Mr. Mne and justice for Arizona

[[email protected]]

I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.

In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
Squamish band

I said
> > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > President.
> >
> You answered:
> There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly that
> "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> world politics but without the miraculous track record.
>
I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
vision or would it be stunted expression?

Who is Dr. House and in what branch of human endeavour did he achieve a
"miraculous track record". And how exactly do you know what my track
record is. For all you know it may be just as miraculous as that of
your Dr. House.

When you're not too busy notify me of the start of your campaign to
free Arizona and New Mexico of Yankee opression.

Please don't stop this correspondence. I'm beginning to enjoy it.
Ludovic Mirabel




..

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.
>
> In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
> taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
> Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
> settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
> Squamish band
>
> I said
> > > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > > President.
> > >
> > You answered:
> > There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly that
> > "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> > other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> > other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> > world politics but without the miraculous track record.
> >
> I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
> Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
> side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
> point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
> for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
> vision or would it be stunted expression?

Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as war
crimes.

Balance is a false value these days and can be a trap in a situation
like ours in which government propaganda leads to war.

> Who is Dr. House and in what branch of human endeavour did he achieve a
> "miraculous track record". And how exactly do you know what my track
> record is. For all you know it may be just as miraculous as that of
> your Dr. House.

Unlikely, as he has the advantage of being fictional. He's a
diagnostician who holds that face to face conversation with the patient
is unnecessary, instead relying on test results and medical histories
for information.

> When you're not too busy notify me of the start of your campaign to
> free Arizona and New Mexico of Yankee opression.
>
> Please don't stop this correspondence. I'm beginning to enjoy it.

As you've enlightened me to the plighted of the oppressed aboriginals of
the northwest, I prefer to concentrate on the resurgence of the First
Nations.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.
> >
> > In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
> > taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
> > Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
> > settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
> > Squamish band
> >
> > I said
> > > > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > > > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > > > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > > > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > > > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > > > President.
> > > >
> > > You answered:
> > > There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly that
> > > "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> > > other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> > > other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> > > world politics but without the miraculous track record.
> > >
> > I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
> > Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
> > side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
> > point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
> > for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
> > vision or would it be stunted expression?
>
> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as war
> crimes.

I must have missed that one as well.

>
> Balance is a false value these days and can be a trap in a situation
> like ours in which government propaganda leads to war.

I agree.....so many want to sit on the sidelines simply assuring that
its
a fair fight with no commitment to the outcome.
Take a side, and stand and be counted.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.
> > >
> > > In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
> > > taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
> > > Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
> > > settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
> > > Squamish band
> > >
> > > I said
> > > > > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm
> > > > > just
> > > > > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home ,
> > > > > not
> > > > > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > > > > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > > > > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > > > > President.
> > > > >
> > > > You answered:
> > > > There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly
> > > > that
> > > > "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> > > > other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> > > > other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> > > > world politics but without the miraculous track record.
> > > >
> > > I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
> > > Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
> > > side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
> > > point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
> > > for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
> > > vision or would it be stunted expression?
> >
> > Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as war
> > crimes.
>
> I must have missed that one as well.

Oh, well. It was in reply to you.

> > Balance is a false value these days and can be a trap in a situation
> > like ours in which government propaganda leads to war.
>
> I agree.....so many want to sit on the sidelines simply assuring that
> its a fair fight with no commitment to the outcome.
> Take a side, and stand and be counted.

Election day coming soon.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.
> > >
> > > In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
> > > taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
> > > Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
> > > settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
> > > Squamish band
> > >
> > > I said
> > > > > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > > > > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > > > > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > > > > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > > > > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > > > > President.
> > > > >
> > > > You answered:
> > > > There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly that
> > > > "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> > > > other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> > > > other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> > > > world politics but without the miraculous track record.
> > > >
> > > I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
> > > Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
> > > side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
> > > point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
> > > for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
> > > vision or would it be stunted expression?
> >
> > Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as war
> > crimes.
>
> I must have missed that one as well.
>
> >
> > Balance is a false value these days and can be a trap in a situation
> > like ours in which government propaganda leads to war.
>
> I agree.....so many want to sit on the sidelines simply assuring that
> its
> a fair fight with no commitment to the outcome.

I thought that I'd heard this somewhere else...

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2003/sept03/psrsept03.shtml

republospeak: "Stand and be counted."

Where did this phrase come from? Hm.

Why, it's directly from the bible! (And toopid claims not to be
religious!)

http://www.padfield.com/1997/goodmen.html

Note the last paragraph: "Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit
by and do nothing. Stand up and be counted, speak up against evil and
speak out against evil men and their sinful deeds."

They forgot the disclaimer: except when the evil is perpetrated by a
certain political party. Then speaking out is misdirected or
unpatriotic or traitorous or even worse. LOL!

> Take a side, and stand and be counted.

Yes, dear.

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > I can't let this thrilling exchange die on the Google vine.
> >
> > In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread II suggested that instead of
> > taking up the remote causes of remote people you concentrate on the
> > Latinos in the South- West of your country that you conquered and
> > settled.. You reprisal was that i should take up the cause of my local
> > Squamish band
> >
> > I said
> > > > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > > > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > > > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > > > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > > > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > > > President.
> > > >
> > > You answered:
> > > There's that presumption again, and so soon after I told explicitly that
> > > "pointing out flaws on one side isn't necessarily an endorsement of the
> > > other." Perhaps in your line of work it's better to not listen to the
> > > other side of the conversation, making you the Dr. House of audio and
> > > world politics but without the miraculous track record.
> > >
> > I am relieved to hear (and so I am sure will be the government of
> > Israel) that deep, deep down you're merely pointing the faults of one
> > side without endorsing the other. I am sure that you will be able to
> > point me to where and when you pointed the faults of that other side
> > for balance. Otherwise you might appear to have a somewhat slanted
> > vision or would it be stunted expression?
>
> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as war
> crimes.
>
> Balance is a false value these days and can be a trap in a situation
> like ours in which government propaganda leads to war.
>
> > Who is Dr. House and in what branch of human endeavour did he achieve a
> > "miraculous track record". And how exactly do you know what my track
> > record is. For all you know it may be just as miraculous as that of
> > your Dr. House.
>
> Unlikely, as he has the advantage of being fictional. He's a
> diagnostician who holds that face to face conversation with the patient
> is unnecessary, instead relying on test results and medical histories
> for information.
>
> > When you're not too busy notify me of the start of your campaign to
> > free Arizona and New Mexico of Yankee opression.
> >
> > Please don't stop this correspondence. I'm beginning to enjoy it.
>
> As you've enlightened me to the plighted of the oppressed aboriginals of
> the northwest, I prefer to concentrate on the resurgence of the First
> Nations.
>
> Stephen

=========================================

MNe strikes out:

"> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
war
> crimes.

I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It will
sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> =========================================
>
> MNe strikes out:
>
> "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > war crimes.
>
> I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It will
> sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
> >
> > MNe strikes out:
> >
> > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > > war crimes.
> >
> > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It will
> > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
Stephen

======================================

You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
raise spirits. .
Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
fiction?
Regards Ludovic M.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > MNe strikes out:
> > >
> > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > > > war crimes.
> > >
> > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It will
> > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> Stephen
>
> ======================================
>
> You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> raise spirits.
> Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> fiction?

If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MNe strikes out:
> > > >
> > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > > > > war crimes.
> > > >
> > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It will
> > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> > Stephen
> >
> > ======================================
> >
> > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> > raise spirits.
> > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> > fiction?
>
> If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
>
> Stephen

Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
me.
Ludovic M.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > MNe strikes out:
> > > > >
> > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > > > > > war crimes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It
> > > > > will
> > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > >
> > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > >
> > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> > > raise spirits.
> > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> > > fiction?
> >
> > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
> me.

Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MNe strikes out:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks as
> > > > > > > war crimes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again. It
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > ======================================
> > > >
> > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> > > > raise spirits.
> > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> > > > fiction?
> > >
> > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
> > me.
>
> Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
>
> Stephen

Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > war crimes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again.
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > ======================================
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> > > > > raise spirits.
> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> > > > > fiction?
> > > >
> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
> > > me.
> >
> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.

> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?

That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion

No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > In article . com>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > > In article . com>,
>> > > > " > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > > > > In article . com>,
>> > > > > > " > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks
>> > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > war crimes.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again.
>> > > > > > > It
>> > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
>> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
>> > > > > Stephen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ======================================
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
>> > > > > raise spirits.
>> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
>> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
>> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
>> > > > > fiction?
>> > > >
>> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
>> > > >
>> > > > Stephen
>> > >
>> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
>> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
>> > > me.
>> >
>> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
>
>> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
>> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
>> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
>
> That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
>
> No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.

He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
through a hoop.
I jumped..feel good?

Anyway, message id:


"Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.

Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
replicated the mistake.

American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."

So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
and a zinger at the US for good measure.
I should have expected no less.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > > > In article . com>,
> >> > > > " > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >> > > > > > " > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket attacks
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > war crimes.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it again.
> >> > > > > > > It
> >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> >> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> >> > > > > Stephen
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ======================================
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does not
> >> > > > > raise spirits.
> >> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap with
> >> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you claim
> >> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> >> > > > > fiction?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Stephen
> >> > >
> >> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> >> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is killing
> >> > > me.
> >> >
> >> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
> >
> >> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
> >> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
> >> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
> >
> > That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
> >
> > No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.
>
> He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
> through a hoop.
> I jumped..feel good?
>
> Anyway, message id:
>
>
> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>
> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
> replicated the mistake.
>
> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>
> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> I should have expected no less.
>
> ScottW

Thank you Scott W. Now that you dug out this shining example of
evenhandedness and objectivity I can understand why MNe was so
reluctant to simply quote it black on white. If this sounds "sarcastic"
and "condescending" it is intended.

Yes Sharon invaded Lebanon once before in a partially successful
attempt to get rid of the PLO terror on the Israeli Northern border -
terror directed against a country 20 miles wide at its waist. Yes he
closed his eyes to the war crime of his Christian Lebanese allies. He
was investigated by an Israeli court and condemned for it. Just like
the Arab League condemned Arafat ' resistance fighters" for pushing an
old partially paralysed man in a wheelchair overboard into the drink.
If this also sounds "sarcastic" and "condescending" it is also
intended.

The 2nd invasion of Lebanon took place after several years of (as you
say)" ... Those rockets are so >inaccurate that to use them in any
populated area constitutes targeting civilians. You then go on to
castigate Israel for "repeating its mistakes", using "cluster bombs"
and so on

Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
the border communities in Texas succeding from time to time in killing
a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.
Just suppose America responds.. Just suppose Canadian Mnes
evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
to say Mr. Mne?

Till you tell me I'll still be condescending and sarcastic
Intentionally Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > > > In article . com>,
> >> > > > " > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > > > > > In article
> >> > > > > > . com>,
> >> > > > > > " > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket
> >> > > > > > > attacks
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > war crimes.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it
> >> > > > > > > again.
> >> > > > > > > It
> >> > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> >> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> >> > > > > Stephen
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ======================================
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > raise spirits.
> >> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you
> >> > > > > claim
> >> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> >> > > > > fiction?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Stephen
> >> > >
> >> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> >> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is
> >> > > killing
> >> > > me.
> >> >
> >> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
> >
> >> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
> >> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
> >> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
> >
> > That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
> >
> > No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.
>
> He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
> through a hoop.
> I jumped..feel good?

Good for you. I'd have felt better if you had remembered my response.

> Anyway, message id:
>
>
> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>
> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
> replicated the mistake.
>
> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>
> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> I should have expected no less.

That's the balance Ludo wants from me.

My condemnation is clear and unqualified.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> ScottW wrote:
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > >> > In article . com>,
> > >> > " > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > >> > > > In article
> > >> > > > . com>,
> > >> > > > " > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > >> > > > > > In article
> > >> > > > > > . com>,
> > >> > > > > > " > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket
> > >> > > > > > > attacks
> > >> > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > war crimes.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it
> > >> > > > > > > again.
> > >> > > > > > > It
> > >> > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
> > >> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
> > >> > > > > Stephen
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > ======================================
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty
> > >> > > > > does not
> > >> > > > > raise spirits.
> > >> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap
> > >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you
> > >> > > > > claim
> > >> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
> > >> > > > > fiction?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Stephen
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
> > >> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is
> > >> > > killing
> > >> > > me.
> > >> >
> > >> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
> > >
> > >> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
> > >> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
> > >> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
> > >
> > > That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
> > >
> > > No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.
> >
> > He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
> > through a hoop.
> > I jumped..feel good?
> >
> > Anyway, message id:
> >
> >
> > "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
> > that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
> >
> > Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
> > replicated the mistake.
> >
> > American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
> >
> > So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> > and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> > I should have expected no less.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Thank you Scott W. Now that you dug out this shining example of
> evenhandedness and objectivity I can understand why MNe was so
> reluctant to simply quote it black on white. If this sounds "sarcastic"
> and "condescending" it is intended.

There you go. I am not reluctant, I just feel the need to dig up proof I
said what I did.

Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.

So, bye!

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.

With respect, I'm curious why you don't apply that rubric to your
"debates" with Mr. Krooger.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> ScottW wrote:
>> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article . com>,
>> > > " > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > >> > In article . com>,
>> > >> > " > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > >> > > > In article
>> > >> > > > . com>,
>> > >> > > > " > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > In article
>> > >> > > > > > . com>,
>> > >> > > > > > " > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket
>> > >> > > > > > > attacks
>> > >> > > > > > > as
>> > >> > > > > > > > war crimes.
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it
>> > >> > > > > > > again.
>> > >> > > > > > > It
>> > >> > > > > > > will
>> > >> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
>> > >> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
>> > >> > > > > Stephen
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > ======================================
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty
>> > >> > > > > does not
>> > >> > > > > raise spirits.
>> > >> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap
>> > >> > > > > with
>> > >> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you
>> > >> > > > > claim
>> > >> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
>> > >> > > > > fiction?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Stephen
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
>> > >> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is
>> > >> > > killing
>> > >> > > me.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
>> > >
>> > >> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
>> > >> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
>> > >> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
>> > >
>> > > That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
>> > >
>> > > No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.
>> >
>> > He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
>> > through a hoop.
>> > I jumped..feel good?
>> >
>> > Anyway, message id:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
>> > that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>> >
>> > Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
>> > replicated the mistake.
>> >
>> > American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>> >
>> > So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
>> > and a zinger at the US for good measure.
>> > I should have expected no less.
>> >
>> > ScottW
>>
>> Thank you Scott W. Now that you dug out this shining example of
>> evenhandedness and objectivity I can understand why MNe was so
>> reluctant to simply quote it black on white. If this sounds "sarcastic"
>> and "condescending" it is intended.
>
> There you go. I am not reluctant, I just feel the need to dig up proof I
> said what I did.
>
> Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.

Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
injustice.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article . com>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> > In article . com>,
>> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> > > > In article . com>,
>> >> > > > " > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> > > > > > In article
>> >> > > > > > . com>,
>> >> > > > > > " > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > MNe strikes out:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > "> Perhaps you missed my condemnation of Hezbollah rocket
>> >> > > > > > > attacks
>> >> > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > war crimes.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > I missed it and so apparently did Hezbollah. Do quote it
>> >> > > > > > > again.
>> >> > > > > > > It
>> >> > > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > sure make them quake in their sandals and stop.
>> >> > > > > > > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Well, no pleasing Dr. House of International Affairs.
>> >> > > > > Stephen
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > ======================================
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > You're right- watching you striving pathetically to be witty does
>> >> > > > > not
>> >> > > > > raise spirits.
>> >> > > > > Instead of making a spectacle of yourself shaking a clown's cap
>> >> > > > > with
>> >> > > > > bells on it qive us that memorable admonition to Hezbollah you
>> >> > > > > claim
>> >> > > > > you once made. Don't keep us on tenterhooks guessing: truth or
>> >> > > > > fiction?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > If you're accusing me of lying, this conversation is over.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Stephen
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Accuse--nothing. Just waiting to read your memorable admonition to
>> >> > > Hezbollah. (with reference to thread and date). The suspense is
>> >> > > killing
>> >> > > me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Google 'Hezbollah' and 'war crime' and me as author.
>> >
>> >> Found zero, zilch, wild goose chase.
>> >> Why instead of all this mystery and misery you don't requote yourself
>> >> with the name of the thread and date? Simple isn't it?
>> >
>> > That's odd. Try: hezbollah war crime group:rec.audio.opinion
>> >
>> > No wild goose chase, I just did so and found the post.
>>
>> He'd prefer to feel empowered by seeing if he can make you jump
>> through a hoop.
>> I jumped..feel good?
>
> Good for you. I'd have felt better if you had remembered my response.
>
>> Anyway, message id:
>>
>>
>> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
>> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>>
>> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
>> replicated the mistake.
>>
>> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>>
>> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
>> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
>> I should have expected no less.
>
> That's the balance Ludo wants from me.

No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
itself is not what he had in mind.
>
> My condemnation is clear and unqualified.

Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
and those who supply them with rockets?

Or would you insist prosecution for everyone mentioned
in your post?

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

Me:
> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
>
> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
> injustice.

No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other things in common
with Ludo, including the ability to argue both sides at the same time.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:

<snip>

> >> Anyway, message id:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
> >>
> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
> >> replicated the mistake.
> >>
> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
> >>
> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> >> I should have expected no less.
> >
> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
>
> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
> itself is not what he had in mind.

Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.

> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
>
> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
> and those who supply them with rockets?

Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.

> Or would you insist prosecution for everyone mentioned
> in your post?

Only if it includes you and Ludo.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
>
> With respect, I'm curious why you don't apply that rubric to your
> "debates" with Mr. Krooger.

He's insane.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> Anyway, message id:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
>> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>> >>
>> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
>> >> replicated the mistake.
>> >>
>> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>> >>
>> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
>> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
>> >> I should have expected no less.
>> >
>> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
>>
>> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
>> itself is not what he had in mind.
>
> Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
>
>> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
>>
>> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
>> and those who supply them with rockets?
>
> Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
> I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.

So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > There you go. I am not reluctant, I just feel the need to dig up proof I
> > said what I did.
> >
> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
>
> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
> injustice.

Except for one thing, toopid: I reply to what you say. You say the
stupid things and get called on them.

When you say really, really dumb things (several times daily) and get
called on them, sarcasm may indeed upset you. But your arguments are
left tattered in every case.

But you have yet to realize that you get your ass handed to you in
virtually every argument. You're not that bright.

You're a political moron. That's what makes it so much fun.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > There you go. I am not reluctant, I just feel the need to dig up proof I
> > said what I did.
> >
> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
>
> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
> injustice.

Except for one thing, toopid: I reply to what you say. You say the
stupid things and get called on them.

When you say really, really dumb things (several times daily) and get
called on them, sarcasm may indeed upset you. But your arguments are
left tattered in every case.

But you have yet to realize that you get your ass handed to you in
virtually every argument. You're not that bright.

You're a political moron. That's what makes it so much fun.

[MiNe 109]

In article <ZqcWg.2457$fl.124@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> >> Anyway, message id:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
> >> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
> >> >>
> >> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
> >> >> replicated the mistake.
> >> >>
> >> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
> >> >>
> >> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> >> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> >> >> I should have expected no less.
> >> >
> >> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
> >>
> >> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
> >> itself is not what he had in mind.
> >
> > Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
> >
> >> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
> >>
> >> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
> >> and those who supply them with rockets?
> >
> > Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
> > I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.
>
> So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
> In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
> have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.

I don't know the source of the rule banning targeting civilians. Geneva
Convention? This sort of regional conflict might fall between the legal
cracks, but enforcement is the main problem.

Inaccurate missiles, mines, cluster-bombs should have rules banning
their use. The trend is going the other way at the moment. There's
obviously a lot of politics (why isn't Saddam tried internationally?).

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.

> > With respect, I'm curious why you don't apply that rubric to your
> > "debates" with Mr. Krooger.

> He's insane.

Agreed.™ LOt"S.™




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ZqcWg.2457$fl.124@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> >> Anyway, message id:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so inaccurate
>> >> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting civilians.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon and
>> >> >> replicated the mistake.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
>> >> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
>> >> >> I should have expected no less.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
>> >>
>> >> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
>> >> itself is not what he had in mind.
>> >
>> > Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
>> >
>> >> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
>> >>
>> >> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
>> >> and those who supply them with rockets?
>> >
>> > Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
>> > I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.
>>
>> So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
>> In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
>> have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.
>
> I don't know the source of the rule banning targeting civilians. Geneva
> Convention? This sort of regional conflict might fall between the legal
> cracks, but enforcement is the main problem.

Doesn't criminalization come before enforcement?

>
> Inaccurate missiles, mines, cluster-bombs should have rules banning
> their use. The trend is going the other way at the moment. There's
> obviously a lot of politics (why isn't Saddam tried internationally?).

A show for support of the new government.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <ZOcWg.2465$fl.261@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <ZqcWg.2457$fl.124@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >> >> Anyway, message id:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so
> >> >> >> inaccurate
> >> >> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting
> >> >> >> civilians.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> replicated the mistake.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> >> >> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> >> >> >> I should have expected no less.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
> >> >> itself is not what he had in mind.
> >> >
> >> > Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
> >> >
> >> >> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
> >> >> and those who supply them with rockets?
> >> >
> >> > Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
> >> > I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.
> >>
> >> So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
> >> In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
> >> have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.
> >
> > I don't know the source of the rule banning targeting civilians. Geneva
> > Convention? This sort of regional conflict might fall between the legal
> > cracks, but enforcement is the main problem.
>
> Doesn't criminalization come before enforcement?

Yep, Geneva Convention:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006

> > Inaccurate missiles, mines, cluster-bombs should have rules banning
> > their use. The trend is going the other way at the moment. There's
> > obviously a lot of politics (why isn't Saddam tried internationally?).
>
> A show for support of the new government.

'Show' like 'show trial'?

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ZOcWg.2465$fl.261@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <ZqcWg.2457$fl.124@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Anyway, message id:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so
>> >> >> >> inaccurate
>> >> >> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting
>> >> >> >> civilians.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> replicated the mistake.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
>> >> >> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
>> >> >> >> I should have expected no less.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
>> >> >> itself is not what he had in mind.
>> >> >
>> >> > Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
>> >> >> and those who supply them with rockets?
>> >> >
>> >> > Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international court?
>> >> > I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.
>> >>
>> >> So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
>> >> In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
>> >> have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.
>> >
>> > I don't know the source of the rule banning targeting civilians. Geneva
>> > Convention? This sort of regional conflict might fall between the legal
>> > cracks, but enforcement is the main problem.
>>
>> Doesn't criminalization come before enforcement?
>
> Yep, Geneva Convention:
>
> http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006

Great...when will the charges be brought?

>
>> > Inaccurate missiles, mines, cluster-bombs should have rules banning
>> > their use. The trend is going the other way at the moment. There's
>> > obviously a lot of politics (why isn't Saddam tried internationally?).
>>
>> A show for support of the new government.
>
> 'Show' like 'show trial'?

It was supposed to be a show but seems to have
morphed into a circus.
Still, its an Iraqi circus.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> Me:
> > > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> > > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
> >
> > Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> > though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> > and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
> > injustice.
>
> No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other things in common
> with Ludo, including the ability to argue both sides at the same time.
>
> Stephen
================================

Mine strikes out: " > > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and
"condescending" I feel no
> > > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.

But lo and behold; One hour later the same Mine takes up the Mirabel
topic once again in a polemic with ScottW
"> No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other things in
common
> with Ludo, including the ability to argue both sides at the same time."
>
> Stephen

Not to flattering , is he now? So much for "respect" He wants freedom
to enlarge on my failings- but any answer will be too brutal for his
delicate, sensitivities.

This is not a kindergarten though. I don't care if he answers or stays
in a huff. I'll say whatever I have to say in a manner that suits me
(short of gutter language because that does not suit me) .

But I can't help thinking that Miine got into a big, big temper tantrum
about my writing manners to avoid answering a simple question that I
posed:

"Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
the border communities in Texas succeding from time to time in killing
a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.

Just suppose America responds.. Just suppose Canadian Mnes
evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
to say Mr. Mne?

Just as he did his best to dodge quoting his message about Hezbollah
that he said would but knew very well would not redeem reams and reams
of previous and subsequent postings apologising for and excusing the
"resistance fighters". He wanted his assertion but did not care for
anyone else to see the detail.

Just my suspicious, sarcastic nature. And my brutal debating manners
that dear, old, delicate Mine had never encountered in the RAO before.

What can I do to apologise? I know: I'll just ignore Mr. Mine's hurt
feelings and promise him to watch his further advances into
evenhadedness. And I'll comment on them SOS. He may forgive me one day.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[MiNe 109]

In article <AMfWg.2481$fl.1145@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <ZOcWg.2465$fl.261@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <ZqcWg.2457$fl.124@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <T%bWg.2455$fl.275@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article <7A9Wg.2434$fl.1390@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Anyway, message id:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Yes, I'm against Hezbollah war crimes. Those rockets are so
> >> >> >> >> inaccurate
> >> >> >> >> that to use them in any populated area constitutes targeting
> >> >> >> >> civilians.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Too bad Israel forgot its previous experience in invading Lebanon
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> replicated the mistake.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> American-made cluster bombs are bad, too."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So his condemnation includes blaming Israel for the conflict
> >> >> >> >> and a zinger at the US for good measure.
> >> >> >> >> I should have expected no less.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's the balance Ludo wants from me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, I'm sure that condemning Israel for defending
> >> >> >> itself is not what he had in mind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Me either. Good thing I didn't do that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > My condemnation is clear and unqualified.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you calling for unilateral prosecution of Hezbollah leaders
> >> >> >> and those who supply them with rockets?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why unilateral? Do mean a war-crimes prosecution in international
> >> >> > court?
> >> >> > I wouldn't mind that, but it would take another invasion to enforce.
> >> >>
> >> >> So....why hasn't the ICC taken up this issue?
> >> >> In fact...I don't think I've even heard it brought up though I
> >> >> have heard suggestions Israeli leaders be charged.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know the source of the rule banning targeting civilians. Geneva
> >> > Convention? This sort of regional conflict might fall between the legal
> >> > cracks, but enforcement is the main problem.
> >>
> >> Doesn't criminalization come before enforcement?
> >
> > Yep, Geneva Convention:
> >
> > http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006
>
> Great...when will the charges be brought?

I don't who brings the charges in these situations. The court itself?

> >> > Inaccurate missiles, mines, cluster-bombs should have rules banning
> >> > their use. The trend is going the other way at the moment. There's
> >> > obviously a lot of politics (why isn't Saddam tried internationally?).
> >>
> >> A show for support of the new government.
> >
> > 'Show' like 'show trial'?
>
> It was supposed to be a show but seems to have
> morphed into a circus.
> Still, its an Iraqi circus.

Not much to be proud of.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> I don't care if he answers or stays
> in a huff.

Bye!

[paul packer]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:28:07 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>Me:
>> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
>> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
>>
>> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
>> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
>> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
>> injustice.
>
>No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other things in common
>with Ludo, including the ability to argue both sides at the same time.
>
>Stephen


Maybe he feels the contrary argument isn't being well enough
represented by yourself and others. There's nothing like fairness.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:28:07 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >Me:
> >> > Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and "condescending" I feel no
> >> > need to look past your ill will to address your arguments with respect.
> >>
> >> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> >> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> >> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems a great
> >> injustice.
> >
> >No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other things in common
> >with Ludo, including the ability to argue both sides at the same time.
> >
> >Stephen
>
>
> Maybe he feels the contrary argument isn't being well enough
> represented by yourself and others. There's nothing like fairness.

That's a kind way of saying he's arguing against what he wishes I said.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:28:07 GMT, MiNe 109
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Me:
>>>>> Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and
>>>>> "condescending" I feel no need to look past your ill
>>>>> will to address your arguments with respect.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
>>>> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
>>>> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems
>>>> a great injustice.
>>>
>>> No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other
>>> things in common with Ludo, including the ability to
>>> argue both sides at the same time.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> Maybe he feels the contrary argument isn't being well
>> enough represented by yourself and others. There's
>> nothing like fairness.
>
> That's a kind way of saying he's arguing against what he
> wishes I said.


Hmm, sort of what you, Jenn, and Middius do around here all the time.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:28:07 GMT, MiNe 109
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Me:
> >>>>> Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and
> >>>>> "condescending" I feel no need to look past your ill
> >>>>> will to address your arguments with respect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> >>>> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> >>>> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems
> >>>> a great injustice.
> >>>
> >>> No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other
> >>> things in common with Ludo, including the ability to
> >>> argue both sides at the same time.
> >>>
> >>> Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe he feels the contrary argument isn't being well
> >> enough represented by yourself and others. There's
> >> nothing like fairness.
> >
> > That's a kind way of saying he's arguing against what he
> > wishes I said.
>
>
> Hmm, sort of what you, Jenn, and Middius do around here all the time.

No, that's not generally the case. It occurs to me that Ludo might spend
more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
arguing his own.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > (paul packer) wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:28:07 GMT, MiNe 109
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <EWbWg.2453$fl.718@dukeread08>,
> > >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Me:
> > >>>>> Since you're intentionally "sarcastic" and
> > >>>>> "condescending" I feel no need to look past your ill
> > >>>>> will to address your arguments with respect.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sounds like how I feel with ssshhhh and Fox...
> > >>>> though characterizing their behavior as sarcastic
> > >>>> and condescending and comparing them to Ludovic seems
> > >>>> a great injustice.
> > >>>
> > >>> No, they're more insulting and ironic. They have other
> > >>> things in common with Ludo, including the ability to
> > >>> argue both sides at the same time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Maybe he feels the contrary argument isn't being well
> > >> enough represented by yourself and others. There's
> > >> nothing like fairness.
> > >
> > > That's a kind way of saying he's arguing against what he
> > > wishes I said.
> >
> >
> > Hmm, sort of what you, Jenn, and Middius do around here all the time.
>
> No, that's not generally the case. It occurs to me that Ludo might spend
> more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
> arguing his own.
>
> Stephen
===========================

Mr. Mine threatened once again to leave the playfield, clutching his
Snickers. It did not last long. He rerepeats his "positively last
appearance" act shaking his little fist all over again. Personally I'd
prefer to haunt the bad dreams of more interesting opponents but one
takes the best available.

The last two (dis)appearances were, oh so original, devices for not
having to comment on this allegorical situation:.

"Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
the border communities in Texas succeeding from time to time to kill
a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.
Just suppose America responds. Just suppose Canadian Mines
evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
to say Mr. Mine?"

Mr. Mine must have had in mind Wittgensteins dictum:: "Of what one can
not speak of that one remains silent.". He declared himself insulted
and said he'd quit. In silence of course.

Of course my imaginary Canadian Mr. Mines would call the response
"disproportionate" if it were not exactly ONE Mexican kid and ONE
teacher for ONE each of the Texans.

To drop more names Rochefoucauld in his "Maxims" had a word for my
imaginary Canadian Mr Mines and the actual American Mine.: "Good Lord
gave us the strength to bear the misfortunes of others".

There is nothing new about the Mine's attitude. In the old days it was
called isolationism. The theoretical groundwork is to keep repeating:
"The good side is not perfect either so the best for us is to stay out
of it"
In the old days Pearl Harbour put a stop to that. Nowadays even 9/11 is
not enough. We're progressing.

He complains that: ".>.. Ludo might spend
> more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
> arguing his own.

This is how I see of your views. Don't complain about my unfairness and
my other sins. : What ARE your views?
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

>
> The last two (dis)appearances were, oh so original, devices for not
> having to comment on this allegorical situation:.

No, they weren't. You were on notice, and I bid you good-bye without
reading the allegory.

I don't have a comment on the allegory, BTW. There are many colorful
Texan similes concerning hypothetical situations. Call any with which
you are familiar with to mind now, please.

Stephen

[Mr Fox]

On 9 Oct 2006 13:03:25 -0700, " >
wrote:

> Mr. Mine threatened once again to leave the playfield, clutching his
>Snickers. It did not last long. He rerepeats his "positively last
>appearance" act shaking his little fist all over again. Personally I'd
>prefer to haunt the bad dreams of more interesting opponents but one
>takes the best available.
>
>The last two (dis)appearances were, oh so original, devices for not
>having to comment on this allegorical situation:.
>
>"Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
>the border communities in Texas succeeding from time to time to kill
>a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
>government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.
>Just suppose America responds. Just suppose Canadian Mines
>evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
>to say Mr. Mine?"
>

Impossible to comment on; itss a/ridiculously oversimplified scenario.


>Mr. Mine must have had in mind Wittgensteins dictum:: "Of what one can
>not speak of that one remains silent.". He declared himself insulted
>and said he'd quit. In silence of course.
>
>Of course my imaginary Canadian Mr. Mines would call the response
>"disproportionate" if it were not exactly ONE Mexican kid and ONE
>teacher for ONE each of the Texans.
>
>To drop more names Rochefoucauld in his "Maxims" had a word for my
>imaginary Canadian Mr Mines and the actual American Mine.: "Good Lord
>gave us the strength to bear the misfortunes of others".
>
>There is nothing new about the Mine's attitude. In the old days it was
>called isolationism. The theoretical groundwork is to keep repeating:
>"The good side is not perfect either so the best for us is to stay out
>of it"

Its shallow thinking that led youy to believin that "our side" ( USA
and allies) is "the good side"; failing to appreciate the warpath the
necons are on, their ulterior motives etc. You scuttled off when I
provieded voluminous information to that effect.

>In the old days Pearl Harbour put a stop to that. Nowadays even 9/11 is
>not enough. We're progressing.
>
>He complains that: ".>.. Ludo might spend
>> more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
>> arguing his own.
>
>This is how I see of your views. Don't complain about my unfairness and
>my other sins. : What ARE your views?
>Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Mr Fox > wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2006 13:03:25 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Mine threatened once again to leave the playfield, clutching his
> >Snickers. It did not last long. He rerepeats his "positively last
> >appearance" act shaking his little fist all over again. Personally I'd
> >prefer to haunt the bad dreams of more interesting opponents but one
> >takes the best available.
> >
> >The last two (dis)appearances were, oh so original, devices for not
> >having to comment on this allegorical situation:.
> >
> >"Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
> >the border communities in Texas succeeding from time to time to kill
> >a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
> >government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.
> >Just suppose America responds. Just suppose Canadian Mines
> >evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
> >to say Mr. Mine?"
> >
>
> Impossible to comment on; itss a/ridiculously oversimplified scenario.

Since it seems important to the good doctor, I'll comment after all. If
both sides committed war crimes, I'd expect both sides to be condemned
for it.

LM:
> >Mr. Mine must have had in mind Wittgensteins dictum:: "Of what one can
> >not speak of that one remains silent.". He declared himself insulted
> >and said he'd quit. In silence of course.

No, I did not. However, I've changed my mind on commenting on the little
fantasy.

> >Of course my imaginary Canadian Mr. Mines would call the response
> >"disproportionate" if it were not exactly ONE Mexican kid and ONE
> >teacher for ONE each of the Texans.
> >
> >To drop more names Rochefoucauld in his "Maxims" had a word for my
> >imaginary Canadian Mr Mines and the actual American Mine.: "Good Lord
> >gave us the strength to bear the misfortunes of others".
> >
> >There is nothing new about the Mine's attitude. In the old days it was
> >called isolationism. The theoretical groundwork is to keep repeating:
> >"The good side is not perfect either so the best for us is to stay out
> >of it"
>
> Its shallow thinking that led youy to believin that "our side" ( USA
> and allies) is "the good side"; failing to appreciate the warpath the
> necons are on, their ulterior motives etc. You scuttled off when I
> provieded voluminous information to that effect.

Funny about that.

> >In the old days Pearl Harbour put a stop to that. Nowadays even 9/11 is
> >not enough. We're progressing.
> >
> >He complains that: ".>.. Ludo might spend
> >> more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
> >> arguing his own.
> >
> >This is how I see of your views. Don't complain about my unfairness and
> >my other sins. : What ARE your views?

I'll complain as I see fit. I've expressed my views in the past and will
likely do so again in the future.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Mr Fox wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2006 13:03:25 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Mine threatened once again to leave the playfield, clutching his
> >Snickers. It did not last long. He rerepeats his "positively last
> >appearance" act shaking his little fist all over again. Personally I'd
> >prefer to haunt the bad dreams of more interesting opponents but one
> >takes the best available.
> >
> >The last two (dis)appearances were, oh so original, devices for not
> >having to comment on this allegorical situation:.
> >
> >"Just curious: suppose Mexican terrorists start lobbing missiles into
> >the border communities in Texas succeeding from time to time to kill
> >a schoolkid or two with their teachers . Just suppose the Mexican
> >government is either impotent or unwilling or both to do much about it.
> >Just suppose America responds. Just suppose Canadian Mines
> >evenhandedly condemn the war crimes of both sides. What would you have
> >to say Mr. Mine?"
> >
>
> Impossible to comment on; itss a/ridiculously oversimplified scenario.
>
>
> >Mr. Mine must have had in mind Wittgensteins dictum:: "Of what one can
> >not speak of that one remains silent.". He declared himself insulted
> >and said he'd quit. In silence of course.
> >
> >Of course my imaginary Canadian Mr. Mines would call the response
> >"disproportionate" if it were not exactly ONE Mexican kid and ONE
> >teacher for ONE each of the Texans.
> >
> >To drop more names Rochefoucauld in his "Maxims" had a word for my
> >imaginary Canadian Mr Mines and the actual American Mine.: "Good Lord
> >gave us the strength to bear the misfortunes of others".
> >
> >There is nothing new about the Mine's attitude. In the old days it was
> >called isolationism. The theoretical groundwork is to keep repeating:
> >"The good side is not perfect either so the best for us is to stay out
> >of it"
>
> Its shallow thinking that led youy to believin that "our side" ( USA
> and allies) is "the good side"; failing to appreciate the warpath the
> necons are on, their ulterior motives etc. You scuttled off when I
> provieded voluminous information to that effect.
>
> >In the old days Pearl Harbour put a stop to that. Nowadays even 9/11 is
> >not enough. We're progressing.
> >
> >He complains that: ".>.. Ludo might spend
> >> more time arguing what he wishes were the opposite side than he does
> >> arguing his own.
> >
> >This is how I see of your views. Don't complain about my unfairness and
> >my other sins. : What ARE your views?
> >Ludovic Mirabel

This is getting unwieldy and uninteresting- and I'm as guilty as
anyone. So just a brief reply.
"Good side" was a figure of speech. I'm not so naive as to believe in
perfection on this earth.

It is all in degrees of greyness but my life experience, as you justly
observed, motivates me to choose the fainter shade, It may mean milions
of casualties less of those near to me- or rather you because I shan't
be there.

In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising neocons
and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.

Ludovic Mirabel
I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I haven't
a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising neocons
> and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.

> I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I haven't
> a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.

It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
another.

On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by Orwellian
propaganda?

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising neocons
> > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
>
> > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I haven't
> > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
>
> It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
> another.
>
> On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
> banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by Orwellian
> propaganda?
>
> Stephen

Mine says:

" > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
a
> banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> into a totalitarian/fascist state.

I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.

First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even be
frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
that eg. your son would innocently repeat
something at school.

If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light of
day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door and
things would take course from then on.

In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
worst...

I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so completely
out of touch with reality.

It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in London
in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting for
the siren to howl out..

When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting for
the siren to go off.
So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could not
face going back to her village.
Just banalities...

Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
"simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
Ludovic Mirabel

I

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising neocons
> > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> >
> > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I haven't
> > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> >
> > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
> > another.
> >
> > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
> > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by Orwellian
> > propaganda?
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Mine says:
>
> " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> a
> > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
>
> I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.

That's why I don't want to live in one.

> First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even be
> frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> something at school.

Sounds grim.

> If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light of
> day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door and
> things would take course from then on.

Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected to
a government that thought such a thing was permissible.

> In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> worst...

I shudder to think.

> I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so completely
> out of touch with reality.

That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?

> It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in London
> in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting for
> the siren to howl out..

Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.

> When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting for
> the siren to go off.
> So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could not
> face going back to her village.
> Just banalities...

There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.

> Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..

Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or was)
a free society built on rule of law.

I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
society to the madness of civil war.

Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.

In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising neocons
> > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > >
> > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I haven't
> > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > >
> > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
> > > another.
> > >
> > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
> > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by Orwellian
> > > propaganda?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Mine says:
> >
> > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > a
> > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> >
> > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
>
> That's why I don't want to live in one.
>
> > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even be
> > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > something at school.
>
> Sounds grim.
>
> > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light of
> > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door and
> > things would take course from then on.
>
> Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected to
> a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
>
> > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > worst...
>
> I shudder to think.
>
> > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so completely
> > out of touch with reality.
>
> That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
>
> > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in London
> > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting for
> > the siren to howl out..
>
> Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
>
> > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting for
> > the siren to go off.
> > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could not
> > face going back to her village.
> > Just banalities...
>
> There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
>
> > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
>
> Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or was)
> a free society built on rule of law.
>
> I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> society to the madness of civil war.
>
> Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
>
> In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
>
> Stephen

Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
being able to do so .

But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
places)

Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.

One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
the lead..
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising
> > > > > neocons
> > > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> > > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > > >
> > > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > > >
> > > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
> > > > another.
> > > >
> > > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
> > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by
> > > > Orwellian
> > > > propaganda?
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > Mine says:
> > >
> > > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > > a
> > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> > >
> > > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
> >
> > That's why I don't want to live in one.
> >
> > > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even be
> > > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > > something at school.
> >
> > Sounds grim.
> >
> > > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light of
> > > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door and
> > > things would take course from then on.
> >
> > Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected to
> > a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
> >
> > > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > > worst...
> >
> > I shudder to think.
> >
> > > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so completely
> > > out of touch with reality.
> >
> > That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
> >
> > > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in London
> > > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting for
> > > the siren to howl out..
> >
> > Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> > grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
> >
> > > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting for
> > > the siren to go off.
> > > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could not
> > > face going back to her village.
> > > Just banalities...
> >
> > There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
> >
> > > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
> >
> > Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> > totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> > okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or was)
> > a free society built on rule of law.
> >
> > I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> > Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> > society to the madness of civil war.
> >
> > Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> > propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
> >
> > In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> > right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> being able to do so .
>
> But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
> into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
> from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
> the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
> chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
> your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
> As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
> relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
> places)

I quoted a native, so there may be more than one point of view on the
subject.

You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
to complain?

> Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.

> One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
> Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
> to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
> the lead..

If that happens, it's not because of "people with my views." People with
my views oppose totalitarian tactics.

Once more, with feeling, I have no idea whose views you are describing,
except that they certainly aren't mine. Would you please stop lecturing
me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
mixed up with Scott?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:54:51 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
> >mixed up with Scott?
> >
> >Stephen
>
> But your names both begin with "s." It's so confusing! :-)

But evidently more amusing.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article m>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising
> > > > > > neocons
> > > > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their eyes
> > > > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I
> > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must believe
> > > > > another.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into a
> > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by
> > > > > Orwellian
> > > > > propaganda?
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Mine says:
> > > >
> > > > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > > > a
> > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the US
> > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> > > >
> > > > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > > > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
> > >
> > > That's why I don't want to live in one.
> > >
> > > > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even be
> > > > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > > > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > > > something at school.
> > >
> > > Sounds grim.
> > >
> > > > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light of
> > > > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door and
> > > > things would take course from then on.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected to
> > > a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
> > >
> > > > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > > > worst...
> > >
> > > I shudder to think.
> > >
> > > > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > > > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so completely
> > > > out of touch with reality.
> > >
> > > That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
> > >
> > > > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > > > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > > > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in London
> > > > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting for
> > > > the siren to howl out..
> > >
> > > Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> > > grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
> > >
> > > > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting for
> > > > the siren to go off.
> > > > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could not
> > > > face going back to her village.
> > > > Just banalities...
> > >
> > > There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
> > >
> > > > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > > > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
> > >
> > > Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> > > totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> > > okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or was)
> > > a free society built on rule of law.
> > >
> > > I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> > > Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> > > society to the madness of civil war.
> > >
> > > Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> > > propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
> > >
> > > In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> > > right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > being able to do so .
> >
> > But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
> > into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
> > from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
> > the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
> > chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
> > your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
> > As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
> > relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
> > places)
>
> I quoted a native, so there may be more than one point of view on the
> subject.
>
> You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> to complain?
>
> > Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.
>
> > One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
> > Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
> > to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
> > the lead..
>
> If that happens, it's not because of "people with my views." People with
> my views oppose totalitarian tactics.
>
> Once more, with feeling, I have no idea whose views you are describing,
> except that they certainly aren't mine. Would you please stop lecturing
> me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
> mixed up with Scott?
>
> Stephen
---------------------------------------------
Mine says:
> You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> to complain?

I don't know why you'd ignore and excise what I said: In case it was
not clear enough the first time around-, 24 hours ago I' ll repeat it:

"Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it

departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
being able to do so" .

What I do notice is the lack of proportion. According to you your
country is "sliding into a fascist- totalitarian state". You made
similar statements repeatedly. But you point to a single and a rather
ambiguous statement of yours a few weeks ago when you're sked to say
WHAT you do believe about jihadist terrorism. I mentioned the Darfur
genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon. Silence. I asked about Bali, Madrid,
London jihadist mass murder of innocents. Silence. I asked what you
would recommend your country should do if Texas were bombed daily by
rockets from Mexico and Texan school buses were exploded by suicide
bombs. You "responded" : I was being "banal" the analogy was
"unrealistic" and so on.

It is your privilege to do your best to try to persuade that nothing
should be done because both sides and so on..

I find it suicidal. And , sorry, rather stupidly suicidal. Not even an
interesting kind of suicidal urge. It is the copy of the old trend in
your country's history. It used to be called isolationism. And it was
ended by the Japanese bombs dropping on Pearl Harbour. As Marks said:
history does repeat itself but as a farce not a tragedy.

Ludovic Mirabel

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

> I mentioned the Darfur
> genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
> did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon.

This is nothing to do with jihadism.

It's an old feud over land rights.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> I mentioned the Darfur
>> genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
>> did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon.
>
> This is nothing to do with jihadism.
>
> It's an old feud over land rights.

And made much worse by the presence of Brits..


naturally


Fjukkwit

Bertie

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article m>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising
> > > > > > > neocons
> > > > > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their
> > > > > > > eyes
> > > > > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I
> > > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > US
> > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > > > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > > > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by
> > > > > > Orwellian
> > > > > > propaganda?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > Mine says:
> > > > >
> > > > > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack
> > > > > into
> > > > > a
> > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > US
> > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > > > > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
> > > >
> > > > That's why I don't want to live in one.
> > > >
> > > > > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even
> > > > > be
> > > > > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > > > > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > > > > something at school.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds grim.
> > > >
> > > > > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light
> > > > > of
> > > > > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door
> > > > > and
> > > > > things would take course from then on.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected
> > > > to
> > > > a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
> > > >
> > > > > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > > > > worst...
> > > >
> > > > I shudder to think.
> > > >
> > > > > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > > > > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so
> > > > > completely
> > > > > out of touch with reality.
> > > >
> > > > That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
> > > >
> > > > > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > > > > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > > > > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in
> > > > > London
> > > > > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > the siren to howl out..
> > > >
> > > > Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> > > > grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
> > > >
> > > > > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > the siren to go off.
> > > > > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could
> > > > > not
> > > > > face going back to her village.
> > > > > Just banalities...
> > > >
> > > > There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > > > > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
> > > >
> > > > Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> > > > totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> > > > okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or
> > > > was)
> > > > a free society built on rule of law.
> > > >
> > > > I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> > > > Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> > > > society to the madness of civil war.
> > > >
> > > > Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> > > > propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
> > > >
> > > > In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> > > > right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> > > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > > being able to do so .
> > >
> > > But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
> > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
> > > from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
> > > the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
> > > chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
> > > your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
> > > As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
> > > relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
> > > places)
> >
> > I quoted a native, so there may be more than one point of view on the
> > subject.
> >
> > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > to complain?
> >
> > > Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.
> >
> > > One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
> > > Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
> > > to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
> > > the lead..
> >
> > If that happens, it's not because of "people with my views." People with
> > my views oppose totalitarian tactics.
> >
> > Once more, with feeling, I have no idea whose views you are describing,
> > except that they certainly aren't mine. Would you please stop lecturing
> > me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
> > mixed up with Scott?
> >
> > Stephen
> ---------------------------------------------
> Mine says:
> > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > to complain?
>
> I don't know why you'd ignore and excise what I said: In case it was
> not clear enough the first time around-, 24 hours ago I' ll repeat it:

I didn't excise that. Look, it's just a few lines north of here.

> "Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
>
> departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> being able to do so" .
>
> What I do notice is the lack of proportion. According to you your
> country is "sliding into a fascist- totalitarian state". You made
> similar statements repeatedly. But you point to a single and a rather
> ambiguous statement of yours a few weeks ago when you're sked to say
> WHAT you do believe about jihadist terrorism. I mentioned the Darfur
> genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
> did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon. Silence. I asked about Bali, Madrid,
> London jihadist mass murder of innocents. Silence. I asked what you
> would recommend your country should do if Texas were bombed daily by
> rockets from Mexico and Texan school buses were exploded by suicide
> bombs. You "responded" : I was being "banal" the analogy was
> "unrealistic" and so on.

Yes, I believe the fear of "Islamofacism" is a political bogeyman. Your
raising those side issues was a distraction from the points at hand so I
chose not to respond to them.

> It is your privilege to do your best to try to persuade that nothing
> should be done because both sides and so on..

Thank you. That's not what I'm doing.

> I find it suicidal. And , sorry, rather stupidly suicidal. Not even an
> interesting kind of suicidal urge. It is the copy of the old trend in
> your country's history. It used to be called isolationism. And it was
> ended by the Japanese bombs dropping on Pearl Harbour. As Marks said:
> history does repeat itself but as a farce not a tragedy.

Preserving civil liberty and human rights is not isolationism, nor is it
suicidal.

Just for variety, why don't you pretend I'm arguing something else, like
anarchy or libertarianism or Dominion?

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article m>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising
> > > > > > > > neocons
> > > > > > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their
> > > > > > > > eyes
> > > > > > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I
> > > > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > > > > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > > > > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by
> > > > > > > Orwellian
> > > > > > > propaganda?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mine says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > > > > > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I don't want to live in one.
> > > > >
> > > > > > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > > > > > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > > > > > something at school.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds grim.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > things would take course from then on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected
> > > > > to
> > > > > a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > > > > > worst...
> > > > >
> > > > > I shudder to think.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > > > > > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so
> > > > > > completely
> > > > > > out of touch with reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > > > > > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > > > > > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in
> > > > > > London
> > > > > > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the siren to howl out..
> > > > >
> > > > > Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> > > > > grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
> > > > >
> > > > > > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the siren to go off.
> > > > > > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > face going back to her village.
> > > > > > Just banalities...
> > > > >
> > > > > There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > > > > > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
> > > > >
> > > > > Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> > > > > totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> > > > > okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or
> > > > > was)
> > > > > a free society built on rule of law.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> > > > > Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> > > > > society to the madness of civil war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> > > > > propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
> > > > >
> > > > > In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> > > > > right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> > > > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > > > being able to do so .
> > > >
> > > > But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
> > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
> > > > from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
> > > > the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
> > > > chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
> > > > your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
> > > > As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
> > > > relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
> > > > places)
> > >
> > > I quoted a native, so there may be more than one point of view on the
> > > subject.
> > >
> > > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > > to complain?
> > >
> > > > Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.
> > >
> > > > One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
> > > > Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
> > > > to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
> > > > the lead..
> > >
> > > If that happens, it's not because of "people with my views." People with
> > > my views oppose totalitarian tactics.
> > >
> > > Once more, with feeling, I have no idea whose views you are describing,
> > > except that they certainly aren't mine. Would you please stop lecturing
> > > me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
> > > mixed up with Scott?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Mine says:
> > > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > > to complain?
> >
> > I don't know why you'd ignore and excise what I said: In case it was
> > not clear enough the first time around-, 24 hours ago I' ll repeat it:
>
> I didn't excise that. Look, it's just a few lines north of here.
>
> > "Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> >
> > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > being able to do so" .
> >
> > What I do notice is the lack of proportion. According to you your
> > country is "sliding into a fascist- totalitarian state". You made
> > similar statements repeatedly. But you point to a single and a rather
> > ambiguous statement of yours a few weeks ago when you're sked to say
> > WHAT you do believe about jihadist terrorism. I mentioned the Darfur
> > genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
> > did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon. Silence. I asked about Bali, Madrid,
> > London jihadist mass murder of innocents. Silence. I asked what you
> > would recommend your country should do if Texas were bombed daily by
> > rockets from Mexico and Texan school buses were exploded by suicide
> > bombs. You "responded" : I was being "banal" the analogy was
> > "unrealistic" and so on.
>
> Yes, I believe the fear of "Islamofacism" is a political bogeyman. Your
> raising those side issues was a distraction from the points at hand so I
> chose not to respond to them.
>
> > It is your privilege to do your best to try to persuade that nothing
> > should be done because both sides and so on..
>
> Thank you. That's not what I'm doing.
>
> > I find it suicidal. And , sorry, rather stupidly suicidal. Not even an
> > interesting kind of suicidal urge. It is the copy of the old trend in
> > your country's history. It used to be called isolationism. And it was
> > ended by the Japanese bombs dropping on Pearl Harbour. As Marks said:
> > history does repeat itself but as a farce not a tragedy.
>
> Preserving civil liberty and human rights is not isolationism, nor is it
> suicidal.
>
> Just for variety, why don't you pretend I'm arguing something else, like
> anarchy or libertarianism or Dominion?
>
> Stephen
========================================
You keep complaining about my pervering your views.

I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
are.
On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
I'll be glad to start from there
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article m>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In crude practical terms if the choice is between unappetising
> > > > > > > > neocons
> > > > > > > > and what Lenin in his day called "useful idiots" who close their
> > > > > > > > eyes
> > > > > > > > and over backwards to be fair all round give me neocons any time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wish I could converse with Mine. but honestly and sincerely I
> > > > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > a clue what he is saying. My fault no doubt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's the presumption. You claim that if I say one thing, I must
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack into
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state. If you bring Lenin into the
> > > > > > > discussion, isn't the "useful idiot" the one who overlooks his own
> > > > > > > government's discarding rule of law because he's distracted by
> > > > > > > Orwellian
> > > > > > > propaganda?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mine says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " > On the "useful idiot" side, my great concern, which you hijack
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > banal condemnation of the Muslim bogeyman, is the slow slide of the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I find it hard to find words. Please, try a leap of imagination and
> > > > > > just think what would happen in a real-life totalitarian state.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I don't want to live in one.
> > > > >
> > > > > > First of all you'd never write this posting. You probably would even
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > frightened enough not to voice your ideas in your own home -for fear
> > > > > > that eg. your son would innocently repeat
> > > > > > something at school.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds grim.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you were foolishly brave and sent it it would never see the light
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > day. At about 4am there would be loud knocking on your front door
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > things would take course from then on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's a horrible fate. I'd hate to undergo that or be connected
> > > > > to
> > > > > a government that thought such a thing was permissible.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the best case your employer would be told to throw you out. In the
> > > > > > worst...
> > > > >
> > > > > I shudder to think.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sarcastic or condescending. I feel truly scared that
> > > > > > intelligent people in the fate-favoured countries can be so
> > > > > > completely
> > > > > > out of touch with reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > That they ignore the possibility that it could happen there?
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is in keeping with your not being able to visualise missiles being
> > > > > > lobbed into Texas or put yourself into the shoes of those who have to
> > > > > > live with missiles every day. Very simplistic of me but I was in
> > > > > > London
> > > > > > in 1941 when by 6pm. I would unconsciously speed up my bike waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the siren to howl out..
> > > > >
> > > > > Who said I couldn't visualize missiles being lobbed into Texas? BTW, my
> > > > > grandfather spent part of WWII in a UXB squad in England.
> > > > >
> > > > > > When I went to Cambridge I couldn't fall asleep for hours waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the siren to go off.
> > > > > > So I understand the Israeli girl I met in Turkey who said she could
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > face going back to her village.
> > > > > > Just banalities...
> > > > >
> > > > > There's also the sad West Texas case of Esequiel Hernandez Jr.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry to be personal. Just trying my best to help you see that being
> > > > > > "simplistic" or banal is sometimes the only possible human response..
> > > > >
> > > > > Your response is misplaced. We agree on the undesirability of
> > > > > totalitarian regimes, but you seem to think totalitarian methods are
> > > > > okay or at least beyond criticism, presumably because the US is (or
> > > > > was)
> > > > > a free society built on rule of law.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you didn't read that little comment I posted by the former
> > > > > Yugoslav about how his country slipped by degrees from a civilized
> > > > > society to the madness of civil war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Germany considered itself the height of Western culture before
> > > > > propaganda and fear of the Other became tools to install tyranny.
> > > > >
> > > > > In short, to say I can't criticize my government because I have the
> > > > > right to criticize my government isn't much of an argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> > > > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > > > being able to do so .
> > > >
> > > > But from that to start talking about: "... the slow slide of the US
> > > > into a totalitarian/fascist state.". shows the special type of divorce
> > > > from the real world outside that is characteristic of some citizens of
> > > > the fortunate countries. This is confirmed by your quoting the
> > > > chauvinistic- post communist, post Tito and into Milosevic, Serbia as
> > > > your example of another democracy sliding bit by bit into dictatorship.
> > > > As it happens I travelled through former Yugoslavia in 1990s. It was a
> > > > relief to get out of that half-insane atmosphere into Turkey (of all
> > > > places)
> > >
> > > I quoted a native, so there may be more than one point of view on the
> > > subject.
> > >
> > > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > > to complain?
> > >
> > > > Don't just mouth "Orwellian". Reread Orwell.
> > >
> > > > One can only hope that people with your views stay on the fringe.
> > > > Otherwise your country may go into its own version of Europe in 1939
> > > > to '41. Unfortunately the rest of the West would follow with Canada in
> > > > the lead..
> > >
> > > If that happens, it's not because of "people with my views." People with
> > > my views oppose totalitarian tactics.
> > >
> > > Once more, with feeling, I have no idea whose views you are describing,
> > > except that they certainly aren't mine. Would you please stop lecturing
> > > me as if I believe the polar opposite of what I believe? Do you have me
> > > mixed up with Scott?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Mine says:
> > > You evidently are not sensitive to the slow Constitutional crisis we are
> > > undergoing. Look at the recent Military Commissions Act and its rebuke
> > > of habeus corpus. How many Padillas until Americans have your permission
> > > to complain?
> >
> > I don't know why you'd ignore and excise what I said: In case it was
> > not clear enough the first time around-, 24 hours ago I' ll repeat it:
>
> I didn't excise that. Look, it's just a few lines north of here.
>
> > "Yes, you should criticise your governments whenver in your opinion it
> >
> > departs from the democratic rule of the law. And you are fortunate in
> > being able to do so" .
> >
> > What I do notice is the lack of proportion. According to you your
> > country is "sliding into a fascist- totalitarian state". You made
> > similar statements repeatedly. But you point to a single and a rather
> > ambiguous statement of yours a few weeks ago when you're sked to say
> > WHAT you do believe about jihadist terrorism. I mentioned the Darfur
> > genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
> > did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon. Silence. I asked about Bali, Madrid,
> > London jihadist mass murder of innocents. Silence. I asked what you
> > would recommend your country should do if Texas were bombed daily by
> > rockets from Mexico and Texan school buses were exploded by suicide
> > bombs. You "responded" : I was being "banal" the analogy was
> > "unrealistic" and so on.
>
> Yes, I believe the fear of "Islamofacism" is a political bogeyman. Your
> raising those side issues was a distraction from the points at hand so I
> chose not to respond to them.
>
> > It is your privilege to do your best to try to persuade that nothing
> > should be done because both sides and so on..
>
> Thank you. That's not what I'm doing.
>
> > I find it suicidal. And , sorry, rather stupidly suicidal. Not even an
> > interesting kind of suicidal urge. It is the copy of the old trend in
> > your country's history. It used to be called isolationism. And it was
> > ended by the Japanese bombs dropping on Pearl Harbour. As Marks said:
> > history does repeat itself but as a farce not a tragedy.
>
> Preserving civil liberty and human rights is not isolationism, nor is it
> suicidal.
>
> Just for variety, why don't you pretend I'm arguing something else, like
> anarchy or libertarianism or Dominion?
>
> Stephen

=============================

How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
Ludovic M

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> ========================================
> You keep complaining about my pervering your views.

Yes, I've had to do so many times.

> I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> are.
> On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> I'll be glad to start from there

The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?

That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance. If it
were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
solving the problem.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > ========================================
> > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
>
> Yes, I've had to do so many times.
>
> > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> > are.
> > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > I'll be glad to start from there
>
> The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
> claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
> as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
>
> Stephen
========================

Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
without his approval..

He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither I
nor anyone else could possibly know because:

"The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views

to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
the
claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
civilization
as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "

So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
I tried my best to not condescend but:
b) i was still not respectful enough
I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
saying?

Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on the
ever-patient keyboard.
Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
something to say.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > ========================================
> > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> >
> > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> >
> > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> > > are.
> > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > I'll be glad to start from there
> >
> > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
> > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
> > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> >
> > Stephen
> ========================
>
> Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> without his approval..

Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.

> He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither I
> nor anyone else could possibly know because:

No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?

> "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
>
> to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> the
> claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> civilization
> as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
>
> So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> I tried my best to not condescend but:
> b) i was still not respectful enough
> I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> saying?

This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
repeatedly.

Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were condescending?

> Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on the
> ever-patient keyboard.
> Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> something to say.

I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
you want.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> I mentioned the Darfur
>> genocide to you- infinitely worse than anything America or Israel evr
>> did at Guantanamo or in Lebanon.
>
> This is nothing to do with jihadism.
>
> It's an old feud over land rights.

Which is the origin of jihadism anyway.

Look, you can characterize Darfur as Arab vs African or muslim vs Christian and
you're probably right on both counts. But calling it a feud over land rights
absurdly ignores who is killing who.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>
> That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.

Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
Neville Chamberlain's.

> If it
> were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> solving the problem.

By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article m>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >
> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>
> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> Neville Chamberlain's.

Frist!

No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
leading to a liberal democracy.

Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.

> > If it
> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> > solving the problem.
>
> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.

What do you by "by then"? Bush has been involved in Afghanistan since
2002.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article m>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ========================================
> > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > >
> > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > >
> > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> > > > are.
> > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > >
> > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
> > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
> > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > ========================
> >
> > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > without his approval..
>
> Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
>
> > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither I
> > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
>
> No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?
>
> > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> >
> > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> > the
> > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > civilization
> > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> >
> > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> > saying?
>
> This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> repeatedly.
>
> Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were condescending?
>
> > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on the
> > ever-patient keyboard.
> > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > something to say.
>
> I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
> a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> you want.
>
> Stephen


Mine says:

"I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
find
a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
you want. "

Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of assurances
that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no forum
name, no web address. Too difficult?

So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple answers.

What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?

What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
something, what?

What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
what?

Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
time in a row/
To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.

I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
deserves all it gets.

But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman

Ludovic Mirabel.

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article m>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ========================================
> > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> > > > > are.
> > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > > >
> > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
> > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
> > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > > ========================
> > >
> > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > > without his approval..
> >
> > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
> >
> > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither I
> > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
> >
> > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?
> >
> > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > >
> > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> > > the
> > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > civilization
> > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> > >
> > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> > > saying?
> >
> > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> > repeatedly.
> >
> > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were condescending?
> >
> > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on the
> > > ever-patient keyboard.
> > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > > something to say.
> >
> > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
> > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > you want.
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
> Mine says:
>
> "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> find
> a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> you want. "
>
> Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of assurances
> that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no forum
> name, no web address. Too difficult?

Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
how you quote.

> So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple answers.
>
> What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?

If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.

> What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> something, what?

> What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> what?
>
> Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> time in a row/
> To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
>
> I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> deserves all it gets.
>
> But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman

You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.

Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article m>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> > >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> > >
> > > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >
> > Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> > Neville Chamberlain's.
>
> Frist!
>
> No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> leading to a liberal democracy.
>
> Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>
> > > If it
> > > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> > > solving the problem.
> >
> > By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>
> What do you by "by then"? Bush has been involved in Afghanistan since
> 2002.

Please refrain from trying to rewrite history.

Afghanistan is a recent problem. We will get involved there only if
absolutely necessary.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article m>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> > >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> > >
> > > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >
> > Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> > Neville Chamberlain's.
>
> Frist!
>
> No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> leading to a liberal democracy.
>
> Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>
> > > If it
> > > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> > > solving the problem.
> >
> > By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>
> What do you by "by then"? Bush has been involved in Afghanistan since
> 2002.

Please refrain from trying to rewrite history.

Afghanistan is a recent problem. We will get involved there only if
absolutely necessary.

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article m>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ========================================
> > > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your views
> > > > > > are.
> > > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with the
> > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of civilization
> > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > ========================
> > > >
> > > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> > > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> > > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > > > without his approval..
> > >
> > > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
> > >
> > > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither I
> > > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
> > >
> > > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?
> > >
> > > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing views
> > > >
> > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> > > > the
> > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > civilization
> > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> > > >
> > > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > > > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> > > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> > > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> > > > saying?
> > >
> > > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> > > repeatedly.
> > >
> > > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were condescending?
> > >
> > > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on the
> > > > ever-patient keyboard.
> > > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> > > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> > > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > > > something to say.
> > >
> > > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
> > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > you want.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> >
> > Mine says:
> >
> > "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> > find
> > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > you want. "
> >
> > Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of assurances
> > that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no forum
> > name, no web address. Too difficult?
>
> Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
> how you quote.
>
> > So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple answers.
> >
> > What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> > bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
>
> If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
> London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.
>
> > What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> > something, what?
>
> > What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> > what?
> >
> > Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> > time in a row/
> > To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
> >
> > I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> > deserves all it gets.
> >
> > But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> > jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman
>
> You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.
>
> Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
> Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.
>
> Stephen
=======================================

Abandoning civil liberties and not adhering to Geneva Convention is
reprehensible and if your Government has embarked on such a program you
are well within your rights in protesting all you can. And I note as
before that civil liberties in your country seem to have survived
well enough for us to hear you on the internet. I trust you don't as
yet need my donation towards a food parcel in a reeducation camp.
Plenty of blemishes but look at the alternative.

But I don't know why you want me to "explain" something I never
advocated. I try not to be personal but let me assure you that I
cherished freedom enough to vote for it with my feet.
It is not good manners for me to fight your battles in your country.

Curtailing civil liberties is bad. But losing them completely to
religious fanatics is much worse. I wish your government were 100%
wonderful. IBut I don't want it to start wallowing in the dust before
mullahs just to make you feel happy (not for long, take my word for
it.) We are sinners but... look at the alternative.

But this is still a free world and if you feel that Guantanamo guilt
warrants your waking up under Al Quaeda I would wish you good cheer...
except that if more thought like you I and my kids and my grandchildren
would have to pay the price.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[MiNe 109]

In article m>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article m>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ========================================
> > > > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your
> > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
> > > > > > views
> > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
> > > > > > with the
> > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > > civilization
> > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > ========================
> > > > >
> > > > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> > > > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> > > > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > > > > without his approval..
> > > >
> > > > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
> > > >
> > > > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither
> > > > > I
> > > > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
> > > >
> > > > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?
> > > >
> > > > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
> > > > > views
> > > > >
> > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> > > > > the
> > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > civilization
> > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> > > > >
> > > > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > > > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > > > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > > > > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > > > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > > > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> > > > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> > > > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> > > > > saying?
> > > >
> > > > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> > > > repeatedly.
> > > >
> > > > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were
> > > > condescending?
> > > >
> > > > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on
> > > > > the
> > > > > ever-patient keyboard.
> > > > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> > > > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> > > > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > > > > something to say.
> > > >
> > > > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
> > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > > you want.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > >
> > > Mine says:
> > >
> > > "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> > > find
> > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > you want. "
> > >
> > > Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of assurances
> > > that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no forum
> > > name, no web address. Too difficult?
> >
> > Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
> > how you quote.
> >
> > > So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple answers.
> > >
> > > What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> > > bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
> >
> > If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
> > London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.
> >
> > > What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> > > something, what?
> >
> > > What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> > > what?
> > >
> > > Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> > > time in a row/
> > > To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
> > >
> > > I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> > > deserves all it gets.
> > >
> > > But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> > > jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman
> >
> > You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.
> >
> > Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
> > Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.
> >
> > Stephen
> =======================================
>
> Abandoning civil liberties and not adhering to Geneva Convention is
> reprehensible and if your Government has embarked on such a program you
> are well within your rights in protesting all you can. And I note as
> before that civil liberties in your country seem to have survived
> well enough for us to hear you on the internet. I trust you don't as
> yet need my donation towards a food parcel in a reeducation camp.
> Plenty of blemishes but look at the alternative.

What do you mean, "if"? Is 'able to be heard on the internet' the new
standard?

> But I don't know why you want me to "explain" something I never
> advocated. I try not to be personal but let me assure you that I
> cherished freedom enough to vote for it with my feet.
> It is not good manners for me to fight your battles in your country.

> Curtailing civil liberties is bad. But losing them completely to
> religious fanatics is much worse.

Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!

> I wish your government were 100%
> wonderful. IBut I don't want it to start wallowing in the dust before
> mullahs just to make you feel happy (not for long, take my word for
> it.) We are sinners but... look at the alternative.
>
> But this is still a free world and if you feel that Guantanamo guilt
> warrants your waking up under Al Quaeda I would wish you good cheer...
> except that if more thought like you I and my kids and my grandchildren
> would have to pay the price.

Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy.

Thank you for playing your hand completely. Perhaps you've seen the
phrase "one-percent solution" bandied about in political discussions.
You're arguing a "one-percent of one-percent of one-percent" danger and
care little about real dangers to American ideals and identity.

I understand you perfectly well now and since you don't try to
understand me, we're at an impasse.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article m>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >
>> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>>
>> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> Neville Chamberlain's.
>
> Frist!
>
> No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> leading to a liberal democracy.

Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?

>
> Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.

More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.

>
>> > If it
>> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
>> > solving the problem.
>>
>> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>
> What do you by "by then"?

By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
offensive.

Salmon Rushdie was on Glen Beck the other day.
Did you catch it?

Very interesting take on how the liberals keep grasping at icons
that feel are representative of the downtrodden masses.
In years past it was various communist socialist representatives
and now its Islamists....but the liberals have always been deceived
and their icons have always turned out to be fascist.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article m>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >
> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >>
> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >
> > Frist!
> >
> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>
> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?

I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.

> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>
> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.

The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
holding it out to garner political support for his policies.

> >> > If it
> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> >> > solving the problem.
> >>
> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >
> > What do you by "by then"?
>
> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.

That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.

> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> offensive.

You're still completely wrong about that.

> Salmon Rushdie was on Glen Beck the other day.
> Did you catch it?
>
> Very interesting take on how the liberals keep grasping at icons
> that feel are representative of the downtrodden masses.
> In years past it was various communist socialist representatives
> and now its Islamists....but the liberals have always been deceived
> and their icons have always turned out to be fascist.

Except for those right-wingers. What's the name of that airport in San
Diego?

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article m>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article m>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ========================================
> > > > > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what your
> > > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London, Madrid
> > > > > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What should
> > > > > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
> > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
> > > > > > > with the
> > > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > > > civilization
> > > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > ========================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be done
> > > > > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a deep
> > > > > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > > > > > without his approval..
> > > > >
> > > > > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
> > > > >
> > > > > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges neither
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert" maybe?
> > > > >
> > > > > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is that I
> > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
> > > > > > views
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > > civilization
> > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > > > > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > > > > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > > > > > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > > > > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > > > > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it but
> > > > > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us something
> > > > > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS he
> > > > > > saying?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> > > > > repeatedly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were
> > > > > condescending?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > ever-patient keyboard.
> > > > > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the UN?
> > > > > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his lame
> > > > > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > > > > > something to say.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might find
> > > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > > > you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mine says:
> > > >
> > > > "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> > > > find
> > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > > you want. "
> > > >
> > > > Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of assurances
> > > > that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no forum
> > > > name, no web address. Too difficult?
> > >
> > > Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
> > > how you quote.
> > >
> > > > So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple answers.
> > > >
> > > > What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> > > > bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
> > >
> > > If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
> > > London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.
> > >
> > > > What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> > > > something, what?
> > >
> > > > What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> > > > what?
> > > >
> > > > Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> > > > time in a row/
> > > > To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> > > > deserves all it gets.
> > > >
> > > > But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> > > > jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman
> > >
> > > You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.
> > >
> > > Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
> > > Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > =======================================
> >
> > Abandoning civil liberties and not adhering to Geneva Convention is
> > reprehensible and if your Government has embarked on such a program you
> > are well within your rights in protesting all you can. And I note as
> > before that civil liberties in your country seem to have survived
> > well enough for us to hear you on the internet. I trust you don't as
> > yet need my donation towards a food parcel in a reeducation camp.
> > Plenty of blemishes but look at the alternative.
>
> What do you mean, "if"? Is 'able to be heard on the internet' the new
> standard?
>
> > But I don't know why you want me to "explain" something I never
> > advocated. I try not to be personal but let me assure you that I
> > cherished freedom enough to vote for it with my feet.
> > It is not good manners for me to fight your battles in your country.
>
> > Curtailing civil liberties is bad. But losing them completely to
> > religious fanatics is much worse.
>
> Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!
>
> > I wish your government were 100%
> > wonderful. IBut I don't want it to start wallowing in the dust before
> > mullahs just to make you feel happy (not for long, take my word for
> > it.) We are sinners but... look at the alternative.
> >
> > But this is still a free world and if you feel that Guantanamo guilt
> > warrants your waking up under Al Quaeda I would wish you good cheer...
> > except that if more thought like you I and my kids and my grandchildren
> > would have to pay the price.
>
> Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
> Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy.
>
> Thank you for playing your hand completely. Perhaps you've seen the
> phrase "one-percent solution" bandied about in political discussions.
> You're arguing a "one-percent of one-percent of one-percent" danger and
> care little about real dangers to American ideals and identity.
>
> I understand you perfectly well now and since you don't try to
> understand me, we're at an impasse.
>
> Stephen
==========================================
You were asked for your answer to some recent events. I'll repeat:
:
"So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple
answers.

What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?

What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
something, what?

What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
what?

Should Iraqi Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
time in a row/
To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaeda "resistance fighters".

I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
deserves all it gets.

But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
jihadi bogeymen."

Some in Holland are sufficiently worried about a Muslim woman, a member
of the Dutch Parliament to give her police protection because shes
vocal about the oppression of Muslim women. The Dutch remember the fate
of Theo Van Gogh murdered by a nonbogeyman.

You offer some very funny quips like these:
> Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!
> Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
> Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy

I recover from a fit of uncontrollable laughter and notice the serious
bits. It seems you have plenty to say about what we **should not** but
nothing about what we **should** do. An impasse as you say.

But it is nice to know that someone is having fun.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article m>,
>> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >
>> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>> >>
>> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >
>> > Frist!
>> >
>> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
>> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
>> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>>
>> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>
> I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.

Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?

>
>> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
>> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>>
>> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>
> The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
> both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
> holding it out to garner political support for his policies.

In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
the al qaeda or the Taliban.

>
>> >> > If it
>> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
>> >> > solving the problem.
>> >>
>> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>> >
>> > What do you by "by then"?
>>
>> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
>
> That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
>
>> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
>> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
>> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
>> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
>> offensive.
>
> You're still completely wrong about that.

The downfall of America will come from within.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article m>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article m>,
> > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > om>,
> > > > > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ========================================
> > > > > > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London,
> > > > > > > > > Madrid
> > > > > > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
> > > > > > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
> > > > > > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is
> > > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially,
> > > > > > > > ascribing
> > > > > > > > views
> > > > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
> > > > > > > > with the
> > > > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > > > > civilization
> > > > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stephen
> > > > > > > ========================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be
> > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a
> > > > > > > deep
> > > > > > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
> > > > > > > without his approval..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges
> > > > > > > neither
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert"
> > > > > > maybe?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is
> > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
> > > > > > > views
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
> > > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
> > > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
> > > > > > > civilization
> > > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
> > > > > > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
> > > > > > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
> > > > > > > b) i was still not respectful enough
> > > > > > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
> > > > > > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > saying?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
> > > > > > repeatedly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were
> > > > > > condescending?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > ever-patient keyboard.
> > > > > > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the
> > > > > > > UN?
> > > > > > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his
> > > > > > > lame
> > > > > > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
> > > > > > > something to say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> > > > > > find
> > > > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever
> > > > > > result
> > > > > > you want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mine says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
> > > > > find
> > > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
> > > > > you want. "
> > > > >
> > > > > Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of
> > > > > assurances
> > > > > that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no
> > > > > forum
> > > > > name, no web address. Too difficult?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
> > > > how you quote.
> > > >
> > > > > So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple
> > > > > answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> > > > > bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
> > > >
> > > > If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
> > > > London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.
> > > >
> > > > > What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> > > > > something, what?
> > > >
> > > > > What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> > > > > what?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> > > > > time in a row/
> > > > > To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> > > > > deserves all it gets.
> > > > >
> > > > > But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> > > > > jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman
> > > >
> > > > You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
> > > > Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > > =======================================
> > >
> > > Abandoning civil liberties and not adhering to Geneva Convention is
> > > reprehensible and if your Government has embarked on such a program you
> > > are well within your rights in protesting all you can. And I note as
> > > before that civil liberties in your country seem to have survived
> > > well enough for us to hear you on the internet. I trust you don't as
> > > yet need my donation towards a food parcel in a reeducation camp.
> > > Plenty of blemishes but look at the alternative.
> >
> > What do you mean, "if"? Is 'able to be heard on the internet' the new
> > standard?
> >
> > > But I don't know why you want me to "explain" something I never
> > > advocated. I try not to be personal but let me assure you that I
> > > cherished freedom enough to vote for it with my feet.
> > > It is not good manners for me to fight your battles in your country.
> >
> > > Curtailing civil liberties is bad. But losing them completely to
> > > religious fanatics is much worse.
> >
> > Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!
> >
> > > I wish your government were 100%
> > > wonderful. IBut I don't want it to start wallowing in the dust before
> > > mullahs just to make you feel happy (not for long, take my word for
> > > it.) We are sinners but... look at the alternative.
> > >
> > > But this is still a free world and if you feel that Guantanamo guilt
> > > warrants your waking up under Al Quaeda I would wish you good cheer...
> > > except that if more thought like you I and my kids and my grandchildren
> > > would have to pay the price.
> >
> > Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
> > Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy.
> >
> > Thank you for playing your hand completely. Perhaps you've seen the
> > phrase "one-percent solution" bandied about in political discussions.
> > You're arguing a "one-percent of one-percent of one-percent" danger and
> > care little about real dangers to American ideals and identity.
> >
> > I understand you perfectly well now and since you don't try to
> > understand me, we're at an impasse.
> >
> > Stephen
> ==========================================
> You were asked for your answer to some recent events. I'll repeat:
> :
> "So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple
> answers.
>
> What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
> bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
>
> What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
> something, what?
>
> What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
> what?
>
> Should Iraqi Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
> time in a row/
> To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaeda "resistance fighters".
>
> I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
> deserves all it gets.
>
> But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
> jihadi bogeymen."

You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin with
and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views.

Unless you see me say otherwise, assume I support my government and its
actions.

> Some in Holland are sufficiently worried about a Muslim woman, a member
> of the Dutch Parliament to give her police protection because shes
> vocal about the oppression of Muslim women. The Dutch remember the fate
> of Theo Van Gogh murdered by a nonbogeyman.

From global to national to personal all in one sentence. You may safely
count me as against murder.

In the long run, Mother Gaia is just waiting wipe us off her face.

> You offer some very funny quips like these:
> > Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!
> > Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
> > Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy
>
> I recover from a fit of uncontrollable laughter and notice the serious
> bits. It seems you have plenty to say about what we **should not** but
> nothing about what we **should** do. An impasse as you say.

Nope. The Leader's plan is my plan until there's a new Leader then I'll
have a new plan.

> But it is nice to know that someone is having fun.

Should I make up a list of things I've brought up that you've ignored?
Off the top of my head, there's the Military Commissions Act, a West
Texas goatherd, that Padilla dude.

See? Fun!

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article m>,
> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >
> >> > Frist!

Gotcha!

> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >>
> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >
> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
>
> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?

That was then, this is now.

> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >>
> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >
> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>
> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> the al qaeda or the Taliban.

No, he was more-or-less contained. Economic utility is a lame argument
for starting a war.

> >> >> > If it
> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> >> >> > solving the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >> >
> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> >>
> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> >
> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> >
> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> >> offensive.
> >
> > You're still completely wrong about that.
>
> The downfall of America will come from within.

And from your side.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article m>,
>> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >
>> >> > Frist!
>
> Gotcha!

Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
I guess you do.

>
>> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
>> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
>> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>> >>
>> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>> >
>> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
>>
>> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
>
> That was then, this is now.

I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.

>
>> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
>> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>> >>
>> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>> >
>> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
>> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
>> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>>
>> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
>> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
>> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
>
> No, he was more-or-less contained.

Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
by palestinians.

> Economic utility is a lame argument
> for starting a war.

IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
the dawn of civilization.


>
>> >> >> > If it
>> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
>> >> >> > solving the problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you by "by then"?
>> >>
>> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
>> >
>> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
>> >
>> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
>> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
>> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
>> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
>> >> offensive.
>> >
>> > You're still completely wrong about that.
>>
>> The downfall of America will come from within.
>
> And from your side.

lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > In article m>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > > In article om>,
>> > > > " > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > > > > In article m>,
>> > > > > > " > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > > > om>,
>> > > > > > > > " > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > ========================================
>> > > > > > > > > You keep complaining about my pervering your views.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Yes, I've had to do so many times.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to be clever, clever but I have no idea what
>> > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > views
>> > > > > > > > > are.
>> > > > > > > > > On Darfur, Hezbollah and Hamas vs.Israel, Bali, London,
>> > > > > > > > > Madrid
>> > > > > > > > > bombings.?What advice do you offer.to those affected? What
>> > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > Israel do short of immolating itself?. What should Indonesia,
>> > > > > > > > > Austrak\lia, Spain and UK. do ?
>> > > > > > > > > I'll be glad to start from there
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The reason you don't know what I think about those things is
>> > > > > > > > that I
>> > > > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially,
>> > > > > > > > ascribing
>> > > > > > > > views
>> > > > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat
>> > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
>> > > > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
>> > > > > > > > with the
>> > > > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
>> > > > > > > > civilization
>> > > > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Stephen
>> > > > > > > ========================
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Mine explains why he keeps he keeps his views on what should be
>> > > > > > > done
>> > > > > > > about the Middle-East, jihadists, Israel and related problems a
>> > > > > > > deep
>> > > > > > > secret. Even though he is vocal enough about what is being done
>> > > > > > > without his approval..
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Not a secret. It just doesn't come up much in conversation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > He accused me of "perverting" the views that he acknowledges
>> > > > > > > neither
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > nor anyone else could possibly know because:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > No, that was your word, at least some odd form of it. "Prevert"
>> > > > > > maybe?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "The reason you don't know what I think about those things is
>> > > > > > > that I
>> > > > > > > haven't said so on RAO. You bring them up tangentially, ascribing
>> > > > > > > views
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > to me I do not hold. Maybe it's a sly game to you to repeat your
>> > > > > > > presumptions to see what I do. If a subject came up in a normal
>> > > > > > > conversation, I might share. If it comes up as an interrogation
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > claim that my naivety is responsible for the destruction of
>> > > > > > > civilization
>> > > > > > > as we know it, well, it's complaining time again. "
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So now we have the final???? word. Prevously he
>> > > > > > > a) would not talk to the "condescending" me
>> > > > > > > I tried my best to not condescend but:
>> > > > > > > b) i was still not respectful enough
>> > > > > > > I bowed down and kissed his bambooshes
>> > > > > > > c) now he explains at length.. I can not make head or tail of it
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > someone, somewhere might. Is he saying that he will tell us
>> > > > > > > something
>> > > > > > > if we travel to Texas to converse with him in private or what IS
>> > > > > > > he
>> > > > > > > saying?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This is now your problem. I have explained myself at length and
>> > > > > > repeatedly.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Say, didn't you say something about not caring if you were
>> > > > > > condescending?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Or could it that he has zero to propose but likes venting forth
>> > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > ever-patient keyboard.
>> > > > > > > Or could it be that he is in training for a spokesman job at the
>> > > > > > > UN?
>> > > > > > > No, it could not be that he is simple enough to think that his
>> > > > > > > lame
>> > > > > > > brain-children will convince anyone, anywhere that he really has
>> > > > > > > something to say.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
>> > > > > > find
>> > > > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever
>> > > > > > result
>> > > > > > you want.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Stephen
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Mine says:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "I think if someone examined what I actually say, that person might
>> > > > > find
>> > > > > a valid argument. However, making stuff up will yield whatever result
>> > > > > you want. "
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Where is that ideal examiner? I look through and see lots of
>> > > > > assurances
>> > > > > that somewhere , sometime you offered your recipe but no date, no
>> > > > > forum
>> > > > > name, no web address. Too difficult?
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe you should stick with making stuff up. You lose track. Maybe it's
>> > > > how you quote.
>> > > >
>> > > > > So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple
>> > > > > answers.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
>> > > > > bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
>> > > >
>> > > > If you have information that there will be bombings on 9/11 in Madrid,
>> > > > London and Bali please report to the Horsemen immediately.
>> > > >
>> > > > > What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
>> > > > > something, what?
>> > > >
>> > > > > What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
>> > > > > what?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Should Iraqui Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
>> > > > > time in a row/
>> > > > > To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaida fighters.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
>> > > > > deserves all it gets.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
>> > > > > jihadi bogeymen. bogeyman
>> > > >
>> > > > You bring up these items in response to my concerns about US politics.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please explain how the US abandoning civil liberties and the Geneva
>> > > > Conventions improves any of the situations you mention.
>> > > >
>> > > > Stephen
>> > > =======================================
>> > >
>> > > Abandoning civil liberties and not adhering to Geneva Convention is
>> > > reprehensible and if your Government has embarked on such a program you
>> > > are well within your rights in protesting all you can. And I note as
>> > > before that civil liberties in your country seem to have survived
>> > > well enough for us to hear you on the internet. I trust you don't as
>> > > yet need my donation towards a food parcel in a reeducation camp.
>> > > Plenty of blemishes but look at the alternative.
>> >
>> > What do you mean, "if"? Is 'able to be heard on the internet' the new
>> > standard?
>> >
>> > > But I don't know why you want me to "explain" something I never
>> > > advocated. I try not to be personal but let me assure you that I
>> > > cherished freedom enough to vote for it with my feet.
>> > > It is not good manners for me to fight your battles in your country.
>> >
>> > > Curtailing civil liberties is bad. But losing them completely to
>> > > religious fanatics is much worse.
>> >
>> > Ta-da! There's the bogeyman!
>> >
>> > > I wish your government were 100%
>> > > wonderful. IBut I don't want it to start wallowing in the dust before
>> > > mullahs just to make you feel happy (not for long, take my word for
>> > > it.) We are sinners but... look at the alternative.
>> > >
>> > > But this is still a free world and if you feel that Guantanamo guilt
>> > > warrants your waking up under Al Quaeda I would wish you good cheer...
>> > > except that if more thought like you I and my kids and my grandchildren
>> > > would have to pay the price.
>> >
>> > Time to put up that Bering Straight fence! We Celebrate Our Glorious
>> > Leader's Resolve in Resisting the Middle Asian Enemy.
>> >
>> > Thank you for playing your hand completely. Perhaps you've seen the
>> > phrase "one-percent solution" bandied about in political discussions.
>> > You're arguing a "one-percent of one-percent of one-percent" danger and
>> > care little about real dangers to American ideals and identity.
>> >
>> > I understand you perfectly well now and since you don't try to
>> > understand me, we're at an impasse.
>> >
>> > Stephen
>> ==========================================
>> You were asked for your answer to some recent events. I'll repeat:
>> :
>> "So to make it easy let's make it a multiple choice with simple
>> answers.
>>
>> What should US, Spain, Uk, Indonesia, and Australia do about 9/11
>> bombings in Madrid, London, Bali. Nothing? Something ?What?
>>
>> What should be done about massacre of the Blacks in Darfur? Nothing,
>> something, what?
>>
>> What should be done in Afghanistan about Taliban? nothing, something,
>> what?
>>
>> Should Iraqi Kurds, Shias and probably Kuwait be abandoned second
>> time in a row/
>> To whom? The resurgent Sunnis or to Al Quaeda "resistance fighters".
>>
>> I'm not asking about missiles sent into Israel. We know that Israel
>> deserves all it gets.
>>
>> But how could I have forgotten . You're not worried about all those
>> jihadi bogeymen."
>
> You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin with
> and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views.
>
> Unless you see me say otherwise, assume I support my government and its
> actions.

I think we'd rather hear your stated position than assume one for you.


>
>> Some in Holland are sufficiently worried about a Muslim woman, a member
>> of the Dutch Parliament to give her police protection because shes
>> vocal about the oppression of Muslim women. The Dutch remember the fate
>> of Theo Van Gogh murdered by a nonbogeyman.
>
> From global to national to personal all in one sentence. You may safely
> count me as against murder.

How about self defense?

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article m>,
> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Frist!
> >
> > Gotcha!
>
> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> I guess you do.

I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.

> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >> >
> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
> >>
> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> >
> > That was then, this is now.
>
> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.

You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
couple of posts ago.

> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and the
> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >> >
> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> >>
> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> >
> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
>
> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> by palestinians.

All of which was open to better management.

> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> > for starting a war.
>
> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> the dawn of civilization.

The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
lost containing it.

> >> >> >> > If it
> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources to
> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> >> >>
> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> >> >
> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> >> >
> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> >> >> offensive.
> >> >
> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> >>
> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> >
> > And from your side.
>
> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.

Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.

I've already linked the "It's Okay When We Do It" poster.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <C4bYg.6167$fl.489@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

>
> I think we'd rather hear your stated position than assume one for you.

When I'm interested, I'll do so.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <C4bYg.6167$fl.489@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > From global to national to personal all in one sentence. You may safely
> > count me as against murder.
>
> How about self defense?

By definition, not murder.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article m>,
>> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Frist!
>> >
>> > Gotcha!
>>
>> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
>> I guess you do.
>
> I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.

What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?

>
>> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove the
>> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic rebuilding
>> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>> >> >
>> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
>> >>
>> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
>> >
>> > That was then, this is now.
>>
>> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.
>
> You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> couple of posts ago.
>
>> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>> >> >
>> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
>> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
>> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>> >>
>> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
>> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
>> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
>> >
>> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
>>
>> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
>> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
>> by palestinians.
>
> All of which was open to better management.

Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
perpetual containment.


>
>> > Economic utility is a lame argument
>> > for starting a war.
>>
>> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
>> the dawn of civilization.
>
> The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> lost containing it.

You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
The war deficit is about the same thing.

>
>> >> >> >> > If it
>> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper resources
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
>> >> >
>> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
>> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
>> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
>> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
>> >> >> offensive.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
>> >>
>> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
>> >
>> > And from your side.
>>
>> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
>
> Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.

Democratically elected fiefdom.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Frist!
> >> >
> >> > Gotcha!
> >>
> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> >> I guess you do.
> >
> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
>
> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?

Okay, I'll fill you in. Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
type of government."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html

This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
effective when offered from a position of strength.

Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
Taliban.

> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> >> >> >> > rebuilding
> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> >> >
> >> > That was then, this is now.
> >>
> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.
> >
> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> > couple of posts ago.
> >
> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> >> >
> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> >>
> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> >> by palestinians.
> >
> > All of which was open to better management.
>
> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> perpetual containment.

Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.

> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> >> > for starting a war.
> >>
> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> >> the dawn of civilization.
> >
> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> > lost containing it.
>
> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> The war deficit is about the same thing.

Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
foreign economy doesn't make much sense. If that money were invested,
you might have a point.

> >> >> >> >> > If it
> >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> >> >> >> >> > resources
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
> >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> >> >> >> offensive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> >> >>
> >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> >> >
> >> > And from your side.
> >>
> >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> >
> > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
>
> Democratically elected fiefdom.

Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.

Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
respected the Bill of Rights?

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> >> > m>,
>> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Frist!
>> >> >
>> >> > Gotcha!
>> >>
>> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
>> >> I guess you do.
>> >
>> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
>>
>> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
>
> Okay, I'll fill you in.

I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
US is not in balance.

> Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> type of government."

Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated militarily.
To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.

What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
The may accept
a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
law.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
>
> This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> effective when offered from a position of strength.

Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
freedom as long as
they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their borders.

>
> Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> Taliban.

I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
dots which are few and far between.


>
>> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
>> >> >> >> > rebuilding
>> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
>> >> >
>> >> > That was then, this is now.
>> >>
>> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.
>> >
>> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
>> > couple of posts ago.
>> >
>> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
>> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
>> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
>> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
>> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
>> >>
>> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
>> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
>> >> by palestinians.
>> >
>> > All of which was open to better management.
>>
>> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
>> perpetual containment.
>
> Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.

It was..and it was grossly inhumane.

>
>> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
>> >> > for starting a war.
>> >>
>> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
>> >> the dawn of civilization.
>> >
>> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
>> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
>> > lost containing it.
>>
>> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
>> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
>> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
>> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
>> The war deficit is about the same thing.
>
> Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> foreign economy doesn't make much sense.

The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the US.


> If that money were invested,
> you might have a point.
>
>> >> >> >> >> > If it
>> >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
>> >> >> >> >> > resources
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
>> >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
>> >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
>> >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
>> >> >> >> offensive.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
>> >> >
>> >> > And from your side.
>> >>
>> >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
>>
>> Democratically elected fiefdom.
>
> Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
>
> Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> respected the Bill of Rights?

Won't be up to the government. It's up to the people and most of them recognize
that small temporary sacrifices are necessary to insure security.
Nothing has been done that can't be undone except the dead.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
> US is not in balance.

Since I don't have a "reluctance to act when the fate of the US is not
in balance" there isn't much of a relationship.

I brought it up when you skirted the word "appeasement."

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gotcha!
> >> >>
> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> >> >> I guess you do.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> >>
> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
> >
> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
>
> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
> US is not in balance.
>
> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> > type of government."
>
> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated militarily.
> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.

There's talk of a comeback.

> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
> The may accept
> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
> law.
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
> >
> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
>
> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
> freedom as long as
> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their borders.

I think they already have that message.

Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
pacify former enemies?

> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> > Taliban.
>
> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
> dots which are few and far between.

You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.
Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
minds, eh? Since last I checked he was a Republican (at least until Fox
misidentifies him) I thought you'd be up on it or at least consider you
used too large a hammer for a tiny nail.

> >> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
> >> >> >> >> > remove
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> >> >> >> >> > rebuilding
> >> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
> >> >> >> > security.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That was then, this is now.
> >> >>
> >> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
> >> >> positions.
> >> >
> >> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> >> > couple of posts ago.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban
> >> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> >> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> >> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> >> >>
> >> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> >> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> >> >> by palestinians.
> >> >
> >> > All of which was open to better management.
> >>
> >> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> >> perpetual containment.
> >
> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
>
> It was..and it was grossly inhumane.

And no one gave a rat's until it was time to justify the invasion.

> >> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> >> >> > for starting a war.
> >> >>
> >> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> >> >> the dawn of civilization.
> >> >
> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> >> > lost containing it.
> >>
> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
> >
> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
>
> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the US.

Even worse for the Iraqis.

> > If that money were invested,
> > you might have a point.
> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > If it
> >> >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> >> >> >> >> >> > resources
> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> >> >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> >> >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the
> >> >> >> >> end
> >> >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> >> >> >> >> offensive.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And from your side.
> >> >>
> >> >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
> >>
> >> Democratically elected fiefdom.
> >
> > Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
> >
> > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> > respected the Bill of Rights?
>
> Won't be up to the government. It's up to the people and most of them
> recognize
> that small temporary sacrifices are necessary to insure security.
> Nothing has been done that can't be undone except the dead.

It's Ben Franklin time again.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gotcha!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
>> >> >> I guess you do.
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
>> >>
>> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
>> >
>> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
>>
>> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
>> US is not in balance.
>>
>> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
>> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
>> > type of government."
>>
>> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated militarily.
>> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
>> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.
>
> There's talk of a comeback.
>
>> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
>> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
>> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
>> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
>> The may accept
>> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
>> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
>> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
>> law.
>> >
>> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
>> >
>> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
>> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
>>
>> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
>> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
>> freedom as long as
>> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their borders.
>
> I think they already have that message.
>
> Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
> pacify former enemies?

To what lengths would you suggest their Afghans give up their hard won
freedoms to pacify this enemy?


>
>> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
>> > Taliban.
>>
>> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
>> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
>> dots which are few and far between.
>
> You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.

Doing nothing was Nevilles method of appeasement.


> Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
> minds, eh?

He might as well have suggested we make all Taliban zero mass
so they will float into space. It would have as much chance of success
IMO.

> Since last I checked he was a Republican (at least until Fox
> misidentifies him) I thought you'd be up on it or at least consider you
> used too large a hammer for a tiny nail.
>
>> >> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
>> >> >> >> >> > remove
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
>> >> >> >> >> > rebuilding
>> >> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
>> >> >> >> > security.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That was then, this is now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
>> >> >> positions.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
>> >> > couple of posts ago.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban
>> >> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
>> >> >> >> > but
>> >> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
>> >> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
>> >> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
>> >> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
>> >> >> by palestinians.
>> >> >
>> >> > All of which was open to better management.
>> >>
>> >> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
>> >> perpetual containment.
>> >
>> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
>>
>> It was..and it was grossly inhumane.
>
> And no one gave a rat's until it was time to justify the invasion.

Yup. Does that make it right?

>
>> >> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
>> >> >> > for starting a war.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
>> >> >> the dawn of civilization.
>> >> >
>> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
>> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
>> >> > lost containing it.
>> >>
>> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
>> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
>> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
>> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
>> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
>> >
>> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
>> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
>>
>> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the US.
>
> Even worse for the Iraqis.

Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
of Saddam.

>
>> > If that money were invested,
>> > you might have a point.
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > If it
>> >> >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
>> >> >> >> >> >> > resources
>> >> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
>> >> >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
>> >> >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the
>> >> >> >> >> end
>> >> >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
>> >> >> >> >> offensive.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And from your side.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
>> >>
>> >> Democratically elected fiefdom.
>> >
>> > Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
>> >
>> > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
>> > respected the Bill of Rights?
>>
>> Won't be up to the government. It's up to the people and most of them
>> recognize
>> that small temporary sacrifices are necessary to insure security.
>> Nothing has been done that can't be undone except the dead.
>
> It's Ben Franklin time again.

Time for platitudes?

If Ben lived today he'd be labelled a chickenhawk.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > Even worse for the Iraqis.
>
> Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
> 6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
> of Saddam.

Argument by exception again.

> If Ben lived today he'd be labelled a chickenhawk.

If Joseph McCarthy lived today he'd be labelled a republican.

[MiNe 109]

In article <t0fYg.6180$fl.2916@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Gotcha!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> >> >> >> I guess you do.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> >> >>
> >> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
> >> >
> >> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
> >>
> >> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
> >> US is not in balance.
> >>
> >> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> >> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> >> > type of government."
> >>
> >> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated
> >> militarily.
> >> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
> >> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.
> >
> > There's talk of a comeback.
> >
> >> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
> >> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
> >> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
> >> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
> >> The may accept
> >> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
> >> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
> >> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
> >> law.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
> >> >
> >> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> >> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
> >>
> >> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
> >> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
> >> freedom as long as
> >> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their borders.
> >
> > I think they already have that message.
> >
> > Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
> > pacify former enemies?
>
> To what lengths would you suggest their Afghans give up their hard won
> freedoms to pacify this enemy?

Non sequitur.

> >> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> >> > Taliban.
> >>
> >> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
> >> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
> >> dots which are few and far between.
> >
> > You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.
>
> Doing nothing was Nevilles method of appeasement.

No, there was an action, a little thing called the Munich Agreement.

> > Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
> > minds, eh?
>
> He might as well have suggested we make all Taliban zero mass
> so they will float into space. It would have as much chance of success
> IMO.

About the same as refusing to negotiate with countries you don't like.

> > Since last I checked he was a Republican (at least until Fox
> > misidentifies him) I thought you'd be up on it or at least consider you
> > used too large a hammer for a tiny nail.
> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
> >> >> >> >> >> > remove
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> >> >> >> >> >> > rebuilding
> >> >> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
> >> >> >> >> > security.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That was then, this is now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
> >> >> >> positions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> >> >> > couple of posts ago.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the
> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban
> >> >> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is
> >> >> >> >> > having
> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
> >> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> >> >> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> >> >> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> >> >> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> >> >> >> by palestinians.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All of which was open to better management.
> >> >>
> >> >> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> >> >> perpetual containment.
> >> >
> >> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
> >>
> >> It was..and it was grossly inhumane.
> >
> > And no one gave a rat's until it was time to justify the invasion.
>
> Yup. Does that make it right?

It was never "right."

> >> >> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> >> >> >> > for starting a war.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> >> >> >> the dawn of civilization.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> >> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> >> >> > lost containing it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> >> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> >> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> >> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> >> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> >> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
> >>
> >> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the
> >> US.
> >
> > Even worse for the Iraqis.
>
> Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
> 6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
> of Saddam.

Hey, you've got W's counting bug. How many school did the Shia paint
this week?

> >> > If that money were invested,
> >> > you might have a point.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If it
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > resources
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> >> >> >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> >> >> >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the
> >> >> >> >> >> end
> >> >> >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> >> >> >> >> >> offensive.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And from your side.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
> >> >>
> >> >> Democratically elected fiefdom.
> >> >
> >> > Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight
> >> > raid.
> >> >
> >> > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> >> > respected the Bill of Rights?
> >>
> >> Won't be up to the government. It's up to the people and most of them
> >> recognize
> >> that small temporary sacrifices are necessary to insure security.
> >> Nothing has been done that can't be undone except the dead.
> >
> > It's Ben Franklin time again.
>
> Time for platitudes?

The one about security and liberty.

> If Ben lived today he'd be labelled a chickenhawk.

Naw, he wrote famously in praise of older women.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:

> > Won't be up to the government. It's up to the people and most of them
> > recognize that small temporary sacrifices are necessary to insure security.
> > Nothing has been done that can't be undone except the dead.
>
> It's Ben Franklin time again.

Poor, frightened little toopid.

How does he live?

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> > >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > >> >> >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> >> > m>,
> > >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> > >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in balance.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> > >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Frist!
> > >> >
> > >> > Gotcha!
> > >>
> > >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> > >> I guess you do.
> > >
> > > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> >
> > What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
>
> Okay, I'll fill you in. Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> type of government."
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
>
> This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> effective when offered from a position of strength.
>
> Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> Taliban.
>
> > >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to remove
> > >> >> >> > the
> > >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> > >> >> >> > rebuilding
> > >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US security.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> > >> >
> > >> > That was then, this is now.
> > >>
> > >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now positions.
> > >
> > > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> > > couple of posts ago.
> > >
> > >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban and
> > >> >> >> > the
> > >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is having it
> > >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat but
> > >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> > >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> > >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> > >> >
> > >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> > >>
> > >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> > >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> > >> by palestinians.
> > >
> > > All of which was open to better management.
> >
> > Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> > perpetual containment.
>
> Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
>
> > >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> > >> > for starting a war.
> > >>
> > >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> > >> the dawn of civilization.
> > >
> > > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> > > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> > > lost containing it.
> >
> > You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> > injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> > fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> > of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> > The war deficit is about the same thing.
>
> Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> foreign economy doesn't make much sense. If that money were invested,
> you might have a point.
>
> > >> >> >> >> > If it
> > >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> > >> >> >> >> > resources
> > >> >> >> >> > to
> > >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> > >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> > >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the end
> > >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> > >> >> >> offensive.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> > >> >
> > >> > And from your side.
> > >>
> > >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
> >
> > Democratically elected fiefdom.
>
> Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
>
> Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> respected the Bill of Rights?
>
> Stephen

============================================

Mine lays down the law:
"You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
with
and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "

My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
laying it out black on white.

I engaged in this against inclination because I can't resist
puncturing windbags ( the secret of my popularity). Especially windbags
who desperately try for wit and satire. Like "As for : "Time for Ludo's
story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.". I happen to
have been midnight-raided twice by thought police and we did not
exchange any jokes.

You see wit is the very opposite of winbagging. When you try for merry
quips you come up with flatfooted idiocy like this one: "Nope. The
Leader's plan is my plan until there's a new Leader then I'll have a
new plan" A real life "leader" would give you a job in the censorship
section because he'd know you'd make a spectacle of yourself in
propaganda.
Ludovic Mirabel.

..

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> >> >> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might
> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> > lost containing it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> >> >> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> >> >> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the
> >> >> >> equivalent
> >> >> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> >> >> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> >> >> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the
> >> >> US.
> >> >
> >> > Even worse for the Iraqis.
> >>
> >> Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
> >> 6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
> >> of Saddam.
> >
> >Hey, you've got W's counting bug. How many school did the Shia paint
> >this week?
>
> Funny you should say that - on ITV news the other day they had a
> section on British soldiers painting schools. A senior rank asked a
> soldier how many had been painted that day. Five, I think the answer
> was. They also showed Brits fixing up a broken sewer pipes and stuff.
> This all went on for a few minutes. They then showed a very brief clip
> of a UK tank getting bricked by locals.

Can't win for losing! Sometimes it seems like that "Amarillo" video is
the only good thing to come out of the occupation.

W likes facts: this many schools painted, that many meals distributed,
etc.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> ...
> > > >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> >> ...
> > > >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> > > >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> >> >> ..
> > > >> >> >> >> .
> > > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > > >> >> >> >> > m>,
> > > >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> > > >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
> > > >> >> >> >> > balance.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> > > >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Frist!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Gotcha!
> > > >>
> > > >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> > > >> I guess you do.
> > > >
> > > > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> > >
> > > What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
> >
> > Okay, I'll fill you in. Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> > type of government."
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
> >
> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
> >
> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> > Taliban.
> >
> > > >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
> > > >> >> >> > remove
> > > >> >> >> > the
> > > >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> > > >> >> >> > rebuilding
> > > >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
> > > >> >> > security.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That was then, this is now.
> > > >>
> > > >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
> > > >> positions.
> > > >
> > > > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> > > > couple of posts ago.
> > > >
> > > >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban
> > > >> >> >> > and
> > > >> >> >> > the
> > > >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is
> > > >> >> > having it
> > > >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
> > > >> >> > but
> > > >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> > > >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> > > >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> > > >>
> > > >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> > > >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> > > >> by palestinians.
> > > >
> > > > All of which was open to better management.
> > >
> > > Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> > > perpetual containment.
> >
> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
> >
> > > >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> > > >> > for starting a war.
> > > >>
> > > >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> > > >> the dawn of civilization.
> > > >
> > > > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> > > > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> > > > lost containing it.
> > >
> > > You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> > > injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> > > fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> > > of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> > > The war deficit is about the same thing.
> >
> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense. If that money were invested,
> > you might have a point.
> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > If it
> > > >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> > > >> >> >> >> > resources
> > > >> >> >> >> > to
> > > >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> > > >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> > > >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the
> > > >> >> >> end
> > > >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> > > >> >> >> offensive.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And from your side.
> > > >>
> > > >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
> > >
> > > Democratically elected fiefdom.
> >
> > Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
> >
> > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> > respected the Bill of Rights?
> >
> > Stephen
>
> ============================================
>
> Mine lays down the law:
> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
>
> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
> laying it out black on white.

No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
them.

If I say, "cluster bombs are bad" and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
conversation except as a diversion from the former.

> I engaged in this against inclination because I can't resist
> puncturing windbags ( the secret of my popularity). Especially windbags
> who desperately try for wit and satire. Like "As for : "Time for Ludo's
> story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.". I happen to
> have been midnight-raided twice by thought police and we did not
> exchange any jokes.

Ironically, this was brought on by my attempts to champion the right of
people not to be subject to midnight raids. You seem to argue in favor
of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids.

> You see wit is the very opposite of winbagging. When you try for merry
> quips you come up with flatfooted idiocy like this one: "Nope. The
> Leader's plan is my plan until there's a new Leader then I'll have a
> new plan" A real life "leader" would give you a job in the censorship
> section because he'd know you'd make a spectacle of yourself in
> propaganda.

I do sometimes have the skill of discerning wit from sarcasm.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>>
>> Mine lays down the law:
>> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
>> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
>>
>> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
>> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
>> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
>> laying it out black on white.
>
> No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
> because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
> them.
>
> If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"

Yet effective....when the time has come to fight, I believe
we should fight to win. This concept of civilized war is
an oxymoron that has brought the world endless wars.


> and you respond, "what about Darfur?"

and what about it? Is this a front in war of civilizations
or a feud over land as some would have us believe?


> I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
> conversation except as a diversion from the former.

Which itself was a diversion from the cause of that war.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <t0fYg.6180$fl.2916@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Gotcha!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
>> >> >> >> I guess you do.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
>> >>
>> >> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
>> >> US is not in balance.
>> >>
>> >> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
>> >> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
>> >> > type of government."
>> >>
>> >> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated
>> >> militarily.
>> >> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
>> >> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.
>> >
>> > There's talk of a comeback.
>> >
>> >> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
>> >> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
>> >> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
>> >> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
>> >> The may accept
>> >> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
>> >> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
>> >> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
>> >> law.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
>> >> >
>> >> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
>> >> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
>> >>
>> >> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
>> >> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
>> >> freedom as long as
>> >> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their borders.
>> >
>> > I think they already have that message.
>> >
>> > Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
>> > pacify former enemies?
>>
>> To what lengths would you suggest their Afghans give up their hard won
>> freedoms to pacify this enemy?
>
> Non sequitur.

Wow...you really won't face the hard questions.

>
>> >> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
>> >> > Taliban.
>> >>
>> >> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
>> >> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
>> >> dots which are few and far between.
>> >
>> > You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.
>>
>> Doing nothing was Nevilles method of appeasement.
>
> No, there was an action, a little thing called the Munich Agreement.

Words are not action. The Munich Agreement was a call for no
action on the part of the allies and indeed, none was taken until
the invasion of Poland.

>
>> > Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
>> > minds, eh?
>>
>> He might as well have suggested we make all Taliban zero mass
>> so they will float into space. It would have as much chance of success
>> IMO.
>
> About the same as refusing to negotiate with countries you don't like.

In the case of Korea...Clinton negotiated, Clinton had a deal,
a deal the N. Koreans failed to abide by.
Why would you exclude the regional players and insist in unilateral
discussions? Same with Iran? Europe and the ME is
far more directly threatened by their weapons than we are.

>
>> > Since last I checked he was a Republican (at least until Fox
>> > misidentifies him) I thought you'd be up on it or at least consider you
>> > used too large a hammer for a tiny nail.
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > remove
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
>> >> >> >> >> >> > rebuilding
>> >> >> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
>> >> >> >> >> > security.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That was then, this is now.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
>> >> >> >> positions.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
>> >> >> > couple of posts ago.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban
>> >> >> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is
>> >> >> >> >> > having
>> >> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
>> >> >> >> >> > but
>> >> >> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
>> >> >> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
>> >> >> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
>> >> >> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
>> >> >> >> by palestinians.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > All of which was open to better management.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
>> >> >> perpetual containment.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
>> >>
>> >> It was..and it was grossly inhumane.
>> >
>> > And no one gave a rat's until it was time to justify the invasion.
>>
>> Yup. Does that make it right?
>
> It was never "right."

Deposing a murderous tyrant like Saddam was not right?
What is?

>
>> >> >> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
>> >> >> >> > for starting a war.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
>> >> >> >> the dawn of civilization.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
>> >> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
>> >> >> > lost containing it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
>> >> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
>> >> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
>> >> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
>> >> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
>> >> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
>> >>
>> >> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the
>> >> US.
>> >
>> > Even worse for the Iraqis.
>>
>> Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
>> 6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
>> of Saddam.
>
> Hey, you've got W's counting bug. How many school did the Shia paint
> this week?

Its your argument that things are worse for all Iraqis. I say that is not
true. The Kurds felt the need to send an envoy to America to
tell us and counter the wave of negativity that flows from some daily.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article <hVsYg.6269$fl.155@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >>
> >> Mine lays down the law:
> >> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
> >> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
> >>
> >> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
> >> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
> >> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
> >> laying it out black on white.
> >
> > No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
> > because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
> > them.
> >
> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
>
> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight, I believe
> we should fight to win. This concept of civilized war is
> an oxymoron that has brought the world endless wars.

There was a recent spate of cluster-bombing, a million or so, just
before the deadline of a ceasefire.

There are other ways of "winning" depending on the conflict and the
overall goal.

> > and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
>
> and what about it? Is this a front in war of civilizations
> or a feud over land as some would have us believe?

Feud. Why does matter who wants us to believe it?

See? Scott responded to my bringing it up, so it's like a conversation.

> > I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
> > conversation except as a diversion from the former.
>
> Which itself was a diversion from the cause of that war.

Didn't mention a war, sorry.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article <i3tYg.6270$fl.2910@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <t0fYg.6180$fl.2916@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Gotcha!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no
> >> >> >> >> attention.
> >> >> >> >> I guess you do.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
> >> >> US is not in balance.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> >> >> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more
> >> >> > transparent
> >> >> > type of government."
> >> >>
> >> >> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated
> >> >> militarily.
> >> >> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
> >> >> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.
> >> >
> >> > There's talk of a comeback.
> >> >
> >> >> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
> >> >> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
> >> >> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
> >> >> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
> >> >> The may accept
> >> >> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
> >> >> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
> >> >> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
> >> >> law.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> >> >> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
> >> >> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
> >> >> freedom as long as
> >> >> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their
> >> >> borders.
> >> >
> >> > I think they already have that message.
> >> >
> >> > Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
> >> > pacify former enemies?
> >>
> >> To what lengths would you suggest their Afghans give up their hard won
> >> freedoms to pacify this enemy?
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Wow...you really won't face the hard questions.

Invalid premise, as if there's a rights for peace exchange somewhere for
the Afghans to visit.

Speaking of not facing the hard questions, the Taliban are a large
percentage of the population. They won't just disappear.

> >> >> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> >> >> > Taliban.
> >> >>
> >> >> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
> >> >> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
> >> >> dots which are few and far between.
> >> >
> >> > You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.
> >>
> >> Doing nothing was Nevilles method of appeasement.
> >
> > No, there was an action, a little thing called the Munich Agreement.
>
> Words are not action. The Munich Agreement was a call for no
> action on the part of the allies and indeed, none was taken until
> the invasion of Poland.

An active call. International agreements are certainly "action."

> >> > Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
> >> > minds, eh?
> >>
> >> He might as well have suggested we make all Taliban zero mass
> >> so they will float into space. It would have as much chance of success
> >> IMO.
> >
> > About the same as refusing to negotiate with countries you don't like.
>
> In the case of Korea...Clinton negotiated, Clinton had a deal,
> a deal the N. Koreans failed to abide by.
> Why would you exclude the regional players and insist in unilateral
> discussions? Same with Iran? Europe and the ME is
> far more directly threatened by their weapons than we are.

I'm not insisting on unilateral discussions. Unfortunately, NK is, so if
we want concessions from them, we would do well to consider the
possibility. You know, diplomacy. Of course, we should get something in
return. That's how is works.

Still, Clinton-no plutonium, Bush-plutonium. Which approach was working?

Iran was very much open to diplomacy. Their "weapons" are more a
diplomatic/political game than a real threat to Europe.

> >> > Since last I checked he was a Republican (at least until Fox
> >> > misidentifies him) I thought you'd be up on it or at least consider you
> >> > used too large a hammer for a tiny nail.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > remove
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > rebuilding
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
> >> >> >> >> >> > security.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > That was then, this is now.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
> >> >> >> >> positions.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > couple of posts ago.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Taliban
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is
> >> >> >> >> >> > having
> >> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real
> >> >> >> >> >> > threat
> >> >> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to
> >> >> >> >> >> me
> >> >> >> >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> >> >> >> >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> >> >> >> >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> >> >> >> >> by palestinians.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > All of which was open to better management.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> >> >> >> perpetual containment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was..and it was grossly inhumane.
> >> >
> >> > And no one gave a rat's until it was time to justify the invasion.
> >>
> >> Yup. Does that make it right?
> >
> > It was never "right."
>
> Deposing a murderous tyrant like Saddam was not right?
> What is?

Do keep up with context. The corruption of the "oil for food" program,
as you pointed out.

> >> >> >> >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> >> >> >> >> > for starting a war.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> >> >> >> >> the dawn of civilization.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> >> >> >> > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might
> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> > lost containing it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> >> >> >> injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> >> >> >> fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the
> >> >> >> equivalent
> >> >> >> of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> >> >> >> The war deficit is about the same thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> >> >> > foreign economy doesn't make much sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> The vast majority of that money is spent directly in or returns to the
> >> >> US.
> >> >
> >> > Even worse for the Iraqis.
> >>
> >> Still their economy is way ahead of where it was under embargo.
> >> 6 new universities have opened in Kurdish area since the fall
> >> of Saddam.
> >
> > Hey, you've got W's counting bug. How many school did the Shia paint
> > this week?
>
> Its your argument that things are worse for all Iraqis. I say that is not
> true. The Kurds felt the need to send an envoy to America to
> tell us and counter the wave of negativity that flows from some daily.

All Iraqis? Where did I say that? So the Kurds are combating the NYT?
Are they going to do you wingnuts a favor and blow up the Grey Lady?

Stephen

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:45:55 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article <hVsYg.6269$fl.155@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article . com>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mine lays down the law:
>> >> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
>> >> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
>> >>
>> >> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
>> >> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
>> >> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
>> >> laying it out black on white.
>> >
>> > No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
>> > because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
>> > them.
>> >
>> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
>>
>> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight,


I guess Scott don't mind a few civilians getting hurt, if they are not
americans.

[Eeyore]

Mr Fox wrote:

> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>
> >> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
> >>
> >> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight,
>
> I guess Scott don't mind a few civilians getting hurt, if they are not
> americans.

Which country does he want to bomb today ?

Graham

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
> > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> >> ...
> > > > >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
> > > > >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >> ...
> > > > >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
> > > > >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >> >> ..
> > > > >> >> >> >> .
> > > > >> >> >> >> > In article
> > > > >> >> >> >> > m>,
> > > > >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
> > > > >> >> >> >> > balance.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
> > > > >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > Frist!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Gotcha!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no attention.
> > > > >> I guess you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
> > > >
> > > > What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll fill you in. Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
> > > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more transparent
> > > type of government."
> > >
> > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
> > >
> > > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
> > > effective when offered from a position of strength.
> > >
> > > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
> > > Taliban.
> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > No, I was foolishly all for an enormous world effort to to
> > > > >> >> >> > remove
> > > > >> >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> >> > Taliban and the capture of bin Laden followed by economic
> > > > >> >> >> > rebuilding
> > > > >> >> >> > leading to a liberal democracy.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Why foolishly? Are you no longer for this?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > I have since learned how unimportant the Taliban are to US
> > > > >> >> > security.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Even when they were in a position to host al qaeda?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That was then, this is now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I find it increasingly difficult to decipher your then and now
> > > > >> positions.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're discussing the past when I'm in the present. And vice versa a
> > > > > couple of posts ago.
> > > > >
> > > > >> >> >> > Fortunately, Bush recognized the insignificance of the Taliban
> > > > >> >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> >> > impotence of al Queda and focused on other problems.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> More sarcasm....no wonder Ludovic can't figure you out.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The grain of truth is what makes it so inscrutable. Bush is
> > > > >> >> > having it
> > > > >> >> > both ways, ignoring something he doesn't consider a real threat
> > > > >> >> > but
> > > > >> >> > holding it out to garner political support for his policies.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> In the grand scheme of the world...it is readily apparent to me
> > > > >> >> that Saddam Hussein was far more threat to our economy than
> > > > >> >> the al qaeda or the Taliban.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No, he was more-or-less contained.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Policy of containment was failing as demonstrated by the post
> > > > >> mortem of oil for food and his continued funding of terrorism
> > > > >> by palestinians.
> > > > >
> > > > > All of which was open to better management.
> > > >
> > > > Talk to the euros...they're the ones who couldn't stand
> > > > perpetual containment.
> > >
> > > Hey, whatever. Not insoluble at the time.
> > >
> > > > >> > Economic utility is a lame argument
> > > > >> > for starting a war.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IYO...still it has been the primary argument for wars since
> > > > >> the dawn of civilization.
> > > > >
> > > > > The US likes to pretend there are greater ideals to fight for. Of
> > > > > course, I'd guess we've spent more blowing up Iraq then we might have
> > > > > lost containing it.
> > > >
> > > > You act like the money spent is actually lost rather than just
> > > > injected into the economy. Perhaps you don't recall when one of the
> > > > fed reserve governors said they were about ready to do the equivalent
> > > > of throwing money out of helicopters to get the economy going.
> > > > The war deficit is about the same thing.
> > >
> > > Which economy? $8 billion dollars disappearing into an underground
> > > foreign economy doesn't make much sense. If that money were invested,
> > > you might have a point.
> > >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > If it
> > > > >> >> >> >> > were, President Bush would have apportioned the proper
> > > > >> >> >> >> > resources
> > > > >> >> >> >> > to
> > > > >> >> >> >> > solving the problem.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> By then the solution may be well beyond our resources.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > What do you by "by then"?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> By the time the fate of the US is obviously in balance.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > That makes sense, except I was speaking in the past tense.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> Of course the fate of the US will never depend directly upon
> > > > >> >> >> Afghanistan though the beginning of the end may be traced
> > > > >> >> >> to a conflict there. Personally, I think the beginning of the
> > > > >> >> >> end
> > > > >> >> >> will be traced to Walter Cronkites assessment of the Tet
> > > > >> >> >> offensive.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > You're still completely wrong about that.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> The downfall of America will come from within.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And from your side.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lol....America is more than the bill of rights IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. Without the Bill of Rights we're just another fiefdom.
> > > >
> > > > Democratically elected fiefdom.
> > >
> > > Time for Ludo's story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.
> > >
> > > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> > > respected the Bill of Rights?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > ============================================
> >
> > Mine lays down the law:
> > "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
> > with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
> >
> > My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
> > need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
> > obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
> > laying it out black on white.
>
> No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
> because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
> them.
>
> If I say, "cluster bombs are bad" and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
> I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
> conversation except as a diversion from the former.
>
> > I engaged in this against inclination because I can't resist
> > puncturing windbags ( the secret of my popularity). Especially windbags
> > who desperately try for wit and satire. Like "As for : "Time for Ludo's
> > story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.". I happen to
> > have been midnight-raided twice by thought police and we did not
> > exchange any jokes.
>
> Ironically, this was brought on by my attempts to champion the right of
> people not to be subject to midnight raids. You seem to argue in favor
> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids.
>
> > You see wit is the very opposite of winbagging. When you try for merry
> > quips you come up with flatfooted idiocy like this one: "Nope. The
> > Leader's plan is my plan until there's a new Leader then I'll have a
> > new plan" A real life "leader" would give you a job in the censorship
> > section because he'd know you'd make a spectacle of yourself in
> > propaganda.
>
> I do sometimes have the skill of discerning wit from sarcasm.
>
> Stephen

---------------------------------------

Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:

A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
London-nothing.

He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:

So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
the world.

B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.

C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
"You seem to argue in favor
of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
"favour"? When, where?
Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > > Why do think the government would respect democracy any more than it
> > > respected the Bill of Rights?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
> > with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
> >
> > My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
> > need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
> > obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
> > laying it out black on white.
>
> No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
> because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
> them.
>
> If I say, "cluster bombs are bad" and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
> I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
> conversation except as a diversion from the former.
>
> > I engaged in this against inclination because I can't resist
> > puncturing windbags ( the secret of my popularity). Especially windbags
> > who desperately try for wit and satire. Like "As for : "Time for Ludo's
> > story about the loose-lipped child and the midnight raid.". I happen to
> > have been midnight-raided twice by thought police and we did not
> > exchange any jokes.
>
> Ironically, this was brought on by my attempts to champion the right of
> people not to be subject to midnight raids. You seem to argue in favor
> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids.
>
> > You see wit is the very opposite of winbagging. When you try for merry
> > quips you come up with flatfooted idiocy like this one: "Nope. The
> > Leader's plan is my plan until there's a new Leader then I'll have a
> > new plan" A real life "leader" would give you a job in the censorship
> > section because he'd know you'd make a spectacle of yourself in
> > propaganda.
>
> I do sometimes have the skill of discerning wit from sarcasm.
>
> Stephen
========================================

Anatomy of Mine patented debate-dodging techniques:

A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
London-nothing.

He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:

So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
the world.

B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.

C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
"You seem to argue in favor
of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
"favour"? When, where?
Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:57:09 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article <i3tYg.6270$fl.2910@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <t0fYg.6180$fl.2916@dukeread08>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <S_cYg.6171$fl.2961@dukeread08>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <yjcYg.6170$fl.5594@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > In article <J%aYg.6166$fl.1864@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <t5aYg.6158$fl.875@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <5J8Yg.6145$fl.2059@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <shVXg.6089$fl.5244@dukeread08>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> .
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> com
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How could I forget the Taliban. Advice for Mr Karzai?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tell him all about not worrying about a bogeyman?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a local problem. The fate of the US is not in
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > balance.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wow....that line you draw for action is seriously beyond
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Neville Chamberlain's.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Frist!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Gotcha!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Got nothing. I have no respect for Frist and pay him no
>> >> >> >> >> attention.
>> >> >> >> >> I guess you do.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I guess you're up on the Frist proposal for the Taliban.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What part of "pay him no attention" eludes you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Okay, I'll fill you in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see no relationship to your reluctance to act when the fate of the
>> >> >> US is not in balance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Frist said the battle against the Taliban can't
>> >> >> > be won militarily, and called for bringing them into a "more
>> >> >> > transparent
>> >> >> > type of government."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Frist remains an idiot. First...the Taliban have been defeated
>> >> >> militarily.
>> >> >> To claim othewise would be to claim that the French suffered no
>> >> >> defeat to the Germans because the resistance fought on.
>> >> >
>> >> > There's talk of a comeback.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What he means to say but seems to stupid to properly express,
>> >> >> is that the Taliban cannot be eradicated militarily.
>> >> >> That may be true...but he also doesn't recognize that the Taliban
>> >> >> will never accept a mere position in a representative government.
>> >> >> The may accept
>> >> >> a temporary position but the first moment they have in power
>> >> >> and all democractic institutions and any resemblances to
>> >> >> civil rights will be forever tossed aside in favor of strict Islamic
>> >> >> law.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is actually a legitimate form of nation-building, but more
>> >> >> > effective when offered from a position of strength.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whats legit about it? May as well hand the country back to them,
>> >> >> tell the Afghans we really don't give a **** about them and their
>> >> >> freedom as long as
>> >> >> they don't let any crazies plan attacks on us from within their
>> >> >> borders.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think they already have that message.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you really not understand the ability of a coalition government to
>> >> > pacify former enemies?
>> >>
>> >> To what lengths would you suggest their Afghans give up their hard won
>> >> freedoms to pacify this enemy?
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> Wow...you really won't face the hard questions.
>
>Invalid premise, as if there's a rights for peace exchange somewhere for
>the Afghans to visit.
>
>Speaking of not facing the hard questions, the Taliban are a large
>percentage of the population. They won't just disappear.
>
>> >> >> > Sorry if I offended you. You usually seem up on world affairs and the
>> >> >> > Taliban.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I heard Frist BS and I wrote it off as too stupid to consider.
>> >> >> I still see no "gotme" except for my inability to connect your
>> >> >> dots which are few and far between.
>> >> >
>> >> > You implied I was appeasing the Taliban by calling them a local concern.
>> >>
>> >> Doing nothing was Nevilles method of appeasement.
>> >
>> > No, there was an action, a little thing called the Munich Agreement.
>>
>> Words are not action. The Munich Agreement was a call for no
>> action on the part of the allies and indeed, none was taken until
>> the invasion of Poland.
>
>An active call. International agreements are certainly "action."
>
>> >> > Frist proposed a local solution to the long-term Taliban problem. Great
>> >> > minds, eh?
>> >>
>> >> He might as well have suggested we make all Taliban zero mass
>> >> so they will float into space. It would have as much chance of success
>> >> IMO.
>> >
>> > About the same as refusing to negotiate with countries you don't like.
>>
>> In the case of Korea...Clinton negotiated, Clinton had a deal,
>> a deal the N. Koreans failed to abide by.
>> Why would you exclude the regional players and insist in unilateral
>> discussions? Same with Iran? Europe and the ME is
>> far more directly threatened by their weapons than we are.
>
>I'm not insisting on unilateral discussions. Unfortunately, NK is, so if
>we want concessions from them, we would do well to consider the
>possibility. You know, diplomacy

The "coalition' gives India and Pakistan a big slap on the back
for/despite their nuke capabilities; and those guys are SERIOUS and
_have_ been close to pushing the button. The US endorses that!

Is there a big threat from North Korea? NK and Iran want nukes as a
deterent like most other countries- the rhetoric seems to come from
the usual warmongerin sources

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

Wow.

> ---------------------------------------
>
> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
>
> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> London-nothing.

> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:

Supposed?

> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> the world.

Hey, you brought those things up again!

> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.

No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."

> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> "You seem to argue in favor
> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> "favour"? When, where?
> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.

This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.

> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
>
> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> Antonio.

No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."

> Or how to avoid civilian deaths when the missiles are launched
> purposefully from civilian domiciles.

A conundrum, to be sure.

> 2) Or the latest Mine got from Webster -"non sequitur" for use when
> caught in a no-exit argument.
> The advantage of a Latin tag ("it does not follow") is that one need
> not explain why one claims that it does not follow. Being foreign it
> cuts the discussion more effectively than the tags used by the
> tag-master (you know who!).: "Been there done that" etc.

I use it appropriately when you bring up your grab bag of side issues.

> 3) And finally the sheer impudence, and let's face it stupidity, of
> refusing the most important part of the discussion by saying "my views
> are a secret," like in: "No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if
> you repeat your questions because you think I didn't see them, you
> needn't because I have seen
> them."
> But my one-sided condemnations are not..

I don't recall saying my views are a secret. Your quote doesn't support
your point.

Oh, and my "one-sided condemnations" are generally in response to, get
this, an other-sided statement.

Stephen

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:23:55 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Mr Fox wrote:
>
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote
>>
>> >> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
>> >>
>> >> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight,
>>
>> I guess Scott don't mind a few civilians getting hurt, if they are not
>> americans.
>
>Which country does he want to bomb today ?


He made some racist comments about the Chinese not long ago!

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <hVsYg.6269$fl.155@dukeread08>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article . com>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mine lays down the law:
>> >> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
>> >> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
>> >>
>> >> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
>> >> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
>> >> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
>> >> laying it out black on white.
>> >
>> > No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
>> > because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
>> > them.
>> >
>> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
>>
>> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight, I believe
>> we should fight to win. This concept of civilized war is
>> an oxymoron that has brought the world endless wars.
>
> There was a recent spate of cluster-bombing, a million or so, just
> before the deadline of a ceasefire.

and a spate of Hezbollah rocket fire.

>
> There are other ways of "winning" depending on the conflict and the
> overall goal.

There are always alternatives and there are always costs to
those alternatives. Specifics are required for meaning here.


>
>> > and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
>>
>> and what about it? Is this a front in war of civilizations
>> or a feud over land as some would have us believe?
>
> Feud. Why does matter who wants us to believe it?

I disagree...this feud would not happen if muslims
occupied the land.

>
> See? Scott responded to my bringing it up, so it's like a conversation.
>
>> > I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
>> > conversation except as a diversion from the former.
>>
>> Which itself was a diversion from the cause of that war.
>
> Didn't mention a war, sorry.

Conversation control noted.

ScottW

[Mr Fox]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:10 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>Wow.
>
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
>>
>> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
>> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
>> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
>> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
>> London-nothing.
>
>> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
>> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
>
>Supposed?
>
>> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
>> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
>> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
>> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
>> the world.
>
>Hey, you brought those things up again!
>
>> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
>> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
>> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
>
>No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
>
>> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
>> "You seem to argue in favor
>> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
>> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
>> "favour"? When, where?
>> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
>> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
>
>This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
>
>> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
>>
>> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
>> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
>> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
>> Antonio.
>
>No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."


Yes I did. He didn't present any background, like what would motivate
these attacks. The simplistic LM scenerio did't explain anything much
at all. To give an exampel its easy to draw assumptions about Iraq
insurggent kidnappers. Theyre just evil terrorist scum, yes? Norman
Kember said _all_ those holding him hostage had a story to tell, that
explained their actions. They turned to hostility after coalition
forces killed thier families and relations.

[MiNe 109]

In article <t9wYg.6287$fl.2991@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <hVsYg.6269$fl.155@dukeread08>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Mine lays down the law:
> >> >> "You needn't repeat those questions. They were non sequitur to begin
> >> >> with and I don't feel the need to be challenged for my views. "
> >> >>
> >> >> My dear fellow I'm not waiting for your permission. That you feel "no
> >> >> need to be challenged for your views" goes without saying. It is quite
> >> >> obvious that you have no ideas and no idea what to say without your
> >> >> laying it out black on white.
> >> >
> >> > No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if you repeat your questions
> >> > because you think I didn't see them, you needn't because I have seen
> >> > them.
> >> >
> >> > If I say, "cluster bombs are bad"
> >>
> >> Yet effective....when the time has come to fight, I believe
> >> we should fight to win. This concept of civilized war is
> >> an oxymoron that has brought the world endless wars.
> >
> > There was a recent spate of cluster-bombing, a million or so, just
> > before the deadline of a ceasefire.
>
> and a spate of Hezbollah rocket fire.

Previously condemned.

> > There are other ways of "winning" depending on the conflict and the
> > overall goal.
>
> There are always alternatives and there are always costs to
> those alternatives. Specifics are required for meaning here.

Weapons can be categorized as more or less civilized. Mines, cluster
bombs, iffy; nukes, unthinkable.

> >> > and you respond, "what about Darfur?"
> >>
> >> and what about it? Is this a front in war of civilizations
> >> or a feud over land as some would have us believe?
> >
> > Feud. Why does matter who wants us to believe it?
>
> I disagree...this feud would not happen if muslims
> occupied the land.

The muslims, make that Arabs, in question are nomadic. Besides, the
'Arabs' and 'Africans' have a thousand-year history of slavery and
interbreeding.

It's definitely not a clash of Western and Islamic civilizations.

> > See? Scott responded to my bringing it up, so it's like a conversation.
> >
> >> > I don't see that my ideas about the latter are important to the
> >> > conversation except as a diversion from the former.
> >>
> >> Which itself was a diversion from the cause of that war.
> >
> > Didn't mention a war, sorry.
>
> Conversation control noted.

Damn right.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Mr Fox > wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:10 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >Wow.
> >
> >> ---------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
> >>
> >> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> >> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> >> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> >> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> >> London-nothing.
> >
> >> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> >> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
> >
> >Supposed?
> >
> >> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> >> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> >> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> >> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> >> the world.
> >
> >Hey, you brought those things up again!
> >
> >> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> >> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> >> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
> >
> >No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
> >
> >> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> >> "You seem to argue in favor
> >> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> >> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> >> "favour"? When, where?
> >> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> >> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
> >
> >This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
> >
> >> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
> >>
> >> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> >> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> >> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> >> Antonio.
> >
> >No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."
>
>
> Yes I did. He didn't present any background, like what would motivate
> these attacks. The simplistic LM scenerio did't explain anything much
> at all. To give an exampel its easy to draw assumptions about Iraq
> insurggent kidnappers. Theyre just evil terrorist scum, yes? Norman
> Kember said _all_ those holding him hostage had a story to tell, that
> explained their actions. They turned to hostility after coalition
> forces killed thier families and relations.

Perhaps as a European foreigner, LM is unaware of the history of US
military intervention in Mexico: "Six Flags Over Texas," the "Halls of
Montezuma," Pancho Villa and 'Black Jack' Pershing.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> Wow.
>
> > ---------------------------------------
> >
> > Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
> >
> > A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> > interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> > nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> > nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> > London-nothing.
>
> > He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> > bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
>
> Supposed?
>
> > So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> > cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> > fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> > wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> > the world.
>
> Hey, you brought those things up again!
>
> > B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> > funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> > of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
>
> No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
>
> > C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> > "You seem to argue in favor
> > of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> > Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> > "favour"? When, where?
> > Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> > you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
>
> This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
>
> > D) Dodging the awkward answers:
> >
> > 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> > for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> > across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> > Antonio.
>
> No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."
>
> > Or how to avoid civilian deaths when the missiles are launched
> > purposefully from civilian domiciles.
>
> A conundrum, to be sure.
>
> > 2) Or the latest Mine got from Webster -"non sequitur" for use when
> > caught in a no-exit argument.
> > The advantage of a Latin tag ("it does not follow") is that one need
> > not explain why one claims that it does not follow. Being foreign it
> > cuts the discussion more effectively than the tags used by the
> > tag-master (you know who!).: "Been there done that" etc.
>
> I use it appropriately when you bring up your grab bag of side issues.
>
> > 3) And finally the sheer impudence, and let's face it stupidity, of
> > refusing the most important part of the discussion by saying "my views
> > are a secret," like in: "No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is if
> > you repeat your questions because you think I didn't see them, you
> > needn't because I have seen
> > them."
> > But my one-sided condemnations are not..
>
> I don't recall saying my views are a secret. Your quote doesn't support
> your point.
>
> Oh, and my "one-sided condemnations" are generally in response to, get
> this, an other-sided statement.
>
> Stephen

You win
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Mr Fox > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:10 GMT, MiNe 109
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >Wow.
> > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
> > >>
> > >> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> > >> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> > >> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> > >> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> > >> London-nothing.
> > >
> > >> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> > >> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
> > >
> > >Supposed?
> > >
> > >> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> > >> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> > >> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> > >> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> > >> the world.
> > >
> > >Hey, you brought those things up again!
> > >
> > >> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> > >> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> > >> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
> > >
> > >No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
> > >
> > >> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> > >> "You seem to argue in favor
> > >> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> > >> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> > >> "favour"? When, where?
> > >> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> > >> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
> > >
> > >This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
> > >
> > >> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
> > >>
> > >> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> > >> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> > >> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> > >> Antonio.
> > >
> > >No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."
> >
> >
> > Yes I did. He didn't present any background, like what would motivate
> > these attacks. The simplistic LM scenerio did't explain anything much
> > at all. To give an exampel its easy to draw assumptions about Iraq
> > insurggent kidnappers. Theyre just evil terrorist scum, yes? Norman
> > Kember said _all_ those holding him hostage had a story to tell, that
> > explained their actions. They turned to hostility after coalition
> > forces killed thier families and relations.
>
> Perhaps as a European foreigner, LM is unaware of the history of US
> military intervention in Mexico: "Six Flags Over Texas," the "Halls of
> Montezuma," Pancho Villa and 'Black Jack' Pershing.
>
> Stephen
===============================================
More history from Mine:
> Perhaps as a European foreigner, LM is unaware of the history of US
> military intervention in Mexico: "Six Flags Over Texas," the "Halls of
> Montezuma," Pancho Villa and 'Black Jack' Pershing.
>

You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating your
sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
believerss.
LMs' opening message in this thread that he called "Justice for
Arizona" on October 6th:

"In the vanishing "Islamists..."thread I suggested that instead of
taking up the remote causes of remote people (... and of the Squamish
in Vancouver....) you concentrate on the Latinos in the South- West of
your country that you conquered and settled.. You response was that i
should take up the cause of my local
Squamish band
I said
> > I'm not a fighter for anyone's "legitimate claims"- you are. I'm just
> > pointing to you a really big cause to fight for in your own home , not
> > miine or of the Israelis.. Who knows , the Squamish and the
> > Palestinians might be next in line once you set an example and settle
> > the fate of California , Texas and New Mexico with the new Mexican
> > President.

Perhaps as a Yankee foreigner to Canada you do not know that the
Squamish live in a village of their own on the prime North Shore of
Vancouver with wonderful view of Burrard Inlet and within a walking
distance of the biggest shopping mall in
Greater Vancouver. And see below

This should inspire your sensitive conscience to take some time off the
internet to start organising that "Justice for Mexico" Party. Our loss
will be Mexico's gain.

Alternately you could get busy organising First Aid Corps for when
Mexicans take the cue from Hezbollah and starts posting missiles to
Corpus Christi.
Ludovic Mirabel

PS:
What the foreigners ARE doing about the Squamish
Vancouver Sun , August 29, 2002

"[the return to us of the land] is worth more to us than any money."
- Squamish Chief Gibby Jacob
The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision restoring
about four hectares (10 acres) of Kitsilano land to the Squamish Indian
Band, 116 years after it was expropriated for use by the Canadian
Pacific Railway.
The land, part of the ancestral home of the Squamish people, now is
under the shadow of the Burrard Street Bridge and adjacent to the
Molson Brewery.
An appraisal in 1990 put its value at about $20 million.
Squamish Chief Gibby Jacob said Wednesday the unanimous decision by
five justices of the B.C. Court of Appeal restoring the land to the
band is "marvellous."
He said it is premature to discuss what the band will do with the land,
as the court battle could continue if the CPR seeks leave to appeal the
decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
When the last legal hurdles are cleared away, Jacob said, the band must
deliberate on how best to use the land for the benefit of its members.
"We have not done any of that kind of thing yet: it has been a long
struggle to get the land back," Jacob said when asked of the band's
plans.
The land was expropriated from the the Squamish band in two portions,
the first in 1886 and the second in 1902, so that it could be used by
the CPR. But when the CPR attempted to sell the land in the late 1980s,
the Squamish people insisted that, according to the original
agreements, it should be returned to them.
Jacobs said he is uncertain about the current value of the land, now
bordered by condominiums, park and commercial boat moorages. The land
is also a popular refuge for many of Vancouver's homeless.
But he said the return of the land to the Squamish people after more
than a century is "worth more to us than any money."

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating your
> sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> believerss.

Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more ludicrous.

Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
harm done and no ill will.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating your
> > sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> > believerss.
>
> Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
> real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more ludicrous.
>
> Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
> accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
> harm done and no ill will.
>
> Stephen

Re question about US response, or any other country response, that like
Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
dwellings.
Look up "illustration by a hypothetical example". somewhere where it is
explained in terms simple enough for you to grasp.
And to think that I'm bending over backwards to make things simple
enough for Mines of this world.. Must be very discouraging for adult
educators. .
Ludovic Mirabel

PS. Lost interest in our Squamish?

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating your
> > > sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> > > believerss.
> >
> > Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
> > real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more ludicrous.
> >
> > Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
> > accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
> > harm done and no ill will.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Re question about US response, or any other country response, that like
> Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> dwellings.
> Look up "illustration by a hypothetical example". somewhere where it is
> explained in terms simple enough for you to grasp.

Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both the region named
and that it was supposed to model.

> And to think that I'm bending over backwards to make things simple
> enough for Mines of this world.. Must be very discouraging for adult
> educators. .

Fortunately for them, I'm not longer a student.

>
> PS. Lost interest in our Squamish?

Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating your
> > > > sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> > > > believerss.
> > >
> > > Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
> > > real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more ludicrous.
> > >
> > > Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
> > > accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
> > > harm done and no ill will.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Re question about US response, or any other country response, that like
> > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > dwellings.
> > Look up "illustration by a hypothetical example". somewhere where it is
> > explained in terms simple enough for you to grasp.
>
> Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both the region named
> and that it was supposed to model.
>
> > And to think that I'm bending over backwards to make things simple
> > enough for Mines of this world.. Must be very discouraging for adult
> > educators. .
>
> Fortunately for them, I'm not longer a student.
>
> >
> > PS. Lost interest in our Squamish?
>
> Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
>
> Stephen
==========================
Question to Mine (and others who advise Israel how to put head on the
slaughter block)
> > The question (...was...) about US response, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY
> >response, that like
> > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > dwellings.

Note : ANY COUNTRY

Mine answers : > Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both
the region named
> and that it was supposed to model.

The old dodge: I don't know what to say so about THIS NOW so let's run
into history, metaphysics whatever.

Mine to Krueger yesterday; "No, it speaks more to your love of
stretching out a debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
intellectually dishonest tactics. "

He knoweth of what he speaks. Deep insight could not get any deeper

So I'll get back to specifics for him. I suggested that he starts
devoting his energies to repairing wrongs at home before chastising
others.. Like eg. he could begin propandising the Latinos, the
original settlers of Arizona, California, New Mexico. Not to mention
those native Red Indians who managed to survive the Indian wars.

He tried the diversion: what about your Canadian Squamish?

When I tell him how the Squamish are faring he finds it "interesting".
More interesting factoids. Canada never had Indian wars of
extermination.
Ludovic Mirabel

Let it be said in all fairness that it is futile for the Canadian pot
to call the kettle black. But when the kettle puts on the hypocritical
Puritan preacher's hat...

[[email protected]]

Mr Fox wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:10 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >Wow.
> >
> >> ---------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
> >>
> >> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> >> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> >> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> >> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> >> London-nothing.
> >
> >> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> >> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
> >
> >Supposed?
> >
> >> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> >> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> >> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> >> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> >> the world.
> >
> >Hey, you brought those things up again!
> >
> >> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> >> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> >> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
> >
> >No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
> >
> >> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> >> "You seem to argue in favor
> >> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> >> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> >> "favour"? When, where?
> >> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> >> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
> >
> >This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
> >
> >> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
> >>
> >> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> >> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> >> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> >> Antonio.
> >
> >No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."
>
>
> Yes I did. He didn't present any background, like what would motivate
> these attacks. The simplistic LM scenerio did't explain anything much
> at all. To give an exampel its easy to draw assumptions about Iraq
> insurggent kidnappers. Theyre just evil terrorist scum, yes? Norman
> Kember said _all_ those holding him hostage had a story to tell, that
> explained their actions. They turned to hostility after coalition
> forces killed thier families and relations.

========================================

Mr. Fox. You're a stickler for specifics and you don't like "simplistic
questions".

So I'll ask you something specific that I asked Mine twice - no luck ,
no answer. Perhaps you can help him out.:
> > The question (...was...) about ( ...the appropriate...) US response, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY
> >response, that like
> > Israel would have missiles lobbied into its villages, cities, schools and
> > dwellings.

For years- I should add
Note : ANY COUNTRY. Let's skip Mexico bombing Texas . Too simplistic.

What should ANY COUNTRY do in those circumstances? Ask Kofi Annan for
help?
Similar to what the blacks in Darfur are getting?

Or like the *Muslim* Kosovars in Srebrenica got?
Ludovic Mirabel
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Mr Fox wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:10 GMT, MiNe 109
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >Wow.
> > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Anatomy of Mine patented, debate-dodging techniques:
> > >>
> > >> A) Death threats uttered against those contesting fundamentalist
> > >> interpretation of Islam-not to worry, massacring the Blacks in Darfur-
> > >> nothing, years of bombing of Israeli villages with random missiles-
> > >> nothing, bombing of crowded public utility places in Bali, Madrid and
> > >> London-nothing.
> > >
> > >> He has twe answer. It is balanced by the supposed Israeli cluster
> > >> bombs.and Mirabel'silenc about them;:
> > >
> > >Supposed?
> > >
> > >> So here goes: Cluster bombs bad, bad, bad. I've said it. Now is your
> > >> cue to come up with something else I omitted that excuses bombings and
> > >> fatwas and murders (like the drowning of an old man together with his
> > >> wheelchair or killing of Theo Van Gogh). Now we have a balanced view of
> > >> the world.
> > >
> > >Hey, you brought those things up again!
> > >
> > >> B) If that is not enough you can always come up with an appropriate
> > >> funny, funny. Like "bogeymen" Mr. Mine of the RAO is not scared
> > >> of. Or the imaginary "leaders" the brave Mine in Texas refuses to obey.
> > >
> > >No, I'm completely serious about the "bogeyman."
> > >
> > >> C) Attribution. Like in the latest example:
> > >> "You seem to argue in favor
> > >> of midnight raids for the purpose of avoiding midnight raids"
> > >> Note the artful "seem". "Seems" to whom? Which midnight raids did I
> > >> "favour"? When, where?
> > >> Old dodge of attributing unpopular views to those who disagree with
> > >> you. Frequently used by the more primitive debating windbags.
> > >
> > >This after weeks of you putting words in my mouth.
> > >
> > >> D) Dodging the awkward answers:
> > >>
> > >> 1) like saying "allegory simplistic" when asked what would the US. - or
> > >> for that matter any government- do if missiles sent at random from
> > >> across the border started raining around Corpus Christi and San
> > >> Antonio.
> > >
> > >No, I believe Mr. Fox called your allegory "simplistic."
> >
> >
> > Yes I did. He didn't present any background, like what would motivate
> > these attacks. The simplistic LM scenerio did't explain anything much
> > at all. To give an exampel its easy to draw assumptions about Iraq
> > insurggent kidnappers. Theyre just evil terrorist scum, yes? Norman
> > Kember said _all_ those holding him hostage had a story to tell, that
> > explained their actions. They turned to hostility after coalition
> > forces killed thier families and relations.
>
> ========================================
>
> Mr. Fox. You're a stickler for specifics and you don't like "simplistic
> questions".
>
> So I'll ask you something specific that I asked Mine twice - no luck ,
> no answer. Perhaps you can help him out.:
> > > The question (...was...) about ( ...the appropriate...) US response, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY
> > >response, that like
> > > Israel would have missiles lobbied into its villages, cities, schools and
> > > dwellings.
>
> For years- I should add
> Note : ANY COUNTRY. Let's skip Mexico bombing Texas . Too simplistic.
>
> What should ANY COUNTRY do in those circumstances? Ask Kofi Annan for
> help?
> Similar to what the blacks in Darfur are getting?
>
> Or like the *Muslim* Kosovars in Srebrenica got?
> Ludovic Mirabel
> Ludovic Mirabel

=====================================

Correction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not Kosovars. Bosnian Muslims.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating
> > > > > your
> > > > > sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> > > > > believerss.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
> > > > real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more
> > > > ludicrous.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
> > > > accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
> > > > harm done and no ill will.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > >
> > > Re question about US response, or any other country response, that like
> > > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > > dwellings.
> > > Look up "illustration by a hypothetical example". somewhere where it is
> > > explained in terms simple enough for you to grasp.
> >
> > Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both the region named
> > and that it was supposed to model.
> >
> > > And to think that I'm bending over backwards to make things simple
> > > enough for Mines of this world.. Must be very discouraging for adult
> > > educators. .
> >
> > Fortunately for them, I'm not longer a student.
> >
> > >
> > > PS. Lost interest in our Squamish?
> >
> > Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
> >
> > Stephen
> ==========================
> Question to Mine (and others who advise Israel how to put head on the
> slaughter block)
> > > The question (...was...) about US response, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY
> > >response, that like
> > > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > > dwellings.
>
> Note : ANY COUNTRY
>
> Mine answers : > Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both
> the region named
> > and that it was supposed to model.
>
> The old dodge: I don't know what to say so about THIS NOW so let's run
> into history, metaphysics whatever.

It's not a dodge. I'm just not answering.

> Mine to Krueger yesterday; "No, it speaks more to your love of
> stretching out a debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
> intellectually dishonest tactics. "
>
> He knoweth of what he speaks. Deep insight could not get any deeper

Except for the dishonesty part.

> So I'll get back to specifics for him. I suggested that he starts
> devoting his energies to repairing wrongs at home before chastising
> others.. Like eg. he could begin propandising the Latinos, the
> original settlers of Arizona, California, New Mexico. Not to mention
> those native Red Indians who managed to survive the Indian wars.
>
> He tried the diversion: what about your Canadian Squamish?
>
> When I tell him how the Squamish are faring he finds it "interesting".
> More interesting factoids. Canada never had Indian wars of
> extermination.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Let it be said in all fairness that it is futile for the Canadian pot
> to call the kettle black. But when the kettle puts on the hypocritical
> Puritan preacher's hat...

You brought up the whole thing after I said the Jews and Palestinians
each had legitimate claims in Palestine.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Very interesting take on how the liberals keep grasping at icons
> that feel are representative of the downtrodden masses.

Very interesting the stereotypes and projection apparent here.

> In years past it was various communist socialist representatives
> and now its Islamists....but the liberals have always been deceived
> and their icons have always turned out to be fascist.

Why is calling it what it is being 'deceived' toopid?

I can hardly wait to see how your 'mind' and 'logic' show how I have a
fascist 'icon.'

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You're a little late in the day thumping your chest and expiating
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > sins but a sinner converted is worth more than a hundred old
> > > > > > believerss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, you've misunderstood me once again. I was merely pointing out
> > > > > real history that makes your missile lobbing fantasy even more
> > > > > ludicrous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of lobbing missiles, remember back in 1970 when the US
> > > > > accidentally lobbed one from White Sands into Mexico? Fortunately no
> > > > > harm done and no ill will.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > Re question about US response, or any other country response, that like
> > > > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > > > dwellings.
> > > > Look up "illustration by a hypothetical example". somewhere where it is
> > > > explained in terms simple enough for you to grasp.
> > >
> > > Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both the region named
> > > and that it was supposed to model.
> > >
> > > > And to think that I'm bending over backwards to make things simple
> > > > enough for Mines of this world.. Must be very discouraging for adult
> > > > educators. .
> > >
> > > Fortunately for them, I'm not longer a student.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > PS. Lost interest in our Squamish?
> > >
> > > Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > ==========================
> > Question to Mine (and others who advise Israel how to put head on the
> > slaughter block)
> > > > The question (...was...) about US response, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY
> > > >response, that like
> > > > Israel would have missiles lobbied in its villages, cities, schools and
> > > > dwellings.
> >
> > Note : ANY COUNTRY
> >
> > Mine answers : > Your hypothetical example ignored the history of both
> > the region named
> > > and that it was supposed to model.
> >
> > The old dodge: I don't know what to say so about THIS NOW so let's run
> > into history, metaphysics whatever.
>
> It's not a dodge. I'm just not answering.
>
> > Mine to Krueger yesterday; "No, it speaks more to your love of
> > stretching out a debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
> > intellectually dishonest tactics. "
> >
> > He knoweth of what he speaks. Deep insight could not get any deeper
>
> Except for the dishonesty part.
>
> > So I'll get back to specifics for him. I suggested that he starts
> > devoting his energies to repairing wrongs at home before chastising
> > others.. Like eg. he could begin propandising the Latinos, the
> > original settlers of Arizona, California, New Mexico. Not to mention
> > those native Red Indians who managed to survive the Indian wars.
> >
> > He tried the diversion: what about your Canadian Squamish?
> >
> > When I tell him how the Squamish are faring he finds it "interesting".
> > More interesting factoids. Canada never had Indian wars of
> > extermination.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > Let it be said in all fairness that it is futile for the Canadian pot
> > to call the kettle black. But when the kettle puts on the hypocritical
> > Puritan preacher's hat...
>
> You brought up the whole thing after I said the Jews and Palestinians
> each had legitimate claims in Palestine.
>
> Stephen

================================================

> Keep up the good work on Islamists, but don't worry about tyranny at
> home.
Stephen

This statement of yours in the defunct "Islamists " thread defines in
one sentence the mind-set of many who idealistically concentrate on the
wrong they see around them and ignore the danger next door. I am not
being sarcastic now . When I say "idealistic" I mean it. But seeking
for absolute justive unattainable on this earth one may end up losing
everything .

I'll say now that I believe that the West at this time represents the
highest point of civilasation. It was not always so. For several
hundred years the Muslim caliphates were the inheritors of the best of
Greco-Roman and Middle East culture while Europe was prey to fanaticism
and barbarism. Since the Italian Renaissance and the Enlightenment
Europe developed the best in the world literature, music, philosophy
and science. And when I say Europe I mean its inheritor North America
and (must not forget My friend Paul Packer-) Australia.

I believe that the departments' of sociology and such trendy gabbing
about all cultures being equal is total rubbish. Can I "prove" it. Of
course not. We are out of evidential science when we talk about mind.

I'm not forgetting that Europe lapsed into barbarism not so long ago. I
sympathise with your sensitivity to the threats to freedom in your
country. But I wish you kept sense of proportion and remembered that
we can only defend better against worse- not the best against the
worst.. The paradise is not of this earth. And when you're talking
about your country "sliding into tyranny" yo should remember that like
it or not your country is the barrier against real, existing tyrannies.
And singing that you're not afraid of the big, bad wolf does not help
the Darfurians or the Balinese and for that matter did not protect 8000
young Muslim men in Srebrenica. Nor would it have protected the Kosovo
Muslims if the big, bad US. did not go to the rescue. Concentrating on
possible threats at home you forget the actual one elsewhere.

There are many things, like for instanve the vulgarity of pop culture,
that I'd rather do without but you forgive your friends and protectors
a lot.

> You brought up the whole thing after I said the Jews and Palestinians
> each had legitimate claims in Palestine.

As a matter of fact I first answered you when I saw your "tyranny at
home" statemnt.
I do not suspect of wanting another holocaust. But you are typically
engaging in fuzzy thinking. Yes the Palestinians have a claim to
Israel. Yes I think the "settlements" were and are a provocation and
should follow the Gaza settlements example.The expelled Germans have a
claim to one-third of Bohemia and Poland. The expelled Serbs have a
claim to one third oof Croatia.The fact of world history is that
tribalism is still alive and well and disputes are settled by force.
Nations want to have a home. And do I need to remind that the Jews ,
more than anyone need a country where they are not a minority going
from toleration to a pogrom in one generation.I hope yours is still a
melting pot country that assimilates. If not you're bound for problems
and they will not be too distant coming.

Ludovic Mirabel
For the sake of more important matters I'm leaving this statement of
yours without any comment for you to think over.: "> It's not a dodge.
I'm just not answering."

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

<snip>

> ================================================
>
> > Keep up the good work on Islamists, but don't worry about tyranny at
> > home.
> Stephen
>
> This statement of yours in the defunct "Islamists " thread defines in
> one sentence the mind-set of many who idealistically concentrate on the
> wrong they see around them and ignore the danger next door. I am not
> being sarcastic now . When I say "idealistic" I mean it. But seeking
> for absolute justive unattainable on this earth one may end up losing
> everything .

I'm not "ignoring the danger next door" nor seeking "absolute justice."

> I'll say now that I believe that the West at this time represents the
> highest point of civilasation. It was not always so. For several
> hundred years the Muslim caliphates were the inheritors of the best of
> Greco-Roman and Middle East culture while Europe was prey to fanaticism
> and barbarism. Since the Italian Renaissance and the Enlightenment
> Europe developed the best in the world literature, music, philosophy
> and science. And when I say Europe I mean its inheritor North America
> and (must not forget My friend Paul Packer-) Australia.
>
> I believe that the departments' of sociology and such trendy gabbing
> about all cultures being equal is total rubbish. Can I "prove" it. Of
> course not. We are out of evidential science when we talk about mind.
>
> I'm not forgetting that Europe lapsed into barbarism not so long ago. I
> sympathise with your sensitivity to the threats to freedom in your
> country. But I wish you kept sense of proportion and remembered that
> we can only defend better against worse- not the best against the
> worst.. The paradise is not of this earth. And when you're talking
> about your country "sliding into tyranny" yo should remember that like
> it or not your country is the barrier against real, existing tyrannies.
> And singing that you're not afraid of the big, bad wolf does not help
> the Darfurians or the Balinese and for that matter did not protect 8000
> young Muslim men in Srebrenica. Nor would it have protected the Kosovo
> Muslims if the big, bad US. did not go to the rescue. Concentrating on
> possible threats at home you forget the actual one elsewhere.

You are conflating local concerns into an imaginary global conflict. We
probably agree on the right and wrongs of those smaller events. I don't
think they add up to the equivalent of the Cold War.

If the US is a barrier against tyranny, what happens when the US becomes
tyrannical?

> There are many things, like for instanve the vulgarity of pop culture,
> that I'd rather do without but you forgive your friends and protectors
> a lot.
>
> > You brought up the whole thing after I said the Jews and Palestinians
> > each had legitimate claims in Palestine.
>
> As a matter of fact I first answered you when I saw your "tyranny at
> home" statemnt.
> I do not suspect of wanting another holocaust. But you are typically
> engaging in fuzzy thinking.

No, I'm not, typically or otherwise. I won't repeat my laundry list of
US government tyrannical actions but if you say those are justified in
the service of some greater good you should think again.

> Yes the Palestinians have a claim to
> Israel. Yes I think the "settlements" were and are a provocation and
> should follow the Gaza settlements example.The expelled Germans have a
> claim to one-third of Bohemia and Poland. The expelled Serbs have a
> claim to one third oof Croatia.The fact of world history is that
> tribalism is still alive and well and disputes are settled by force.
> Nations want to have a home. And do I need to remind that the Jews ,
> more than anyone need a country where they are not a minority going
> from toleration to a pogrom in one generation.I hope yours is still a
> melting pot country that assimilates. If not you're bound for problems
> and they will not be too distant coming.

I am for the social structures that encourage assimilation: education,
citizenship.

> Ludovic Mirabel
> For the sake of more important matters I'm leaving this statement of
> yours without any comment for you to think over.: "> It's not a dodge.
> I'm just not answering."

Not to worry: I thought about it before posting it.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > ================================================
> >
> > > Keep up the good work on Islamists, but don't worry about tyranny at
> > > home.
> > Stephen
> >
> > This statement of yours in the defunct "Islamists " thread defines in
> > one sentence the mind-set of many who idealistically concentrate on the
> > wrong they see around them and ignore the danger next door. I am not
> > being sarcastic now . When I say "idealistic" I mean it. But seeking
> > for absolute justive unattainable on this earth one may end up losing
> > everything .
>
> I'm not "ignoring the danger next door" nor seeking "absolute justice."
>
> > I'll say now that I believe that the West at this time represents the
> > highest point of civilasation. It was not always so. For several
> > hundred years the Muslim caliphates were the inheritors of the best of
> > Greco-Roman and Middle East culture while Europe was prey to fanaticism
> > and barbarism. Since the Italian Renaissance and the Enlightenment
> > Europe developed the best in the world literature, music, philosophy
> > and science. And when I say Europe I mean its inheritor North America
> > and (must not forget My friend Paul Packer-) Australia.
> >
> > I believe that the departments' of sociology and such trendy gabbing
> > about all cultures being equal is total rubbish. Can I "prove" it. Of
> > course not. We are out of evidential science when we talk about mind.
> >
> > I'm not forgetting that Europe lapsed into barbarism not so long ago. I
> > sympathise with your sensitivity to the threats to freedom in your
> > country. But I wish you kept sense of proportion and remembered that
> > we can only defend better against worse- not the best against the
> > worst.. The paradise is not of this earth. And when you're talking
> > about your country "sliding into tyranny" yo should remember that like
> > it or not your country is the barrier against real, existing tyrannies.
> > And singing that you're not afraid of the big, bad wolf does not help
> > the Darfurians or the Balinese and for that matter did not protect 8000
> > young Muslim men in Srebrenica. Nor would it have protected the Kosovo
> > Muslims if the big, bad US. did not go to the rescue. Concentrating on
> > possible threats at home you forget the actual one elsewhere.
>
> You are conflating local concerns into an imaginary global conflict. We
> probably agree on the right and wrongs of those smaller events. I don't
> think they add up to the equivalent of the Cold War.
>
> If the US is a barrier against tyranny, what happens when the US becomes
> tyrannical?
>
> > There are many things, like for instanve the vulgarity of pop culture,
> > that I'd rather do without but you forgive your friends and protectors
> > a lot.
> >
> > > You brought up the whole thing after I said the Jews and Palestinians
> > > each had legitimate claims in Palestine.
> >
> > As a matter of fact I first answered you when I saw your "tyranny at
> > home" statemnt.
> > I do not suspect of wanting another holocaust. But you are typically
> > engaging in fuzzy thinking.
>
> No, I'm not, typically or otherwise. I won't repeat my laundry list of
> US government tyrannical actions but if you say those are justified in
> the service of some greater good you should think again.
>
> > Yes the Palestinians have a claim to
> > Israel. Yes I think the "settlements" were and are a provocation and
> > should follow the Gaza settlements example.The expelled Germans have a
> > claim to one-third of Bohemia and Poland. The expelled Serbs have a
> > claim to one third oof Croatia.The fact of world history is that
> > tribalism is still alive and well and disputes are settled by force.
> > Nations want to have a home. And do I need to remind that the Jews ,
> > more than anyone need a country where they are not a minority going
> > from toleration to a pogrom in one generation.I hope yours is still a
> > melting pot country that assimilates. If not you're bound for problems
> > and they will not be too distant coming.
>
> I am for the social structures that encourage assimilation: education,
> citizenship.
>
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > For the sake of more important matters I'm leaving this statement of
> > yours without any comment for you to think over.: "> It's not a dodge.
> > I'm just not answering."
>
> Not to worry: I thought about it before posting it.
>
> Stephen

================================

There is no 'global conflict'. At least none that you can see. There
is only your "laundry list" of US. tyranny.

Did you lose any sleep worrying about what Cia or FBI may do to you
for publishing your list?

Next try reprinting the cartoons from an obscure Danish newspaper or
requote the Pope's quote from an ancient Byzantine source and let me
know how you've been sleeping. Because the Pope apparently slept badly
enough to apologise three times. Perhaps he remembered that his
predecessor nearly died of a Muslim bullet fired in anger.
And Salman Rushdie , the Dutch Muslim woman complaining about
oppression of women, supposedly disrespectful Egyptian Nobel Prize
writer Mahfouz all seem to have been a little worried. Especially
Mahfouz who barely survived the shooting.

The tradition of Stalin's time "useful idiots" is still alive in the
West. Only the the tunes changed.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> ================================
>
> There is no 'global conflict'. At least none that you can see. There
> is only your "laundry list" of US. tyranny.

That's not logical.

> Did you lose any sleep worrying about what Cia or FBI may do to you
> for publishing your list?

> Next try reprinting the cartoons from an obscure Danish newspaper or
> requote the Pope's quote from an ancient Byzantine source and let me
> know how you've been sleeping. Because the Pope apparently slept badly
> enough to apologise three times. Perhaps he remembered that his
> predecessor nearly died of a Muslim bullet fired in anger.
> And Salman Rushdie , the Dutch Muslim woman complaining about
> oppression of women, supposedly disrespectful Egyptian Nobel Prize
> writer Mahfouz all seem to have been a little worried. Especially
> Mahfouz who barely survived the shooting.

Bummers, all. Should I lose my civil liberties?

The government spied on Quakers. If you don't know, they're non-violent.
Odd that an administration headed by a Quaker and staffed by CHristian
Scientists spawned our current leadership.

> The tradition of Stalin's time "useful idiots" is still alive in the
> West. Only the the tunes changed.

You're repeating yourself and you still don't make sense. For one thing,
the "useful idiots" supported the Communists. Suppose I take your words
to heart and realize I need to surrender to the Islamofascist dictator.
Where do I go to do that?

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > ================================
> >
> > There is no 'global conflict'. At least none that you can see. There
> > is only your "laundry list" of US. tyranny.
>
> That's not logical.
>
> > Did you lose any sleep worrying about what Cia or FBI may do to you
> > for publishing your list?
>
> > Next try reprinting the cartoons from an obscure Danish newspaper or
> > requote the Pope's quote from an ancient Byzantine source and let me
> > know how you've been sleeping. Because the Pope apparently slept badly
> > enough to apologise three times. Perhaps he remembered that his
> > predecessor nearly died of a Muslim bullet fired in anger.
> > And Salman Rushdie , the Dutch Muslim woman complaining about
> > oppression of women, supposedly disrespectful Egyptian Nobel Prize
> > writer Mahfouz all seem to have been a little worried. Especially
> > Mahfouz who barely survived the shooting.
>
> Bummers, all. Should I lose my civil liberties?
>
> The government spied on Quakers. If you don't know, they're non-violent.
> Odd that an administration headed by a Quaker and staffed by CHristian
> Scientists spawned our current leadership.
>
> > The tradition of Stalin's time "useful idiots" is still alive in the
> > West. Only the the tunes changed.
>
> You're repeating yourself and you still don't make sense. For one thing,
> the "useful idiots" supported the Communists. Suppose I take your words
> to heart and realize I need to surrender to the Islamofascist dictator.
> Where do I go to do that?
>
> Stephen
========================================
> Suppose I take your words
> to heart and realize I need to surrender to the Islamofascist dictator.
> Where do I go to do that?

Join a fundamentalist madras. They'll tell you in short order. Like
they did to the pathetic British "bomb in my sock" would be airliner
bomber who got caught fumbling with this said sock.

One clarification. I suggested you reread your sentence; "I'm not
dodging answering.- I'm just not answering" (The question was what was
any government of any country supposed to do if subjected for years to
missiles lobbed into its cities, villages, schools and kindergartens).
It was not to make you "rethink" it (thinking -Good Lord!).

I had a faint hope that you'd see the comic side of it. You did not.
Sad but not unexpected..
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > ================================
> > >
> > > There is no 'global conflict'. At least none that you can see. There
> > > is only your "laundry list" of US. tyranny.
> >
> > That's not logical.
> >
> > > Did you lose any sleep worrying about what Cia or FBI may do to you
> > > for publishing your list?
> >
> > > Next try reprinting the cartoons from an obscure Danish newspaper or
> > > requote the Pope's quote from an ancient Byzantine source and let me
> > > know how you've been sleeping. Because the Pope apparently slept badly
> > > enough to apologise three times. Perhaps he remembered that his
> > > predecessor nearly died of a Muslim bullet fired in anger.
> > > And Salman Rushdie , the Dutch Muslim woman complaining about
> > > oppression of women, supposedly disrespectful Egyptian Nobel Prize
> > > writer Mahfouz all seem to have been a little worried. Especially
> > > Mahfouz who barely survived the shooting.
> >
> > Bummers, all. Should I lose my civil liberties?
> >
> > The government spied on Quakers. If you don't know, they're non-violent.
> > Odd that an administration headed by a Quaker and staffed by CHristian
> > Scientists spawned our current leadership.
> >
> > > The tradition of Stalin's time "useful idiots" is still alive in the
> > > West. Only the the tunes changed.
> >
> > You're repeating yourself and you still don't make sense. For one thing,
> > the "useful idiots" supported the Communists. Suppose I take your words
> > to heart and realize I need to surrender to the Islamofascist dictator.
> > Where do I go to do that?
> >
> > Stephen
> ========================================
> > Suppose I take your words
> > to heart and realize I need to surrender to the Islamofascist dictator.
> > Where do I go to do that?
>
> Join a fundamentalist madras. They'll tell you in short order. Like
> they did to the pathetic British "bomb in my sock" would be airliner
> bomber who got caught fumbling with this said sock.

That's just a neighborhood gang. Who's the Stalin equivalent for whom
I'm usefully idiotic?

> One clarification. I suggested you reread your sentence; "I'm not
> dodging answering.- I'm just not answering" (The question was what was
> any government of any country supposed to do if subjected for years to
> missiles lobbed into its cities, villages, schools and kindergartens).
> It was not to make you "rethink" it (thinking -Good Lord!).

> I had a faint hope that you'd see the comic side of it. You did not.
> Sad but not unexpected..

I thought you'd declared humor "tiring" so I didn't look for it from
you. Just a little identity.

Stephen