OT-VIDEO of AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS

In article <[email protected]>, "Agki Strodon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
>declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it on
>them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we would
>have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
>Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
>until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
>thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
>their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another year.

This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for that,
please?

BTW, a fascinating history of the German effort to develop an atomic bomb is
given in the book "Heisenberg's War". Although Werner Heisenberg was a deeply
patriotic German, he was *not* a Nazi, and was uncomfortable with the idea of
putting such a weapon in Hitler's hands. There's considerable evidence that he
deliberately sandbagged the German atomic weapons program.

Also, FWIW, the planned target for the first American atomic weapon was not
Hiroshima, or indeed anywhere in Japan. It was Berlin. But the Nazis
surrendered before the bomb was ready.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

>
> Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
> dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
>
>

> It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
> was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
> so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

> Hey mp, good to hear from you. I'm surprised any of you left tilters
> (tablesaw refrence) would pipe in on this subject. Would you care to now
> back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
> with al-Qaida and the war on terror?

Oh, come on. You can't be serious.

> Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
> Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military
to
> find.

Unceremoniously? What did you expect? There wasn't any ceremony either when
the army threw a nearly dead prisoner off a bridge.

> What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was unjustified
> because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
> on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?


> It is so gratifying to be right. You should try it sometime, mp.

Nothing has changed. If anything, there's an even greater public consensus
that the justification for the invasion was all a big lie.

Any "terrorists" that are in Iraq now are only there because they're
fighting the occupation. If a foreign country invaded the US, and you fought
against the occupation, would that make you a terrorist too?

> IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
> into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
> the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?

> > Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or
a
> > dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
>
> How does it matter which is more evil?

That's my point. Killing innocent people is evil regardless of whether
they're American, Iraqi, or Jewish.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:P%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
> >> into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
> >> the top of the evil list............ Mark L.
> >
> >Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.
> >
> >Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
> >that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
> >on your evil scale?
> >
>
> Even if those numbers are correct -- which I doubt -- it's still an order of
> magnitude less than what Saddam was doing. Any rational individual would have
> to consider that an improvement.
>

mp has apparently made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net .
Their count is 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources including attacks by Iraqui
insurgents/terrorists, those hit by errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time
period, civilians running checkpoints, etc.


> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
> > into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
> > the top of the evil list............ Mark L.
>
> Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.
>
> Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
> that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
> on your evil scale?
>
>
mp,

You made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Their count is
10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources including attacks by Iraqui insurgents/terrorists, those hit by
errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time period, civilians running
checkpoints, etc.

There has been no systematic slaughter of civilians. All were indirect casualties of war. Unlike the attrocities committed by John
Kerry in Vietnam where he admits to taking part and knowing it was wrong.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain


>

> mp has apparently made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I
found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net .
> Their count is 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all
sources including attacks by Iraqui
> insurgents/terrorists, those hit by errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army,
any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time
> period, civilians running checkpoints, etc.

The website you mention trys to keep an accurate count of all verified
deaths, ie. those who have been brought to hospitals or morgues, or whose
deaths have been reported in the media and verified from multiple sources.

Muslim tradition is to bury the dead as soon as possible, and the reality of
the situation is that many of the dead are buried right away, often close to
where they died, without having their deaths being officially recorded.

> The worst case numbers I found came from a website
http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Their count is
> 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources
including attacks by Iraqui insurgents/terrorists, those hit by
> errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above
the "normal" for a time period, civilians running
> checkpoints, etc.

That is not the worst case number, but in fact the opposite. That website
lists all the deaths that they've been able to verify through official
sources. The actual number could easily be much higher.

> There has been no systematic slaughter of civilians.

Thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree with you.

> All were indirect casualties of war.

Really. Have you gone through the list and verified each death yourself?

> Unlike the attrocities committed by John
> Kerry in Vietnam where he admits to taking part and knowing it was wrong.

What's your point? Am I supposed to jump in here and defend Kerry? Good
luck.

> > Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?
> >
>
> Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
> year after everyone else.
>
> So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
> into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical
thing
> for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If
we
> were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
> go there? Come on, give us a break.


Neither you nor anyone else can prove that Saddam had links to Bin Laden or
his organization, though many have tried.

The lies and propaganda that the WH used to justify the invasion has been
proven to be false. All of it. No WMD's, no links to al-Queada, no threat of
mushroom clouds on American soil.

What I find amazing is that people like yourself keep believing all this
crap in the absence of any hard evidence. That's changing, as recent polls
are showing that more and more American citizens are realizing they've been
hoodwinked. Some day you too may come to that realization.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > mp has apparently made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I
> found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net .
> > Their count is 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all
> sources including attacks by Iraqui
> > insurgents/terrorists, those hit by errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army,
> any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time
> > period, civilians running checkpoints, etc.
>
> The website you mention trys to keep an accurate count of all verified
> deaths, ie. those who have been brought to hospitals or morgues, or whose
> deaths have been reported in the media and verified from multiple sources.
>
> Muslim tradition is to bury the dead as soon as possible, and the reality of
> the situation is that many of the dead are buried right away, often close to
> where they died, without having their deaths being officially recorded.
>
>

Ok, so where do you get your numbers from?

>
>
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > The worst case numbers I found came from a website
> http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Their count is
> > 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources
> including attacks by Iraqui insurgents/terrorists, those hit by
> > errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above
> the "normal" for a time period, civilians running
> > checkpoints, etc.
>
> That is not the worst case number, but in fact the opposite. That website
> lists all the deaths that they've been able to verify through official
> sources. The actual number could easily be much higher.
>
> > There has been no systematic slaughter of civilians.
>
> Thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree with you.
>

The point is that civilians have not been the targets. In fact they have been used as shields by the insurgents and the military
have been carefull not to harm them.

> > All were indirect casualties of war.
>
> Really. Have you gone through the list and verified each death yourself?
>

I spent more time verifying my claim than you did. Just where did you come up with 20 to 30 thousand?

> > Unlike the attrocities committed by John
> > Kerry in Vietnam where he admits to taking part and knowing it was wrong.
>
> What's your point? Am I supposed to jump in here and defend Kerry? Good
> luck.
>
>

> >Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
> >dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
> >
>
> The beheading. Particularly considering that it's the only one of the
three
> that _actually_took_place_.


So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you think
they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat out
of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
getting sodomized by a glowstick.

It really doesn't matter how anyone was killed on either side. It's all
evil.

"Anonymoose" <Ihatespam> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >> It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is
> >> that he was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only
> >> posting this so that people can see the reality of the evil that is
> >> out there.
> >
> > Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death,
> > or a dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
>
> What detainees were beat to death?

He probably means American civilian contractors that were detained by Iraqi militants.

> >Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.
> >
> >Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
> >that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate
anywhere
> >on your evil scale?
> >
> >
>
> Speaking of evil, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians that were killed in the years prior to last year.
> Where does that slaughter rate on the evil scale. And that does have
everything to do with Iraq.

First off, you're quoting me out of context. The comment "didn't have
anything to do with Iraq" was in reference to 9/11. This a pathetically lame
attempt at a cheap shot.


> Speaking of evil, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians that were killed in the years prior to last year.
> Where does that slaughter rate on the evil scale. And that does have
everything to do with Iraq.

I think the number is much higher than hundreds of thousands. No one knows
for sure, but I've seen reports of about 1,500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as
a result of the sanctions. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy and killed a lot of
people, but not on this scale.

> > Neither you nor anyone else can prove that Saddam had links to Bin
> > Laden or his organization, though many have tried.
>
> The link is Al-Zawaheri - he was in Iraq receiving aid, support, and
> medical treatment prior to 9/11.

Medical treatment at a Bagdhad hospital? You're suggesting this justifies
the war? Get serious.

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> if given the chance how many americans would have cut the head
> off osama bin ladin just like they showed on the video? quite a few i would
> think.
>
> randy
>

You really aren't trying to equate Nick Berg with osama bin laden, are you?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > if given the chance how many americans would have cut the head
> > > off osama bin ladin just like they showed on the video? quite a few i
> would
> > > think.
> > >
> > > randy
> > >
> >
> > You really aren't trying to equate Nick Berg with osama bin laden, are
> you?
>
> im simply saying killing is killing. whether its done with a knife at close
> range or a bomb from 100 miles away. nick berg is just another needless
> casualty of this needless war. one that will be used to justify it. and
> that is the real trajety of the nick berg story.
>
> randy
>
>
Does that mean that if osama bin laden is ever captured and killed, he will be just another needless casualty of a needless war on
terrorism? Again, you really didn't mean to put Nick Berg and osama in the same category, did you?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Anonymoose" <Ihatespam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >
> > >> > Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's
> > >> > regime?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and
> > >> only a year after everyone else.
> > >>
> > >> So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw
> > >> al-Qaida into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So,
> > >> the logical
> > > thing
> > >> for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting?
> > >> If
> > > we
> > >> were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would
> > >> they go there? Come on, give us a break.
> > >
> > >
> > > Neither you nor anyone else can prove that Saddam had links to Bin
> > > Laden or his organization, though many have tried.
> >
> > The link is Al-Zawaheri - he was in Iraq receiving aid, support, and
> > medical treatment prior to 9/11.
>
> osama himself was in the us receiving dialysis treatments a couple months
> prior to 9/11. where does that put the us?
>
> randy
>
>
The way I understand it was that he was at an American hospital in Dubai just months before 9/11. I don't know of any report that
he was actually on US soil.

> >So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you
think
> >they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat
out
> >of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
> >humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
> >getting sodomized by a glowstick.
>
> You implied they were beaten to death -- which has NOT happened.

It HAS happened, and there are plenty of news reports that suggest
otherwise, both while in US and British custody. There's also photographic
evidence to back this up.

The following is quoted from a May 7th ABC news report about several marine
reservists being charged in a beating death.

"The photographs show a 52-year-old former Baath Party official, Nadem
Sadoon Hatab, who died at the detention center last June after a three-day
period in which he was allegedly subjected to beatings and karate kicks to
the chest and left to die naked in his own feces."

In the UK the Ministry of Defence is also investigating prisoner beathing
deaths at the hands of British troops. The February Red Cross report on
Iraqi prisoner abuse also mentions Iraqi beating deaths.


> And the bomb in the marketplace was not one of ours, either. It was a
> terrorist truck bomb.

I wasn't referring to the truck bomb. There were multiple other bombings,
some going back to the early days of the invasion.

> > > Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death,
> > > or a dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
> >
> > What detainees were beat to death?
>
> He probably means American civilian contractors that were detained by
Iraqi militants.

No, I'm not referring to the four mercenaries hired by the US. I'm talking
about Iraqis in US or British custody. I responded to this in another post,
and it you DOGS you'll find plenty of information about the beating deaths.
It's even being reported in the US media.

> There is no difference. I expect the soldier on the other side to
act/react identically. But I sure as hell do NOT consider that SOB
> with the black hood and knife to be a soldier, nor do I offer him the same
respect and consideration I would offer a soldier. He is
> a criminal/murderer under the laws/rules/mores of any society, civilized
or uncivilized, that I have ever heard of. And if it isn't,
> then it's not a society, it is a anarchical mob straight out of Darwin's
survival of the fittest.

Is an occupying soldier somehow morally superior to someone resisting the
occupation?

There not much difference between a beheading and beating a person to death,
other than the beheading involves less suffering. The end result is the
same. Murder.

> Yeah I know this all too well. It does not bother me that people like mp
> and his fellow anti-US crackpots exist and share their views.

I'm glad my existence doesn't bother you, as well as the fact that other
people share my views. Which is most of the world, by the way, and an ever
increasing number of Americans, as recent polls suggest.

I'd like to clarify one point, if I may. Generally, people like Americans.
Most of the global anti-US sentiment is not directed at the American people,
but rather the US government and especially the Bush administration.

> > The website you mention trys to keep an accurate count of all verified
> > deaths, ie. those who have been brought to hospitals or morgues, or
whose
> > deaths have been reported in the media and verified from multiple
sources.
> >
> > Muslim tradition is to bury the dead as soon as possible, and the
reality of
> > the situation is that many of the dead are buried right away, often
close to
> > where they died, without having their deaths being officially recorded.
> >
> >
>
> Ok, so where do you get your numbers from?

I keep a hat handy, but most of it comes from what's being reported in
various international media.

> And there you have it folks. The root of this whole discussion and the
sole
> mission of mp and his ilk ever since 2000. Get rid of Bush no matter what
> the cost. I doubt even mp will disagree with me on this.

I don't care much for Bush, but I'm not alone here; neither do 55% of
Americans (according to a recent poll), nor probably 90% of the rest of the
world. It's certainly not my "mission" to "get rid of Bush no matter what
the cost". The American public will do that themselves this fall.

> > I'm glad my existence doesn't bother you, as well as the fact that other
> > people share my views. Which is most of the world, by the way, and an
ever
> > increasing number of Americans, as recent polls suggest.
>
> And yet, in a woodworking discussion group, you're more noise than
> signal. Odd, that. I'm not killfiling you because I disagree with
> you, I'm killfiling you because the group was just getting back to topic.

Thanks.

> There is no justification for the brutality I saw in that video, and
> there is no way anyone can equate that with the pictures of the
> prisoners. Beheading a man with a knife is an atrocity, snapping a
> picture of a naked prisoner is not.

The extent of prisoner abuse goes far beyond a few photos. How about
beating, rape, torture, sexual abuse, and murder? It's been widely reported
in most of the major media outlets, and if you don't believe me you can do a
search for yourself.

Murder is murder. After what has surfaced in the last few days, there's
plenty of evidence that shows both sides have committed atrocities and
neither side can claim a moral high ground over the other. Your rage over
what happened to Nick Berg is no different than what the Iraqis feel when
their own are killed.

"mp"
> > There is no justification for the brutality I saw in that video, and
> > there is no way anyone can equate that with the pictures of the
> > prisoners. Beheading a man with a knife is an atrocity, snapping a
> > picture of a naked prisoner is not.
>
> The extent of prisoner abuse goes far beyond a few photos. How about
> beating, rape, torture, sexual abuse, and murder? It's been widely reported
> in most of the major media outlets, and if you don't believe me you can do a
> search for yourself.


In the few cases that may exist that doesn't make the beheading
any more palatable. The moral equivelency argument doesn't work
here.


> Murder is murder. After what has surfaced in the last few days, there's
> plenty of evidence that shows both sides have committed atrocities and
> neither side can claim a moral high ground over the other. Your rage over
> what happened to Nick Berg is no different than what the Iraqis feel when
> their own are killed.


I missed the slow sawing off of Iraqi prisoner heads reports.
Could you pull your head out of your ass long enough to post
some?

> In the few cases that may exist that doesn't make the beheading
> any more palatable. The moral equivelency argument doesn't work
> here.

There's been more than a few cases. About 23 or 24 if I recall.

> > Murder is murder. After what has surfaced in the last few days, there's
> > plenty of evidence that shows both sides have committed atrocities and
> > neither side can claim a moral high ground over the other. Your rage
over
> > what happened to Nick Berg is no different than what the Iraqis feel
when
> > their own are killed.
>
>
> I missed the slow sawing off of Iraqi prisoner heads reports.
> Could you pull your head out of your ass long enough to post
> some?


The following is quoted from a May 7th ABC news report about several US
marine reservists being charged in a beating death.

"The photographs show a 52-year-old former Baath Party official, Nadem
Sadoon Hatab, who died at the detention center last June after a three-day
period in which he was allegedly subjected to beatings and karate kicks to
the chest and left to die naked in his own feces."

On your own personal moral equivalency scale, how would you rate a beheading
vs a slow painful death after three days of torture?

> > On your own personal moral equivalency scale, how would you rate a
> > beheading vs a slow painful death after three days of torture?
>
> Part of it depends on whether the victims were our guys, or their guys. As
> a dual-citizen of both the US and the UK, I value the lives of Americans
> and Britons more than I do the lives of the enemy. Sorry. That's war.

I'm curious as to why you would consider an Iraqi your enemy.

> Hey, mp seems quite alone here. Where are the usual OT quacks
> who want to blame the EVIL RICH or the Vatican? Come on
> guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.

Piss off.

> It's always amusing to me when people say this with absolutely no
evidence.
> How are you in any position to conclude that Iraq posed a negligible
threat?
> You conclude this based on the supposed objective view of a few partisan
> democrats who, themselves, have little access to all the information?
This
> flies in the face of much evidence, despite the fact that the location of
> WMDs haven't been dislosed yet.

Guilty until presumed innocent? The UN weapons inspectors as well as the US
weapons inspectors have repeatedly stated that Saddam no longer possesses
chemical or biological weapons, and that he did not have the capability to
produce nuclear weapons. These people scoured Iraq for years looking for
evidence, and for the last 10 years have come up with nothing. Nada. Not
even a trace.

Forget about the opinions of a few democrats or republicans, as most of them
probably haven't a clue and their interests are likely to be self serving.
Have you read what the actual weapons inspectors themselves, ie. Scott
Ritter, Hans Blix, and David Kay have reported?

It's always amusing to me too, when people say with absolutely no evidence
that Saddam has WMD's .

"mp"
> > In the few cases that may exist that doesn't make the beheading
> > any more palatable. The moral equivelency argument doesn't work
> > here.
>
> There's been more than a few cases. About 23 or 24 if I recall.



That's still very general. What was the torture and how does it
equate to a slow beheading?



> > > Murder is murder. After what has surfaced in the last few days, there's
> > > plenty of evidence that shows both sides have committed atrocities and
> > > neither side can claim a moral high ground over the other. Your rage
> over
> > > what happened to Nick Berg is no different than what the Iraqis feel
> when
> > > their own are killed.


> > I missed the slow sawing off of Iraqi prisoner heads reports.
> > Could you pull your head out of your ass long enough to post
> > some?


> The following is quoted from a May 7th ABC news report about several US
> marine reservists being charged in a beating death.


> "The photographs show a 52-year-old former Baath Party official, Nadem
> Sadoon Hatab, who died at the detention center last June after a three-day
> period in which he was allegedly subjected to beatings and karate kicks to
> the chest and left to die naked in his own feces."



"Allegedly" doesn't prove he died a slow painful death or that the three
day assault was constant, or even severe. Someone can die from one
blow landing wrong or him landing wrong. So it doesn't prove that it was
equvilant to a slow beheading.


> On your own personal moral equivalency scale, how would you rate a beheading
> vs a slow painful death after three days of torture?


You apparently confuse a "beheading" which is traditionaly quick
with a slow sawing off beheading with a knife. I couldn't compare
the two until I had the facts. You don't have them either but that
doesn't seem to matter.

"Agkistrodon"


> But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
> groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by
> new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
> "terrorists".

Bull. The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups and it's likely most
terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists. But when they're shooting
at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call them.

On 14 May 2004 10:17:15 -0700, [email protected] (Agkistrodon) wrote:

>That is because of the Israeli connection AND because of our history
>of repression of Islamic fundamentalism through our stooges such as

I really do not like to participate in this thread, but many seems to forget or
ignore the endless killing, target killing, humiliation and YEARS suffering of
Palestinian in the West banks and Gaza Strip.

Are Palestinians also human like us, has father, mother, son or daughter too?
Should they be treated like animals? While the "settlers" continue to expand
"settlements" while "talk" going on. We could go in there and end their misery
once and for all or let the Israelis and Palestinians destroy themselves without
getting us in endless troubles?

Should we not stop and rethink what we did that make them hate us so much that
life aren't worth living?

"Agki Strodon"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> >
> > "Agkistrodon"


> > > But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
> > > groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by
> > > new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
> > > "terrorists".

> > Bull.

> You really don't know much about the Middle East, do you?


I know enough to call the above statement bull.


> > The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups


> How did we miss the Irish Republican Army?


They haven't been very active in a while but would be targeted
if they were. The war on terrorism is global, not a US war.


>Why aren't we fighting South
> Mollucan terrorists?


"We" can't do it all today.


>The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax.


I'm still hoping yopu'll make a substantive comment.


>It's a war on
> anybody who doesn't appreciate and support "American interests." Read
> "power interests".



yawn.


> >and it's likely most
> > terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists.



> They religious rebels. They had no power under Hussein. Hell, Hussein
> executed several of his family so the fighting with his group has nothing to
> do with Hussein's terrorists. In fact, who is the American pointman in
> Falujah? One of Saddam's ex-generals!


Your point was...?


> We are witnessing the fragmentation of Iraq along religious alignments.
> Al-Sadr is a Shi'ite and he's structuring a post-American Iraq that will
> either be broken up due to in-fighting between sects and clans (Kurds,
> Sunnis, Shi'ites) or controlled by another tough guy Husseinoid.


I nominate John Kerry after his unsucessful whitehouse run.
He's a man for everyone, at least once.



> > But when they're shooting
> > at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call
> them.


> It certainly does.


Tell that to they guy that has his legs blown off or the family
of the deceased.


> We must not confuse the situation we have created with
> the one that went before. The Mehdi Army is not Saddam's army. We are
> fighting new terrorists that we have created


We created them?


> from people who were not
> terrorists before we invaded and destroyed the poilitical integrity of Iraq.


LOL !!!!! Political integrity !!! Thanks for that one !


> Do you know what the word "integrity" means?

> Agkistrodon


Do you? It's nice we have a middle east expert here!!!!

> You apparently confuse a "beheading" which is traditionaly quick
> with a slow sawing off beheading with a knife. I couldn't compare
> the two until I had the facts. You don't have them either but that
> doesn't seem to matter.

I'm not confusing anything. I don't see how murder by torture can be
considered in any way morally superior to murder by beheading. And I'm not
referring solely to the one news item I posted, but in general to all the
beating deaths of Iraqis over the last year while in US or British custody.

> > An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
> > covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%
> > of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
>
> And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?

The number is actually quite a bit higher. From the Red Cross report on
Iraqi prisoner abuse:

"Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their
estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty had
been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests
to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."

> To date, I know of no American soldier brought up on murder charges. To
> date, I've not heard Congress grill Rumsfled on anything other than the
> naked pics.
>
> I won't do your homework for you. You made the claims, now back them
> up.
>
> And stop equating a brutal beheading with prisoner abuse.

Ok, I'll do your homework for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Iraq_abuse_death_040507-1.html

And this is just the beginning.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Agki
Strodon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
> >declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it
on
> >them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we
would
> >have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
> >Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
> >until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
> >thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
> >their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another
year.
>
> This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
> program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for that,
> please?
>
> BTW, a fascinating history of the German effort to develop an atomic bomb
is
> given in the book "Heisenberg's War". Although Werner Heisenberg was a
deeply
> patriotic German, he was *not* a Nazi, and was uncomfortable with the idea
of
> putting such a weapon in Hitler's hands. There's considerable evidence
that he
> deliberately sandbagged the German atomic weapons program.

Did the book say he was an anti-Semite? I've heard conflicting stories on
that and never got it clear. Apparently there were some references to him
by physicists that I heard back in my undergrad days in which he is
purported to have referred to nuclear reactions in bomb making as "Jewish
physics."

Then again, I am uncertain (;-)]



>
> Also, FWIW, the planned target for the first American atomic weapon was
not
> Hiroshima, or indeed anywhere in Japan. It was Berlin. But the Nazis
> surrendered before the bomb was ready.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>

Yeah, the Russkies took care of Berlin.

But who is going to be our next bogeyman?

Agkistrodon

Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey, mp seems quite alone here. Where are the usual OT quacks

Quack? You mean Thomas Jefferson and Smedley Butler. Those are the
people and their 'ilk' whose words and principles you have the most
hatred for.

> who want to blame the EVIL RICH

I prefer to blame evil actions on evildoers. You want to call it justice
and democracy.

You keep trotting out that straw man argument.


> guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.

Sure, but so far the obviously fake video hasn't even really been
discussed. The usual suspects, the statists like Juanita haven't made
any arguments (and as usual, those who support the rule of law and
individual rights are 'fellow travelers').

Well other than:

"Iraq has harbored terrorists for years."

"Only a mental midget to try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone
but terrorists and murderers with American blood on their hands."

"Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick Berg."

No matter how many innocent civilians were murdered, we're better than
Saddam was...

What's to dispute?

--

"The administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted
on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is
not the reiteration of bromides..." - George Will

"All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush
Administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow,
much less a month from now." - Robert Kagan

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is one - its called the Libertarian Party

Nothing in your fascist diatribe is remotely libertarian.

Dan White <[email protected]> wrote:

> C'mon Sandy. It was about a gallon of sarin --

Hadn't heard that. I have heard that McRumsfeld is using weasel words
and refused to assert certainty.

> enough to kill thousands if
> dispersed correctly.

Yeah, that brings up the old issues of capability. Bush lied about that.
And it assumes not only sophisticated weaponry, but a quality that at
least the non-binary Sarin didn't have in Iraq. It also assumes that the
binary components didn't degrade significantly. All assuming that the
shell even exists.

> Do you doubt that there is more where that came from?

Well, IF it is an 80's vintage, unmarked artillery shell, there may be
more, but it still wouldn't make all the false statements true. I
believe the munitions in Iraq are enormous. If you are going to say that
"onesies or twosies" exist as David Kay, Bush loyalist guesses, SO WHAT.

> Let's get all the excuses out of the way now:
>
> 1. It's not really a WMD,

That's not an excuse, its using language accurately. I know that all the
old fascists are dribbling in their Depends at the thought of mustard
gas carried on ROVs launched across the Atlantic or from secret US
cells, but its not a WMD.

> 2. We gave all this bad stuff to them, so it is our fault,

Whose fault would it be for giving it to him, aiding him in its use and
encouraging him to fight a proxy war with Iran? Gimme a break.

Ironic especially considering the colossal straw man that's always
trotted out by the one-worlders, that "leftists" always blame everything
on the US, while the reverse is actually going on... the permanent war
crowd demand that the US never acknowledge or accept any blame for
anything ever, including supporting and funding terrorists. And don't
forget that being beaten to death or tortured is proof that the victim
is guilty of whatever the word-du-jour is (insurgents, loyalists,
dead-enders, Baathists, militant Islamists and here courtesy of the
resident Stalinist "spys").

> 4. It's nothing, just a little shell and they didn't even know there was
> anything in it.

Yeah, its really from a secret cache and the US military is hiding that
fact. Oddly, even with the go ahead for torture and the use of "decisive
force," this secret unit of WMD actors is evading successfully.
>
> What did I miss? :)

Why not bring up the bio weapons trailers? How about the thwarted chem
attack in Jordan? What happened to that? Remember all the pictures?

Hey, I'm still angry about Jessica Lynch. And we can't forget the babies
thrown from incubators! What do you hear about those big human/plastic
shredders that Uday and dad used in Abu Gahraib? I vaguely remember an
announcement that a big document hoard had been found that had something
to do with Al Qaeda, too.

There is a lot to be angry about.

p.s. don't worry, there's a big election coming up.

Let me make a guess:

Timeframe: late September

Location: western desert, easier to plant, easier to limit information
about, and threatening to our "ally" Israel.

What: medium range missiles that somehow also implicate NK or Syria.

Frosting on the Yellowcake would be the Fox boot lickers having some
exclusive.


--

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11
September attacks." - George Bush

Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have nothing against TJ;

Sure you do. Its just not PC to condemn him personally while condemning
his principles and policies.

> I think he's great. Your inerpretation of him
> is what is wacked

Sure. Go ahead. Put some substance to this dribbling.

> along with your hatred of everyone you don't agree with or
> like.

Wow, only a few sentences and you're already using pathetic attacks like
that.

> Blame the rich and blame the Vatican and how 'bout Col. Sanders
> and K.F.C. while your at it.

Prop up that straw man again. Be a big, bad, strong guy and knock it
down, but then what? What about reality? Run from that.

> Smedley was hero and that's no dispute, but he was
> also an isolationist and at a bad time to be one (right before WWII) and
> has no bearing on current events.

lol... I can tell, because it sounds exactly like today. That's it isn't
it. Things are the same so they aren't, uh, well, uh, gee, uh... yeah,
lets hear it.
>
> "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common
> good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
> personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did
> not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the
> people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine
> they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance --
> and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering,
> every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]

I think I want to VOMIT. YOU of all people are quoting Ayn Rand? If you
had even the slightest fondness for her philosophies, you would hate the
criminal liar you worship. I guess you never read any Rand, as she fills
her books with bitter hatred for exactly the people you whine about me
criticizing. Most of the evil characters in her books are RICH. DUHHHHH.

I don't know about her opinion on the Vatican though, but I doubt she
would be big on helping Nazis.

> "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
> than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not
> your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.
> May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were
> our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]

Good advice. When are you going to leave? If you want I can send you the
endless speeches by the current regime that tout "safety" and
"stability" and the rest of the anti-democratic nonsense.


> > > who want to blame the EVIL RICH
> >
> > I prefer to blame evil actions on evildoers. You want to call it justice
> > and democracy.
> >
> > You keep trotting out that straw man argument.
> >
> >
> > > guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.
> >
> > Sure, but so far the obviously fake video hasn't even really been
> > discussed. The usual suspects, the statists like Juanita haven't made
> > any arguments (and as usual, those who support the rule of law and
> > individual rights are 'fellow travelers').
> >
> > Well other than:
> >
> > "Iraq has harbored terrorists for years."
> >
> > "Only a mental midget to try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone
> > but terrorists and murderers with American blood on their hands."
> >
> > "Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick Berg."
> >
> > No matter how many innocent civilians were murdered, we're better than
> > Saddam was...
> >
> > What's to dispute?
> >
> > --
> >
> > "The administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted
> > on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is
> > not the reiteration of bromides..." - George Will
> >
> > "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush
> > Administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow,
> > much less a month from now." - Robert Kagan

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>There is one - its called the Libertarian Party
> >
> >
> > Nothing in your fascist diatribe is remotely libertarian.
>
> Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I missed the part where you got
> annointed as the arbiter of Libertarian Purity.

Purity? So far no traces have been found.

> And oh,
> BTW, "facism" has a very specific political definition
> (the alignment of private sector business with a totalitarian
> government)

False.

> which is of no relevance in this discussion.

How could it be irrelevant? You advocate for it and then dishonestly
refer to yourself as something that you clearly aren't, going so far as
to cite anti-libertarian propaganda journals. One, I hear referred to
alternately by libertarians as the Neo-Con Review or the Nationalist
Review.
>
> Next time, get someone to help you with the big words ...

Hey, you can't even get the little words right. Your utter perversion of
law and the definition of spy is sad and silly at the same time.

Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:

> Did you notice that almost immediately after the Sarin round was reported on
> that the press

T H E M I L I T A R Y. Not the press. (And Bush loyalist and flack,
David Kay).

> was already speculating that the insurgents that used it
> probably didn't even know it contained Sarin. Right!

Well, if you're right, the factory that is being used or the massive
"stockpiles" will be found.

> Don't worry...no
> matter how much Sarin or mustard gas or anything else is found in Iraq

Has any Sarin been found?

> or
> Jordan, it won't be enough or it was accidentally missed by Saddam or it was
> planted or it came from somewhere else.

What's your theory. Let it loose. Can't wait to hear the justification
for Bush's war. He and his have offered a couple dozen by now, but let's
hear yours? There can never be enough.

On 14 May 2004 04:30:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip one fine exposition only for the purpose of conserving bandwidth>

Damn, Tim, I wish I had the talents to write like that! Well Done!!!




Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Allen Zucher posits:

>It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
>was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
>so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

All it took was one reason, either would have done, but for you to post it in a
woodworking group presents you as an asshole, particularly since this news has
been available for almost 48 hours now.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce

On Fri, 14 May 2004 04:12:19 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>
>
>: There is a world of difference between an accident of war
>
>
>An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
>covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
>whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
>
> -- Andy Barss
>

... and once again you have snipped all relevant context from the
original post which was dealing with trying to generate moral equivalence
between deliberately targeting civilians vs. accidental damage caused by
actions directed at insurgents who are using civilians as human shields.

Your comment above has no relevance to that particular part of the
discussion.

>
>

> Sorry. That's war.

The latest blockbuster coming out is the movie "Troy." What was that
about? A girl?

Of all humanity's historical accounts, what is more prevalent than
war?

How have prisoners ever been treated? Check out the movie "The
Passion." That was 2000 years ago.

Yes, be outraged. Be angry. Call it unjust, evil, and inhumane. It is.

But it is human. It doesn't matter if you are American, Iraqi, or from
the far reaches, we will always have war. And if you turn your back on
war, it will hit you in the back. We HAD been turning our back on the
terrorist-war, and it hit us on 9/11.

You will NEVER get any society of humans to act in a non-human manner.

Indyrose

On 12 May 2004 21:54:20 GMT, Allen Zucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS CAUGHT ON VIDEO
> The video can be found and downloaded here:

(snip)

20 bucks says it's a .scr, an .exe, or another virus-transmitting format.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:22:09 -0700, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm glad my existence doesn't bother you, as well as the fact that other
> people share my views. Which is most of the world, by the way, and an ever
> increasing number of Americans, as recent polls suggest.

And yet, in a woodworking discussion group, you're more noise than
signal. Odd, that. I'm not killfiling you because I disagree with
you, I'm killfiling you because the group was just getting back to topic.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

> I don't care much for Bush, but I'm not alone here; neither do 55% of
> Americans (according to a recent poll), nor probably 90% of the rest of the
> world. It's certainly not my "mission" to "get rid of Bush no matter what
> the cost". The American public will do that themselves this fall.
>
Not unless they get rid of Nader first! I wonder if he's been
getting many "anonymus" (sp?) campaign contributions from the
Bushites?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:01:35 GMT, Agki Strodon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 20 bucks says it's a .scr, an .exe, or another virus-transmitting format.
>
> Not bad! What better idea would there be to get Americans to download
> viruses than to give them something they absolutely HAVE to see?

Bah. It's a Windows thing, not an "American" thing. My computers
would be remarkably unimpressed by any such thing. Oddly enough, I've
got no feelings of "HAVE to see" about the video either. Maybe you're
wrong on, oh, all counts?

Are you here for woodworking, by the way? I don't recall seeing your
name in any on-topic posts.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:34:25 GMT, Rick Chamberlain <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Normally I would agree with you. I had to see this video for a couple
>of reasons:
>
>1. Because the so called good-taste news outlets won't show it, and
>2. Because I want to remember and be outraged
>
<snip>

Rick,
Thanks for your post, and I respect your reasons. Certainly the second reason. You've given me some things to ponder, but I
don't think I'll make an effort to view the video as I've seen enough violent death and dismemberment for one lifetime.

We do need to remember. We do need to be outraged. We do need to recognize this as what it is. Not resistance to an occupying force.
Not the death of a soldier in battle. In short, it's nothing that can, in any way, have a shred of honor attached to it. Simply put,
it's the heinous and cowardly murder of a completely defenseless man.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The thing you have to understand with mp and his fellow-travellers
> > is that it doesn't matter what the circumstances, it is *always* the
fault
> > of the US. The US attacked on 9/11? It was our fault -- we obviously
did
> > something to make these people hate us. A civilian who went to Iraq to
> > help rebuild the country's telecommunications infrastructure was
beheaded?
> > Obviously it was Bush's fault. USA Today the other day tried to
generate
> > moral equivalence between humiliating prisoners (for which we don't
> > necessarily have the full story yet) with napalming civilians, killing
> > suspects, and other events that resulted in the DEATHS of people.
> >
> > In the paradigm with which these people view the world, the US is
evil,
> > any and all actions undertaken by the US are evil and the only dignified
> > response to any attack (physical, political, or editorial) is to roll
over
> > and wet ourselves, thanking the perpetrators for reminding us how evil
we
> > are and have been. They conveniently ignore the (documented) unearthing
> of
> > 300,000 casualties of Saddam's regime and gloss over the *real* torture
of
> > prisoners in Saddam's prisons. They draw moral equivalence between
> > *humiliating* prisoners with physically sawing off hands, drilling holes
> in
> > people, and literally beating people to death.
> >
> > Bottom line is there is no way you will ever convince mp that the US
is
> > anything other than an evil empire and that these radical muslim
> extremists
> > who behead prisoners, fly airplanes into buildings, topple buildings
onto
> > homosexuals, destroy historical artifacts, or make the statement that
"any
> > female American soldiers may be kept as slaves" are nothing more than
> > misunderstood people who have become that way because of the evil
> > oppression by the US.
> >
>
> Yeah I know this all too well. It does not bother me that people like mp
> and his fellow anti-US crackpots exist and share their views. What
bothers
> me is I can't see any difference between what these people claim and what
I
> hear from the leadership of the Democratic party. I mean Ted Kennedy and
> Carl Levin may very well be xronger and mp for all I can tell. It is
truly
> a joke. I think the Democrat party is heading for a rude awakening in
> November and I am not sure that I want either party to have total control
of
> our government. I wish there was a viable third party to take the place
of
> the Democrats as they continue to hemmorage power.


its actually very simple. what bothers me is that some people actually do
see a difference between killing innocent iraqi civilians because we believe
their government helped terrorists, and killing innocent american ones. its
all murder.

but we do agree on one thing. i wish there was a viable third party....

randy

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>: Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>: :>
>
>: : There is a world of difference between an accident of war
>
>
>: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
>: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
>: whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
>
>
>And mark and juanita again fail to reply to the thread. They introduce
>controversy, then run away from it. Again and again.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss


No Andy, just a reasonable decision regarding the use of my time. Some
comments are simply not worth responding to. In the case cited above, I had
responded to a very similar comment within the thread and didn't feel it
worth pointing out that if one considers having someone stand naked with a
hood or pair of women's panties on their head to be torture, then a new
name must be found for a description of the various acts of barbarism
perpetrated upon prisoners that resulted in mutilation and death. As to
the perpetratrators of the "torture" pictures, the military is already
pursuing action against them. In those cases where excessive force was
used, that too is being investigated and the perpetrators will likely be
prosecuted as well (as opposed to promoted under the former Iraqi regime)

You further took the quote above out of context in which the word
"accident" had absolutely no connection in the conversation at hand to the
detainee question. The extension from a discussion comparing deliberate
barbarism with accidental collateral damage in a wartime action to
mistreatment of detainees was simply not worth the effort of reply.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:23:28 -0600, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:


>the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
>america truly hasnt figured this out yet.
>
>randy
>


The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Dave Hinz wrote:
> >On 12 May 2004 21:54:20 GMT, Allen Zucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS CAUGHT ON VIDEO
> >> The video can be found and downloaded here:
> >20 bucks says it's a .scr, an .exe, or another virus-transmitting format.

Doug Miller wrote:
> I won't take that bet.

I will. It's a wmv. It's available on a number of sites, that
one has a corrupted copy. DO NOT watch this if you aren't used to
seeing people killed or have any PTSS problems, it'll bring them
back in a hurry. 5MB, about 4 1/2 min long and not very good
quality, but you'll see and hear everything you need to.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

xrongor wrote:
> >the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
> >america truly hasnt figured this out yet.

Tom Veatch wrote:
> The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
> crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
> other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
> more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).

I'm with Tom on this one. Family, community, country. The value
is highest closest to home. Deal with reality, not wishes.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

<snipity snip>

> Frank,
>
> The thing you have to understand with mp and his fellow-travellers
> is that it doesn't matter what the circumstances, it is *always* the fault
> of the US. The US attacked on 9/11? It was our fault -- we obviously did
> something to make these people hate us. A civilian who went to Iraq to
> help rebuild the country's telecommunications infrastructure was beheaded?
> Obviously it was Bush's fault. USA Today the other day tried to generate
> moral equivalence between humiliating prisoners (for which we don't
> necessarily have the full story yet) with napalming civilians, killing
> suspects, and other events that resulted in the DEATHS of people.
>
> In the paradigm with which these people view the world, the US is evil,
> any and all actions undertaken by the US are evil and the only dignified
> response to any attack (physical, political, or editorial) is to roll over
> and wet ourselves, thanking the perpetrators for reminding us how evil we
> are and have been. They conveniently ignore the (documented) unearthing of
> 300,000 casualties of Saddam's regime and gloss over the *real* torture of
> prisoners in Saddam's prisons. They draw moral equivalence between
> *humiliating* prisoners with physically sawing off hands, drilling holes in
> people, and literally beating people to death.
>
> Bottom line is there is no way you will ever convince mp that the US is
> anything other than an evil empire and that these radical muslim extremists
> who behead prisoners, fly airplanes into buildings, topple buildings onto
> homosexuals, destroy historical artifacts, or make the statement that "any
> female American soldiers may be kept as slaves" are nothing more than
> misunderstood people who have become that way because of the evil
> oppression by the US.

Well said Mark & Juanita.
Hoyt W.

Greetings and Salutations.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:44:47 -0700,
[email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:47:48 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:29:31 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I think there's some back story we're not getting. for instance, what
>>>the hell was he doing there?
>>
>>
>>According to the news reports I've read - for whatever they might be worth - he owns a small company and was hustling business for
>>that company - "looking for work".
>
>any idea what that "work" was? there's too much doublespeak going
>around for me to not be suspicious. it's like the use of "private
>contractor" for mercenary. those guys ARE legitimate targets in
>wartime, and considering that they commit the most obscene of the
>atrocities, they will (and should) be prime targets.

I wondered this myself. According to several sources,
he was in the business of repairing communications towers,
and, apparently felt that Iraq was likely to have a lot of
opportunities for work.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>According to those same reports:
>>
>>1. He had been detained by the Iraqi police/US Military, who apparently were not satisfied with that explanation of his
>>presence.
I suspect that ANYONE foreign (and especially Westerners) who
are there and not attached to either a military or military contracted
operation are going to be suspect.

>>2. He was released by the US Military only after (his parents?) brought suit in Federal Court.

And according to some recent reports, he checked out as a
legitimate businessman on a valid mission.

>>3. Almost immediately (a couple of days?) after his release he dropped from view and reappeared in this video.
>
Frankly, when I heard, earlier in the week, that the military
had supposedly picked him up for suspicion of drug trafficking, my
first thought that was they decided, when they could not prove
anything, to go ahead and dump him out in the courtyard of either
one of the drug lords, or, one of the various fanatically anti-
drug factions...

>I'd guess that whatever it was, it wasn't particularly aboveboard, nor
>was it in the iraqi people's best interest....

Hard to say. Apparently he had a great sense of sympathy
for the Iraqi situation, and was actually trying to help them rebuild
their infrastructure.
While one never knows, there is no hard evidence so far that
he was anything other than what he said he was...a bright, technically
competent fellow who had a great taste for adventure, and, perhaps a
bit more idealism than was good for him.
It does not seem that this should, in any way, lessen the
condemnation of the fanatics who killed him, and their actions.
They have not helped their case in MOST of the world, although I
suspect that in several areas it is playing well.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>My suggestion for anyone is to stay the Hell out of a combat zone if you don't absolutely have to be there.
>
>
>absolutely.
>

I agree. It is just not wise to go into an area that is still
actively hostile, unless one has a fairly large gun, lots of ammo,
body armor, and, several buddies to watch one's back.
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:05:52 GMT, Tom Veatch <[email protected]>
wrote:


>The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
>crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
>other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
>more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).
>
>Tom Veatch
>Wichita, KS USA

I wholeheartedly agree with your POV on this, Tom.

My problem with the situation is the same problem I had forty-some
years ago, with those that got us into Vietnam.

There was an opportunity then, on the political level, to not involve
ourselves. Then, as now, we chose otherwise.

Once the Dogs of War have been unleashed, we should not expect them to
be other than what they are - and we should not expect war to be other
than what it is.

The military does not send men to war.

Politicians send men to war.

It is the politicians who pretend that there is a difference between
Isaac and Ishmael.

I wish only that those who send us to war were forced to experience
the results of their decisions - in a very personal and immediate way.

If they would send young men to bleed ,then let them bleed along with
them.

If they would send young men to die, then let them die along with
them.

Wars would be less frequent - and the Wreck would have more peaceful
things to contemplate.




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:43:16 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

-snip-
>
>It really doesn't matter how anyone was killed on either side. It's all
>evil.
>
>

Well, you said something I agree with. It IS all evil. But left unsaid is that the universe cares not one whit about the human race
or the life of any individual member of it. If uncaring is a measure of evil, then the universe is an evil place to live.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Allen Zucher <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

<snip>
> I am only posting this
> so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Yeah, show us the reality out there, show us the way, master.

Humbly your student,
H

> > > > if given the chance how many americans would have cut the head
> > > > off osama bin ladin just like they showed on the video? quite a few
i
> > would
> > > > think.
> > > >
> > > > randy
> > > >
> > >
> > > You really aren't trying to equate Nick Berg with osama bin laden, are
> > you?
> >
> > im simply saying killing is killing. whether its done with a knife at
close
> > range or a bomb from 100 miles away. nick berg is just another needless
> > casualty of this needless war. one that will be used to justify it.
and
> > that is the real trajety of the nick berg story.
> >
> > randy
> >
> >
> Does that mean that if osama bin laden is ever captured and killed, he
will be just another needless casualty of a needless war on
> terrorism? Again, you really didn't mean to put Nick Berg and osama in
the same category, did you?

you are the one that seems to keep putting them in the same category. im
simply putting all types of murder in the same category.

randy

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
>> >dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
>> >
>>
>> The beheading. Particularly considering that it's the only one of the
>three
>> that _actually_took_place_.
>
>
>So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you think
>they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat out
>of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
>humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
>getting sodomized by a glowstick.

You implied they were beaten to death -- which has NOT happened.

And the bomb in the marketplace was not one of ours, either. It was a
terrorist truck bomb.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:16:18 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?
>>
>
>Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
>year after everyone else.
>
>So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
>into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical thing
>for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If we
>were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
>go there? Come on, give us a break.
>
>Frank
>
>

Frank,

The thing you have to understand with mp and his fellow-travellers
is that it doesn't matter what the circumstances, it is *always* the fault
of the US. The US attacked on 9/11? It was our fault -- we obviously did
something to make these people hate us. A civilian who went to Iraq to
help rebuild the country's telecommunications infrastructure was beheaded?
Obviously it was Bush's fault. USA Today the other day tried to generate
moral equivalence between humiliating prisoners (for which we don't
necessarily have the full story yet) with napalming civilians, killing
suspects, and other events that resulted in the DEATHS of people.

In the paradigm with which these people view the world, the US is evil,
any and all actions undertaken by the US are evil and the only dignified
response to any attack (physical, political, or editorial) is to roll over
and wet ourselves, thanking the perpetrators for reminding us how evil we
are and have been. They conveniently ignore the (documented) unearthing of
300,000 casualties of Saddam's regime and gloss over the *real* torture of
prisoners in Saddam's prisons. They draw moral equivalence between
*humiliating* prisoners with physically sawing off hands, drilling holes in
people, and literally beating people to death.

Bottom line is there is no way you will ever convince mp that the US is
anything other than an evil empire and that these radical muslim extremists
who behead prisoners, fly airplanes into buildings, topple buildings onto
homosexuals, destroy historical artifacts, or make the statement that "any
female American soldiers may be kept as slaves" are nothing more than
misunderstood people who have become that way because of the evil
oppression by the US.

Oh, and while I'm at it a little side-bar to on topic....
While Pecan and Hickory trees are from the same family
can they be used the same and interchangeably if the need
arises..............
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ge4vl2.16nvud31ddafnkN%[email protected]...
> Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have nothing against TJ;
>
> Sure you do. Its just not PC to condemn him personally while condemning
> his principles and policies.
>
> > I think he's great. Your inerpretation of him
> > is what is wacked
>
> Sure. Go ahead. Put some substance to this dribbling.
>
> > along with your hatred of everyone you don't agree with or
> > like.
>
> Wow, only a few sentences and you're already using pathetic attacks like
> that.
>
> > Blame the rich and blame the Vatican and how 'bout Col. Sanders
> > and K.F.C. while your at it.
>
> Prop up that straw man again. Be a big, bad, strong guy and knock it
> down, but then what? What about reality? Run from that.
>
> > Smedley was hero and that's no dispute, but he was
> > also an isolationist and at a bad time to be one (right before WWII) and
> > has no bearing on current events.
>
> lol... I can tell, because it sounds exactly like today. That's it isn't
> it. Things are the same so they aren't, uh, well, uh, gee, uh... yeah,
> lets hear it.
> >
> > "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common
> > good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
> > personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They
did
> > not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave
the
> > people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new
machine
> > they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological
advance --
> > and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not
suffering,
> > every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
>
> I think I want to VOMIT. YOU of all people are quoting Ayn Rand? If you
> had even the slightest fondness for her philosophies, you would hate the
> criminal liar you worship. I guess you never read any Rand, as she fills
> her books with bitter hatred for exactly the people you whine about me
> criticizing. Most of the evil characters in her books are RICH. DUHHHHH.
>
> I don't know about her opinion on the Vatican though, but I doubt she
> would be big on helping Nazis.
>
> > "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better
> > than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask
not
> > your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you.
> > May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you
were
> > our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]
>
> Good advice. When are you going to leave? If you want I can send you the
> endless speeches by the current regime that tout "safety" and
> "stability" and the rest of the anti-democratic nonsense.
>
>
> > > > who want to blame the EVIL RICH
> > >
> > > I prefer to blame evil actions on evildoers. You want to call it
justice
> > > and democracy.
> > >
> > > You keep trotting out that straw man argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > > guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.
> > >
> > > Sure, but so far the obviously fake video hasn't even really been
> > > discussed. The usual suspects, the statists like Juanita haven't made
> > > any arguments (and as usual, those who support the rule of law and
> > > individual rights are 'fellow travelers').
> > >
> > > Well other than:
> > >
> > > "Iraq has harbored terrorists for years."
> > >
> > > "Only a mental midget to try and suggest that these prisoners are
anyone
> > > but terrorists and murderers with American blood on their hands."
> > >
> > > "Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick Berg."
> > >
> > > No matter how many innocent civilians were murdered, we're better than
> > > Saddam was...
> > >
> > > What's to dispute?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "The administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be
counted
> > > on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is
> > > not the reiteration of bromides..." - George Will
> > >
> > > "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush
> > > Administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq
tomorrow,
> > > much less a month from now." - Robert Kagan

Tom,

I started to snip some of your message to preserve bandwidth. But, dammit, there ain't none of it that can be cut.

Wish all people recognized, deep down in their gut, that it's not the war-mongering military that causes war. All they do is suffer,
bleed and die. I don't think I've ever met a combat Marine or Soldier who wasn't convinced that a shooting war should be a little
bit beyond the absolute last resort.

Need to get off this subject before the dreams start. Want to talk about woodworking?

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:12:23 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

> wholeheartedly agree with your POV on this, Tom.
>
>My problem with the situation is the same problem I had forty-some
>years ago, with those that got us into Vietnam.
>
>There was an opportunity then, on the political level, to not involve
>ourselves. Then, as now, we chose otherwise.
>
>Once the Dogs of War have been unleashed, we should not expect them to
>be other than what they are - and we should not expect war to be other
>than what it is.
>
>The military does not send men to war.
>
>Politicians send men to war.
>
>It is the politicians who pretend that there is a difference between
>Isaac and Ishmael.
>
>I wish only that those who send us to war were forced to experience
>the results of their decisions - in a very personal and immediate way.
>
>If they would send young men to bleed ,then let them bleed along with
>them.
>
>If they would send young men to die, then let them die along with
>them.
>
>Wars would be less frequent - and the Wreck would have more peaceful
>things to contemplate.
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Tom.
>
>Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:47 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It's always amusing to me when people say this with absolutely no
> >evidence.
> >> How are you in any position to conclude that Iraq posed a negligible
> >threat?
> >> You conclude this based on the supposed objective view of a few
partisan
> >> democrats who, themselves, have little access to all the information?
> >This
> >> flies in the face of much evidence, despite the fact that the location
of
> >> WMDs haven't been dislosed yet.
> >
> >Guilty until presumed innocent? The UN weapons inspectors as well as the
US
> >weapons inspectors have repeatedly stated that Saddam no longer possesses
> >chemical or biological weapons, and that he did not have the capability
to
> >produce nuclear weapons. These people scoured Iraq for years looking for
> >evidence, and for the last 10 years have come up with nothing. Nada. Not
> >even a trace.
> >
> >Forget about the opinions of a few democrats or republicans, as most of
them
> >probably haven't a clue and their interests are likely to be self
serving.
> >Have you read what the actual weapons inspectors themselves, ie. Scott
> >Ritter, Hans Blix, and David Kay have reported?
> >
> >It's always amusing to me too, when people say with absolutely no
evidence
> >that Saddam has WMD's .
> >
>
>
> Kind of ironic seeing this post from 5/14 show up after this past week's
> events vis a vis the sarin and mustard gas rounds found. I quote, "Nada,
> not even a trace"

I don't think I replied to this post (I wrote the top part). Does everybody
forget (or even know) that the UN searched for chemical weapons in Iraq
after the first gulf war and couldn't find anything until a defector TOLD
THEM where they were? Scott Ritter was on Saddam's payroll. They gave him
$500,000 to write a book or something. Hans Blix is a fool. Inspector
Clouseau comes to mind.

I keep telling myself not to argue with people who can't see the forest for
the trees. Other agendas cloud their vision.

dwhite

I agree with you.

It should have been a bigger bomb.

Kill them all.



"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that
he
> > was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting
this
> > so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.
>
> Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
> dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?
>
>

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > well this is why america is a republic and not a true democracy.. we
> elect
> > leaders to make our decisions for us. if the system worked this would
be
> > completely fair and understandable.
>
> yes randy, you hit the nail on the head here. well done.
>
> >unfortunately our pool of people to
> > select from is severely limited by our two party system mentality,
> > propigated by the media.
>
> sigh, you missed the nail and smashed your thumb! the reason the pool of
> people is severely limited is because of the voting public. it's voters
who
> give these clowns power. people get fired up and vote for who makes the
> best promises and who kisses the most babies. they don't pay attention
> beyond that. if the voting public actually paid attention to what goes on
> in dc and held politicians accountable for their actions, we would be much
> better off.
>
> frank

fundamentally i think we completely agree. ill just add one thing. if the
voting public actually paid attention, and had a source of information they
could trust to provide unbiased reports on exactly what is going on, and
held politicians accountable, things would be much better off.

randy

How naive


"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
> > into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
> > the top of the evil list............ Mark L.
>
> Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.
>
> Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
> that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
> on your evil scale?

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that
he
> > was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting
this
> > so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.
>
> Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
> dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

I'll vote for the intentional murder of an innocent person as most evil.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:P%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
>> >> into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
>> >> the top of the evil list............ Mark L.
>> >
>> >Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.
>> >
>> >Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
>> >that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
>> >on your evil scale?
>> >
>>
>> Even if those numbers are correct -- which I doubt -- it's still an order of
>> magnitude less than what Saddam was doing. Any rational individual would have
>> to consider that an improvement.
>>
>
>mp has apparently made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I found
> came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net .
>Their count is 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all
> sources including attacks by Iraqui
>insurgents/terrorists, those hit by errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any
> source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time
>period, civilians running checkpoints, etc.
>

If one considers "normal" to be what Iraq has unfortunately experienced during
the two decades preceding the current American occupation, civilian deaths
during that occupation have been at a far *lower* rate than "normal".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

xrongor wrote:

> fundamentally i think we completely agree. ill just add one
> thing. if the voting public actually paid attention, and had
> a source of information they could trust to provide unbiased
> reports on exactly what is going on, and held politicians
> accountable, things would be much better off.

And if pigs had wings...

"If" /is/ a big word.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

"Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
> Yes... I'm an amateur and have been making sawdust for about three years
now
> and preparing for retirement after 30 years with the US gov as an
> "Environmental Scientist."
<snip>
> Agkistrodon

ahh! I'd been wondering why the serpentine reference. I had wondered if
maybe a college kid troll was hinting at a poisonous mouth to be wary of,
glad that's not the case, we're over-quota for trolls at the moment.

cheers

Greg (who happens to think American snakes are kind of wussy. Our inland
Taipan can reputedly kill a 100 people with one bite - how's *that* for a
big mouth!)

Inland Taipan
Taipan
Death Adder
Tiger Snake
Black Snake
Brown Snake
Hoop snake ;-)
Trouser Snake ;-)

Then, there're the spiders...

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:47 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It's always amusing to me when people say this with absolutely no
>evidence.
>> How are you in any position to conclude that Iraq posed a negligible
>threat?
>> You conclude this based on the supposed objective view of a few partisan
>> democrats who, themselves, have little access to all the information?
>This
>> flies in the face of much evidence, despite the fact that the location of
>> WMDs haven't been dislosed yet.
>
>Guilty until presumed innocent? The UN weapons inspectors as well as the US
>weapons inspectors have repeatedly stated that Saddam no longer possesses
>chemical or biological weapons, and that he did not have the capability to
>produce nuclear weapons. These people scoured Iraq for years looking for
>evidence, and for the last 10 years have come up with nothing. Nada. Not
>even a trace.
>
>Forget about the opinions of a few democrats or republicans, as most of them
>probably haven't a clue and their interests are likely to be self serving.
>Have you read what the actual weapons inspectors themselves, ie. Scott
>Ritter, Hans Blix, and David Kay have reported?
>
>It's always amusing to me too, when people say with absolutely no evidence
>that Saddam has WMD's .
>


Kind of ironic seeing this post from 5/14 show up after this past week's
events vis a vis the sarin and mustard gas rounds found. I quote, "Nada,
not even a trace"

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?
>

Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
year after everyone else.

So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical thing
for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If we
were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
go there? Come on, give us a break.

Frank

Wooo Doggies... I do love it when you modern age commies get your
panties in a twist!!!!!!! If your physical constitution requires it then go
a head and
vomit, I bet you have a hard time at your daily indoctrination from the
liberal media (all those nasty pictures don't ya know); you must be
upchucking
all over the house.
Anti- demacratic. I wonder what that means nowadays. The government
school indoctrination claims that our country is a democracy, but TJ surely
didn't set it up to be that way. I think he called it a Republic! So if
you want
to go ahead and call me anti-democratic, feel free. I support the
Constitution of
the REPUBLIC of the United States of America.

-The Masses make Asses!!!!!!!!!!

- Hatin' is for Satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the
public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed
by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has
been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following
sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great
courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance
to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Alexander Tyler

"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ge4vl2.16nvud31ddafnkN%[email protected]...
> Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have nothing against TJ;
>
> Sure you do. Its just not PC to condemn him personally while condemning
> his principles and policies.
>
> > I think he's great. Your inerpretation of him
> > is what is wacked
>
> Sure. Go ahead. Put some substance to this dribbling.
>
> > along with your hatred of everyone you don't agree with or
> > like.
>
> Wow, only a few sentences and you're already using pathetic attacks like
> that.
>
> > Blame the rich and blame the Vatican and how 'bout Col. Sanders
> > and K.F.C. while your at it.
>
> Prop up that straw man again. Be a big, bad, strong guy and knock it
> down, but then what? What about reality? Run from that.
>
> > Smedley was hero and that's no dispute, but he was
> > also an isolationist and at a bad time to be one (right before WWII) and
> > has no bearing on current events.
>
> lol... I can tell, because it sounds exactly like today. That's it isn't
> it. Things are the same so they aren't, uh, well, uh, gee, uh... yeah,
> lets hear it.
> >
> > "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common
> > good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
> > personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They
did
> > not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave
the
> > people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new
machine
> > they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological
advance --
> > and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not
suffering,
> > every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
>
> I think I want to VOMIT. YOU of all people are quoting Ayn Rand? If you
> had even the slightest fondness for her philosophies, you would hate the
> criminal liar you worship. I guess you never read any Rand, as she fills
> her books with bitter hatred for exactly the people you whine about me
> criticizing. Most of the evil characters in her books are RICH. DUHHHHH.
>
> I don't know about her opinion on the Vatican though, but I doubt she
> would be big on helping Nazis.
>
> > "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better
> > than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask
not
> > your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you.
> > May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you
were
> > our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]
>
> Good advice. When are you going to leave? If you want I can send you the
> endless speeches by the current regime that tout "safety" and
> "stability" and the rest of the anti-democratic nonsense.
>
>
> > > > who want to blame the EVIL RICH
> > >
> > > I prefer to blame evil actions on evildoers. You want to call it
justice
> > > and democracy.
> > >
> > > You keep trotting out that straw man argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > > guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.
> > >
> > > Sure, but so far the obviously fake video hasn't even really been
> > > discussed. The usual suspects, the statists like Juanita haven't made
> > > any arguments (and as usual, those who support the rule of law and
> > > individual rights are 'fellow travelers').
> > >
> > > Well other than:
> > >
> > > "Iraq has harbored terrorists for years."
> > >
> > > "Only a mental midget to try and suggest that these prisoners are
anyone
> > > but terrorists and murderers with American blood on their hands."
> > >
> > > "Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick Berg."
> > >
> > > No matter how many innocent civilians were murdered, we're better than
> > > Saddam was...
> > >
> > > What's to dispute?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "The administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be
counted
> > > on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is
> > > not the reiteration of bromides..." - George Will
> > >
> > > "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush
> > > Administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq
tomorrow,
> > > much less a month from now." - Robert Kagan

In article <1ge4wgu.k1gg6c4t1931N%[email protected]>, [email protected] (p_j) wrote:
>
>Has any Sarin been found?

Well, yes, haven't you been paying attention? That's what's being discussed
here, the Sarin-containing artillery shell that was exploded last week. A
shell that Saddam's government certified to the UN had been destroyed. A shell
that the UN arms "inspectors" couldn't find. Don't you wonder what *else* they
missed? Don't you wonder what *else* Saddam didn't declare?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > if given the chance how many americans would have cut the head
> > > > > > off osama bin ladin just like they showed on the video? quite a
> few
> > i
> > > > would
> > > > > > think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > randy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You really aren't trying to equate Nick Berg with osama bin laden,
> are
> > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > im simply saying killing is killing. whether its done with a knife
at
> > close
> > > > range or a bomb from 100 miles away. nick berg is just another
> needless
> > > > casualty of this needless war. one that will be used to justify it.
> > and
> > > > that is the real trajety of the nick berg story.
> > > >
> > > > randy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Does that mean that if osama bin laden is ever captured and killed, he
> > will be just another needless casualty of a needless war on
> > > terrorism? Again, you really didn't mean to put Nick Berg and osama
in
> > the same category, did you?
> >
> > you are the one that seems to keep putting them in the same category.
im
> > simply putting all types of murder in the same category.
> >
> > randy
>
> I really thought I was going to stay out of this thread...
>
> You have twice now made a moral equivalence between Muslim extremists
> killing Nick Berg and someone killing Osama Bin Laden. I'm suggesting
that
> you just stop now and admit you misspoke. In your words, you want to put
> them "in the same category". Well, they're not in the same category. The
> big difference is, one was innocent and the other is guilty. Personally,
> I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I'd be torn about whether to apply
it
> to OBL.

no, in my words i put all types of MURDER in the same catagory. no matter
what he has done, if a bunch of americans did to bin ladin what was done to
nick berg they should be punished. there are proper legal ways to deal with
bin ladin. two wrongs dont make a right.

its thinking that two wrongs make a right that got us into this mess in the
first place.

randy

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > so if we want to bomb france or britain or china, all we need to do is
> find
> > some al-qaida members in their country? finding them in a country =
must
> be
> > associated with the government? sorry frank. nobody's buying this.
> >
>
> We would bomb ourselves then. No, this is clearly not the case and you
have
> to try hard to paint what's going on in this light. Iraq has harbored
> terrorists for many years no matter how badly you would like to ignore it.

lets say you are right. im not conceding this point except for the purpose
of this discussion. lets say iraq has harbored terrorists. does that mean
its ok to kill some civilians over there? the ones we're trying to
'liberate'? the ones who, by definition, arent part of the terrorists or
the iraq we are trying to destroy?

>
>
> > people like frank arent going to answer the 'which is more evil'
question
> > because their 'truth' is too shameful for them to just come out and say
> it.
> > but here it is laid bare. this is what frank and the others are saying
in
> a
> > nutshell: the US is allowed to kill foreign as many foreign civilians
as
> we
> > want, in the hopes that we may get a few al-qaida because the life of a
us
> > citizen is worth that much more than other people in the world.
>
>
> I don't usually answer questions which have such an incredibly shaky
> premise. But just for you randy...
>
> I think beheading a civilian is the most evil. First of all, I am unaware
> of any beating to death instances of prisoners. I guess we will see since
> not all of the info has been made public yet. But who are these
prisoners?
> Oh, I know, they are all falsly imprisoned, right? Only a mental midget
to
> try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone but terrorists and
murderers
> with American blood on their hands.

im not sure where this is going. im not comparing what the us soldier did
to the prisoners to anything. thats another issue.

> I would suggest that dropping a bomb on
> a crowded marketplace is a terrible thing. So I suppose we did this at
some
> point to kill innocent civilians according to you?

if you're suggesting we havent 'accidentally' bombed innocent civilians in
iraq repeatedly over the last decade, this discussion is over.

>
> Randy, seriously for one second just think about this. Who is to blame
when
> civilians are hurt/maimed/killed in this case? The US who has given a
> year's worth of warnings that we will make no distinction between
terrorists
> and those who harbor them or the terrorists who hide behind civilians,
hide
> in mosques, strap bombs to kids, etc? The truth is that civilian life
means
> exactly nill to those people. Your life means even less.

man you bought the whole package didnt ya. if a terrorist was hiding behind
an american we would try and rescue them. if a terrorist is hiding behind
an iraqi citizen, one of those citizens we're 'saving' from the saddam
regime, well, sorry, thats just too bad for them isnt it. and if they get
mad and do something about it, oh now they're a terrorist too.

if we apply the same standards to the 'terrorists', they attacked an
economic target (the wtc) and a few civilians accidentally got killed.
whats the diffence? how can we take the moral high ground when we're doing
the exact same thing?

>
>
> > where might the world be today if instead of those nice sterile shots of
> the
> > missile cams shown through the 90's, we saw the ones where people were
> > running, then exploding? what if the international media showed that in
a
> > form as raw as the video of the beheading? how many americans really
have
> > the stomach for that sort of thing?
>
> I agree with you 100%. I also am of the opinion that there is no way we
> could WWII today with the media that we have. I have not come to the
> conclusion, however, that we shouldn't have been in WWII.

if you are comparing wwii to the iraqi situation in terms of 'should we be
there', i think you dont have much to work with.

but to bring it full circle, the simple truth is that in the mind of many
americans, the beheading of that one person will serve to justify the acts
of the us no matter how wrong we are. no matter how lopsided the numbers of
casualties are. in short, its just the propaganda the us needed.

randy

I have nothing against TJ; I think he's great. Your inerpretation of him
is what is wacked along with your hatred of everyone you don't agree with or
like. Blame the rich and blame the Vatican and how 'bout Col. Sanders
and K.F.C. while your at it. Sound like that Scottish dad from "So I
Married and Axe Murderer" (that Pentaverit thingme)
Smedley was hero and that's no dispute, but he was
also an isolationist and at a bad time to be one (right before WWII) and
has no bearing on current events.

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common
good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did
not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the
people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine
they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance --
and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering,
every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not
your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.
May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were
our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]

"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ge2z31.upbyy56dhaljN%[email protected]...
> Joseph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey, mp seems quite alone here. Where are the usual OT quacks
>
> Quack? You mean Thomas Jefferson and Smedley Butler. Those are the
> people and their 'ilk' whose words and principles you have the most
> hatred for.
>
> > who want to blame the EVIL RICH
>
> I prefer to blame evil actions on evildoers. You want to call it justice
> and democracy.
>
> You keep trotting out that straw man argument.
>
>
> > guys!! P_j and Big Bill, you guys gotta be out there somewhere.
>
> Sure, but so far the obviously fake video hasn't even really been
> discussed. The usual suspects, the statists like Juanita haven't made
> any arguments (and as usual, those who support the rule of law and
> individual rights are 'fellow travelers').
>
> Well other than:
>
> "Iraq has harbored terrorists for years."
>
> "Only a mental midget to try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone
> but terrorists and murderers with American blood on their hands."
>
> "Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick Berg."
>
> No matter how many innocent civilians were murdered, we're better than
> Saddam was...
>
> What's to dispute?
>
> --
>
> "The administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted
> on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is
> not the reiteration of bromides..." - George Will
>
> "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush
> Administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow,
> much less a month from now." - Robert Kagan

"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Agki Strodon" wrote in message ...
> > Yes... I'm an amateur and have been making sawdust for about three years
> now
> > and preparing for retirement after 30 years with the US gov as an
> > "Environmental Scientist."
> <snip>
> > Agkistrodon
>
> ahh! I'd been wondering why the serpentine reference. I had wondered if
> maybe a college kid troll was hinting at a poisonous mouth to be wary of,
> glad that's not the case, we're over-quota for trolls at the moment.
>
> cheers
>

I did my dissertation on _Crotalus viridis_ but someone already had that
name.

> Greg (who happens to think American snakes are kind of wussy. Our
inland
> Taipan can reputedly kill a 100 people with one bite - how's *that* for a
> big mouth!)
>
> Inland Taipan
> Taipan
> Death Adder
> Tiger Snake
> Black Snake
> Brown Snake
> Hoop snake ;-)
> Trouser Snake ;-)
>
> Then, there're the spiders...
>

Well, who knows what the rankings really are. I've seen _Bungarus_ ranked
above _Pseudonaja_ and _Oxyuranus scutellatus_ but someone seems to be
missing ranking the island endemics like _Bothrops insularis_ (which is also
quite potent).

My wife (er...ah... estranged wife because she's...well, forget that), is an
expert on the biochemistry of bungarotoxins and crotoxins. I was a
parasitologist and evolutionary biologist. Maybe I wasn't as good as
Stephen Jay Gould at the time but I'm better than him now. Nyuk, nyuk!

Agkistrodon

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > > > if given the chance how many americans would have cut the head
> > > > > off osama bin ladin just like they showed on the video? quite a
few
> i
> > > would
> > > > > think.
> > > > >
> > > > > randy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You really aren't trying to equate Nick Berg with osama bin laden,
are
> > > you?
> > >
> > > im simply saying killing is killing. whether its done with a knife at
> close
> > > range or a bomb from 100 miles away. nick berg is just another
needless
> > > casualty of this needless war. one that will be used to justify it.
> and
> > > that is the real trajety of the nick berg story.
> > >
> > > randy
> > >
> > >
> > Does that mean that if osama bin laden is ever captured and killed, he
> will be just another needless casualty of a needless war on
> > terrorism? Again, you really didn't mean to put Nick Berg and osama in
> the same category, did you?
>
> you are the one that seems to keep putting them in the same category. im
> simply putting all types of murder in the same category.
>
> randy

I really thought I was going to stay out of this thread...

You have twice now made a moral equivalence between Muslim extremists
killing Nick Berg and someone killing Osama Bin Laden. I'm suggesting that
you just stop now and admit you misspoke. In your words, you want to put
them "in the same category". Well, they're not in the same category. The
big difference is, one was innocent and the other is guilty. Personally,
I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I'd be torn about whether to apply it
to OBL.

todd

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The thing you have to understand with mp and his fellow-travellers
> is that it doesn't matter what the circumstances, it is *always* the fault
> of the US. The US attacked on 9/11? It was our fault -- we obviously did
> something to make these people hate us. A civilian who went to Iraq to
> help rebuild the country's telecommunications infrastructure was beheaded?
> Obviously it was Bush's fault. USA Today the other day tried to generate
> moral equivalence between humiliating prisoners (for which we don't
> necessarily have the full story yet) with napalming civilians, killing
> suspects, and other events that resulted in the DEATHS of people.
>
> In the paradigm with which these people view the world, the US is evil,
> any and all actions undertaken by the US are evil and the only dignified
> response to any attack (physical, political, or editorial) is to roll over
> and wet ourselves, thanking the perpetrators for reminding us how evil we
> are and have been. They conveniently ignore the (documented) unearthing
of
> 300,000 casualties of Saddam's regime and gloss over the *real* torture of
> prisoners in Saddam's prisons. They draw moral equivalence between
> *humiliating* prisoners with physically sawing off hands, drilling holes
in
> people, and literally beating people to death.
>
> Bottom line is there is no way you will ever convince mp that the US is
> anything other than an evil empire and that these radical muslim
extremists
> who behead prisoners, fly airplanes into buildings, topple buildings onto
> homosexuals, destroy historical artifacts, or make the statement that "any
> female American soldiers may be kept as slaves" are nothing more than
> misunderstood people who have become that way because of the evil
> oppression by the US.
>

Yeah I know this all too well. It does not bother me that people like mp
and his fellow anti-US crackpots exist and share their views. What bothers
me is I can't see any difference between what these people claim and what I
hear from the leadership of the Democratic party. I mean Ted Kennedy and
Carl Levin may very well be xronger and mp for all I can tell. It is truly
a joke. I think the Democrat party is heading for a rude awakening in
November and I am not sure that I want either party to have total control of
our government. I wish there was a viable third party to take the place of
the Democrats as they continue to hemmorage power.

Frank

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> well this is why america is a republic and not a true democracy.. we
elect
> leaders to make our decisions for us. if the system worked this would be
> completely fair and understandable.

yes randy, you hit the nail on the head here. well done.

>unfortunately our pool of people to
> select from is severely limited by our two party system mentality,
> propigated by the media.

sigh, you missed the nail and smashed your thumb! the reason the pool of
people is severely limited is because of the voting public. it's voters who
give these clowns power. people get fired up and vote for who makes the
best promises and who kisses the most babies. they don't pay attention
beyond that. if the voting public actually paid attention to what goes on
in dc and held politicians accountable for their actions, we would be much
better off.

frank

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> if we apply the same standards to the 'terrorists', they attacked an
> economic target (the wtc) and a few civilians accidentally got killed.
> whats the diffence? how can we take the moral high ground when we're
doing
> the exact same thing?

> randy

Well, Randy, in this world, we give weight to intent. When someone dies
because of someone else, it isn't always murder. There are a range of
charges from criminally negligent homicide to involuntary manslaughter to
premeditated murder. If you're driving your car home tonight and hit a
patch of ice (let's imagine you live in Barrow, Alaska) and you hit someone
else's car and kill them, do we just send you to the gas chamber? No, we
don't because that wasn't your intent. If you want to argue that the
military is deliberately dropping bombs on civilians, I'll have to wait for
you to post the evidence for that. I believe that the military has gone to
great pains to avoid civilian deaths at the cost of greater risk to military
lives.

So, to answer your question, the difference is intent. If you want to tell
me that the people are just as dead, so it's the "exact same thing", then I
guess it's off to the gas chamber for you if you're in an accident that
results in someone else's death.

todd

"Anonymoose" <Ihatespam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >> > Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's
> >> > regime?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and
> >> only a year after everyone else.
> >>
> >> So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw
> >> al-Qaida into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So,
> >> the logical
> > thing
> >> for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting?
> >> If
> > we
> >> were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would
> >> they go there? Come on, give us a break.
> >
> >
> > Neither you nor anyone else can prove that Saddam had links to Bin
> > Laden or his organization, though many have tried.
>
> The link is Al-Zawaheri - he was in Iraq receiving aid, support, and
> medical treatment prior to 9/11.

osama himself was in the us receiving dialysis treatments a couple months
prior to 9/11. where does that put the us?

randy

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Agkistrodon wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
> >>as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
> >>standard to meet when dealing with such people.
> >>
> >>2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
> >>presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
> >>instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
> >>Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
> >>assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
> >>allies) harm.
> >
> >
> > This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
> had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
> of war).
> --


We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it on
them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we would
have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another year.

Agkistrodon

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
> dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

Hey mp, good to hear from you. I'm surprised any of you left tilters
(tablesaw refrence) would pipe in on this subject. Would you care to now
back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with al-Qaida and the war on terror? Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military to
find. What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was unjustified
because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

It is so gratifying to be right. You should try it sometime, mp.

Frank