NATO THE CRAZY DOG
big cat
NATO crazy dog, sit and stop killing
The Engineer
TWAT, Total Wanker And Tosser
Bog off.
big cat <big...@com.hk> wrote in message
news:7h6srd$h41...@news.asiaonline.net...
Jason
--
Jason
ICQ 13293655
Nash
> Maybe you should protest to your governement to get out of Tibet, then
> we might take you aeriously.
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
Tay
Nash <nm...@STOP.SPAMMING.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7h7fsd$en1$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Pak-San Man
> > we might take you aeriously.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
Why do you people like the idea of splitting up other countries? [highly
flammable material from me removed.]
Stop this stupid flame thread in uk.adverts.computer. For the
anti-Nato's: Nato can't do anything but carry on. Otherwise it's the same
as them declaring a defeat. They can never get themselves to admit that.
For the pro-Nato's, if there are any: I think it's legit that people in
China are complaining and are angry. How do you feel like someone
dropping a precision-guided bomb in your country's territory? They say
it's accidental, but how can you be sure? It's politics, remember.
Or should I've said "USA" instead of "nato"? They seem to mean the same
thing now.
-PS
Silvery
big cat <big...@com.hk> wrote in message
news:7h6srd$h41...@news.asiaonline.net...
>NATO == New American Terrorist Organisation
>
>NATO crazy dog, sit and stop killing
>
>
Oh, sorry, I thought this was u.a.c
Jon S Green
> For the pro-Nato's, if there are any: I think it's legit that people in
> China are complaining and are angry. How do you feel like someone
> dropping a precision-guided bomb in your country's territory? They say
> it's accidental, but how can you be sure? It's politics, remember.
Has it occurred to you that the reason why this happened was that a Serb
double-agent fed the CIA the location of the Chinese Embassy as a
potential target, with the intent to bring China more actively into the
conflict?
It worked, as well. And you've been suckered into joining in.
The chances of NATO having _deliberately_ bombed the Chinese Embassy are
zero, nil and nothing, respectively. There's no benefit to NATO, and a
huge amount to lose.
Jon (who isn't pro the NATO stance, but wants to clarify)
--
Work: jonsg(at)harlequin_co_uk <<CHANGE '_'s http://www.harlequin.co.uk/
Private: jonsg(at)pobox_com <<TO '.'s! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/
Ask for PGP key <*> Opinions my own ***Del. '.nojunk' from reply addr***
No junk email! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/junkmail.html ICQ 4500882
Pak-San Man
that it's all archived in dejanews... :-(
[...]
> Has it occurred to you that the reason why this happened was that a Serb
> double-agent fed the CIA the location of the Chinese Embassy as a
> potential target, with the intent to bring China more actively into the
> conflict?
>
> It worked, as well. And you've been suckered into joining in.
>
> The chances of NATO having _deliberately_ bombed the Chinese Embassy are
> zero, nil and nothing, respectively. There's no benefit to NATO, and a
> huge amount to lose.
Ok ok. I was just trying to suggest that Chinese anger isn't unfounded.
There's always a sense of uncertainty lurking about. I mean, in the 80s
the British government said something very similar about BSE risks.
Hasn't it still come up to be quite a major problem later on in the 90s?
Maybe the chance that NATO has thought up a reason for bombing China (same
thing really) is very small (certainly non-zero though), and that NATO
deliberately bombs China is also very small (again non-zero). But a
little bit of probability theory says that given the first thing, the
probability of the second happening can be quite large.
Benefit to NATO? Well, you'll have to dig into the hk.* newsgroups if you
want some controversial views on the targetted end of the bomb. Not that
I agree these views. But is it always the case that Americans and Britons
are goodies all the time, and if something goes wrong, then it's
accidental?
-PS
Jon S Green
> Sorry uac. This is off-topic. I think I have said enough on this. Great
> that it's all archived in dejanews... :-(
Agreed. I'm taking it to email.
Jon
Nigel J. Carron
Green <jo...@nojunk.harlequin.co.uk> writes
>Has it occurred to you that the reason why this happened was that a Serb
>double-agent fed the CIA the location of the Chinese Embassy as a
>potential target, with the intent to bring China more actively into the
>conflict?
Then the CIA wanted that to happen, the Chinese embassy was known to the
CIA after all..
Nigel J. Carron
Aberdeenshire
Scotland
The Engineer
Thanks
NATO pilot
Martin McGranaghan
The Engineer wrote in message <7h9smg$8je$1...@nclient3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>WTB: Street map of Belgrade, must be recent
>
>Thanks
>
>NATO pilot
>
>
What about accurate?
Martin McGranaghan
nen...@globalnet.co.uk
Pak-San Man
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >NATO pilot
> >
> What about accurate?
I'm not too sure as to joke about a political disaster...
-PS
Steve H
<377f0df1....@newshost.cam.harlequin.co.uk>...
>Has it occurred to you that the reason why this happened was that a Serb
>double-agent fed the CIA the location of the Chinese Embassy as a
>potential target, with the intent to bring China more actively into the
>conflict?
>
>It worked, as well. And you've been suckered into joining in.
>
Is that the one starring Harrison Ford?
Steve H
Pak-San Man wrote in message ...
>I'm not too sure as to joke about a political disaster...
>
Bad taste is one of the costs of free speech.
oldgit
trouble is when you've bombed one you wont to bomb another one an hour
later!
Silvery <sil...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:nlJZ2.14778$wi4....@nnrp2.clara.net...
Tay
Martin McGranaghan <nen...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7h9t8j$j8v$1...@gxsn.com...
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >NATO pilot
> >
> >
>
> What about accurate?
Depends if your American or not....
Sorry just joking..
The Engineer
Martin McGranaghan <nen...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7h9t8j$j8v$1...@gxsn.com...
>
> The Engineer wrote in message
<7h9smg$8je$1...@nclient3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> >WTB: Street map of Belgrade, must be recent
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >NATO pilot
> >
> >
>
> What about accurate?
>
> nen...@globalnet.co.uk
>
>
Using MS Autoroute Europe in the Stealth bombers caused the problem in the
first place ;-)
Pak-San Man
Sorry then, Peter. It's no good speculating about politics in
uk.adverts.computer. I'll refrain myself from posting another of these
from now on.
-PS
Porta
Aren't you running the risk of getting your account suspended for off-topic
posting Peter?
<いpeterい @visage-photo. demon.co.uk (Peter)> wrote in message
news:1drnpz1.147...@visage-photo.demon.co.uk...
> Pak-San Man <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > >WTB: Street map of Belgrade, must be recent
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >
> > > >NATO pilot
> > > >
> > > What about accurate?
> >
> > I'm not too sure as to joke about a political disaster...
> >
> You are thinking about it from a Chinese perspective, think of it as a
> political hiccup!
>
> No more marathon emails please. Make your case in public or not at all.
> --
> Peter
Jon S Green
"Steve H" <chec...@technologist.com> wrote:
> Jon S Green wrote in message
> <377f0df1....@newshost.cam.harlequin.co.uk>...
>
> >Has it occurred to you that the reason why this happened was that a Serb
> >double-agent fed the CIA the location of the Chinese Embassy as a
> >potential target, with the intent to bring China more actively into the
> >conflict?
>
> Is that the one starring Harrison Ford?
LOL! Now you've given me an idea for a screenplay, you swine!
Porta
> Yo Portaloo back under your bridge. You still in charge of Virgin?
> --
> Peter
Yeah I can confidently say I'm on top of the cleaning now.Some of those hard
in-grained stains can be difficult but it can be satisfying when its done.
Porta
> ;-)
> --
> Peter
Yeah it can be a bit of a shithole sometimes :-)
Edmond Walsh
100...@aleph.joh.cam.ac.uk>, Pak-San Man <pm...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>> > Maybe you should protest to your governement to get out of Tibet, then
>> > we might take you aeriously.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
>
>Why do you people like the idea of splitting up other countries? [highly
>flammable material from me removed.]
>
>Stop this stupid flame thread in uk.adverts.computer. For the
>anti-Nato's: Nato can't do anything but carry on. Otherwise it's the same
>as them declaring a defeat. They can never get themselves to admit that.
>
>China are complaining and are angry. How do you feel like someone
>dropping a precision-guided bomb in your country's territory? They say
>it's accidental, but how can you be sure? It's politics, remember.
>
>thing now.
>
>-PS
>
then its NATO. If they are going really well then its British ;)
--
Edmond Walsh
