[OT:] Whatever happened to The Happy Hippy?
TWP
TWP
George
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk...
> Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>
> TWP
>
Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the
front lines. One can only hope.
George
argos
wrote:
>Missing, presumed having something better to do!
Alas no. His mother had to check him into a clinic.
argos
Joe Horrowitz
news:mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk:
> Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>
> TWP
>
>
>
He's probably got a new girlfriend or something. While I rarely agree with
him, its a better group when he's around. He definitely puts thought into
his positions and will bend a little to a good counter-argument. I truly
hope that he's gone because of something new and interesting, and not
because of malady or crisis circumstances.
3Phase
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:35:15 +0100, "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in message <mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk>:
> Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>
> TWP
Or, locked away in a tower somewhere for reading banned papers in the
Parliament's forbidden zone. ;-)
Regards,
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBRNEqSx36GXkxBL6XEQLZggCfY1nOjnWZ/xsDP56trzryGXUqurEAn37t
ocDVQz1gKS0i2KYcznnsAJY3
=1vDr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TWP
"3Phase" <Phase3@world_OF_SPAM_net.att.net> wrote in message
news:h3a2d2110ahkmv0cv...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:35:15 +0100, "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote in message <mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk>:
>
> > Missing, presumed having something better to do!
> >
> > TWP
>
> Or, locked away in a tower somewhere for reading banned papers in the
> Parliament's forbidden zone. ;-)
He maybe followed that Hezbollah website link I once posted! I mean
that - HE - posted! :-)
I mean that no-one posted.... in fact what are all you people doing here?!
I thought this was the Post Office!
TWP
George
Darn. I thought this was the place to get tickets to the next Keith Moon
concert. I guess I'm going to have to stand in line AGAIN!
George
TWP
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in message
news:27OdnQpAo9bo90zZ...@insightbb.com...
Hope you get a discount on those tickets!
TWP
George
Did I say Keith Moon? I meant to say John Entwistle. :-)
George<the guitar is mightier that the gourd>
3Phase
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 04:26:29 +0100, "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in message <wvmcnaI_99l...@karoo.co.uk>:
> "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in message
> news:27OdnQpAo9bo90zZ...@insightbb.com...
> > "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:d9icnYKUcpr...@karoo.co.uk...
> > > "3Phase" <Phase3@world_OF_SPAM_net.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:h3a2d2110ahkmv0cv...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:35:15 +0100, "TWP"
> > >> <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >> <mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk>:
> > >>
> > >> > Missing, presumed having something better to do!
> > >> >
> > >> > TWP
> > >>
> > >> Or, locked away in a tower somewhere for reading banned papers
> > >> in the Parliament's forbidden zone. ;-)
> > >
> > > He maybe followed that Hezbollah website link I once posted!
> > > I mean that - HE - posted! :-)
> > >
> > > I mean that no-one posted.... in fact what are all you people
> > > doing here?!
> > > I thought this was the Post Office!
> > >
> > > TWP
> >
> > Darn. I thought this was the place to get tickets to the next
> > Keith Moon concert. I guess I'm going to have to stand in line
> > AGAIN!
> >
> > George
> >
>
> Hope you get a discount on those tickets!
>
> TWP
I was just trying to get a quote on my car insurance, mate. This
isn't Geiko? Where's that talking gecko, I want a word with him!
Regards,
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBRNF4sh36GXkxBL6XEQKL2ACgyc9r3DMk9sH9dCMra2trGyHPpNkAoONF
HH75963JDLIGH1dJqN+//PQX
=lCh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> Missing, presumed having something better to do!
:-)
Not had a lot to say really. Between them, Robin T Cox, Chris Hills and
Jesse have said pretty much all that I would say on recent events, and
there's not a lot left to add.
That's not to discount all that's been constructively put in by others
including yourself, and it's been interesting to sit back and hear what
people have had to say. Of course there's still a plethora of crap coming
from some quarters.
I see we have our new resident troll, "Infidel", but he just can't compete
with the propagandist vigour of our rapture-ready, 'bring on the killing no
matter what the cost', face who has shown himself in his true colours.
Anyone else been counting the number of cut and paste jobs from Townhall.com
? It's well into double figures since Israel kicked-off. Nothing changes
except his offensiveness and childishness increases. So much for the high
intellect that he perceives himself to purvey. Full marks to Jesse for
standing up to the rabid right which face represents which would sell
America down the river to see its bloodlust fulfilled. Ironically they are
the ones who call everyone else anti-American, and swiftly turn on their own
countrymen as soon as one should disagree with their propaganda - Just like
a certain Youth group we could mention.
The most succinct comment in recent days came from Pat Roller and deserves
repeating again ...
<quote>
You were asset stripping the country for 50 odd using the puppet of The
Shah's dictatorship. Then the Iranians threw you, and your puppet dictator
out, reclaimed their own country only to have the US blockade them and
invite Iraq to wage a proxy war on them in which over 1 million Iranians
died whilst the US sailed up and down the Gulf ensuring that the Iranians
couldn't defend themselves and shooting their civilian airliners out of the
sky.
Is it any wonder they are chanting death to America in the streets?
</quote>
No, but try telling that to those Americans who have a complete disconnect
with what their foreign policy has led to, and those who will simply refuse
to accept that America has any blame for the current state of world affairs.
Worse still, they continue to want to perpetuate the messes they so
frequently create, deliberately blind to, or too stupid to see, what the
consequences are.
I thought your own comment hit the nail on the head also; "It's looking like
you can't defeat terrorist groups with air power and bombing ... This looks
like a battle that has to be fought man-to-man instead of bombing". Indeed,
that's always been the case, and you can only win a man-to-man fight when
the enemy are there to fight, and that's not the nature of guerrilla
warfare. Whether intended or not, Hezbollah have provoked Israel into
opening up full-scale war with them and Israel lost the war the second they
started it.
Even if they kill every man, woman and child in Lebanon, and it looks like
they intend to, and will even have to, that in itself will create many more
enemies ( and already has ). Israel was foolish to be provoked into acting,
or arrogant in seizing the chance to, and that will be Israel's downfall.
Bush and Yo Blair have, publicly at least, put their money on the wrong
horse and that, hopefully, will be their downfall too. It's pretty clear who
those are who bask in the deaths of others, on this group and elsewhere.
Israel wants its all or nothing final decider war, and powerless to stop it,
that's fine by me. It's either death to Hezbollah or it's death to Israel,
and it was Israel's choice to get itself wiped off the face of the map,
because it sure as hell can't beat Hezbollah and those who will follow in
its wake. For every man, woman and child Israel kills, at least another will
step forward to take their place with more hatred and resentment than those
they've already killed. When they eventually over-run Israel, well tough
shit. Goodbye Israel, kiss Arab arse.
Israel cannot win the war the way they are fighting it now, and they cannot
sustain one. For all that they have done and all that they have claimed,
they have not reduced the threats or attacks on their land and people. Their
warfare is ineffective, negative at worse, and any retreat will only be
followed by retribution. Most of their enemies are standing on the sidelines
and are not yet involved, but every killing, whether of an innocent or
fighter, by Israel gives them cause to be. If Israel moves to turn this into
a war against the Arab world. as they look set to be trying to do, the US
had better nuke them first before America is drawn into the quagmire of Word
War 3 in their defence.
Despite the aid and succour the US has been giving to Israel, I'm not sure
the two rogue nations will join together to fight the final battle. Even
Condi has been looking like a scared rabbit of late and there's a distinct
quiver in her voice these days. It seems only the fuckwitts, NeoCons and
Israelis who are begging for Armageddon, and I'm sure the Arabs can deliver
if they really want it. While fanaticals like face are screaming for blood,
death, destruction and a steady stream of dead infants to satisfy their sick
desires, and would sacrifice America and everything for that, most can see
what the result of a wider conflict will be - it's probably the only reason
the Arab world hasn't turned on Israel collectively, because it sure could.
If America wants to destroy itself and the rest of us it will continue to
side with Israel, if it has any sense it won't. With Bush in charge, I would
say they and we are buggered. Maybe someone should draw him a picture of
what life will be like after America has thrown it all away ?
Whatever the long term outcome, Israel has sealed her fate. The only
questions are whether the US has also, or is prepared to allow Israel to
choose fate for her, and where the rest of the world will stand in any
event. We could all be speaking Arabic or Chinese in a few years time.
The only satisfaction I see in any of this is that the two greatest rogue
nations in the world have now shown just how ineffective they are at
fighting the wars they set out on and choose to provoke. They have both
damaged themselves far more than their enemies ever could have. At least
that gives us something to ironically chuckle about in the wake of the mess
they create and leave behind.
TWP
> Did I say Keith Moon? I meant to say John Entwistle. :-)
>
> George<the guitar is mightier that the gourd>
>
>
It's nice to see that neither of them are prepared to let death ruin their
careers! Most people just tend to take it easy at that point.
TWP
TWP
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SlgAg.58304$eQ.3...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
I think it not only has to be fought man-to-man, but every move has to be
independantly recorded to confirm to the world that those that were killed
were fighters and not civilians because this war is being fought in
armchairs and press conferences as well as in tanks and bombers.
One of the worrying things about these wars is the way that civilians have
become currency in them. Their hearts and minds are sought, but they are
also sought as victims - by both sides to varying degrees. Israel's dead
and wounded proves their suffering, as does the dead and wounded of the
Lebanese for their side. There's a scary continuum here in that we've gone
from civilians being just in the way to the side that is disproportionately
able to make war of defend against counter attacks (meaning that more
civilians die as a result of them), can still win a victory by default, if
not militarily then by world opinion and future recruiting. It's therefore
going to be a feature of future terrorist conflicts that civilians will play
a much greater part in them than perhaps even those doing the fighting.
The civilians are the key to victory, not the attrition of sending the odd
soldier home in a body bag. The Lebanese area already saying that all of
those killed in the hospital raid were civilians.... well, they were pretty
well-armed civilians apparently.
Isn't there a risk here that our compassion could see us speaking Arabic or
Chinese? If Hitler had filled his war factories with children and we'd not
bombed them to save their lives, couldn't we be speaking German right now?
I think there's a pretty powerful weapon there, and Hezbollah knows it for
certain.
I notice that Hezbollah have gone from sounding worried and seeking peace to
sounding confident and saying no negotiations! I get the feeling they smell
an unexpected victory that a buffer zone won't deny them.
>
> Even if they kill every man, woman and child in Lebanon, and it looks like
> they intend to, and will even have to, that in itself will create many
more
> enemies ( and already has ). Israel was foolish to be provoked into
acting,
> or arrogant in seizing the chance to, and that will be Israel's downfall.
> Bush and Yo Blair have, publicly at least, put their money on the wrong
> horse and that, hopefully, will be their downfall too. It's pretty clear
who
> those are who bask in the deaths of others, on this group and elsewhere.
>
I suppose there is a case to be made that they're fighting a common
enemy.... and if not they probably soon will be! :-) AQ has already shown
an interest, but then they would!
TWP
George
Did I say John Entwistle? I mean to say Sid Vicious. No wait... lol
George
TWP
I think you'd better stay at home!
TWP
(at least you didn't say tickets to see TWP! I don't need to be jinxed like
that!)
George
>
> "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in message
> news:a8SdnT8V5YQZQ0zZ...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:XnudnWc1Ou0...@karoo.co.uk...
>> >
>> >> Did I say Keith Moon? I meant to say John Entwistle. :-)
>> >>
>> >> George<the guitar is mightier that the gourd>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's nice to see that neither of them are prepared to let death ruin
>> > their
>> > careers! Most people just tend to take it easy at that point.
>> >
>> > TWP
>>
>> Did I say John Entwistle? I mean to say Sid Vicious. No wait... lol
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>
> I think you'd better stay at home!
You may be right! lol
> TWP
> (at least you didn't say tickets to see TWP! I don't need to be jinxed
> like
> that!)
I think your secret is safe, Two Wolves. lol
George
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
One can't fight a war like that. I said early on that Israel had a right of
retaliatory action to the attack upon them by Hezbollah if it chose to, but
that should be a legitimate response, proportionate, not be collective
punishment, nor involve war crimes.
The war isn't being fought in armchairs - that suggests that how Israel is
undertaking its war is legitimate and can be justified when it patently
can't, and that it's simply a matter of convincing armchair viewers that
Israel is in the right. No matter what Israel wants to reason there is no
getting away from the facts of what it has done and is doing.. We in the
armchairs are not fighting a war, we are mere observers and can see the
wrong being done by Israel, nothing Israel can say can justify those wrongs.
Isarel lost the war when it set out to destroy an enemy which it can't reach
in a way that was pre-destined to kill innocent people rather than
legitimate targets.
> One of the worrying things about these wars is the way that civilians have
> become currency in them. Their hearts and minds are sought, but they are
> also sought as victims - by both sides to varying degrees.
Hezbollah being a bunch of terrorist cunts who don't care about targeting
civilians to achieve their objectives ?
Israel being .... ?
Israel lost the war when it embarked on a path to show the world it was no
better that the terrorists in action, that it had no moral scruples and held
no moral high ground.
Israel has shown its true colours and has severly damaged itself in the
process. It should have seen this coming but was patently too stupid to, or
too arrogant to think that it was somehow protected against the crimes it
commits while condemning the same as crimes by its enemies.
> Israel's dead
> and wounded proves their suffering, as does the dead and wounded of the
> Lebanese for their side. There's a scary continuum here in that we've
gone
> from civilians being just in the way to the side that is
disproportionately
> able to make war of defend against counter attacks (meaning that more
> civilians die as a result of them), can still win a victory by default, if
> not militarily then by world opinion and future recruiting.
Yes, it's a war which Israel is not well equipped to fight, and were
destined to loose when they chose to turn this nagging minor conflict into
all-out war.
> It's therefore
> going to be a feature of future terrorist conflicts that civilians will
play
> a much greater part in them than perhaps even those doing the fighting.
The whole nature of terrorism involves civilians in the conflict. What is
not expected is those fighting the terrorists to use the same terrorism
themselves.
To fight in the same way as one's enemy is to legitimise the enemy's
tactics.
> The civilians are the key to victory, not the attrition of sending the odd
> soldier home in a body bag. The Lebanese area already saying that all of
> those killed in the hospital raid were civilians.... well, they were
pretty
> well-armed civilians apparently.
I'm not particularly listening to either side because they are as
propogandist as each other, and you'd be a fool to believe either simply on
what they say. You'd certainly be a fool to believe the propoganda which
comes from the flag-waving Israeli supporters on this group who will lie and
distort while condemning others they say do the same.
I think we can both agree that young children missing limbs or dead are not
terrorists. Those who will say they are show just how pitiful and sick their
cause and support of Israel is.
> Isn't there a risk here that our compassion could see us speaking Arabic
or
> Chinese? If Hitler had filled his war factories with children and we'd
not
> bombed them to save their lives, couldn't we be speaking German right now?
> I think there's a pretty powerful weapon there, and Hezbollah knows it for
> certain.
Speculation. Hitler achieved all he did without doing that, so there is no
necessity to do it.
But you have a point, and again, it shows just how Israel misjudged what it
was about to do and rushedd straight into a war which it can't win and will
bring more damage than security in the long term.
> I notice that Hezbollah have gone from sounding worried and seeking peace
to
> sounding confident and saying no negotiations! I get the feeling they
smell
> an unexpected victory that a buffer zone won't deny them.
I do not believe Hezbollah intended to provoke the full-scale war Israel
unleashed. Hezbollah were fighting a small-scale offensive which was not
going to undermine the fabric of Israel any more than IRA bombs destroyed
the fabric of Britain or ETA bombs undermined the fabric of Spain. They were
probably quite likely somewhat fearful in private, or at least aware, of the
scale of the precision retaliatory response that Israel could unleash. Like
children playing knock-and-run on doors, there's every chance that the
biggest, meanest fucker ever will one day reach out and grab the culprit.
Israel by responding as they have, have taken the war to Hezbollah. They are
fighting a war which they could not, and cannot win, and that can be clearly
seen by many people and most certainly Hezbollah. Every innocent man, woman
or child killed by Israel is a recruiting flag for Hezbollah. Isarel is
killing innocent people, not its enemies, and support for Hezbollah is
consequently undiminished, and through those deaths, rising. At some point
Arab governments will have to say enough is enough, this wholesale slaughter
by Israel cannot go on. Even the west will say the same.
Hezbollah probably does weep for every innocent Israel has killed, but that
is offset by such killings bringing more supporters into the Hezbollah fold
and the increasing disgust the world feels to Israel which tries to maintain
that its not a terrorist and is better than Hezbollah. In pragmatic and
dispassionate terms, every innocent killed by Israel boosts Hezbollah, their
deaths have served a purpose for Hezbollah. Hezbollah grows stronger with
every innocent death, Israel grows weaker, and builds a bigger enemy for
herself.
Israel has shown itself incapable of delivering a precision retaliatory
attack which kept terrorist living in some fear and kept agression against
her at least muted. Israel has shown that it is unable to destroy its enemy,
has killed more innocents than enemy, and by fighting the way it has, it has
actually empowered Hezbollah and all Israel's enemies. You can't win a war
to destroy an enemy while fighting it in a way which increases the strength
of that enemy. Israel has now made every Arab a potential member of
Hezbollah. Way to go.
Israel should have seen this coming, and realised that to fight as it has
done means to fail in its objective and lose the war. Isarael lost the war
the second it decided to have it.
> > Even if they kill every man, woman and child in Lebanon, and it looks
like
> > they intend to, and will even have to, that in itself will create many
> more
> > enemies ( and already has ). Israel was foolish to be provoked into
> acting,
> > or arrogant in seizing the chance to, and that will be Israel's
downfall.
> > Bush and Yo Blair have, publicly at least, put their money on the wrong
> > horse and that, hopefully, will be their downfall too. It's pretty clear
> who
> > those are who bask in the deaths of others, on this group and elsewhere.
> >
>
> I suppose there is a case to be made that they're fighting a common
> enemy.... and if not they probably soon will be! :-) AQ has already shown
> an interest, but then they would!
Don't fall for the fuckwittery of the fanatical right who want to see such a
thing happen, and will manipulate things to make it a self-fulfilling
destiny of death and destruction.
Don't fall for being egged on into an all-out war which isn't necessary
simply because some warmonger tells you that war is on its way sooner or
later, and that we may as well fight it now while we have some imaginary
upperhand. That may be what they want, but not what we have to have. Of
course, they don't want you to see the alternatives there are, and will lie
and cheat and do all that they can to convince you that there aren't any.
Look through their craftily concocted propaganda and arguments which would
have you fighting the war they want, and ask if you want to be fodder in it.
Why are they so adamant that there is no other way ? Why do they so rabidly
attack those who suggest there is ? Cut through their agenda and look to see
who your real enemies are.
Those people want war, not peace. They are no more than sick salesmen
selling house security by playing on people's fears of what could be. They
coerce, scare even shout and threaten those too weak to see through that
fear to get their way.
These are the people who are a biggest danger to the world, the ones who
stand against peace rather than for it. Those who believe that the only true
peace can be had is when all but themselves and like-minded people are
eradicated. Yes, Nazis.
George
But apparently, you see nothing at all wrong in what Hezbullah is doing.
And that tells everyone all they need top know about you, Hippycrit.
> Isarel lost the war when it set out to destroy an enemy which it can't
> reach
> in a way that was pre-destined to kill innocent people rather than
> legitimate targets.
It ain't over until the last fat Hezbullouie sings, and thankfully, you
don't get to decide when that will be.
George
Joe Horrowitz
> Don't fall for being egged on into an all-out war which isn't
> necessary simply because some warmonger tells you that war is on its
> way sooner or later, and that we may as well fight it now while we
> have some imaginary upperhand. That may be what they want, but not
> what we have to have. Of course, they don't want you to see the
> alternatives there are, and will lie and cheat and do all that they
> can to convince you that there aren't any. Look through their craftily
> concocted propaganda and arguments which would have you fighting the
> war they want, and ask if you want to be fodder in it. Why are they so
> adamant that there is no other way ? Why do they so rabidly attack
> those who suggest there is ? Cut through their agenda and look to see
> who your real enemies are.
>
These are the real enemies the way I see it:
Al Qaeda: Mission: Overthrow all non-Islamic based governments in the
middle east and return those countries, including Saudi Arabia, to
Islamic (theocratic) rule. Destroy all Jews, return Israel to the
Palestinians, destroy all infidels with an emphasis on the west for their
spreading culture represents a serious threat to Islam
Hamas: Mission: Destroy Israel
Hizbollah: Mission:Destroy Israel.
Iran: Mission: Destroy Israel, create cataclysmic near-apocalyptic world
crisis to bring forth the 11th Imam who will lead Islam to rule the
entire world and destroy all infidels.
China: Mission: To eliminate the US as a world competitor for global
sales of technology and merchandise. To encourage conflict between the US
and other parts of the world in order to profit from arms sales to
opponents of US.
Russia: Mission: Seek a new power alliance with China and Iran and
perhaps N. Korea. This alliance would provide a strong trading partner
with China for sales of miilitary equipment, technology and space program
sales and training. It also provides a military alliance of sufficient
strength to immunize them from having to bend to US will. Like China,
they hope to encourage world conflict between US and other parts of the
world in order to profit from arms sales.
N. Korea: Mission: To hold onto dictatorial power despite the severe
economic depression at hand. Entire GDP is spent on infrastructure and
military. They use their nuclear program to extort handouts from the
world to keep things going. They are building a strong alliance with Iran
with hopes of selling Iran missiles and perhaps nuclear warheads and/or
technology.
Algerian Muslims: Mission: To infiltrate Europe and eventually rule the
political system by becomming a substantial monolithic voting block that
the politicians will cower to. With birth rates of natural born Europeans
being less than 2 babies per two parents on average, the natural European
base is dwindelling while the muslim population grows. There are Fatwahs
and charters published by muslim clerics and organizations that clearly
call for the tactic of taking Europe by sheer population.
The Happy Hippy
> These are the real enemies the way I see it:
>
> Al Qaeda:
> Hamas:
> Hizbollah:
> Iran:
> China:
> Russia:
> N. Korea:
> Algerian Muslims:
If you try just a little harder you will be able to see everyone else as an
enemy too.
It doesn't surprise me that while most countries have friends, America has
only enemies. If there weren't any, America would create them, or conjure
them up, as it always has.
Docky Wocky
"Iran: Mission: Destroy Israel, create cataclysmic near-apocalyptic world
crisis to bring forth the 11th Imam who will lead Islam to rule the
entire world and destroy all infidels..."
___________________________
And supposedly sane people think it would be what? -- unpopular, unfair,
unmanly, unacceptable, unsportsmanlike, unsavory, unsuitable, unwanted,
unwelcome, unwished for, if this collection of despicable lunatics, and
their phony, bloodthirsty imam, can be disposed of, permanently, by simply
beating them to the button?
Look on it like doing the human race a big favor.
FACE
Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net>, in glistered weave writ large for all to see:
I believe the US is supposed to track an ICBM from Iran to a smoking crater
that used to be Seattle before we consider the possibility that they might
have nuclear weapons and ill intent. At that time the proper thing to do
would be to submit an official grievance of the attack as a formal complaint
to the UN, to be slated for discussion.
PHI,
FACE
TWP
>
> The war isn't being fought in armchairs - that suggests that how Israel is
> undertaking its war is legitimate
Ah, I see you're back! :-) That's more like it!
I don't understand how that follows. Everyone has their own opinion about
the rights or wrongs, what is too much and what isn't etc. It's the regular
people that express outrage for military excesses before governments do. I
think this is a war fought in homes as well as on battlefields, in a way
that we've started to see from around 2001 to 2003. The Gulf War I
reporting was more distant. In fact when the war started in 1991 it was
reported by telephone (on CNN) not on camera.
and can be justified when it patently
> can't,
I don't know how you got that from what I said....
and that it's simply a matter of convincing armchair viewers that
> Israel is in the right.
That's not what I expect to happen - I think the loser is the one that first
becomes convincingly the bad guy. Both Israel and Hezbollah are pretty
entrenched... this isn't going to end in either side's elimination, only the
amount of power each has is to be decided, and as you say, I think Hezbollah
will grow three heads for each they lose in this conflict. Just bombing TV
transmitters won't stop images of dead civilians from enraging the locals.
> Yes, it's a war which Israel is not well equipped to fight, and were
> destined to loose when they chose to turn this nagging minor conflict into
> all-out war.
It's not entirely fair to blame one side. Hezbollah could have returned
the soldiers they took, even if they had to arrange for it to happen by
accident. Both sides pushed for a conflict in their own ways. Israel was
just in a greater position power to decide what shape that conflict took.
>
>
> > It's therefore
> > going to be a feature of future terrorist conflicts that civilians will
> play
> > a much greater part in them than perhaps even those doing the fighting.
>
> The whole nature of terrorism involves civilians in the conflict. What is
> not expected is those fighting the terrorists to use the same terrorism
> themselves.
>
> To fight in the same way as one's enemy is to legitimise the enemy's
> tactics.
I don't think Israel is pursuing Hezbollah's tactics quite yet. I think
ideally Israel does want to target just Hezbollah fighters. It's problem is
Hezbollah is in an urban battlefield and that's just not going to happen,
with or without leaflet drops. The leaflets are probably just a
disclaimer - in the end if you can't get out you have to stay.
>
>
> > The civilians are the key to victory, not the attrition of sending the
odd
> > soldier home in a body bag. The Lebanese area already saying that all
of
> > those killed in the hospital raid were civilians.... well, they were
> pretty
> > well-armed civilians apparently.
>
> I'm not particularly listening to either side because they are as
> propogandist as each other, and you'd be a fool to believe either simply
on
> what they say.
Of course there's propaganda, although I think the IDF released a video of
the operation including their being shot at. I don't have very much
trouble believing that a hospital was being used by Hezbollah though. If I
were Hezbollah I'd use it.
You'd certainly be a fool to believe the propoganda which
> comes from the flag-waving Israeli supporters on this group who will lie
and
> distort while condemning others they say do the same.
You can only look at reports and make up your own mind. I think what
probably is a bad idea is to just get information from one source.
>
> I think we can both agree that young children missing limbs or dead are
not
> terrorists. Those who will say they are show just how pitiful and sick
their
> cause and support of Israel is.
>
>
> > Isn't there a risk here that our compassion could see us speaking Arabic
> or
> > Chinese? If Hitler had filled his war factories with children and we'd
> not
> > bombed them to save their lives, couldn't we be speaking German right
now?
> > I think there's a pretty powerful weapon there, and Hezbollah knows it
for
> > certain.
>
> Speculation. Hitler achieved all he did without doing that, so there is no
> necessity to do it.
I think there was every necessity to do it if it was going to win the war!
Speculation perhaps, but so is all tactical thinking until it's put into
practice.
>
> But you have a point, and again, it shows just how Israel misjudged what
it
> was about to do and rushedd straight into a war which it can't win and
will
> bring more damage than security in the long term.
>
That dodges the point a little... isn't there a potential to basically
become victims of compassion? In the right hands couldn't we become slaves
because of it? This question is not addressed at the Israeli conflict
particularly, I'm talking future history. If you can't extricate civilians
from your enemy and don't fight them because of that even when they attack
you, isn't there a going to be point where the most ruthless will win over
you automatically?
And if we can see a point where we would kill civilians to protect
ourselves - Devil's Advocate - aren't we heading for being hypocrites when
others make that choice on their own values and we condemn them? It wasn't
so long ago that we were all ready to launch nuclear missiles at Russia. We
had to be (if you believe in MAD) otherwise we would have stood to have been
attacked ourselves. Wasn't that being prepared to kill civilians to protect
ourselves?
I'm debating the point here, not recommending all-out butchery! Just
thought I'd mention that...
> These are the people who are a biggest danger to the world, the ones who
> stand against peace rather than for it.
Does Hezbollah or Hamas stand for peace? Does AQ? When did they last call
for peace? Wasn't it when they thought they were losing? If they do want
peace, what are their terms? What are the chances that those terms will
change according to changes within their groups? If you're fighting a
non-state organisation isn't any peace deal that you do come up with built
on shifting sands? What if the group is so hard-line that only your
elimination will bring peace? Not everyone cares for making deals.... what
do you do with them?
TWP
The Happy Hippy
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote ...
Which is fair enough.
If one group is allowed to wipe its perceived enemies off the face of the
earth then there is of course no rational reason why any other group
shouldn't wipe their perceived enemies off the face of the earth and do the
human race an equally big favour.
Of course, a morally relativist twat like you will have convinced
themselves, and will try and convince everyone else, that somehow it only
works one way, that it's alright for groups you support to be doing that,
but not those you don't.
You can have it how you want it, with everyone having free run to destroy
others when they feel that's justified ( and I'm sure that, delusional as it
is, you think deep down that you'll come out of this on a winning side ),
but don't come sobbing like a child when that turns round and bites you. Or
you can strive towards applying yourself so you don't have to keep fighting
wars and face your own destruction every day.
So what's it to be ? Are you going to continue to urge people to behave like
Neanderthals or will you be asking that people exhibit a little bit more
intelligence ?
Joe Horrowitz
I don't get what you are trying to say. This is no figment of my
imagination. There is no ambiguity here. Everybody on the list hates the
US because the US is the only thing that stands in the way of their
imperial expansion. If it weren't for the US, NK would overtake SK and
probably nuke Japan. China would take Taiwan. Al Qaeda would take Iraq
and Afghanistan. Hamas and Hizbollah would take Israel. Russia would
reclaim the territories it lost in the collapse. Look at these entities,
they all have four things in common: They all want to take over another
land. They are all being kept from doing that either directly or
indeirectly by the US. They are all beginning to merge into a new world
alliance and they are all either in possession of or seeking a nuclear
arsenal. Try to stop with the "who has a moral right to wage war",
everybody can wage war, regardless of moral rightiousness or not, it
doesn't matter. What matters is that there are countries out there with
very evil agendas, the US is a lone superpower trying to police the
situation and keep these bad things from happening. And the
intelligencia, like yourself, are applying abstract legal and
philosophical arguments that are hamstringing the effort to a very
undesirable outcome. The strange thing about all this to me is that there
is no guesswork here, Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, aL Qaeda, etc all speak
loudly and clearly their unacceptable agendas. But the left completely
ignores their speech and instead focuses on subtle, abstract theories
about the real selfish motivations of American foreign policy behind the
fake overarching humanitarian rationale. I sometimes think its because
they are jealous of America's power, sometimes I think they focus on the
non-obvious in an attempt to look and feel smarter. I just don't get it.
If that leader of Iran gets his hands on a nuke from their new buddy in
NK, he'll bomb Israel just to unleash the 11th Imam. Its as simple as
that. Try to simplify the puzzle a little, think about it and try to be a
little openminded.
Docky Wocky
"So what's it to be ? Are you going to continue to urge people to behave
like
Neanderthals or will you be asking that people exhibit a little bit more
intelligence ?..."
______________________________
The Middle-East is loaded with Neanderthals - they call them Hezbollah, and
islamofascists these days, as they have hired big time image consultants in
the attempt to make them appear less primitive than they are.
In the spirit of fun, please explain where exhibiting a "little bit more
intelligence," as you say, has produced anything of a positive nature when
dealing with the Neanderthal moslems?
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ....
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:s9nAg.17577$WY2....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
>
>
>
> > The war isn't being fought in armchairs - that suggests that how Israel
is
> > undertaking its war is legitimate
>
>
> Ah, I see you're back! :-) That's more like it!
:-)
> I don't understand how that follows. Everyone has their own opinion
about
> the rights or wrongs, what is too much and what isn't etc. It's the
regular
> people that express outrage for military excesses before governments do.
I
> think this is a war fought in homes as well as on battlefields, in a way
> that we've started to see from around 2001 to 2003. The Gulf War I
> reporting was more distant. In fact when the war started in 1991 it was
> reported by telephone (on CNN) not on camera.
In that sense, I see what you are saying. If any country's acts are so
abhorant to the world's population that they become a strong enough force to
alter the course of a war then they do control the destiny of it.
America lost Vietnam and had to bring it to a close and bale out because the
great majority of Americans would no longer support the war. But the war
wasn't really lost because the armchair generals ( the American public )
came to the conclusion that the war was wrong or going wrong, but because
the war was going wrong.
The US could have used all the propaganda devices at its disposal to keep
the armchair generals convinced that they should support the war, but that
would not have meant that the war would have been won or would be going any
less wrong. Winning the war with the armchair critics has absolutely no
effect on the war itself.
I suppose you could look at it this way; a war cannot be won by simply
winning the war with the armchair generals, but a war can be lost by losing
the war with the armchair critics.
> and can be justified when it patently
> > can't,
>
> I don't know how you got that from what I said....
I think I was looking at it from a different angle, but not sure which :-)
> and that it's simply a matter of convincing armchair viewers that
> > Israel is in the right.
>
> That's not what I expect to happen - I think the loser is the one that
first
> becomes convincingly the bad guy.
I think that's been determined already. In the red corner we have Mr
Terrorist, scum of the earth, killer of civilians, who holds sanctity of
life in disdain and spits on the fabric which holds humanity toghether. In
the blue corner we have Israel, purported holder of the moral high ground, a
clean fighter who behaves in accordance with international law, with
humanity and respect.
Now who are you going to be most shocked by when they both come out
scratching, biting and behaving as bad as each other ?
> Both Israel and Hezbollah are pretty
> entrenched... this isn't going to end in either side's elimination, only
the
> amount of power each has is to be decided, and as you say, I think
Hezbollah
> will grow three heads for each they lose in this conflict. Just bombing
TV
> transmitters won't stop images of dead civilians from enraging the locals.
I do believe, unless something I can't foresee happens, that it will end in
the destruction of one side or the other. That is the course they have both
embarked upon. It may not happen at whatever time there is an end to the
current spat, but it will happen. Unless there is a continuing peace, with
enough time to forget, there will still be the lingering desire to bring the
issue back to a head and absolute closure one way or the other.
As to the victor, that's a simple numbers game. Israel already had numerous
enemies - pretty tame ones it will realise later - and it is creating more
each day, and that growth will continue long after this battle ends. Even if
Israel uses the nukes it is presumed to have, or America intervenes, that
too will increase support of their enemy. Israel has embarked upon a course
which intrinsically leads to escalation and a final resolution of their
conflict with the Arabs. That's what they wanted, and that's what they will
get. Unless they annihilate every Arab in the Middle East, they will rise
back up again with more hatred and determination than before. We will
forever see perpetual war or a resolution of it. No matter what damage could
be done to the Arab world with nukes, I do not believe all Arabs can be
destroyed or that the rest of the world would allow it. Israel will be
defeated in an eventual backlash. We currently have Israel and America with
superior weaponry, particularly nukes, but it is not going to stay that way.
Israeli and American action and rhetoric has already ensured that Arab
nations will be more determined to seek comparable defensive weapons of
their own, and who can blame them. Israel has thus completely destabilised
the region, made it more dangerous for herself than it was before, and will
ultimately face the consequences and pay teh price. Rhetoric against Israel
will turn into hard and serious action, with a real intent for removal. Not
just the pissing about we've seen in recent years.
> > Yes, it's a war which Israel is not well equipped to fight, and were
> > destined to loose when they chose to turn this nagging minor conflict
into
> > all-out war.
>
> It's not entirely fair to blame one side. Hezbollah could have returned
> the soldiers they took, even if they had to arrange for it to happen by
> accident. Both sides pushed for a conflict in their own ways. Israel was
> just in a greater position power to decide what shape that conflict took.
Unfortunately, all immaterial now, blame is not resolution. As you say
Israel got to choose how this war was to be fought and they chose the path
which will lead to their ultimate destruction. They can blame whoever they
want for that, because it won't matter when they're gone.
> > > It's therefore
> > > going to be a feature of future terrorist conflicts that civilians
will
> > play
> > > a much greater part in them than perhaps even those doing the
fighting.
> >
> > The whole nature of terrorism involves civilians in the conflict. What
is
> > not expected is those fighting the terrorists to use the same terrorism
> > themselves.
> >
> > To fight in the same way as one's enemy is to legitimise the enemy's
> > tactics.
>
>
> I don't think Israel is pursuing Hezbollah's tactics quite yet. I think
> ideally Israel does want to target just Hezbollah fighters.
What they ideally want to do and what they are doing are two different
things. If they don't want to be doing what they are doing then they should
stop, as simple as that. Find another way to deal with their problem.
I am not entertaining the bullshit that they don't want to have to kill
civilians but they have no choice but to.
> It's problem is
> Hezbollah is in an urban battlefield and that's just not going to happen,
> with or without leaflet drops. The leaflets are probably just a
> disclaimer - in the end if you can't get out you have to stay.
Exactly, but it doesn't excuse what Isarel does. If I have people throwing
rocks over a house on to me, am I free to open up at them with an RPG fired
straight through that house, regardless of who is inside ? Is it any better
when I knock on the door and tell them they have a minute to get out ?
That Israel has told civilians to leave and then killed them when they tried
to is perhaps the most abhorant thing in this whole conflict.
Israel has embarked upon a course of collective punishment, with a complete
disregard for civilians and even humaity. They have committed war crime
after war crime. There is no excusing Israel. There is no justification for
what they do. They chose to do what they do deliberately, not by accident.
> > > The civilians are the key to victory, not the attrition of sending the
> odd
> > > soldier home in a body bag. The Lebanese area already saying that all
> of
> > > those killed in the hospital raid were civilians.... well, they were
> > pretty
> > > well-armed civilians apparently.
> >
> > I'm not particularly listening to either side because they are as
> > propogandist as each other, and you'd be a fool to believe either simply
> on
> > what they say.
>
> Of course there's propaganda, although I think the IDF released a video of
> the operation including their being shot at. I don't have very much
> trouble believing that a hospital was being used by Hezbollah though. If
I
> were Hezbollah I'd use it.
Whether Hizbollah used the hospital or not is irrelevant to whether those
killed there were civilians or not. Are we to assume that because a
Hezbollah supporter use my local pub, that everyone in there is Hezbollah,
supports or believes what they do or has any control over that person at all
? As in Lebanon, bomb it, attack it, and you'll soon find everyone will
become an enemy of the attacker whether they were or not before.
And if we are to assume that as Hezbollah would, and as you would, then so
too would the IDF ? I guess that legitimises Hezbollah attacks on Israeli
hospitals.
> You'd certainly be a fool to believe the propoganda which
> > comes from the flag-waving Israeli supporters on this group who will lie
> and
> > distort while condemning others they say do the same.
>
> You can only look at reports and make up your own mind. I think what
> probably is a bad idea is to just get information from one source.
Agreed. And multiple source of the same persuassion are little better.
We are slaves to compassion, slaves to what we call humaity, idealism,
values and all that we hold dear above all else. And our enemies know that,
and they will try and cause us to destroy ourselves by letting go of that
and we can ( as America and Israel have both now done in the Middle East )
oblige them and make ourselves less than what we were, or we can stand bold
and proud and be strong, and find a way to do what we have to without
sacrificing what we are.
To retain ones standing it may be painful to do what one has to and face
continuing suffering while it's done. America and Israel have neither the
resolve nor the strength to keep their honour and dignity and fight back.
It's not necessarily easy, it's not necessarily simple but it can be done.
In microcosm and on the whole we saw that achieved in Northern Ireland.
In defeating an enemy it is not just a victory, but a question of what one
has lost in the process. You can choose to be prepared to lose it all, or
you can be determined to hold on to it all. There is never a point where the
ruthless will automatically win, because you can step down as far as needs
be to take them on and survival alone will dictate that. The more creative,
intelligent and imaginative you are, the less likely you will have to step
down at all. America and Israel are prepared to throw all that they are to
the wind because they are too stupid to see any other way of fighting a
conflict than face to face, in the gutter, duking it out. Britain isn't much
better as it wilfully scarifices the liberties of its citizens to an enemy
more imaginary than real.
> And if we can see a point where we would kill civilians to protect
> ourselves - Devil's Advocate - aren't we heading for being hypocrites when
> others make that choice on their own values and we condemn them?
Yes. The moral relativists here won't understand though.
> It wasn't
> so long ago that we were all ready to launch nuclear missiles at Russia.
We
> had to be (if you believe in MAD) otherwise we would have stood to have
been
> attacked ourselves. Wasn't that being prepared to kill civilians to
protect
> ourselves?
>
> I'm debating the point here, not recommending all-out butchery! Just
> thought I'd mention that...
It was being prepared to, but in a defensive way, and implied an acceptance
that if this kicks off then it will escalate to the point there is no one
left. It was the deterrent to all, that the first push of the button, no
matter where it came from meant the end of everything, which left no
circumstances in which anyone rational would push the button. The attack
button became the suicide button.
In general I think we should always be prepared to do whatever it takes, but
that is to throw off what we hold dear ( as per earlier ), and should be no
casual decision. As I have said before, I can see that I could do the most
barbarous, offensive, evil things if I believed them right or necessary. The
issue is where one sets the bar in height and how far one is prepared to
lower it, and under what circumstance.
> > These are the people who are a biggest danger to the world, the ones who
> > stand against peace rather than for it.
>
> Does Hezbollah or Hamas stand for peace? Does AQ?
I'd have to say yes, they do. Satisfactorily achieving what they want will
automatically give them the peace. That they may be engaged in rhetoric and
brutal wars does not mean that they don't seek peace. I am sure that all
wars are wars to gain peace.
In the sense of a negotiated peace which doesn't need to see us fight it to
the end to see what that conclusion is, then I believe there is always scope
for compromise and a satisfactory peace.
Peace may not mean that we live in perfect harmony and pop round for tea,
but that we can coexist without fear of each other even if there remains
genuine hatred.
> When did they last call for peace?
They probably haven't. But there's a danger here that you are applying
western cultural aspects on an alien world, and expecting them to behave and
speak as you wish to see and hear. It's also trickery of semantics. When
Israel calls for peace it is calling for the destruction of Hezbollah, so
what's so deserving and laudible in seeking peace in that ?
> Wasn't it when they thought they were losing?
Whan have Hamas, Hezbollah or AQ ever considered themselves losing ?
> If they do want peace, what are their terms?
You have to ask them, and then decide what is fundamental and what is
peripheral to what they want.
> What are the chances that those terms will
> change according to changes within their groups?
I'm sure they will, but the fundamentals will probably remain failrly
static.
> If you're fighting a
> non-state organisation isn't any peace deal that you do come up with built
> on shifting sands?
It is, but the fundamentals should stay roughly the same, and it just means
that everyone has to shift with the sands. By their very nature successful
negotiations will shift the sands themselves while ongoing.
The majority of western countries can change their political directions
entirely every four years or so but it doesn't necessarily prevent long term
deals being reached. Sometimes there are hiccups, sometimes negotiations may
need suspending, sometimes starting anew.
> What if the group is so hard-line that only your
> elimination will bring peace?
You work on the group until it is of a different opinion. You fracture the
group and maginalise those who are obstacles. You play stick and carrot as
appropriate.
> Not everyone cares for making deals.... what
> do you do with them?
Work on them, and get their peers to work on them to change their mindset.
For individuals, and the group as above, a bullet in the head may work
wonders in a particularly stubborn situation. If done well, you will have
the group itself pulling the trigger, obstacles to what the group itself
seeks to achieve.
They key, as ever, is "Hearts and Minds", and they are not won at the sharp
end of a pointed stick.
The real enemies are those who won't even entertain that there may ever be
peace unless who they call enemies are killed. You could apply your exact
same questions to them. In a compare and contrast, they aren't much
different to those they want killed.
George
>> > Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the
>> front lines. One can only hope.
>>
>> George
>
> Are you suggesting that I ought to be out there slaughtering Jews?
You couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a trident missile, hippycrit.
Hezbullah needs more useful idiots like you.
> I can
> slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women
> and
> children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want.
Gee, I like this. I think I'll forward it.
> How about we start
> with your wife ?
Now I know I'm forwarding it. You've gone too far, boy.
> Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy killing machine ?
>
> Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body and maybe
> that's
> because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
> worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing? That can
> be
> arranged.
Yep, forwarded.
> Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering
> buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?
I think you'll be losing your ISP today/tomorrow and possibly be in jail
very soon. Thanks for making my day.
George
The Happy Hippy
"Joe Horrowitz" <h...@mps.com> wrote ...
[snip]
> What matters is that there are countries out there with
> very evil agendas, the US is a lone superpower trying to police the
> situation and keep these bad things from happening.
From whose perspective are these "evil agendas" and "bad things" ? Who gave
you or anyone the monopoly on deciding what is a good thing or a bad thing ?
I accept that you are speaking from your own perspective and are applying
your own judgement, but how do you know, in universal terms, that what you
call bad isn't actually good and vice-versa ?
What gives America more right to interfere and set the course of mankind's
destiny than anyone else ?
And what of your hypocrisy while railing at China for selling arms to those
who oppose the US and stirring up conflict while supporting the US selling
arms to those who oppose others and stirring up conflict themselves. If the
US can do that, then why, from the other side of the fence, can't China ?
What makes you think that China is in the wrong and the US is in the right ?
Is it simply that you think it is, and I'm sure those on the opposite side
of the fence with their different views think they are too, or is there some
greater reason ?
Can you even slightly put your feet in the shoes of someone Chinese, or
someone from any of the nations you complain of, and see your own words from
their perspective ? I suppose not, because otherwise you would never express
yourself with such arrogance in the first place.
George
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kTnAg.5144$t%.4515@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk...
>> > Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>> >
>> > TWP
>> >
>>
>> Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the
>> front lines. One can only hope.
>>
>> George
>
> slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women
> and
> with your wife ?
>
>
> Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body and maybe
> that's
> because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
> worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing ? That can
> be
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering
> buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?
>
*************************************************************
**PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN AUTORESPONDER**
*************************************************************
Dear XXX
Please accept this email as confirmation of our having received your
Internet abuse report/Security related enquiry.
Your report has been assigned the following reference number:XXXXXX
Please quote this reference in any further correspondence when referring to
this complaint.
Please note that ntl will not discuss the outcome of our investigation into
this matter, nor divulge details of the account concerned. Unless we
require further information from you, you will not receive any further
communication from us in regards to the above reference number.
Regards.
Internet Security (Customer), ntl:
Tel No. +44 (0)1633 710 142 (voicemail only, voicemails will be responded
to between the hours of 0830 - 1430 Mon - Fri)
Fax No. +44 (0)1633 710 076
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/aup/index.html
http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/aup/netreporthelp.html
****************************************
*Latest News and Ongoing Issues*
****************************************
ntl customers are encouraged to regularly review the ntlword Internet
security pages which can be found at
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/security/index.php. These pages contain up to
the minute information, which is important to all ntl Internet subscribers.
Non abuse issues reported through our Netreport form will not be dealt
with. We are unable to deal with customer service or technical support
issues, nor are we able to pass on your enquiries to the relevant
departments. If you wish to contact customer service, please use the
following link.
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/contactUs/
********************************
************************* Submission **************************
ABFORM: Newsgroup posting
ABTYPE: Offensive material
OFFIP: 86.14.221.153
OFFPORT: -1
OFFEMAIL: the.happy....@ntlworld.com
LOG: This guy threatened me and my family in a threat he posted on usenet.
He also threatened to kill Jews in the UK.<BR><BR>Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!213.132.189.2.MISMATCH!feed20.multikabel.net!multikabel.net!feed10.multikabel.net!hwmnpeer01.ams!news-out.ntli.net!newsrout1-gui.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe7-gui.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail<BR>From:
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com><BR>Newsgroups:
uk.current-events.terrorism<BR>References:
<mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk>
<BZqdnVPnGdMOgEzZ...@insightbb.com>
<qpeAg.72397$B91.18518@edtnps82><BR>Subject: Re: [OT:] Whatever happened
to The Happy Hippy?<BR>Lines: 31<BR>Organization: None<BR>X-Priority:
3<BR>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal<BR>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express
5.00.2919.6600<BR>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.
u a veri
table bloodbath of dead Jews if you want men, women and<BR>children,. Even
their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start<BR>with your
wife ?<BR><BR>Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy
killing machine ?<BR><BR>Well f*ck you George. I know you are sick in mind
and body and maybe that's<BR>because the God you don't believe in has
chosen to lay you low like the<BR>worthless piece of s*it you are. You want
to see blood flowing ? That can be<BR>arranged. Maybe I should come round
and wipe the whole sickening stain of<BR>the Yates family away, and show
you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies<BR>exactly what this death and
destruction you are cheer-leading for really<BR>means ? What do you think
Ron ?<BR><BR>
DATEHOUR: 15
DATEMIN: 38
DATEDAY: 3
DATEMONTH: 8
DATEYEAR: 2006
TIMEZONE: 1
MYNAME:
MYEMAIL:
RECEIVED: 2006-08-03 23:10:52
***************************************************************
Next will come a response from the London Police.
Enjoy,
George
Joe Horrowitz
>
> From whose perspective are these "evil agendas" and "bad things" ? Who
> gave you or anyone the monopoly on deciding what is a good thing or a
> bad thing ? I accept that you are speaking from your own perspective
> and are applying your own judgement, but how do you know, in universal
> terms, that what you call bad isn't actually good and vice-versa ?
>
> What gives America more right to interfere and set the course of
> mankind's destiny than anyone else ?
>
> And what of your hypocrisy while railing at China for selling arms to
> those who oppose the US and stirring up conflict while supporting the
> US selling arms to those who oppose others and stirring up conflict
> themselves. If the US can do that, then why, from the other side of
> the fence, can't China ? What makes you think that China is in the
> wrong and the US is in the right ?
>
> Is it simply that you think it is, and I'm sure those on the opposite
> side of the fence with their different views think they are too, or is
> there some greater reason ?
>
> Can you even slightly put your feet in the shoes of someone Chinese,
> or someone from any of the nations you complain of, and see your own
> words from their perspective ? I suppose not, because otherwise you
> would never express yourself with such arrogance in the first place.
>
>
>
Based on your own argument, how do you know that my judgment is wrong? I
am not a moral relativist. I call the shots with admitted subjectivity to
some extent. Taiwan is an ally of the United States by treaty. They are a
democracy and have a fair and thriving industry and China wants to
invade, put the free people there under totalitarian rule, and tax the
industry. Perhaps there is a valid perspective out there where China's
motivations are honorable and just, but I don't see it that way and I
support the US' position to defend Taiwan. In the case of North Korea,
the dictator there has starved his own people, deprived them of freedom,
deprived them of entrepreneuristic opportunities and other industry. He
extorts the world for handouts and is presently engaged in arms
negotiations with Iran. Call me a warmonger, but I see this regime as
evil and as a rising threat to myself and my family. Iran is run by a
delusional madman looking for a special place in history. He speeks
publicly of his own visions where he is the bringer of an apocalypse that
awakens the 11th Imam. Call me paranoid, but I don't think a guy like
that should get nukes. Syria is run by a mafia styled outfit that earns
its living by doing the logistical dirtywork of other terror regimes.
Call me insecure, but I support any effort to stop them. Hamas, Al Qaeda,
Hizbollah are all selfprofessed terror groups with published agendas to
commit genocide of the jews and western infidels. Perhaps I lack
compassion, empathy, or maybe my mother neglected me as a child, but I
find these groups to be evil and I support their demise. You call me
arogant, but where is your outrage at the president of Iran calling for
the destruction of Israel? Isn't that a little more arogant than myself?
Wheres your outrage at Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea? Why can't you call
a spade a spade?
The Happy Hippy
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote
> Gee, I like this. I think I'll forward it.
> Now I know I'm forwarding it. You've gone too far, boy.
> Yep, forwarded.
Rattled your cage have I ? Touched a nerve did I ? Good.
> I think you'll be losing your ISP today/tomorrow and possibly be in jail
very soon.
You just don't realise how so full of shit you are do you ?
You can hand it out, but the second someone gives back what you dish out you
burst into tears and go running to momma like a sobbing girl. You set out to
provoke a response but can't handle it when it comes. I guess your illness
has caused your balls to shrivel up and you can't take it like a man. You
really are a pitiful and pathetic specimen, Ron. If you want to play big
boy's games you had best be prepared and equipped to handle what you start,
or you can go and hide amongst the kindergarten kids where you belong.
George
Umm, I haven't threatened you or your family, Hippycrit. You have, however,
threatened mine, and also threatened to kill Jews in the UK. I don't know
what planet you reside on right now, but I recommend that you stay there if
you don't want to see the inside of a jail cell.
George
The Happy Hippy
"Joe Horrowitz" <h...@mps.com> wrote ...
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:ayuAg.5195$t%.1719@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:
>
> >
> > From whose perspective are these "evil agendas" and "bad things" ? Who
> > gave you or anyone the monopoly on deciding what is a good thing or a
> > bad thing ? I accept that you are speaking from your own perspective
> > and are applying your own judgement, but how do you know, in universal
> > terms, that what you call bad isn't actually good and vice-versa ?
> >
> > What gives America more right to interfere and set the course of
> > mankind's destiny than anyone else ?
> >
> > And what of your hypocrisy while railing at China for selling arms to
> > those who oppose the US and stirring up conflict while supporting the
> > US selling arms to those who oppose others and stirring up conflict
> > themselves. If the US can do that, then why, from the other side of
> > the fence, can't China ? What makes you think that China is in the
> > wrong and the US is in the right ?
> >
> > Is it simply that you think it is, and I'm sure those on the opposite
> > side of the fence with their different views think they are too, or is
> > there some greater reason ?
> >
> > Can you even slightly put your feet in the shoes of someone Chinese,
> > or someone from any of the nations you complain of, and see your own
> > words from their perspective ? I suppose not, because otherwise you
> > would never express yourself with such arrogance in the first place.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Based on your own argument, how do you know that my judgment is wrong?
I don't, it depends on whether your premise is correct or not, and that
depends upon which perspective one views it from.
> I am not a moral relativist.
Are you sure ? Are you sure we even have the same definition of moral
relativist ?
Do you, for instance, believe that Iran has as much a right to wipe America
off the face of the earth as America has a rght to wipe Iran off the face of
the earth if the acting country felt it was absolutely necessary and there
was no alternative ?
> I call the shots with admitted subjectivity to
> some extent. Taiwan is an ally of the United States by treaty. They are a
> democracy and have a fair and thriving industry and China wants to
> invade, put the free people there under totalitarian rule, and tax the
> industry.
By God, they want to tax the industry ! How idelogically anti-western can
China get ?
> Perhaps there is a valid perspective out there where China's
> motivations are honorable and just, but I don't see it that way and I
> support the US' position to defend Taiwan.
If this were a friend of America, rather than China, who was imposing
itself upon Taiwan in exactly the same form, and Taiwan was not an ally of
teh US by treaty, would you feel the same way as you do ?
> In the case of North Korea,
> the dictator there has starved his own people, deprived them of freedom,
> deprived them of entrepreneuristic opportunities and other industry. He
> extorts the world for handouts and is presently engaged in arms
> negotiations with Iran. Call me a warmonger, but I see this regime as
> evil and as a rising threat to myself and my family. Iran is run by a
> delusional madman looking for a special place in history. He speeks
> publicly of his own visions where he is the bringer of an apocalypse that
> awakens the 11th Imam. Call me paranoid, but I don't think a guy like
> that should get nukes. Syria is run by a mafia styled outfit that earns
> its living by doing the logistical dirtywork of other terror regimes.
> Call me insecure, but I support any effort to stop them. Hamas, Al Qaeda,
> Hizbollah are all selfprofessed terror groups with published agendas to
> commit genocide of the jews and western infidels. Perhaps I lack
> compassion, empathy, or maybe my mother neglected me as a child, but I
> find these groups to be evil and I support their demise. You call me
> arogant, but where is your outrage at the president of Iran calling for
> the destruction of Israel? Isn't that a little more arogant than myself?
> Wheres your outrage at Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea? Why can't you call
> a spade a spade?
But you don't want me to call a spade a spade. You want me to criticise
those spades you don't like and praise the spades you do like. That the
spades look the same to me from my perspective isn't what you want to hear,
nor would you accept.
The Happy Hippy
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote ...
[> Umm, I haven't threatened you or your family, Hippycrit. You have,
however,
> threatened mine, and also threatened to kill Jews in the UK. I don't know
> what planet you reside on right now, but I recommend that you stay there
if
> you don't want to see the inside of a jail cell.
Like I said, Ron, you are just so full of shit.
I'm not even going to explain it to you; I'll just leave you to wallow in
your delusion that you have reading comprehension better than a
first-grader. Suffice to say, it looks from my side that you aren't
comprehensionally disadvantaged, just plain fucking retarded. No balls, no
brain.
Of course, you do realise that claiming what you have claimed here, despite
the fact that it arises solely from your inability to comprehend the written
word, is libellous as it's not true ? And you do realise that the UK is
frequently considered to be the best place to commence an action to
recompense for libel, don't you ? You do realise how easy it is to start a
civil court action in the UK, don't you ? You do realise how serious your
unfounded, defamatory and libellous remarks are, don't you ?
Will I be forwarding your post ? Not to anyone you have heard of yet,
although that could change in the near future.
I did say, didn't I Ron, that if you want to play big boy's games you had
best be prepared and equipped to handle what you start.
The Happy Hippy
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote ....
> LOG: This guy threatened me and my family in a threat he posted on usenet.
> He also threatened to kill Jews in the UK.
I see you are repeating those unfounded, defamatory and libellous statements
again. Noted.
> Next will come a response from the London Police.
As I said Ron, you are so full of shit.
Joe Horrowitz
> But you don't want me to call a spade a spade. You want me to
> criticise those spades you don't like and praise the spades you do
> like. That the spades look the same to me from my perspective isn't
> what you want to hear, nor would you accept.
>
Look, everybody's done some wrong, the US included. But there are some
entities out there, almost exclusively dictators of one sort or another,
that are very oppressive to their own people, and they wish to spread that
oppression elsewhere. I have named names and listed the evil intentions,
which in most cases are clearly stated out in the open with no attempt to
hide their objectives. For some reason, instead of recognizing the emerging
trend and the corresponding threat to the viability of your life and
culture, you wish to immerse yourself into deep empathy with the people
behind these agendas and explore the extenuating circumstances that led to
their motivations. Its like a serial killer that has been caught, you would
be in favor of considering the ill effects of society in determining
judgment against him. "Perhaps the killer was abused in the state's foster
care program as a child, and therefore the state has culpability in the
character he became". And I agree with this softhearted approach, once the
criminal is caught. But we are not in the sentencing stage, we are in the
arresting stage, and no quarter can be given to threats of this nature in
this phase of circumstances.
The Happy Hippy
"Joe Horrowitz" <h...@mps.com> wrote ...
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
Sorry Joe, I have to some paper work to sort out and will have to cut this
thread short. Many apologies.
Joe Horrowitz
> Sorry Joe, I have to some paper work to sort out and will have to cut
> this thread short. Many apologies.
>
>
>
No problem - its nice to have you back.
The Happy Hippy
"Joe Horrowitz" <h...@mps.com> wrote ...
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
Well it was nice to have been back, but with other matters to address, I
suspect that for a while at least I will only be posting infrequently to
show that, (1) I am still here, that (2) I am still able to post.
George
Let's play, then, big boy. Your threat to kill Jews, myself and my family
has been forwarded to the IWF.
George
The Happy Hippy
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote ...
> Let's play, then, big boy. Your threat to kill Jews, myself and my family
> has been forwarded to the IWF.
W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E
4th August 2006
Dear Mr J R Yates ( aka "George" ),
With respect to your unfounded, defamatory and libellous accusations that I
have, (1) "threatened you and your family", (2) "threatened to kill Jews in
the UK", and variants thereof, I insist that you retract the aforesaid
accusations and forthwith cease and desist in repeating the aforesaid
libels.
You have repeated both of those libellous accusations in public at least
three times and I insist that you refrain from doing so again.
I shall be contacting your Internet Service Provider (ISP) in the near
future with respect to the origination of these libels and reserve the right
to pursue all courses of action available to me to remedy and redress the
aforesaid libels to the fullest extent under civil and criminal law, not
limited to the recovery of damages, compensation and all other costs arising
directly and indirectly from your aforesaid libellous statements and to take
any necessary or consequential action against yourself, third parties,
agents and all other parties directly or indirectly involved in the making,
issuing, publication, transmission and propagation of the aforesaid
libellous statements.
Until this matter has been resolved I shall not be responding to any further
postings you make to any public forums except to acknowledge any retraction
of the aforesaid libels that you may issue.
I, or my representatives, shall contact you directly should the need arise.
Yours,
THH.
Mr.G
Welcome back Happy Hippy, you been on vacation
or something? It don't look like you got very much
rest... =)
Mr.G
The Happy Hippy
VileMerchant
International Wildlife Fund?
Mr.G
Cool beans, welcome back anyway for as long as
you can stay. I saw where you posted to Joe about
having to get going.
Mr.G
George
I suggest that you get yourself a good trial lawyer. You're gonna need
one. Your words speak for themselves:
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!213.132.189.2.MISMATCH!feed20.multikabel.net!multikabel.net!feed10.multikabel.net!hwmnpeer01.ams!news-out.ntli.net!newsrout1-gui.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe7-gui.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
References: <mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk>
<BZqdnVPnGdMOgEzZ...@insightbb.com>
<qpeAg.72397$B91.18518@edtnps82>
Subject: Re: [OT:] Whatever happened to The Happy Hippy?
Lines: 31
Organization: None
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID: <kTnAg.5144$t%.4515@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:38:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.14.221.153
X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport
X-Trace: newsfe7-gui.ntli.net 1154615888 86.14.221.153 (Thu, 03 Aug 2006
15:38:08 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:38:08 BST
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.current-events.terrorism:138656
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0631-2, 08/02/2006), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mP2cnVN4u8U...@karoo.co.uk...
> > Missing, presumed having something better to do!
> >
> > TWP
> >
>
> Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the
> front lines. One can only hope.
>
> George
Are you suggesting that I ought to be out there slaughtering Jews ? I can
slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start
with your wife ?
Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy killing machine ?
Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body and maybe that's
because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing ? That can
be
arranged. Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
George
"VileMerchant" <lonelyjew@christmas> wrote in message
news:12d5d76...@corp.supernews.com...
Internet Watch Foundation. Any questions?
George
TWP
>
> "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote ...
>
> > Let's play, then, big boy. Your threat to kill Jews, myself and my
family
> > has been forwarded to the IWF.
>
>
>
> W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E
>
> 4th August 2006
>
> Dear Mr J R Yates ( aka "George" ),
>
When did George say he was J R Yates? Did I miss a meeting?
TWP
TWP
"VileMerchant" <lonelyjew@christmas> wrote in message
news:12d5d76...@corp.supernews.com...
Doesn't the IWF just deal with child abuse issues?
Hope you both have lots of money! I understand libel cases are hard to
prove and quite expensive. Couldn't you just settle your differences with
an arm wrestling contest? A lot cheaper, but of course harder on the arms.
TWP
George
I didn't. But it doesn't take a genius to read his original response to me
and note the threats he made.
George
George
No. They also investigate abuse, hate speech, and threats posted on the
internet/newsgroups, etc.
> Hope you both have lots of money! I understand libel cases are hard to
> prove and quite expensive. Couldn't you just settle your differences
> with
> an arm wrestling contest? A lot cheaper, but of course harder on the
> arms.
>
> TWP
Why spend your own money when there are plenty of organizations and
government agencies (with much larger pockets) willing to do it for you?
He hasn't got a leg to stand on. He made physical threats in an open forum
for all to see and then claimed that he was libeled because someone
reported his threats to the proper authorities. And then turns around and
makes even more threats. Most amusing. But typical for him. It's time
that he started taking responsibility for his actions by owning what he
says. Or he can apologize to me, my family, and every Jew in Britain for
making such threats. It's his choice. He must have been drunk, or taking
lessons from Mel Gibson. Actually, I think he was simply being himself.
George
Jesse
news:y-mdnTqq_YmQX0_Z...@insightbb.com:
Far beyond me to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but it seems to me
his probable line of defence, if such is needed, will be that he said "he
could do this, he can do this, maybe he should do that".
He never actually said he will do it, is going to do it, will pay someone to
do it, ect.
Anyways, good luck.
I hate to see things coming to this point. You already knew Dippy is easier
to provoke than a baby with severe diaper rash.
I agree he has reached a new low, even for him, to ponder violence against a
posters wife [and he can no doubt afford this luxury, as rumor has it that he
is still living with his mother] ... But whether this rises to the level of a
prosecutable offence, I rather doubt.
TWP
>
> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ....> > news:s9nAg.17577$WY2....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The war isn't being fought in armchairs - that suggests that how
Israel
> is
> > > undertaking its war is legitimate
> >
> >
> > Ah, I see you're back! :-) That's more like it!
>
> :-)
>
> > I don't understand how that follows. Everyone has their own opinion
> about
> > the rights or wrongs, what is too much and what isn't etc. It's the
> regular
> > people that express outrage for military excesses before governments do.
> I
> > think this is a war fought in homes as well as on battlefields, in a way
> > that we've started to see from around 2001 to 2003. The Gulf War I
> > reporting was more distant. In fact when the war started in 1991 it
was
> > reported by telephone (on CNN) not on camera.
>
> In that sense, I see what you are saying. If any country's acts are so
> abhorant to the world's population that they become a strong enough force
to
> alter the course of a war then they do control the destiny of it.
>
> America lost Vietnam and had to bring it to a close and bale out because
the
> great majority of Americans would no longer support the war. But the war
> wasn't really lost because the armchair generals ( the American public )
> came to the conclusion that the war was wrong or going wrong, but because
> the war was going wrong.
>
> The US could have used all the propaganda devices at its disposal to keep
> the armchair generals convinced that they should support the war, but that
> would not have meant that the war would have been won or would be going
any
> less wrong. Winning the war with the armchair critics has absolutely no
> effect on the war itself.
>
> I suppose you could look at it this way; a war cannot be won by simply
> winning the war with the armchair generals, but a war can be lost by
losing
> the war with the armchair critics.
>
>
> > and can be justified when it patently
> > > can't,
> >
> > I don't know how you got that from what I said....
>
> I think I was looking at it from a different angle, but not sure which :-)
>
>
> > and that it's simply a matter of convincing armchair viewers that
> > > Israel is in the right.
> >
> > That's not what I expect to happen - I think the loser is the one that
> first
> > becomes convincingly the bad guy.
>
> I think that's been determined already. In the red corner we have Mr
> Terrorist, scum of the earth, killer of civilians, who holds sanctity of
> life in disdain and spits on the fabric which holds humanity toghether. In
> the blue corner we have Israel, purported holder of the moral high ground,
a
> clean fighter who behaves in accordance with international law, with
> humanity and respect.
>
> Now who are you going to be most shocked by when they both come out
> scratching, biting and behaving as bad as each other ?
>
I think it's more complicated than that though. Hezbollah is a terrorist
organisation, which I take it involves it's choice of targets not of
methods. The methods aren't too dissimilar. If you deliberately target the
innocent to cause terror within that civilian population for your own gain
you are a terrorist. I haven't seen any evidence that Israel has
deliberately targetted innocent people yet, although I'm not sure how much
they've worried about them getting in the way.
> We are slaves to compassion, slaves to what we call humaity, idealism,
> values and all that we hold dear above all else. And our enemies know
that,
> and they will try and cause us to destroy ourselves by letting go of that
> and we can ( as America and Israel have both now done in the Middle East )
> oblige them and make ourselves less than what we were, or we can stand
bold
> and proud and be strong, and find a way to do what we have to without
> sacrificing what we are.
>
> To retain ones standing it may be painful to do what one has to and face
> continuing suffering while it's done. America and Israel have neither the
> resolve nor the strength to keep their honour and dignity and fight back.
> It's not necessarily easy, it's not necessarily simple but it can be done.
> In microcosm and on the whole we saw that achieved in Northern Ireland.
>
> In defeating an enemy it is not just a victory, but a question of what one
> has lost in the process. You can choose to be prepared to lose it all, or
> you can be determined to hold on to it all. There is never a point where
the
> ruthless will automatically win, because you can step down as far as needs
> be to take them on and survival alone will dictate that. The more
creative,
> intelligent and imaginative you are, the less likely you will have to step
> down at all. America and Israel are prepared to throw all that they are to
> the wind because they are too stupid to see any other way of fighting a
> conflict than face to face, in the gutter, duking it out. Britain isn't
much
> better as it wilfully scarifices the liberties of its citizens to an enemy
> more imaginary than real.
It would be nice if you were right, but I don't think the world works that
way. I think sometimes talking works and other times it just gives your
enemy time to dig your grave. It probably comes down to a wise man knowing
the difference.
You just can't talk yourself out of every situation. Sometimes you have to
just save your life any way you can. I think WWII serves as a good example
again. Remember peace in our time? Fat lot of good talking peace with
Hitler did us, right? What was the common ground that we could agree on
there anyway? What would we surrender to Hitler that wouldn't leave him
wondering if he could have that and a little more too? I admire the
pacifist ideal, and in my youth during the nasty part of the Cold War I
thought of myself as a pacifist, but I think without the whole world turns
idealist it could lead to your domination or extinction. A civilisation
that followed a principle of pacifism may serve as an ideal to the world,
but I think we'd be reading about their idealism in the history books.
> In general I think we should always be prepared to do whatever it takes,
but
> that is to throw off what we hold dear ( as per earlier ), and should be
no
> casual decision. As I have said before, I can see that I could do the most
> barbarous, offensive, evil things if I believed them right or necessary.
The
> issue is where one sets the bar in height and how far one is prepared to
> lower it, and under what circumstance.
>
I'm glad to hear you go that far anyway. I'm not sure how many scruples
people really would have if it came to saving their life. I think you'd
burn someone alive before you'd let them put you in a gas chamber - and if
I'm wrong on that you're probably the only one on this group I'm wrong
about! :-) It comes down to a point of descision when you believe you're
fighting to save your life or way of life rather than just to take someone
else's life or property.
>
> > > These are the people who are a biggest danger to the world, the ones
who
> > > stand against peace rather than for it.
> >
> > Does Hezbollah or Hamas stand for peace? Does AQ?
>
> I'd have to say yes, they do. Satisfactorily achieving what they want will
> automatically give them the peace. That they may be engaged in rhetoric
and
> brutal wars does not mean that they don't seek peace. I am sure that all
> wars are wars to gain peace.
I really don't agree with you here. I think at the very least you've ended
that sentence too soon... if it's right at all I think it really goes
".....all wars are wars to gain peace.... on the victor's terms." AQ
wouldn't haggle peace terms with us, quite simply because if their war is
truly a religious duty they have no power to negotiate. The best we could
get is a temporary ceasefire which they would only use to their advantage.
Religious extremism has taken the place of Communism as the dark red-eyed
monster under the bed in our minds. The trouble is, the Communists didn't
think they'd go to Heaven if they killed you. I think we're wobbling on
the edge of seriously difficult times if not some kind of dark age, and I
think all the talk in the world will serve us very little, because we don't
posess a time machine to undo every past grievance that we'll never be
forgiven for. There's also the little difficulty of not everyone wanting to
convert to Islam.
>
> In the sense of a negotiated peace which doesn't need to see us fight it
to
> the end to see what that conclusion is, then I believe there is always
scope
> for compromise and a satisfactory peace.
>
> Peace may not mean that we live in perfect harmony and pop round for tea,
> but that we can coexist without fear of each other even if there remains
> genuine hatred.
>
>
> > When did they last call for peace?
>
> They probably haven't. But there's a danger here that you are applying
> western cultural aspects on an alien world, and expecting them to behave
and
> speak as you wish to see and hear. It's also trickery of semantics. When
> Israel calls for peace it is calling for the destruction of Hezbollah, so
> what's so deserving and laudible in seeking peace in that ?
>
I think they are calling for the destruction of Hezbollah's ability to do
harm to Israel, they aren't calling for their destruction just to see them
shrivel. They are also trying to set up a deterrant by the looks of it.
"Attack us again and we'll do to you what we did last time", although that
part doesn't seem to be working out as well as they'd hoped.
>
> > Wasn't it when they thought they were losing?
>
> Whan have Hamas, Hezbollah or AQ ever considered themselves losing ?
Of course they wouldn't say that, but you can detect it when they offer
truces and ceasefires when previously they were uncompromising.
>
>
> > If they do want peace, what are their terms?
>
> You have to ask them, and then decide what is fundamental and what is
> peripheral to what they want.
I think (at least AQ) have set terms already, you just maybe haven't seen
them....
(I think I posted this before, but indulge me...)
...the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and
military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa
Mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the
lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in
accordance with the words of Almighty Allah. 'and fight the pagans all
together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no
more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.
>
>
> > What are the chances that those terms will
> > change according to changes within their groups?
>
> I'm sure they will, but the fundamentals will probably remain failrly
> static.
>
>
> > If you're fighting a
> > non-state organisation isn't any peace deal that you do come up with
built
> > on shifting sands?
>
> It is, but the fundamentals should stay roughly the same, and it just
means
> that everyone has to shift with the sands. By their very nature successful
> negotiations will shift the sands themselves while ongoing.
>
> The majority of western countries can change their political directions
> entirely every four years or so but it doesn't necessarily prevent long
term
> deals being reached. Sometimes there are hiccups, sometimes negotiations
may
> need suspending, sometimes starting anew.
>
>
> > What if the group is so hard-line that only your
> > elimination will bring peace?
>
> You work on the group until it is of a different opinion. You fracture the
> group and maginalise those who are obstacles. You play stick and carrot as
> appropriate.
>
>
> > Not everyone cares for making deals.... what
> > do you do with them?
>
> Work on them, and get their peers to work on them to change their mindset.
I don't think anyone within AQ that opposed Allah's orders would last five
minutes. It would be like sending someone away to work on Stalin. They
would be seen as traitors to their faith - there probably couldn't be a
greater crime, in fact the penalty would probably be worse than death. I'd
be surprised if you could get anyone to do it, and I'd be really really
surprised if you could get any of the believers to listen.
> For individuals, and the group as above, a bullet in the head may work
> wonders in a particularly stubborn situation. If done well, you will have
> the group itself pulling the trigger, obstacles to what the group itself
> seeks to achieve.
That's probably the threat that persuaded the Real IRA to stop, however the
IRA had fairly attainable territorial demands. Now if they'd demanded that
the whole world become Catholic and made it their sacred duty we may well
still be getting blown up by them.
Religion and fanaticism are a dangerous mix... far greater than simple
politics mixed with fanaticism. Religion dictates how a person believes
they will live forever. You're going to find it hard to compete with that,
however nice and reasonable you try to be.
TWP
George
"Jesse" <z...@so.org> wrote in message
news:Xns98151F1401AE8ew...@140.99.99.130...
Actually, there was a veiled threat to that effect. "Not to anyone you
have heard of yet,
although that could change in the near future."
> Anyways, good luck.
> I hate to see things coming to this point. You already knew Dippy is
> easier
> to provoke than a baby with severe diaper rash.
So is Al-Qaeda. That doesn't excuse his behavior any more than it excuses
theirs.
> I agree he has reached a new low, even for him, to ponder violence
> against a
> posters wife [and he can no doubt afford this luxury, as rumor has it
> that he
> is still living with his mother] ... But whether this rises to the level
> of a
> prosecutable offence, I rather doubt.
If his ISP cuts him off, I'll be satisfied. If not, I'll persue the matter
further.
George
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ....
> Doesn't the IWF just deal with child abuse issues?
>
> Hope you both have lots of money! I understand libel cases are hard to
> prove and quite expensive. Couldn't you just settle your differences with
> an arm wrestling contest? A lot cheaper, but of course harder on the
arms.
W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E
If Ron wants to retract his libellous statements that I have threatened him,
his family and Jews in the UK that may influence how we proceed.
Ron started this with his provocative, "Maybe he [me] took up our challenge,
and joined his Hezbullah friends on the front lines. One can only hope".
That has a number of serious implicit slurs including that I am a terrorist
supporter and that I am anti-Semitic, charges that he has frequently made in
the past. Coupled with his publicly professed support for the Israeli
destruction and killing of Hezbollah terrorists it implies that he is hoping
that I were in the Lebanon area and that Israel would consequently kill me.
Not a particularly nice "hope" to have, to wish me dead.
He then took my robust response and perceived threats therein which do not
exist in that response. Whether he has chosen to interpret what was written
as a threat through an inability to understand the language I used, lack of
reading comprehension or for some other reason I do not know. It would not
be the first time that an American on this group has shown themselves to be
incapable of understanding the British English written word as it was
intended.
Most of us long-term contributors of this group are well aware that feelings
run deep on both sides of the camp on many issues and it requires a certain
resilience and thick-skin to be a contributor, especially in response to
almost continual accusations of being a terrorist supporter and anti-Semitic
from some quarters.
Rather than take what I posted as it was meant, seek clarification or demand
an explanation even an apology or simply criticise what I wrote, Ron chose
to immediately go running to the 'netcops' of my ISP abuse department, and
has began imagining that I will consequently be prosecuted and imprisoned
for the threats he perceives I have made. In all my time on usenet I have
never met anyone at all with such a weak spine or who would react in such a
way.
Rather than deal with Ron perceived he had read rationally and calmly, he
chose a knee-jerk course of alleging that I had threatened him, his family,
and had threatened Jews in the UK. While both are completely unsubstantiated
libels, the later is particularly offensive in its implication of
anti-Semitism.
It is not the first time that Ron, and others, on this group have
unjustifiably levelled the charge of anti-Semitism at posters in this group,
and I doubt it will be the last. It is a deliberately hurtful, nasty thing
to allege and it is intended that way.
While I maintain and believe that any reasonable man would see that what I
wrote did not amount to a threat, there is no doubt, no ambiguities or other
interpretations in what Ron's accusations are; "This guy threatened me and
my family ", and, "He also threatened to kill Jews in the UK".
Under 'normal circumstances' such scurrilous accusations would probably be
dismissed off-hand or dealt with within the confines of this group, but that
does not make such accusations any less false, defamatory or libellous.
In this instance Ron has chosen not to deal with my response within this
group, 'man to man', but instead ran to the 'netcops', and has repeated his
libellous accusations, a number of times now, in public and to other
parties. That puts his false accusations in a different light than they may
otherwise be seen in.
Ron, and others, must realise that they cannot simply cast false accusations
around like confetti ( as he frequently does ) or use them for cheap
political point scoring or to silence debate. If people are going to make
such serious allegations they had better be sure that they can back them up
or risk the consequences.
Ron, in his imagining that I may consequently be imprisoned for what he
alleges I threatened, shows himself as being fully aware of the seriousness
of his accusation and the gravity of the charges of threatened murder,
racial hatred and anti-Semitism which he levels.
I am confident that Ron's accusations will be dismissed as being without
merit by my ISP abuse department and any others he may chose to complain to,
however, those accusations still stand, and Ron has declared that, rather
than take any dismissal of such accusations as reflecting that they are
without merit, he will continue to push the matter further, that is, to
continue to repeat his libellous statements.
It is ironic that this incident has many parallels with the primary topic of
discussion elsewhere within this group. A provocative stance was taken, a
robust response was given, and Ron chose to escalate the issue, and is
meeting counter-escalation in return. Both sides believe they are right,
however it is a rather more clear-cut issue, in that the only question, is
did I make the threats as Ron alleges ? If not, Ron's claims are both false
and libellous.
TWP
This is none of my business, but I thought I as an impartial fellow poster -
being about the closest thing available to a member of your peers in
newsgroup terms - thought I'd go over HH's post and see if there's anything
to see....
If either of you think I should bugger off and stay out of it I won't argue!
> > Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the
> > front lines. One can only hope.
> >
> > George
>
> Are you suggesting that I ought to be out there slaughtering Jews ?
[George didn't actually mention slaughtering Jews. That could be taken by
implication, but it wasn't actually said and seems a reaction and remark
calculated to start an argument. I would take George's remark as by
implication believing that HH is on the side of terrorism but I didn't take
it to mean HH should be killing Jews. There did seem to be a more agressive
reaction than was called for by HH. The remark appears to me to be a
disapproval of your HH's point of view, which George would seem to believe
is overly sympathetic to terrorists or overly unsympathetic to those
fighting terrorists rather than a direct attack on HH. (I don't want to
debate the definition of "terrorist" - I think we all know how the word is
meant here) ]
> I can slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I
can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
> children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we
start
> with your wife ?
[There was no threat to kill here, and the remarks appear to be meant as
satire. The remark about George's wife is closer to being menacing than the
rest of the paragraph and would appear to me to be intended to be agressive
or hurtful, however in context with the rest of the paragraph I would not
take it to be a serious threat to kill, particularly also as it is expressed
in the form of a question.]
>
> Or maybe you are hoping that Israel will be your proxy killing machine ?
[irrelevant between the two of you]
>
> Well fuck you George. I know you are sick in mind and body
[This is more unclear. The type of sickness isn't defined. It would seem
by implication to be a desire to see people killed, but isn't specific
enough to tell]
> and maybe that's
> because the God you don't believe in has chosen to lay you low like the
> worthless piece of shit you are. You want to see blood flowing ? That can
be
> arranged.
[This does appear to be a threatening remark, although not specifically
aimed at any one individual or amounting a specific threat to kill. It
could be taken by implication to be a threat to George or George's wife but
I don't think that would hold water legally]
> Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?
[Seriously menacing and hurtful stuff, HH's anger is obviously building, but
not a specific threat to kill. More like something someone would say in the
heat of the moment (and possibly get thumped for! :-) ) ]
-------
I would say overall that the post contains some nasty stuff that wasn't
really called for in response to George's brief remark, bitter as it was!
There isn't any threat to kill there though, although it does appear to be
intentionally menacing on the part of HH. I would say overall though, that
you both should be thick-skinned enough to just be pissed off for a while
then cool down and forget it.
In legal terms I don't think anyone would go near this, it's a non-starter,
although I'm not sure how menacing you have to be to be taken seriously.
As far as HH's ISP goes, they'd possibly give HH a telling off but not go
further unless HH had a recent history of other complaints made against
him. I don't think ISP's are interested in standing between people in flame
wars, they're more interested in protecting themselves from being accused of
being secondary publishers of libellous or illegal material. I can't see
anything specifially illegal about this, and I don't think HH's ISP would
either.
In short I think both the law and ISPs would be of the opinion that this is
between you guys and your problem to sort out (so far).
Mr Justice TWP
Legal opinions may vary.
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> I don't think ISP's are interested in standing between people in flame
> wars,
I agree. The question is when does a flame war go beyond that, and become an
actionable claim ?
It's unlikely that an ISP would take much interest in an allegation that
someone said or meant something when it can be shown that they hadn't or it
didn't mean that.
It may be a very different matter when the ISP can be shown that someone did
say or mean something. How that would be dealt with would probably depend
upon the seriousness of what was said or meant.
> they're more interested in protecting themselves from being accused of
> being secondary publishers of libellous or illegal material.
What do you think happens then ? When it is alleged / shown that one of
their customers has issued a seriously libellous statement and there is a
possibility / potential that redress may be sought from that customer's ISP
?
Obviously it depends upon what merit an ISP believes any allegation has, and
obviously whether such redress could be sought from them and what chance of
success it has. I guess it can depend upon how the ISP perceives litigious
action, its costs, its affect, and particularly how serious any such libel
was. It may also depend upon what action against the ISP is being proposed
and where it originates from, under which legal system.
TWP
>
> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
>
> > I don't think ISP's are interested in standing between people in flame
> > wars,
>
> I agree. The question is when does a flame war go beyond that, and become
an
> actionable claim ?
>
> It's unlikely that an ISP would take much interest in an allegation that
> someone said or meant something when it can be shown that they hadn't or
it
> didn't mean that.
The ISP stands to be sued along with the person who committed the crime (I
think the ISP would have to have been given a reasonable chance to remove
illegal material hand not have done so). The ISP then has to sue the
customer under the contract condition to "hold them harmless", so
effectively the customer is sued twice. A while ago a UK ISP tried to use
the "common carrier defence", the same law that protects the telephone
company from being considered a secondary publisher, but this claim was
rejected and so ISP's do count as secondary publishers... making them liable
for what is published on their services.
>
> It may be a very different matter when the ISP can be shown that someone
did
> say or mean something. How that would be dealt with would probably depend
> upon the seriousness of what was said or meant.
I expect that would be true, and the ISPs level of proof would almost
cretainly be lower than that required by law in order to protect themselves.
>
>
> > they're more interested in protecting themselves from being accused of
> > being secondary publishers of libellous or illegal material.
>
> What do you think happens then ? When it is alleged / shown that one of
> their customers has issued a seriously libellous statement and there is a
> possibility / potential that redress may be sought from that customer's
ISP
> ?
See above answer!
>
> Obviously it depends upon what merit an ISP believes any allegation has,
and
> obviously whether such redress could be sought from them and what chance
of
> success it has. I guess it can depend upon how the ISP perceives litigious
> action, its costs, its affect, and particularly how serious any such libel
> was. It may also depend upon what action against the ISP is being proposed
> and where it originates from, under which legal system.
This is a UK group, you are a UK ISP customer.... I imagine it would fall
under UK law.
I'm sure there is a relevant UK case, but this is the closest I've been able
to find so far...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3540778.stm
TWP
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> > > Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on
the
> > > front lines. One can only hope.
> I would take George's remark as by
> implication believing that HH is on the side of terrorism but I didn't
take
> it to mean HH should be killing Jews. There did seem to be a more
agressive
> reaction than was called for by HH.
Why would George "hope" that I was on the Hezbollah front lines ? Why would
I be on those Hezbollah front lines ? What would or could the consequences
of that be ?
Does it imply that I am a terrorist supporter and would be on those front
lines because I agree with their doctrine, and would therefore be engaging
in the pursuits of Hezbollah, which, as a terrorist group, we are
continually told is the wholesale slaughtering of Israeli civilians and the
destruction of Israel ? What else does Hezbollah do in George's eyes ?
Does it imply that he hopes I am in those Hezbollah lines when Israel
targets them and wipes all of them off the face of the earth ?
Ask yourself what George's "hope" means, ask yourself just what is being
implied by that expressed "hope", and ask yourself just how offensive such
expressed "hope" is.
Then, consider in the light of you being a terrorist supporter, a hater of
Israel, and an anti-Semite I hope to see dead soon how you would respond to
such offensiveness. I gave as I got. George isn't man enough to take it.
TWP
3Phase
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:43:18 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
<the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<qpGAg.109$WK6...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>:
Only because you seem to be asking for input, I believe you were
wrong, Haps.
George called me a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer and I laughed
in his face, called him a lefty swine (he's a Democrat so I have to,
it's in the Republican Party Manual somewhere), and threatened to
buy the main house and raise the rent on his travel-trailer. Now that
I think of it, he never did say whether he was or was not a
terrorist. Hmm....
I don't know why you felt it necessary to write about 'Ron', but if
you're wrong and 'Ron' isn't 'George', then some poor, innocent, Gump
could walk off his shrimp boat one evening and get thumped, or worse,
by a psycho-lurker. Having no part in the dispute and zero clue what
was going on he wouldn't even know he should be keeping his head up
and his eyes open.
You brought his family and other innocent people into your dispute. I
stopped arguing with Chris Hills - dropped it cold - when he
mentioned he had a sister and roughly where she had been living. If
he does, indeed, have a sister I feel sorry for her, but I will not
even entertain the remote possibility of putting her in a bad spot
just because her brother trips over his own mouth whenever he picks
up a keyboard and goes on the 'net. You do not mess with family be it
intentionally or otherwise.
Bottom line: George was wrong, you went way over the top.
By the way, welcome back. I have to hold up both sides in some
arguments lately because you're not here to post your moonbat lefty
conspiracy links to which I can post my truthful and forthright
conservative links. ;-)
Regards,
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBRNNZmB36GXkxBL6XEQIYbgCgoC1XdqKZnIMf9ChW/IZ8GW69YDsAn2fp
Y/qB0qA5VA7h+jpWe+1Ca8Lb
=2z/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> The ISP stands to be sued along with the person who committed the crime (I
> think the ISP would have to have been given a reasonable chance to remove
> illegal material hand not have done so). The ISP then has to sue the
> customer under the contract condition to "hold them harmless", so
> effectively the customer is sued twice. A while ago a UK ISP tried to
use
> the "common carrier defence", the same law that protects the telephone
> company from being considered a secondary publisher, but this claim was
> rejected and so ISP's do count as secondary publishers... making them
liable
> for what is published on their services.
It is usually much easier to sue a company or with an individual rather than
an individual alone simply because companies usually have access to
substantial amounts of money which is relatively easy to extract.
> This is a UK group, you are a UK ISP customer.... I imagine it would fall
> under UK law.
More importantly I am a British citizen living in England. Any libel
originating in the US, directed at me, and propagated within the UK by the
originator, probably gives the option for redress under English or American
Law against the originator. Familiarity with English Law, and English libel
laws which provide a more likely chance of success than under US Law would
dictate which it were to be.
Of course, without that 'common carrier defence', everyone from originator
to my own ISP is potentially liable for redress for any libel published. Any
attempt at redress from the ISP delivering a libel is likely to cause them
to rejoinder those who passed it to them to push their liability towards the
source.
That's a potentially interesting situation, in that a litigant would only
have to seek redress from their own ISP ( a simpler legal process ) and
leave them to deal with complexities of buck-passing, and by the time all
involved have pushed blame to the originator's ISP there would be a string
of companies all potentially liable for any redress. An unfounded claim
against a defendant would likely see their ISP arguing on their side, and
where there is merit perhaps doing likewise for a plaintiff in order to
off-load their own liability.
If my ISP's legal department ever talks to me it will make for an
interesting discussion I would think.
The Happy Hippy
"3Phase" <Phase3@world_OF_SPAM_net.att.net> wrote ...
> Only because you seem to be asking for input, I believe you were
> wrong, Haps.
I appreciate your viewpoint.
> George called me a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer and I laughed
> in his face, called him a lefty swine (he's a Democrat so I have to,
> it's in the Republican Party Manual somewhere), and threatened to
> buy the main house and raise the rent on his travel-trailer. Now that
> I think of it, he never did say whether he was or was not a
> terrorist. Hmm....
Did he complain to your ISP abuse department and embark upon trying to put
you in a world of shit because he didn't like how you responded to his
provocations ?
> Bottom line: George was wrong,
I am glad we can agree on that. Perhaps someone ought to address themselves
to George on this matter.
We can stop this, or we can continue it, and we can see who can take this
the furthest and do the most damage to the other. I can assure anyone who
may be of the opinion that I am some pacifist, soft walk-over, or weak in
anyway that they are sorely mistaken.
> you went way over the top.
I gave as I got and as was deserved. It appears that we disagree on whether
that was appropriate or not.
Actions provoke reactions, and subsequent actions are dictating what mine
will be.
> By the way, welcome back. I have to hold up both sides in some
> arguments lately because you're not here to post your moonbat lefty
> conspiracy links to which I can post my truthful and forthright
> conservative links. ;-)
That, I have no problem with - Same old game :-)
You know what, maybe that's because you didn't imply that you wished me
dead.
3Phase
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:35:25 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
<the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<1PJAg.6056$N64....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>:
> "3Phase" <Phase3@world_OF_SPAM_net.att.net> wrote ...
>
> > Only because you seem to be asking for input, I believe you were
> > wrong, Haps.
>
> I appreciate your viewpoint.
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to read it. :-)
> > George called me a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer and I
> > laughed in his face, called him a lefty swine (he's a Democrat so
> > I have to, it's in the Republican Party Manual somewhere), and
> > threatened to buy the main house and raise the rent on his
> > travel-trailer. Now that I think of it, he never did say whether
> > he was or was not a
> > terrorist. Hmm....
>
> Did he complain to your ISP abuse department and embark upon trying
> to put you in a world of shit because he didn't like how you
> responded to his provocations ?
I have no idea. If he did, I never heard anything about it.
> > Bottom line: George was wrong,
>
> I am glad we can agree on that. Perhaps someone ought to address
> themselves to George on this matter.
I think George is following this thread along with at least two ISP
abuse teams.
> We can stop this, or we can continue it, and we can see who can
> take this the furthest and do the most damage to the other. I can
> assure anyone who may be of the opinion that I am some pacifist,
> soft walk-over, or weak in anyway that they are sorely mistaken.
>
> > you went way over the top.
>
> I gave as I got and as was deserved. It appears that we disagree on
> whether that was appropriate or not.
I understand, believe me.
> Actions provoke reactions, and subsequent actions are dictating
> what mine will be.
What 'action'?
The Atlantic Ocean physically separates both of you.
> > By the way, welcome back. I have to hold up both sides in some
> > arguments lately because you're not here to post your moonbat
> > lefty conspiracy links to which I can post my truthful and
> > forthright conservative links. ;-)
>
> That, I have no problem with - Same old game :-)
Actually, can we try to cooperate a little better in future? :-)
> You know what, maybe that's because you didn't imply that you
> wished me dead.
No, I do not wish you were dead and never have. A window sill, some
bread crumbs and your beak (keyboard), but not you, personally.
Regards,
Scott
Fanning the Stephen Colbert World War Three Eternal Flame
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBRNOJ6B36GXkxBL6XEQLEqgCgye0Qn5ElKFMCRCkXqHsXs9cr9lIAoIFm
YRuWc8ebf/qm4LWpQ9VBpoNu
=QIqZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
George
>
> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ....
>
>> Doesn't the IWF just deal with child abuse issues?
>>
>> Hope you both have lots of money! I understand libel cases are hard to
>> prove and quite expensive. Couldn't you just settle your differences
>> with
>> an arm wrestling contest? A lot cheaper, but of course harder on the
> arms.
>
> W I T H O U T P R E J U D I C E
>
> If Ron wants to retract his libellous statements that I have threatened
> him,
> his family and Jews in the UK that may influence how we proceed.
>
> Ron started this with his provocative, "Maybe he [me] took up our
> challenge,
> and joined his Hezbullah friends on the front lines. One can only hope".
> That has a number of serious implicit slurs including that I am a
> terrorist
> supporter and that I am anti-Semitic, charges that he has frequently made
> in
> the past.
Yeah? So what? You are all of those and more, Hippycrit. Everyone here
know that.
> Coupled with his publicly professed support for the Israeli
> destruction and killing of Hezbollah terrorists it implies that he is
> hoping
> that I were in the Lebanon area and that Israel would consequently kill
> me.
> Not a particularly nice "hope" to have, to wish me dead.
Just affirming your own death wishes, Hippycrit.
> He then took my robust response and perceived threats therein which do
> not
> exist in that response.
yeah, well, you've tried to make such denials before when you post
bullshit. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and you still mde threats,
whether you choose to admit it or not.
Perhaps because you killfile anyone with any spine who doesn't tolerate
your lies, threats, and general bullshit.
> Rather than deal with Ron perceived he had read rationally and calmly, he
> chose a knee-jerk course of alleging that I had threatened him, his
> family,
> and had threatened Jews in the UK. While both are completely
> unsubstantiated
> libels, the later is particularly offensive in its implication of
> anti-Semitism.
Your words speak for themselves, Hippycrit. That are already posted on
this newsgroup, and sent to servers worldwide. Good luck retrieving them.
> It is not the first time that Ron, and others, on this group have
> unjustifiably levelled the charge of anti-Semitism at posters in this
> group,
> and I doubt it will be the last. It is a deliberately hurtful, nasty
> thing
> to allege and it is intended that way.
The truth often times hurts, Hippycrit. Perhaps if you weren't such
acknowledged bigot, it wouldn't hurt so.
> While I maintain and believe that any reasonable man would see that what
> I
> wrote did not amount to a threat, there is no doubt, no ambiguities or
> other
> interpretations in what Ron's accusations are; "This guy threatened me
> and
> my family ", and, "He also threatened to kill Jews in the UK".
>
> Under 'normal circumstances' such scurrilous accusations would probably
> be
> dismissed off-hand or dealt with within the confines of this group, but
> that
> does not make such accusations any less false, defamatory or libellous.
> In this instance Ron has chosen not to deal with my response within this
> group, 'man to man',
Oh contraire, Hippycrit. I've responded to every one of your posts
regarding this matter. That doesn't mean that I have to ignore the threats
you've made, and simply let you get away with them. Backtracking on your
own statements isn't going to help you. An apology, which I've already
asked for, would help, but the damage is already done, I think.
> but instead ran to the 'netcops', and has repeated his
> libellous accusations, a number of times now, in public and to other
> parties. That puts his false accusations in a different light than they
> may
> otherwise be seen in.
>
> Ron, and others, must realise that they cannot simply cast false
> accusations
> around like confetti ( as he frequently does ) or use them for cheap
> political point scoring or to silence debate. If people are going to make
> such serious allegations they had better be sure that they can back them
> up
> or risk the consequences.
Casting threats of physical violence is not debating by any measure of the
concept, but is actually against the law in both the U.S. and the UK. if
you are going to make such threats, be prepared to accept the consequences
for your actions, Hippycrit. Revealing personal information about people
over the internet without their permission is also a crime in most
countries.
> Ron, in his imagining that I may consequently be imprisoned for what he
> alleges I threatened, shows himself as being fully aware of the
> seriousness
> of his accusation and the gravity of the charges of threatened murder,
> racial hatred and anti-Semitism which he levels.
Of course. I wouldn't have made the accusations if you hadn't made the
threats.
> I am confident that Ron's accusations will be dismissed as being without
> merit by my ISP abuse department and any others he may chose to complain
> to,
> however, those accusations still stand, and Ron has declared that, rather
> than take any dismissal of such accusations as reflecting that they are
> without merit, he will continue to push the matter further, that is, to
> continue to repeat his libellous statements.
>
> It is ironic that this incident has many parallels with the primary topic
> of
> discussion elsewhere within this group. A provocative stance was taken, a
> robust response was given, and Ron chose to escalate the issue, and is
> meeting counter-escalation in return. Both sides believe they are right,
> however it is a rather more clear-cut issue, in that the only question,
> is
> did I make the threats as Ron alleges ? If not, Ron's claims are both
> false
> and libellous.
You are certainly not right, Hippycrit. Fascists like you who threaten
people without just cause (whether over newsgroups or elsewhere in this
world) are never right. They are only fascists.
George
Jesse
HH, I, and others here I'm sure, have called you a terrorist supporter
before - And I would bet that if one did a bit of research of your many
postings, one could at least partially support this contention.
I have referred to you as bin-Hippy. You reacted, as to be expected, with a
slew of spiteful words, insults and profanities, including references to
deviant sex with males, animals and family - But I don't recall you raising
the possibility of slaughtering my wife and/or family.
Perhaps it would only make sense to issue such a dire and inflammitory
provocation, in the context of this group and particular subject matter,
only if the wife is Jewish [which is apparently the case with George], but
in any case, you crossed a line here I don't believe I have seen crossed
before in issuing/pondering an implied threat of death to the mate of a
poster.
Legally prosecutable offense, I rather doubt.
In superbly bad taste, certainly - And I'd like to think that you have
regretted your action of replying to what no doubt was an insult, but was
also obviously a vague and lighthearted wisecrack, with such a personal and
drastic observation to a person whom [we can assume] is an innocent female,
with the sole purpose of hurting and provoking a regular poster here.
For the record, I was wondering what happened to you also.
I don't wish to see you, or anyone here, dead, and am glad you are Ok.
George
He wanted to know what I thought of the idea of him killing me, my family,
my wife, and of "slaughter[ing] Jews if you want, and I can do it far
nearer to home", and he got my response. Ideas can enlighten or they can
kill. I disagree that the law wouldn't look at this the way I have.
People have made less threatening remarks over the internet and then made
good on those threats in the past. Even implied threats have ended up
killing people. That he would even make such threats is one indication of
the mental instability of this guy, and I for one think he needs serious
psychological help. He's certainly not going to get it if people don't
stand up to his threats and let the authorities know what was said.
George
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> This is none of my business, but I thought I as an impartial fellow
poster -
Treading where few others dare to treed, but I can't blame anyone for
steering clear of this foray. Condi -may- be along in a few weeks time :-)
> being about the closest thing available to a member of your peers in
> newsgroup terms - thought I'd go over HH's post and see if there's
anything
> to see....
Okay, I've sat down and thought about how I explain what I posted and why.
George has for far too long sat with perceived impunity and immunity playing
keyboard rambo here and elsewhere firing out shots with abandon and glee.
Much of which is designed simply to provoke and annoy. It is, as I see it, a
sick hobby from which he draws his satisfaction.
When George posts it is entirely for his own self-interest and he has no
care or concern over what harm or damage his words do, and frequently sets
to cause maximal damage and harm. He professes to care about people but will
treat killing and murder as a joke. While crying crocodile tears over
Israeli deaths in the current conflict he is entirely happy to suggest that
others, myself in his particular posting, should be killed, and suggest it
in a manner which showed he would delight in such an event.
George has no understanding of what harm his words do, what pain they cause.
I chose to respond to his sickening and deeply offensive statement that he
hoped to see me dead, in a manner which would bring home to him what the
truth is in all this killing he so casually embraces. What it would mean if
what he desired and applauded were applied to himself, his family, his
friends, not some abstract people who he has no care for. It was to wake him
up to realise what that hatred he emits would mean if it were directed at
himself. It was to make him realise that killing people is no laughing
matter. It was to make him realise just how hurtful what he says is and can
be.
Was it a posting that was brutal, cruel, even hurtful ? Maybe it was, but
little gets through to George as we have seen. Nothing has shaken him from
continuing as he always has. It was designed to make him look at himself in
the mirror and realise what sort of monster he has actually become. It was
the 'slap' that I believe he both deserved and needed, and was long overdue.
It was the closest image I could conjure up for George, along the lines of
dragging a general to the field of battle to show them what the horror of
the bloodbath they have directed and cheered on from the comfort beyond the
battlefield means in reality.
Those who has read my response to George, and perhaps more so in the light
of what I've written here, will see that there was no actual threat to
George, his family or anyone else and that there was absolutely no threat
intended. It was a virtualised embodiment of what George himself wishes upon
others, turned round and phrased in terms he would understand how the same
desires expressed by others would affect him.
We can debate for eternity how I should have responded, what words should or
could have been used, and how it may have been better or not to have phrased
things differently. That doesn't matter, it has been done. I have no qualms
about what I did or the way I did, and especially in light of what it was I
was responding to.
I don't doubt that George disliked what I wrote, few people like having the
evil of what they have become shown to them in a mirror. It was indeed
designed to provoke a reaction, and it shouldn't surprise me that George
chose to read what he wanted to see and not what was written as he usually
does. In time he may come to realise what I did write. If the
short-sharp-shock which George has received makes him change his ways it
will have done its job. If he pauses to reflect on what he is about to bash
out on his keyboard and recognise the pain and hurt that he is about to
inflict for his own self-satisfaction and delight then it will have done its
job. If he can show even one more ounce of compassion, understanding and
humanity than he has before then it will have done its job, and he will be a
better person for it.
What I posted was not to hurt or harm George in any bad way, but to help
make him, and to help make him make himself a better person. If there was
any pain caused, it was pain which George himself dished out, tuned back
upon him. If that pain makes George a better person, that is what was
intended. People can choose to understand what my motivation was or they can
choose to see it otherwise.
George
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mGIAg.11012$ts3....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
The "hope" implied that while you are putting your money where your mouth
is by being on the front lines with those you obviously DO support, you
aren't here posting bullshit.
George
George
Hippycrit:
"I can slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I
can
deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start
with your wife?...You want to see blood flowing ? That can be
arranged. Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
[your] family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies
exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
means ?"
Yeah, that's going to make me a better person.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deep Sarcasm
Are we clear? ARE WE CLEAR???
George
George
>
> It would be nice if you were right, but I don't think the world works
> that
> way. I think sometimes talking works and other times it just gives your
> enemy time to dig your grave. It probably comes down to a wise man
> knowing
> the difference.
>
> You just can't talk yourself out of every situation. Sometimes you have
> to
> just save your life any way you can. I think WWII serves as a good
> example
> again. Remember peace in our time? Fat lot of good talking peace with
> Hitler did us, right? What was the common ground that we could agree on
> there anyway? What would we surrender to Hitler that wouldn't leave him
> wondering if he could have that and a little more too? I admire the
> pacifist ideal, and in my youth during the nasty part of the Cold War I
> thought of myself as a pacifist, but I think without the whole world
> turns
> idealist it could lead to your domination or extinction. A civilisation
> that followed a principle of pacifism may serve as an ideal to the world,
> but I think we'd be reading about their idealism in the history books.
>
Japan has, since WWII, thought of itself as a pacifist nation. It's been
an inherent part of their Constitution and way of life since that aweful
time. Recent events, however, have caused them to take a hard look at that
stance, and how vulnerable that has left them to possible attack. I agree
that it would be the best of all possible worlds if we all got along
peacefully, but the fact is that we don't. And until we can come up with a
better way to resolve our differences, I don't see that changing anytme
soon.
George
TWP
>
> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
>
> > > > Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on
> the
> > > > front lines. One can only hope.
>
> > I would take George's remark as by
> > implication believing that HH is on the side of terrorism but I didn't
> take
> > it to mean HH should be killing Jews. There did seem to be a more
> agressive
> > reaction than was called for by HH.
>
> Why would George "hope" that I was on the Hezbollah front lines ? Why
would
> I be on those Hezbollah front lines ? What would or could the consequences
> of that be ?
I don't think George meant it as you took it, but I can't answer for him. I
think it was meant more like the remark "If you don't like democracy why
don't you just go to Russia?" That wouldn't necessarily mean that you
should go away and wall in Berlin or invade Hungary.
>
> Does it imply that I am a terrorist supporter and would be on those front
> lines because I agree with their doctrine, and would therefore be engaging
> in the pursuits of Hezbollah, which, as a terrorist group, we are
> continually told is the wholesale slaughtering of Israeli civilians and
the
> destruction of Israel ? What else does Hezbollah do in George's eyes ?
Again, I can't speak for George, but I would say that he thought of them in
general terms as generic terrorists that I take it he believes you have
general sympathy for. He probably could have substituted Hezbollah for AQ.
This is for George to explain, not me.
>
> Does it imply that he hopes I am in those Hezbollah lines when Israel
> targets them and wipes all of them off the face of the earth ?
>
> Ask yourself what George's "hope" means, ask yourself just what is being
> implied by that expressed "hope", and ask yourself just how offensive such
> expressed "hope" is.
>
> Then, consider in the light of you being a terrorist supporter, a hater of
> Israel, and an anti-Semite I hope to see dead soon how you would respond
to
> such offensiveness. I gave as I got. George isn't man enough to take it.
>
>
The remark obviously wasn't friendly, but I don't think I would have
responded as agressively as you did. I've had hostile posts myself,
although nothing like I've seen you get (which sometimes surprises me - I
would have thought there would be room for a well-argued unpopular
opinion... in fact without them this would just be a place to come to be
agreed with! I would have thought disagreement and come "friendly" conflict
would be the life's blood of a group like this), but in general I don't
return the hostility - I sometimes want to, I don't have any halo above my
head - but I usually don't.
TWP
TWP
"dangdangdoodle" <notea_...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:Q7NAg.186294$S61.46546@edtnps90...
> In article <t4idnb7ifYJlIE_Z...@insightbb.com>,
> It's been a while now since you said you were going to put a gun's laser
> site on my head.
>
> Unfortunately you caught himself in time and canceled the article, not
> before I saw it however, but before I responded to it. That's about 9
> months ago now right George?
>
> Should be in archives somewhere.
>
>
> --
> the dang
Cancel messages don't seem to work for me!
I don't know what voodoo George can work that I cant! Maybe I just don't
have a very good ISP....
TWP
Bill Again
>
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:FdIAg.114826$sz1....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
>>
>> > I don't think ISP's are interested in standing between people in flame
>> > wars,
>>
>> I agree. The question is when does a flame war go beyond that, and become
> an
>> actionable claim ?
>>
>> It's unlikely that an ISP would take much interest in an allegation that
>> someone said or meant something when it can be shown that they hadn't or
> it
>> didn't mean that.
>
> The ISP stands to be sued along with the person who committed the crime (I
> think the ISP would have to have been given a reasonable chance to remove
> illegal material hand not have done so). The ISP then has to sue the
> customer under the contract condition to "hold them harmless", so
> effectively the customer is sued twice. A while ago a UK ISP tried to
> use
> the "common carrier defence", the same law that protects the telephone
> company from being considered a secondary publisher, but this claim was
> rejected and so ISP's do count as secondary publishers... making them
> liable
> for what is published on their services.
>
Point of order, or something: Haps ISP is the original ISP involved. But My
ISP was involved too insofar as they "carried" it to me. That's two ISP's.
There could be hundreds of them by now. Can we sue all of them?
BiF
snipped
TWP
"Bill Again" <Bi...@addcom.de> wrote in message
news:eb0i9j$j6e$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
I don't think any of them can be sued unless they're notified that there's a
problem, but I think if anyone was to be held responsible, it's more likely
that the ISP that hosts the offending customer's newsgroup posting services
would be the one.
TWP
George
No, I believe the reference was to what would happen if one were to place a
lazer sight on someone's head in Congress, and that was taken by some to
suggest that I condoned such a thing. If I'm wrong in this, perhaps you
could post a quote.
>> Unfortunately you caught himself in time and canceled the article, not
>> before I saw it however, but before I responded to it. That's about 9
>> months ago now right George?
What are you talking about?
>> Should be in archives somewhere.
>>
>>
>> --
>> the dang
>
> Cancel messages don't seem to work for me!
>
> I don't know what voodoo George can work that I cant! Maybe I just don't
> have a very good ISP....
>
> TWP
I could probably work some 'voodoo' if I know wtf he was talking about.
George
John F Hall
Bill Again <Bi...@addcom.de> wrote:
>Point of order, or something: Haps ISP is the original ISP involved. But My
>ISP was involved too insofar as they "carried" it to me. That's two ISP's.
>There could be hundreds of them by now. Can we sue all of them?
Yes, you can sue whichever, and how many, you wish. They will all have
the "innocent dissemination" defence (now encapsulated in Section 1 of
the Defamation Act 1996) - but that defence lapses if their attention
has been drawn to the offending article *or* to the previous history of
the author in publishing defamatory articles.
--
John F Hall
John F Hall
TWP <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>This is a UK group, you are a UK ISP customer.... I imagine it would fall
>under UK law.
Not relevant. All that matters is that the libel is available from news
servers in the UK.
>I'm sure there is a relevant UK case, but this is the closest I've been able
>to find so far...
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3540778.stm
Try Lawrence v. Demon.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm>
Not that Demon's only involvement with the libel was to *propagate* the
offending article (that I believe had originated elsewhere) through
their news server and to refuse to remove it when asked.
See also "Defamation Act 1996", particularly Section 1.
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm>
--
John F Hall
TWP
"John F Hall" <j...@black.home> wrote in message
news:eb0rmk$a0m$1...@green.home...
> In article <6RCdnff7FL3...@karoo.co.uk>,
> TWP <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >This is a UK group, you are a UK ISP customer.... I imagine it would
fall
> >under UK law.
>
> Not relevant. All that matters is that the libel is available from news
> servers in the UK.
>
> >I'm sure there is a relevant UK case, but this is the closest I've been
able
> >to find so far...
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3540778.stm
>
> Try Lawrence v. Demon.
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm>
>
That's the one I was looking for!
TWP
The Happy Hippy
"TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
[snips]
> > Why would George "hope" that I was on the Hezbollah front lines ? Why
> would
> > I be on those Hezbollah front lines ? What would or could the
consequences
> > of that be ?
>
> I don't think George meant it as you took it, but I can't answer for him.
I
> think it was meant more like the remark "If you don't like democracy why
> don't you just go to Russia?" That wouldn't necessarily mean that you
> should go away and wall in Berlin or invade Hungary.
I don't buy that. Had he said, "let's hope he's on holiday. I hope he stays
there", that would have been something else. We all choose our words aware
of what we are intending to say and mean. There are only really only two
reasons anyone would be on Hezbollah's front line, that is to be killing
Israelis or being killed by them. I addressed both possibilities in my
reply, which I note he is now disingenuously 'quoting' in an edited form to
deliberately distort its original context. He does himself no favours.
> The remark obviously wasn't friendly, but I don't think I would have
> responded as agressively as you did.
Probably not. He chose the wrong person to fuck with and the wrong time to
do so.
TWP
> > The remark obviously wasn't friendly, but I don't think I would have
> > responded as agressively as you did.
>
> Probably not. He chose the wrong person to fuck with and the wrong time to
> do so.
>
>
I suppose it's between the two of you. I'm no diplomat I'm afraid....
besides things have already been put to IWF and ISP consideration anyway.
I don't think anything will come of it. It's obviously angered both you and
George, but I really don't think there is anywhere to go legally on this.
What was said just doesn't appear to me to have been specific enough.
TWP
George
Gee, I'm all a flutter, Mini Pearl.
George
George
You are a kind man, Two Wolves.
George
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>Missing, presumed having something better to do!
>
>TWP
Hey Buster! Ya ever heard the saying: "Let sleeping dogs lie?" Now
look what you have gone and done! :-)
Oak<There oughta be a baseball game on tonight>
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
>
>Point of order, or something: Haps ISP is the original ISP involved. But My
>ISP was involved too insofar as they "carried" it to me. That's two ISP's.
>There could be hundreds of them by now. Can we sue all of them?
>
>BiF
>
>
>snipped
Dear Snipped,
First off, welcome to the group! My thoughts on this matter is we go
after TWP for all he is worth as he is the one who stirred up this
hornets' nest. Then, it is every man for hisself.
Clarence Oak Darrow<D2>
TWP
<O...@Oak-invalid.com> wrote in message
news:bg48d2pk8tstpl6gs...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:35:15 +0100, "TWP" <ngspam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Missing, presumed having something better to do!
> >
> >TWP
>
> Hey Buster! Ya ever heard the saying: "Let sleeping dogs lie?" Now
> look what you have gone and done! :-)
I know!! :-)
I've started a war single-handed!
My mother was right!....
TWP
George
No one has blamed you for anything, Two Wolves. Your conscience should
remain clear.
George
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
Can you feel the power? The world only hopes that you will put this
special talent towards peaceful means. On the other hand, fireworks
are something we all enjoy. The choice is yours. The world waits.
Oak<D3>:-)
John F Hall
3Phase <Phase3@world_OF_SPAM_net.att.net> wrote:
>What 'action'?
>
>The Atlantic Ocean physically separates both of you.
Something that George may be relying on too much. This side of the
Atlantic there is a different culture and different idioms - a different
view of what may be said - but there is a *requirement* to satisfy UK
laws. The primary purpose of the IWF, as I understand it, is to assist
ISPs in this. It is *not* to police the ISPs, still less the users.
They will advise ISPs which websites should be blocked and which
articles should be dropped from news servers because viewing them would
be illegal in the UK.
Happy Hippy is correct to remind George that the UK has strong libel
laws (though I don't intend to comment on whether George's comments
might be considered defamatory). What George may not realise is that
everyone who repeats a libel is also considered to be defamatory - that
includes every ISP who puts his article on their news server. That is
*not* a theoretical nicety as the cite I gave about the Lawrence v.
Demon case earlier shows. Indeed since that case British ISPs are
rather sensitive about libel :-).
ISPs do have the "innocent dissemination" defence, that as long as any
defamation is buried in the mass of routine processing and they are
unaware of it, and as long as they aren't the original author,
moderator, or publisher, they escape liability. But once they know of a
particular defamatory article or of a writer who habitually defames and
then continue to distribute it/him on their news server they *are*
liable:
1. (1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows
that
(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement
complained of,
(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he
did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory
statement.
(3) A person shall not be considered the author, editor or
publisher of a statement if he is only involved
(c) in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling
any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded,
or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service
by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied,
distributed or made available in electronic form;
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a
person took reasonable care, or had reason to believe that what he
did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory
statement, regard shall be had to
(a) the extent of his responsibility for the content of the
statement or the decision to publish it,
(b) the nature or circumstances of the publication, and
(c) the previous conduct or character of the author, editor
or publisher.
[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm]
It would be somewhat ironic if the result of George invoking the IWF was
that British ISPs were advised to drop all articles by him :-).
The final thought I would leave people with is that to falsely and
maliciously accuse someone of being libellous would itself be
defamatory.
--
John F Hall
George
"John F Hall" <j...@avondale.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eb1jus$rko$1...@green.home...
Thats' great to know. So now I can complain that not only did he threaten
myself, my family, and Jews in the Uk with "slaughter", but he falsely and
maliciously accused me of being libellous. Thanks. Gee, this gets better
all the time.
George<now where did I put that bottom-feeding scum sucker? I know he's
around here somewhere.>
Bill Again
Thanks for this John, a useful and interesting reply. Nice to see to read
you again.
BiF
The Happy Hippy
"John F Hall" <j...@avondale.demon.co.uk> wrote ...
[snip]
> The final thought I would leave people with is that to falsely and
> maliciously accuse someone of being libellous would itself be
> defamatory.
That could be the case, but not automatically nor necessarily as each case
is judged on its own merits. In the case of A saying "B did X", B's denial
of that and allegation that A's saying such a thing was defamatory, would
not automatically nor necessarily be considered malicious. Under English Law
I am not sure that maliciousness has to be shown anyway, as the damage is
done regardless, but I believe that may apply in other jurisdictions.
If A were to claim defamation in that,"B said X", that would fall to proving
B had said X, and a defence for B would be that X was true ( although truth
alone is not necessarily a defence against a claim for libel ). It would be
a prima-facie win for A if they can show B did say X and B was unable to
demonstrate the truth of X.
In the case of asserting a claim for defamation amounts to defamation
itself, it is much more complex, and such a claim could be called defamatory
in itself, and this could go round ad-infinitum. In most English civil cases
this would be dealt with by way of counter-claim, but I'd have to check how
counter-claim applies to an action for defamation.
In a case where A's claim of defamation by B is met by B's counter-claim
that A's claim is defamatory in itself, B's counter-claim plainly rests upon
the outcome of A's claim against B. If A's claim is upheld then B's
counter-claim would almost certainly automatically fall. If A's claim
against B failed, that does not automatically prove B's counter-claim would
succeed, which would have to be judged on its own merits.
Because B's counter-claim rests upon the outcome of A's claim against B, it
is most likely that B's action would be stayed until A's claim against B
were decided.
It would be even more complex if claims were lodged from different legal
territories. It would be entirely possible that anomalous outcomes could be
had, where both were deemed to have defamed the other and so forth. As I
mentioned elsewhere, a lot would depend upon the legal system, and whether
it favoured a plaintiff claiming defamation or a defendant denying it.
It would, for example, be unwise to commence an action under a system which
requires maliciousness to be proven when it is unlikely that it can be, and
much wiser to commence an action under a system which takes no regard of any
malicious intent or absence thereof. A defendant would obviously prefer that
an action was started in a system where maliciousness had to be proven
because that gives them an additional defence of no malicious intent.
It is my understanding that it is generally considered easier to win a libel
action under English Law than under others, which is why London is so often
called the 'libel capital of the world'. Someone involved in a case of libel
would therefore seem to be best placed when commencing an action in the UK,
but best placed for defending an action commenced outside the UK.
The Happy Hippy
"John F Hall" <j...@black.home> wrote ...
[snip]
> Try Lawrence v. Demon.
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm>
A detailed discussion of Internet defamation can be found here ...
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-97-98/defamation-and-the-intern
et/index2.html
While not a full engrossment of the differences in UK and US laws in respect
of claims for defamation; "The British libel laws differs from American
libel laws in approach: British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff,
meaning that the defendant must prove that she or he did not commit libel.
This is the opposite of American libel law, which places the burden of proof
upon the plaintiff to show that the alleged libelous statement contained
malice and caused damage".
3Phase
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Aug 2006 08:13:16 GMT, j...@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall)
wrote in message <eb1jus$rko$1...@green.home>:
Thank you, John!
I was referring strictly to fear of physical 'action' such as in a
pub if someone poured their pint into your bowl of peanuts or called
you a name and you chose to swear out a blood vendetta against the
buffoon, his kin, and some specific but entirely unrelated group of
people instead of just shrugging it off and walking away.
Namecalling, threats, and UK libel law? I don't know. I recall the
discussion we had with Arache? and I never did fully understand how
UK libel law worked, but that's one reason I continue to sign e
verything and have the newsreader auto-fix borked formatting and
attributions. At least the jury will be able to read any offending
articles when they're magnified forty-two times by a courtroom
overhead projector. :-)
Regards,
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBRNS/Wh36GXkxBL6XEQJGlQCeP/2coTBPjMSmRNy7ZIQft/7+WYYAnRlG
6QLuHEeaQ67w7ZRr50GxBnlM
=uq/4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John D Salt
[Snips]
> A detailed discussion of Internet defamation can be found here ...
>
> http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-97-98/defamation-and-the-i
> ntern et/index2.html
>
> While not a full engrossment of the differences in UK and US laws in
> respect of claims for defamation; "The British libel laws differs from
> American libel laws in approach: British libel laws are considered
> pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant must prove that she or he
> did not commit libel.
This is not actually true (I am not a lawyer, I am not offering legal
advice, everything void where prohibited by law). As with (almost) all
English law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. One thing in the
plaintiff's favour, however, is that there is no need to prove that an
accusation is damaging. The plaintiff must still prove that the libel is
untrue, was uttered by the defendant, and refers to the plaintiff. The
defendant might seek to prove that the utterance was priveleged, was fair
comment, or could not be believed by a reasonable person.
All the best,
John.
John F Hall
The Happy Hippy <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"John F Hall" <j...@avondale.demon.co.uk> wrote ...
>> The final thought I would leave people with is that to falsely and
>> maliciously accuse someone of being libellous would itself be
>> defamatory.
>
>That could be the case, but not automatically nor necessarily as each case
>is judged on its own merits. In the case of A saying "B did X", B's denial
>of that and allegation that A's saying such a thing was defamatory, would
>not automatically nor necessarily be considered malicious. Under English Law
>I am not sure that maliciousness has to be shown anyway, as the damage is
>done regardless, but I believe that may apply in other jurisdictions.
I didn't say malice was necessary, but that it would be sufficient.
--
John F Hall