Fw: Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
pearl
By Julian Ryall
The Scotsman - UK
11-9-3
TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
Fishermen from the village of Taiji, near Osaka, "made
killing gestures with their knives" to Nik Hensey and Billy
McNamara, of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,
based in Malibu, California.
Hensey was able to make a brief satellite phone call to
the organisation while the confrontation was taking place
and report "the danger they were in", according to Paul
Watson, who heads Sea Shepherd.
"The fishermen shone flashlights into their faces in an
attempt to stop Hensey and McNamara from taking
pictures of the penned-in whales and made killing
gestures with their knives," said Watson.
The pod of whales included several juveniles, five infants
and two male adults trying to protect them.
The incident is the latest confrontation between Sea
Shepherd activists and Taiji fishermen since the season
for hunting dolphins and coastal whales opened on
September 1. It runs until March 31, during which time
an estimated 20,000 dolphins and whales will be killed.
In October, three members of the group filmed hunters
butchering around 60 dolphins, including infants, after
driving them into the inlet.
They used spikes on the end of long poles that are driven
into the creatures' heads.
The video footage that they captured showed the entire
surface of the inlet blood red and was sent around the
world, enraging animal rights activists.
The hunt is a regular event in Taiji and, according to locals,
is an important part of local culture that dates back 400 years.
"It's a wholesale slaughter, which results in immense suffering
for these animals," said Hensey. "It's a sight that one just can't
imagine."
One former dolphin hunter who has since become an
environmental activist in Japan says the creatures take up
to six minutes to die after the spike is driven into their heads.
Hunting dolphins is not banned by the International Whaling
Commission, which has maintained a moratorium on
commercial whaling since 1986. However, because of scenes
like these, fishermen in Japan have tried to keep the hunts out
of the public eye.
A spokesman for Sea Shepherd said: "The Taiji fishermen
know that while Sea Shepherd crew remain in the area,
they cannot commit mass murder of dolphins without it
being documented and further exposed in the media, which
is a major form of embarrassment in Japanese culture.
"While it's not illegal to document dolphin slaughter, the
fishermen have taken many steps to obscure the view or
make it illegal to stand on the rocks above the killing coves."
Watson has contacted police officials in Osaka and is
requesting that they protect the Sea Shepherd activists
because Taiji police refused to come to their aid in the
confrontation that took place in October.
©2003 Scotsman.com
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1236222003
(Hold it please, Ray).
Interested in hearing views about this from soc.culture.japan.
Thank you in advance.
Ipse dixit
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:bolphe$ja7$1...@kermit.esat.net...
is, "How important is this event to their culture, and would
their culture suffer if this particular custom was stopped?"
A warning to me from Rat, Ray.
"You have to understand, Ipse dixit, that this type
of argument is another one of the classic Anti
games.
If ARAs appeal to principle to argue for an end
to slaughter/hunting except for immediate
survival (the most common AR position), Antis
claim ARAs are insensitive to other cultures, or
racist. Sounds nasty, no?
If ARAs say that non-Western cultures may need to
hunt for survival, but that most members of modern
Western cultures do not; they hunt only for sport,
and sport hunting is immoral, the Antis will claim
(Jonathan baying in front of the pack) that we are
being "Politically Correct Liberals".
Been there, done that, on this one....
Rat 2002-04-22
Ray
Hey, you have your finger well and truly on my pulse 'Pearl'
"Holding"
Ray:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ray
"Ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:i7urb.606450$Id.8...@news.easynews.com...
Fuck their culture, But I'm on 'Hold'. Try it sometime. 'in posterium'
usual suspect
> Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
> By Julian Ryall
> The Scotsman - UK
> 11-9-3
>
> TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
> by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
> whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get all
twisted. That's funny. Now consider the threats, terrorism, and dead
animals from the ARAs in recent months. Here, let me refresh your memory:
1. Bombings of Chiron and Shaklee by ALF. A "vegan" named Andreas San
Diego is sought by the FBI in connection with these bombings. He is
considered armed and dangerous.
http://tinyurl.com/uapw
http://tinyurl.com/uapx
2. Terroristic threats to a chef and his family, and destruction of his
business and adjacent businesses. Incidents also included voyeuristic
videos of the chef and his family at home, damage to a Buddha statue,
and damage to other property.
http://tinyurl.com/lhqa
3. Terroristic threats and damage to a producer of foie gras. The attack
involved the death of at least one duck, and the theft of other fowl.
http://tinyurl.com/uaoo
4. Release of mink from a farm by ARAs. The released animals killed and
ate pets, wildlife, livestock (mostly poultry), and each other once
caught and put in pens (they kill non-litter mates). Damages estimated
over $500,000. Untold numbers of dead animals.
http://tinyurl.com/uapg
I could continue. I could also get into maritime safety issues and how
ARAs often endanger themselves and others on other craft at sea.
Fortunately the fishermen were safely on shore where the ARAs couldn't
risk harming them.
If ARAs want kind gestures, perhaps they should *make* them rather than
endangering and terrorizing the lives of others.
<snip>
usual suspect
> Hey, you have your finger well and truly on my pulse 'Pearl'
>
> "Holding"
Call'em those names, Ray. We know you're already thinking them.
Ray
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
news:4Qvrb.39056$f53....@twister.austin.rr.com...
No.
>
Ray
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
You know nothing.
>
>
Michael A. Hobson
You are guilty of falsely attributing the criminal actions of one
group of extremists (Animal Liberation Front) to an entire class of
persons (Animal Rights Activists).
This sort of false generalization is a well known fallacy of
debate and argumentation.
Futhermore, you cannot demonstrate that even one of these activists
attempting to document these dolphin slaughters has ever been
involved in, accused of, or convicted of any criminal actions.
So what you are doing is nothing less than attempting to baselessly
smeer the repute of well-meaning persons attempting to stop this
pointless and inhumane slaughter.
Only a very cruel and hateful person would support these senseless
killings.
No wonder you feel the need to hide your identity and organizational
affiliation.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but from what I can see of your
posting history, you actually revel in this sort thing.
In message <uPvrb.39055$f53....@twister.austin.rr.com> on Sun, 09
Nov 2003 18:37:14 GMT, anonymous coward "usual suspect"
<w...@where.how> wrote:
Michael A. Hobson
The Dolphin Speech Project
[No, I don't work with dolphins. See my web site for info.]
web: http://www.dolphin-speech.org
email: mike (at) crusader (dash) services (dot) com
icq: #2186709
yahoo: warrior_mike2001
usual suspect
> You are guilty of falsely attributing the criminal actions of one
> group of extremists (Animal Liberation Front) to an entire class of
> persons (Animal Rights Activists).
Until ARAs disavow the extremists in their midst (did you read the
article about Andreas San Diego going underground?) to distinguish
between sincere, *democratic*-minded activism and undemocratic
terrorism, why should I make such distinctions for them?
> This sort of false generalization is a well known fallacy of
> debate and argumentation.
You're evading the issue, which is a cheesier tactic than that which
you've falsely accuse me of engaging (and I didn't).
> Futhermore, you cannot demonstrate that even one of these activists
> attempting to document these dolphin slaughters has ever been
> involved in, accused of, or convicted of any criminal actions.
This is a *whale* harvest, not dolphins. Please stay focused. You're
overlooking the fact that ARAs routinely pester, intimidate, and harass
fishermen. Accordingly, the ill feelings fishermen have for hippy
assholes with cameras are justified.
> So what you are doing is nothing less than attempting to baselessly
> smeer the repute of well-meaning persons attempting to stop this
> pointless and inhumane slaughter.
Strawman AND appeal to pity. More cheesy fallacies of debate and
argumentation. The harvesting of whales also isn't pointless, it's for
meat, oil, and other products. I also disagree that it's inhumane.
> Only a very cruel and hateful person would support these senseless
> killings.
Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and
argumentation.
> No wonder you feel the need to hide your identity and organizational
> affiliation.
Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and
argumentation.
> You should be ashamed of yourself, but from what I can see of your
> posting history, you actually revel in this sort thing.
Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and
argumentation.
Bill Levinson
usual suspect wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>
>> Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
>
>
> That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
>
>> By Julian Ryall
>> The Scotsman - UK
>> 11-9-3
>>
>> TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
>> by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
>> whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
>
>
> So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get all
> twisted.
I'm hardly an ecofreak (I'm against the Kyoto Treaty, for example) but
dolphins and whales are not just animals. They're highly intelligent,
perhaps more intelligent than humans. A dolphin brain is as big as a
man's and it goes up from there. http://www.ganesha.org/misc/dolphin.html
Cetaceans and elephants should not be killed. On the other hand, I just
opened another pack of turkey yesterday.
--Bill
usual suspect
>>> Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
>>
>> That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
>>
>>> By Julian Ryall
>>> The Scotsman - UK
>>> 11-9-3
>>>
>>> TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
>>> by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
>>> whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
>>
>> So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get all
>> twisted.
>
> I'm hardly an ecofreak (I'm against the Kyoto Treaty, for example)
Your opposition to Kyoto could mean you're a realist or pragmatist. It
doesn't mean you're not an ecofreak.
> but
> dolphins and whales are not just animals. They're highly intelligent,
> perhaps more intelligent than humans.
No doubt they're more intelligent in the aggregate than some humans.
> A dolphin brain is as big as a man's and it goes up from there.
Meaningless even in comparison to body size. Birds, for instance, have a
higher brain:body weight ratio than humans. Didn't stop you from eating
that turkey, did it?
> Cetaceans and elephants should not be killed.
According to whom?
> On the other hand, I just
> opened another pack of turkey yesterday.
Congratulations, killer.
For more on brain:body weight see:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
Ray
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
Had a look at the link pillock. it does not mention big fat texan cunts, so
I can't comment further. Sorry.
>
Floyd Davidson
>usual suspect wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>> Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
>> That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
>>
>>> By Julian Ryall
>>> The Scotsman - UK
>>> 11-9-3
>>>
>>> TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
>>> by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
>>> whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
>
>> So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get
>> all twisted.
>
>I'm hardly an ecofreak (I'm against the Kyoto Treaty, for
>example) but dolphins and whales are not just animals. They're
>highly intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than humans. A
>dolphin brain is as big as a man's and it goes up from
>there. http://www.ganesha.org/misc/dolphin.html
Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
Regardless, none of that has ever stopped anyone from having ham
for dinner or bacon for breakfast, and it certainly is not a
valid reason to suggest that humans not hunt whales for food.
(You did notice that the article referenced has *nothing* to do
with dolphines, right?)
>Cetaceans and elephants should not be killed. On the other hand,
>I just opened another pack of turkey yesterday.
I guess some folks eat what they want to be, and to some degree
it works, eh? (Invalid logic, but just as good as yours above.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
pearl
> Bill Levinson <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote:
> >usual suspect wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>> Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
> >> That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
> >>
> >>> By Julian Ryall
> >>> The Scotsman - UK
> >>> 11-9-3
> >>>
> >>> TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
> >>> by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
> >>> whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
> >
> >> So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get
> >> all twisted.
> >
> >I'm hardly an ecofreak (I'm against the Kyoto Treaty, for
> >example) but dolphins and whales are not just animals. They're
> >highly intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than humans. A
> >dolphin brain is as big as a man's and it goes up from
> >there. http://www.ganesha.org/misc/dolphin.html
>
> Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
> hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
> reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
'..We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words,
we see what we want to see. Let's take a close look at the anatomy of
the brain. This is an organ that the human organism shares with most
species above the invertebrate order. More specifically, we should look
at the mammalian brain that is an organ composed of three distinct
structures.
The foundation of the mammalian brain is the paleocortex, sometimes
called the "reptilian" or "ancient" brain. The paleocortex segment
reflects the primordial fish-amphibian-reptile structure. This basal
combination of nerves is called the rhinic lobe (from the Greek rhinos,
for nose) because it was once believed to be the area that dealt with
the sense of smell. The poorly developed rhinic lobe is overlaid by the
slightly more advanced limbic lobe (from the Latin limbus, for border).
On top of this lobe is overlaid the third and much larger segment
called the supralimbic lobe.
Draped over these three lobes is a cellular covering called the
neocortex, meaning "new brain." This is the instantly recognizable,
fissured, convoluted layer that envelops the other two more primitive
segments. The neocortex is a bewilderingly complex community of
intertwined axonal and dendritic nerve cells, synapses, and fibers.
The mammalian brain is a complex layering or lamination of
evolutionary processes that reflects hundreds of millions of years of
progressive development. The billions of electrochemical interactions
within this complex organ define consciousness, awareness, emotion,
vision, recognition, sound, touch, smell, personality, intuition,
instinct, and intelligence.
The first factor in determining the mammalian stages of development
is the number of brain laminations. The layering of the neocortex
differs greatly between humans and other land animals. The expansion
of the neocortex is always forward. This means that neocortex
development can be used as a fairly accurate indicator of the
evolutionary process of intelligence. We cannot assume, however, that
the determining factor in comparative intelligence is neocortex mass.
The other factors considered in the equation are differentiation, neural
connectivity and complexity, sectional specialization, and internal
structure. All these factors contribute toward interspecial
measurements of intelligence.
Interspecies comparisons focus on the extent of lamination, the total
cortical area, and the number and depth of neocortex convolutions. In
addition, primary sensory processing relative to problem solving is a
significant indicator; this can be described as associative ability.
The association or connecting of ideas is a measurable skill: a rat's
percent of the brain is devoted to primary sensory projection, leaving
only 10 percent for associative skills. A cat is one to one, meaning that
half the brain is available for associative ability. A chimpanzee is one
to three, and a human being is one to nine. We humans need only utilize
10 percent of our brains to operate our sensory organs. Thus the
associative abilities of a cat are measurably greater than a rat but
less than a chimp, and humans are the highest of all.
Not exactly. The cetacean brain averages one to twenty-five and can
range upward to one to forty. The reason for this is that the much
larger supralimbic lobe is primarily association cortex. Unlike humans,
in cetaceans sensory and motor function control is spread outside the
supralimbic, leaving more brain area for associative purposes.
Comparisons of synaptic geometry, dendritic field density, and neural
connectivity underscore the humbling revelation that the cetacean brain
is superior to the human brain. In addition, the centralization and
differentiation of the individual cerebral areas are levels higher than
the human brain. Many of us may remember our lessons from Biology 101.
We were shown illustrations of the brain of a rat, a cat, a chimp, and
a human. We listened as the instructor pointed out the ratio of brain
to body size and the increased convolutions on the neocortex of the
human over the chimp, the cat, the rat. The simplistic conclusion was
an understanding that humans were smarter. Of course, it was a human
demonstration of intelligence, and the conclusion was arrived at by
discrimination based on the selection of the examples. When the brain
model of an orca is inserted into the picture, the conclusion based
on the same factors places the human brain in second position.
Unfortunately for the pride of humankind, this simple comparison is
elementary compared to a truly astounding fact: whereas the human
brain shares three segments with all other mammals, the cetacean
brain is uniquely different in its physiology.
Humans have the rhinic, limbic, and supralimbic, with the neocortex
covering the surface of the supralimbic. However, with cetaceans we
see a radical evolutionary jump with the inclusion of a fourth segment.
This is a fourth cortical lobe, giving a four-fold lamination that is
morphologically the most significant differentiation between cetaceans
and all other cranially evolved mammals, including humans. No other
species has ever had four separate cortical lobes.
This well-developed extra lobar formation sandwiched between the
limbic and supralimbic lobes is called the paralimbic. Considering
neurohistological criteria, the paralimbic lobe is a continuation of
the sensory and motor areas found in the supralimbic lobe in humans.
According to Dr. Sterling Bunnell, the paralimbic lobe specializes in
specific sensory and motor functions. In humans, the projection areas
for different senses are widely separated from one another, and the
motor area is adjacent to the touch area. For us to make an integrated
perception from sight, sound, and touch, impulses must travel by long
fiber tracts with a great loss of time and information. The cetacean's
paralimbic system makes possible the very rapid formation of integrated
perceptions with a richness of information unimaginable to us.
Despite Biology 101, brain-to-body ratio is not an indication of
intelligence. If this were so, the hummingbird would be the world's
most intelligent animal. Brain size in itself, however, is important,
and the largest brains ever developed on this planet belong to whales.
More important is the quality of the brain tissue. With four lobes,
greater, more pronounced neocortex convolutions, and superior size,
the brain of the sperm whale at 9,000 cc or the brain of the orca
at 6,000 cc are the paragons of brain evolution on the Earth.
By contrast, the human brain is 1,300 cc. And by point of interest,
the brain of a Neanderthal was an average 1,500 cc.
If we look at the comparative intelligences of species strictly on
a morphological basis, judging all aspects on cortical structural
development alone, we can assign an average associative score
relative to human intelligence. Let's assign the average human brain
a score equal to 100. This is the number we consider average on human
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. Based on associative skills as defined
by the physiological structure of the comparative brains, we will find that
a dog scores about fifteen, and a chimpanzee around thirty-five. These
are scores that are comfortably within our understanding of intelligence.
Based upon comparisons of cortical structure alone, a sperm whale
would score 2,000.
The truth of the matter is that we know absolutely nothing about what
goes on in the brain of a whale or a dolphin. In our ignorance, we resort
to the arrogance of denial and dismissal. We deny the physiological
evidence and in general we have denied that other animals can think or
even feel. We forget that all mammals have climbed the evolutionary
ladder with us, and some, like the whale, started climbing that ladder
tens of millions of years before we evolved from that apelike ancestor
that we shared with the Neanderthal, the chimp, and the mountain
gorilla.
The whale has evolved in a different manner, its natural physical
abilities giving it little cause to desire material baggage. The spear was
not needed to get food -- the whale is one of the most efficient hunters
in natural history. The whale's ability to travel, to communicate, to
care for its young, and its complex social systems are all separate from
external material acquisition. Whales have biologically evolved what we
utilize technology to achieve. Technology is something that the whales
have never needed. They contain all the assets needed for survival and
development within their massive bodies and formidable brains.
Humans are big-brained manipulators. Cetaceans and elephants are
big-brained nonmanipulators. The hominid brain grew in size from 450
cc to 1,300 cc over a period of only five million years. Cetaceans had
already reached 690 cc in brain size some thirty million years ago and
had developed to their present capacity well before our own
evolutionary jump in brain development.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/ufxj
Floyd Davidson
>>
>> Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
>> hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
>> reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
>
>
>'..We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words,
>we see what we want to see. Let's take a close look at the anatomy of
[prattle snipped due to lack of veracity]
>had developed to their present capacity well before our own
>evolutionary jump in brain development.
>....'
>http://tinyurl.com/ufxj
You cite Paul Watson and claim you've proven something???? The
man is a self avowed liar and a racist idiot who has absolutely
*NO* credentials when it comes to the science of whales or
intelligence either one. Which means you've posted what is
called, logically, a False Appeal To Authority.
An Appeal to Authority argument, called an /Argumentum/ /Ad/
/Verecundiam/, to be valid *must* meet 3 criteria. Yours fails
on two. The first is that the authority cited must *be* an
authority. Paul Watson is not. The second is that essentially
*all* authorities must agree (that means citing any authority on
the subject would result in basically the same statement).
Clearly you will not find any true authority that agrees with
Watson, because there is no research to back up his claims. The
third requirement is that the statement must represent the true
beliefs of the person cited, and cannot be taken out of context
or a quote of a joke or whatever. That one I'll grant you,
though it is hard to say whether Watson believes what he says or
whether he just says it for fund raising purposes. Whatever, I
won't argue that with you because it has no bearing on the lack
of validity of your argument.
The fact is that Dr. John C. Lilly kicked off this "whales must
be smart" business decades ago, and researchers have been trying
to find some indication that it is true every since. They
*haven't* found any evidence in well over 30 some years. Lilly
himself pretty much sums it all up on his web page,
"One time, I went out to sea in the Virgin Islands
and took some LSD. We went alongside a female
whale with a calf. She turned up and looked at me
with her one eye and zapped me for twenty
minutes. There was so much information that I
can't possibly remember. The information came in
the form of visual pictures."-JCL
<http://www.tomigaya.shibuya.tokyo.jp/lilly/spermwhale.html>
Watson is even more daft.
If you want to keep all references to whale brain size in
perspective, consider that first they have a significantly less
complex structure, but also that they have a dual redundant
system because they must let half of their brain sleep while the
other half continues to work, otherwise they would drown. The
essence of that is, a whales brain is effectively, for purposes
of comparing body size to brain size, actually half of whatever
figure you'd measure using the same technique on other animals.
I'll repeat what I said: "whales appear to be about as smart as
a cow (widely reputed to be the dumbest animal in the
barnyard)."
And we have *decades* of science to back that up.
Here is a *much* *better* example of how we should view whale
intelligence,
There is another less anthropomorphic or "speciesist" way of
looking at the question of general "intelligence". All living
species must be highly "intelligent" in a broad sense in
order to survive. From this point of view, humans are no more
and no less than one of the species living on this planet
with particular adaptations (specialised "intelligence") for
their own way of life. This perspective allows us to view
the superb professionalism of all species with equal respect,
and not in some artificial ranking order of higher or lower
"intelligence" (with the hidden assumption that they are
more or less worthy of conservation and consideration, and
that as humans are, of course, in the first rank, their
wishes have priority).
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
You will also find a very good discussion of the whole subject of
whale intelligence at that URL.
But we should note most emphatically, nothing you or anyone else
has said in any way indicates that humans should not hunt whales
for food. We catch fish, we farm cows, we trap beaver, we grow
corn, all to feed ourselves. And none of it is any different
than feeding ourselves with whale meat.
usual suspect
<snip>
> Humans are big-brained manipulators.
Typical cut-n-paste misanthropic bullshit from a cut-n-paste
misanthropic bullshit artist. I see someone has beaten me to the punch
in your strange and benighted choice of sources. Lucky for you.
<snip>
Bob Lancaster
> Michael A. Hobson wrote:
> > You are guilty of falsely attributing the criminal actions of one
> > group of extremists (Animal Liberation Front) to an entire class of
> > persons (Animal Rights Activists).
>
> Until ARAs disavow the extremists in their midst (did you read the
> article about Andreas San Diego going underground?) to distinguish
> between sincere, *democratic*-minded activism and undemocratic
> terrorism, why should I make such distinctions for them?
>
Not to mention that this involved Paul Watson's group Sea Shepards,
known for their criminal and terroristic activity.
> > This sort of false generalization is a well known fallacy of
> > debate and argumentation.
>
> You're evading the issue, which is a cheesier tactic than that which
> you've falsely accuse me of engaging (and I didn't).
>
> > Futhermore, you cannot demonstrate that even one of these activists
> > attempting to document these dolphin slaughters has ever been
> > involved in, accused of, or convicted of any criminal actions.
>
> This is a *whale* harvest, not dolphins. Please stay focused. You're
> overlooking the fact that ARAs routinely pester, intimidate, and harass
> fishermen. Accordingly, the ill feelings fishermen have for hippy
> assholes with cameras are justified.
>
In particular, the Sea Shepards have a history including ramming
vessels, throwing toxic chemicals and trying to swamp boats. Hardly
peaceful protestors.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>On the other hand, I just
>>>opened another pack of turkey yesterday.
>>
>>Congratulations, killer.
>>
>>For more on brain:body weight see:
>>http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
>
> Had a look at the link pillock. it does not mention big fat texan cunts, so
> I can't comment further. Sorry.
I'm not fat, Raymond, nor am I a cunt. My brain:body weight ratio is
unquestionably higher than yours, though, if that helps you.
usual suspect
>>>You are guilty of falsely attributing the criminal actions of one
>>>group of extremists (Animal Liberation Front) to an entire class of
>>>persons (Animal Rights Activists).
>>
>>Until ARAs disavow the extremists in their midst (did you read the
>>article about Andreas San Diego going underground?) to distinguish
>>between sincere, *democratic*-minded activism and undemocratic
>>terrorism, why should I make such distinctions for them?
>
> Not to mention that this involved Paul Watson's group Sea Shepards,
> known for their criminal and terroristic activity.
I snipped out my own remarks, but as you can see from the context, I'd
compared the actions of the fishermen (who are accused of making
threatening *gestures* from the shore) to several acts of terrorism.
I'll restore the part I snipped from my earlier post:
-------------
--------- (end restore)
<...>
>>>Futhermore, you cannot demonstrate that even one of these activists
>>>attempting to document these dolphin slaughters has ever been
>>>involved in, accused of, or convicted of any criminal actions.
>>
>>This is a *whale* harvest, not dolphins. Please stay focused. You're
>>overlooking the fact that ARAs routinely pester, intimidate, and harass
>>fishermen. Accordingly, the ill feelings fishermen have for hippy
>>assholes with cameras are justified.
>
> In particular, the Sea Shepards have a history including ramming
> vessels, throwing toxic chemicals and trying to swamp boats. Hardly
> peaceful protestors.
Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't fully aware of the Sea Shepherds'
activities before this, but I did a little reading about them after my
initial response to "pearl." You're absolutely correct, and I hope Mr
Hobson is still reading. My reference to other terrorism committed by
ARAs was entirely justified and apropos in the context of the Sea
Shepherds' activities. They don't deserve sympathy.
<snip>
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
> >> hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
> >> reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
> >
> >
> >'..We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words,
> >we see what we want to see. Let's take a close look at the anatomy of
>
> [prattle snipped due to lack of veracity]
Snip n' slander, eh.
Says you. Where's your evidence disproving any of it?
> >had developed to their present capacity well before our own
> >evolutionary jump in brain development.
> >....'
> >http://tinyurl.com/ufxj
>
> You cite Paul Watson and claim you've proven something????
Bibliography and Sources:
Bunnell, Sterling. 1974. The Evolution of Cetacean Intelligence.
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The
Coevolution of Language and the Brain.
Jacobs, Myron.1974. The Whale Brain: Input and Behaviour.
Lawrence, D.H. Whales Weep Not.
Licino, Aldo. "Just Animals? Mammalian Studies Point to an
Anatomical Basis to Intelligence." Mensa Berichten: Mensa
International Journal Extra. June 1996.
Lilly, John. 1961. Man and Dolphin.
Morgane, Peter. 1974. The Whale Brain: The Anatomical
Basis of Intelligence.
Pilleri, G. Behaviour Patterns of Some Delphinidae Observed
in the Western Mediterranean.
Sagan, Dr. Carl. 1971.The Cosmic Connections, The Dragons of Eden.
Watson, Lyall.1996. Dark Nature: The Nature of Evil.
Some information based on conversations over the last two decades
with Dr. Michael Bigg (orcas), Dr. John Ford (orca dialects),
Dr. Roger Payne (whale communication), and Dr. Paul Spong (orcas).
<snip ad hominem and unsupported claims>
usual suspect
>>>>Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
>>>>hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
>>>>reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
>>>
>>>'..We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words,
>>>we see what we want to see. Let's take a close look at the anatomy of
>>
>> [prattle snipped due to lack of veracity]
>
> Snip n' slander, eh.
It ain't slander if it's true:
# 1977: Paul Watson, one of the founder members of Greenpeace, was
expelled from the organisation after a campaign against sealing during
which he threw the sealers’ clubs and skins into the sea. His actions
temporarily cost Greenpeace their tax-exemption status in the US.
# 1977: Paul Watson establishes the “Sea Shepherd” organisation.
# 1979: A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaler “Sierra”.
# 1980: The “Sierra” is sunk in Lisbon harbour with the help of limpet
mines. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility.
# 1981: Sea Shepherd sinks the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and Ibsa II,
in the Spanish harbour of Viga (Sole source Sea Shepherd. This has not
been confirmed by any other source)
.
# 1986: Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroese police with a line rifle
and try to sink their rubber dinghies.
The vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial
waters after attempting to obstruct the Faroese pilot whale harvest. The
vessel ignored the order, and Faroese police tried unsuccessfully to
board the ship. In the police report of Oct. 7,1986, it says: “One of
the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a so called “Speed Line”
line rifle. The attack is considered to have endangered the lives of the
police crew members seriously ... also, signal flares containing
phosphorous (a substance which both burns and cauterizes) was thrown at
the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used so called “toads”
(i.e. rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends), against the
rubber dinghies .. petrol was poured over the side of the ship ...
whereupon signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in a
miscarried attempt to set the petrol on fire.” Sea Shepherd accused the
Faroese police of having shot at them with rifles. The police emphasize
in their report that they only used tear gas and gas cartridges from
shotguns.
# 1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two
whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland, and for malicious damage to the
whaling station not far from the town. The act was carried out by two US
citizens, one of them, Rodney Corronado, is now wanted in the US for
several incidents of serious animal rights terrorism.
# 1988: Paul Watson arrives in Iceland demanding to be held responsible
for the sinking of the whaling vessels in Reykjavik in 1986. He is
arrested and held for questioning. He realizes that he can risk facing
several years imprisonment. In a press release from the Icelandic
Ministry of Justice it says: “At questioning Paul Watson has admitted
that he has given some remarks that connect him with the sabotage, but
in spite of this he now claims that he neither took part in the planning
nor the execution of the sabotage.” There was no evidence incriminating
Watson. He was ordered to leave the country and declared persona non
grata in Iceland
# 1991: Mr A. Ferreira, A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel,
reports to his senator that Sea Shepherd rammed his vessel causing
considerable damage. Some of Sea Shepherd’s crew were armed with rifles.
Senator John Seymour replies: “Your situation does not fall under my
jurisdiction. I have therefore forwarded your letter to the American
Tunaboat Association.”
# 1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest.
“We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left
because those rules and that philosophy seems to be changing,” he said
to “Outside” magazine (Sept. 1991).
Paul Watson admits that there are arms on board “Sea Shepherd”. “We
confront dangerous people. As the captain, it is my responsibility to
protect the lives of my crew ... Therefore, I have prepared myself for
the possibility of defending my crew in a situation that could go never
occur, but if it does I will use firearms to first intimidate and then
to defend,” said Watson to the Los Angeles Free Weekly (April 24, 1992).
Seattle Times columnist Alston Chase comments thus on Sea Shepherds
relationship to weapons: “The business of Sea Shepherd is confrontation,
whereby these sailor activists try to provoke others to attack. Crying
self-defence in these circumstances is like the gunfighter who starts a
quarrel to justify duelling his enemy.” (The Seattle Times, July 1, 1991).
# 1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa
Rican fishing vessels. In a written complaint to the local authorities
the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew shot at them with
bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them
great pain.
# 1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the
combined minke whaling and fishing vessel "Nybræna" at her moorings in
the Lofoten Islands. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused
considerable damage.
# 1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel
“Edward Abbey” (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese
fishing vessel.
The following transcript stems from the 1993 Yorkshire Television
documentary “Defenders of the Wild - Ocean Rider”
Paul Watson (over the radio): We are going to ram you!
Stand clear!
A Taiwanese drift-netter (over the radio): “Why are you
crushing our ship?”
Paul Watson: “You are killing too many dolphins ..
and you insulted us by calling us creeps.”
From another confrontation with a Japanese fishing vessel:
Narrator: Sea Shepherd is ready to ram again.
Now Paul Watson wants the Edward Abbey to fire directly
at the drift-netters.
Watson: “Fire a couple in the stern right at the water line.
Nobody’s there.”
Narrator: “To the relief of many of the crew members the
order is not carried out. The Edward Abbey fires a cannon
shot across its bow. Still the Japanese ship does not stop."
# 1993: Sea Shepherd makes an unsuccesful attempt at scuttling the
combined minke whaling and fishing vessel "Senet" at her moorings in
Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused some damage.
# 1993: Sea Shepherd concludes that the organisation has sunk 8 ships
and rammed and damaged a further 6.
Dismissed from the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd
lost its status as observer at the IWC. The organisation claims that it
is merely enforcing IWC rules. In February 1994, IWC Secretary, Ray
Gambell, declared to NTB (the Norwegian Telegram Agency) that the IWC
and all its member states ardently condemn Sea Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.
Source:
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Sea_Shepherd/se-sh-re.htm
<snip>
usual suspect
Oh yeah...
>>You cite Paul Watson and claim you've proven something????
>
> Bibliography and Sources:
Some of which are thoroughly irrelevant. Sagan was not a marine
biologist, you fruitcake foot masseuse.
Try this page:
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/my-an-fa.htm
You'll find informtaion like this:
"In many respects... the cetacean brain is actually quite
primitive. It retains all the structures found in primitive
mammals, such as hedgehogs and bats. It shows none of the
structural differences from area to area typical of advanced
brains like those of primates. The regions of the cortex are not
separated by so-called associative areas, but they do seem to be
arranged in much the same order as we imagine they were in the
ancestors of all mammals. (Dr. Margaret Klinowska, researcher at
the Marine Mammal Unit of the University of Cambridge. New
Scientist, October 29, 1989.)
And:
...There is no proof or indication that whales in general, or
certain whale species in particular are in possession of
intelligence distinguishing them from other animals. In his book
"The Ecology of Whales and Dolphins", Canadian whale researcher
D.E. Gaskin writes:"I cannot see that the experimental and
objective behavioural observations support this supposition of
high dolphin intelligence; in fact they frequently suggest the
opposite."
Stick to something you know, like how to rub the feet of old and sick
people.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > Bibliography and Sources:
> Try this page:
> http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/my-an-fa.htm
>
> You'll find informtaion like this:
> "In many respects... the cetacean brain is actually quite
> primitive. It retains all the structures found in primitive
> mammals, such as hedgehogs and bats. It shows none of the
> structural differences from area to area typical of advanced
> brains like those of primates. The regions of the cortex are not
> separated by so-called associative areas, but they do seem to be
> arranged in much the same order as we imagine they were in the
> ancestors of all mammals. (Dr. Margaret Klinowska, researcher at
> the Marine Mammal Unit of the University of Cambridge. New
> Scientist, October 29, 1989.)
'In overview, cetacean cortex seems to have evolved by replicating
its neural elements rather than differentiating these elements into
distinct areas and layers. But one should keep in mind that the rules
governing neocortical organization are obviously different in
Cetaceans than in most mammals. Idioadaptations -- specific
changes in reaction to unique environmental pressures (here, of
an aquatic existence) -- have occurred. Conclusions regarding
consciousness in cetaceans, or any species, should also take into
account a species' behavior which can illuminate brain processing
and mechanisms. '
http://home.onemain.com/~dk1008206/html/dolph1.htm.
> And:
> ...There is no proof or indication that whales in general, or
> certain whale species in particular are in possession of
> intelligence distinguishing them from other animals. In his book
> "The Ecology of Whales and Dolphins", Canadian whale researcher
> D.E. Gaskin writes:"I cannot see that the experimental and
> objective behavioural observations support this supposition of
> high dolphin intelligence; in fact they frequently suggest the
> opposite."
'Dolphins demonstrate many behaviors that show signs of conscious
awareness. For instance, behaviors which are illicit and punishable
are often performed only when a dolphin believes no one is around
(e.g., Savage-Rumbaugh and Hopkins, 1986). When a dolphin squirts
water at a human (to show annoyance), he will often raise his head
out of the water to curiously observe the effect his behavior had on
the unsuspecting victim (personal observation). Both examples show
an awareness of effects one's behavior has on others. ...'
http://home.onemain.com/~dk1008206/html/dolph1.htm.
(.. More than can be said of low-life killers like you.)
'According to a recent paper called Culture in whales and dolphins,
[http://www.orcanetwork.org/nathist/scifield.html#rendell] published in
the Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences: "The complex and stable
vocal and behavioral cultures of sympatric groups of killer whales
(Orcinus orca) appear to have no parallel outside humans and
represent an independent evolution of cultural faculties."
..
Orca Consciousness
Like all whales, orcas have brought their breathing under conscious
command. They rest by relaxing one hemisphere of their brain while
guiding their swimming and breathing with the other half, often while
swimming slowly in tight family groups. Orca brains are enormous,
about 4 times human brain size with a highly developed and convoluted
neocortex, an association area responsible for sophisticated cognitive
processes. Consciousness correlates with the degree of complexity in
the nervous system, and the structural complexity of the orca brain
appears capable of supporting a degree of consciousness that could
allow culturally acquired, meaningful communication. '
http://www.orcanetwork.org/nathist/salishorcas2.html.
(.. Unlike low-life murderous killers, like you, suspect.)
pearl
> shithead
Nuff said, hypocrite.
Cash Cow
> "Floyd Davidson" <fl...@barrow.com> wrote in message news:87u15br...@barrow.com...
>
>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>>>>Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
>>>>hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
>>>>reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
>>>
>>>
>>>'..We perceive reality based on how we preconceive it. In other words,
>>>we see what we want to see. Let's take a close look at the anatomy of
>>
>> [prattle snipped due to lack of veracity]
>
>
> Snip n' slander, eh.
>
> Says you. Where's your evidence disproving any of it?
>
>
>>>had developed to their present capacity well before our own
>>>evolutionary jump in brain development.
>>>....'
>>>http://tinyurl.com/ufxj
>>
>>You cite Paul Watson and claim you've proven something????
>
>
> Bibliography and Sources:
>
[...]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ufxj
Surprise, surprise: the foulest cunt on usenet hasn't
read any of the "sources" in her "bibliography". As
usual, cunt has cut-n-pasted from a web page.
This fucking bitch has never read a single source she
has ever cited, not one. What do you expect, from a
school-leaver. Cunt has never been to university.
Purple
A Turkey is still acutely sentient and they are usually made to endure
conditions which are not morally acceptable. For information see
http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Briefings/BR4098.htm
This relates to the UK but I shouldn't imagine things are much better
in the US.
Makoto Taniguchi
Just about every creature on earth is being mistreated. From the
circus to the dog breeding pin to the chicken factory.
The only time an animal is not enduring mistreatment is when it's out
in the wild or being kept as a pet by caring people. Other than, they
are more or less being abused all the time. Hell, I've heard that the
Niagra Fall's Marineland abuses their killer whales, seals and what
not.
pearl
> Surprise, surprise: the foulest
poster on usenet ~Jonathan Ball~ butts in.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
usual suspect
> (.. More than can be said of low-life killers like you.)
I'm not a low-life, Chelsea.
> (.. Unlike low-life murderous killers, like you, suspect.)
Your redundancy of language only shows what an emotive little wreck you
are, bootgirl.
usual suspect
>>shithead
>
> Nuff said, hypocrite.
Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not. They
said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
ship, and so on.
BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, THE SEA SHEPHERDS HAVE SUNK AT LEAST EIGHT SHIPS
AND DAMAGED ANOTHER SIX THROUGH 1993. MOST OF THESE SHIPS WERE MANNED,
AND THE DANGER PRESENTED TO THOSE SAILORS WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEA
SHEPHERD'S OWN RULES:
"We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons.
I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to be
changing," [former Sea Shepherd president Scott Trimmingham]
said to Outside magazine (Sept. 1991).
A reporter also noted that "The business of Sea Shepherd is
confrontation, whereby these sailor activists try to provoke others to
attack. Crying self-defence in these circumstances is like the
gunfighter who starts a quarrel to justify duelling his enemy.” (Alston
Chase in “The Seattle Times, July 1, 1991).
That was precisely my point in my first reply to this thread. "So the
ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get all twisted." The
only difference is the fishermen were ashore and only made gestures;
they presented no danger to the Sea Shepherds.
The Sea Shepherds *are* a threat to maritime safety. They're not
activists, they're terrorists. I have no sympathy for them, and neither
should anyone else. You should be ashamed of yourself for cutting and
pasting shite that doesn't mention their tactics and how they're
responsible for such reactions as this to their mere presence.
pearl
> the skinhead reflexologist wrote:
> > (.. More than can be said of low-life killers like you.)
>
> I'm not a low-life, Chelsea.
You're a liar, just for starters. Liars are low-lifes in my book.
> > (.. Unlike low-life murderous killers, like you, suspect.)
>
> Your redundancy of language only shows what an emotive little wreck you
> are, bootgirl.
*My* redundancy of language? Hah! Just stating facts, buttboy.
usual suspect
>>
>>>(.. More than can be said of low-life killers like you.)
>>
>>I'm not a low-life, Chelsea.
>
> You're a liar, just for starters. Liars are low-lifes in my book.
I'm not a liar.
>>>(.. Unlike low-life murderous killers, like you, suspect.)
>>
>>Your redundancy of language only shows what an emotive little wreck you
>>are, bootgirl.
>
> *My* redundancy of language?
Yes. "Murderous killers."
> Hah! Just stating facts, buttboy.
You're so daft you can't distinguish fact from opinion, much less
fantasy from reality.
pearl
> CHELSEA wrote:
> >>shithead
> >
> > Nuff said, hypocrite.
>
> Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
> They
> said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
> hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
> resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
> mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
> ship, and so on.
SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
_HYPOCRITE_.
<snip more of same>
rick etter
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
Fantasy IS her reality. Didn't you know that yet? She has no real world in
which she lives...
pearl
> the skinhead reflexologist wrote:
> >>
> >>>(.. More than can be said of low-life killers like you.)
> >>
> >>I'm not a low-life, Chelsea.
> >
> > You're a liar, just for starters. Liars are low-lifes in my book.
>
> I'm not a liar.
I'm not a skinhead, as I've told you many, many times.
You're a liar.
rick etter
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:boqteb$rgq$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> LIAR "usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
news:8X5sb.42795$f53....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > CHELSEA wrote:
> > >>shithead
> > >
> > > Nuff said, hypocrite.
> >
> > Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
>
> > They
> > said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
> > hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
> > resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
> > mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
> > ship, and so on.
>
> SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
> HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
Yes fool, because that would be murder.
>
> SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
> THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
> WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
> A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
=======================
LOL Just what comic-book did you get that one out of, eh killer?
>
> _HYPOCRITE_.
======================
That's you, in spades, killler...
>
> <snip more of same>
>
>
>
usual suspect
>>Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
No, I point out flaws in your benighted arguments. That's not attacking.
>>They
>>said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
>>hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
>>resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
>>mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
>>ship, and so on.
>
> SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
> HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
It's against the law to hunt and kill humans, except during war, etc.
Some people eat whales. Get over it.
> SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
> THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
> WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
> A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
Millions? No. That's hyperbole and you know it. Well, maybe you don't.
You're quite daft.
As to your claim that our grounds for action are baseless, I remind you
of the atrocities committed against Americans and people from many other
nations on 11 Sept 2001. We've gone after the people who were involved
directly. We've also removed from power those who allowed them to
operate freely in their nation. We were right to do that, and we're
right to pursue every fucking cave in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan
or wherever else to find bin Laden and his lackeys.
As to Iraq, there is no question that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing
force in his own region, and very little question that he posed a threat
to other regions -- including the US, UK, and Ireland (read the news
lately?) -- as well. We've uncovered materiel and evidence of programs
banned by UN resolutions in Iraq. We already knew of Saddam's links to
terrorism. After all, Abu Nidal and others had long enjoyed refuge in
Iraq. Al-Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq. The Middle East is
going to enjoy more stability now that he's out of the picture, and so
will the rest of the world.
Ignoring what's happening thousands of miles away is an acceptable
policy until someone flies planes into office buildings. Ignoring it
afterwards is suicidal. We'll engage those who threaten us on their own
shores. Better there than on our own.
> _HYPOCRITE_.
Nope.
> <snip more of same>
You mean snip of what you can't handle: the truth.
usual suspect
> I'm not a skinhead, as I've told you many, many times.
Your husband was a skinhead, and you knew this going into your
relationship. He called you a Chelsea. A Chelsea is a female skinhead.
He became disillusioned when you started with your "love all the
animals" hippie stuff.
> You're a liar.
No.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
boblan...@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message news:<b470cb58.03111...@posting.google.com>...
usual suspect
<...>
>>You're so daft you can't distinguish fact from opinion, much less
>>fantasy from reality.
>
> =====================
> Fantasy IS her reality. Didn't you know that yet? She has no real world in
> which she lives...
I know that. Her following beliefs are evidence of her fantasy world:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
Nuttier than squirrel shit, I tell ya.
usual suspect
> You've switched back and forth on your claim to being
> a vegan at least 3 documented times in 462 days, and
> then had the nerve to claim your views have been
> consistent.
Views, yes. Labels, no. Tough shit, fat slob.
> Not only are you a bare faced liar, you're one
> Hell of a confused little puppy as well.
Pretty rich from one carrying on a lengthy dialogue with sock puppets,
even offering to share usenet accounts. Does your beleaguered and
longsuffering wife know how far you've fallen in recent weeks, Dreck?
pearl
> rick etter wrote:
> <...>
> >>You're so daft you can't distinguish fact from opinion, much less
> >>fantasy from reality.
> >
> > =====================
> > Fantasy IS her reality. Didn't you know that yet? She has no real world in
> > which she lives...
>
> I know that. Her following beliefs are evidence of her fantasy world:
Despite being informed time and time again that your 'list'
contains inaccuracies and lies, not to mention downright
invention, you still post it, fraudulently attributing it to me.
You're not just any old low-life usual,- no, you are as low
as it gets.
pearl
> chelsea wrote:
> > I'm not a skinhead, as I've told you many, many times.
>
> Your husband was a skinhead, and you knew this going into your
> relationship.
So nothing.
> He called you a Chelsea.
He lied. Probably to save face.
> A Chelsea is a female skinhead.
You don't say.
> He became disillusioned when you started with your "love all the
> animals" hippie stuff.
Nonsense. He was making his excuses.
> > You're a liar.
>
> No.
Yes.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
> >
> > Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
>
> No, I point out flaws in your benighted arguments. That's not attacking.
You lie.
> >>They
> >>said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
> >>hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
> >>resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
> >>mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
> >>ship, and so on.
> >
> > SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
> > HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
>
> It's against the law to hunt and kill humans, except during war, etc.
> Some people eat whales. Get over it.
People make laws to suit themselves. Times are a-changing. Get over it.
> > SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
> > THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
> > WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
> > A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
>
> Millions? No. That's hyperbole and you know it. Well, maybe you don't.
> You're quite daft.
Overall.
"We need to undo the enormous economic damage
that has been done here over the last 30 years," Bremer
said recently about Iraq's lack of electricity. "This is a
problem we inherited from a regime that for 35 years
under-invested in every aspect of this country."
According to UNICEF, however, 85 percent of the Iraqi
population and 96 percent of the urban population had safe
drinking water as recently as February 2002, one year
before the Anglo-American invasion.
Prior to the Gulf War of 1991, more than 90 percent of the
Iraqi population had safe drinking water. In 1990, the Iraqi
people enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the
Middle East. Iraq was then the only Arab country in which
the vast majority of the population had access to clean water.
Prior to Gulf War I in 1991, Iraq had a high standard of
living, with the majority of the population in a relatively
wealthy "middle-class" status.
With low infant mortality and high levels of education and
widespread access to potable water and sanitation, Iraq
ranked 67th on the UN Development Program (UNDP)
Human Development Index in 1990. After the first Anglo-
American assault and 10 years of sanctions, Iraq had fallen
to 125 on the UNDP Human Development Index.
How did Iraq fall? Targeted bombings during two wars
and 12 years of sanctions paved the way.
"The sanctions against Iraq are the most comprehensive,
total sanctions that have ever been imposed on a country,"
Marc Bossuyt of the UN's Economic and Social Council
wrote in June 2000. "The situation at present is extremely
grave. The transportation, power and communication
infrastructures were destroyed during the [first] Gulf War,
and have not been rebuilt owing to the sanctions. The
industrial sector is also in shambles, and agricultural
production has suffered greatly. But most alarming is the
health crisis that has erupted since the imposition of the
sanctions."
http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_18_03/Chaos__Despair/chaos__despair.html
The human costs of the 1991 Gulf war
More than 80,000 tons of explosives dropped by coalition forces
led by the US killed between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.
.Between 2,500 and 3,500 innocent civilians were killed during the
air campaign, and 9,000 homes were destroyed.
.The civilian death toll in 1991-after the massive bombing campaign
was stopped- rose to 111,000 people. Shortages of medicine and
damaged health facilities contributed to this high rate of "delayed
mortality.'
.Of these 111,000 deaths, 70,000 were children under 15 years of age.
These deaths were caused by health effects resulting from the destruction
of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, especially electricity generating power
plants, which led to a breakdown in water purification and sanitation.
This breakdown caused outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera,
typhoid, malaria, polio, and hepatitis.
.Landmines, unexploded ordnance, andantipersonnel bombs
have added thousands of victims to the numbers of physically
handicapped children in Iraq, especially amputees. These injuries not
only effect the physical and emotional development of the child but also
diminish the prospects of work, marriage, social life, self-support, and
dignity for the adult.
...
The sanctions have contributed to the death of over 1.5 million
Iraqis (MECC 1999). UNICEF estimates that an additional half
a million children died between 1991 and 1998 compared to the
case if mortality rates had continued to decline on the same trend
as in the 1980s [UNICEF 1999].' (due to malnutrition, diarrhea,
and other preventable diseases.)
http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet3vpn.pdf.
After Gulf War 1, it is estimated that around 250, 000 Iraqis died as a result
of 110, 000 aerial sorties that dropped 88,000 tons of explosives.
http://www.counterpunch.org/khan04152003.html
Tens of thousands in your latest assault.
"discounted casualties,"- people exposed to depleted uranium
and other toxic substances, and now tormented by leukemia
and a whole array of chronic disorders.
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html
> As to your claim that our grounds for action are baseless, I remind you
> of the atrocities committed against Americans and people from many other
> nations on 11 Sept 2001. We've gone after the people who were involved
> directly.
Really?
> We've also removed from power those who allowed them to
> operate freely in their nation.
You have?
> We were right to do that, and we're
> right to pursue every fucking cave in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan
> or wherever else to find bin Laden and his lackeys.
Like
> As to Iraq, there is no question that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing
> force in his own region, and very little question that he posed a threat
> to other regions -- including the US, UK, and Ireland (read the news
> lately?) -- as well. We've uncovered materiel and evidence of programs
> banned by UN resolutions in Iraq. We already knew of Saddam's links to
> terrorism. After all, Abu Nidal and others had long enjoyed refuge in
> Iraq. Al-Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq. The Middle East is
> going to enjoy more stability now that he's out of the picture, and so
> will the rest of the world.
Yeah, we've noticed.
> Ignoring what's happening thousands of miles away is an acceptable
> policy until someone flies planes into office buildings. Ignoring it
> afterwards is suicidal. We'll engage those who threaten us on their own
> shores. Better there than on our own.
What happened to your air defence on 9/11?
> > _HYPOCRITE_.
>
> Nope.
Totally.
> > <snip more of same>
>
> You mean snip of what you can't handle: the truth.
That's your trick, twisterrrrrr.
Michael A. Hobson
Pearl:
This looks like one of the ongoing talk.politics.animals flame wars,
please don't crosspost TPA flamage into alt.animals.dolphins.
Please set the headers on all future replies to this thread to keep
it out of AAD.
Michael A. Hobson
The Dolphin Speech Project
[No, I don't work with dolphins. See my web site for info.]
web: http://www.dolphin-speech.org
email: mike (at) crusader (dash) services (dot) com
icq: #2186709
yahoo: warrior_mike2001
usual suspect
>>>>You're so daft you can't distinguish fact from opinion, much less
>>>>fantasy from reality.
>>>
>>>=====================
>>>Fantasy IS her reality. Didn't you know that yet? She has no real world in
>>>which she lives...
>>
>>I know that. Her following beliefs are evidence of her fantasy world:
>
> Despite being informed time and time again that your 'list'
> contains inaccuracies and lies, not to mention downright
> invention, you still post it, fraudulently attributing it to me.
You've admitted that over 50% of it is true. I think it's closer to
100%. Nevertheless, you've chosen to avoid announcing and/or addressing
the points which you contend are untrue. You've had numerous opportunities.
> You're not just any old low-life usual,- no, you are as low
> as it gets.
No, I'm neither a skinhead nor a New Age foot rubber. I also don't rely
on pseudoscience to make phony claims about physiology. That's the
lowest of low.
usual suspect
>>>I'm not a skinhead, as I've told you many, many times.
>>
>>Your husband was a skinhead, and you knew this going into your
>>relationship.
>
> So nothing.
Goes to your character AND birds of a feather flock together.
>>He called you a Chelsea.
>
> He lied. Probably to save face.
Ipse dixit. He's not here to defend himself.
>>A Chelsea is a female skinhead.
>
> You don't say.
I'm sure you have a lot more knowledge about your deviant subculture
than I ever will.
>>He became disillusioned when you started with your "love all the
>>animals" hippie stuff.
>
> Nonsense. He was making his excuses.
He's not here to defend himself, but his contemporaenous writings are
quite clear on the matter.
<snip (no!)>
usual suspect
>>>>Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
>>>
>>>Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
>>
>>No, I point out flaws in your benighted arguments. That's not attacking.
>
> You lie.
No, never.
>>>>They
>>>>said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
>>>>hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
>>>>resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
>>>>mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
>>>>ship, and so on.
>>>
>>>SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
>>>HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
>>
>>It's against the law to hunt and kill humans, except during war, etc.
>>Some people eat whales. Get over it.
>
> People make laws to suit themselves. Times are a-changing. Get over it.
Who's making it legal to hunt and kill humans?
>>>SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
>>>THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
>>>WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
>>>A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
>>
>>Millions? No. That's hyperbole and you know it. Well, maybe you don't.
>>You're quite daft.
>
> Overall.
Goal post move of extraordinary proportions. Why not go ahead and add
Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, the Spanish-American War, and the Revolution
while you're at it, you filthy slut?
> "We need to undo the enormous economic damage
> that has been done here over the last 30 years," Bremer
> said recently about Iraq's lack of electricity. "This is a
> problem we inherited from a regime that for 35 years
> under-invested in every aspect of this country."
THIRTY-FIVE YEARS? That's not America's problem, that's Saddam's. And
you forget that a lot of the damage to Iraqi infrastructure and war
casulaties occurred during his war with Iran. The figures on Iraqi
deaths during the war for Kuwaiti freedom aren't firm, but the figures
offered by the Left are *greatly* exaggerated.
Iraqi troop strength when the war commenced was < 75%. Given the psyops
actions we took to reduce casualties, the number of POWs we took, and
the documented desertion of personnel (a lot of it due to the
aforementioned psyops pamphlet drops), the only way to achieve the
100,000+ kill levels would be to have something of the magnitude of 175%
fatality rates for every vehicle and barracks hit. Now tell me, you
ignorant fool, how do you kill more than 100% in any strike?
<snip of extreme leftwing propaganda>
Here's the deal, Lesley. *All* those civilian deaths and illnesses and
injuries were avoidable. All Saddam Hussein had to do was (a) not invade
his neighbors, (b) withdraw from invaded territory, and (c) abide by the
terms of ceasefire he agreed to follow. I don't like sanctions, but I
recall you wanted more time for sanctions and inspections to work before
this war. Sometimes war is better, especially for civilians who cannot
overthrow a repressive and totalitarian dictator.
>>As to your claim that our grounds for action are baseless, I remind you
>>of the atrocities committed against Americans and people from many other
>>nations on 11 Sept 2001. We've gone after the people who were involved
>>directly.
>
> Really?
Yes, we have. Where have you been all this time, Ms Van Winkle?
>>We've also removed from power those who allowed them to
>>operate freely in their nation.
>
> You have?
Are the Taliban still in charge in Afganistan? Or are they living in caves?
>>We were right to do that, and we're
>>right to pursue every fucking cave in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan
>>or wherever else to find bin Laden and his lackeys.
>
> Like
Anywhere in the world.
>>As to Iraq, there is no question that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing
>>force in his own region, and very little question that he posed a threat
>>to other regions -- including the US, UK, and Ireland (read the news
>>lately?) -- as well. We've uncovered materiel and evidence of programs
>>banned by UN resolutions in Iraq. We already knew of Saddam's links to
>>terrorism. After all, Abu Nidal and others had long enjoyed refuge in
>>Iraq. Al-Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq. The Middle East is
>>going to enjoy more stability now that he's out of the picture, and so
>>will the rest of the world.
>
> Yeah, we've noticed.
People like you who ignorantly detract from our efforts only embolden
those engaged in terrorism and insurgence.
>>Ignoring what's happening thousands of miles away is an acceptable
>>policy until someone flies planes into office buildings. Ignoring it
>>afterwards is suicidal. We'll engage those who threaten us on their own
>>shores. Better there than on our own.
>
> What happened to your air defence on 9/11?
First, have you heard of Posse Comitatus? Second, we *did* scramble jets
once we realized civilian airliners were being used to target civilian
targets.
>>>_HYPOCRITE_.
>>
>>Nope.
>
> Totally.
Not at all.
>>><snip more of same>
>>
>>You mean snip of what you can't handle: the truth.
>
> That's your trick, twisterrrrrr.
Nope, you dopehead.
Bill Levinson
pearl wrote:
> "Floyd Davidson" <fl...@barrow.com> wrote in message news:87y8uoq...@barrow.com...
>
>>Bill Levinson <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Japanese Whale Killers Threaten Campaigners
>>>>
>>>>That's unbiased reporting, isn't it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By Julian Ryall
>>>>>The Scotsman - UK
>>>>>11-9-3
>>>>>
>>>>>TOKYO -- Environmental activists have been threatened
>>>>>by fisherman after filming them capturing more than 30
>>>>>whales in an inlet in southern Japan.
>>>
>>>>So the ecofreaks get their comeuppance and their knickers get
>>>>all twisted.
>>>
>>>I'm hardly an ecofreak (I'm against the Kyoto Treaty, for
>>>example) but dolphins and whales are not just animals. They're
>>>highly intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than humans. A
>>>dolphin brain is as big as a man's and it goes up from
>>>there. http://www.ganesha.org/misc/dolphin.html
>>
>>Dolphins certainly are intelligent. So are pigs. On the other
>>hand, whales appear to be about as smart as a cow (widely
>>reputed to be the dumbest animal in the barnyard).
[deleted]
>
> The whale has evolved in a different manner, its natural physical
> abilities giving it little cause to desire material baggage. The spear was
> not needed to get food -- the whale is one of the most efficient hunters
> in natural history. The whale's ability to travel, to communicate, to
> care for its young, and its complex social systems are all separate from
> external material acquisition. Whales have biologically evolved what we
> utilize technology to achieve. Technology is something that the whales
> have never needed. They contain all the assets needed for survival and
> development within their massive bodies and formidable brains.
Bottlenose dolphins (working in a group) INITIATED cooperation with
human fishermen. The dolphins chased fish (which they had trouble
catching themselves) into the fishermen's nets and everyone got as many
fish as they needed.
> Humans are big-brained manipulators. Cetaceans and elephants are
> big-brained nonmanipulators.
Actually, elephants will paint pictures given some training.
http://www.ganesha.org/misc/elephant.hmtl
Bill Levinson
Purple wrote:
I am not in favor of abusing farm animals. I don't see why, though, a
turkey should not be raised in humane conditions and then chopped for
Thanksgiving or Christmas.
Cetaceans are another matter.
r_c_brown
What else would you serve for Christmas dinner if you had 700 of your
closest friends over?
>
> --Bill
> http://www.ganesha.org/misc/dolphin.html
Bill Levinson
pearl
news:qkfsb.29848$Mc....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> chelsea
never
What a load of nonsense.
HYPOCRITE.
"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03
"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
..
.. the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03
"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03
"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03
pearl
news:Whfsb.29846$Mc.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
pearl wrote:
> > Despite being informed time and time again that your 'list'
> > contains inaccuracies and lies, not to mention downright
> > invention, you still post it, fraudulently attributing it to me.
>
> You've admitted that over 50% of it is true. I think it's closer to
> 100%.
You 'think'? Then preface your 'list' with 'I _think_ .... believes ....'.
> Nevertheless, you've chosen to avoid announcing and/or addressing
> the points which you contend are untrue. You've had numerous opportunities.
Why should I? *You* claim those are all my beliefs- so prove it.
You've had numerous opportunities.
> > You're not just any old low-life usual,- no, you are as low
> > as it gets.
>
> No, I'm neither a skinhead nor a New Age foot rubber. I also don't rely
> on pseudoscience to make phony claims about physiology. That's the
> lowest of low.
You're a wilfully ignorant liar and hypocrite, suspect.
"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03
"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
..
.. the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03
"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03
"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03
You lying hypocritical murderous low-life nasty wuss.
usual suspect
>>chelsea
>
> never
Always and forever.
> What a load of nonsense.
Your interpersonal dynamics with violent skinheads is nonsensical.
> HYPOCRITE.
No. I just report the truth.
> "Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
> You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
> -'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03
It's not dirt. It's what your husband wrote.
> "Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
> ..
> .. the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
> -'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03
I did that. You've yet to address the terroristic acts of the Sea
Shepherds. You've yet to address anything. You've only gone on this
tirade and called me a liar and hypocrite.
> "Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
> issues rather than attack the character of others."
> -'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03
I dealt with the issue of AR terrorism and the Sea Shepherds' aggression
toward other humans and boats. You've not invalidated the truth by
attacking me, Lesley.
> "Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
> debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03
Yes, and that's precisely what you're doing to me rather than supporting
the BS you posted about "threats" a terrorist organization known as the
Sea Shepherds.
usual suspect
>>>Despite being informed time and time again that your 'list'
>>>contains inaccuracies and lies, not to mention downright
>>>invention, you still post it, fraudulently attributing it to me.
>>
>>You've admitted that over 50% of it is true. I think it's closer to
>>100%.
>
> You 'think'? Then preface your 'list' with 'I _think_ .... believes ....'.
How about I simply asterisk those to which you object until such time as
I can go through ALL your bizarre posts and sort it out?
>>Nevertheless, you've chosen to avoid announcing and/or addressing
>>the points which you contend are untrue. You've had numerous opportunities.
>
> Why should I? *You* claim those are all my beliefs- so prove it.
> You've had numerous opportunities.
What opportunities? I said on a rainy weekend. Last weekend wasn't all
that hot, but I think we had > 0.1" of rainfall.
>>>You're not just any old low-life usual,- no, you are as low
>>>as it gets.
>>
>>No, I'm neither a skinhead nor a New Age foot rubber. I also don't rely
>>on pseudoscience to make phony claims about physiology. That's the
>>lowest of low.
>
> You're a wilfully ignorant liar and hypocrite, suspect.
Neither.
<snip>
> You lying hypocritical murderous low-life nasty wuss.
I'm neither a liar, a hypocrite, a mudererer, a low-life, nasty, nor a wuss.
pearl
news:NIfsb.29851$Mc....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> skinhead foot fetishist
>
pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
> >>
> >>No, I point out flaws in your benighted arguments. That's not attacking.
> >
> > You lie.
>
> No, never.
You didn't substitute my nym with the lies 'skinhead foot fetishist' above?
You're an idiot.
> >>>>They
> >>>>said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
> >>>>hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
> >>>>resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
> >>>>mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
> >>>>ship, and so on.
> >>>
> >>>SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
> >>>HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
> >>
> >>It's against the law to hunt and kill humans, except during war, etc.
> >>Some people eat whales. Get over it.
> >
> > People make laws to suit themselves. Times are a-changing. Get over it.
>
> Who's making it legal to hunt and kill humans?
That wasn't my point, and you know it, twisterrrrr.
But you must think it's legal, supporting a war of aggression.
> >>>SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
> >>>THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
> >>>WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
> >>>A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
> >>
> >>Millions? No. That's hyperbole and you know it. Well, maybe you don't.
> >>You're quite daft.
> >
> > Overall.
>
> Goal post move of extraordinary proportions.
Absolutely not. The second part is not qualified by the first.
Your OWN tactics over the years have layed waste a country,
killing or maiming millions, yet you had the gall to make out that
that now broken country was threatening you... HYPOCRITE.
> Why not go ahead and add
> Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, the Spanish-American War, and the Revolution
> while you're at it,
Why not indeed.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Santos: Wars of aggression
By Lino Santos
IN THE wires the other day, a reporter of Xinhua, the Chinese
News Agency reported that "The offensive, the first preemptive
strike in the US history, kicked off about 90 minutes after the
expiration of an ultimatum issued by US President George W.
Bush for Saddam to leave the country or face war."
This ignorance, reflected in how the story was presented, could
present an altogether different picture that what is actually the case.
The phrase "First Preemptive strike in US history" is far from
the truth. The United States has a history of preemptive and
borderline strikes, -- all to justify American wars of aggression
all over the world.
For example in its efforts to expand towards the west, the
United States government wage a genocidal war against the
American Indians and almost annihilated the native Americans
tribes. History books will show that the Indians were fighting
to defend their lands and it was the immigrant Americans who
tried to take away their lands. So in this line, the white
Americans were striking ahead or were on the attacking
mode while the Indians were mostly defensive.
In the Spanish=American war, the Americans were the ones
who preempted the war, in the guise of helping the Cubans
fight for independence against Spain. The Americans, had
nothing in common with the Cubans, but the American found
reason or cause to invade Cuba with a simple excuse. By
force or reason, it sent the battleship Maine to Havana.
Unfortunately, the battleship exploded. The Americans
claimed that the Spaniards created an act of war by mining
the battleship which resulted to the death of American sailors.
Later researches showed that the explosion was actually
caused by the igniting of vaporous and combustible coal
powder because of the heat or a cigarette thrown by a
careless American Sailor.
The Americans invented the battle cry "Remember the
Maine" as it invaded Cuba and brought the Spanish Flag
down in Central America.
It would be interesting to note that while the Americans
were preparing to invade Cuba, their President dispatched
Admiral George Dewey to Hongkong. When finally the
Americans landed in Cuba, Dewey was directed to proceed
to Manila and attack the Spanish fleet. That was a preemptive
strike preparatory to grabbing the Philippines from Spain.
The American has a history of preemptive strikes or of
provoking wars and moving on to attack unprepared or
lesser armed nations of the world.
In the move to take over Spanish possessions in Northwestern
America, the Americans used the Alamo debacle as an excuse
to pursue the Mexicans out of what is now California, Texas
and other still Spanish speaking states in the United States. The
Americans are fond of inventing catch phrases to agitate soldiers
into killing frenzies. Thus after Texas, the battle cry was
"Remember the Alamo." (Remember the movie starring John
Wayne?)
After developing a strong navy, the United States started
behaving like the policeman of the world when marines attacked
Tripoli, the home of the Barbary pirates of old. Thus we have
the marines singing "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores
of Tripoli."
This habit of preempting attacks was what got the Americans
involved in Korea, Vietnam, and now again the Middle East.
No amount of reasoning can convince the United States to
stop its "Preemptive attack on Iraq." Her leadership has
convinced the ruling military class of the need for this modern
war of aggression for all its worth.
Excuses, no matter how flimsy these may be, can always
justify the course of action of the strong and mighty in this world.
(March 25, 2003 issue)
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/zam/2003/03/25/oped/lino.santos.html.
> you filthy slut?
No, you sick pervert.
"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
- lying hypocrite 'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03
> > "We need to undo the enormous economic damage
> > that has been done here over the last 30 years," Bremer
> > said recently about Iraq's lack of electricity. "This is a
> > problem we inherited from a regime that for 35 years
> > under-invested in every aspect of this country."
>
> THIRTY-FIVE YEARS? That's not America's problem, that's Saddam's.
<restore>
<end restore>
> And
> you forget that a lot of the damage to Iraqi infrastructure and war
> casulaties occurred during his war with Iran. The figures on Iraqi
> deaths during the war for Kuwaiti freedom aren't firm, but the figures
> offered by the Left are *greatly* exaggerated.
Ipse dixit.
> Iraqi troop strength when the war commenced was < 75%. Given the psyops
> actions we took to reduce casualties, the number of POWs we took, and
> the documented desertion of personnel (a lot of it due to the
> aforementioned psyops pamphlet drops), the only way to achieve the
> 100,000+ kill levels would be to have something of the magnitude of 175%
> fatality rates for every vehicle and barracks hit. Now tell me, you
> ignorant fool, how do you kill more than 100% in any strike?
U.S. troop strength at over 360,000 in region (540,000+ Iraqi troops);
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan1.htm , you ignorant fool.
> <snip of extreme leftwing propaganda>
Evasion.
It's very tempting to snip the rest of your froth with
<snip of extreme rightwing propaganda>, suspect.
> Here's the deal. *All* those civilian deaths and illnesses and
> injuries were avoidable.
I agree.
> All Saddam Hussein had to do was (a) not invade
> his neighbors, (b) withdraw from invaded territory, and (c) abide by the
> terms of ceasefire he agreed to follow.
Saddam: Made in the USA
How the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations backed Saddam
With all the bellowing from George W. Bush about the dangerous
dictator Saddam Hussein, it is worth reminding this "freedom-loving
leader" that Saddam's government only exists because of the
backing of previous US administrations.
ABC News Nightline opened on June 9, 1993 with the truth for
a change: "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted
Koppel, "that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the
scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of
the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's
Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately
had to destroy."
But where was the US concern about "Saddam's human rights
record," "democracy," or "weapons of mass destruction" then?
Why would the US support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's?
The New York Times explained this mystery: "For ten years, as
Iraq developed a vast army, chemical weapons and a long record
of brutality, the Reagan and Bush [Sr.] administrations quietly
courted Hussein as a counter-weight to Iran's revolutionary fervor."
(8/13/90)
Washington feared the spread of Iran's theocratic, anti-Western
ideology, which threatened imperialist interests in the region. So
the US armed and financed Saddam during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq
war which cost over one million lives and an astronomical $1.19
trillion. The US supplied Iraq with military intelligence, $5 billion in
food subsidies, $2.5 billion in export loan guarantees, and $141
million in direct export subsidies. According to Senator Robert
Byrd in recent Congressional testimony, the US also sent Saddam
a "witches' brew of pathogens" including anthrax, botulinum, and
West Nile virus. (West Virginia Gazette, 9/27/02)
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a
matter of deep strategic concern," explained Col. Walter
P. Lang (retired senior Defense Intelligence officer) in a
recent interview with the New York Times. An anonymous
"senior U.S. officer" further commented that the Pentagon
"wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another
way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene,
it didn't make a difference." (8/18/02)
1991 Gulf War
Although remaining capitalist, Iraq nationalized its oil in 1972.
On this basis, the increase in oil prices in the 1970's allowed
the government to provide universal medical care, good
universities, and other basic social services. By 1989, Saddam
was the head of the most industrialized society in the Middle East.
At the same time, Saddam's reactionary, militaristic dictatorship
was and is marked by extreme brutality. Trade unions and
opposition political parties are banned. Saddam used chemical
weapons to put down internal rebellions, including in 1988 when
he used poison gas and rat poison to massacre 5,000 Iraqi Kurds.
At the end of the costly Iran-Iraq war, Saddam's government
was in trouble. Massive debts had been accumulated, and a
boiling rage was building among the Iraqi people against the
reckless policies which had led them into war and economic
disaster.
Fearing for his future, Saddam looked to stave off anger at
home through a popular diversionary foreign adventure, invading
Kuwait in August 1990. This allowed Iraq to cancel its debts
and seize control of 20% of the world's known oil reserves.
Shortly before the invasion, Saddam called a meeting with then
US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no
opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our
official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco
Examiner, 11/18/02)
The US was prepared to turn a blind eye to Iraq seizing disputed
oilfields on the Iraq-Kuwait border. However, Saddam overplayed
his hand, occupying all of Kuwait. American big business was
totally unwilling to allow Saddam to have such control over global
capitalism's oil supply or the ability to push up the price of oil. The
US also feared that Iraq could now attack Saudi Arabia, the
world's largest oil producer.
With the collapse of Stalinist block in 1989 Washington saw an
opportunity to assert its new global dominance and establish a
"new world order." On January 16, 1991 the US launched
"Desert Storm," killing 100-200,000 Iraqis in the most intensive
bombing campaign in history.
..'
http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/index2.html?/eng/2003/02/03us.html
A HISTORY OF:
US wars of aggression
http://www.cpa.org.au/campaign/ushistory.pdf.
Ad hominem won't cut it, suspect.
> I don't like sanctions, but I
> recall you wanted more time for sanctions and inspections to work before
> this war. Sometimes war is better, especially for civilians who cannot
> overthrow a repressive and totalitarian dictator.
Dreamers & Idiots
Britain And The US Did Everything To Avoid A
Peaceful Solution In Iraq And Afghanistan
By George Monbiot
The Guardian - UK
11-11-3
Those who would take us to war must first shut down the
public imagination. They must convince us that there is no
other means of preventing invasion, or conquering terrorism,
or even defending human rights. When information is scarce,
imagination is easy to control. As intelligence gathering and
diplomacy are conducted in secret, we seldom discover -
until it is too late - how plausible the alternatives may be.
So those of us who called for peace before the wars with
Iraq and Afghanistan were mocked as effeminate dreamers.
The intelligence our governments released suggested that
Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were immune to diplomacy
or negotiation. Faced with such enemies, what would we do,
the hawks asked? And our responses felt timid beside the
clanking rigours of war. To the columnist David Aaronovitch,
we were "indulging... in a cosmic whinge". To the Daily
Telegraph, we had become "Osama bin Laden's useful idiots".
Had the options been as limited as the western warlords
and their bards suggested, this might have been true. But,
as many of us suspected at the time, we were lied to.
Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have
been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence
to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March,
Saddam had "trained and financed... al-Qaida". Bush
and Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan
reveals, appear to possess no genuine concern for the
human rights of foreigners.
But a further, and even graver, set of lies is only now
beginning to come to light. Even if all the claims Bush and
Blair made about their enemies and their motives had been
true, and all their objectives had been legal and just, there
may still have been no need to go to war. For, as we
discovered last week, Saddam proposed to give Bush and
Blair almost everything they wanted before a shot had been
fired. Our governments appear both to have withheld this
information from the public and to have lied to us about
the possibilities for diplomacy.
Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded
Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly
desperate offers to the United States. In December, the
Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro,
the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer
to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11
attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter
the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the
object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed,
was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored
elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro,
these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned
down by the president and vice-president".
By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost
everything the US government could wish for: free access
to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction
wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel
and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil. Among the people
they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who
for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their
offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times
that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them
in Baghdad".
Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done
everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the
impending war, and the US government appears to have
done everything necessary to prevent one. This is the
opposite to what we were told by George Bush and
Tony Blair. On March 6, 13 days before the war began,
Bush said to journalists: "I want to remind you that it's his
choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's
Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the
choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong
choice."
Ten days later, Blair told a press conference: "We have
provided the right diplomatic way through this, which is
to lay down a clear ultimatum to Saddam: cooperate or
face disarmament by force... all the way through we have
tried to provide a diplomatic solution." On March 17,
Bush claimed that "should Saddam Hussein choose
confrontation, the American people can know that every
measure has been taken to avoid war". All these statements
are false.
The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan.
On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand
Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if
the US presented them with evidence that he was
responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.
The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before
the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative
in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations.
It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation
will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer
at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's
no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our
time."
On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour
party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could "look for
a diplomatic solution". "There is no diplomacy with Bin
Laden or the Taliban regime... I say to the Taliban:
surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your
choice." Well, they had just tried to exercise that choice,
but George Bush had rejected it.
Of course, neither Bush nor Blair had any reason to
trust the Taliban or Saddam - these people were, after
all, negotiating under duress. But neither did they have
any need to trust them. In both cases they could have
presented their opponents with a deadline for meeting
the concessions they had offered. Nor could the allies
argue that the offers were not worth considering because
they were inadequate: both the Taliban and Saddam were
attempting to open negotiations, not to close them - there
appeared to be plenty of scope for bargaining. In other
words, peaceful resolutions were rejected before they
were attempted. What this means is that even if all the
other legal tests for these wars had been met (they had
not), both would still have been waged in defiance of
international law. The charter of the United Nations
specifies that "the parties to any dispute...shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation".
None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That
these conflicts were unjust and illegal, that they killed or
maimed tens of thousands of civilians, is irrelevant, as
long as their aims were met. So the hawks should ponder
this. Had a peaceful resolution of these disputes been
attempted, Bin Laden might now be in custody, Iraq
might be a pliant and largely peaceful nation finding its
own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment
within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the
United States, rather than anger and resentment.
Now who are the dreamers and the useful idiots, and
who the pragmatists?
www.monbiot.com
> >>As to your claim that our grounds for action are baseless, I remind you
> >>of the atrocities committed against Americans and people from many other
> >>nations on 11 Sept 2001. We've gone after the people who were involved
> >>directly.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes, we have.
Are you claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11?
Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no
reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030916/API/309160919
> Where have you been all this time, Ms Van Winkle?
Where have you been, much more to the point.
Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
By Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
-- "Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel
frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire". --
(The Author Has A Master's Degree In 'Engineering' From Stanford
University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon)
Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the
pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes,
and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to
destroy.
Airplane strikes 'do not' destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the
Empire State Building during World War II 'did not' harm that building.
The World Trade Center towers were designed to 'survive' a strike by
a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed
near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it
would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base
of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in
a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
"Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame
structures has a single one been destroyed by fire".
How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper?
Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits
from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and
lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of
momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it
would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World
Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is
known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives
at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated
simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key
points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force
of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity
does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel
and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is
converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is
available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as
they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have
a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked
like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate
the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation
is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity
(10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the
height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds.
That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the
World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all
reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin
air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had
not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just
disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is
what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled
demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper
stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs
off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then
goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed
the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses,
or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot
achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case
of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at
least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There
was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple
levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was
the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough
to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained
in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or
stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the
result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where
most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building
and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened.
The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would
have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend.
This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress
on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that
the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no
steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail
catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case,
the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of
the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken
loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work
uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the
skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the
building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories
would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The
frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process
of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the
elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to
do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration,
acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt,
because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere
near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of
concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind.
But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy
required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward
progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of
the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete
into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would
have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10
seconds in any case.
..
While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour)
George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about
goats, and the US military did not respond to the first three attacks.
A fourth flight was also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently
struck down by some sort of missile or bomb before crashing in
Pennsylvania.
Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on
Arabs and specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this
campaign has continued to the present day. ....'
http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm
> >>We've also removed from power those who allowed them to
> >>operate freely in their nation.
> >
> > You have?
>
> Are the Taliban still in charge in Afganistan? Or are they living in caves?
US-Taliban relations: friend turns fiend as pipeline politics fail ..
It is ironical that Washington was courting the very force it is up
against today for years in a bid to advance the commercial interests
of US oil barons,
http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/oct/3/ca100301us1.htm
Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html
Monday, 13 May, 2002, 10:20 GMT 11:20 UK
Afghanistan plans gas pipeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
> >>We were right to do that, and we're
> >>right to pursue every fucking cave in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan
> >>or wherever else to find bin Laden and his lackeys.
> >
> > Like
>
> Anywhere in the world.
Even Texas apparently..
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00148.htm.
> >>As to Iraq, there is no question that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing
> >>force in his own region, and very little question that he posed a threat
> >>to other regions -- including the US, UK, and Ireland (read the news
> >>lately?) -- as well. We've uncovered materiel and evidence of programs
> >>banned by UN resolutions in Iraq. We already knew of Saddam's links to
> >>terrorism. After all, Abu Nidal and others had long enjoyed refuge in
> >>Iraq. Al-Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq. The Middle East is
> >>going to enjoy more stability now that he's out of the picture, and so
> >>will the rest of the world.
> >
> > Yeah, we've noticed.
>
> People like you who ignorantly detract from our efforts only embolden
> those engaged in terrorism and insurgence.
People like you who ignorantly swallow a bunch of heinous lies
embolden those engaged in terrorism and insurgence.
> >>Ignoring what's happening thousands of miles away is an acceptable
> >>policy until someone flies planes into office buildings. Ignoring it
> >>afterwards is suicidal. We'll engage those who threaten us on their own
> >>shores. Better there than on our own.
> >
> > What happened to your air defence on 9/11?
>
> First, have you heard of Posse Comitatus? Second, we *did* scramble jets
> once we realized civilian airliners were being used to target civilian
> targets.
Air Defense
Multiple Failures of the Air Defense Network to
Protect New York City and the Capital
..
The Interception "Attempts"
........
of http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/.
<..>
Ray
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
news:LyMsb.66800$KY1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
He's a waste of space and time. He attacks anyone about anything, subject
content is immaterial.
'Useless object' is a fat texan tworp with far too much time on his hands.
Like ~~jonnie~~ he has an excellent vocabulary which he abuses 'ad nauseum'.
Personally I think he is ~~jonnie~~, or his half brother.
He has the charisma of a colostomy bag and the personality of Rick Etter's
underpants.
Having said that he's not such a bad guy - if you like sad 'Trolls'.
Certainly a person to be avoided if you have a job.
>
usual suspect
>>>>>>Deal with the facts. The Sea Shepherds are hypocrites, I'm not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, you are. YOU do nothing here but ATTACK PEOPLE.
The Sea Shepherds do nothing but ATTACK PEOPLE, too.
>>>>No, I point out flaws in your benighted arguments. That's not attacking.
>>>
>>>You lie.
>>
>>No, never.
>
> You didn't substitute my nym with the lies 'skinhead foot fetishist' above?
Your association with skinheads is undeniable. You even married one. You
also make money off your foot fetish. You're an admitted reflexologist.
You learned your "art" from a perverted new ager.
> You're an idiot.
You believe in and/or support:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
>>>>>>They
>>>>>>said they felt intimidated by threatening gestures from fishermen
>>>>>>hundreds of yards away on shore. Meanwhile, their OWN tactics have
>>>>>>resulted in the sinking of ships, shooting at police officers, laying
>>>>>>mines, cutting nets, ramming ships, firing a cannon at at least one
>>>>>>ship, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>SAME AS YOU WOULD IF YOU WITNESSED MANIACS
>>>>>HUNTING AND KILLING H-BEINGS YOU CARE ABOUT.
>>>>
>>>>It's against the law to hunt and kill humans, except during war, etc.
>>>>Some people eat whales. Get over it.
>>>
>>>People make laws to suit themselves. Times are a-changing. Get over it.
>>
>>Who's making it legal to hunt and kill humans?
>
> That wasn't my point, and you know it, twisterrrrr.
A few rational laws aimed at protecting animal welfare don't really mean
times are a-changing, dummy. Your irrational AR sentiments are NOT
codified into law. They won't be, because such views are so abhorrent
and so radical that the mainstream will never support them. This is why
you're left defending terrorists -- people who cannot find enough public
support for their radical agenda that they bomb, harass, intimidate,
threaten, and otherwise endanger others.
> But you must think it's legal, supporting a war of aggression.
Our actions in Iraq are borne of their former leader's intransigence and
flagrant violations of at least eighteen UN resolutions over twelve
years. Of course, pacifist imbeciles like you prefer making hollow
threats, if not allowing pariahs to remain free to promote instability
within and without their own borders.
>>>>>SAME AS YOU HAVE, MAKING OUT THAT YOU WERE
>>>>>THREATENED BY PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY,
>>>>>WHILE YOUR *OWN* TACTICS HAVE LAYED WASTE
>>>>>A COUNTRY AND KILLED AND MAIMED MILLIONS.
>>>>
>>>>Millions? No. That's hyperbole and you know it. Well, maybe you don't.
>>>>You're quite daft.
>>>
>>>Overall.
>>
>>Goal post move of extraordinary proportions.
>
> Absolutely not. The second part is not qualified by the first.
>
> Your OWN tactics over the years have layed waste a country,
> killing or maiming millions, yet you had the gall to make out that
> that now broken country was threatening you... HYPOCRITE.
The country itself may not have posed a serious threat, but its leader
definitely did. You also conveniently leave out all the other reasons --
each one valid -- for our actions in removing Saddam, including the one
above.
>>Why not go ahead and add
>>Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, the Spanish-American War, and the Revolution
>>while you're at it,
>
> Why not indeed.
That's right, you tart, make the US out to be villains in every war we
ever fought. All your reliance on propaganda demonstrates is that you
loathe America, the freest, fairest nation in the history of the world.
<snip propaganda>
>>you filthy slut?
>
> No, you sick pervert.
I'm not into sex with skinheads or rubbing feet for money like you are.
> "Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
> You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
> - lying hypocrite 'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03
What's unfactual or slanderous about what I wrote?
>>>"We need to undo the enormous economic damage
>>>that has been done here over the last 30 years," Bremer
>>>said recently about Iraq's lack of electricity. "This is a
>>>problem we inherited from a regime that for 35 years
>>>under-invested in every aspect of this country."
>>
>>THIRTY-FIVE YEARS? That's not America's problem, that's Saddam's.
Stop blaming America for everything.
<snip propaganda from extreme leftist website>
>>And
>>you forget that a lot of the damage to Iraqi infrastructure and war
>>casulaties occurred during his war with Iran. The figures on Iraqi
>>deaths during the war for Kuwaiti freedom aren't firm, but the figures
>>offered by the Left are *greatly* exaggerated.
>
> Ipse dixit.
No, I offered *some* reasonable rationale for my claim. The claims of
the left are, in fact, ipse dixit. They provide NO coherent formula for
their estimates, nor can they document fatalities of such a magnitude.
The greatest loss of life related to the first Gulf War occurred when
released POWs and deserters were massacred by Republican Guard forces.
Perhaps you've read or heard about the mass graves, and even videos of
the torture?
>>Iraqi troop strength when the war commenced was < 75%. Given the psyops
>>actions we took to reduce casualties, the number of POWs we took, and
>>the documented desertion of personnel (a lot of it due to the
>>aforementioned psyops pamphlet drops), the only way to achieve the
>>100,000+ kill levels would be to have something of the magnitude of 175%
>>fatality rates for every vehicle and barracks hit. Now tell me, you
>>ignorant fool, how do you kill more than 100% in any strike?
>
> U.S. troop strength at over 360,000 in region (540,000+ Iraqi troops);
No shit, stupid. Now read exactly what I wrote. Full Iraqi battalion
strength would have been ~ 600,000 soldiers. That 540,000 is a fair
estimate, but we don't have firm estimates on how many actually reported
for duty (many did not) and how many deserted -- and there were MANY who
did. Even if we play by your guesstimates, we'd have to kill nearly 20%
of their forces to get to 100,00. We simply didn't.
> http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan1.htm , you ignorant fool.
Try this one, you daft dork:
----
Copyright 1993 Jane's Information Group Limited,
All Rights Reserved
Jane's Defence Weekly
March 13, 1993
SECTION: Vol. 19; No. 11; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 429 words
HEADLINE: Report puts Iraqi dead at 1500
BODY:
Iraqi combat deaths during the Gulf conflict were possibly as low as
1500, far below the widely accepted 100 000 figure, a former US Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst reports.
In an forthcoming article in the monthly journal Foreign Policy, John
Heidenrich says fewer Iraqis fought in the theatre of operations than
originally thought. Military prudence dictated that the Pentagon
estimate the highest number; therefore its minimum estimate was 500 000
troops, logical if all Iraqi units were full strength.
Heidenrich believes the number before hostilities was under 400 000,
based on Iraqi prisoner reports of units deployed at only 50-75 per cent
troop strength. This number fell rapidly with the desertion of several
tens of thousands of Iraqis once Coalition air strikes started. Perhaps
only 200 000-300 000 troops were left to fight.
Based on Iraqi prisoner statements, Heidenrich contends that Coalition
aerial bombardment produced an overall casualty rate of only two or even
one per cent, because "its main purpose was to destroy Iraqi equipment",
not dug-in soldiers...
----
Quote found in a forum on the following pro-Saddam website:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00003.html
>><snip of extreme leftwing propaganda>
>
> Evasion.
Not at all, dummy.
> It's very tempting to snip the rest of your froth with
> <snip of extreme rightwing propaganda>, suspect.
>
>
>>Here's the deal. *All* those civilian deaths and illnesses and
>>injuries were avoidable.
>
> I agree.
>
>>All Saddam Hussein had to do was (a) not invade
>>his neighbors, (b) withdraw from invaded territory, and (c) abide by the
>>terms of ceasefire he agreed to follow.
>
> Saddam: Made in the USA
No, Saddam: Made in Tikrit. I realize you want to blame the US for every
bad thing in the world, but exaggerating relationships doesn't lend you
much credibility. The fact remains that Saddam provoked *all* the events
from 1991 and following. That includes issues like sanctions, which even
your government supported.
<snip>
<snip>
> http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/index2.html?/eng/2003/02/03us.html
GREAT UNBIASED source, asshole. That surely proves what a complete
leftist shit you are. What's wrong, Rense was out of ammo on this?
> A HISTORY OF:
> US wars of aggression
> http://www.cpa.org.au/campaign/ushistory.pdf.
COMMUNIST PARTY OF AUSTRALIA?! You never cease to amuse me, lol.
> Ad hominem won't cut it, suspect.
The only ad hominems are the specious lies you've cut and pasted from
these communist party websites.
>>I don't like sanctions, but I
>>recall you wanted more time for sanctions and inspections to work before
>>this war. Sometimes war is better, especially for civilians who cannot
>>overthrow a repressive and totalitarian dictator.
At least be man enough to admit you were wrong about favoring sanctions,
Lesley. The amount of damage you were willing to sustain UNDER SADDAM is
uncoscionable. At least now the people are free and we're providing
medical care and other services for the Iraqis' welfare.
<snip of unfounded allegations>
>>>>As to your claim that our grounds for action are baseless, I remind you
>>>>of the atrocities committed against Americans and people from many other
>>>>nations on 11 Sept 2001. We've gone after the people who were involved
>>>>directly.
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>>Yes, we have.
>
> Are you claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11?
Immediately? No. Mediately, yes.
<snip>
>>Where have you been all this time, Ms Van Winkle?
>
> Where have you been, much more to the point.
Paying attention, including paying attention to the kooks from whom you
get your disinformation.
> Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
> By Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Enough said. Your list grows. I'm also adding your sycophantic adherence
to any of the shit Rense peddles.
http://bjcat0.tripod.com/larryrebuttal.htm
I encourage to review the links contained in the webpage above. They
deal with science and engineering, not crackpot conspiracy theories.
<snip of complete bullshit>
>>>>We've also removed from power those who allowed them to
>>>>operate freely in their nation.
>>>
>>>You have?
>>
>>Are the Taliban still in charge in Afganistan? Or are they living in caves?
>
> US-Taliban relations: friend turns fiend as pipeline politics fail ..
More of your warped conspiracy theories.
<snip>
>>>>We were right to do that, and we're
>>>>right to pursue every fucking cave in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan
>>>>or wherever else to find bin Laden and his lackeys.
>>>
>>>Like
>>
>>Anywhere in the world.
>
> Even Texas apparently..
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00148.htm.
Playing "Fifteen Degrees of Separation" and calling the results "facts"
is a game you'll ultimately lose every time, especially when your
contrived "facts" are so far off base. Connecting a bunch of irrelevant
dots doesn't atone for your willful ignorance of plain facts. BTW, not
all of bin Laden's family agree with him; most of that family are
law-abiding people who are abhorred by his actions. Perhaps you didn't
know that he's the source of embarrassment for them -- much like you're
a source of embarrassment to yours.
>>>>As to Iraq, there is no question that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing
>>>>force in his own region, and very little question that he posed a threat
>>>>to other regions -- including the US, UK, and Ireland (read the news
>>>>lately?) -- as well. We've uncovered materiel and evidence of programs
>>>>banned by UN resolutions in Iraq. We already knew of Saddam's links to
>>>>terrorism. After all, Abu Nidal and others had long enjoyed refuge in
>>>>Iraq. Al-Qaeda had a training camp in northern Iraq. The Middle East is
>>>>going to enjoy more stability now that he's out of the picture, and so
>>>>will the rest of the world.
>>>
>>>Yeah, we've noticed.
>>
>>People like you who ignorantly detract from our efforts only embolden
>>those engaged in terrorism and insurgence.
>
> People like you who ignorantly swallow a bunch of heinous lies
> embolden those engaged in terrorism and insurgence.
Do you mean heinous lies like the ones peddled in the crap you pasted
about physics and jet fuel and connect-the-conspiracy-dots? You're the
primary "swallower" of ignorance around here, Lesley. Need I paste your
list yet again now to remind you? Yes, I do. And I'm updating it:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
>>>>Ignoring what's happening thousands of miles away is an acceptable
>>>>policy until someone flies planes into office buildings. Ignoring it
>>>>afterwards is suicidal. We'll engage those who threaten us on their own
>>>>shores. Better there than on our own.
>>>
>>>What happened to your air defence on 9/11?
>>
>>First, have you heard of Posse Comitatus? Second, we *did* scramble jets
>>once we realized civilian airliners were being used to target civilian
>>targets.
Address the issue of Posse Comitatus vis a vis commercial airliners.
Are you suggesting we should've been blowing airliners out of the skies
while simultaneously holding to a strange and unfounded belief that the
WTC buildings were levelled in controlled explosions unrelated to the
airplanes that flew into them?
> Air Defense
What's your conclusion? That we didn't shoot down enough airplanes? BTW,
why doesn't your crackpot source mention the grounding orders in the
timeline and what role such groundings had on airplanes that day (and in
the weeks following)?
<snip>
Purple
> >
> > A Turkey is still acutely sentient and they are usually made to endure
> > conditions which are not morally acceptable. For information see
> > http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Briefings/BR4098.htm
> > This relates to the UK but I shouldn't imagine things are much better
> > in the US.
>
> circus to the dog breeding pin to the chicken factory.
Some animals are mistreated far worse than others. Cows and sheep for
example may be mistreated some of the time but at least most of their lives
are still worth living. There is no excuse for making any animal endure
the conditions described by my link.
Purple
> Purple wrote:
> >
> > A Turkey is still acutely sentient and they are usually made to endure
> > conditions which are not morally acceptable. For information see
> > http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Briefings/BR4098.htm
> > This relates to the UK but I shouldn't imagine things are much better
> > in the US.
>
> I am not in favor of abusing farm animals. I don't see why, though, a
> turkey should not be raised in humane conditions and then chopped for
> Thanksgiving or Christmas.
>
> Cetaceans are another matter.
Fair enough.
Rat & Swan
Purple wrote:
> bartr...@hotmail.com (Makoto Taniguchi) wrote in message news:<195ad9c0.03111...@posting.google.com>...
>>>A Turkey is still acutely sentient and they are usually made to endure
>>>conditions which are not morally acceptable. For information see
>>>http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Briefings/BR4098.htm
>>>This relates to the UK but I shouldn't imagine things are much better
>>>in the US.
Turkeys are one of the prime examples of what humans do to cripple
and pervert animals when they domesticate them. Wild turkeys
are resourceful, intelligent, and quite capable of surviving well
and thriving on their own. Franklin even wanted the wild turkey
to be the national bird of the U.S. instead of the eagle.
Domestic turkeys have been abused by human breeding until they
are completely different. It's disgusting, perverse, and and morally
abominable.
<snip>
Rat