OT but very important to us all

In article <[email protected]>, Rob Mitchell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I think we should stop using the word terrorist because it conotes good
> vs. bad.

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is
worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during
the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Might be right. I am basing my opinion mostly on BBC World News. I've
> also seen some very good BBC segments done on the PBS show "Frontline."
> Perhaps I just think the British news is better because I'm seeing an
> above-average portion of it.
>

It's probably also because they sound so much more intelligent with those
British accents. :)

dwhite

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
>> sane and democratic country in that part of the world.
>
>Ah, yes. A true racist state. Brutally oppressive too. Just ask any
>Palestinian.

Yes, I'm sure *that* would be an unbiased opinion. Just like yours.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
>>notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
>>thousand years ago.
>>
>
> Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
> of the world 10,000 years ago.
>
> When are you moving out?
>

When said Amer-Indians move out to make room for their (likey) Asiatic
Asiatic predecessors.

Just how far back in the mists of time do we need to go to satisfy
everyone? European treatment of Amer-Indians and Africans was a horrid
moral abyss ... for which we *all* still pay the price. But Amer-Indian
treatment of each other was no picnic either. The point is that we can
only act morally in our *own* behavior. We cannot forever remediate the
actions of people we do not know upon people we have never met. Your
tone suggests a kind of secular version of Original Sin being imputed
upon the descendants of Bad Actors - I reject this out of hand. I am
accountable for *my* actions, not ever prededing generation's...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

> Serious reading, folks!

And you're one serious racist.

> This is while they pine away for the innocents and justification that the
> Jews
> and Christians already have... the terrorist muslims are totaly full of it
> for what
> they do, and possibly why they do it based upon how they interpret their
> book.

Have you ever entertained the possibility that Western foreign policy
towards the middle east might have more to do with the root causes of
terrorism than an interpretation of a religious text? Or have you fallen for
the "they hate our freedoms" Bushspeak?

> I thought "Muslim" referred to a religion, not a race. The largest
> population of Muslims is in Asia, not the Middle East, so who is the OP
> being racist against? You could stretch the definition of "racist" to
> religion, I know, but it is a real stretch in this case, IMO.

Even though the OP used the word Muslim, I read his message as referring to
middle eastern Arabs, not Muslim men in general.

> With what these Musslims do to innocent people as "actual" compared to
> what
> the Nazis merely "thought" (and still think) of the Jews, if this so
> entirely for
> real and as dangerous as death to innocents, then I don't see why not.
> This is
> an emergency!!!

Then dial 911.

> I don't think we should ask why they are what they are or why they do
> what they do, I think that rather than calling them "terrorists", we
> should call them "Murderous assholes" and we should strive with all haste
> to eradicate them, where ever they can be found. They are a cancer on the
> human condition. Sorry if this isn't "PC" enough.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

You simply cannot eradicate terrorism without first eliminating the root
causes.

> I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
> sane and democratic country in that part of the world.

Ah, yes. A true racist state. Brutally oppressive too. Just ask any
Palestinian.

> Have you actually watched TSA at an airport? As one of the
> "statistically insignificant" 40-something, balding, middle-aged white
> guys, my statistical insignificance has achieved an 80% secondary
> screening
> rate when I fly. No, my ticket buying pattern is not unusual, there is
> nothing in my profile that should trigger such a high amount of screening
> for a truly "random" process.

Maybe they've been reading your posts on this newsgroup (he says, running
and ducking for cover).

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

I disagree about OP being racist. Instead, he's a religious bigot.

Abe wrote:
>
>
> I don't think so the OP's statements are racist at all. I'm a died in
> the wool liberal, and the last to condemn a group based on the
actions
> of a moderately few extremists. What the OP says is historically
true.
> To take it back even further, the Muslim extremist Jihad against
> America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
> ally. I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
> sane and democratic country in that part of the world.
>
> Political correctness has, and is, being taken too far in the airport
> screening process. That's my opinion as well.

What you are missing is the concept of the ability of a test to
discriminate in the objective, rather than the political sense.

How many Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 fly on airliners
each year? Twenty, Thirty, Fourty million perhaps? If you use
'Muslim man between the age of 17 and 40' as a screening criterion
you're literally playing a million to one shot. Besides, I
don't think anyone's passport, visa or driver's license is
going to say 'Muslim' on it.

Aside from that, if it is known that security is concentrating
on a particular 'type' then any potential perpetrator will simply
avoid appearing like that type and so will then have a smaller
chance of being caught. Most 'Muslim men between 17 and 40'
could easily pass for Italians, Greeks, Spainards, Armenians,
Cypriots, etc, or some other religious persuation.

In some respects, this is like pre-employment drug screening.
If the testing really has a deterrant effect, then the only
positive tests will be false positives because no drug addicts
will take the test.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> Serious reading, folks!
> >
> >And you're one serious racist.
>
> What, exactly, is racist in stating the _plain_fact_ that all of the
acts of
> terrorism cited were indeed committed by Muslim male extremists
mostly between
> the ages of 17 and 40?
>

The restriction of examples to only acts comited by 'Muslim men
between the ages of 17 and 40'.

One could compile a similar list of Israeli, Sub-Saharran African,
Serbian, Indonesian, or American criminal acts, with but a little
research.

Think about how long the KKK operated its guerilla war here in
the US. Would profiling white Protestant males between the
ages of 17 and 40 have helped?

--

FF

Rob Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> I think we should stop using the word terrorist because it conotes
good
> vs. bad. Try the word enemy. We have enemies.


I never accepted the term because they want others to be terrified.
I call them paramilitary organizations and argue that they should be
held to the same standards as regular military--especially the doctrine
of command respnsibility.

...
>
> BTW, the 'stop lists' contain more than just Muslims, as I found out.

Senator Ted Kennedy has been detained at airports several times
evidently becuase T. Kennedy is one of hte names on the stop list.
--

FF

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:00 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, take out
'takeout' to reply wrote:
> >
> >>But on the original question: What do you think the impact would be
if
> >>every Arab or Muslim were pulled out of line at the airport and
given
> >>a special search?
> >
> >One obvious result is that we'd catch more terrorists....
>
> Considering that the terrorists are somewhat smarter than
cherrystone
> clams, I doubt it.
>
> Among other things, how do you tell the difference between Yussif al
> Ibrahim and Jose Gonzales just by looking at them?
>

Precisely. If all Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 are
searched befor bording airplanes then any Muslim men between the
ages of 17 and 40 who plan to hijack the plane will simply grow
a beard, wear a turban, and claim to be a Sihk, or some such
other ethnic person not subject to mandatory searching.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 2 Feb 2005 12:35:52 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>Note crossposting and follow-ups.
> >
> > and fixed again, since it is the rec.ww folks who've been doing
this
> >discussion.
> >>

WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you accusing people who frequent
rec.woodworking of being too stupid to be able to follow a discusion
to a newsgroup where it belongs?

--

FF

As I waded through this thread, 114 post ago, all I can say is gee,
where's the love???....what ever happened to peace, love and
understanding......

Everybody hates somebody, or so it seems. National, ethnic or tribal
socioeconomic/ethnic/religiosity (whatever) history seems to consume
some people, and blind them, to the fact that we're all just folks and
only here for a little while, and nobody gets off this Planet alive, so
lets try and get along without killing each other. Then one side says
the hell with it and starts the cycle of killing, forcing the other to
say "we can't put up with this" and provoking the reaction, and its
always the noncombatants that do all the suffering. Why do Serbs hate
Bosnians, or Irish Protestants hate Irish Catholics, or Jews hate Arabs
and vice versa.....and the list could go on and on...people fighting
and hating about what happend 10, 20 or 200 years ago.

All I know is that I don't have any answers to any of this, except to
apply to the noncombatants my own ability to try and understand
everyone's point of view, and to be tolerant of everyone's differences.
After all, we all squat to sh*t, don't we?

Mutt

Let's call it quits, Nate. I can see from your party affiliation that
you can't/won't be convinced of anything because you can't get past the
"hate Bush" thing (and don't tell me you liked Bush before the war, I
know you didn't vote for him). As far as googling you, why on Earth
would I bother? I don't want to know your life history, we are just
having a discussion. Online, anybody who says things like "funny,
that" has a good chance of being a Brit. The idea that Bush was
justifying the war based on Saddam taking part in 9/11 is simply
foolish and I put 2 and 2 together and figured you must be getting
filtered news in Britan.

I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. I have to figure
someday in the far, far future a light bulb will go on somewhere in CO.

Oh, last thing. I have no relatives in the military so I guess I'm
incapable of having a reasoned position. You are starting to look like
a Micheal Moore type. 1400 dead? Even 1 is a sad day for that's
person's family, but 1400 is less than half of the number who died on
9/11. I'd also like to know the normal casualty rate over a two year
period for military personnel. They do die even in peacetime. Odd,
that.

dwhite

Nate Perkins wrote:
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in
>
> > As far as googling you, why on Earth
> > would I bother?
>
> So you don't embarrass yourself by first assuming I'm British and
then
> having to ask?

Embarrass?

>
> > I don't want to know your life history, we are just
> > having a discussion. Online, anybody who says things like "funny,
> > that" has a good chance of being a Brit. The idea that Bush was
> > justifying the war based on Saddam taking part in 9/11 is simply
> > foolish and I put 2 and 2 together and figured you must be getting
> > filtered news in Britan.
>
> I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that
they
> get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?


> Light bulbs are going off all the time in CO. But it's not likely
that
> I will have an epiphany that will cause me to convert to the neo-con
> cause anytime soon, though.

Neo-con? You've got your talking points down pat! :)

>
> > Oh, last thing. I have no relatives in the military so I guess I'm
> > incapable of having a reasoned position. You are starting to look
> > like a Micheal Moore type. 1400 dead? Even 1 is a sad day for
that's
> > person's family, but 1400 is less than half of the number who died
on
> > 9/11. I'd also like to know the normal casualty rate over a two
year
> > period for military personnel. They do die even in peacetime.
Odd,
> > that.
>
> No, I don't claim that you are *incapable* of having a reasoned
> position, just that in this case the black and white statements
refute
> your claim.
>
>
> And having a relative in the military does not give you a more
reasoned
> position, but it certainly puts a personal stake on it. You see, if
my
> brother in law is number 1401, then it's a big deal to my family. To
> you, it will just be 1400+1 -- no skin off your apple.

But as you say this fact does not mean your position is more reasoned
than mine and therefore is irrelevant.

dwhite

> Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
> news event that we get, and vice versa?

I don't know about vice versa, but from what I saw the BBC's reporting of
the Iraq invasion was more factual and less biased than Fox news.

>> I don't know about vice versa, but from what I saw the BBC's reporting of
>> the Iraq invasion was more factual and less biased than Fox news.
>>
> Only if you were biased against the war.

Not at all. The BBC (and a couple of other networks) showed both sides of
the conflict in a more or less factual manner, whereas Fox and most other US
media outlets were cheerleading the war and presented a very biased and
sanitized pro American stance. Being an American station, Fox News' slant on
the war is understandable and great for ratings, but it's a far cry from
being "Fair and Balanced".

> Can you tell me if Al Jazeera, and other M.E. stations are available in
> the US?

I don't think on cable, though perhaps on some satellite channels.

> Iraq is no longer a terrorist base or sanctuary, which is was under Saddam
> (for others if not for Al Queda).

Any proof of this?

>>>Iraq is no longer a terrorist base or sanctuary, which is was under
>>>Saddam (for others if not for Al Queda).
>>
>>
>> Any proof of this?
> How many terrorists have sought sanctuary in Iraq recently? (As distinct
> from going there to fight.)

How many sought sanctuary under Saddam?

>> How many sought sanctuary under Saddam?
> DAGS.

Nice cop out. I know you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Too bad you
have nothing to back up your false allegations.

> So okay, let's see some proof from you for a change.
>
> I repeat: DAGS. You do know how, don't you?

The thing is, when you're trying to prove what is an outright lie, Googling
isn't going to help. The only people still suggesting Saddam/Al Quaida links
are you and Dick Cheney. The rest of the world knows it's bullshit. Get with
it.

> Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
> existed?

No, the Zionists preceded them.

>> It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
>> justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.

> There's your problem in a nutshell. You are accusing the admin of some
> secret motivation in Iraq that you can't really explain without sounding
> like a Michael Moore kook. So what was the real story, Nate? Can you
> answer without using the terms "Bush's father," or the "Saudi connection,"
> or "Halliburton"?


Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the world
economy.

>> Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
>> the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the
> world
>> economy.
>>
>
> So then it logically follows that since Bush was planning on invading
> Afghanistan and Iraq, all he needed was an excuse. Therefore Bush was
> behind 9/11, right?

I'll leave the 9/11 conspiracy theories to someone else. We do know,
however, that the tragedy of 9/11 was a gift to the Bush cabal.


From the Neocon bible:

Rebuilding America's Defenses,
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

page 63
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

9/11 is just what they needed to fast-track their agenda. And as long as
they're in charge I doubt it'll stop with Iraq.

> I know, I said the same thing myself a week ago. Your post on terrorist
> activity in Iraq was good, and provided everything a reasonable observer
> would want to see. Couple this with the 12 year cease fire, violation of
> every resolution, and it is plain we had to act.

Enforcement of UN resolutions is up to the Security Council, not the US. If
you want to play UN cop, then there are other countries in the neighbourhood
that are in violation of many more UN resolutions, like Israel and Turkey. I
don't see them on the attack list.

> People also forget that it
> also became necessary to force the UN's hand. Bush was right when he said
> that the UN will become irrelevant if it cannot enforce its own
> resolutions.

How hypocritical can you be? Israel is the worst violator of UN resolutions
in the world.

> Funny as it sounds, Bush probably helped save the UN by following through
> on
> its "threats."

The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost finished. There
was no need to rush in. What Bush did is create a record level of
anti-American sentiment not just in the middle east but throughout the
world. There will be blowback for years to come.

>>>Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
>>>existed?
>>
>>
>> No, the Zionists preceded them.
> Translation: I never thought about the question, I don't know anything
> about the question, so I'll just respond with a smart-a** drive by so it
> doesn't look like I've been one-upped.

It was a fair answer to a rather silly question.

> If some form of democracy and real peace comes out of Iraq the
> skeptics will have nothing left to complain about. I'd say that so far
> Iraq
> is on track.

Iraq is on track all right, to becoming a theocracy. With a 60% Shiite
majority it's a very real and very likely possibility. Probably not at all
what GW and his warlords had in mind. Can you say blowback?

> Don't the Iraqi people have the right to choose the form of government
> that they want?

You bet!

> Separation of religion and state is a western ideal, but is not Islamic.
> Islam is a way of life, and governs all aspects of life, both religious
> and civil. I don't think we should even try to force our form of
> government on them, let alone insist on a government friendly to the USA.

Agreed. Democracy or Theocracy, it's their choice. However, a Theocracy (and
a closer association with Iran) would not serve the interests of the current
US administration.

"Nate Perkins"


> Instead of flexing our military muscle in the Middle East, we would be
> better off to exercise some of the other tools in our toolbox. Economic
> incentives, for one. Cultivate economic development and mutual trade
> with the moderate countries in the Middle East. Prosperity and economic
> development are bigger promoters of democracy than military might is.


How much oil do we need to buy before you consider it cultivating
economic development? And wasn't Iraq sanctioned by the UN for
10 years or more? That seems like a big incentive to me.



> Close our bases in Saudi Arabia. Those just give the Al Qaeda types
> fuel for their fire, and it does little for us in a practical military
> sense. Move them all to Qatar or elsewhere.


Is that what the Saudis want? Aren't we protecting them from
a hostile take over?


> Stop our one-sided support for the Israelis. Use the threat of
> withdrawing our foreign aid from Israel to force them into ceasing
> settlement expansion. Promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on
> mutual recognition and the 1967 boundaries. The Arab-Israeli conflict
> has been the centerpoint of terrorism in the Middle East for decades,
> and our recent work to promote Mideast peace has been window-dressing at
> best.


Nonsense. Arafat had 95 percent of what he asked for. He wanted
the elimination of Israel, not co-operation. Even with Israel gone we
would still have terrorists because the extremists hate western culture,
what our freedoms have introduced into the world.



> And of course we should try to make sure another attack doesn't happen
> in America again. Fundamental to that is to look critically at why the
> first attack was allowed to happen. Frankly a lot of the administration
> and a lot of the government agencies were all asleep at the wheel.
> Frankly a lot of them are still miscommunicating and acting
> inefficiently in this regard.


Hindsight is 20/20 but I think they got the hint.



> I think your implication is that by fighting them over there, we can
> avoid fighting them over here. I think this is a bad assumption.
> Really, it only took 19 of them to do the 9/11 attacks.


Not true. They had quite a bit of training and support from entities
that are out of business or on the run.


>Don't you
> suppose that they can fight us with a few tens of thousands over there
> and still find a way to send another 19 here?


I didn't see any solutions from you except spend money in the mideast and
turn support away from Israel. I don't think you understand what they want.
The extremist don't want to live peacefully with the west and they'll keep
the moderates from it if they can.

> That's because Bush doesn't see everything in black and white as you are
> doing here. He is working diplomatically as much as possible.

You have a short memory. As you don't seem to recall, Bush was hell bent on
charging into Iraq, while the rest of the world was saying let's give
diplomacy a chance.

> Let's not turn this into Israel bashing. They have enough problems.

Merely stating the facts isn't Israel bashing.

> What world to you live in, honestly??? People with your position are the
> same ones who usually ask why we didn't/don't go into N. Korea or Iran
> since
> we went into Iraq. The answer is that there is a need for extensive
> diplomacy until that step is taken. Iraq's number was up, diplomancy had
> been exhausted, and the UN was becoming more and more corrupt to the point
> of complete uselessness.

I think you're thoroughly confused, or doing your best to confuse the issue.
You're making an assumption about my thoughts on North Korea or Iran which
is really irrelevant to this discussion. What I wrote in the previous
message is still true. Most of the world was trying to tell Bush to slow
down and give diplomacy a chance but Bush was hell bent for war and would
have none of it. You're trying to suggest there's a need for extensive
diplomacy, while at the same time trying to suggest that diplomacy has been
exhausted.

What criteria do you use to determine Iraq's number is up. Tarot cards? Roll
of the dice? Given that the weapons inspectors were almost finished and only
needed another six to eight weeks to complete their work don't you think it
would have been prudent to let them finish their job? Since no one had yet
to find any evidence of WMD's, which meant no threat, why the mad rush?

> Forget it. 12 years of diplomacy. 17 UN resolutions, ALL ignored.

Not true. Iraq did cooperate to a fair degree. There were some
disagreements, such as Saddam objecting to CIA spies as part of the US
portion of the inspection teams.

> Missiles fired at our patrol aircraft, there to enforce a cease fire.
> Iraqi
> nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their
> homes.

The "no fly zone" was imposed by the US and Britain, and not sanctioned by
the UN. The Iraqi's had every right to defend their sovereignty and fire at
the aircraft.

> Iraqi nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their
> homes.

The plans were for centrifuges, not nuclear weapons.

> "Most of the world" isn't correct. There were dozens of countries with
> us.
> The only major ones against us are being proven now to be corrupt.

Bull. Most of the countries were smaller nations who depended heavily on US
aid. Some countries, like Eritrea, didn't even know they were part of the
"coaltion" until they were contacted by the media.

> Look, just characterize things however you want. Frankly my guess, and it
> is only that based on experience, is that we wouldn't be having this
> discussion if Al Gore had won and taken the exact same measures Bush did.
> Intellectual honesty is a rare thing in an emotion based political
> philosophy.

This discussion has nothing to do with party lines but is all about US
foreign policy.

> Fair degree is good enough for you? It has been said that is it obvious
> when a country wants to cooperate with inspections. Well, obvious to
> people
> who want to see the truth.

No one said the Iraqis were willing participants. But when push came to
shove, they complied. There was no need to go in and blow up the country.

>> The "no fly zone" was imposed by the US and Britain, and not sanctioned
>> by
>> the UN. The Iraqi's had every right to defend their sovereignty and fire
> at
>> the aircraft.
>
> Do the Iraqi's have every right to murder their own population?

Red herring.

> Do you know
> why the no fly zone was there?

Yes.

> I'm astounded that you actually think Iraq
> was doing the right things and bad ole USA messes everything up. Forgive
> me, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling now.

In this case, the no fly zone, as I said, was imposed on Iraq by the US and
Britain. It was not legally sanctioned by the UN. Neither was the invasion.
Both were in violation of international law.

> So if France, Germany and Russia were with us would that have been
> sufficient for you? Why weren't they with us I wonder? (Hint: follow the
> money).

Most of the world was against the invasion because they thought the case
against Iraq's supposed WMD's was bullshit. It turns out they were right.

If there was compelling evidence that Saddam was in possession of WMD's and
was planning to use them against the US, there would have been widespread
support for the for invasion, both internationally as well as in the UN
Security Council.

"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 1. In 1859, more than 4 million human beings were held in legal bondage
> by:
> a. Muslim extremists
> b. David Bremer
> c. Mohammed Ali
> d. White guys
>

Yes, an atrocity which was corrected because it was morally wrong. I see no
evidence of Muslim extremists attempting to self correct their behavior. I
see no evidence of dictators and Muslim extremists freeing the millions of
people today who live under their oppression.

> 2. Before1920, women were not allowed to vote in a national election in
> the United States under the rule of:
> 1. Muslim extremists
> 2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
> 3. Countee Cullen
> 4. White guys
>

Intersting example considering Muslim extremists do not allow women voting
rights or basically any rights beyond what cattle have in the year 2005.

> 3. Abraham Lincoln was shot by:
> 1. Muslim extremists
> 2. Jefferson Davis
> 3. Booth Tarkington
> 4. One member of a conspiracy of white guys.
>
> 4. Ronald Reagan was shot by:
> 1. Muslim extremists
> 2. David Bremer
> 3. Anonymous
> 4. A white guy.
>
> Get the point?

Yes I do. There are two points.

1) By the very examples cited in both posts, the modern problems are the
Muslim extremists. These examples are civil war era, WWI era and Reagan who
didn't even die from the experience.

2) There is an equivalance drawn in some people's world between what the
civilized world does and what Muslim extremists do. It is disgusting.

Frank

In article <[email protected]>, Rob Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Intersting example considering Muslim extremists do not allow women voting
>> rights or basically any rights beyond what cattle have in the year 2005.
>>
>Women vote in Iran don't they? They go to school and become Doctors
>don't they? Check your facts. I'm not claiming that the Islamic world
>is perfect, but please try to be accurate.

They certainly *used* to, under the Shah. I don't think they do any more....

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:08:47 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote:
>

I knew you were going to say that.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:20:25 -0800, AAvK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> An empty space? separating you from that which is "other" in a specific belief?

It's his standard response to what he sees as excessively off-topic posts.

> I like you A100, you offer a good brotherhood in helping other people in this
> group that need it, with whatever knowledge you have, in a down to Earth and
> positive way.

And he gave me free wood (which is half used up, by the way, thanks).

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Serious reading, folks!
>
> And you're one serious racist.

Trolling again?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
> notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
> thousand years ago.
>
Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> But the Bush administration never justified the war in Iraq by claiming a
> connection with al Qaida. That connection is _entirely_ a fiction of the news
> media.
>
Yeah, right.

Technically you're right Doug, he never claimed it that I can recall.
What he did was make sure that in every speech he gave the words "9/11"
and "Iraq" occurred in close proximity. IOW, he implied it every time
he could.

The news media I watched reported what he said, but occaionally pointed
out that there was no connection. As did our local newspaper.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Don't the Iraqi people have the right to choose the form of government
> that they want? Separation of religion and state is a western ideal,
> but is not Islamic. Islam is a way of life, and governs all aspects of
> life, both religious and civil.
>
Right! A way of life in which blasphemy is a capital crime, as is
converting a Muslim to any other religion.

And once the clerics take over, don't expect any more elections - other
than the kind Saddam had.

So we're spending billions to convert a secular dictatorship into a
religious dictatorship. Yep, just what the hawks had planned.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think the OP is frustrated with political correctness, but I have a
>suspicion that the people in the field doing the work are profiling anyway,
>and at least paying lip service to the profiling for political reasons.

I certainly hope so.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Abe wrote:

> ...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
> America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
> ally.

And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".

I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
> sane and democratic country in that part of the world.

And by "...sane and democratic..." you mean a country which believes
it's existence is God's will, their God of course, and unless you
believe in their God you don't get to vote or enjoy full citizenship.

Guess you liked the Taliban too.

The only reason we NEED Israel as an ally is BECAUSE we have Israel as
an ally.

Why is the entire Arab world pissed of at us? Ask yourself when was the
last time we bombed Tel Aviv for ignoring/violating a U.N. resolution.

"AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OnOLd.1671$Tt.1507@fed1read05...
>
> That is an excellent thinking you have on breaking up the poison of
"stereotype"!
> I wholly (did I spell that right?) agree.
>
> --
> Alex
> cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
> http://www.e-sword.net/
>
>
Unfortunately, we learn by analogy, and another way of defining that is to
say stereotype.

Are you saying if it looks, walks, quacks, we shouldn't stereotype it as a
duck? Sure would make all experience brand new.

"Rob Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think we should stop using the word terrorist because it conotes good
> vs. bad. Try the word enemy. We have enemies. In any war the two
> sides are enemies. To the British, the IRA are terrorists who kill
> innocent people. To some Irish people, they are just fighting to get
> rid of the oppressors and are justified. Take your pick. Same with
> Tamils, or Isrealis, same in the Sudan or Nigeria or...
>
> Ask yourself why the enemy is attacking you and ask if we have harmed
> them in any way, and we might be able to figure out how to stop the
> conflict, or we might decide we need to fight harder.
>
> BTW, the 'stop lists' contain more than just Muslims, as I found out.
>

No, call the terrorist a terrorist. If s/he were a member of an organized
open conflict, different matter. What instills terror is the victims cannot
anticipate the action. The terrorist strives to remain anonymous, otherwise
there is no terror.

Though it's obvious you are an apologist for terror(ists)ism, there is no
justification for it, save in the belief of the terrorist.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No, but I certainly don't think that they are 90 year old grandmothers
in
> wheelchairs; or for that matter, 70 or 80 year old able-bodied gray-haired
> women, or even 40 something, middle-aged, balding white guys. TSA stops
> and frisks more of them than 18 to 40 year-old middle-eastern appearing
> men. That make sense to you? Does that seem like a good use of
resources?
> You think that after checking off 100 caucasians, getting to frisk one
> middle-eastern person helps prevent the potential of another terrorist
> hijacking?
>

Red-headed, properly identified active-duty US Army male, accompanying
female with military dependent ID, and twin boys 5 months old. Full
searches at DTW and ORD.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
snip
> Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Which is oddly apt given that nobody is likely to change anybody
else's view. I got this in the mail today and it does show a
change in viewpoint. Sorry abot the length, but I thought it was
necessary to post it in its entirety.

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher
Axel
Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT,
Germany's
largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in
the
face of the Islamic threat.


EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -
your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out
of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as
England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated
too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not
bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet
Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe
where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments
were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all
other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo,
and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we
Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating
when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the
world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European
appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now
countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist
Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore
nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery
and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement,
has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is
uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq
made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N.
Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of
appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence
by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting
that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the
German people, actually believe that creating an Official State
"Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the
fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving
the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring
European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its
political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway,
an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks
by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our
free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western
Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the
great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict
conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and
"accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which
have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for
signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for
anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we
Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan
ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly
50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only
by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction,
recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His
place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years
have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence
in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal
society's values and being an attractive center of power on the
same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to
those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance",
which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably
criticizes.
Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts
of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden
on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe,
Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America
because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend
our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get
expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or
our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen
to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists.
To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking
hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she
notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
--
Dave Leader
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/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >
> Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
> of the world 10,000 years ago.
>
> When are you moving out?
>
> --

Who were themselves alternately squatters and invaders. Not even pertinent
to talk about who was where when. What counts is who now figuring out how
to leave each other alone or get together.

On 4 Feb 2005 09:24:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

Why can't we all be neighborly, live and lets live rather than
imposing our ways and ideas on others? Your god my god does it matters
whose gods? Am I a liberal?

>As I waded through this thread, 114 post ago, all I can say is gee,
>where's the love???....what ever happened to peace, love and
>understanding......
>
>Everybody hates somebody, or so it seems. National, ethnic or tribal
>socioeconomic/ethnic/religiosity (whatever) history seems to consume
>some people, and blind them, to the fact that we're all just folks and
>only here for a little while, and nobody gets off this Planet alive, so
>lets try and get along without killing each other. Then one side says
>the hell with it and starts the cycle of killing, forcing the other to
>say "we can't put up with this" and provoking the reaction, and its
>always the noncombatants that do all the suffering. Why do Serbs hate
>Bosnians, or Irish Protestants hate Irish Catholics, or Jews hate Arabs
>and vice versa.....and the list could go on and on...people fighting
>and hating about what happend 10, 20 or 200 years ago.
>
>All I know is that I don't have any answers to any of this, except to
>apply to the noncombatants my own ability to try and understand
>everyone's point of view, and to be tolerant of everyone's differences.
> After all, we all squat to sh*t, don't we?
>
>Mutt
>

"Timmy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4 Feb 2005 09:24:54 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Why can't we all be neighborly, live and lets live rather than
> imposing our ways and ideas on others? Your god my god does it matters
> whose gods? Am I a liberal?

Works great until your ox is gored.

Love the RK paraphrase.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
> > news event that we get, and vice versa?
>
> I don't know about vice versa, but from what I saw the BBC's reporting of
> the Iraq invasion was more factual and less biased than Fox news.
>
>
Only if you were biased against the war.

"Rob Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My worry is that Iraq today is easier for extremists to operate in than
> it was under Hussain. Afganistan is the middle of nowhere compared to
> Iraq, smack dab in the middle of the world's oil supply and much closer
> to their stated goal, which is to evict Americans from the Holy Lands
> and undermine the current Saudi regime. (see
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml/
> or google 'bin laden demands')
>
> Doug, do you think that Iraq is more or less of a terrorist haven now
> that Sadam Hussain is gone?
>

Did you think before you wrote that, or read before you hit send? You seem
to admire Saddam because he "made the trains run on-time?"

Wonder how well organized things would be with Bin Laden in charge.
Wouldn't have to worry a bit about those handless thieves or dead
adulterers, that's for sure....

"Rob Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
> >>
> >>Doug, do you think that Iraq is more or less of a terrorist haven now
> >>that Sadam Hussain is gone?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Did you think before you wrote that, or read before you hit send? You
seem
> > to admire Saddam because he "made the trains run on-time?"
> >
> > Wonder how well organized things would be with Bin Laden in charge.
> > Wouldn't have to worry a bit about those handless thieves or dead
> > adulterers, that's for sure....
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I did read my post before sending it.
>
> Of course I don't admire him. He is alleged to be a brutal murderer.
> Just like many other dictators in the world.
>
> I don't want Iraq to become a haven for those that would further
> destabilize the region.
>
> I am still interested in your answer my question.
>

Participatory governments are the least stable, least efficient, but least
intrusive kind of government. So what's your point?

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
> > slur. I did not mean for it to be.
> >
> > If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
> > challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically correct.
> >
>
> I think the first thing that comes to mind for some people, at least
> subliminally, is neo-nazi. That neo term just isn't used much.
>
>
>

It's a neologism....

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And a clarification: Being a base for terrorism involves considerably
> more than just sponsoring terrorists. Among other things it includes
> harboring terrorists, allowing them to move about and operate freely,
> receive medical care, etc.


That pretty much describes the US.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just how far back in the mists of time do we need to go to satisfy
> everyone? European treatment of Amer-Indians and Africans was a horrid
> moral abyss ... for which we *all* still pay the price. But Amer-Indian
> treatment of each other was no picnic either. The point is that we can
> only act morally in our *own* behavior.

Horrid it may have been, but it was not in any way unusual, save that they
were not always systematically exterminated or enslaved/absorbed, as was the
normal case. In that normal, we may include the Amerinds themselves, as
noted. Where are the Anasazi, the Mississippians or the Pueblo builders?

Nate Perkins wrote:
...
> As for Saddam's hypothesized intent, nobody can say for sure. Certainly
> he was a bad apple. Equally certainly, he destroyed and dismantled his
> WMD efforts after the first Gulf War and did not restart them. (Duelfer
> report). He was economically and militarily contained by most any
> measure.
...

I've resisted getting into this but... :)

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually known
that he <didn't> have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.

That he had previously had and used them extensively is
indisputable--that he was still harboring them and plans and making
blustering noises was certainly also true. Whether he could do anything
w/ them to us on a mass scale was debatable although a few Sarin
capsules slipped to a group of 19 in the NYC subways could be a
considerable upset in ones' day if one happened to be one of those
there...

Blix certainly wasn't satisfied w/ cooperation as I read his last report
to the UN although he would have preferred stringing it out (perhaps
indefinitely, perhaps not). Whether at any point the other Big Three
would have acquiesced in actual action is difficult to assume unless the
oil money kickbacks were to have been uncovered publicly to embarrass
them--whether that would have become evident w/ Hussein still in power
is also imponderable.

So, all in all, it seemed to me based on everything that was available
at the time there was a reasonable likelihood he did have the capability
(or at least thought he did). In the end I suspect his own belief that
there was no way the US would actually take preemptive action did him
in--he bluffed on hand too long and lost.

Personally, while I would have preferred to have avoided the precipitate
action, in the long run it well may end up being <a good thing>(TM).
Being fairly pragmatic in that all the "Monday morning quarterbacking"
can't change the outcome of the game, I think we simply have to do what
we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we are.

Nate Perkins wrote:
...
> As for Saddam's hypothesized intent, nobody can say for sure. Certainly
> he was a bad apple. Equally certainly, he destroyed and dismantled his
> WMD efforts after the first Gulf War and did not restart them. (Duelfer
> report). He was economically and militarily contained by most any
> measure.
...

I've resisted getting into this but... :)

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually known
that he <didn't> have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.

That he had previously had and used them extensively is
indisputable--that he was still harboring them and plans and making
blustering noises was certainly also true. Whether he could do anything
w/ them to us on a mass scale was debatable although a few Sarin
capsules slipped to a group of 19 in the NYC subways could be a
considerable upset in ones' day if one happened to be one of those
there...

Blix certainly wasn't completely satisfied w/ cooperation as I read his
last report to the UN although he would have preferred stringing it out
(perhaps indefinitely, perhaps not). Whether at any point the other Big
Three would have acquiesced in actual action is difficult to assume
unless the oil money kickbacks were to have been uncovered publicly to
embarrass them--whether that would have become evident w/ Hussein still
in power is also imponderable.

So, all in all, it seemed to me based on everything that was available
at the time there was a reasonable likelihood he did have the capability
(or at least thought he did). In the end I suspect his own belief that
there was no way the US would actually take preemptive action did him
in--he bluffed one hand too long and lost.

Personally, while I would have preferred to have avoided the precipitate
action, in the long run it well may end up being <a good thing>(TM).
Being fairly pragmatic in that all the "Monday morning quarterbacking"
can't change the outcome of the game, I think we simply have to do what
we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we are.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:55:39 +0100, "no spam" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Serious reading, folks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>HISTORY TEST
>Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice
>test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually
>happened!!!
>
>Do you remember?
>
>-1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
>a. Superman
>b. Jay Leno
>c. Harry Potter
>d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
>a. Olga Corbett
>b. Sitting Bull
>c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>2. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
>a. Lost Norwegians
>b. Elvis
>c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>3.During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
>a. John Dillinger
>b. The King of Sweden
>c. The Boy Scouts
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>4. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
>a. A pizza delivery boy
>b. Pee Wee Herman
>c. Geraldo Rivera
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
>American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
>a. The Smurfs
>b. Davy Jones
>c. The Little Mermaid
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>6.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying
>to rescue passengers was murdered by:
>a. Captain Kidd
>b. Charles Lindberg
>c. Mother Teresa
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>7.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
>a. Scooby Doo
>b. The Tooth Fairy
>c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
>a. Richard Simmons
>b. Grandma Moses
>c. Michael Jordan
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>9.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
>a. Mr. Rogers
>b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
>c. The World Wrestling Federation
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>10.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
>take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into
>the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
>passengers.Thousands of
>people were killed by:
>a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
>b. The Supreme Court of Florida
>c. Mr. Bean
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>11.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
>a. Enron
>b. The Lutheran Church
>c. The NFL
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
>a. Bonnie and Clyde
>b. Captain Kangaroo
>c. Billy Graham
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
>
>Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
>
>So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent
>on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to
>profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old
>women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents
>who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen
>with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss,
>but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty
>of profiling.
>
>Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds along
>with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed
>of themselves - if they have any such sense.
>
>As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it,
>"Stupid is as stupid does."
>
>Come on people wake up!!!
>Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book.
>Our Country and our troops need our support!
>
>
>

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:53:06 +0100, "no spam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Koran Verse 8:12
>
>Don't be deceived by the Muslim apologists in this group. The Koran speaks
>for itself.
>
>[8.12] "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make
>firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
>disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip
>of them."
>
Now, go read it in context. For example the next verse:

[8:13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle;
and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely
Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

It's clear from the entire Sura that the 'unbelievers' referred to are
not merely non-Muslims, they are enemies who are actively at war with
the Muslims. When they desire peace, the same Sura commands that it be
given to them.

[8.61] And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in
Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

In other words, Muslims are to make peace with their enemies even if
they have doubts about their enemies' sincerity. In a similar vein
they are enjoined to honor any truce they might make with their
enemies.

Unfortunately almost no non-Muslim Americans bother to read the Koran,
even in translation, except the people who go through picking and
choosing the verses they want to emphasize how evil Muslims are.
(Never mind the Hadith, which most of them have never even heard of!)

(Oh yeah, don't be confused by the reference to 'terror'. That's a
translation issue. The term isn't related to 'terrorism.')

Don't get me wrong. Islamic culture is very different from Western
culture. There are profound differences and a lot of things on either
side that the other side finds unacceptable. Islam and Christianity
likewise have major differences. But caricaturing and demonizing the
religion and its beliefs doesn't help anyone -- except maybe Al Queda.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:15:02 GMT, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Abe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
>>>>America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
>>>>ally.
>>>
>>>And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
>> notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
>> thousand years ago.
>
>I do so love people who make my point while "thinking" they are
>rebutting it. The operative part of your reply which you somehow
>overlooked is "...two thousand years ago." Enough of them left so that
>it was no longer a Jewish, or more correctly, a Hebrew state.
>

umm, left? Try, "were exterminated or deported." Ever hear of Rome's
siege of Jerusalem somewhere around 100 AD? After the seige was over, Rome
basically deported all of the Jews throughout the Roman world.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:08:49 -0600, "Matthew" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If memory serves correctly, Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for an
>awful lot of deaths, was neither Muslim or from the Middle East.


Timothy was a white Christian terrorist betw the ages of 17 and
40.... along with a lot of other murderers....

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Oh, really? You mean you don't make any distinction at all between those who
fight against an occupying army, and those who deliberately murder civilians?
The French Resistance in WW2, and the German SS troops who masscred French
*civilians* in retaliation for Resistance attacks on German *soldiers* were
morally interchangeable?
>
>You simply cannot eradicate terrorism without first eliminating the root
>causes.

I agree. Let's start by eliminating radical Islam.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Nate Perkins wrote:
> Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> ...
>
>>Iraq is no longer a terrorist base or sanctuary, which is was under
>>Saddam (for others if not for Al Queda). What it is now is a theater
>
> ...
>
> Do you have any evidence that Iraq sponsored any terrorism against the US,
> or supported any terrorists that have ever attacked the US? If so, maybe
> you can share it with us.

Let me ask you a more germane question. What would you consider to be
acceptable evidence? I'm sick of evasions and post hoc rationalizations,
so let's agree on what constitutes acceptable evidence first.

(And if you think I'm setting you up, well. . . <evil grin>)

--RC

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
> >> justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.
>
> Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.
>
> > There's your problem in a nutshell. You are accusing the admin of some
> > secret motivation in Iraq that you can't really explain without sounding
> > like a Michael Moore kook. So what was the real story, Nate? Can you
> > answer without using the terms "Bush's father," or the "Saudi
connection,"
> > or "Halliburton"?
>
>
> Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
> the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the
world
> economy.
>

So then it logically follows that since Bush was planning on invading
Afghanistan and Iraq, all he needed was an excuse. Therefore Bush was
behind 9/11, right?

dwhite

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2 Feb 2005 12:35:52 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Note crossposting and follow-ups.
>
> and fixed again, since it is the rec.ww folks who've been doing this
>discussion.
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:00 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[email protected]>, take out
>>'takeout' to reply wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>But on the original question: What do you think the impact would be
>>if
>>> >>every Arab or Muslim were pulled out of line at the airport and
>>given
>>> >>a special search?
>>> >
>>> >One obvious result is that we'd catch more terrorists....
>>>
>>> Considering that the terrorists are somewhat smarter than
>>cherrystone
>>> clams, I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Among other things, how do you tell the difference between Yussif al
>>> Ibrahim and Jose Gonzales just by looking at them?
>>>
>>
>>Precisely. If all Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 are
>>searched befor bording airplanes then any Muslim men between the
>>ages of 17 and 40 who plan to hijack the plane will simply grow
>>a beard, wear a turban, and claim to be a Sihk, or some such
>>other ethnic person not subject to mandatory searching.
>
> Well, assuming that the folks doing the profiling are somewhat smarter
>than cherrystone clams, they should be able to distinguish between those
>who at least partially fit the profile vs. graying grandmothers,
>middle-aged, balding caucasian males, or old guys in walkers.

At which point the terrorists start using graying grandmothers,
middle-aged balding causasian males (hint: What country is right next
door to the Caucasus?) etc.

I repeat. We need to use a sense of proportion in profiling.

--RC
>
>
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
>
> Army General Richard Cody
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In stark contrast to the former government of Iraq, I'm not aware of any
> evidence to date that the government of Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism in
> general, or bin Laden or the 9/11 terrorists in particular.
>
> If you are, perhaps you'd care to share it with the rest of the world.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Well, in the 1980s, the US, Saudi's, Egypt and Pakistan supported Mr.
bin Laden and many other 'terrorists/mujahideen' to help them overthrow
the then government of Afganistan. Terrorist acts committed included
many attacks on civilians and civilain aircraft (using stingers) as well
as military targets. This terrorist activity was conceived by Zbigniew
Brezinski under Carter, and was amplified under the Reagan
administration. Everyone back here was cheering that we were going to
defeat communism.

I consider that war terrorism against the legally constituted government
of a sovereign nation, albeit one that was closely supported by the
USSR. That terrorism was funded in part by the American people's tax
dollars, as well as by Saudi's. We wanted to see the end of communism
and prevent the USSR from getting a base on the Indian Ocean. The
Saudi's had their own motives.

Back then, our allies, the people (now terrorists) doing the fighting
had the same religious and cultural thoughts as now, but it didn't seem
to bother us. They interpreted the Qu'ran in the same way, were
Wahabbi's just like today. Many of the fighters in Afganistan that we
call terrorists today, were Islamists held in prisons throughout the
M.E, in Libya, Syria, Jordan and the Sudan. Somehow, these people were
released, sent to Afganistan, given ex-Soviet weapons (from Egypt and
Isreal, via Egypt and Pakistan) and eventually US weapons including
stingers. How did they get the stingers? Who do you think was buying
the weapons and paying these people and training these people in camps
in Pakistan and Afganistan? It was bin Laden and others including money
from the CIA.

(If a government provides a missile to a person who is trying to
destabilize a country whose government is recognised by the United
Nations, do you not call that person a terrorist? Do you not call the
government providing the missile a state supporting terrorism? In the
case of the stingers, they have been used elsewhere to shoot at
commercial airliners too.)

Also, someone has been funding groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
others trying to regain control of lands lost to American and European
Jews in Palestine. They are doing this by killing innocent civilians.
It wouldn't surprise me if Saudis were funding some of this killing but
I don't know for sure.

Matthew wrote:

>>
>>There is no such conclusion implied. You're looking at this from the wrong
>>direction. It is obviously incorrect to suppose that all Muslims are
>>terrorists; however, it is equally obvious that nearly all terrorists are
>>Muslims, primarily Muslims from the middle east. And thus, if you're
>>trying to
>>find terrorists, it clearly makes more sense to look for them among middle
>>eastern Muslims than among Scandinavian Christians or southeast Asian
>>Buddhists.
>>

I think we should stop using the word terrorist because it conotes good
vs. bad. Try the word enemy. We have enemies. In any war the two
sides are enemies. To the British, the IRA are terrorists who kill
innocent people. To some Irish people, they are just fighting to get
rid of the oppressors and are justified. Take your pick. Same with
Tamils, or Isrealis, same in the Sudan or Nigeria or...

Ask yourself why the enemy is attacking you and ask if we have harmed
them in any way, and we might be able to figure out how to stop the
conflict, or we might decide we need to fight harder.

BTW, the 'stop lists' contain more than just Muslims, as I found out.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > If you know anything about Pat Buchanan you would know this has
> > nothing to do with conservatives in general. Buchanan ran as a third
> > party candidate, remember? He is extremely protectionist, and just
> > about nothing would satisfy him.
>
> Precisely, the policies of the Bush camp and of the neoconservatives (is
> that the PC term?) are not representative of conservatives in general.
> It isn't hard to find quite a few conservatives expressing reservations
> toward or opposition to the war.
>
> Are we to believe that all of these conservatives are just "putting
> forth an extremely negative spin" that "must be sour grapes?"

"All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong on
defense, and Dems are weak on it. There's nothing "neo" about taking action
to defend ourselves even if it isn't PC with countries that are either
corrupt or have a different agenda from ours.

Pick another example. Buchanan is off the far end of the spectrum when it
comes to protectionism.

dwhite

An empty space? separating you from that which is "other" in a specific belief?

I like you A100, you offer a good brotherhood in helping other people in this
group that need it, with whatever knowledge you have, in a down to Earth and
positive way. That is really good of you. I know I don't know you from Adam,
but what I said is based on what I have read of you in this group, and I hope you
keep it up.

--
Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
http://www.e-sword.net/

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > "Rob Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> I don't believe that you can 'jumpstart' a democracy in the kind of
> >> environment you have in Iraq, at least not one that is favourable to
> >> the US. I think you will be tied down in Iraq for many years, and in
> >> the end another dictator, as bad as Saddam will be brought in, and
> >> all the while, N. Korea will be making 8 A-bombs/year, or so I've
> >> heard. (according to Professor Graham Allison of Harvard -the number
> >> may not be accurate, who really knows.)
> >>
> >
> > History may not support your guess. Look at Italy, Germany and Japan
> > after WW2. People said the exact same thing about those places, and
> > look at them now. I think we were in Japan for 7 years, and people
> > said they were basically unable to support a democracy. I don't see a
> > reason for your extremely negative spin on the potential outcome in
> > Iraq other than sour grapes. If some form of democracy and real peace
> > comes out of Iraq the skeptics will have nothing left to complain
> > about. I'd say that so far Iraq is on track. I don't know the final
> > outcome, either, but I see no reason to conclude that the effort is
> > sure to fail. But, you are entitled to your opinion of course.
>
> "Eighteen months after we occupied Germany, the nation was de-Nazified and
> pacified. Eighteen months after we occupied Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism
is
> on the rise and, as Colin Powell now concedes, "We are fighting an intense
> insurgency [and] .... it’s getting worse." -- Pat Buchanan, The American
> Conservative Magazine, Oct 25 2004.
>
> Looks like conservatives like Pat Buchanan are also putting forth an
> extremely negative spin that must be sour grapes.

If you know anything about Pat Buchanan you would know this has nothing to
do with conservatives in general. Buchanan ran as a third party candidate,
remember? He is extremely protectionist, and just about nothing would
satisfy him.

dwhite

Fascinating. Not surprising, but fascinating.

I fully expected you to ignore or dismiss the evidence, but I felt I
should at least present it and give you the opportunity to respond.
After all there was always the possibility you knew something I didn't
and I could learn from you.

But you don't, of course. You not only don't know, you're not interested
in learning. You don't have better information, you just choose to
ignore anything that is contradicts your view of the world.

On the evidence you've got nothing to teach and you're dead-set against
learning.

<PLONK>

--RC

Nate Perkins wrote:
> Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Nate Perkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rick, you've just made the claim that Iraq is no longer a terrorist
>>>base. If that's so, who do you think is sawing off the heads of our
>>>guys there?
>>
>>You apparently failed to notice the distinction I made between a
>>terrorist base and a terrorist operational area.
>
>
> Hairsplitting. What, are you going to argue that they are commuters or
> something?

In low intensity warfare there is a clear distinction between base areas
and operational areas. Just as there is in any kind of warfare. Surely
that's obvious.
>
>>>You've also made the claim that it was a terrorist base under Saddam.
>>> You will have a hard time finding evidence for sponsorship of any
>>>terrorism beyond anti-Israeli causes.
>>
>>No, I just get sick and tired of people handwaving away evidence with
>>arguments that would do justice to a Holocaust denier. Before I start
>>posting stuff this time I want a clear agreement on what constitutes
>>evidence.
>>
>>And a clarification: Being a base for terrorism involves considerably
>>more than just sponsoring terrorists. Among other things it includes
>>harboring terrorists, allowing them to move about and operate freely,
>>receive medical care, etc. With that caveat, let's move on.
>
>
> That's quite a stretch. Most people define a base as simply the point
> from which an attack originates (at least that's the way a couple of
> dictionaries define it).

That's not the way it's defined in the case of low-intensity warfare.

> But you apparently want to redefine base as a
> place where freedom of movement is assured and support is given by the
> populace -- in other words, a haven.

In this case the support was given by the government. See the references.

>>>What would I consider acceptable evidence? Hmm. An official
>>>government report. An official CIA report. A military intelligence
>>>report. A report by an outside country; e.g. Interpol, the UN, etc.
>>> An article describing specifics from a major news outlet. An online
>>>article describing the evidence, from a site that is not a blog.
>>>Probably many others.
>>
>>Now that we have that a clear statement, let's get down to business.
>>One warning: This is going to be long, even though it is far, far, far
>>from exhaustive.
>>
>>Let's start with a list of names and organizations which Iraq has
>>supported or harbored and which have attacked Americans.
>
>
> (much excellent information snipped for brevity)
>
> There is no doubt that Saddam has at various times supported anti-
> Israeli causes and that he has at various times harbored and helped
> finance Palestinian terrorist groups, including all the ones you mention
> (and probably others as well).

And the bombing of the World Trade Center in the 90s was an attack on
Israel?

And the four Americans killed on the flight to Athens were an attack on
Israel?

And death of Leon Klinghoffer was an attack on Israel?

Further you're claiming the Americans killed in attacks related to
Israel -- however tenuously -- are to be ignored.

You're simply waving away the inconvenient evidence and trying to jam
everything into the procrustean bed of your preconceptions.

>
> That's why in my last post I specifically said "You will have a hard
> time finding evidence for sponsorship of any terrorism beyond anti-
> Israeli causes."

And "anti-Israeli causes" which target and kill Americans are therefore
to be ignored in counting up what constitutes a base for terrorist
activity? Even if it includes attacks on Americans on American soil like
the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993?

Since most terrorist groups include hatred for Israel among their
motivations, you can use that excuse to ignore virtually all terrorist
activity in the modern world.

That may be convenient from your ideological perspective

> Support for anti-Israeli terrorism is endemic through most of the Arab
> Middle East and has been for a long time. But the 9/11 attacks were a
> different kind of danger to the US,

Only if you have the historical sense of a cherry stone clam. 9/11
wasn't the first time the US was attacked by Islamist terrorists. It
wasn't even the first time on US soil. Hell, it wasn't even the first
time Islamist terrorists had hit the World Trade Center -- and the first
time Saddam was right in there giving aid and comfort (at the very
least!) to the terrorists. It was simply the first time that really,
really got our attention.

> and it would be a terrible mistake
> for us to confuse the new danger to the US posed by Islamic
> fundamentalists to the US with the ongoing danger posed by Palestinian
> militants to Israel.
>
>
>>>What I wouldn't consider to be acceptable evidence are
>>>unsubstantiated or vague statements from administration officials.
>>
>>I wouldn't accept those either. And if I were you I'd be at least as
>>skeptical of statements by John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, no matter how
>>positive they are.
>
>
> Right.