Oops!

[Sandman]

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the cat out
of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the cat
out
> of the bag:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
>
> LMAO!!!
>
>

Even if it were true, so what?
The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
As a leftie, you ought be able to dig it!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message

> Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
> cat out of the bag:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
>
> LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever been
legal.

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience

With bombs, tanks, soldiers, and more bombs. If that's "civil", what's
violent disobedience?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Even if it were true, so what?
> >The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
> >as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
>
> Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
>
> I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
>

Posh!
Everyone knows that the USA and Al-Queda are morally equivilant.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.S. Nail wrote:

> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
>
>>Even if it were true, so what?
>>The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
>>as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
>
>
> Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
>
> I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.

It has been said that there is a fine line between good and evil in war.

[George M. Middius]

Obie said:

> > I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> > religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
>
> It has been said that there is a fine line between good and evil in war.

That's a goober, gomer. The debate concerns the motivations for going
to war.

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> This is possibly not going to be the most popular view - but it could
> be argued that Al-Qaeda have shown more conviction in their moral
> beliefs. Actions speak louder than words :-(

Notice that the suicide bombers are all brainwashed naifs. The
masterminds of the terror campaign are manipulators, not martyrs.

[Sandman]

G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!

You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Even if it were true, so what?
> >The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
> >as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
>
> Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
>
> I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Sandman]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>
> > Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
> > cat out of the bag:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
> >
> > LMAO!!!
>
> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever been
> legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response to a
direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from Iraq.
We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in Afghanistan
and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council,
unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of Iraq
(based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
lies).

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!
>
> You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.
>

Unless you are Saddam, then the world will let you walk.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sandman]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!
> >
> > You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.
> >
>
> Unless you are Saddam, then the world will let you walk.

What a maroon. After the Gulf War, Dubya's daddy endorsed the U.N.
sanctions against Saddam, which crippled Iraq's economy, enforced a no-fly
zone over the vast majority of Iraq, and introduced U.N. inspectors into
Iraq to search for evidence of wmd's or wmd programs. By the time the
inspectors left (and no, they were not kicked out by Saddam, contrary to the
lies you hear on Fox News) they were just frustrated at being "escorted"
everywhere, and frustrated because over many years they in fact had found
very little of any concern, all of which they destroyed).

By early 2003, when Dubya thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the world and
embarked on an illegal invasion of a crippled country that had not even
treatened us (nor did it have the remotest potential to threaten us), much
less attacked us, Saddam had been quite effectively "contained" by the U.N.
sanctions. How you can call that "the world will let you walk (if you are
Saddam)" defies all rationality.

None of which is to say Saddam was not himself in violation of numerous
provisions of international law. Yet he was but one of numerous murderous
dictators around the globe at the time. The war against Iraq was not about
wmds, and it was not about removing a murderous dictator, it was not about
"fighting terrorism", and Dubya & Co. knew this all along and knows it now,
despite their constant BS to the contrary. It was about the PNAC agenda
from the time they stole the Presidency, of conquering the middle east and
controlling their oilfields, as they stated in their own words (to the best
of my recollection from having read their position paper last winter): "the
road to occupying the middle east goes through Baghdad" . Now Dubya's even
pontificating about "democratizing" the middle east. Well, we've seen what
his "democratization" has accomplished in Iraq to date, and it's an
unmitigated disaster, not just for Iraqis, not just for our soldiers, but
for our entire citezenry which has born the cost in enormous out-of-control
budget deficits, an economy in recession, joblessness, cuts in domestic
programs, and even cuts in veterans' benefits.

Dubya will be held accountable during the 2004 election, as more and more
of the truth about what he's done reaches more and more voters.

The world is *not* letting Dubya walk, however, as is becoming clear to the
administration as its recent so-called efforts to bring the world community
into the morass it created in Iraq has fallen flat on its face. Why? Well,
you just don't insult and defy the world and then come "begging" for money,
arms and troops, without giving *anything* in exchange. IOW, "please,
please, give us all your money, give us your troops to die in place of our
troops, but we won't budge an inch when it comes to our retaining total
control of the situation." Dubya & Co. have shown the nogiation skills of a
poisoned rodent.

And dolts like you support this maniac's insanity.

[Sandman]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sandman" > wrote:
>
> >> > Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
> >> > cat out of the bag:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
> >> >
> >> > LMAO!!!
> >>
> >> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever
been
> >> legal.
> >
> >That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response to
a
> >direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from Iraq.
> >We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in
Afghanistan
> >and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
> >therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
> >Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council,
> >unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of Iraq
> >(based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
> >lies).
>
> Some more development, sounds very familiar..
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm

Indeed, the PNAC, with Dubya as its puppet, and Blair as his lapdog, would
love pull off the same scam they did with Iraq, and invade Iran.
Unfortunately, their troops are all stretched pretty thin by now, so they're
reduced to whining about anything and everything the U.N. says or does that
is inconsistent with their agenda. Poor ****-kickers.

BTW, congrats to you Brits for the three hundred thousand or so of you who
protested Dubya's visit to Buckinham, where he really ****ed off your Queen.

Seems he can't go anywhere anymore without either ****ing someone off or
getting protested, or both.

[Sandman]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...

Some more development, sounds very familiar..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm

There's also some new development at Disneyland, which I recently visited
for a wedding anniversary. It's already decorated for Christmas (and
Hanukah) and they've changed "It's a Small World" music to also include
Christmas music, changed the Haunted Mansion to a combination Halloween and
Christmas theme, with all new characters, and even spruced up the aging
Pirates of the Caribbean ride with a new song:

"Yo ho, yo ho, a Prez-dunce life for me.
We pillage, we plunder, we bomb and we loot
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
We invade and we ravage and don't give a hoot
Fill up me coffers, yo ho

Yo ho, yo ho, a Prez-dunce life for me.
We extort and we pilfer, we filch and we sack.
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
Defraud and embezzle and even highjack.
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.

Yo, ho, yo ho, a Stepford Wife for me.
I've named her Laura and she's tame as a mouse
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
Her plasticine smile adorns the White House
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.

We're rascals and scoundrels, we're villains and knaves.
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
We gave up on Bin Laden cuz' we're afraid of the caves,
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.

We're thieves and blighters and ne'er do-well cads,
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
Aye, but we're loved by me mommie and dad,
Fill up me coffers, yo ho.
Yo ho, yo ho, a Prez-dunce life for me."

:)~

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
>>> cat out of the bag:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
>>>
>>> LMAO!!!
>>
>> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
>> ever been legal.

> That shows your ignorance of international law.

International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to the
US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on sovereign
states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has been
a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

For example, there are a number of international treaties that the US has
not ratified. They can be thought of as being international law for all the
countries that ratified them. The US intentionally did not ratify these
treaties because it did not want to be bound by that particular
international law.

As long as there are multiple sovereign states, there is no such real thing
as international law. The fact that the US flouted the wishes of other
countries in the United Nations is proof that there is no such real thing as
international law. There is in fact only one way that a country has
international law applied to it against its will. It must first lose its
sovereignty, an practical example of which involves losing a war.

[Sandman]

Arnii Kroothug proves once again that his hubris and stupidity extend far
beyond the realm of his PCABX crapola which he imagines has something to do
with audio.

What follows is so incredibly dense and inane it's not worth addressing:

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
> >>> cat out of the bag:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
> >>>
> >>> LMAO!!!
> >>
> >> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
> >> ever been legal.
>
> > That shows your ignorance of international law.
>
> International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to
the
> US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on
sovereign
> states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has
been
> a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.
>
> For example, there are a number of international treaties that the US has
> not ratified. They can be thought of as being international law for all
the
> countries that ratified them. The US intentionally did not ratify these
> treaties because it did not want to be bound by that particular
> international law.
>
> As long as there are multiple sovereign states, there is no such real
thing
> as international law. The fact that the US flouted the wishes of other
> countries in the United Nations is proof that there is no such real thing
as
> international law. There is in fact only one way that a country has
> international law applied to it against its will. It must first lose its
> sovereignty, an practical example of which involves losing a war.
>
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message


> Arnii Kroothug proves once again that his hubris and stupidity extend
> far beyond the realm of his PCABX crapola which he imagines has
> something to do with audio.

Is there a time warp in here? Have we all been transported back to middle
school?

> What follows is so incredibly dense and inane it's not worth
> addressing:

IOW Sanders, you can't overcome the logic and facts that I presented.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Obie said:
>
>
>>>I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
>>>religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
>>
>>It has been said that there is a fine line between good and evil in war.
>
>
> That's a goober, gomer. The debate concerns the motivations for going
> to war.

Which is why I said *exactly* that.

Which side is which is often a matter of opinion once the bullets
start flying.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Sandman wrote:

> Now Dubya's even
> pontificating about "democratizing" the middle east. Well, we've seen what
> his "democratization" has accomplished in Iraq to date, and it's an
> unmitigated disaster, not just for Iraqis, not just for our soldiers, but
> for our entire citezenry which has born the cost in enormous out-of-control
> budget deficits, an economy in recession, joblessness, cuts in domestic
> programs, and even cuts in veterans' benefits.

They can't imagine that any sane person wouldn;t see the U.S. way of
doing things as being the best in the world - almost as if they believed
the world was flat - you just can't convince them otherwise. Of course it's
the best - anyone can plainly see it just like they see the sky is blue.

Problem:
As long as Islam is the main religion in the country, there can't possibly
be seperation of religion and government. Not possible - don't even think
about trying. That right there makes the U.S. version of "democracy"
impossible from the start - reguardless of what the fuzzy headed people
in our government want to believe.

> The world is *not* letting Dubya walk, however, as is becoming clear to the
> administration as its recent so-called efforts to bring the world community
> into the morass it created in Iraq has fallen flat on its face. Why? Well,
> you just don't insult and defy the world and then come "begging" for money,
> arms and troops, without giving *anything* in exchange. IOW, "please,
> please, give us all your money, give us your troops to die in place of our
> troops,

He's worried that we will still have troops over there by the time the 3 year
World Court exemption runs out next summer. They are all too pleased to let
this happen in exchange for the threats we made that forced them to give us
this exemption(so no war crimes prosecution) - they will get payback and
it's going to be a bitch.

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.S. Nail wrote:

> Some more development, sounds very familiar..
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm

If getting nuclear weapons is the only way to keep the U.S. from invading
you and talking to you on equal terms, are you the least bit surprized?

If N. Korea wasn't in the same position, we'd have flattened them a decade
or more ago.

[Joseph Oberlander]

BArny Krueger wrote:

> International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to the
> US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on sovereign
> states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has been
> a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

But how many people have been brought to justice the second they step
outside their borders? It does matter.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message

> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!

>>> You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.

>> Unless you are Saddam, then the world will let you walk.

> What a maroon. After the Gulf War, Dubya's daddy endorsed the U.N.
> sanctions against Saddam, which crippled Iraq's economy, enforced a
> no-fly zone over the vast majority of Iraq, and introduced U.N.
> inspectors into Iraq to search for evidence of wmd's or wmd programs.

So far, so good.

> By the time the inspectors left (and no, they were not kicked out by
> Saddam, contrary to the lies you hear on Fox News) they were just
> frustrated at being "escorted" everywhere, and frustrated because
> over many years they in fact had found very little of any concern,
> all of which they destroyed).

Frustrating inspectors by playing shell games with weapons and escorting the
inspectors so they can't see what they shouldn't see, seems like a pretty
good way to make the inspectors leave in frustration, no?

> By early 2003, when Dubya thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the world

Not really. A bloc of Iraq's creditors decided that their best bet for being
paid was to keep Saddam in power. They used their not inconsiderable power
in the UN to keep it from voting to take decisive action against Saddam.

> and embarked on an illegal invasion

As if there ever was a legal invasion of a sovereign nation...

>of a crippled country that had
> not even treatened us (nor did it have the remotest potential to
> threaten us), much less attacked us, Saddam had been quite
> effectively "contained" by the U.N. sanctions.

The same words apply to Afghanistan.

> How you can call that
> "the world will let you walk (if you are Saddam)" defies all
> rationality.

History shows that the world has been willing to let any number of dictators
"walk" at one time or the other.

> None of which is to say Saddam was not himself in violation of
> numerous provisions of international law. Yet he was but one of
> numerous murderous dictators around the globe at the time.

Here we have Sanders-logic: If there is more than one reprehensible
dictatorship in the world we can't attack any of them since there is more
than one.

> The war
> against Iraq was not about wmds, and it was not about removing a
> murderous dictator, it was not about "fighting terrorism", and Dubya
> & Co. knew this all along and knows it now, despite their constant BS
> to the contrary. It was about the PNAC agenda from the time they
> stole the Presidency, of conquering the middle east and controlling
> their oilfields, as they stated in their own words (to the best of my
> recollection from having read their position paper last winter): "the
> road to occupying the middle east goes through Baghdad" .


Typical Sanders intellectual deceit/ineptitude. A quote with no cite. Who is
Sanders quoting but Sanders?

> Now Dubya's even pontificating about "democratizing" the middle east.

Now?? He has been all along. So should all of us!

> Well, we've seen what his "democratization" has accomplished in Iraq
> to date, and it's an unmitigated disaster, not just for Iraqis, not
> just for our soldiers, but for our entire citezenry which has born
> the cost in enormous out-of-control budget deficits, an economy in
> recession, joblessness, cuts in domestic programs, and even cuts in
> veterans' benefits.

This shows a complete loss of perspecctive on history. The militarily
impotent attacks by insurgents in Iraq are so far from being an unmitigated
disaster that it isn't even silly. They aren't even a disaster, except to
the people directly affected and their families. Dunkirk was a military
disaster, but even it was mitigated. The Tet offensive was a military
disaster for North Vietnam, but it still helped them win the war.


> Dubya will be held accountable during the 2004 election, as more and
> more of the truth about what he's done reaches more and more voters.

Every incumbent is held accountable during every re-election campaign, and
that's a good thing. This is just rhetoric, not even a worthy argument. It's
a childish threat from someone who is obviously quite frustrated with their
lot in life, someone who just needs to vent.

> The world is *not* letting Dubya walk, however, as is becoming clear
> to the administration as its recent so-called efforts to bring the
> world community into the morass it created in Iraq has fallen flat on
> its face. Why?

Why are they retrenching and hiding from taking some responsibility for
putting Iraq back on their feed? It would be a risk. They've got too many
other problems, such as the lack of economic growth and unending
semi-recession their failed social and economic policies have provided them
with.

> Well, you just don't insult and defy the world and
> then come "begging" for money, arms and troops, without giving
> *anything* in exchange.

Goodness is its own reward.

>IOW, "please, please, give us all your money,

Horsefeathers. We're only asking for them to spend money equal to a
miniscule fraction of their GNP. Isn't it ironic that Poland can afford to
play on our side, but Germany and France can't?

> give us your troops to die in place of our troops,

Yup, when there is military action, some soldiers will die.

> but we won't budge an inch when it comes to our retaining total control
of
> the situation."

Not quite the truth. We didn't offer to put 100% of Iraq under UN control,
but we didn't offer absolutley nothing.

> Dubya & Co. have shown the nogiation skills of a poisoned rodent.

I don't think that offering non-players the store is a good idea.

> And dolts like you support this maniac's insanity.

Prequisite childish name-calling.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net
> BArny Krueger wrote:
>
>> International law is today a practical fiction, especially as
>> applied to the US. That you think that so-called international law
>> is binding on sovereign states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a
>> country for which there has been a functional international war
>> crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

> But how many people have been brought to justice the second they step
> outside their borders?

Of course, being outside the sovereign nation that protects you is not a
good thing...

Help me here. I think it's happened once or twice, but I think it is pretty
rare. Name an recent example.

>It does matter.

It can, if someone does something arrogant or stupid or both.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!
> > >
> > > You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.
> > >
> >
> > Unless you are Saddam, then the world will let you walk.
>
> What a maroon. After the Gulf War, Dubya's daddy endorsed the U.N.
> sanctions against Saddam, which crippled Iraq's economy, enforced a no-fly
> zone over the vast majority of Iraq, and introduced U.N. inspectors into
> Iraq to search for evidence of wmd's or wmd programs. By the time the
> inspectors left (and no, they were not kicked out by Saddam, contrary to
the
> lies you hear on Fox News) they were just frustrated at being "escorted"
> everywhere, and frustrated because over many years they in fact had found
> very little of any concern, all of which they destroyed).
>
> By early 2003, when Dubya thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the world and
> embarked on an illegal invasion of a crippled country that had not even
> treatened us (nor did it have the remotest potential to threaten us), much
> less attacked us, Saddam had been quite effectively "contained" by the
U.N.
> sanctions. How you can call that "the world will let you walk (if you are
> Saddam)" defies all rationality.
>
> None of which is to say Saddam was not himself in violation of numerous
> provisions of international law. Yet he was but one of numerous murderous
> dictators around the globe at the time. The war against Iraq was not
about
> wmds, and it was not about removing a murderous dictator, it was not about
> "fighting terrorism", and Dubya & Co. knew this all along and knows it
now,
> despite their constant BS to the contrary. It was about the PNAC agenda
> from the time they stole the Presidency, of conquering the middle east and
> controlling their oilfields, as they stated in their own words (to the
best
> of my recollection from having read their position paper last winter):
"the
> road to occupying the middle east goes through Baghdad" . Now Dubya's
even
> pontificating about "democratizing" the middle east. Well, we've seen
what
> his "democratization" has accomplished in Iraq to date, and it's an
> unmitigated disaster, not just for Iraqis, not just for our soldiers, but
> for our entire citezenry which has born the cost in enormous
out-of-control
> budget deficits, an economy in recession, joblessness, cuts in domestic
> programs, and even cuts in veterans' benefits.
>
> Dubya will be held accountable during the 2004 election, as more and more
> of the truth about what he's done reaches more and more voters.
>
> The world is *not* letting Dubya walk, however, as is becoming clear to
the
> administration as its recent so-called efforts to bring the world
community
> into the morass it created in Iraq has fallen flat on its face. Why?
Well,
> you just don't insult and defy the world and then come "begging" for
money,
> arms and troops, without giving *anything* in exchange. IOW, "please,
> please, give us all your money, give us your troops to die in place of our
> troops, but we won't budge an inch when it comes to our retaining total
> control of the situation." Dubya & Co. have shown the nogiation skills of
a
> poisoned rodent.
>
> And dolts like you support this maniac's insanity.
>
>

how's your blood pressure?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sandman" > wrote:
> >
> > >> > Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets
the
> > >> > cat out of the bag:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
> > >> >
> > >> > LMAO!!!
> > >>
> > >> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever
> been
> > >> legal.
> > >
> > >That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response
to
> a
> > >direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from
Iraq.
> > >We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in
> Afghanistan
> > >and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
> > >therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
> > >Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security
Council,
> > >unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of
Iraq
> > >(based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
> > >lies).
> >
> > Some more development, sounds very familiar..
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm
>
> Indeed, the PNAC, with Dubya as its puppet, and Blair as his lapdog, would
> love pull off the same scam they did with Iraq, and invade Iran.
> Unfortunately, their troops are all stretched pretty thin by now, so
they're
> reduced to whining about anything and everything the U.N. says or does
that
> is inconsistent with their agenda. Poor ****-kickers.
>
> BTW, congrats to you Brits for the three hundred thousand or so of you who
> protested Dubya's visit to Buckinham, where he really ****ed off your
Queen.
>
> Seems he can't go anywhere anymore without either ****ing someone off or
> getting protested, or both.
>
>

Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sandman]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...

> Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
> I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.

Typically, you got it ass-backwards, my "friend". *I* gave up on you, you
rabid SOB, and you *never* moved on - you make some sneering, assinine,
insulting remark to virtually every post I put up here since I called you
out and told you to get lost.

If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then will
you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.

[George M. Middius]

Sandbrain said:

> If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then will
> you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.

What about your repeated claims to be leaving RAO "for good"?

Sacky isn't that bad, you know. He has some messed up ideas about
politics and society, but at least he doesn't harbor the illusion that
the details of his life are of interest to the group.

And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that Gregipus came out of his
closet. He still hates himself, and now we know why.

[ScottW]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
> > I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.
>
> Typically, you got it ass-backwards, my "friend". *I* gave up on you,
you
> rabid SOB, and you *never* moved on - you make some sneering, assinine,
> insulting remark to virtually every post I put up here since I called you
> out and told you to get lost.

Why is self awareness so difficult for some people?

>
> If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then will
> you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.

And you might try not to be so offended by behavior 1/10 as
offensive and insulting as your own. Just a suggestion.
Try not to go ballistic over it.

ScottW

[Sandman]

My remarks to Sack-O-**** go for you too, Scooter.

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:tv7wb.5007$ML6.4294@fed1read01...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
> > > I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.
> >
> > Typically, you got it ass-backwards, my "friend". *I* gave up on you,
> you
> > rabid SOB, and you *never* moved on - you make some sneering, assinine,
> > insulting remark to virtually every post I put up here since I called
you
> > out and told you to get lost.
>
> Why is self awareness so difficult for some people?
>
> >
> > If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then
will
> > you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.
>
> And you might try not to be so offended by behavior 1/10 as
> offensive and insulting as your own. Just a suggestion.
> Try not to go ballistic over it.
>
> ScottW
>
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> link.net
>
>>BArny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>International law is today a practical fiction, especially as
>>>applied to the US. That you think that so-called international law
>>>is binding on sovereign states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a
>>>country for which there has been a functional international war
>>>crimes trial, that remained sovereign.
>
>
>>But how many people have been brought to justice the second they step
>>outside their borders?
>
>
> Of course, being outside the sovereign nation that protects you is not a
> good thing...
>
> Help me here. I think it's happened once or twice, but I think it is pretty
> rare. Name an recent example.

All those ex-Nazi hunters come to mind. The real problem isn't for Bush - he's
got Secret Service protection for life, but his cabinet and Vice President and
so on - who only get it for a limited time, then they are on their own.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Even if it were true, so what?
> >The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
> >as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
>
> Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
>
> I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
The fact that you don't shows how blind you are.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >> >Even if it were true, so what?
> >> >The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international
law,
> >> >as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
> >>
> >> Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> >> too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
> >>
> >> I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> >> religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
> >
> >Posh!
>
> ;-)
>
> >Everyone knows that the USA and Al-Queda are morally equivilant.
>
> Within each cultures own moral universe, that's probably correct.
>
> This is possibly not going to be the most popular view - but it could
> be argued that Al-Qaeda have shown more conviction in their moral
> beliefs. Actions speak louder than words :-(
>
Unpopular is understatement. Insane would be better.
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Michael Mckelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> PD said:
>
> > This is possibly not going to be the most popular view - but it could
> > be argued that Al-Qaeda have shown more conviction in their moral
> > beliefs. Actions speak louder than words :-(
>
> Notice that the suicide bombers are all brainwashed naifs. The
> masterminds of the terror campaign are manipulators, not martyrs.
>
>
Like Sanders.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!
>
> You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.
>
Great, Sadaam violated the law. WE held him accountable.

To bad you weren't as outraged when it was Clinton violating the law.


> "G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
> >
> > >Even if it were true, so what?
> > >The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international
law,
> > >as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
> >
> > Isn't that pretty much what extremist factions (eg. Al-Qaeda) think
> > too? They are acting on "a higher moral authority"?
> >
> > I would like to point out at this time that Bush is extremely
> > religious, he sees his combat as a battle of Good over Evil.
> >
> >
> > --
> > S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > G.S. Nail "nails" it on the head. Bingo!
> > >
> > > You violate the law, you get held accountable. Period.
> > >
> >
> > Unless you are Saddam, then the world will let you walk.
>
> What a maroon. After the Gulf War, Dubya's daddy endorsed the U.N.
> sanctions against Saddam, which crippled Iraq's economy, enforced a no-fly
> zone over the vast majority of Iraq, and introduced U.N. inspectors into
> Iraq to search for evidence of wmd's or wmd programs. By the time the
> inspectors left (and no, they were not kicked out by Saddam, contrary to
the
> lies you hear on Fox News) they were just frustrated at being "escorted"
> everywhere, and frustrated because over many years they in fact had found
> very little of any concern, all of which they destroyed).
>
> By early 2003, when Dubya thumbed his nose at the U.N. and the world and
> embarked on an illegal invasion of a crippled country that had not even
> treatened us (nor did it have the remotest potential to threaten us), much
> less attacked us, Saddam had been quite effectively "contained" by the
U.N.
> sanctions. How you can call that "the world will let you walk (if you are
> Saddam)" defies all rationality.
>
> None of which is to say Saddam was not himself in violation of numerous
> provisions of international law. Yet he was but one of numerous murderous
> dictators around the globe at the time. The war against Iraq was not
about
> wmds, and it was not about removing a murderous dictator, it was not about
> "fighting terrorism", and Dubya & Co. knew this all along and knows it
now,
> despite their constant BS to the contrary.

That's your unsuuported opinion as a Democrat kool aid drinker.

It was about the PNAC agenda
> from the time they stole the Presidency,

Another false statement. The only people trying to steal the Presidency
worked for Gore.

of conquering the middle east and
> controlling their oilfields, as they stated in their own words (to the
best
> of my recollection from having read their position paper last winter):
"the
> road to occupying the middle east goes through Baghdad" .

Better find the actual quote, you're not known for your honesty.

Now Dubya's even
> pontificating about "democratizing" the middle east. Well, we've seen
what
> his "democratization" has accomplished in Iraq to date, and it's an
> unmitigated disaster, not just for Iraqis, not just for our soldiers, but
> for our entire citezenry which has born the cost in enormous
out-of-control
> budget deficits, an economy in recession, joblessness, cuts in domestic
> programs, and even cuts in veterans' benefits.
>
The majority of Iraqi's don't feel that way, tehy want us to stay.

> Dubya will be held accountable during the 2004 election,

When he wins his second term. When he gets a filibuster proof Senate.

as more and more
> of the truth about what he's done reaches more and more voters.
>
Even if what you are claiming were true, as long as the economy is on the
rebound, he'll get re-elected.

> The world is *not* letting Dubya walk, however, as is becoming clear to
the
> administration as its recent so-called efforts to bring the world
community
> into the morass it created in Iraq has fallen flat on its face

Can you write anything thatisn't a lie?

Why? Well,
> you just don't insult and defy the world and then come "begging" for
money,
> arms and troops, without giving *anything* in exchange. IOW, "please,
> please, give us all your money, give us your troops to die in place of our
> troops, but we won't budge an inch when it comes to our retaining total
> control of the situation." Dubya & Co. have shown the nogiation skills of
a
> poisoned rodent.
>
More accurately, the rest of the world, aside from the coalition has shown
they are chicken **** sissy boys.


> And dolts like you support this maniac's insanity.
>
>
Dolts like you, Sanders, don't have the honesty to realize that your side is
essentially responsable for letting people like Sadaam get to the point
where we had to do the world's dirty work and take him out of power.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
> > > cat out of the bag:
> > >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
> > >
> > > LMAO!!!
> >
> > The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever
been
> > legal.
>
> That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response to a
> direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from Iraq.
> We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in
Afghanistan
> and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
> therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
> Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council,
> unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of Iraq
> (based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
> lies).
>
You're full of ****. the same claims that Bush made about Iraq were made by
Clinton.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
> > I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.
>
> Typically, you got it ass-backwards, my "friend". *I* gave up on you, you
> rabid SOB, and you *never* moved on - you make some sneering, assinine,
> insulting remark to virtually every post I put up here since I called you
> out and told you to get lost.
>
> If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then will
> you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.
>
>

I had said many times that I put my friendship with you over
politics. I had hoped for a long while that you would rethink
your very different priorities. When it became evident
that such a reconsideration was not to be, I gave up on
our friendship ever being restored, and moved on.

I can ignore you quite easily. However I cannot ignore the mistatements
and lies that you offer up in service to your politics..
It was when I proved one of those mistatements, about
your pronouncements on the Supreme Court election rulings,
that things turned sour.

As far as being described as 'rabid', I do consider myself
a militant centrist.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sacky isn't that bad, you know. He has some messed up ideas about
> politics and society, but at least he doesn't harbor the illusion that
> the details of his life are of interest to the group.
>

correction: "at least"
You don't want to be accused of plagiarizing the great plagiarizer, do you?





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> link.net
>>
>>> BArny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> International law is today a practical fiction, especially as
>>>> applied to the US. That you think that so-called international law
>>>> is binding on sovereign states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a
>>>> country for which there has been a functional international war
>>>> crimes trial, that remained sovereign.
>>
>>
>>> But how many people have been brought to justice the second they
>>> step outside their borders?
>>
>>
>> Of course, being outside the sovereign nation that protects you is
>> not a good thing...

>> Help me here. I think it's happened once or twice, but I think it
>> is pretty rare. Name an recent example.

> All those ex-Nazi hunters come to mind.

You mean like the people who captured Eichmann?

>The real problem isn't for
> Bush - he's got Secret Service protection for life, but his cabinet
> and Vice President and so on - who only get it for a limited time,
> then they are on their own.

Have people really so thoroughly lost track of history that they think that
these modern-day Americans are somehow comparable to Eichmann?

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets
>>>> the cat out of the bag:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
>>>>
>>>> LMAO!!!
>>>
>>> The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
>>> ever
> been
>>> legal.
>>
>> That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in
>> response to a direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes
>> Afghanistan from Iraq. We were directly attacked by Al Queda
>> elements headquartered in
> Afghanistan
>> and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
>> therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the
>> U.N. Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security
>> Council, unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless
>> invasion of Iraq (based, as we all by now know on a ruthless,
>> shameful, and vile pack of lies).
>>
> You're full of ****. the same claims that Bush made about Iraq were
> made by Clinton.

Agreed. Ironically, one of the issues that Bush is alleged to have used to
get elected, was his promise to repeal laws the Clinton administration
passed in order to better keep tabs on people from the middle east who are
living in the US.

If you can somehow forget 9/11 (and its quite clear that many flaming
liberals like Sanders have pretty well forgotten it) one could see this as
some kind of a problem.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Have people really so thoroughly lost track of history that they think that
> these modern-day Americans are somehow comparable to Eichmann?

It doesn't really matter There are tens of thousands of ****ed off
Iraqis that feel otherwise. The problem is - we get our hands dirty
and step on people and have been very lucky that these third world
peasants don't decide to revolt.

Two decades ago, they barely had computers. A decade ago, they had
cell phones. Today, they have GPS systems. Eventually, technology
will give them access to us if they want it bad enough. Third world
or not.

Two decades ago, they had metal guns. A decade ago, they had ploymer
guns. (Glock, etc) - Today, they have cell phone guns.

Two decades ago, they had suitcase bombs. A decade ago, they had
computer bombs. Today, they have bombs that fit in your shoes.

I can't imagine what another decade or two will bring.

My suggestion to our government is to stop treating these people like
they are expendable, because eventually we won't be able to deal with
every single terrorist because of new technologies. Every single computer
security analyst knows this - that the hackers can get by security faster
than they can plug the holes. The only way is to make the system secure
from the beginning, and in terms of National Security, that means not
****ing them off and trying to be their friends.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Have people really so thoroughly lost track of history that they
>> think that these modern-day Americans are somehow comparable to
>> Eichmann?
>
> It doesn't really matter There are tens of thousands of ****ed off
> Iraqis that feel otherwise.

You have the public opinion surveys to support that claim?

>The problem is - we get our hands dirty
> and step on people and have been very lucky that these third world
> peasants don't decide to revolt.

It appears that there's a serious attempt at a counter-revolution at hand.
However, the perps don't seem to be peasants, but in fact are part of the
hierarchy of the regime that was just overthrown.

> Two decades ago, they barely had computers. A decade ago, they had
> cell phones. Today, they have GPS systems. Eventually, technology
> will give them access to us if they want it bad enough. Third world
> or not.

Irrelevant. You're mis-identified the perps.

> Two decades ago, they had metal guns. A decade ago, they had polymer
> guns. (Glock, etc) -

Which were not undetectable because they were full of pieces of steel.

> Today, they have cell phone guns.

And we have the technical means to detect them, but are still having
problems coming up with the will to detect them.

> Two decades ago, they had suitcase bombs. A decade ago, they had
> computer bombs. Today, they have bombs that fit in your shoes.

Yes, but they are still using explosives that date back up to 50 years.

> I can't imagine what another decade or two will bring.

Many cycles of "spy versus spy". Probably a dirty bomb or two.

> My suggestion to our government is to stop treating these people like
> they are expendable, because eventually we won't be able to deal with
> every single terrorist because of new technologies.

We've never been able to deal with every single terrorist. The best we can
hope to do long term, is to keep them from doing something militarily
significant. Note, Al Quida has yet to do anything militarily significant to
us or anybody else.

> Every single
> computer security analyst knows this - that the hackers can get by
> security faster than they can plug the holes. The only way is to
> make the system secure from the beginning, and in terms of National
> Security, that means not ****ing them off and trying to be their
> friends.

Many of these terrorists come from such different backgrounds than we do
that we can never be their friends. Understanding this fact is the beginning
of figuring out what to do about the problem at hand.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Many of these terrorists come from such different backgrounds than we do
> that we can never be their friends. Understanding this fact is the beginning
> of figuring out what to do about the problem at hand.

Well, going in and slagging everyone kind of seems like a bad way to go about
it. All the weeks of bombing hills in Afganistan did nothing to stop Al Queda,
did it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
hlink.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Many of these terrorists come from such different backgrounds than
>> we do that we can never be their friends. Understanding this fact is
>> the beginning of figuring out what to do about the problem at hand.

> Well, going in and slagging everyone kind of seems like a bad way to
> go about it.

Who did that?

> All the weeks of bombing hills in Afghanistan did nothing to stop Al
Queda, did it?

*nothing* is a big word. They very nature of Al Queda makes them tough to
eradicate. They are their own biggest enemies. It seems like Al Queda has
benefited from support from moderate Moslems. Moderate Moslems seem to be
starting to figure out that Al Queda is a big threat to them. When the money
goes away and arab states figure out how to employ their citizens
productively, Al Queda could fizzle.

[normanstrong]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Well, one just can't be liked by everybody, right?
> > I gave up on you, my friend, and moved on.
>
> Typically, you got it ass-backwards, my "friend". *I* gave up on
you, you
> rabid SOB, and you *never* moved on - you make some sneering,
assinine,
> insulting remark to virtually every post I put up here since I
called you
> out and told you to get lost.
>
> If you really want to "move on", just ignore me. Then and only then
will
> you begin to restore in yourself some modicum of credibility.

Apparently you didn't give up on him, because here you are, still
carrying on a private argument in public. Did it ever occur to either
of you that all this will remain part of the public record for years
to come?

Norm Strong

[George M. Middius]

Uncle Troll said:

> Did it ever occur to either of you that all this will remain
> part of the public record for years to come?

Doesn't bother you, does it?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:


> *nothing* is a big word. They very nature of Al Queda makes them tough to
> eradicate. They are their own biggest enemies. It seems like Al Queda has
> benefited from support from moderate Moslems.

Simpler than that - the two-faced Saudi government.

[George M. Middius]

Obie said:

> Simpler than that - the two-faced Saudi government.

The latest theory on why they've turned on the Saudis: They are
hoping to provoke a civil war between their die-hard supporters and
the moderates, the latter including the government. It's a lot like
what they did in Morocco, apparently.

It will definitely slow the tides of change. It may well provoke
some form of martial law and widespread suspension of what liberties
the Saudis have.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Obie said:
>
>
>>Simpler than that - the two-faced Saudi government.
>
>
> The latest theory on why they've turned on the Saudis: They are
> hoping to provoke a civil war between their die-hard supporters and
> the moderates, the latter including the government. It's a lot like
> what they did in Morocco, apparently.
>
> It will definitely slow the tides of change. It may well provoke
> some form of martial law and widespread suspension of what liberties
> the Saudis have.

Considering the people in power - most definately.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:farwb.221787$275.839897@attbi_s53...
>

>
> Apparently you didn't give up on him, because here you are, still
> carrying on a private argument in public. Did it ever occur to either
> of you that all this will remain part of the public record for years
> to come?

Why would I care? I don't think anyone would really care anyway.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "normanstrong" > wrote in message
> news:farwb.221787$275.839897@attbi_s53...
>
>
>>Apparently you didn't give up on him, because here you are, still
>>carrying on a private argument in public. Did it ever occur to either
>>of you that all this will remain part of the public record for years
>>to come?
>
>
> Why would I care? I don't think anyone would really care anyway.

The chance of any of us actually having a public office in the future
is approaching zero.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
>
> I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> people on planet earth.
>
>

"At least" they're gettin laid.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> > people on planet earth.

> "At least" they're gettin laid.

Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> > > people on planet earth.
>
> > "At least" they're gettin laid.
>
> Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?

? How many times can a martyr lay a virgin?

A: None, he blew his dick off.

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> > > people on planet earth.
>
> > "At least" they're gettin laid.
>
> Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?
>
You got it.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marc Phillips]

Yustabe said:

>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>
>> > > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
>> > > people on planet earth.
>>
>> > "At least" they're gettin laid.
>>
>> Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?
>>
>You got it.

Here, of course, is the final word on that:

http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-September/004736.html

Boon

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >
> > > > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> > > > people on planet earth.
> >
> > > "At least" they're gettin laid.
> >
> > Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?
> >
> You got it.

Could be a translation error and they're really enjoying raisins.

Stephen

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Yustabe said:
>
> >"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >>
> >> > > I tend to agree that suicide bombers are not exactly the smartest
> >> > > people on planet earth.
> >>
> >> > "At least" they're gettin laid.
> >>
> >> Is that a reference to the 70 virgins in heaven, etc.?
> >>
> >You got it.
>
> Here, of course, is the final word on that:
>
> http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-September/004736.html
>


No, they got there 70 virgins alright, its just
that they are 75 year old nuns.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---