Discussion:
The USA has apologised yet again........ Just how many mistakes will the alllies tolerate?
(too old to reply)
John Leister
2003-12-07 03:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????


The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Angkor
2003-12-07 03:29:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:54:39 +1030, John Leister
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
You're just as stupid as your fellow cuntryman, Angkor aka Ricky
Mather, now posting as " Dave Whitmarsh ".
Iggy
2003-12-07 04:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angkor
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:54:39 +1030, John Leister
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally
Post by Angkor
Post by John Leister
blew up a group of children....
You're just as stupid as your fellow cuntryman, Angkor aka Ricky
Mather, now posting as " Dave Whitmarsh ".
Knob.
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 06:26:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:49:05 +1100, "Iggy"
Post by John Leister
Post by Angkor
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:54:39 +1030, John Leister
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA
in
Post by Angkor
Post by John Leister
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally
Post by Angkor
Post by John Leister
blew up a group of children....
You're just as stupid as your fellow cuntryman, Angkor aka Ricky
Mather, now posting as " Dave Whitmarsh ".
Knob.
She hasn't been near a knob for forty years - that's her problem.
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 15:57:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:26:57 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:49:05 +1100, "Iggy"
Post by Angkor
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:54:39 +1030, John Leister
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA
in
Post by Angkor
Post by John Leister
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
You're just as stupid as your fellow cuntryman, Angkor aka Ricky
Mather, now posting as " Dave Whitmarsh ".
Knob.
She hasn't been near a knob for forty years - that's her problem.
Good girl, Ricky, you've finally had your sex change operation. :)
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 03:41:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:54:39 +1030, John Leister
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Well, they were little brown children so they feel that it doesn't
really count. They'll be destroying Red Cross facilities next.
And they wonder why people spit on them when they go on vacation to
civilised countries.
Alex
2003-12-07 04:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Well, they were little brown children so they feel that it doesn't
really count. They'll be destroying Red Cross facilities next.
And they wonder why people spit on them when they go on vacation to
civilised countries.
Define "civilised". I have a feeling your definition of "civilised"
countries aren't those countries where democracy, human rights or
religious freedom figure prominently, but state-sponsored
vilification of the "West" does...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 06:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Well, they were little brown children so they feel that it doesn't
really count. They'll be destroying Red Cross facilities next.
And they wonder why people spit on them when they go on vacation to
civilised countries.
Define "civilised". I have a feeling
Nobody here cares about your "feelings", Alex.
Post by Alex
your definition of "civilised"
countries aren't those countries where democracy, human rights or
religious freedom figure prominently, but state-sponsored
vilification of the "West" does...
Alex.
I'm talking about countries that don't go barging in where they're not
wanted - under the guise of "freeing" the populace - without any sort
of exit policy. For example, a civilised country wouldn't have done
what they did in Afghanistan, a country which is now in no better
condition that before the gormless Americans decided to "liberate" it.
State sponsored vilification of the West is no better nor worse than
state sponsored vilification of Islam - the US is just as bad as the
countries that it vilifies. Probably worse, in fact, because it
really should know better, being the self-styled "leader of the free
world".
Alex
2003-12-07 08:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
Define "civilised". I have a feeling
Nobody here cares about your "feelings", Alex.
Well "argued", Dave.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
your definition of "civilised"
countries aren't those countries where democracy, human rights or
religious freedom figure prominently, but state-sponsored
vilification of the "West" does...
I'm talking about countries that don't go barging in where they're not
wanted - under the guise of "freeing" the populace - without any sort
of exit policy.
So countries that just invade for any OTHER purpose are "civilised"?
Or, and I ask again, countries with poor records on human rights and
religious freedom are "civilised"? Please, I would really like to see
your list of countries which are MORE civilised than the US... Bet they
don't include many from the Middle East...
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
State sponsored vilification of the West is no better nor worse than
state sponsored vilification of Islam
I totally agree - and if you would like to post some evidence of any
state sponsored vilification of Islam (eg. government documentation,
website links, etc.) it would be appreciated.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
- the US is just as bad as the countries that it vilifies.
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam. The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims, or broadcast/disseminate manifestos or
documents from anti-Muslim extremists on national television. You
may be confusing government policy on certain regimes in certain
countries, with vilification of the country itself...?

I mean, if you would like to post actual FACTS which support your case
against the US, then by all means proceed. I'm not an apologist for the
US, or any other country, but posting the same old rose-tinted anti-US
view - which conveniently ignores human rights and religious freedom
violations in other countries just because they are the underdogs -
really isn't any more acceptable.

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 08:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
Define "civilised". I have a feeling
Nobody here cares about your "feelings", Alex.
Well "argued", Dave.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
your definition of "civilised"
countries aren't those countries where democracy, human rights or
religious freedom figure prominently, but state-sponsored
vilification of the "West" does...
I'm talking about countries that don't go barging in where they're not
wanted - under the guise of "freeing" the populace - without any sort
of exit policy.
So countries that just invade for any OTHER purpose are "civilised"?
No. Only a fool would ask that question, Alex.
Post by Alex
Or, and I ask again, countries with poor records on human rights and
religious freedom are "civilised"?
Only a fool would ask that question, Alex.
Post by Alex
Please,
(I hate it when these losers beg).
Post by Alex
I would really like to see
Go tell Santa Claus what you would like, Alex - I'm not here to pander
to you, son.
Post by Alex
your list of countries which are MORE civilised than the US... Bet they
don't include many from the Middle East...
I don't make "lists", Alex.
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
State sponsored vilification of the West is no better nor worse than
state sponsored vilification of Islam
I totally agree - and if you would like to post some evidence of any
state sponsored vilification of Islam (eg. government documentation,
website links, etc.) it would be appreciated.
There's no reason that I should do your research for you, you lazy
little sod. Go buy "Search Engines for Dummies" and learn how to
utilise that most useful of internet tools.
HTH
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
- the US is just as bad as the countries that it vilifies.
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam.
Your lack of awareness is noted, Alex. Congratulations on making your
first step in, um, whatever it is that your heading towards.
Post by Alex
The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims,
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

<I snipped the rest of Alex's little post in order to save him from
further humiliation. He's had enough for one day, the poor child.)
Alex
2003-12-07 08:57:10 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[snipped irrelevant twaddle]
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I accept your concession of defeat, Dave. Next time, try sticking
to the topic...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 09:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
[snipped irrelevant twaddle]
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I accept your concession of defeat,
A accept your concession of illiteracy, Alex.
Post by Alex
Dave. Next time, try sticking
to the topic...
If you had memory retention abilities that were slightly superior to
those of the average goldfish you would realise that I did, son. Are
you seeking help for your learning difficulties or do your parents
just feel that you'll just somehow muddle your way through?
Post by Alex
Alex.
Alex
2003-12-07 10:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
A accept your concession of illiteracy, Alex.
"I" never made one, Dave. Try to keep up.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Next time, try sticking to the topic...
If you had memory retention abilities that were slightly superior to
those of the average goldfish you would realise that I did, son. Are
you seeking help for your learning difficulties or do your parents
just feel that you'll just somehow muddle your way through?
You made a statement, I called you on it, and you were unable to back it up.
Waffling references to "feeling", Santa Claus and other irrelevant
red herrings constitute not sticking to the topic... Becoming MORE insulting
and stamping your foot even harder aren't going to change the fact you
lost the argument, Dave.

Dismissed.

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
pedro
2003-12-07 10:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
A accept your concession of illiteracy, Alex.
"I" never made one, Dave. Try to keep up.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Next time, try sticking to the topic...
If you had memory retention abilities that were slightly superior to
those of the average goldfish you would realise that I did, son. Are
you seeking help for your learning difficulties or do your parents
just feel that you'll just somehow muddle your way through?
You made a statement, I called you on it, and you were unable to back it up.
Waffling references to "feeling", Santa Claus and other irrelevant
red herrings constitute not sticking to the topic... Becoming MORE insulting
and stamping your foot even harder aren't going to change the fact you
lost the argument, Dave.
Dismissed.
Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.
"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
I was watching. You won. (easily) :)


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
John Leister
2003-12-07 13:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
Define "civilised". I have a feeling
Nobody here cares about your "feelings", Alex.
Well "argued", Dave.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
your definition of "civilised"
countries aren't those countries where democracy, human rights or
religious freedom figure prominently, but state-sponsored
vilification of the "West" does...
I'm talking about countries that don't go barging in where they're not
wanted - under the guise of "freeing" the populace - without any sort
of exit policy.
So countries that just invade for any OTHER purpose are "civilised"?
Or, and I ask again, countries with poor records on human rights and
religious freedom are "civilised"? Please, I would really like to see
your list of countries which are MORE civilised than the US... Bet they
don't include many from the Middle East...
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
State sponsored vilification of the West is no better nor worse than
state sponsored vilification of Islam
I totally agree - and if you would like to post some evidence of any
state sponsored vilification of Islam (eg. government documentation,
website links, etc.) it would be appreciated.
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
- the US is just as bad as the countries that it vilifies.
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam. The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims, or broadcast/disseminate manifestos or
documents from anti-Muslim extremists on national television. You
may be confusing government policy on certain regimes in certain
countries, with vilification of the country itself...?
You haven't visited many big american churches then have you?

The pentecostal movement is into that kind of thing....
Alex
2003-12-07 18:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Post by Alex
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam. The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims, or broadcast/disseminate manifestos or
documents from anti-Muslim extremists on national television. You
may be confusing government policy on certain regimes in certain
countries, with vilification of the country itself...?
You haven't visited many big american churches then have you?
More than you have, John, I'd wager.
Post by John Leister
The pentecostal movement is into that kind of thing....
Last I heard, the Pentecostal movement weren't a form of government
in the US, so they can't really be responsible for any "state
sponsored vilification", can they? Now, if you're talking about a
group's (or an individual's) first amendment rights to have an
opinion - well, everyone in the US has that right and singling out
one group's opinion is a little hypocritical considering there are
extremist opinions on every subject in the US, not just
anti-Muslim...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-08 03:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by John Leister
Post by Alex
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam. The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims, or broadcast/disseminate manifestos or
documents from anti-Muslim extremists on national television. You
may be confusing government policy on certain regimes in certain
countries, with vilification of the country itself...?
You haven't visited many big american churches then have you?
More than you have, John, I'd wager.
Oh look...little Alex has started a willy-waving contest.
Doppelganger
2003-12-08 04:58:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:55:15 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Alex
Post by John Leister
Post by Alex
Ah, but as far as I'm aware the US doesn't televise or promote
vilification of Islam. The US government doesn't exhort its citizens
to action against Muslims, or broadcast/disseminate manifestos or
documents from anti-Muslim extremists on national television. You
may be confusing government policy on certain regimes in certain
countries, with vilification of the country itself...?
You haven't visited many big american churches then have you?
More than you have, John, I'd wager.
Oh look...little Alex has started a willy-waving contest.
Careful, "Dave". Alex has already slapped you silly, and being a
dickless homo won't win you any willywaving contests. :)
Alex
2003-12-08 09:09:26 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[snipped meaningless troll]

Now "Dave", being a sore loser isn't going to help. Best you just
get over it and move on.

Later.

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-08 09:10:46 UTC
Permalink
<snipped Alex's juevenile sexual fantasies>

Good of you to concede your ineptness, Alex, but you really should
confine your maturbatory fantasies to alt.sticky.hanky in future.
HTH
Alex
2003-12-08 10:05:58 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[some mentally unbalanced drivel]

Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-08 10:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Sorry son, what was that? I dozed off as soon as I saw your name
ther.
Alex
2003-12-08 10:30:39 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[some mentally unbalanced drivel]

Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-08 10:48:25 UTC
Permalink
So when your prime-minister tells you that you're allowed to stop arse
licking the merkins what will you do with your time, Alex?
Alex
2003-12-08 11:31:36 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[some mentally unbalanced drivel]

Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-08 12:07:47 UTC
Permalink
When I want your opinion, Alex, I'll be sure to give it to you son.
Alex
2003-12-08 12:33:22 UTC
Permalink
In aus.politics Dave Whitmarsh <***@punkass.com > wrote:

[some mentally unbalanced drivel]

Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Bernard Hubbard
2003-12-09 07:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be
one or two people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
What's the matter Alex? Are you afraid that nobody saw you two
previous identicle messages or have you got the D.T.'s and cannot
stop the shakes as you hit the send button? From you postingsd I
am more inclined to suspect the later.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
pedro
2003-12-09 08:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernard Hubbard
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be
one or two people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
What's the matter Alex? Are you afraid that nobody saw you two
previous identicle messages or have you got the D.T.'s and cannot
stop the shakes as you hit the send button? From you postingsd I
am more inclined to suspect the later.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
How can anyone be proud of being Green? The wackiest party ever
invented.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Alex
2003-12-10 08:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernard Hubbard
What's the matter Alex? Are you afraid that nobody saw you two
previous identicle messages or have you got the D.T.'s and cannot
stop the shakes as you hit the send button? From you postingsd I
am more inclined to suspect the later.
Amusingly ironical. Poor Bernard's hands were shaking so much from
his own D.T.'s that he missed the spell check button.[1]

Alex.

[1] You're not very good at this Usenet lark, are you Bernard? Why
don't you try to find a social arena where lack of style, and an
inability to form coherent thoughts, words, and grammatical
constructs AREN'T a prerequisite to participation?
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-10 09:48:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:00:26 GMT, Alex <***@leng.zip.com.au> wrote:

Zzzzzzzzzzz....
Doppelganger
2003-12-10 16:22:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:48:03 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Zzzzzzzzzzz....
Jude Girl you are one boring cuntbag. :)
Doppelganger
2003-12-10 16:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Bernard Hubbard
What's the matter Alex? Are you afraid that nobody saw you two
previous identicle messages or have you got the D.T.'s and cannot
stop the shakes as you hit the send button? From you postingsd I
am more inclined to suspect the later.
Amusingly ironical. Poor Bernard's hands were shaking so much from
his own D.T.'s that he missed the spell check button.[1]
Alex.
[1] You're not very good at this Usenet lark, are you Bernard? Why
don't you try to find a social arena where lack of style, and an
inability to form coherent thoughts, words, and grammatical
constructs AREN'T a prerequisite to participation?
See the ng line? See alt.nuke.the.usa?
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 18:38:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:48:25 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
So when your prime-minister tells you that you're allowed to stop arse
licking the merkins what will you do with your time, Alex?
Goes on usenet and spanks loser like you, Jude Girl?
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 18:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
We've all got " Dave's " number and she knows it. Her real name is
Judy Druyea and she's the biggest mental case on Usenet.
LIBassbug
2003-12-08 18:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
We've all got " Dave's " number and she knows it. Her real name is
Judy Druyea and she's the biggest mental case on Usenet.
What relation to Angkor is this Judy Druyea person?
--
Chris.
http://fuckfrance.com/

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
Loading Image...

Two clowns.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Groggy No-cite on the job site.
Loading Image...

Nick pissing in the shower.
Loading Image...

Poor Laura!
Loading Image...
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 19:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by LIBassbug
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
We've all got " Dave's " number and she knows it. Her real name is
Judy Druyea and she's the biggest mental case on Usenet.
What relation to Angkor is this Judy Druyea person?
Angkor and this "Dave Whitmarsh" are the same person. Judy [ Laura
Bush and all her incarnations...] and Angkor are unrelated except for
both being certifiable nut cases. Birds of a feather and all...get
tarred by the same brush? :)
Eddy_Down
2003-12-08 20:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by LIBassbug
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
We've all got " Dave's " number and she knows it. Her real name is
Judy Druyea and she's the biggest mental case on Usenet.
What relation to Angkor is this Judy Druyea person?
Angkor and this "Dave Whitmarsh" are the same person. Judy [ Laura
Bush and all her incarnations...] and Angkor are unrelated except for
both being certifiable nut cases. Birds of a feather and all...get
tarred by the same brush? :)
Whatever, Sable.
Doppelganger
2003-12-08 21:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:22:27 GMT, Eddy_Down
Post by LIBassbug
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by LIBassbug
Doppelganger
Post by " Doppelganger " >
Post by Alex
[some mentally unbalanced drivel]
Why don't you whinge and cry a bit more, "Dave". There might be one or two
people out there who missed it the first few times...
Alex.
We've all got " Dave's " number and she knows it. Her real name is
Judy Druyea and she's the biggest mental case on Usenet.
What relation to Angkor is this Judy Druyea person?
Angkor and this "Dave Whitmarsh" are the same person. Judy [ Laura
Bush and all her incarnations...] and Angkor are unrelated except for
both being certifiable nut cases. Birds of a feather and all...get
tarred by the same brush? :)
Whatever, Sable.
Every one is Sable, eh Jude Girl?
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 18:35:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:10:46 GMT, Dave" Pussy" Whitmarsh
<***@PunkAss.com > wrote:

Followup-To: alt.alex.is.a.dill

Jeese, Jude Girl, you've certainly proved the puss. :)
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
<snipped Alex's juevenile sexual fantasies>
Good of you to concede your ineptness, Alex, but you really should
confine your maturbatory fantasies to alt.sticky.hanky in future.
HTH
slatconsulting
2003-12-07 04:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-07 04:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by slatconsulting
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children.
The fact that you have a memory problem is of no interest here. Go
and seek medical help.
John Leister
2003-12-07 04:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by slatconsulting
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Hey all of the above was terrible and should be noted as bad
stuff that happens....

I just don't like the USA
pedro
2003-12-07 06:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Post by slatconsulting
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Hey all of the above was terrible and should be noted as bad
stuff that happens....
I just don't like the USA
Why not?


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
John Leister
2003-12-07 13:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by John Leister
Post by slatconsulting
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Hey all of the above was terrible and should be noted as bad
stuff that happens....
I just don't like the USA
Why not?
Uuuuum because they impose their values on other countries
and start wars for no really good reason
Alex
2003-12-07 18:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Post by pedro
Post by John Leister
Hey all of the above was terrible and should be noted as bad
stuff that happens....
I just don't like the USA
Why not?
Uuuuum because they impose their values on other countries
and start wars for no really good reason
And you're saying that a country like Iraq, for example, has
NEVER imposed it's values on other countries and started wars
for no really good reason? I'm sure some of Iraq's neighbours
would disagree with your assessment there...

Let me guess, you don't really like Iraq either?

Alex.
--
Remove 'leng' to email me.

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")
pedro
2003-12-09 09:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Post by pedro
Post by John Leister
Post by slatconsulting
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the
USA in Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they
accidentally blew up a group of children....
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Hey all of the above was terrible and should be noted as bad
stuff that happens....
I just don't like the USA
Why not?
Uuuuum because they impose their values on other countries
and start wars for no really good reason
You've been reading way too much of the anti-US BS on usernet methinks. You need to
learn a bit more history John.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-07 05:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by slatconsulting
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Perhaps because Saddam wasn't painting himself as the bulwark of
democracy, the protector of liberty, the defender of freedom and the
liberator of some oppressed people. He was a vicious, murderous
thug who rigged elections and maintained a cult of personality, but at
least he was up-front about it.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-07 06:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tourette's
Post by slatconsulting
Hmm. I don't remember you posting when Saddam INTENTIONALLY murdered Iraqi
children. Chechnyan terrorists murdered a shitload of children on a train
yesterday. Where was your post??? Asshole.
Perhaps because Saddam wasn't painting himself as the bulwark of
democracy, the protector of liberty, the defender of freedom and the
liberator of some oppressed people. He was a vicious, murderous
thug who rigged elections and maintained a cult of personality, but at
least he was up-front about it.
Oh yeah sure he was. That's why there was no freedom of the press or media, and
only state sponsored tv. That's why brainwashed Iraqis sing his praises since
they have no knowledge of the realities.
Post by Tourette's
---
Tourette's
(hullo)



--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-07 10:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Perhaps because Saddam wasn't painting himself as the bulwark of
democracy, the protector of liberty, the defender of freedom and the
liberator of some oppressed people. He was a vicious, murderous
thug who rigged elections and maintained a cult of personality, but at
least he was up-front about it.
Oh yeah sure he was. That's why there was no freedom of the press or media, and
only state sponsored tv. That's why brainwashed Iraqis sing his praises since
they have no knowledge of the realities.
I don't think Iraqis were brainwashed, pedro, I think they were and are
a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. People didn't
necessarily become 'brainwashed', compliant and subservient to the
Baathist regime, they just pretended to be because dissenters were taken
away and tortured and killed.
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Tourette's
(hullo)
Hi.

---
Tourette's
slatconsulting
2003-12-07 17:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Perhaps because Saddam wasn't painting himself as the bulwark of
democracy, the protector of liberty, the defender of freedom and the
liberator of some oppressed people. He was a vicious, murderous
thug who rigged elections and maintained a cult of personality, but at
least he was up-front about it.
Oh yeah sure he was. That's why there was no freedom of the press or
media, and
Post by pedro
only state sponsored tv. That's why brainwashed Iraqis sing his praises
since
Post by pedro
they have no knowledge of the realities.
I don't think Iraqis were brainwashed, pedro, I think they were and are
a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. People didn't
necessarily become 'brainwashed', compliant and subservient to the
Baathist regime, they just pretended to be because dissenters were taken
away and tortured and killed.
No shit. To wit:


MAHAWEEL, Iraq (AP) - The killers kept bankers' hours. They showed up for
work at the barley field at 9 a.m., trailed by backhoes and three buses
filled with blindfolded men, women and children as young as 1.

Every day, witnesses say, the routine was the same: The backhoes dug a
trench. Fifty people were led to the edge of the hole and shot, one by one,
in the head. The backhoes covered them with dirt, then dug another hole for
the next group.

At 5 p.m., the killers - officials of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party - went
home to rest up for another day of slaughter.

In this wind-swept field in the central town of Mahaweel, witnesses say,
this went on without a break for 35 days in March and April of 1991, during
a crackdown on a Shiite Muslim uprising that followed the first Gulf War.

``I watched this with my own eyes,'' said Sayed Abbas Muhsen, 35, whose
family farm was appropriated by Saddam's government for use as a killing
field. ``But we couldn't tell anyone. We didn't dare.''

The mass grave at Mahaweel, with more than 3,100 sets of remains, is the
largest of some 270 such sites across Iraq. They hold upward of 300,000
bodies; some Iraqi political parties estimate there are more than 1
million.



Nor is American generosity lost on the beneficiaries:


BAGHDAD (AP)--Up to 1,000 Iraqis, including children orphaned by the war
that ousted Saddam Hussein, marched through Baghdad yesterday to denounce
guerrilla attacks and show support for U.S.-led occupation forces. . . .

Carrying banners blaming Saddam loyalists for terrorism, the demonstrators
marched down one of Baghdad's busiest streets before gathering in Firdos
Square, where a statue of Saddam was famously pulled down as U.S. troops
drove into the heart of the capital in April.

"We organized this demonstration because the terrorists now kill a lot of
people," said Abdul Aziz Al-Yassiri, coordinator of the Iraqi Democratic
Trend, a recently formed social group.

"They kill the children, kill women, kill the people, kill the police. They
want to stop our plan for a democratic system."
pedro
2003-12-07 13:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Perhaps because Saddam wasn't painting himself as the bulwark of
democracy, the protector of liberty, the defender of freedom and the
liberator of some oppressed people. He was a vicious, murderous
thug who rigged elections and maintained a cult of personality, but at
least he was up-front about it.
Oh yeah sure he was. That's why there was no freedom of the press or
media, and
Post by pedro
only state sponsored tv. That's why brainwashed Iraqis sing his praises
since
Post by pedro
they have no knowledge of the realities.
I don't think Iraqis were brainwashed, pedro, I think they were and are
a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. People didn't
necessarily become 'brainwashed', compliant and subservient to the
Baathist regime, they just pretended to be because dissenters were taken
away and tortured and killed.
Well would you care to comment on the hostilities then? Do you think the media
is giving a false impression of the level of hostilities? And how do you
explain them? If Iraqis are as intelligent and knowledgeable as you say, they
would realize that it's in their best interests to restore order and the
functionality of the infrastructure asap. And if they are glad to be rid of
SH, and want democratic government, why isn't there more co-operation and
support for the US endeavours? And if they weren't brainwashed, what is the
origin for the hostility, and how did they learn the truth without being
informed? Or do you contend that it spread by word of mouth.



--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-09 09:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
I don't think Iraqis were brainwashed, pedro, I think they were and are
a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. People didn't
necessarily become 'brainwashed', compliant and subservient to the
Baathist regime, they just pretended to be because dissenters were taken
away and tortured and killed.
Well would you care to comment on the hostilities then? Do you think the media
is giving a false impression of the level of hostilities? And how do you
explain them?
Firstly, I wouldn't rely much on the media's interpretation of events inside
Iraq. But even so, if we can assume that there are 500,000 anti-US
combatants among Iraq's population of 19 million, that's still a hell of a
force to be overcome (particularly as those 500,000 can blend in to the
rest of the population with ease). The hostilities against American forces
aren't traditional battle scenarios, they're urban warfare attacks carried
out by individuals and small groups: sabotage, mines and roadside bombs,
snipers and so on.
Post by pedro
If Iraqis are as intelligent and knowledgeable as you say, they
would realize that it's in their best interests to restore order and the
functionality of the infrastructure asap. And if they are glad to be rid of
SH, and want democratic government, why isn't there more co-operation and
support for the US endeavours? And if they weren't brainwashed, what is the
origin for the hostility, and how did they learn the truth without being
informed? Or do you contend that it spread by word of mouth.
You ask some interesting questions there, and I'm not sure I'm informed
enough about Iraq to answer them (I doubt anyone here is). I think the
majority of Iraqis are not aggressive to the US, but neither are they fully
supportive of America, at least not to the extent of dobbing in Saddam
and his undercover cronies. Perhaps fear that the US will soon leave and
be replaced by the old regime is also a factor.

The key phrase in your post is that the Iraqis "want democratic government",
because I'm not sure they do. Iraq is a diverse, tribally and religiously
divided country that has always required strong colonial or centralised
leadership to quell internecine feuds and conflicts. It's a lot like
Somalia, Fiji
or the Balkans in that regard - democracy just enables one group to become
politically dominant and oppress the other smaller groups. So democracy is
a nice idea, but I'm not sure it'll work, regardless of whatever the US
does.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-09 14:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tourette's
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
I don't think Iraqis were brainwashed, pedro, I think they were and are
a whole lot more intelligent than you give them credit for. People
didn't
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
necessarily become 'brainwashed', compliant and subservient to the
Baathist regime, they just pretended to be because dissenters were taken
away and tortured and killed.
Well would you care to comment on the hostilities then? Do you think the
media
Post by pedro
is giving a false impression of the level of hostilities? And how do you
explain them?
Firstly, I wouldn't rely much on the media's interpretation of events inside
Iraq. But even so, if we can assume that there are 500,000 anti-US
combatants among Iraq's population of 19 million, that's still a hell of a
force to be overcome (particularly as those 500,000 can blend in to the
rest of the population with ease). The hostilities against American forces
aren't traditional battle scenarios, they're urban warfare attacks carried
out by individuals and small groups: sabotage, mines and roadside bombs,
snipers and so on.
Yes, I know. That's why it's such a stressful situation, and difficult to combat
militarily. It's just like Vietnam, where a peasant could have an hand grenade
in a basket of fruit, and throw it as soon as your back was turned.
Post by Tourette's
Post by pedro
If Iraqis are as intelligent and knowledgeable as you say, they
would realize that it's in their best interests to restore order and the
functionality of the infrastructure asap. And if they are glad to be rid
of
Post by pedro
SH, and want democratic government, why isn't there more co-operation and
support for the US endeavours? And if they weren't brainwashed, what is
the
Post by pedro
origin for the hostility, and how did they learn the truth without being
informed? Or do you contend that it spread by word of mouth.
You ask some interesting questions there, and I'm not sure I'm informed
enough about Iraq to answer them (I doubt anyone here is). I think the
majority of Iraqis are not aggressive to the US, but neither are they fully
supportive of America, at least not to the extent of dobbing in Saddam
and his undercover cronies. Perhaps fear that the US will soon leave and
be replaced by the old regime is also a factor.
The key phrase in your post is that the Iraqis "want democratic government",
because I'm not sure they do. Iraq is a diverse, tribally and religiously
divided country that has always required strong colonial or centralised
leadership to quell internecine feuds and conflicts. It's a lot like
Somalia, Fiji
or the Balkans in that regard - democracy just enables one group to become
politically dominant and oppress the other smaller groups. So democracy is
a nice idea, but I'm not sure it'll work, regardless of whatever the US
does.
I'm inclined to agree with you. What bothers me is that, as you say, regardless
of what the yanks do, what is to prevent a power struggle once they leave-
democracy or no democracy. And where is Saddam? What's to stop his return? Are
the Americans going to stay there till they get him? Can they? The cost of
maintaining an operational military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq must
be enormous, and sociologically stressful domestically as well.
Post by Tourette's
---
Tourette's
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-10 11:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
I'm inclined to agree with you. What bothers me is that, as you say, regardless
of what the yanks do, what is to prevent a power struggle once they leave-
democracy or no democracy.
Nothing. Iraq, like many other Arab 'states', has usually been ruled by
the strongest arm. At the moment that strongest arm is the United States,
but they won't stay forever. I suspect after they leave it will go back to
being ruled by the strongest arm. The main point is that democracy can
rarely be enforced, it has to evolve, and that has not occurred in Iraq.
Post by pedro
And where is Saddam? What's to stop his return? Are
the Americans going to stay there till they get him? Can they? The cost of
maintaining an operational military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq must
be enormous, and sociologically stressful domestically as well.
Saddam is hiding, biding his time, waging petty skirmish-war against
the Americans in order to destabilise them and affect domestic morale.
He doesn't want to battle, he just wants to be there when they leave,
which they inevitably will. Then he'll emerge and bid for control and,
given his experience, he may well get it.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-10 12:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tourette's
Post by pedro
I'm inclined to agree with you. What bothers me is that, as you say,
regardless
Post by pedro
of what the yanks do, what is to prevent a power struggle once they leave-
democracy or no democracy.
Nothing. Iraq, like many other Arab 'states', has usually been ruled by
the strongest arm. At the moment that strongest arm is the United States,
but they won't stay forever. I suspect after they leave it will go back to
being ruled by the strongest arm. The main point is that democracy can
rarely be enforced, it has to evolve, and that has not occurred in Iraq.
Post by pedro
And where is Saddam? What's to stop his return? Are
the Americans going to stay there till they get him? Can they? The cost of
maintaining an operational military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq
must
Post by pedro
be enormous, and sociologically stressful domestically as well.
Saddam is hiding, biding his time, waging petty skirmish-war against
the Americans in order to destabilise them and affect domestic morale.
He doesn't want to battle, he just wants to be there when they leave,
which they inevitably will. Then he'll emerge and bid for control and,
given his experience, he may well get it.
---
Tourette's
What's happening? I find myself agreeing with you. Must be something to do with
Yuletide. :)


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
tipper
2003-12-10 13:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tourette's
Post by pedro
I'm inclined to agree with you. What bothers me is that, as you say,
regardless
Post by pedro
of what the yanks do, what is to prevent a power struggle once they leave-
democracy or no democracy.
Nothing. Iraq, like many other Arab 'states', has usually been ruled by
the strongest arm. At the moment that strongest arm is the United States,
but they won't stay forever. I suspect after they leave it will go back to
being ruled by the strongest arm. The main point is that democracy can
rarely be enforced, it has to evolve, and that has not occurred in Iraq.
Post by pedro
And where is Saddam? What's to stop his return? Are
the Americans going to stay there till they get him? Can they? The cost of
maintaining an operational military presence in both Afghanistan and
Iraq
Post by Tourette's
must
Post by pedro
be enormous, and sociologically stressful domestically as well.
Saddam is hiding, biding his time, waging petty skirmish-war against
the Americans in order to destabilise them and affect domestic morale.
He doesn't want to battle, he just wants to be there when they leave,
which they inevitably will. Then he'll emerge and bid for control and,
given his experience, he may well get it.
Shit, I can't believe it
I agree with you
Gregory Shearman
2003-12-09 06:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Well would you care to comment on the hostilities then? Do you think the
media is giving a false impression of the level of hostilities?
Yep.
Post by pedro
And how do you explain them?
An insurgency against a military dictatorship of murdering invaders.
Post by pedro
If Iraqis are as intelligent and knowledgeable as you say, they would
realize that it's in their best interests to restore order and the
functionality of the infrastructure asap.
Nope... that is YOUR opinion about what is the right thing to do.

It is in their best interests to drive the foreign invader from their
shores, as did Iran when they deposed the US puppet shah.....
Post by pedro
And if they are glad to
be rid of SH, and want democratic government, why isn't there more
co-operation and support for the US endeavours?
Because the USA isn't going to install democratic government and the
country is destroyed and they are living under a military dictatorship
that doesn't care if it kills innocent civilians... and tortures Iraqis to
death....
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
pedro
2003-12-10 13:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by pedro
Well would you care to comment on the hostilities then? Do you think the
media is giving a false impression of the level of hostilities?
Yep.
Post by pedro
And how do you explain them?
An insurgency against a military dictatorship of murdering invaders.
Post by pedro
If Iraqis are as intelligent and knowledgeable as you say, they would
realize that it's in their best interests to restore order and the
functionality of the infrastructure asap.
Nope... that is YOUR opinion about what is the right thing to do.
It is in their best interests to drive the foreign invader from their
shores, as did Iran when they deposed the US puppet shah.....
Post by pedro
And if they are glad to
be rid of SH, and want democratic government, why isn't there more
co-operation and support for the US endeavours?
Because the USA isn't going to install democratic government and the
country is destroyed and they are living under a military dictatorship
that doesn't care if it kills innocent civilians... and tortures Iraqis to
death....
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Printed out your post. Used it for toilet paper.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Brett O'Callaghan
2003-12-07 05:10:48 UTC
Permalink
John Leister <***@senet.com.au> wrote:

When will John Leister apologise for cross-posting to irrelevant
newsgroups is what I want to know.

Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent
Tourette's
2003-12-07 05:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Well I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but this is the problem you face
when you're an occupying force in a country where a large number
of people want you out. The issue is one of escalation: US soldiers
are killed in the streets by terrorists/resistance fighters (call them
what you will) and this angers both commanders and soldiers on the
ground. They resort to more proactive military attacks on bases of
these terrorists/resistance fighters, using intelligence that may or may
not be reliable. And when these attacks kill innocent children, it
further erodes local support for the US. It is cyclical and can only
get worse.

Armies have learned nothing in a thousand years of warfare - you
cannot occupy a nation and subdue a largely-hostile population.
Given that American independence was 'won' by a war of exactly
this nature, their naivete is surprising.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-07 06:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tourette's
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Well I'm sure it wasn't intentional,
Of course it wasn't.
Post by Tourette's
but this is the problem you face
when you're an occupying force in a country where a large number
of people want you out. The issue is one of escalation: US soldiers
are killed in the streets by terrorists/resistance fighters (call them
what you will) and this angers both commanders and soldiers on the
ground. They resort to more proactive military attacks on bases of
these terrorists/resistance fighters, using intelligence that may or may
not be reliable. And when these attacks kill innocent children, it
further erodes local support for the US. It is cyclical and can only
get worse.
The problem is that when you are constantly on alert, with threat from a
faceless enemy, you can't help but be trigger happy. And the Yanks are trigger
happy anyway at the best of times.
Post by Tourette's
Armies have learned nothing in a thousand years of warfare - you
cannot occupy a nation and subdue a largely-hostile population.
They weren't expecting a hostile populace. They were expecting to be hailed as
liberators. Someone said recently that they went in with a force sufficient to
subdue, but not to occupy. (can't htink who)
Post by Tourette's
Given that American independence was 'won' by a war of exactly
this nature, their naivete is surprising.
Vietnam revisited?
Post by Tourette's
---
Tourette's
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Philip Heggie
2003-12-07 07:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Good Morning Iraqinam
Body bags for bag dad's homecoming parade
banned press coverage by the land of the free.
I think to myself What a Wonderful World.
Not.
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Well I'm sure it wasn't intentional,
Of course it wasn't.
Post by Tourette's
but this is the problem you face
when you're an occupying force in a country where a large number
of people want you out. The issue is one of escalation: US soldiers
are killed in the streets by terrorists/resistance fighters (call them
what you will) and this angers both commanders and soldiers on the
ground. They resort to more proactive military attacks on bases of
these terrorists/resistance fighters, using intelligence that may or may
not be reliable. And when these attacks kill innocent children, it
further erodes local support for the US. It is cyclical and can only
get worse.
The problem is that when you are constantly on alert, with threat from a
faceless enemy, you can't help but be trigger happy. And the Yanks are trigger
happy anyway at the best of times.
Post by Tourette's
Armies have learned nothing in a thousand years of warfare - you
cannot occupy a nation and subdue a largely-hostile population.
They weren't expecting a hostile populace. They were expecting to be hailed as
liberators. Someone said recently that they went in with a force sufficient to
subdue, but not to occupy. (can't htink who)
Post by Tourette's
Given that American independence was 'won' by a war of exactly
this nature, their naivete is surprising.
Vietnam revisited?
Post by Tourette's
---
Tourette's
--
rgds,
Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-07 10:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
The problem is that when you are constantly on alert, with threat from a
faceless enemy, you can't help but be trigger happy. And the Yanks are trigger
happy anyway at the best of times.
Yep. My dad is a Vietnam vet, he is forever criticising the tactics
that some American units used in that war. Apparently their lack
of diplomacy and sensitivity to local conditions and situations often
led them into corners to which the only solution (to them) was to
use force, even if half-blind when doing so. I'm not entirely sure
that's what's happening in Iraq, but it seems as though it might be.
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Armies have learned nothing in a thousand years of warfare - you
cannot occupy a nation and subdue a largely-hostile population.
They weren't expecting a hostile populace. They were expecting to be hailed as
liberators. Someone said recently that they went in with a force sufficient to
subdue, but not to occupy. (can't htink who)
I think the *politicians* were expecting to be hailed as liberators,
I don't seriously think the army was (I sometimes think the US
military is a whole lot smarter than their administration, which isn't
saying a hell of a lot.) Or, possibly, that was the cover story put
out to justify an invasion.
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Given that American independence was 'won' by a war of exactly
this nature, their naivete is surprising.
Vietnam revisited?
Similar scenario, yes. Not exactly the same, but similar.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-08 02:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
The problem is that when you are constantly on alert, with threat from a
faceless enemy, you can't help but be trigger happy. And the Yanks are
trigger
Post by pedro
happy anyway at the best of times.
Yep. My dad is a Vietnam vet, he is forever criticising the tactics
that some American units used in that war. Apparently their lack
of diplomacy and sensitivity to local conditions and situations often
led them into corners to which the only solution (to them) was to
use force, even if half-blind when doing so. I'm not entirely sure
that's what's happening in Iraq, but it seems as though it might be.
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Armies have learned nothing in a thousand years of warfare - you
cannot occupy a nation and subdue a largely-hostile population.
They weren't expecting a hostile populace. They were expecting to be
hailed as
Post by pedro
liberators. Someone said recently that they went in with a force
sufficient to
Post by pedro
subdue, but not to occupy. (can't htink who)
I think the *politicians* were expecting to be hailed as liberators,
I don't seriously think the army was (I sometimes think the US
military is a whole lot smarter than their administration, which isn't
saying a hell of a lot.) Or, possibly, that was the cover story put
out to justify an invasion.
I tend to disagree. I think the military expected to be appreciated. At least
that is the view espoused by some senior officers. Generally tho, I think the
military believed they were doing a good thing in liberating Iraq, and thought
they would be welcome. I also think they are genuinely interested and sincere
in their efforts to rebuild. Most of the incidents are the result of attacks
on them, and most of those are unreported. It's a very stressful situation for
them.
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by Tourette's
Given that American independence was 'won' by a war of exactly
this nature, their naivete is surprising.
Vietnam revisited?
Similar scenario, yes. Not exactly the same, but similar.
---
Tourette's
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Kolu Koleff
2003-12-07 14:32:35 UTC
Permalink
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Tourette's
2003-12-07 16:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake,
Oh gawd, get over Stalin, the Cold War and Mao for fuck's sake!

Can't you people think for a change instead of regurgitating
Andrew Bolt and going on about the Left or the Right? Geezus!

---
Tourette's
Gregory Procter
2003-12-07 18:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
Post by Kolu Koleff
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
pedro
2003-12-08 04:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Doppelganger
2003-12-08 05:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Procter hasn't updated his atlas in years. :)
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by John Leister
Just how many mistakes will the allies tolerate with regards to the USA in
Iraq?????
The latest one I heard this morning on the radio in that they accidentally
blew up a group of children....
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 00:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doppelganger
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Procter hasn't updated his atlas in years. :)
I have - didn't look at it - I just assumed you current murdering and terrorism to be
in Iraq.
Ken Ehrett
2003-12-09 07:41:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:55:01 +1300, Gregory Procter
Post by Doppelganger
Post by pedro
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Procter hasn't updated his atlas in years. :)
I have - didn't look at it - I just assumed you current murdering and terrorism >to be in Iraq.
That's you major problem in life Groggy. You assume just about
everything including an IQ above the level of a box of rusty hammers.
The fact that you're not even embarrassed by it is a prime indicator
of your stupidity.
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 08:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ehrett
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:55:01 +1300, Gregory Procter
Post by Doppelganger
Post by pedro
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Procter hasn't updated his atlas in years. :)
I have - didn't look at it - I just assumed you current murdering and terrorism >to be in Iraq.
That's you major problem in life Groggy. You assume just about
everything including an IQ above the level of a box of rusty hammers.
The fact that you're not even embarrassed by it is a prime indicator
of your stupidity.
The fact that you don't recognise your stupidity is a prime indicator of your terminal stupidity,
Ken.
A high IQ doesn't stop one from being stupid from time to time, it just allows one the chance to
break the cycle.
Doppelganger
2003-12-09 16:49:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:16 +1300, Gregory Procter
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Ken Ehrett
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:55:01 +1300, Gregory Procter
Post by Doppelganger
Post by pedro
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional, and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Procter hasn't updated his atlas in years. :)
I have - didn't look at it - I just assumed you current murdering and terrorism >to be in Iraq.
That's you major problem in life Groggy. You assume just about
everything including an IQ above the level of a box of rusty hammers.
The fact that you're not even embarrassed by it is a prime indicator
of your stupidity.
The fact that you don't recognise your stupidity is a prime indicator of your terminal stupidity,
Ken.
A high IQ doesn't stop one from being stupid from time to time, it just allows one the chance to
break the cycle.
And Procter's stupidity cycle is never ending. :)
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 18:19:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:20:02 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
More often it is intentional, but not necessarily.
Go back to Law school, you silly girl.
Post by pedro
It wasn't intentional,
They didn't intend killing? You'll find that they did.
Cite.
Post by pedro
and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Murder only occurs in Iraq?
No, but you fucked up if you say this incident occurred in Iraq.
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 00:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?

By that reasoning, your recent sniper wasn't a murderer.
Post by pedro
and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Point accepted.
pedro
2003-12-09 06:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Post by Gregory Procter
By that reasoning, your recent sniper wasn't a murderer.
By that reasoning..... well, there isn't any.
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Point accepted.
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Dave Whitmarsh
2003-12-09 06:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Oh, that's ok then. Of course, if you'd made similar mistakes before
it would be unforgiveable.
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
By that reasoning, your recent sniper wasn't a murderer.
By that reasoning..... well, there isn't any.
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Point accepted.
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 08:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Oh, that's ok then. Of course, if you'd made similar mistakes before
it would be unforgiveable.
I wonder if the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc of those 9
children will be so ready to forgive?
How about the relatives of the adults killed by the mistake.
What about the families of those innocent people shot in the market and those of the
people shot in the street?
Each of these "mistakes" probably directly affects a hundred or so people, half of them
already unemployed because of US actions, many without homes because of US paranoia.
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off signing up papers.
Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
pedro
2003-12-09 08:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Oh, that's ok then. Of course, if you'd made similar mistakes before
it would be unforgiveable.
I wonder if the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc of those 9
children will be so ready to forgive?
I wonder if the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc., of those
killed by the bombings in Bali, of the UN, the Red Cross, Israeli restaurants, markets,
buses, etc., the British consulate in Istanbul, the World Trade Centre, the Marriott hotel
in Jakata, those murdered by Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc., will be so ready
to forgive?
Post by Gregory Procter
How about the relatives of the adults killed by the mistake.
What about the families of those innocent people shot in the market and those of the
people shot in the street?
Each of these "mistakes" probably directly affects a hundred or so people, half of them
already unemployed because of US actions, many without homes because of US paranoia.
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off signing up papers.
Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's in the interests
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on your doorstep,
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you need them?'. In
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able to vote for Helen
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive to vote at all
that is.

However, that's it from me. See if you can buy a few clues, because I have better things to
do than argue with the clueless.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Tourette's
2003-12-09 11:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's in the interests
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on your doorstep,
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you need them?'. In
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able to vote for Helen
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive to vote at all
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).

As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-09 14:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 18:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
Paranoia to the fore!
pedro
2003-12-10 13:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
Paranoia to the fore!
Go and live under one of these regimes you're so happy to defend. See if you don't
change your mind about things.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Eddy_Down
2003-12-09 18:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
And the flight training took place in the USA. How come you haven't
bombed either of those countries for harbouring and training terrorists?
Post by pedro
--
rgds,
Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
pedro
2003-12-10 13:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddy_Down
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
And the flight training took place in the USA. How come you haven't
bombed either of those countries for harbouring and training terrorists?
It wasn't supported by the administration was it.


--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Eddy_Down
2003-12-10 15:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Eddy_Down
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
---
Tourette's
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
And the flight training took place in the USA. How come you haven't
bombed either of those countries for harbouring and training terrorists?
It wasn't supported by the administration was it.
How does the USA funding the Taliban right up until the middle of 2000
fit into your arguement?
Tourette's
2003-12-10 11:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the indefensible,
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in response to
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and supported
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs and
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the safety that
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think that
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11 attack
was done in Germany.
No pedro, the primary reason *they told you* they were going there was
September 11- and Taliban-related. Texan oilmen were trying to woo Taliban
members with free flights to the US, not two years before the World Trade
Center bombings; their oppression of women and support for al-Qaeda didn't
seem too much of a concern then. September 11 was the catalyst and the
inspiration for the invasion of Afghanistan, but there were more terrorists
per
capita, and more terrorist funding, in Saudi Arabia at that particuar time
(and
this may still be the case).

I didn't say "no danger" as you so politely put it, I said the danger is
minimal.
Border protection and security really has little to do with it - if
terrorists
wanted to attack Australia, with its massive coastline, sparse population
density, miniscule defence force and limited intelligence capability, they
would have done so some time ago. Bali wasn't an attack against Australians,
it was an attack on Americans first and foremost, as most of the bombers
have already said. You're a fool if you think Australia is viewed by the
people
of the world as anything more than a cheeky little piss-ant of a country
that
hides beneath the petticoats of Mother America.

---
Tourette's
pedro
2003-12-10 13:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
Gosh you can always be relied on to bash the yanks and defend the
indefensible,
Post by pedro
can't you. The primary reason America went into Afghanistan was in
response to
Post by pedro
Sept 11 to crush the al-Qaida training infrastructure, harboured and
supported
Post by pedro
by the Taliban regime. And as far as us being in 'no danger' from Islamic
fundamentalists.. get your head out of the sand. You can thank the libs
and
Post by pedro
their strong stance on border protection and security issues for the
safety that
Post by pedro
we do have, but if labour gets in, God help us. You're a fool if you think
that
Post by pedro
al-Qaida tentacles don't stretch world wide. The planning for the Sept 11
attack
Post by pedro
was done in Germany.
No pedro, the primary reason *they told you* they were going there was
September 11- and Taliban-related. Texan oilmen were trying to woo Taliban
members with free flights to the US, not two years before the World Trade
Center bombings; their oppression of women and support for al-Qaeda didn't
seem too much of a concern then. September 11 was the catalyst and the
inspiration for the invasion of Afghanistan, but there were more terrorists
per
capita, and more terrorist funding, in Saudi Arabia at that particuar time
(and
this may still be the case).
So like I said, they went into Afghanistan to attack al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Post by pedro
I didn't say "no danger" as you so politely put it, I said the danger is
minimal.
Border protection and security really has little to do with it - if
terrorists
wanted to attack Australia, with its massive coastline, sparse population
density, miniscule defence force and limited intelligence capability, they
would have done so some time ago.
Nonsense. Ever heard of sleeper cells? The threat is from infiltration of the
population with those loyal to the cause. That's why the libs are so diligent in
screening illegals. And our intelligence capability is much better now, as
intelligence info is shared world wide.
Post by pedro
Bali wasn't an attack against Australians,
it was an attack on Americans first and foremost, as most of the bombers
have already said. You're a fool if you think Australia is viewed by the
people
of the world as anything more than a cheeky little piss-ant of a country
that
hides beneath the petticoats of Mother America.
---
Tourette's
--
rgds,

Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 18:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by pedro
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway? In case your interested, it's
in the interests
Post by pedro
of free democracy. If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on
your doorstep,
Post by pedro
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you
need them?'. In
Post by pedro
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able
to vote for Helen
Post by pedro
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive
to vote at all
Post by pedro
that is.
Don't draw a regional example to paint a global picture, pedro. There are no
fundamentalist loonies like bin Laden, or dictatorial sadists like Saddam
anywhere
near Australia or New Zealand, nor are there likely to be in the near
future. There's
JI terrorists in Indonesia and south-east Asia, of course, then again there
always
have been. Our people might be in a mild amount of danger when travelling
abroad,
but our democratic regimes and institutions aren't in threat (if anything
they're more
at risk from governments-of-the-day than terrorist groups).
As for why the Americans were/are in Afghanistan, well take your pick. Could
be a knee-jerk response to 9/11, could be a long-term strategic step, could
be
a means of procuring a central Asian oil pipeline, could be to establish
influence
over the region before the Russians or Chinese do, could be some or all of
the
above. The issue of making Afghanistan a 'free democracy' appears to be
quite
low on their list, however. So too does eliminating trade in opium poppies,
which is still flourishing.
The current figures show that Afghan opium production is 19 times that which
existed under the Taliban and is rapidly increasing. The US needs all the opium
it can get!
Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 17:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Dave Whitmarsh
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Oh, that's ok then. Of course, if you'd made similar mistakes before
it would be unforgiveable.
I wonder if the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc of those 9
children will be so ready to forgive?
I wonder if the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc., of those
killed by the bombings in Bali, of the UN, the Red Cross, Israeli restaurants, markets,
buses, etc., the British consulate in Istanbul, the World Trade Centre, the Marriott hotel
in Jakata, those murdered by Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc., will be so ready
to forgive?
Why would they be ready to forgive?
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
How about the relatives of the adults killed by the mistake.
What about the families of those innocent people shot in the market and those of the
people shot in the street?
Each of these "mistakes" probably directly affects a hundred or so people, half of them
already unemployed because of US actions, many without homes because of US paranoia.
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off signing up papers.
Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
And why are the Yanks in Afghanistan anyway?
Good question!
Post by pedro
In case your interested, it's in the interests
of free democracy.
Are you in some way trying to suggest that the present situation in Afghanistan is better than
it was under the Taliban???
Post by pedro
If there were 'suxty sux' thousand foreign troops on your doorstep,
you'd probably be one of the first to ask 'where are the yanks when you need them?'.
Where were the yanks when we needed them? answer, they were sitting comfortably at home selling
to both sides and raking in the profits.
Post by pedro
In
case you fail to understand, and you certainly do, if your 'freedom
fighters (read terrorists if you must)' have their way, you won't be able to vote for Helen
Clark, in fact you won't be able to vote for anyone- if you're still alive to vote at all
that is.
That's why I don't support you terrorists.
Post by pedro
However, that's it from me. See if you can buy a few clues, because I have better things to
do than argue with the clueless.
I guess you really do need to spend all your free time looking for any clue!
Ken Ehrett
2003-12-10 00:37:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:12:05 +1300, Gregory Procter
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for >freedom fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off >signing up papers. Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
And one daisy cutter will wipe out all their gains in seconds. Force
multipliers are a wonderful thing Groggy. It won't be too long before
we will even have to bother sending troops into the battlefield.
Eddy_Down
2003-12-10 09:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ehrett
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:12:05 +1300, Gregory Procter
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for >freedom fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off >signing up papers. Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
And one daisy cutter will wipe out all their gains in seconds. Force
multipliers are a wonderful thing Groggy. It won't be too long before
we will even have to bother sending troops into the battlefield.
You don't even bother now. How else do you exlain the lack of any bad
guys after all the children the yanks have just killed?
Doppelganger
2003-12-10 17:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Ehrett
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:12:05 +1300, Gregory Procter
If you ever bother to think about it, you'll realize that the recruiters for >freedom fighters (read terrorists if you must) must be flat out printing off >signing up papers. Every "suspect" you kill will gain them 10 recruits.
And one daisy cutter will wipe out all their gains in seconds. Force
multipliers are a wonderful thing Groggy. It won't be too long before
we will even have to bother sending troops into the battlefield.
Which of course means the three NZ troopers get a reprieve from
digging our latrines.

Gregory Procter
2003-12-09 08:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by Kolu Koleff
The left kills millions and if they mention it at all it is referred to as a
mistake, Do you prefer a dictatorship? You probably do prefer a mass
murdering dictatorship as long as it is anti American. Sad. Pity you don't
give a stuff about people.
The US supports dictatorships eg Saddam Hussein 1970s-1980s.
Yesterday, the US murdered eight small children in Iraq (we don't yet have
today's figures)
They weren't murdered. Murder is intentional. It wasn't intentional,
Attacking the house was accidental?
They weren't targeted. It was a mistake.
Was the house targeted?
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
By that reasoning, your recent sniper wasn't a murderer.
By that reasoning..... well, there isn't any.
If you try really hard you might just get it.
Post by pedro
Post by Gregory Procter
Post by pedro
and it wasn't
even in Iraq.
Point accepted.
--
rgds,
Pete.
====
http://devoted.to/pedro
Different Drummer
2003-12-07 18:38:31 UTC
Permalink
The US troops are war criminals that have been told by their war lord
that they will never have to stand before an International Court for
their crimes against humanity. I hope to see the whole lot of them in
chains in that Cuban concentration camp that they build themselves.
tipper
2003-12-08 01:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Different Drummer
The US troops are war criminals that have been told by their war lord
that they will never have to stand before an International Court for
their crimes against humanity. I hope to see the whole lot of them in
chains in that Cuban concentration camp that they build themselves.
Presumably, that great paragon of human rights, Castro, will be the one who
puts them there, Eh!
Or maybe you are more inclined towards those leaders of "the Religion Of
Peace" (tm), having the honours?
eddie
2003-12-08 00:35:43 UTC
Permalink
TROLL
David Barnett
2003-12-08 05:26:17 UTC
Permalink
"eddie" <***@me.com> wrote in message news:3fd3c75e$***@news.comindico.com.au...
: TROLL

And the point is?

Do you also talk to horses?
--
David Barnett
Dr Was
"you can't outrun Death forever, but you can make the Bastard work for it"
Andromeda: Lava & Rockets
" Doppelganger " >
2003-12-08 18:22:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:26:17 GMT, "David Barnett"
Post by David Barnett
: TROLL
And the point is?
Do you also talk to horses?
If he talks with "Dave Whitmarsh" he talks with a horses arse.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...