Discussion:
POLL: Do you think Israel will strike Syria next?
(too old to reply)
navspecwar
2006-07-17 02:44:11 UTC
Permalink
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
ray o'hara
2006-07-17 03:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
and when they get to damascus, then what?
gilligan
2006-07-17 10:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
and when they get to damascus, then what?
or when Syrian and Iranian troops get to Jerusalem, then what?
Gunner
2006-07-17 18:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilligan
Post by ray o'hara
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
and when they get to damascus, then what?
or when Syrian and Iranian troops get to Jerusalem, then what?
The only way that will happen, is as ash in the wind.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Jeff McCann
2006-07-17 16:58:45 UTC
Permalink
No.

Jeff
J. Doh
2006-07-17 23:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Lawrence Glickman
2006-07-17 23:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.

IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 01:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
Ihm yavoh l'hargechah hashkeem l'hargoh. If he comes to murder you, rise
up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 72.

Bob Kolker
Gunner
2006-07-18 00:28:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:02:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
Ihm yavoh l'hargechah hashkeem l'hargoh. If he comes to murder you, rise
up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 72.
Bob Kolker
Words to live by, indeed.


Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Bob
2006-07-18 01:54:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:02:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
If he comes to murder you, rise
up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 72.
Unless the US tells them to exercise "restraint".
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Gunner
2006-07-18 03:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:02:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
If he comes to murder you, rise
up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 72.
Unless the US tells them to exercise "restraint".
So far..it seems the gloves are off. And I dont expect Bush to put them
back on the leash anytime soon.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Joe
2006-07-20 00:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Gunner
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:02:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
If he comes to murder you, rise
up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 72.
Unless the US tells them to exercise "restraint".
So far..it seems the gloves are off. And I dont expect Bush to put them
back on the leash anytime soon.
Put gloves on a leash? He doesn't even know where the leash is. Or
how to spell it. Or gloves. Does Bush wear gloves? I'd have thought
he'd have trouble enough with mittens. Bad enough with pretzels. But
Gloves, fer Chrissakes.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
Bob
2006-07-20 07:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Put gloves on a leash? He doesn't even know where the leash is. Or
how to spell it. Or gloves. Does Bush wear gloves? I'd have thought
he'd have trouble enough with mittens. Bad enough with pretzels. But
Gloves, fer Chrissakes.
So juvenile.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Byker
2006-07-18 00:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
Or as the late rabbi Meir Kahane put it on CNN's "Sonya Live" in 1988:
"There are three things you can do with Arabs: Kill them, imprison them, or
deport them! Let these people learn: If you go to war with us and you kill
us and you lose, YOU LOSE!"
melchizedek
2006-07-18 01:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
"There are three things you can do with Arabs: Kill them, imprison them, or
deport them! Let these people learn: If you go to war with us and you kill
us and you lose, YOU LOSE!"
Hitler probably taked the same way.
M.
Gunner
2006-07-18 03:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:05:22 +1000, "melchizedek"
Post by melchizedek
Post by Byker
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
"There are three things you can do with Arabs: Kill them, imprison them, or
deport them! Let these people learn: If you go to war with us and you kill
us and you lose, YOU LOSE!"
Hitler probably taked the same way.
M.
No. He didnt. If he had..7 million wouldnt have gone up the chimneys.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
*I AM*
2006-07-18 01:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
I often wonder why Israel's history has always been fighting
off people who want to kill them (For MANY centuries) ?

In 1941, Europe moved the Zionist/Jews to the middle of the Islamic
lands, hoping the Muslims there would complete Hitlers "Final Solution"
plan over time....

Well... maybe their fate is to suffer for their historically Un-Holy
lust for using their money to corrupt other governments, to gain
more money, to corrupt more government leaders as they have done
even as far back as biblical times.

The Zionist Jews "State Run Terrorism" (against ALL Muslim countries)
is now beginning to be recognized as a threat to world peace, by the
general public, in many countries, even America. :-)

How to keep the Zionist/Jews contained and slowly destroyed by the Arabs'
is still Europe and the U.S. long term strategy.

This of course was all designed before Nuclear Technology became easy
to acquire... World-Wide.


Living long and prospering is no longer a given.
dapra
2006-07-18 02:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by *I AM*
How to keep the Zionist/Jews contained and slowly destroyed by the Arabs'
is still Europe and the U.S. long term strategy.
That's an interesting allegation. You must have some convoluted
reasoning. Let's hear it!
Gunner
2006-07-18 03:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by *I AM*
Well... maybe their fate is to suffer for their historically Un-Holy
lust for using their money to corrupt other governments, to gain
more money, to corrupt more government leaders as they have done
even as far back as biblical times.
Bozo Alert!

<plink>


Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Johnboy
2006-07-18 13:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
Israel will kill anyone who tries to kill them.
IOW, leave them alone, or pay the price
I think the main problem with that line of reasoning is that half of the
land that the Israeli's want to be left alone on was actually promised to
the Palestinians when Israel was created. And they, sorta, want the
Israeli's to give it back.

After all, the Palestinians don't actually have anywhere else to go.

There's a thought - do you want them?

Cheers,
Johnboy
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 01:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
That is why Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks ago.

Bob Kolker
Bob
2006-07-18 01:55:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:01:05 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
That is why Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks ago.
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Gunner
2006-07-18 03:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:01:05 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
That is why Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks ago.
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
Suspected? You mean the dudes with the RPGs and Aks?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Bob
2006-07-18 08:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Bob
Post by Robert J. Kolker
That is why Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks ago.
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
Suspected? You mean the dudes with the RPGs and Aks?
You forgot the children with high explosives strapped to them.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Gunner
2006-07-18 08:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Gunner
Post by Bob
Post by Robert J. Kolker
That is why Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks ago.
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
Suspected? You mean the dudes with the RPGs and Aks?
You forgot the children with high explosives strapped to them.
Damn..so I did.

Them too.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 07:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
But they have not been attacking cities. The Israelis have been trying
carefully targetted assassinations and they make not bones about it.
They are trying to cut the head off of the snake.

The Israelis withdrew from Gaza (remember that?). The result, the
Palestinians elected Hamas and Hamas thugs have attacked Israel from the
Gaza side and kidnapped Israeli personal. That is what started this
broughhaha in the first place.

Bob Kolker
myal
2006-07-18 09:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
But they have not been attacking cities. The Israelis have been trying
carefully targetted assassinations and they make not bones about it.
They are trying to cut the head off of the snake.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza (remember that?). The result, the
Palestinians elected Hamas and Hamas thugs have attacked Israel from the
Gaza side and kidnapped Israeli personal. That is what started this
broughhaha in the first place.
Bob Kolker
if the americans with drew from Iraq , they'd likely elect a government
that america didnt like as well ....
--
may your intent and actions towards your fellow human be visited onto
those you hold dear . May your own be held in the esteem you hold others
in .
Bob
2006-07-18 09:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by myal
if the americans with drew from Iraq , they'd likely elect a government
that america didnt like as well ....
Doubtful.

Americans are masters at rigging elections. The very first one was
rigged like everyone that has followed.

The Americans will have taught the politicians it wants in power how
to rig the elections successfully.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 11:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by myal
if the americans with drew from Iraq , they'd likely elect a government
that america didnt like as well ....
Doubtful.
Americans are masters at rigging elections. The very first one was
rigged like everyone that has followed.
The Americans will have taught the politicians it wants in power how
to rig the elections successfully.
Weren't there international monitors at the Iraqi elections? I can't
remember. I know they didn't use the infamous electronic "I'll do whatever
it takes to get Bush re-elected" voting machines.

Jeff

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-18 12:11:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:30:36 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
The Americans will have taught the politicians it wants in power how
to rig the elections successfully.
Weren't there international monitors at the Iraqi elections? I can't
remember.
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
Post by Jeff McCann
I know they didn't use the infamous electronic "I'll do whatever
it takes to get Bush re-elected" voting machines.
Which was used by Clinton and every Presidential candidate in one form
or another dating back to Geo. Washington.

The people with the strongest vested interests determine the outcome
of the elections - and that is not the citizens.

It would be more beneficial if these special interests would come
forward and do the actual selection of our rulers. We would be spared
the farsical exercise of "voting". But we would have one advantage -
we could boycott those companies which selected bad candidates.

We have only one real power in America - Consumer Power. We can
withhold our support at the cash register. If a ruler gets out of
hand, we boycott his supporters until he is removed from office. More
points if he ends up with a rope around his neck.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 12:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:30:36 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
The Americans will have taught the politicians it wants in power how
to rig the elections successfully.
Weren't there international monitors at the Iraqi elections? I can't
remember.
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
And the basis for this opinion would be . . . ?
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
I know they didn't use the infamous electronic "I'll do whatever
it takes to get Bush re-elected" voting machines.
Which was used by Clinton and every Presidential candidate in one form
or another dating back to Geo. Washington.
Washington used electronic voting machines with no paper trial or
accountability, which have proven to be eminently hackable? Really?

What percentage of votes during the the 1992 or 1996 elections were cast on
unauditable electronic voting machines, do you suppose?
Post by Bob
The people with the strongest vested interests determine the outcome
of the elections - and that is not the citizens.
It would be more beneficial if these special interests would come
forward and do the actual selection of our rulers. We would be spared
the farsical exercise of "voting". But we would have one advantage -
we could boycott those companies which selected bad candidates.
Or we could insist on auditable paper records for every vote cast. Most
registrars of voters are elected at the county level, I believe, and many of
them are raising the point quite vociferously.

Jeff
Post by Bob
We have only one real power in America - Consumer Power. We can
withhold our support at the cash register. If a ruler gets out of
hand, we boycott his supporters until he is removed from office. More
points if he ends up with a rope around his neck.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Bob
2006-07-18 14:28:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:21:22 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Weren't there international monitors at the Iraqi elections? I can't
remember.
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
And the basis for this opinion would be . . . ?
If you don't understand, I cannot explain it.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Which was used by Clinton and every Presidential candidate in one form
or another dating back to Geo. Washington.
Washington used electronic voting machines with no paper trial or
accountability, which have proven to be eminently hackable? Really?
Cut the shit. I never said Washington used electronic voting machines.
Post by Jeff McCann
Or we could insist on auditable paper records for every vote cast. Most
registrars of voters are elected at the county level, I believe, and many of
them are raising the point quite vociferously.
It would not help. Americans are quite adept at stuffing ballot boxes.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 14:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:21:22 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Weren't there international monitors at the Iraqi elections? I can't
remember.
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
And the basis for this opinion would be . . . ?
If you don't understand, I cannot explain it.
As a general rule, if you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Which was used by Clinton and every Presidential candidate in one form
or another dating back to Geo. Washington.
Washington used electronic voting machines with no paper trial or
accountability, which have proven to be eminently hackable? Really?
Cut the shit. I never said Washington used electronic voting machines.
Post by Jeff McCann
Or we could insist on auditable paper records for every vote cast. Most
registrars of voters are elected at the county level, I believe, and many of
them are raising the point quite vociferously.
It would not help. Americans are quite adept at stuffing ballot boxes.
Snipping the part of my post you can't answer, eh? OK. Adios, amigo.

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-18 15:57:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:37:16 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
And the basis for this opinion would be . . . ?
If you don't understand, I cannot explain it.
As a general rule, if you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.
As a general rule I can explain it. I just do not care to do it for
you because I know you are too dull to understand it. How do I know
that? Because you voted for Gore and Kerry.
Post by Jeff McCann
Snipping the part of my post you can't answer, eh?
I snip irrelevant crap that has no answer.
Post by Jeff McCann
OK. Adios, amigo.
Is that a promise?
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 16:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:37:16 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Worthless bunch of chad-fucking bureaucrats.
And the basis for this opinion would be . . . ?
If you don't understand, I cannot explain it.
As a general rule, if you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.
As a general rule I can explain it. I just do not care to do it for
you because I know you are too dull to understand it. How do I know
that? Because you voted for Gore and Kerry.
Post by Jeff McCann
Snipping the part of my post you can't answer, eh?
I snip irrelevant crap that has no answer.
Post by Jeff McCann
OK. Adios, amigo.
Is that a promise?
Face it, you got caught making ridiculously over-broad allegations about
subjects of which you obviously know nothing, couldn't prove up when called
on it, and responded childishly. It happens every day on the infobahn, so
it's no big deal. Some folks can debate with facts and reason at a mature
level, and others, um, "do not care to do it." <laughter>

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-18 18:04:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:13:42 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
OK. Adios, amigo.
Is that a promise?
Face it, you got caught making ridiculously over-broad allegations about
subjects of which you obviously know nothing, couldn't prove up when called
on it, and responded childishly. It happens every day on the infobahn, so
it's no big deal. Some folks can debate with facts and reason at a mature
level, and others, um, "do not care to do it." <laughter>
Face it, you are a leftist queer prick who doesn't know that the fuck
he is talking about. Your kind happen every day on Usenet. <chuckles>

Now go climb up your boyfriend's ass where you belong before you stink
up the place.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 18:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:13:42 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
OK. Adios, amigo.
Is that a promise?
Face it, you got caught making ridiculously over-broad allegations about
subjects of which you obviously know nothing, couldn't prove up when called
on it, and responded childishly. It happens every day on the infobahn, so
it's no big deal. Some folks can debate with facts and reason at a mature
level, and others, um, "do not care to do it." <laughter>
Face it, you are a leftist queer prick who doesn't know that the fuck
he is talking about. Your kind happen every day on Usenet. <chuckles>
Now go climb up your boyfriend's ass where you belong before you stink
up the place.
Your impotent rage and evident immaturity serve only to further demonstrate
your obvious shortcomings, to the discredit yourself and others of your ilk.
Or is this supposed to be some sort of parody of an archetypal ignorant
ranting rightard who bloviates uninformed opinions all over the Usenet on
matters well beyond his intellectual grasp, and is wholly incapable of
engaging in any sort of rational discussion? If so, very well done, indeed,
Sir!

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-18 20:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Face it, you are a leftist queer prick who doesn't know that the fuck
he is talking about. Your kind happen every day on Usenet. <chuckles>
Now go climb up your boyfriend's ass where you belong before you stink
up the place.
Your impotent rage and evident immaturity serve only to further demonstrate
your obvious shortcomings, to the discredit yourself and others of your ilk.
Or is this supposed to be some sort of parody of an archetypal ignorant
ranting rightard who bloviates uninformed opinions all over the Usenet on
matters well beyond his intellectual grasp, and is wholly incapable of
engaging in any sort of rational discussion? If so, very well done, indeed,
Sir!
<yawn>
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Stephen Fairchild
2006-07-18 09:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by myal
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
But they have not been attacking cities. The Israelis have been trying
carefully targetted assassinations and they make not bones about it.
They are trying to cut the head off of the snake.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza (remember that?). The result, the
Palestinians elected Hamas and Hamas thugs have attacked Israel from the
Gaza side and kidnapped Israeli personal. That is what started this
broughhaha in the first place.
Bob Kolker
if the americans with drew from Iraq , they'd likely elect a government
that america didnt like as well ....
They already did. The present Iraq government has more in common with Iran
than any other mid-east country. They are just playing nice for the moment
because it suits them.
--
Stephen Fairchild
Johnboy
2006-07-18 10:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Not true. Israel has been shooting at suspected terrorists in
Palestine every day for the past several years. Thousands of
Palestinians, men, women and children, are in prison as we speak.
But they have not been attacking cities. The Israelis have been trying
carefully targetted assassinations and they make not bones about it. They
are trying to cut the head off of the snake.
I'm sure that this is the way that it has been reported in your news
services, but it ain't actually the truth.

Robert, you stated earlier that "Israel was not shooting at anyone two weeks
ago", and I'm sure that is how the news is presented to you. Unfortunately,
it is a wee bit wide of the mark. It's a statement of fact that you should
have confirmed before, you know, stating it as fact.

Wiki has been keeping a timeline of this, and it makes interesting reading.
Here's an excerpt:
*********************************
Tensions had been high for some time in Israel due to Qassam rocket attacks
launched by Palestinians into densely populated areas such as the Israeli
city of Sderot, reported to have exceeded 800 rockets in the past seven
months, although there had been no casualties since Israel's withdrawal from
Gaza. Concurrently, between the end of March and the end of May 2006, Israel
fired at least 5,100 artillery shells into the Gaza Strip.

On June 9, during or shortly after an Israeli operation, an explosion
occurred on a busy Gaza beach, killing eight Palestinian civilians. An
investigation is underway as to who is responsible. Israeli shelling was
temporarily suspended, but resumed soon after and reached more than a
thousand shells per week by the end of the month. Other Israeli missile
attacks included one on the Gaza highway on June 13 that killed 11
Palestinians and injured 30, and on June 20 that killed 3 Palestinians and
wounded 15.
**********************************

Me again.
So, during your peacable weeks (7 months, actually) the Palestinians
launched 800 rockets that were, truth be told, only of nuisance value. No
deaths. No casualties. Average it to a little over 100 a month, though I'm
sure there were peaks and troughs.

During the last two months (note, not 7 months) Israel launched at least
5,100 artillery shells into Gaza, killing 22 Palestinians. All - as far as
I can tell from that report - innocent civilians.

The exact tit-for-tat is not spelled out, but I would very much imagine
that it is *not* the situation that the Israelis waited for a rocket before
launching an artillery barrage in return. 5,100 shells in two months looks
more like a constant and indiscriminate barrage to deny anyone access to
certain areas of the Gaza which (it bears pointing out) does not belong to
the Israelis - they withdrew from Gaza (remember that?).
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza (remember that?). The result, the
Palestinians elected Hamas and Hamas thugs have attacked Israel from the
Gaza side and kidnapped Israeli personal. That is what started this
broughhaha in the first place.
It's what brought about the massive Israeli assault, yep. But it does pay
not to take what you see and hear at face value because, funny enough, that
is not the entire story....

The Hamas thugs attacked an Israeli post on June 25, 2006 and captured those
poor Israeli personal. No doubt about it. So Hamas was the aggressor, and
Israel the poor innocent victim, correct?

Umm, actually, it's not that clear-cut. Wiki continues the timeline:
***********************************
On June 24, 2006, Israeli commandos entered the Gaza Strip to capture two
Palestinians, who Israel claims are Hamas militants, in the first arrest
raid into the Strip since Israel pulled out of Gaza in September 2005
***********************************

Me again.
Oops. June 24th is the day *before* Hamas crossed the border into Israel and
snatched the soldiers.

So, when Hamas cross the border to capture some Israelis it's the work of
thugs, and a provocation that justifies a massive counter-stroke. But when
Israeli troops cross the border to do the same thing the very day *before*
it's, well, what, Robert? No cause for comment? Not newsworthy?

This is where you really have to be careful putting the white hats on the
Israeli's, and the black hats on the Palestinians, because regardless of
what you read in your country the Israeli's are *not* lilly-white. They are
not innocents. They can be as thuggish as their opponents, and very
frequently are.

Rather than putting the goodguy/badguy hats on these people it might pay to
read a bit more widely, because it is most unlikely that you are being
presented with an unbiased commentary on Middle-East conflict.

Better to think of it this way: The Palestinian power-browkers are
ruthless, hard-arsed shits who hate the Israelis and detest the very idea
that there is a Jewish state in the region. The Israeli power-brokers are
ruthless, hard-arsed shits who hate the Arabs and detest the very idea that
there might ever be an independent Palestinian state in the region.

Think of it that way, and you might get a better grip on what is happening
in that part of the world.

Cheers,
Johnboy
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Bob Kolker
EricT
2006-07-18 12:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Doh
Israel is the richest, largest, most viscious, and only nuclear armed
terrois organization in the world.
If Israel was a terrorist organization they would have run out the first
minute they had a nuke and blown up the first convenience store with an
Arab behind the counter.
Logician
2006-07-18 09:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
Iran wiill nuke Israel before then and also nuke Washington in a
scum-clean up operation
Johnboy
2006-07-18 11:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logician
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
Iran wiill nuke Israel before then and also nuke Washington in a
scum-clean up operation
Hmm. And if the Iranians ever get a bomb do they have any means of
delivering it to Israel, let alone the USA? Or are they going to mount it
on a flat top and drive towards Israel with the horns blaring and the AK47's
firing into the air?

Yeah, that'd work.

Or perhaps they want a bomb because they saw what happened to a neighboring
country that didn't have WMD, against an opponent who knew that country
didn't have WMD?

I imagine the Iranians want a bomb - bad - but the very last thing they want
to do with it is take it outside their country. Better to keep it near the
borber and threaten to use it if the Other Side decides to step over the
line.

Cheers,
Johnboy
Bob
2006-07-18 14:26:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:11:53 +1000, "Johnboy"
Post by Johnboy
Hmm. And if the Iranians ever get a bomb do they have any means of
delivering it to Israel, let alone the USA? Or are they going to mount it
on a flat top and drive towards Israel with the horns blaring and the AK47's
firing into the air?
Yeah, that'd work.
Or perhaps they want a bomb because they saw what happened to a neighboring
country that didn't have WMD, against an opponent who knew that country
didn't have WMD?
I imagine the Iranians want a bomb - bad - but the very last thing they want
to do with it is take it outside their country. Better to keep it near the
borber and threaten to use it if the Other Side decides to step over the
line.
If anyone in the Islamic world ever lights off a nuke, they are going
to be turned into a glass parking lot. The Western Coalition, as well
as Russia, China, India/Pakistan have too much at stake to allow
nuclear warfare anywhere.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
*I AM*
2006-07-18 18:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnboy
Post by Logician
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
Iran wiill nuke Israel before then and also nuke Washington in a
scum-clean up operation
Hmm. And if the Iranians ever get a bomb do they have any means of
delivering it to Israel, let alone the USA? Or are they going to mount it
on a flat top and drive towards Israel with the horns blaring and the AK47's
firing into the air?
Yeah, that'd work.
Or perhaps they want a bomb because they saw what happened to a neighboring
country that didn't have WMD, against an opponent who knew that country
didn't have WMD?
I imagine the Iranians want a bomb - bad - but the very last thing they want
to do with it is take it outside their country. Better to keep it near the
borber and threaten to use it if the Other Side decides to step over the
line.
Cheers,
Johnboy
Or will they simply give the Nuclear Technology to all
of the U.S. of Israel enemies... terrorists... insurgents...
militants... religious fanatics...

Or just sell/trade their Nuclear Technology.... for
support from the Africans or South Americans.

Europe and Israel has already bought their Made in USA nukes,
and did not ever need to do any testing.
(Under-Ground or Above-Ground).


*I AM* ?
Bob
2006-07-18 20:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by *I AM*
Or will they simply give the Nuclear Technology to all
of the U.S. of Israel enemies... terrorists... insurgents...
militants... religious fanatics...
That's why we are at a crossroads.

I don't know what the world really thinks, but for me I am sure glad
we invaded Iraq so we could establish a strong military presence in
the ME. I would not care to imagine what would be the consequences of
not having done that.

One day GW Bush is going down in history as the Churchill of North
America for his bold decisive actions in face of an obvious enemy.
Just think of all the lives that would have been saved if Chamberlain
had not been a leftist queer or Churchill had taken over sooner.

And let's not forget the soldiers who have made this all possible.
Without them we would be in so much deep shit right not that our
options would be limited to planning our funerals.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 22:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by *I AM*
Or will they simply give the Nuclear Technology to all
of the U.S. of Israel enemies... terrorists... insurgents...
militants... religious fanatics...
That's why we are at a crossroads.
I don't know what the world really thinks, but for me I am sure glad
we invaded Iraq so we could establish a strong military presence in
the ME. I would not care to imagine what would be the consequences of
not having done that.
You have, quite by accident I'm sure, stumbled onto the truth. All the
talk, first of WMDs and "imminent threats," that gradually morphed into
"liberating the Iraqi people " and "establishing democracy," was just a
smokescreen for the real objective, spending whatever it took in American
blood and treasure to defend the House of Saud from external threats. Bush
& Co. have been bought and paid for by the Saudi royal family, and have long
been their obedient servants. They entered office with marching orders from
Riyadh already in hand - remove the threat of Saddam's secular dictatorship
from Saudi Arabia's border, no matter the cost. This also frees the Saudis
from having to host the filthy infidel American soldiers on their own sacred
soil. One has to wonder what Riyadh's next orders to Bush & Co. might be -
get rid of the Iranians, maybe?
Post by Bob
One day GW Bush is going down in history as the Churchill of North
America for his bold decisive actions in face of an obvious enemy.
Well, his standing amongst the pantheon of American presidents, as rated by
professional historians, does keep going down. He's now somewhere below
Buchanan and dropping fast in the rankings.
Post by Bob
Just think of all the lives that would have been saved if Chamberlain
had not been a leftist queer or Churchill had taken over sooner.
You must be a closeted homosexual, judging by the way you keep trying to
label others as queer. It's a dead giveaway. By the way, Chamberlain was
leader of the CONSERVATIVE Party.

Chamberlain knew two things, at least. First, he knew war with Nazi Germany
was coming. Second, he knew that Great Britain was woefully unprepared for
that war.

British arms had deteriorated very badly during the Great Depression, but
Chamberlain was responsible for implementing many crucial defence
development programs and drastically increasing defence spending. Britain
lagged far behind Germany, though, at this time. Germany already had the
draft and had built a substantial army, and especially a powerful and very
modern air force, in part by using the Spanish Civil War as a development
test bed. As just one example of the shortfalls faced by Chamberlain, at
the time of the Munich Agreement, The RAF only had five Supermarine
Spitfires on hand. Not five squadrons, five airplanes. Germany was way,
way ahead in the most modern types of aircraft, and started the war with
over 1,500 Bf-109s already on hand.

Care to consider what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was
fought in 1939 instead of 1940?

Probably not. History is complex, and understanding it is difficult;
drawing useful lessons from it is more difficult still. That's beyond you.
But before you parrot the conventional, and naively superficial, wisdom
about Chamberlain, you should at least recognize that he was not able to
confront Hitler from a position of strength, or even anything close to
parity. By the time Churchill took over, things were still bleak, but
Chamberlain had at least bought Britain enough time to begin catching up.
There is little evidence to show that Churchill could have done much better
in Chamberlain's time, place and circumstances, although if the British
government generally had listened to Churchill better in the re-war years,
they would have been much better off.

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-19 12:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
I don't know what the world really thinks, but for me I am sure glad
we invaded Iraq so we could establish a strong military presence in
the ME. I would not care to imagine what would be the consequences of
not having done that.
You have, quite by accident I'm sure, stumbled onto the truth.
I did not stumble on anything. I have been stating on Usenet for the
last couple years that the primary purpose of the Iraq invasion was to
establish a strong military presence in the Middle East.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
One day GW Bush is going down in history as the Churchill of North
America for his bold decisive actions in face of an obvious enemy.
Well, his standing amongst the pantheon of American presidents, as rated by
professional historians, does keep going down. He's now somewhere below
Buchanan and dropping fast in the rankings.
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
Just think of all the lives that would have been saved if Chamberlain
had not been a leftist queer or Churchill had taken over sooner.
You must be a closeted homosexual, judging by the way you keep trying to
label others as queer. It's a dead giveaway.
Stop the pop psychology because you are no good at it.

Using your perverted reasoning, you are a closet Bush admirer.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-19 15:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment). Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.

Bob Kolker
Gunner
2006-07-19 16:34:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:01:26 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment). Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.
Bob Kolker
More than one Yankee fortune was made in the Black Bird business.
Its also interesting to note that slavery was not outlawed in the
North until 1867, two years after the end of the civil war. The
Emancipation Proclamation only covered the slaves of the "states in
rebellion"


Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Just Another
2006-07-19 19:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:01:26 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment). Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.
Bob Kolker
More than one Yankee fortune was made in the Black Bird business.
Its also interesting to note that slavery was not outlawed in the
North until 1867, two years after the end of the civil war.
You keep claiming this, but that doesn't make it true. The 13th
Amendment was ratified in 1865, same year the Civil War ended.
Post by Gunner
The
Emancipation Proclamation only covered the slaves of the "states in
rebellion"
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
2006-07-20 04:14:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:19:53 -0700, Just Another
Post by Just Another
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:01:26 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment). Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.
Bob Kolker
More than one Yankee fortune was made in the Black Bird business.
Its also interesting to note that slavery was not outlawed in the
North until 1867, two years after the end of the civil war.
You keep claiming this, but that doesn't make it true. The 13th
Amendment was ratified in 1865, same year the Civil War ended.
Ah....no

Ratified yes..but not put into effect.. the Democrats fought it tooth
and nail until 1867. It took the Reconstruction Act of '67 and '68 to
give blacks civil rights in the North dispite the best (or worst)
efforts of the slave owning Democrats.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2006/06/juneteenth_when.html
Post by Just Another
Post by Gunner
The
Emancipation Proclamation only covered the slaves of the "states in
rebellion"
What...no objection to this fact? Im curios..why didnt the
Proclamation cover the slaves in the North?

Too damned many Northern Democrats were in favor of slavery for
Lincoln to get away with freeing the Northern slaves.



Gunner
Post by Just Another
Post by Gunner
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-20 08:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
What...no objection to this fact? Im curios..why didnt the
Proclamation cover the slaves in the North?
Too damned many Northern Democrats were in favor of slavery for
Lincoln to get away with freeing the Northern slaves.
If I recally correctly, Maryland and Delaware were slave states. In New
England and New York and Pennsylvania it was illegal to buy or sell
slaves, but a slave owner could bring his "property" to these states,
because the U.S. Constitution required that the State governments
legally recognize ownership. However, if a slave escaped no legal effort
was extended to help the owner recover his "property". So if a slave
owner was silly enough to bring his Negro to New York City, it was
highly likely said Negro would vanish into the black population of the
city never to be seen again.

To get the 13-th amendment to work it was necessary to invoke the 14-th
amendment. The effect of this was to totally subordinate State
government to the Fed. This was a blow to the original Federal System as
crafted by the Founders. The last nail went into the coffin of the
Federal System when the 17-th amendment made Senators to be popularly
elected. The State governments no longer had a voice in the Senate as
was originally specified. No more Federal system after that. The States
became mere departments, not unlike the French system. They were no
longer sovreign entities.

Bob Kolker
Bob
2006-07-20 11:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:50:51 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Gunner
What...no objection to this fact? Im curios..why didnt the
Proclamation cover the slaves in the North?
Too damned many Northern Democrats were in favor of slavery for
Lincoln to get away with freeing the Northern slaves.
If I recally correctly, Maryland and Delaware were slave states. In New
England and New York and Pennsylvania it was illegal to buy or sell
slaves, but a slave owner could bring his "property" to these states,
because the U.S. Constitution required that the State governments
legally recognize ownership. However, if a slave escaped no legal effort
was extended to help the owner recover his "property". So if a slave
owner was silly enough to bring his Negro to New York City, it was
highly likely said Negro would vanish into the black population of the
city never to be seen again.
You might want to tell us about Joisey sometime. I believe it allowed
slaves to be kept.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
To get the 13-th amendment to work it was necessary to invoke the 14-th
amendment. The effect of this was to totally subordinate State
government to the Fed. This was a blow to the original Federal System as
crafted by the Founders. The last nail went into the coffin of the
Federal System when the 17-th amendment made Senators to be popularly
elected. The State governments no longer had a voice in the Senate as
was originally specified. No more Federal system after that. The States
became mere departments, not unlike the French system. They were no
longer sovreign entities.
You are one of the very few people, even among educated people, who
understands clearly what the situation really is. We live in a fascist
dictatorship, plain and simple.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-20 15:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
You might want to tell us about Joisey sometime. I believe it allowed
slaves to be kept.
That was a constitutional requirement. The States had to recognize the
judicial decisions of other states and that included property rights.

Bob Kolker

Bob
2006-07-20 07:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Gunner
The
Emancipation Proclamation only covered the slaves of the "states in
rebellion"
What...no objection to this fact? Im curios..why didnt the
Proclamation cover the slaves in the North?
He wouldn't repeal the Fugitive Slave Act either.
Post by Gunner
Too damned many Northern Democrats were in favor of slavery for
Lincoln to get away with freeing the Northern slaves.
The North did not want the place overrun with niggers.

Where did the major race riots of the 20th century take place - in the
North or in the South?
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Bob
2006-07-19 16:45:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:01:26 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment).
Really. While Lincoln was in power, he promoted slavery. The North
kept slaves throughout the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln refused
to free them. He also refused to repeal the Fugivitve Slave Act. His
"emancipation proclamation", so called, did not apply to the slaves in
the North.

The 13th Am. came well after his death.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.
There was slavery in the North. The entire country was an abomination.

You know that racism is every bit as rampant in the North, if not more
so than in the South. Slaves in Texas and Lousiana were allowed to
carry guns 24x7 for protection. That's more than you can do.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Stephen Adams
2006-07-19 17:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Are those the same "professional historians" who brainwash people into
believing that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator? Lincoln was the
Great Enslaver.
Really? After Lincoln, slavery was outlawed in the United States (13-th
amendment). Unfortunately racism was not. Old Dixie was built and run on
slavery. The Lords of the Veranda made their fortunes buying, selling
and working black flesh. Dixie was an Abomination.
Excellent revisionism. Virginia (and with her Robert E. Lee) didn't
leave the Union until AFTER Lincoln began to raise an army to invade
the deep South. Vriginians, along with most Southerners, were fighting
for their freedom and rights.

Lincoln illegally raised the army and illegally spend funds on it. He
had no Congressional mandate to do so, and the Constitution is quite
clear about expenditures originating in the House of Representives.

Anyone who reveres Lincoln as some kind of messiah doesn't know him.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Bob
2006-07-19 19:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Anyone who reveres Lincoln as some kind of messiah doesn't know him.
That would be 99 44/100% of the human race.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Atlas Bugged
2006-07-20 00:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Anyone who reveres Lincoln as some kind of messiah doesn't know him.
I agree. His era and his presidency cannot be evaluated in any sort of
black and white way because there was a pox on almost everyone's house. It
may be, as some assert, that Lincoln was the devil, or it is also possible
he was a shithead doing the best you could do in a corrupt society. But
there is zero evidence that he was any sort of hero.
Bob
2006-07-20 07:54:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:00:10 -0400, "Atlas Bugged"
Post by Atlas Bugged
His era and his presidency cannot be evaluated in any sort of
black and white way because there was a pox on almost everyone's house. It
may be, as some assert, that Lincoln was the devil, or it is also possible
he was a shithead doing the best you could do in a corrupt society. But
there is zero evidence that he was any sort of hero.
Like all titular rulers throughout history, he was a product of the
special interests who put him in power, namely the Northern
industrialists.

The problems he faced were not trivial. Britain never let go of the
notion that the colonies were theirs, despite independence. Give them
a toehold of any sort and they would use it as a wedge to take the
colonies back. After all they were masters of taking countries over.

The country had no choice but to put prohibitive tariffs on competing
imported goods if it wanted to support its fledgling industrial base.
The Industrial Revolution did not come to America when it came to
Britain so Britain had a substantial edge commercially. To keep
Britain out of the affairs of America, tariffs were erected.

But that "Tariff of Abominations" prevented the South from trading
with Britain - an exchange of cotton for machinery. So the South
seceded. Now the North faces a real dilemna: 1) Accept secession and
let the South trade with Britain, which would result in the North
being flooded with cheap goods thru smuggling; 2) Stop the South from
importing by continuing to levee tariffs. That's what Ft. Sumter was
all about - it was a tariff station.

If the War had not broken out, Britain could have gotten that toe-hold
in the South and eventually taken America back into the
"Commonwealth". Thank God that did not happen.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-19 14:48:08 UTC
Permalink
"Bob" <***@uce.gov> wrote in message news:***@news-server.houston.rr.com...
[snip of nothing much]

<tink>

Sheesh, not even enough substace to make a decent "plonk' sound.

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-19 16:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Sheesh, not even enough substace to make a decent "plonk' sound.
Plonking is juvenile. If you can't deal with opinions that differ from
yours, then you do not belong on Usenet.

Now go crawl back up your boyfriend's ass where you belong, before you
stink up the place.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Bob
2006-07-18 12:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logician
Iran wiill nuke Israel before then and also nuke Washington in a
scum-clean up operation
They can nuke Washington DC all they want for all I care. They will be
doing America a great service. Maybe then the states can have their
sovereignty back.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
JEDIDIAH
2006-07-18 18:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logician
Post by navspecwar
I say within 14 days. Iran might have to wait until after Christmas to
get theirs.
Iran wiill nuke Israel before then and also nuke Washington in a
scum-clean up operation
...at which point: Iran as a nation will cease to exist.

Even with nukes, the most Iran can do is annoy us really badly.

Whereas the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Bob
2006-07-18 20:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.

The Arabs have openly condemned Hezbollah and Hamas. They are getting
pissed at all the carnage too. If a war breaks out they will be caught
up in it, and they have nothing to gain either way.

It's Radical Islam - Iran and Syria and Lebanon.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 21:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking. The poster probably meant Muslim World. Iran is
actually Persia of ancient legend and fame.
Post by Bob
The Arabs have openly condemned Hezbollah and Hamas. They are getting
pissed at all the carnage too. If a war breaks out they will be caught
up in it, and they have nothing to gain either way.
You mean the Saudis. Yes. I am not sure what the leaders of the Emirates
have to say about Hizbollah. I am sure they say nasty things out of
public earshot.

Bob Kolker
NoOneYouKnow
2006-07-18 21:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.

---JRE---
A***@NumberOne.org
2006-07-18 21:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
There is no difference worth noting between the two.

You DemLibs always jsut try to confuse every issue. Why do you think you
always lose elections?
NoOneYouKnow
2006-07-18 22:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@NumberOne.org
Post by NoOneYouKnow
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
There is no difference worth noting between the two.
You DemLibs always jsut try to confuse every issue. Why do you think you
always lose elections?
I apologize for confusing you. Next time, I'll use smaller words.

FYI, Farsi is an Indo-European language, like French and English, while
Arabic is Afro-Asiatic, like Hebrew. They are quite different.

---JRE---
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 23:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
Post by A***@NumberOne.org
Post by NoOneYouKnow
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
There is no difference worth noting between the two.
You DemLibs always jsut try to confuse every issue. Why do you think you
always lose elections?
I apologize for confusing you. Next time, I'll use smaller words.
FYI, Farsi is an Indo-European language, like French and English, while
Arabic is Afro-Asiatic, like Hebrew. They are quite different.
Quite so. Arabic roots are very similar to Hebrew and Aramaic roots.
Once one gets past the orthography (alphabet) it is not difficult to
read Arabic if one can read Hebrew or Aramaic. Farsi is your basic Aryan
language.

Arabic is used "on the street" in Iran and most of the major news papers
and t.v. broadcasts are in Arabic. The current Iranian regime considers
Iran to be part of the Islamic Ummah (nation) hence the emphasis on Arabic.

In pre-Islamic times I am sure Farsi was the primary language. Omar
Khayam wrote his poetry in Farsi.



Bob Kolker
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 22:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@NumberOne.org
Post by NoOneYouKnow
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
There is no difference worth noting between the two.
You DemLibs always jsut try to confuse every issue. Why do you think you
always lose elections?
Your satire is always a welcome breath of fresh air, Ami!

The Persians, as I understand they like to think of themselves, are another
one of those people who yearn for a restoration of their faded empire (damn
you, Alexander!), and seek to expand their power and influence beyond their
borders at every opportunity. The would very much like to be running the
Mideast, and are working diligently toward that right now, as a stepping
stone to even greater things. They imagine that they will eventually take
their rightful place as a superpower, as soon as the Great Satan can be
brushed aside and those filthy, uppity A-rabs taught to heel on the Iranian
leash. At least that is the thinking of the Islamo-political leadership.
My understanding is that the intelligentsia and educated urbanites are
rather fond of many Western ways, such as democracy and orgies (No, really.
Reportedly, orgies are quite popular there, supposedly as a personal
expression of rebellion against all the oppression, but I think they just
like to get their freak on).

Jeff
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 23:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
That is its -official- language, but the newspapers are written in
Arabic and the religious services are in Arabic.

When you see the Iranian crazies gathering for rallies where they raise
their right fists the signs they carry are all in Arabic.

Bob Kolker
NoOneYouKnow
2006-07-18 22:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
That is its -official- language, but the newspapers are written in Arabic
and the religious services are in Arabic.
When you see the Iranian crazies gathering for rallies where they raise
their right fists the signs they carry are all in Arabic.
Umm, Bob, that's because Farsi uses the Arabic alphabet - just like English
uses the Latin alphabet. Based on your argument, everyone in the U.S. is a
'Latin speaker'.

And of course the religious services are in Arabic - it's the official
language of Islam. Just like Latin used to be used during the Roman
Catholic mass.

---JRE---
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-18 23:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
And of course the religious services are in Arabic - it's the official
language of Islam. Just like Latin used to be used during the Roman
Catholic mass.
However, the current regime considers Iran part of the Ummah. The
primary language of the Islamic media (papers and t.v.) is Arabic.

Sixty percent of the population speak Farsi and Dari. One hundred
percent of the population speak Arabic. Of course in the Mosques, it is
Arabic only.

I also learned that Farsi is used in Afghanistan as well along with Pashtun.

Bob Kolker
Jeff McCann
2006-07-18 22:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
And of course the religious services are in Arabic - it's the official
language of Islam. Just like Latin used to be used during the Roman
Catholic mass.
However, the current regime considers Iran part of the Ummah. The primary
language of the Islamic media (papers and t.v.) is Arabic.
Sixty percent of the population speak Farsi and Dari. One hundred percent
of the population speak Arabic. Of course in the Mosques, it is Arabic
only.
I also learned that Farsi is used in Afghanistan as well along with Pashtun.
According to my Farsi-speaking friend who works for (no information
available) and thus has the proverbial "need to know," Farsi is also spoken
in at least one of the former Soviet-stans.

Jeff
NoOneYouKnow
2006-07-19 14:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by NoOneYouKnow
And of course the religious services are in Arabic - it's the official
language of Islam. Just like Latin used to be used during the Roman
Catholic mass.
However, the current regime considers Iran part of the Ummah. The primary
language of the Islamic media (papers and t.v.) is Arabic.
Sixty percent of the population speak Farsi and Dari. One hundred percent
of the population speak Arabic. Of course in the Mosques, it is Arabic
only.
I also learned that Farsi is used in Afghanistan as well along with Pashtun.
According to my Farsi-speaking friend who works for (no information
available) and thus has the proverbial "need to know," Farsi is also
spoken in at least one of the former Soviet-stans.
Probably more than one. Some of the 'stans' use languages that can be
considered dialects of Farsi, like Tajikastan and Uzbekistan (not sure if I
spelled those correctly).

---JRE---
NoOneYouKnow
2006-07-19 16:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoOneYouKnow
And of course the religious services are in Arabic - it's the official
language of Islam. Just like Latin used to be used during the Roman
Catholic mass.
However, the current regime considers Iran part of the Ummah. The primary
language of the Islamic media (papers and t.v.) is Arabic.
Sixty percent of the population speak Farsi and Dari. One hundred percent
of the population speak Arabic. Of course in the Mosques, it is Arabic
only.
~100% may hear and recite Arabic, but just because someone hears or is able
to recite words in a certain language doesn't mean they "speak" the language
or use it in their daily lives.

I know a lot of old Roman Catholics that heard and used Latin in mass every
Sunday for decades - not a one of them ever used Latin in their daily life
and they certainly could not be considered 'Latin speaking'. You live in
New Jersey - almost 40% Catholic - heard any Latin on the streets lately?

You're Jewish - how much Hebrew do you use in your daily life? Maybe a few
words here and there, but I'll bet your primary language is English. A
person's identifying language is the one they use by default, the one they
use in their daily lives, the one they use to converse with their family and
friends. In Iran, most of the population uses Farsi.

---JRE---
Tim May
2006-07-18 22:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by NoOneYouKnow
No, it's not. The official language is Farsi, which is Persian, not Arabic.
That is its -official- language, but the newspapers are written in
Arabic and the religious services are in Arabic.
When you see the Iranian crazies gathering for rallies where they raise
their right fists the signs they carry are all in Arabic.
Yes, in the same way that Americans use the Roman alphabet.

Farsi uses the Arabic character set, but Farsi is not even a cousin to
Arabic, a Semitic language.

Farsi is a lot more than just the "official" language: it is the
language most Iranians speak and write in.


--Tim May
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-19 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim May
Yes, in the same way that Americans use the Roman alphabet.
Farsi uses the Arabic character set, but Farsi is not even a cousin to
Arabic, a Semitic language.
Farsi is a lot more than just the "official" language: it is the
language most Iranians speak and write in.
Fifty to Sixty percent of Iranians speak Farsi. One hundred percent
speak Arabic. It is like India, which has a dozen languages, but
everyone in India, speaks, reads, and writes English.

Bob Kolker
Bob
2006-07-19 12:10:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:11:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Fifty to Sixty percent of Iranians speak Farsi. One hundred percent
speak Arabic. It is like India, which has a dozen languages, but
everyone in India, speaks, reads, and writes English.
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.

You can always tell when an airplane full of leftist queers has landed
- the whining sound continues after the engines are shut off.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Jeff McCann
2006-07-19 14:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:11:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Fifty to Sixty percent of Iranians speak Farsi. One hundred percent
speak Arabic. It is like India, which has a dozen languages, but
everyone in India, speaks, reads, and writes English.
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.
Your obsessive labeling of others as "queer" marks you as a closeted
homosexual, struggling desperately to distance yourself from your own true
nature. You aren't fooling anyone, Bob.

Jeff
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-19 16:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Your obsessive labeling of others as "queer" marks you as a closeted
homosexual, struggling desperately to distance yourself from your own true
nature. You aren't fooling anyone, Bob.
I too have wondered about this obsessive latching on to "queer". What
did the Jesuits do to Texas Bob when he was a boy. Was it unspeakable,
or was it speakable.

Bob Kolker
Bob
2006-07-19 16:40:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:04:27 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Jeff McCann
Your obsessive labeling of others as "queer" marks you as a closeted
homosexual, struggling desperately to distance yourself from your own true
nature. You aren't fooling anyone, Bob.
I too have wondered about this obsessive latching on to "queer". What
did the Jesuits do to Texas Bob when he was a boy. Was it unspeakable,
or was it speakable.
Cut it out, Kolker. You know goddam good and well what I mean. If you
don't ask AB. He has it figured out.

Of all people I did not expect you to stoop to such perverted
psychology.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Atlas Bugged
2006-07-20 12:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Cut it out, Kolker. You know goddam good and well what I mean. If you
don't ask AB. He has it figured out.
I think I already brought KAL* up to speed on this.
Post by Bob
Of all people I did not expect you to stoop to such perverted
psychology.
Hey, did you consider that maybe you just got trolled?

By a very savvy, long-time Usenetter. Who understands physics. Who's an
older gentleman with grown children? Whose politics are geared to liberty?

The irony is immeasurable!

--
"KAL" is a nickname Bob Kolker has in other groups because his posts can
be....let's say arch, so he was called "The Kolker Algorithm" and this was
abbreviated to KAL.
Bob
2006-07-20 13:10:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:45:36 -0400, "Atlas Bugged"
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Bob
Cut it out, Kolker. You know goddam good and well what I mean. If you
don't ask AB. He has it figured out.
I think I already brought KAL* up to speed on this.
I wonder if he replaced HAL.

Naw.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Bob
Of all people I did not expect you to stoop to such perverted
psychology.
Hey, did you consider that maybe you just got trolled?
How about the possibility I knew that and so I counter-trolled.

Apparently it worked.
Post by Atlas Bugged
By a very savvy, long-time Usenetter. Who understands physics. Who's an
older gentleman with grown children? Whose politics are geared to liberty?
You just described me in every respect.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Gunner
2006-07-19 16:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:11:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Fifty to Sixty percent of Iranians speak Farsi. One hundred percent
speak Arabic. It is like India, which has a dozen languages, but
everyone in India, speaks, reads, and writes English.
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.
Your obsessive labeling of others as "queer" marks you as a closeted
homosexual, struggling desperately to distance yourself from your own true
nature. You aren't fooling anyone, Bob.
Jeff
Dont quit your day job as a lawyer Jeff. Until I see a set of current
shrink certs on your office wall..your opinion is just that. The
opinion of a Democrat demagog.

As Frued said..Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

Unless of course its up Monicas snatch.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Jeff McCann
2006-07-19 19:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Bob
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:11:53 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Fifty to Sixty percent of Iranians speak Farsi. One hundred percent
speak Arabic. It is like India, which has a dozen languages, but
everyone in India, speaks, reads, and writes English.
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.
Your obsessive labeling of others as "queer" marks you as a closeted
homosexual, struggling desperately to distance yourself from your own true
nature. You aren't fooling anyone, Bob.
Jeff
Dont quit your day job as a lawyer Jeff. Until I see a set of current
shrink certs on your office wall..your opinion is just that. The
opinion of a Democrat demagog.
As Frued said..Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Unless of course its up Monicas snatch.
Then it's a national crisis.

Actually, Gunner, I know quite a bit about abnormal psychology, and it is
common for severely conflicted homosexuals to project a hypervigilant form
of homophobia as a defense mechanism. it's called a "reaction formation,"
and it is well known to occur with frequency among closeted homosexuals.

Your attempt to delimit discussion to argument by authority is pretty lame.
Otherwise, you'd refrain from commenting on politics until you have degrees
in political science like me, right?

Jeff
Bob
2006-07-19 19:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Actually, Gunner, I know quite a bit about abnormal psychology, and it is
common for severely conflicted homosexuals to project a hypervigilant form
of homophobia as a defense mechanism. it's called a "reaction formation,"
and it is well known to occur with frequency among closeted homosexuals.
Psychobabble.

If anything it is you who suffers from reaction formation because it
is you who obsesses over people who do not like the gay agenda to the
extent that you have to invoke old Freudian psychobabble to hide the
fact that you are a closet homophobe.
Post by Jeff McCann
Your attempt to delimit discussion to argument by authority is pretty lame.
Otherwise, you'd refrain from commenting on politics until you have degrees
in political science like me, right?
He has degrees in common sense, which you need to add to your
education sometime.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Stephen Fairchild
2006-07-19 22:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Jeff McCann
Actually, Gunner, I know quite a bit about abnormal psychology, and it is
common for severely conflicted homosexuals to project a hypervigilant form
of homophobia as a defense mechanism.  it's called a "reaction formation,"
and it is well known to occur with frequency among closeted homosexuals.
Psychobabble.
If anything it is you who suffers from reaction formation because it
is you who obsesses over people who do not like the gay agenda to the
extent that you have to invoke old Freudian psychobabble to hide the
fact that you are a closet homophobe.
Translation: I know you are, but what am I.
--
Stephen Fairchild
Gunner
2006-07-20 04:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Gunner
Dont quit your day job as a lawyer Jeff. Until I see a set of current
shrink certs on your office wall..your opinion is just that. The
opinion of a Democrat demagog.
As Frued said..Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Unless of course its up Monicas snatch.
Then it's a national crisis.
Actually, Gunner, I know quite a bit about abnormal psychology, and it is
common for severely conflicted homosexuals to project a hypervigilant form
of homophobia as a defense mechanism. it's called a "reaction formation,"
and it is well known to occur with frequency among closeted homosexuals.
Your attempt to delimit discussion to argument by authority is pretty lame.
Otherwise, you'd refrain from commenting on politics until you have degrees
in political science like me, right?
Jeff
No. I too have a fair background in pysch..I dont list all my vitea
here (and no..not as a patient...lol) and a bit more poli sci than you
would think I should.

Limit discussion? Hardly Jeff. Hold your feet to the fire for making
conclusions based on nothing. Indeed.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Alcore
2006-07-19 19:05:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Bob wrote:

[snip]
Post by Bob
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.
You can always tell when an airplane full of leftist queers has landed
- the whining sound continues after the engines are shut off.
[snip]

And you can always tell when a rightwing-christofacist-nutjob is speaking:
He will be incapable of referring to anyone who differs from his worldview
politely and is impervious to any idea not previously placed into the
Christian Sharia by some politician masquerading as a preacher (the
christian equivalent to an Imam.)

Let's put it another way: Liberal beliefs are not treason, any more than
trying to outlaw flag burning can be described as "freedom".

Fanaticism is bad, and it doesn't matter what end of the political
or religious spectrum it comes from.

(Learn to address your opponents politely and you learn to commicate and
persuade without violence.)

Gene P.
Slidell LA
John R. Carroll
2006-07-19 19:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcore
[snip]
Post by Bob
We have two English languages in America; Conservative and
LeftistQueer. You can easily recognize the LeftistQueer language by
all the whining.
You can always tell when an airplane full of leftist queers has
landed - the whining sound continues after the engines are shut off.
[snip]
And you can always tell when a rightwing-christofacist-nutjob is
speaking: He will be incapable of referring to anyone who differs
from his worldview politely and is impervious to any idea not
previously placed into the Christian Sharia by some politician
masquerading as a preacher (the christian equivalent to an Imam.)
Let's put it another way: Liberal beliefs are not treason, any more
than trying to outlaw flag burning can be described as "freedom".
Fanaticism is bad, and it doesn't matter what end of the political
or religious spectrum it comes from.
(Learn to address your opponents politely and you learn to commicate
and persuade without violence.)
Gene P.
Slidell LA
Slidell is it? I had an aquiantance used to hang about Slidell. Ended up in
jail with one of his planes sitting on the tarmac in Slidell.
Maybe you've heard of old Aubrey? Had an air charter service.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Alcore
2006-07-19 21:14:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, John R. Carroll wrote:

[snip]
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Alcore
Gene P.
Slidell LA
Slidell is it? I had an aquiantance used to hang about Slidell. Ended up in
jail with one of his planes sitting on the tarmac in Slidell.
Maybe you've heard of old Aubrey? Had an air charter service.
[snip]

I'm not native to Slidell, having grown up about 30 miles away in South
Mississippi. And I spent most of the late '90's through 2001 in Jackson
MS, so there's a lot of people and events that I don't know about locally.

Was this a recent thing?

Gene P.
Slidell LA
John R. Carroll
2006-07-19 21:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcore
[snip]
Post by John R. Carroll
Post by Alcore
Gene P.
Slidell LA
Slidell is it? I had an aquiantance used to hang about Slidell.
Ended up in jail with one of his planes sitting on the tarmac in
Slidell.
Maybe you've heard of old Aubrey? Had an air charter service.
[snip]
I'm not native to Slidell, having grown up about 30 miles away in
South Mississippi. And I spent most of the late '90's through 2001
in Jackson MS, so there's a lot of people and events that I don't
know about locally.
Was this a recent thing?
No it wasn't. Late 70's through the end of the eighties. I only met the guy
once but he was a real live character.
He was also a smuggler it turned out. Pot mostly and he did it for many
years. The feds eventually caught up wih him, rolled him and when all was
said and done, they reduced his sentence to probation. You don't see that
often, or maybe ever, and it's an indication of his value.

Unfortunately for Aubrey, he'd screwed unmercifully with the state's
Attorney General and they tried and convicted him. His plea agreement with
the feds required that the State couldn't impose more of a sentence than
they had so he drew another period of probation but the Judge in the case
added community service. It was a death sentence. The Columbians found him
doing his community service job and gunned him down.

Aubrey Berryman had worked for years with the DEA to put a real dent in the
Columbian drug trade. It was probably the only successful operation ever
conducted in the "War on Drugs". All of the evidence against Carlos Lehderer
and the Panamanian's Federico Vaughan and "The Pineapple", their lovely
President, were collected through this OP. There were many others as well.
Maybe as many as a hundred succesful prosecutions and the biggest fish were
all the way on the hook.

Oliver North ended it when he leaked it to the NY Times, even providing
pictures. Those pictures were also provided. North, and the WH, were
attempting to get Congress to fund operations with the Contras and didn't
care a whit that he had blown the most successful undercover operation in
Law Enforcement history, even though he knew he was doing exactly that. They
just wanted a succes story that would get Congress to authorize funding. You
should have seen the Miami US Attorney when he saw the paper. Pretty scary,
he and others were that mad. I'm surprised the Ochoa brothers didn't have
Ollie on their Xmass list. He fingered the guy that they never suspected.

I'm sure you can find a local that knows a little. Not much mind you, but a
little.
Most of the people that really know this story are either in jail, retired,
or dead. Dead went around pretty good for a while there.
--
J
Atlas Bugged
2006-07-20 01:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcore
Let's put it another way: Liberal beliefs are not treason
Well, they really are. Whatever America started out as and was intended as,
modern liberalism is an open attempt to alter the basic formula. Of course,
they've succeeded in a practical sense, but it should not have been done
dishonestly, which is to say if the people who live on this land mass are no
longer interested in the original idea, then have a constitutional
convention and overhaul it.
Post by Alcore
any more than trying to outlaw flag burning can be described as "freedom".
Correct, a "flag-burning" law is simply a way of saying you like freedom of
expression except you don't like freedom of expression. Efforts to ban
flag-burning are just extraordinary in their irony and dumbness, too.
Post by Alcore
Fanaticism is bad, and it doesn't matter what end of the political or
religious spectrum it comes from.
That's right, but if you calmly assess American history, liberal (again, not
the 18th century meaning, I am talking about the modern Ted Kennedy meaning)
beliefs are far more "like" treason than the nutjob religious-right
proposals.

Early America was mostly repressed, backward religionism, and was certainly
opposed to anything resembling modern collectivist notions embodied in
modern liberalism. Consider:

The first amendment, which outlawed religious theocracy, did not and was not
intended to apply to state governments. There was no bar to Alabama having
an official state religion, and little popular sentiment to outlaw such a
thing.
Post by Alcore
(Learn to address your opponents politely and you learn to commicate and
persuade without violence.)
Bob is a self-described troll and he is definitely fucking with you. It is
your job to loosen up. You are right that he's wild, rude, outrageous. That
said....

....Welcome to Usenet.
Bob
2006-07-19 12:07:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:29:19 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
Post by Robert J. Kolker
When you see the Iranian crazies gathering for rallies where they raise
their right fists the signs they carry are all in Arabic.
The reasons that the Iranian crazies raise their right hands is
because they want to say "Fuck You" and so they show the hand they use
to masturbate. If you look closely you can see cum stains on the
fingers. Furthermore it is considered bad taste to raise your left
hand in Iran because that's the one you use to wipe your ass after you
take a crap.
--
Stop Repeat Offenders!
Don't Re-elect Them!
Stephen Adams
2006-07-19 03:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Bob
Post by JEDIDIAH
the US can turn the entire Arab world into a memory.
Iran is not Arab.
It is Arab speaking.
Uh, well, no. Farsi is the language of Iran. I am sure they read the
Qur'an in Arabic, but it's not an Arabic speaking country, as one would
commonly understand that meaning.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Robert J. Kolker
2006-07-19 11:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Adams
Uh, well, no. Farsi is the language of Iran. I am sure they read the
Qur'an in Arabic, but it's not an Arabic speaking country, as one would
commonly understand that meaning.
Spoken by 60 percent of the population. Arab is spoken by 100 percent.
Think of India. English is everyone's second language in India and is
the only language spoken and written by all people of India.

Bob Kolker
Stephen Adams
2006-07-19 13:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Stephen Adams
Uh, well, no. Farsi is the language of Iran. I am sure they read the
Qur'an in Arabic, but it's not an Arabic speaking country, as one would
commonly understand that meaning.
Spoken by 60 percent of the population. Arab is spoken by 100 percent.
Think of India. English is everyone's second language in India and is
the only language spoken and written by all people of India.
No, *liturgical* Arabic is spoken by most people. That's a far cry from
being fluent. I can do all the responses in Greek at a Greek Orthodox
Church (and can even lead some prayers if pushed hard), but that doens't
mean I speak Greek! Any more than being able to do the responses in
Arabic at an Antiochian Church here means I can speak Arabic.

The language of the Qur'an is 'classical Arabic' and not the common
language used today. The situation is similar to that presented in
the Bible when Jesus reads the Scriptures in Hebrew and then explains
them in Aramaic.

Please don't confuse liturgical use with fluency....

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
***@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...