and taught in uncountable books during the XIX
century and in the beginning of the XX century from generations of
historians to explain the Roman expansionism; the fact someone could sell
that doctrine in the XXI to the people of US show carefully what is the
average level of humanistic knowledges of that people. This is a war against
Euro, to save the US economy and continue to permit to the US financial
institutions to print banknotes to pay foreign debts, to permit their
national accounting system not to certificate its expenses and to the
average US citizen to live following Chicago school paradoxal economical
doctrines, applied so successfully (Argentina and Turkey, i.e.) from IMF all
around the world in countries without oil-dollar connections. Obviously as
long as continental Europeans would have not clear they could pay their
retirement plans printing banknotes if the oil transactions would be
switched to Euro, it will be not a war against Europeans, but it still
remains against European interests.
My 2 realpolitik eurocents ;-)

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 7:47:06 AM3/21/03
to

Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
in <news:MPG.18e50af56...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> The truth is not that it is a crusade.

I understand that perfectly, I was just noting down watching Christian
soldiers praying in the sands of Arabia is not a good propaganda to show to
Muslim countries.

> Should we assume that Muslims praying at the mosque
> are interested in jihad?

I don't assume that, neither I assume a Christian praying in a church is
interested in crusade. Anyway given the love of US for PCness, I found this
kind of pics not so clever.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 8:34:59 AM3/21/03
to
In article <b5f1ka$27g752$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
says...

>
> Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> in <news:MPG.18e50af56...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > The truth is not that it is a crusade.
>
> I understand that perfectly, I was just noting down watching Christian
> soldiers praying in the sands of Arabia is not a good propaganda to show to
> Muslim countries.

And why should Christians hide their religious practice?



> > Should we assume that Muslims praying at the mosque
> > are interested in jihad?
>
> I don't assume that, neither I assume a Christian praying in a church is
> interested in crusade. Anyway given the love of US for PCness, I found this
> kind of pics not so clever.

Perhaps you misunderstand the US which has a deeply religious component along
side others being concerned with being 'PC'.

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 9:14:21 AM3/21/03
to

Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> And why should Christians hide their religious practice?

Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
Reasons of political opportunity, of course.

> Perhaps you misunderstand the US which has a deeply religious
> component along side others being concerned with being 'PC'.

I don't know, maybe I overweight their PCness, but if they aren't thinking
many Muslims could be negatively touched from such images I think they are
a bit blind ..

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 9:26:44 AM3/21/03
to
In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
says...

>
> Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > And why should Christians hide their religious practice?
>
> Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
> in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> Reasons of political opportunity, of course.

I really don't see your point.


> > Perhaps you misunderstand the US which has a deeply religious
> > component along side others being concerned with being 'PC'.
>
> I don't know, maybe I overweight their PCness, but if they aren't thinking
> many Muslims could be negatively touched from such images I think they are
> a bit blind ..

Who cares?

Fuck that, eating meat on TV offends vegetarians. Do you worry about that?

molecule

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 9:36:46 AM3/21/03
to
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:

> In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
> says...
> >
> > Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> > in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And why should Christians hide their religious practice?
> >
> > Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
> > in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> > Reasons of political opportunity, of course.
>
> I really don't see your point.

Then you must be blind because his point is clear as water. You may agree
or not, but don't tell me you don't understand what he is trying to say.

In a war against a community with a high religion component, and with the
historic antecedents of the crusades, showing US troops praying is, at
least, a point worth mentioning.

S,

M.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 10:01:19 AM3/21/03
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303211533100.24307-
100...@andercheran.aiind.upv.es>, mbe...@aiind.upv.es says...

> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:
>
> > In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
> > says...
> > >
> > > Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> > > in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And why should Christians hide their religious practice?
> > >
> > > Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
> > > in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> > > Reasons of political opportunity, of course.
> >
> > I really don't see your point.
>
> Then you must be blind because his point is clear as water. You may agree
> or not, but don't tell me you don't understand what he is trying to say.
>
> In a war against a community with a high religion component,

What high religious component and what war against a community?

The war is against the regime and has nothing to do with some people in Iraq
being religious.

> and with the
> historic antecedents of the crusades, showing US troops praying is, at
> least, a point worth mentioning.

Not to me.

Christians have as much right as any other religious practioners in
displaying their religion and the media has a duty to show this also.

And please don't fall in to the the trap of making analogies about crusades.

All sorts of Muslim religious extremists use the events of 800 years ago to
justify their paranoia and terrorism.

There is no relationship between the Crusades and now except as propaganda to
the gullable.

Benny

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 10:22:04 AM3/21/03
to
> From : Alessandro Riolo <alessand...@sen.it>

> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>I understand that perfectly, I was just noting down watching Christian


>soldiers praying in the sands of Arabia is not a good propaganda to show to
>Muslim countries.

How did they pray?

"There are three sides to every story - your side, my side and the truth"
Tom Zenk

http://soccer-europe.com

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 11:21:08 AM3/21/03
to

Benny, from <Be...@soccer-europe.com>,
in <news:swY+X0Bc...@soccer-europe.com> wrote:

> How did they pray?

All of the night (GMT+1) between 19 to 20 March there was that picture
opening the CNN website.

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 11:28:15 AM3/21/03
to
> In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>,
> alessand...@sen.it says...

>> Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before


>> action in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
>> Reasons of political opportunity, of course.

Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
in <news:MPG.18e5317a7...@news.ntlworld.com> replied:

> I really don't see your point.

Christian soldiers are obviously free to pray God as they wish, especially
before a battle, my point is that image could offend or enrage Muslim
people, and I guess that is not a good advertisement to begin an invasion of
the Mesopotamia.

> Fuck that, eating meat on TV offends vegetarians.
> Do you worry about that?

I am almost vegetarian (I eat meat 40-50 times in a year, most of the time
when invited from other people, I never cook it for myself), but to say the
truth I am also pretty unPC. What surprised me was the lackness of tact from
CNN, just this.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 11:40:54 AM3/21/03
to
In article <b5feiv$27c2ih$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
says...

> > In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>,
> > alessand...@sen.it says...
>
> >> Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before
> >> action in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> >> Reasons of political opportunity, of course.
>
> Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> in <news:MPG.18e5317a7...@news.ntlworld.com> replied:
>
> > I really don't see your point.
>
> Christian soldiers are obviously free to pray God as they wish, especially
> before a battle, my point is that image could offend or enrage Muslim
> people, and I guess that is not a good advertisement to begin an invasion of
> the Mesopotamia.

Real Muslims wouldn't get offended by Christians praying as they are 'people
of the book' according to Islam.

> > Fuck that, eating meat on TV offends vegetarians.
> > Do you worry about that?
>
> I am almost vegetarian (I eat meat 40-50 times in a year, most of the time
> when invited from other people, I never cook it for myself), but to say the
> truth I am also pretty unPC. What surprised me was the lackness of tact from
> CNN, just this.

I don't see that as a lack of tact.

It is a fact and should be reported. It is not only Muslims that pray.

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 11:54:59 AM3/21/03
to

Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
in <news:MPG.18e550ee3...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Real Muslims wouldn't get offended by Christians praying
> as they are 'people of the book' according to Islam.

Surely they are not offended, I've a lot of Muslim friends and it has
happened to me to pray togheter, anyone with its rite and its words, but I
still think I would have not open my portal with that picture, just this. I
would ask to my Muslim friends if they liked the idea to put that picture
just during the beginning of the war.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 12:05:27 PM3/21/03
to
In article <b5fg54$28pje6$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
says...

>
> Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> in <news:MPG.18e550ee3...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Real Muslims wouldn't get offended by Christians praying
> > as they are 'people of the book' according to Islam.
>
> Surely they are not offended, I've a lot of Muslim friends and it has
> happened to me to pray togheter, anyone with its rite and its words, but I
> still think I would have not open my portal with that picture, just this. I
> would ask to my Muslim friends if they liked the idea to put that picture
> just during the beginning of the war.

OK.

Benny

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 1:34:03 PM3/21/03
to
> From : Alessandro Riolo <alessand...@sen.it>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>


>Benny, from <Be...@soccer-europe.com>,
>in <news:swY+X0Bc...@soccer-europe.com> wrote:
>
>> How did they pray?
>
>All of the night (GMT+1) between 19 to 20 March there was that picture
>opening the CNN website.

I mean in the physical sense. They were not praying to mock Muslims.
While I agree that some Muslims would be upset at the footage they
shouldn't be, Jews and Christians are free to practice their religion in
'Muslims' countries just as Muslims are free to practice their religion
in the West.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 4:07:21 PM3/21/03
to
In article <EHZEKECb...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Alessandro Riolo <alessand...@sen.it>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >
> >Benny, from <Be...@soccer-europe.com>,
> >in <news:swY+X0Bc...@soccer-europe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How did they pray?
> >
> >All of the night (GMT+1) between 19 to 20 March there was that picture
> >opening the CNN website.
>
> I mean in the physical sense. They were not praying to mock Muslims.
> While I agree that some Muslims would be upset at the footage they
> shouldn't be, Jews and Christians are free to practice their religion in
> 'Muslims' countries just as Muslims are free to practice their religion
> in the West.

Actually it isn't true.

Christians are persecuted in many Muslim countries while Muslims are also
persecuted/discriminated against - in some places - Greece and the Serb part
of Bosnia spring to mind.

Saudi Arabia won't even let non-Muslims set foot in some places.

Benny

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 5:27:05 PM3/21/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>

> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>Actually it isn't true.


>
>Christians are persecuted in many Muslim countries while Muslims are also
>persecuted/discriminated against - in some places - Greece and the Serb part
>of Bosnia spring to mind.
>
>Saudi Arabia won't even let non-Muslims set foot in some places.

You will note I said 'Muslim' countries, they are Muslim in name only,
they are not run under true Islamic law.

Shussbar

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 10:30:42 PM3/21/03
to
>> I don t think sooooo.
>
>I do. :))

I don t ! :)))

Shussbar

unread,
Mar 21, 2003, 10:36:14 PM3/21/03
to
>My 2 realpolitik eurocents ;-)

Interesting. I am sure you will like that too:

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/21.html

Alessandro Riolo

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 5:01:07 AM3/22/03
to

Shussbar, from <crys...@aol.comnospam>,
in <news:20030321223614...@mb-fr.aol.com> wrote:

Thank you, really nice resources. Reading the second one confirmed my idea
about Mr. Bush & co., they clearly look as feudal lords, I imagine them
clothing with armors; anyway, even if they still believe to live in full
middle age, they figures are emerging pretty sharply in the world of today
..

molecule

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 12:10:14 PM3/22/03
to
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Benny wrote:

> > From : Alessandro Riolo <alessand...@sen.it>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >
> >Benny, from <Be...@soccer-europe.com>,
> >in <news:swY+X0Bc...@soccer-europe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How did they pray?
> >
> >All of the night (GMT+1) between 19 to 20 March there was that picture
> >opening the CNN website.
>
> I mean in the physical sense. They were not praying to mock Muslims.
> While I agree that some Muslims would be upset at the footage they
> shouldn't be, Jews and Christians are free to practice their religion in
> 'Muslims' countries

In the middle of an invasion. I think that point has some relevance.

> just as Muslims are free to practice their religion
> in the West.

S,

M.

Benny

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 12:43:04 PM3/22/03
to
> From : molecule <mbe...@aiind.upv.es>

> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>In the middle of an invasion. I think that point has some relevance.

As a Muslim I disagree, we are supposed to show tolerance to other
faiths. Raising that flag however, is a different story all together.
That one image, and I realise the flag was taken down, will live long in
the memory.

molecule

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 12:28:17 PM3/22/03
to
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303211533100.24307-
> 100...@andercheran.aiind.upv.es>, mbe...@aiind.upv.es says...
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:
> >
> > > In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> > > > in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And why should Christians hide their religious practice?
> > > >
> > > > Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
> > > > in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> > > > Reasons of political opportunity, of course.
> > >
> > > I really don't see your point.
> >
> > Then you must be blind because his point is clear as water. You may agree
> > or not, but don't tell me you don't understand what he is trying to say.
> >
> > In a war against a community with a high religion component,
>
> What high religious component and what war against a community?

I believe communities of that part of the world have a high religious
component. And I thought there was a was againt Irak.

> The war is against the regime and has nothing to do with some people in Iraq
> being religious.

True. Then, in the middle of a war, what fucking interest has a bunch of
soldiers praying in the desert to be the first image to appear in the CNN
website? Don't they have something more relevant?

> > and with the
> > historic antecedents of the crusades, showing US troops praying is, at
> > least, a point worth mentioning.
>
> Not to me.

Well, we have different opinions and you like to discuss too much.

S,

M.

PS An aside note. The war may be against the regime, but it's the Irak
civilians who will suffer it.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 1:49:21 PM3/22/03
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303221824450.12766-

100...@andercheran.aiind.upv.es>, mbe...@aiind.upv.es says...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303211533100.24307-
> > 100...@andercheran.aiind.upv.es>, mbe...@aiind.upv.es says...
> > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Robbie wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <b5f6nu$294l5q$1...@ID-44839.news.dfncis.de>, alessand...@sen.it
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Robbie, from <the_e...@hotmail.com>,
> > > > > in <news:MPG.18e5255b5...@news.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > And why should Christians hide their religious practice?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why CNN could better doesn't show Christians soldiers praying before action
> > > > > in a war of invasion in Mesopotamia? :-)
> > > > > Reasons of political opportunity, of course.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't see your point.
> > >
> > > Then you must be blind because his point is clear as water. You may agree
> > > or not, but don't tell me you don't understand what he is trying to say.
> > >
> > > In a war against a community with a high religion component,
> >
> > What high religious component and what war against a community?
>
> I believe communities of that part of the world have a high religious
> component.

I don’t want to quibble but they don't seem that religous to me.


> And I thought there was a was againt Irak.

There is a war against the Iraqi regime.

> > The war is against the regime and has nothing to do with some people in Iraq
> > being religious.
>
> True. Then, in the middle of a war, what fucking interest has a bunch of
> soldiers praying in the desert to be the first image to appear in the CNN
> website? Don't they have something more relevant?

It seems an entirely legitimate thing for a media to show. It conveys the
gravity of the situation and conveys a message to their people.

The US has a lot of religious people



> > > and with the
> > > historic antecedents of the crusades, showing US troops praying is, at
> > > least, a point worth mentioning.
> >
> > Not to me.
>
> Well, we have different opinions and you like to discuss too much.

I like to discuss too much? :)))


> PS An aside note. The war may be against the regime, but it's the Irak
> civilians who will suffer it.

Well...all deaths will have mothers grieving over a son.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 1:44:39 PM3/22/03
to
In article <6rxLBWD5...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >Actually it isn't true.
> >
> >Christians are persecuted in many Muslim countries while Muslims are also
> >persecuted/discriminated against - in some places - Greece and the Serb part
> >of Bosnia spring to mind.
> >
> >Saudi Arabia won't even let non-Muslims set foot in some places.
>
> You will note I said 'Muslim' countries, they are Muslim in name only,
> they are not run under true Islamic law.

Yes...and no one is likely to see it either so you're stuck with the worst
possible adverts for Islam.

Benny

unread,
Mar 22, 2003, 3:30:02 PM3/22/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>Yes...and no one is likely to see it either so you're stuck with the worst
>possible adverts for Islam.

They are the only 'adverts' for Islam because the media only focus on
that.

Robbie

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 4:38:28 AM3/23/03
to
In article <D0X7RSBK...@soccer-europe.com>, Be...@soccer-europe.com
says...

> > From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> > [OT] Poll: consequences for war?
>
> >Yes...and no one is likely to see it either so you're stuck with the worst
> >possible adverts for Islam.
>
> They are the only 'adverts' for Islam because the media only focus on
> that.

Blaming the media won't stop that aspect of 'Muslim' societies being true.

Hitler, Milosevic and Saddam constantly complained about a bad press.

Benny

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 10:42:30 AM3/23/03
to
> From : Robbie <the_e...@hotmail.com>
> [OT] Poll: consequences for war?

>Blaming the media won't stop that aspect of 'Muslim' societies being true.

Highlighting the actions of a few madmen isn't reflective on a nation of
some 1.5 billion people. It's not the news I object to, it's the way
it's reported.

Manuel Freitas

unread,
Mar 23, 2003, 12:29:40 PM3/23/03
to
stokk...@t-online.de (Karel Stokkermans) wrote in message news:<9493e3b7.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Bush will loose re-election.
>
> Only if enough Americans die in this war.

Undecided voters usually decide ellections. It's clear that Bush has
pissed off a lot of them. We'll never see American deaths the way the
media is controlled in the US. As I type this, news channels all over
the world are showing dead bodies while American channels are showing
feel good stories usually reserved for the Olympics. My cable company
has conveniently removed the International