Discussion:
Yet again an act of evil
(too old to reply)
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 16:31:34 UTC
Permalink
More women and children killed:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack

This has to stop.
nevermore
2006-01-14 16:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Oh shut up, Erb. Haven't you realized yet that nothing you say has
any weight beyond your classroom?
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 16:47:25 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Oh shut up, Erb. Haven't you realized yet that nothing
you say has
any weight beyond your classroom?
I tend to doubt it has much weight there either.
nevermore
2006-01-14 17:12:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:47:25 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Martin McPhillips
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Oh shut up, Erb. Haven't you realized yet that nothing
you say has
any weight beyond your classroom?
I tend to doubt it has much weight there either.
Well, as I've stated several times, in the classroom he can threaten
the kiddies with the grade book. <LOL> After all, he "teaches this
stuff"
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
Johnny Asia
2006-01-14 19:23:19 UTC
Permalink
"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that
they acted on a false information," said a senior intelligence
official. His account was confirmed by a senior government official,
who said al-Zawahri "was not there."


al-Qaida Leader Not at Site of Airstrike

By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer

DAMADOLA, Pakistan - Al-Qaida's second-in-command was the target of a
U.S. airstrike near the Afghan border but he was not at the site of
the attack, two senior Pakistani officials said Saturday. At least 17
people were killed.

Citing unnamed American intelligence officials, U.S. networks reported
that a CIA-operated Predator drone aircraft carried out the missile
strike in the Bajur tribal region of northwestern Pakistan.

The two Pakistani officials told The Associated Press on Saturday that
the CIA had acted on incorrect information, and Ayman al-Zawahri was
not in the village of Damadola when it came under attack. Al-Zawahri
is ranked No. 2 in the al-Qaida terror network, second only to
Osama bin Laden.

"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that
they acted on a false information," said a senior intelligence
official. His account was confirmed by a senior government official,
who said al-Zawahri "was not there."

Pakistan's government was expected to formally issue its reaction
later Saturday.

An AP reporter who visited the scene in Damadola village about 12
hours later saw three destroyed houses hundreds of yards apart.
Villagers recounted hearing aircraft overhead moments before the
attack. By their count at least 30 people died, including women and
children.

There was no confirmation from either Islamabad or Washington on the
reports that al-Zawahri had been targeted, but a Pakistani
intelligence official said that the CIA had told Pakistani agents that
they had targeted al-Zawahri in the attack.

Villagers in Damadola denied hosting al-Zawahri or any other al-Qaida
or Taliban figure, saying all the dead were local people. On Saturday,
more than 8,000 tribesmen staged a peaceful protest in a nearby town
to condemn the airstrike, which one speaker described as "open
terrorism."

Earlier, the second intelligence official told AP the remains of some
bodies had "quickly been removed" from Damadola after the strike and
DNA tests were being conducted, but would not say by whom. He spoke on
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to
media.

The official added that hours before the strike some unidentified
guests had arrived at the home of one tribesman named Shah Zaman.

Zaman, whose home was destroyed, told AP he was a "law-abiding"
laborer and had no ties to militants. He was not hurt but said three
of his children were killed.

A local lawmaker who visited Damadola soon after the attack said no
foreigners were among the dead. Sahibzada Haroon ur Rashid said all
the bodies were identifiable and the victims were a family of
jewelers.

Doctors told AP that at least 17 people died in the attack. But at one
destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said he alone lost
24 of his relatives. Five women were weeping nearby, cursing the
attackers.

"My entire family was killed, and I don't know whom should I blame for
it," Ullah said. "I only seek justice from God."

Zaman said he heard planes at around 2:40 a.m. and then eight
explosions. Speaking as he dug through the rubble of his home, he said
planes had been flying over the village for the last three or four
days.

"I ran out and saw planes were dropping bombs," said Zaman, 40, who
lost two sons and a daughter. "I saw my home being hit."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
+

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944


"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw

Want to know what's really going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html

The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 16:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."

There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
S. D. Finch
2006-01-14 16:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 17:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a
bigger commie than Putin was.
I wasn't making an analogy.

Scott is a Marxist (despite his occasional
denials), he always supports the enemies
of the United States, and for that he
would have been eligible for an award
from the Soviets. And his father-in-law
is a former member of the Communist Party
in the USSR and ran a collectivized farm.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-14 17:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 17:35:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:48:18 GMT, "S. D. Finch"
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a
bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Awfully full of yourself today, aren't you,
Poundcake.
nevermore
2006-01-14 17:45:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:24:14 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
<LOL> Irony anyone?
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 18:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 18:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:48:18 GMT, "S. D. Finch"
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a
bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling
people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Scott doesn't understand the concept of "from cliche
to archetype." Just like he doesn't understand
where he is most of the time, and has no memory
of what he said as late as yesterday.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-14 20:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Exactly. The bozos who call us terrorists for opposing Putsch's
policies in the middle east might be idiots, too, but at least they're
21st century idiots. Their propaganda isn't nearly so stale.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 20:57:21 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Jan 2006 10:07:12 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:48:18 GMT, "S. D. Finch"
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a
bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling
people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Exactly. The bozos who call us terrorists for opposing
Putsch's
policies in the middle east might be idiots, too, but at
least they're
21st century idiots. Their propaganda isn't nearly so
stale.
You long ago crossed the line of simply
opposing Bush's policies, Poundcake.

You benefit greatly from the modern
elasticity of tolerance. But should
there be a series of devastating
attacks within the U.S., you might
not find yourself so smugly comfortable
about your perpetual support of the
enemy.
No Place like home
2006-01-14 20:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Exactly. The bozos who call us terrorists for opposing Putsch's
policies in the middle east might be idiots, too, but at least they're
21st century idiots. Their propaganda isn't nearly so stale.
Yet you all fell for it.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
--
"'I'm not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I'm concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
shrikeback
2006-01-15 00:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Exactly. The bozos who call us terrorists for opposing Putsch's
policies in the middle east might be idiots, too, but at least they're
21st century idiots. Their propaganda isn't nearly so stale.
Whereas claiming that the election is a fraud because you don't like
the results is as fresh as a new box on Stay Free.
nevermore
2006-01-15 00:43:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:34:37 -0800, "shrikeback"
Post by shrikeback
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the
fault of the U.S., just as he sees every
U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout
as "an act of evil."
There's no more consistent spokesman
for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb. If the USSR was still
extant, I can't help but think that
he would at least be considered for
a Lenin pin (maybe the in-laws have
one they can give him).
You and your rediculous commie analogies. Bush is a bigger commie than
Putin was.
That's why nobody takes Marty seriously any more.
Nobody takes anybody seriously who goes around calling people "commie."
That is SO last millenium.
Exactly. The bozos who call us terrorists for opposing Putsch's
policies in the middle east might be idiots, too, but at least they're
21st century idiots. Their propaganda isn't nearly so stale.
Whereas claiming that the election is a fraud because you don't like
the results is as fresh as a new box on Stay Free.
The loonies can't help themselves. The reality that most of the
voting public has distanced themselves from the far left is too much
for them
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-14 16:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 17:16:56 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
Now, now, Poundcake, don't get your cream of
wheat all over your bib.
S. D. Finch
2006-01-14 17:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
Now, now, Poundcake, don't get your cream of
wheat all over your bib.
Sociopathy.

More of Bush-----

This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these
elements to Bush or Fox TV show host you choose.



1.. Glibness/superficial charm.
2.. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3.. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4.. Pathological lying
5.. Conning/manipulative
6.. Lack of remorse or guilt
7.. Shallow affect
8.. Callous/lack of empathy
9.. Parasitic lifestyle
10.. Poor behavioral controls
11.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12.. Early behavior problems
13.. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14.. Impulsivity
15.. Irresponsibility
16.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17.. Many short-term marital relationships
18.. Juvenile delinquency
19.. Revocation of conditional release
20.. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)
(Narcissism also a characteristic)

"It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously disabled
psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often with high
intellectual capacities and not infrequently succeeds in business or
professional activities for short periods, some for considerable periods
.Although they occasionally appear on casual inspection as successful
members of the community, as able lawyers, executive or physicians, they do
not, it seems, succeed in the sense of finding satisfaction of fulfillment
in their own accomplishments. Nor do they, when the full story is known,
appear to find this in an ordinary activity."

--H.Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity"

"Psychiatrists are often helplessly manipulated by the psychopath; just as
are the psychopaths other victims."

--Dr. Ken Magid, "High Risk, Children Without a Conscience."

"There are psychopathic personalities in the highest echelons of
government, and even within religious hierarchies in America. You can t just
assume that a person with the title judge or hospital orderly got there
honestly and won t manipulate the hell out of you."

--Personal communication from Psychologist Schreibman to H. Cleckley,
2/10/86
nevermore
2006-01-14 17:45:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:56:13 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
<ROTFLMAO> I missed Zepp's pathetic whinings while I was away. I
love the people down in Cozumel and the Yucatan. They're of Mayan
descent. The typical man is about a third the size and weight of Zepp
Jamieson and three times as much man as Zepp's ever been.
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
S. D. Finch
2006-01-14 19:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by nevermore
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:56:13 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
<ROTFLMAO> I missed Zepp's pathetic whinings while I was away. I
love the people down in Cozumel and the Yucatan. They're of Mayan
descent. The typical man is about a third the size and weight of Zepp
Jamieson and three times as much man as Zepp's ever been.
--
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
What's stupid about the truth?

Did Samuel Alito's Wife Cry on Cue?
George Schlatter, the creator of the '70s television show, Laugh-In, was a
guest on Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (January 12, 2006). Schlatter
appeared in a segment that concluded an hour-long Democrat bash -- "Will
Vicious Dems Pay for Driving Alito's Wife to Tears?" -- about Democrats
supposedly "driving Alito's wife," Martha, "to tears" during yesterday's
confirmation hearings. During his "discussion" with Cavuto, Schlatter asked
Cavuto if he noticed that, "about 15 minutes before she started to cry, an
aide came in and moved him [Samuel Alito] slightly to the right because he
was covering her, and ten minutes later she started to cry. So, fortunately,
he'd moved enough so we could see it."


Comment: Hummm. Makes you wonder. Lindsey Graham coached Alito before the
hearings and he was speaking when Martha began to cry. Could moving the
chair have been the signal for Martha to start crying when Graham began to
speak?

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/12/did_samuel_alitos_wife_cry_on_cue.php#more

This quote
from Time magazine
"The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public
relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman
witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is
available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her
personally and are very upset about this development."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1148113,00.html

Why make clerks available for pressers by a PR outfit if it wasn't planned?

Could moving the chair have been the signal for Martha to start crying when
Graham began to speak?
nevermore
2006-01-14 19:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by nevermore
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:56:13 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
<ROTFLMAO> I missed Zepp's pathetic whinings while I was away. I
love the people down in Cozumel and the Yucatan. They're of Mayan
descent. The typical man is about a third the size and weight of Zepp
Jamieson and three times as much man as Zepp's ever been.
--
"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com
"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com
"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719
If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
What's stupid about the truth?
<LOL> .....other than the one about terrorists which might be true,
but is stupid because of the implication that we should appease
them... which of the above do you believe to be the truth?
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 18:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 18:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.

Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.

But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them, and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.

Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
S. D. Finch
2006-01-14 19:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them, and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
Bush was warned but Bush is too Sociopathic, stupid and idiotic to listen to
reason.

Sociopathy.

Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually
limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people
if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of
another mental disorder.
Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence
and continuing throughout adulthood. There are ten general
symptoms:

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness

People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may
not work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit
suddenly. They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or
rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal
pleasure or profit. They may default on loans, fail to provide child
support, or fail to care for their dependents adequately. High risk
sexual behavior and substance abuse are common. Impulsiveness,
failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability, irresponsibility,
and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of
others are traits of the antisocial personality.

Socioeconomic status, gender, and genetic factors play a role.
Males are more likely to be antisocial than females. Those from
lower socioeconomic groups are more susceptible. A family history
of the disorder puts one at higher risk.

There are many theories about the cause of Antisocial Personality
Disorder including experiencing neglectful parenting as a child, low
levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and belief that
antisocial behavior is justified because of difficult circumstances.
Psychotherapy, group therapy, and family therapy are common
treatments. The effects of medical treatment are inconclusive.
Unfortunately, most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder
reject treatment. Therefore, recovery rates are low.

More of Bush-----

This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these
elements to Bush or Fox TV show host you choose.



1.. Glibness/superficial charm.
2.. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3.. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4.. Pathological lying
5.. Conning/manipulative
6.. Lack of remorse or guilt
7.. Shallow affect
8.. Callous/lack of empathy
9.. Parasitic lifestyle
10.. Poor behavioral controls
11.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12.. Early behavior problems
13.. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14.. Impulsivity
15.. Irresponsibility
16.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17.. Many short-term marital relationships
18.. Juvenile delinquency
19.. Revocation of conditional release
20.. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)
(Narcissism also a characteristic)

"It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously disabled
psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often with high
intellectual capacities and not infrequently succeeds in business or
professional activities for short periods, some for considerable periods
.Although they occasionally appear on casual inspection as successful
members of the community, as able lawyers, executive or physicians, they do
not, it seems, succeed in the sense of finding satisfaction of fulfillment
in their own accomplishments. Nor do they, when the full story is known,
appear to find this in an ordinary activity."

--H.Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity"

"Psychiatrists are often helplessly manipulated by the psychopath; just as
are the psychopaths other victims."

--Dr. Ken Magid, "High Risk, Children Without a Conscience."

"There are psychopathic personalities in the highest echelons of
government, and even within religious hierarchies in America. You can t just
assume that a person with the title judge or hospital orderly got there
honestly and won t manipulate the hell out of you."

--Personal communication from Psychologist Schreibman to H. Cleckley,
2/10/86
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White
House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for
the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them, and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking
Bush's incompetence isn't "hating America", silly fool.
It certainly is when you've lost the ability
to distinguish between your hatred of Bush and
hating America, and someone as thoroughly
kicked in the head by a horse as you
wouldn't know the difference if I took
out the big crayon and explained it to you
for the next ten years.
DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts
2006-01-14 20:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by S. D. Finch
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White
House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for
the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them, and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking
Bush's incompetence isn't "hating America", silly fool.
It certainly is when you've lost the ability
to distinguish between your hatred of Bush and
hating America, and someone as thoroughly
kicked in the head by a horse as you
wouldn't know the difference if I took
out the big crayon and explained it to you
for the next ten years.
You have it wrong, like you usually do.

NO one hates Bush and certainly no one hates America -- liberals hate
the things Bush stands for : corruption, aid and comfort to the enemy,
consolidation of powers, etc...

Liberals LOVE America, you know, liberals like Al Gore, the one Bush,
and well, someone else, stole the 2000 election from, and LIBERALS want
to save America from the tyranny of a man who would abolish the
Constitution, under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

"I see your dog got shot -- well, that's shobiz, big boy !!!!"
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 21:58:40 UTC
Permalink
DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts wrote:> You have it wrong, like
you usually do.
Post by DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts
NO one hates Bush and certainly no one hates America -- liberals hate
the things Bush stands for : corruption, aid and comfort to the enemy,
consolidation of powers, etc...
Liberals LOVE America, you know, liberals like Al Gore, the one Bush,
and well, someone else, stole the 2000 election from, and LIBERALS want
to save America from the tyranny of a man who would abolish the
Constitution, under the guise of fighting "terrorism."
"I see your dog got shot -- well, that's shobiz, big boy !!!!"
What many of us who oppose the war love are the ideals upon which the
United States is based. A lot of people are willing to sacrifice
principle for the sake of supporting whatever their particular
country's leaders choose to do.
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 22:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts wrote:> You have
it wrong, like
you usually do.
Post by DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts
NO one hates Bush and certainly no one hates America --
liberals hate
the things Bush stands for : corruption, aid and comfort
to the enemy,
consolidation of powers, etc...
Liberals LOVE America, you know, liberals like Al Gore,
the one Bush,
and well, someone else, stole the 2000 election from, and
LIBERALS want
to save America from the tyranny of a man who would
abolish the
Constitution, under the guise of fighting "terrorism."
"I see your dog got shot -- well, that's shobiz, big boy
!!!!"
What many of us who oppose the war love are the ideals
upon which the
United States is based. A lot of people are willing to
sacrifice
principle for the sake of supporting whatever their
particular
country's leaders choose to do.
Scott, you are an unrepentant socialist and
anti-American propagandist. You don't
give a squat about "the ideals upon
which the United States is based," and
I doubt that you could even give a
coherent account of what you think those
ideals are.

You talk above as if in order to
handle its responsibilities in the
world, both in protecting the American
people and being the leader of the
world community, that the U.S. has to
attend to your conception of its ideals
before it undertakes the serious work
before it. That's nonsense, and you are,
as always, nonsensical. You are always
most interested in helping any state
that represents itself as an enemy of
the United States.

That's why you didn't support the
removal of Saddam Hussein, despite
the fact that his regime was subject
to the most thoroughgoing adjudication
by the UN over 12 years. That's why
you apologize for Iran and blame the
9/11 attacks against the U.S. on American
foreign policy and why you diminish
the importance of those attacks. It's
why you would like to see the U.S.
broken up into smaller nation-states
even as you rhapsodize the emergence of
the European superstate. It's why you
pin your hopes on car bombers in Iraq
and ignore 11 million Iraqis voting.

Reality does bite you, Scott, right
in your horse face.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 03:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts wrote:> You have it wrong, like
you usually do.
Post by DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts
NO one hates Bush and certainly no one hates America -- liberals hate
the things Bush stands for : corruption, aid and comfort to the enemy,
consolidation of powers, etc...
Liberals LOVE America, you know, liberals like Al Gore, the one Bush,
and well, someone else, stole the 2000 election from, and LIBERALS want
to save America from the tyranny of a man who would abolish the
Constitution, under the guise of fighting "terrorism."
"I see your dog got shot -- well, that's shobiz, big boy !!!!"
What many of us who oppose the war love are the ideals upon which the
United States is based. A lot of people are willing to sacrifice
principle for the sake of supporting whatever their particular
country's leaders choose to do.
One need only read the thoughts of the right wingers here to see how
alien American values are to them. They are contemptuous of
democracy, or the notion that anyone should enjoy the rights the try
to figleaf their love of tyranny with.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
nevermore
2006-01-15 12:17:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:38:31 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts wrote:> You have it wrong, like
you usually do.
Post by DRunKEnBRiTishCOwboyiNSearchOfFryEBOOts
NO one hates Bush and certainly no one hates America -- liberals hate
the things Bush stands for : corruption, aid and comfort to the enemy,
consolidation of powers, etc...
Liberals LOVE America, you know, liberals like Al Gore, the one Bush,
and well, someone else, stole the 2000 election from, and LIBERALS want
to save America from the tyranny of a man who would abolish the
Constitution, under the guise of fighting "terrorism."
"I see your dog got shot -- well, that's shobiz, big boy !!!!"
What many of us who oppose the war love are the ideals upon which the
United States is based. A lot of people are willing to sacrifice
principle for the sake of supporting whatever their particular
country's leaders choose to do.
One need only read the thoughts of the right wingers here to see how
alien American values are to them. They are contemptuous of
democracy, or the notion that anyone should enjoy the rights the try
to figleaf their love of tyranny with.
Erb wouldn't know an American value if it crawled up his pant leg and
bit him on the ass.
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 20:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy. It's the
kind of error Barbara Tuchman describes in "March of Folly," and has
all the attributes of what Irving Janis calls "Groupthink." I fear
that the impact on the country and price this will cost is immense.
And as the father of two young children, whose future will depend in
part on the vitality of this country, it angers me that so much damage
has been done, unnecessarily, and through manipulation of public
opinion and appeal to fear.

Groupthink:
Groupthink is: A MODE OF THINKING AND A KIND OF THINKING PEOPLE ARE
ENGAGED IN WHEN THEIR EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE GROUP UNANIMITY BECOME MORE
IMPORTANT THAN EFFORTS TO REALISTICALLY APPRAISE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
FOR ACTION.

When groupthink exists, "fiascos" tend to result. Groupthink is a
variable to explain fiascos and non-fiascos.

Symptoms of Groupthink

1. Overestimation of group power
a. People in a group have a tendency to view their group as
invulnerable - this leads to over optimism, and a willingness to
undertake risk.
b. People also tend to believe in the inherent morality of the
group. They ignore the morality of the means, focus on morality of
ends: the ends justify the means. That clearly was the case with
North's explanation for why they violated the law - it was assumed
that their cause was moral and Congress was wrong, and thus anything to
achieve their goal was OK. This is a symptom of groupthink.

2. Close mindedness
a. Collective rationalization, discounting warnings and dissonant
info. Here people bolster each other by rationalizing continuation of
a course of action, and discount warnings or information that might
lead them to a different conclusion (sort of like the stock market
recently before it crashed - group think is all over, not just in
foreign policy).
b. sterotyped view of opponent, group becomes confident opponent
won't act. (common in military history). Here you look at opponents
as weak, flawed, and often a caricature of what they really are.
Others in the group bolster that view, and it increases group
confidence.

3. Pressures for uniformity
a. self-censorship (no one wants to go against others in the
group)
b. assumption of unanimity, partially as a result of
self-censorship.
c. Direct pressure against members who take negative views.
d. Self-appointed "mind-guards."

MINDGUARDS: People with information, but won't bring it to the
attention of the group. Janis looks at Korea, with many examples.
Chinese capabilities were known by military officials, but they were
not brought into the discussion because these officials did not believe
that the Chinese would fight, and thus didn't want to hinder the
achievement of a decision. Thus, a shared superficial unanimity is a
result of small group dynamics.

Causes of group think:

Necessary conditions: Group cohesion, members value the group and
desire to protect group integrity. Whether or not it occurs with these
necessary conditions depends on three other conditions:
1. Insulation of decision making group

2. Leadership -- if the leader has a strong opinion and expresses it,
the group is less likely to consider alternatives.
3. Norms.



Hardball Politician:

Can Governments Learn by Lloyd Etheredge.

Etheredge refutes the idea of groupthink as being the primary cause of
fiascos, claiming that the errors that led to fiascos like the Bay of
Pigs invasion were NOT caused by Groupthink. Rather, people thought
that way BEFORE the small groups were organized. This is due to the
socialization process that goes on for policy makers (both as American
citizens and as people involved in this particular sort of endeavor)
and the personality traits that are rewarded by the social environment
confronting policy makers.

Etheredge claims that causes of non-learning can be attributed to
imagination driven understandings.

People believe things despite reality. These beliefs are almost more
irrational, there isn't a search for data, but a real sense that they
simply believe what they imagine.

This has two components:

1. Individual component: The hardball politician: Tough ambitious,
interested in holding on to power.
2. The systemic factor: Political socialization in the United States.
The way we are socialized to understand our government -- it is a
powerful force, in some sense above us as individuals.

THESE two interact: The political socialization encourages hard-ball
politicians to reach for positions of authority in government. This is
not just a phenomenon of the U.S.: any great power would tend to
exhibit such behavior.

Hardball politician: In Washington, I met quite a few of these,
without naming names. Thus for me, Etheredge rings true intuitionally
in a certain way.

The HP has low self-esteem, self doubt, and a fear of genuineness,
candor and self-revelation. They are secretive, put on a persona of
what they want others to see, and deep down doubt their own genuine
personality. Power and prestige are an ersatz for their lack of
self-esteem.

This leads to
1. Ambition -- often a singleminded obsession.
2. Deficiencies in love: Cool, cold detachment. Loyalty important.
Uses people for his own good. (Stories...) Denies people independent
lives, including wives, friends, staff-- molding them to live for him,
expecting them to serve his ambitions (Etheredge).
3. The HP also sees others like his/her self. Others are HPs too.
The world is cruel, you have to win.
4. The HP has weak ethics and disconnected moral restraint. Fear of
social shame, and exposure of his insecurity mix to weaken moral
restraint.
5. Defective humor. Makes fun of others, doesn't like jokes about
his/herself.
6. Cold, condescending, aggression and vanity.
7. Mental life preoccupied with power
8. Hyperactivity.
Post by S. D. Finch
Bush was warned but Bush is too Sociopathic, stupid and idiotic to listen to
reason.
Sociopathy.
Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually
limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people
if the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of
another mental disorder.
Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence
and continuing throughout adulthood. There are ten general
not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness
People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may
not work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit
suddenly. They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or
rights. They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal
pleasure or profit. They may default on loans, fail to provide child
support, or fail to care for their dependents adequately. High risk
sexual behavior and substance abuse are common. Impulsiveness,
failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness, irritability, irresponsibility,
and a reckless disregard for their own safety and the safety of
others are traits of the antisocial personality.
Socioeconomic status, gender, and genetic factors play a role.
Males are more likely to be antisocial than females. Those from
lower socioeconomic groups are more susceptible. A family history
of the disorder puts one at higher risk.
There are many theories about the cause of Antisocial Personality
Disorder including experiencing neglectful parenting as a child, low
levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and belief that
antisocial behavior is justified because of difficult circumstances.
Psychotherapy, group therapy, and family therapy are common
treatments. The effects of medical treatment are inconclusive.
Unfortunately, most people with Antisocial Personality Disorder
reject treatment. Therefore, recovery rates are low.
More of Bush-----
This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these
elements to Bush or Fox TV show host you choose.
1.. Glibness/superficial charm.
2.. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3.. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4.. Pathological lying
5.. Conning/manipulative
6.. Lack of remorse or guilt
7.. Shallow affect
8.. Callous/lack of empathy
9.. Parasitic lifestyle
10.. Poor behavioral controls
11.. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12.. Early behavior problems
13.. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14.. Impulsivity
15.. Irresponsibility
16.. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17.. Many short-term marital relationships
18.. Juvenile delinquency
19.. Revocation of conditional release
20.. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)
(Narcissism also a characteristic)
"It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously disabled
psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often with high
intellectual capacities and not infrequently succeeds in business or
professional activities for short periods, some for considerable periods
.Although they occasionally appear on casual inspection as successful
members of the community, as able lawyers, executive or physicians, they do
not, it seems, succeed in the sense of finding satisfaction of fulfillment
in their own accomplishments. Nor do they, when the full story is known,
appear to find this in an ordinary activity."
--H.Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity"
"Psychiatrists are often helplessly manipulated by the psychopath; just as
are the psychopaths other victims."
--Dr. Ken Magid, "High Risk, Children Without a Conscience."
"There are psychopathic personalities in the highest echelons of
government, and even within religious hierarchies in America. You can t just
assume that a person with the title judge or hospital orderly got there
honestly and won t manipulate the hell out of you."
--Personal communication from Psychologist Schreibman to H. Cleckley,
2/10/86
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 21:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking
Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they
have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a
policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an
attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic
favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Scott thinks that supporting the United States
against people who kill anyone the can, including
U.S. troops, with car bombs is "raw 'them vs.
us' emotionalism."

What Scott doesn't quite want to admit is that
he *always* in fact supports "them." Always.
Wherever you find an enemy of the United
States, you can find Scott Erb at the very
least offering an apology for that enemy.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future.
The 11 million Iraqis who voted under a new
constitution for hundreds of candidates
disputes your wishes, Scott.
No Place like home
2006-01-15 05:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking
Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they
have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a
policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an
attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic
favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Scott thinks that supporting the United States
against people who kill anyone the can, including
U.S. troops, with car bombs is "raw 'them vs.
us' emotionalism."
As opposed to the US going into Iraq illegally, and blowing up
civilians?

C'mon, who are you kidding, beside yourself?

America invaded Iraq because Bush needed, WANTED a war, for any number
of reasons, none of which had to do with terrorism. So spare me the
smew about bad guys with car bombs -- they are protecting their
country, the best they can. Yes, it is HORRIBLE that our kids are
gettig blown up, but again, that is BUSH's fault, sending children to
die, carelessly and thoughtlessly, for egocentric, selfish purposes.
Adn BTW, he looks like shit, everytime I see him on TV. He looks like
he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and that can't bode well for
Rove and Rumsfeld and the rest. I mean, the President doesn't look like
he's doing to well, if you know what I mean. War crimes, buddy, war
crimes -- and we're not even getting into 911 -- treason, buddy,
treason.

No capable administration would have stood down the 911 briefings.
Anyone who is familiar in the slightest with intelligence KNOWS how
stringent those warnings were --so Bush was in on it one way or the
other, the truth is FINALLY coming out.

Why were those clowns in Washington, with their corrutption and treason
,tolerated for so long?

What is little buddy going to do next, to perserve his presidencey?

Declare martial law against a non exisitent enemy?

Plan another terrorist attack with the aid of China?

Do tell......
Post by Martin McPhillips
What Scott doesn't quite want to admit is that
he *always* in fact supports "them." Always.
Wherever you find an enemy of the United
States, you can find Scott Erb at the very
least offering an apology for that enemy.
You mean the enemies in the White House, who are stripping us of our
Constitional rights in order to hide their crimes and hold on to their
dying regime?

TREASON, and I'm not just talking Plame, D00d.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future.
The 11 million Iraqis who voted under a new
constitution for hundreds of candidates
disputes your wishes, Scott.
BWah!

Facist islamic rule, and an election fixed by Bush, just like the ones
in the US.

Gonna be interesting when Noe makes his deal, dontcha think?
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-15 19:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by No Place like home
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking
Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they
have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief
a
policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an
attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a
tactic
favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Scott thinks that supporting the United States
against people who kill anyone the can, including
U.S. troops, with car bombs is "raw 'them vs.
us' emotionalism."
As opposed to the US going into Iraq illegally, and
blowing up
civilians?
There was no "illegality" in the U.S. invading
Iraq. It was the most thoroughly adjudicated
case against a rogue regime in the history
of the UN.
Post by No Place like home
C'mon, who are you kidding, beside yourself?
America invaded Iraq because Bush needed, WANTED a war,
Nobody wants or needs a ground war in the
Middle East. What the U.S. did in Iraq was
to remove the most destabilizing regime in
the most unstable region in the world by
enforcing a 12-year long series of adjudications
against it and begin a democratic process
there. It was and is the most important
change in the Middle East since the establishment
of modern Turkey after WWI.
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-14 22:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Feel free to engage on substance, Scott, but remember that your
unwillingness to call a spade a spade when the bad guys do things while
calling, say, a Bible a spade when the good guys smite al Qaeda's ass
does tend to raise suspicions.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 01:38:04 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Jan 2006 23:19:10 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Feel free to engage on substance, Scott, but remember that your
unwillingness to call a spade a spade when the bad guys do things while
calling, say, a Bible a spade when the good guys smite al Qaeda's ass
does tend to raise suspicions.
Scott called the Bible a spade?

Nah. Don't believe it.

If he said something that crazy, you would be bowing down and
worshipping him.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 01:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Feel free to engage on substance, Scott, but remember that your
unwillingness to call a spade a spade when the bad guys do things while
calling, say, a Bible a spade when the good guys smite al Qaeda's ass
does tend to raise suspicions.
I guarantee I will apply the same ethical concerns to all sides. I'm
also disappointed that our tactics are not really geared to matching
the threat al qaeda and Islamic extremism presents. In short, it is
primarily a potential or latent threat, as their ability to act and
recruit has been minimal. 9-11 was a lucky shot, and one that homeland
security improvements have made difficult to repeat.

I'm not as upset about domestic spying as what seems to me an insane
foreign policy in the Mideast where we seem to be handing the
extremists a golden opportunity to cause anger, fear and rage at the US
amongst youth who otherwise might be tempted by the fruits of
modernism. I think we're also losing leverage with other authoritarian
states in the region, and have created a situation where we DO NOT WANT
democracy because the people who would be elected would be very
anti-American.

We need a counter-terrorism policy. We need to recognize that killing
al qaeda members has minimal impact (and if we butcher children and
women in the effort, it probably wins them more support and recruits
than they lose in a month of successful hits) as the numbers we get are
few. Of course, the Sunni insurgents aren't even Islamic extremists,
they just are fighting a sectarian battle into which we've been lured
in. The biggest flaw in our policy is not ethical, it's practical:
it's a policy that doesn't seem likely to improve security, but instead
will help assure a larger threat down the line.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
No one has ever thought it possible in an era of globalization that the
status quo can be maintained. Things were changing, that was
inevitable. But only a fool simply goes out and starts wars because
the status quo isn't acceptable and they hope to mess things up and
pray to God that when things clear up they are better than before.
That's not only a poorly developed strategy, but in almost all cases
it's not rational.
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-15 02:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Tee heeeee. Another crackpot and his lies. Disliking Bush's incompetence
isn't "hating America", silly fool.
But if they stoop to that level, it's telling that they have no case in
terms of actual substance. Trying to claim that belief a policy is
counter productive is hatred for ones' country is an attempt to swing a
debate to raw 'them vs. us' emotionalism, and is a tactic favored by
those who cannot win on substance.
Feel free to engage on substance, Scott, but remember that your
unwillingness to call a spade a spade when the bad guys do things while
calling, say, a Bible a spade when the good guys smite al Qaeda's ass
does tend to raise suspicions.
I guarantee I will apply the same ethical concerns to all sides. I'm
also disappointed that our tactics are not really geared to matching
the threat al qaeda and Islamic extremism presents.
I don't see how we disengage in the Pashto regions of Pakistan without
them getting the feeling they won and further creating an independent al
Qaeda fiefdom.
Post by Scott Erb
In short, it is
primarily a potential or latent threat, as their ability to act and
recruit has been minimal. 9-11 was a lucky shot, and one that homeland
security improvements have made difficult to repeat.
This is another one of those fundamental disagreements that you and I
have. I think that while 9/11 was pretty lucky for al Qaeda, repeating
something large isn't going to require a lot of luck. It rather amazes
me what one determined crazy person could do if he really wanted to. We
need to stop that from happening if we can. We shouldn't rely on a lot
of our own luck to stop the crazies.
Post by Scott Erb
I'm not as upset about domestic spying as what seems to me an insane
foreign policy in the Mideast where we seem to be handing the
extremists a golden opportunity to cause anger, fear and rage at the US
amongst youth who otherwise might be tempted by the fruits of
modernism. I think we're also losing leverage with other authoritarian
states in the region, and have created a situation where we DO NOT WANT
democracy because the people who would be elected would be very
anti-American.
You sound like people who argued in the 50s and 60s that we had to
support strong arm right-wing dictators around the world because if the
people got the right to vote, they'd vote in people who hate us.
Post by Scott Erb
We need a counter-terrorism policy. We need to recognize that killing
al qaeda members has minimal impact (and if we butcher children and
women in the effort, it probably wins them more support and recruits
than they lose in a month of successful hits) as the numbers we get are
few.
So you are going to just go back to the let al Qaeda rebuild philosophy
of the Clinton administration. That got us 9/11, Scott.
Post by Scott Erb
Of course, the Sunni insurgents aren't even Islamic extremists,
they just are fighting a sectarian battle into which we've been lured
it's a policy that doesn't seem likely to improve security, but instead
will help assure a larger threat down the line.
The way to mitigate threat is to build strong democracies which
represent the views of the people. Give them hope for a better future
and they will be less likely to act in obscene desperation.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
No one has ever thought it possible in an era of globalization that the
status quo can be maintained. Things were changing, that was
inevitable. But only a fool simply goes out and starts wars because
the status quo isn't acceptable and they hope to mess things up and
pray to God that when things clear up they are better than before.
You are making an argument against using military force ever. That means
no ejection of Saddam from Kuwait, no Balkans bombings, no Panama
invasion, no Grenada invasion, no mucking around in Somalia chasing
around Adid.
Post by Scott Erb
That's not only a poorly developed strategy, but in almost all cases
it's not rational.
It is rational to use force to the point that the enemy believes you are
willing to do so. Those who fear to ever use force are more likely to
have it used against them. That's just history.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 03:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I guarantee I will apply the same ethical concerns to all sides. I'm
also disappointed that our tactics are not really geared to matching
the threat al qaeda and Islamic extremism presents.
I don't see how we disengage in the Pashto regions of Pakistan without
them getting the feeling they won and further creating an independent al
Qaeda fiefdom.
We can't eliminate them there, all we can do is bomb a few targets now
and then, and then watch something like this get used to inspire
anti-Americanism. Since we can't win with these kinds of tactics, it's
clearly not enough to eliminate al qaeda, then is it right to be
killing innocents and giving terrorists propaganda coups?
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
In short, it is
primarily a potential or latent threat, as their ability to act and
recruit has been minimal. 9-11 was a lucky shot, and one that homeland
security improvements have made difficult to repeat.
This is another one of those fundamental disagreements that you and I
have. I think that while 9/11 was pretty lucky for al Qaeda, repeating
something large isn't going to require a lot of luck. It rather amazes
me what one determined crazy person could do if he really wanted to. We
need to stop that from happening if we can. We shouldn't rely on a lot
of our own luck to stop the crazies.
Oh, there will be other attacks someday. But they can only do limited
damage at this point. But our policies I think increase their long
term threat because we really aren't weakening them, and certainly not
generating good will from the youth in the Muslim world.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I'm not as upset about domestic spying as what seems to me an insane
foreign policy in the Mideast where we seem to be handing the
extremists a golden opportunity to cause anger, fear and rage at the US
amongst youth who otherwise might be tempted by the fruits of
modernism. I think we're also losing leverage with other authoritarian
states in the region, and have created a situation where we DO NOT WANT
democracy because the people who would be elected would be very
anti-American.
You sound like people who argued in the 50s and 60s that we had to
support strong arm right-wing dictators around the world because if the
people got the right to vote, they'd vote in people who hate us.
Support would be too strong. We have to deal with authoritarians.
Democracy doesn't work everywhere all at once, that fact has been
absolutely proven in history. The belief everyone wants a democracy
and it will work if only the dictators were removed is naive; democracy
is a very difficult system to build, and it requires a political
culture that accepts compromise and tolerance, and a lack of corruption
(rule of law rather than rule of powerful people).
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
We need a counter-terrorism policy. We need to recognize that killing
al qaeda members has minimal impact (and if we butcher children and
women in the effort, it probably wins them more support and recruits
than they lose in a month of successful hits) as the numbers we get are
few.
So you are going to just go back to the let al Qaeda rebuild philosophy
of the Clinton administration. That got us 9/11, Scott.
No, Clinton did not have effective counter-terrorism policy either.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Of course, the Sunni insurgents aren't even Islamic extremists,
they just are fighting a sectarian battle into which we've been lured
it's a policy that doesn't seem likely to improve security, but instead
will help assure a larger threat down the line.
The way to mitigate threat is to build strong democracies which
represent the views of the people. Give them hope for a better future
and they will be less likely to act in obscene desperation.
One way to stop hunger in the world is give everybody food and the
ability to grow more. All problems can be solved by simply asserting a
solution. But if the solution isn't realistic, it's not really a
solution.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
No one has ever thought it possible in an era of globalization that the
status quo can be maintained. Things were changing, that was
inevitable. But only a fool simply goes out and starts wars because
the status quo isn't acceptable and they hope to mess things up and
pray to God that when things clear up they are better than before.
You are making an argument against using military force ever. That means
no ejection of Saddam from Kuwait, no Balkans bombings, no Panama
invasion, no Grenada invasion, no mucking around in Somalia chasing
around Adid.
No, I'm making an argument that you don't use military attacks just to
shake up the status quo. They have to be justified in terms of
tactics, strategy, an analysis of advantages and disadvantages,
consideration of possible unintended consequences, and concern for
having a just war. They have to be chosen with considerable debate and
careful attention to opposing views.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
That's not only a poorly developed strategy, but in almost all cases
it's not rational.
It is rational to use force to the point that the enemy believes you are
willing to do so. Those who fear to ever use force are more likely to
have it used against them. That's just history.
Right now, we're playing into their hands, and they realize that our
use of force isn't enough to stop them, and in fact, weakens us
immensely. We're playing into their hands with the current policy, and
endangering our future. I don't think you realize how vulnerable we are
in the medium to long term.
-scott
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-15 20:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I guarantee I will apply the same ethical concerns to all sides. I'm
also disappointed that our tactics are not really geared to matching
the threat al qaeda and Islamic extremism presents.
I don't see how we disengage in the Pashto regions of Pakistan without
them getting the feeling they won and further creating an independent al
Qaeda fiefdom.
We can't eliminate them there, all we can do is bomb a few targets now
and then, and then watch something like this get used to inspire
anti-Americanism.
I think you irrationally discount the fact that al Qaeda has to keep its
head down because if they don't, we blow them to bits. That's got to
make operating more difficult.
Post by Scott Erb
Since we can't win with these kinds of tactics, it's
clearly not enough to eliminate al qaeda, then is it right to be
killing innocents and giving terrorists propaganda coups?
Every time we drop bombs, they claim it was a wedding party or a bunch
of women and children innocently sunning themselves. There is a cost for
supporting al Qaeda and the people in the lawless regions of Pakistan
might see that. They might not but either way we must continue to target
every al Qaeda op we can.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
In short, it is
primarily a potential or latent threat, as their ability to act and
recruit has been minimal. 9-11 was a lucky shot, and one that homeland
security improvements have made difficult to repeat.
This is another one of those fundamental disagreements that you and I
have. I think that while 9/11 was pretty lucky for al Qaeda, repeating
something large isn't going to require a lot of luck. It rather amazes
me what one determined crazy person could do if he really wanted to. We
need to stop that from happening if we can. We shouldn't rely on a lot
of our own luck to stop the crazies.
Oh, there will be other attacks someday. But they can only do limited
damage at this point.
Eventually nuclear weapons will get lose and boom in a big city. Is that
something you can accept but not dropping a few bombs on terrorists?
Post by Scott Erb
But our policies I think increase their long
term threat because we really aren't weakening them, and certainly not
generating good will from the youth in the Muslim world.
I think that the main complaint in Iraq seems to be security. If the
Sunni get together and stop the support of the insurgency, Iraqis could
see a much more peaceful country. That means their main issue is dealt
with. I don't see how that doesn't mean they think more highly of
America over time.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
You sound like people who argued in the 50s and 60s that we had to
support strong arm right-wing dictators around the world because if the
people got the right to vote, they'd vote in people who hate us.
Support would be too strong. We have to deal with authoritarians.
Democracy doesn't work everywhere all at once, that fact has been
absolutely proven in history.
All I'm saying is that you are using the argument that you so opposed
when you heard it in the 50s and 60s from the right.
Post by Scott Erb
The belief everyone wants a democracy
and it will work if only the dictators were removed is naive; democracy
is a very difficult system to build, and it requires a political
culture that accepts compromise and tolerance, and a lack of corruption
(rule of law rather than rule of powerful people).
I think the Haitian situation has proved that it is counterproductive
for the Americans (and other international peacekeeping forces) to leave
early. The people need to understand the fundamental fact of true
democracy, that it is better to accept an election loss and let the
other side run the government, to come back and try again next election,
than it is to use force to effect a coup.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
We need a counter-terrorism policy. We need to recognize that killing
al qaeda members has minimal impact (and if we butcher children and
women in the effort, it probably wins them more support and recruits
than they lose in a month of successful hits) as the numbers we get are
few.
So you are going to just go back to the let al Qaeda rebuild philosophy
of the Clinton administration. That got us 9/11, Scott.
No, Clinton did not have effective counter-terrorism policy either.
But we have polar opposites going on here. I suppose you could argue for
a middle ground.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Of course, the Sunni insurgents aren't even Islamic extremists,
they just are fighting a sectarian battle into which we've been lured
it's a policy that doesn't seem likely to improve security, but instead
will help assure a larger threat down the line.
The way to mitigate threat is to build strong democracies which
represent the views of the people. Give them hope for a better future
and they will be less likely to act in obscene desperation.
One way to stop hunger in the world is give everybody food and the
ability to grow more. All problems can be solved by simply asserting a
solution. But if the solution isn't realistic, it's not really a
solution.
I think I've explained the actual policies I believe will bring about
the change I advocate.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
No one has ever thought it possible in an era of globalization that the
status quo can be maintained. Things were changing, that was
inevitable. But only a fool simply goes out and starts wars because
the status quo isn't acceptable and they hope to mess things up and
pray to God that when things clear up they are better than before.
You are making an argument against using military force ever. That means
no ejection of Saddam from Kuwait, no Balkans bombings, no Panama
invasion, no Grenada invasion, no mucking around in Somalia chasing
around Adid.
No, I'm making an argument that you don't use military attacks just to
shake up the status quo.
I suppose that would be something like the Syrians blowing up a Lebanese
politician. The Americans, OTOH, have acted within the rules of war. And
they did deal with one of the implacable problems of the Middle East,
Saddam.
Post by Scott Erb
They have to be justified in terms of
tactics, strategy, an analysis of advantages and disadvantages,
consideration of possible unintended consequences, and concern for
having a just war. They have to be chosen with considerable debate and
careful attention to opposing views.
In other words, no use of force ever.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
That's not only a poorly developed strategy, but in almost all cases
it's not rational.
It is rational to use force to the point that the enemy believes you are
willing to do so. Those who fear to ever use force are more likely to
have it used against them. That's just history.
Right now, we're playing into their hands, and they realize that our
use of force isn't enough to stop them, and in fact, weakens us
immensely. We're playing into their hands with the current policy, and
endangering our future. I don't think you realize how vulnerable we are
in the medium to long term.
It's these assertions that require reading your posts a few years or
even a decade from now. Time will certainly show which of us is correct.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
Scott Erb
2006-01-16 02:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I guarantee I will apply the same ethical concerns to all sides. I'm
also disappointed that our tactics are not really geared to matching
the threat al qaeda and Islamic extremism presents.
I don't see how we disengage in the Pashto regions of Pakistan without
them getting the feeling they won and further creating an independent al
Qaeda fiefdom.
We can't eliminate them there, all we can do is bomb a few targets now
and then, and then watch something like this get used to inspire
anti-Americanism.
I think you irrationally discount the fact that al Qaeda has to keep its
head down because if they don't, we blow them to bits. That's got to
make operating more difficult.
They've been keeping their heads down for a long time, especially since
the attempt in the nineties to bomb Bin Laden. They did lose
Afghanistan as a major base of operations, protected by the Taliban. I
think you can say that the choice to go to war against the Taliban made
sense, though I think they needed to do more in the aftermath to assure
stability; things have been getting worse in Afghanistan lately.

They don't want to get caught; I don't think the kind of missile
attacks that kill innocents really make much of a difference in their
overall tactics. They don't want their location known period.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Since we can't win with these kinds of tactics, it's
clearly not enough to eliminate al qaeda, then is it right to be
killing innocents and giving terrorists propaganda coups?
Every time we drop bombs, they claim it was a wedding party or a bunch
of women and children innocently sunning themselves. There is a cost for
supporting al Qaeda and the people in the lawless regions of Pakistan
might see that. They might not but either way we must continue to target
every al Qaeda op we can.
But we don't do any damage. It's a tactic that is failing, and helping
the enemy.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
In short, it is
primarily a potential or latent threat, as their ability to act and
recruit has been minimal. 9-11 was a lucky shot, and one that homeland
security improvements have made difficult to repeat.
This is another one of those fundamental disagreements that you and I
have. I think that while 9/11 was pretty lucky for al Qaeda, repeating
something large isn't going to require a lot of luck. It rather amazes
me what one determined crazy person could do if he really wanted to. We
need to stop that from happening if we can. We shouldn't rely on a lot
of our own luck to stop the crazies.
Oh, there will be other attacks someday. But they can only do limited
damage at this point.
Eventually nuclear weapons will get lose and boom in a big city. Is that
something you can accept but not dropping a few bombs on terrorists?
The tactics we're using make it MORE likely that extremists will get a
nuclear capacity, it makes such attacks more probable. That's the
point. We aren't doing damage to the enemy, we're aiding them in a
way. Clearly, bombing a major city with a nuclear weapon would be
evil. But that doesn't mean it's effective or ethical to kill
innocents. After all, a nuke in DC could be rationalized as attacking
the core of America's government.

Another similarity is that a terrorist nuclear attack on a major city
in Europe or the US would unite the world against the terrorist
organization at a level not seen since before 2003 -- or even then. It
would be an evil tactic which would also be ineffective and harm their
own interests.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
But our policies I think increase their long
term threat because we really aren't weakening them, and certainly not
generating good will from the youth in the Muslim world.
I think that the main complaint in Iraq seems to be security. If the
Sunni get together and stop the support of the insurgency, Iraqis could
see a much more peaceful country. That means their main issue is dealt
with. I don't see how that doesn't mean they think more highly of
America over time.
Wow, you're engaged in hard core wishful thinking.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
You sound like people who argued in the 50s and 60s that we had to
support strong arm right-wing dictators around the world because if the
people got the right to vote, they'd vote in people who hate us.
Support would be too strong. We have to deal with authoritarians.
Democracy doesn't work everywhere all at once, that fact has been
absolutely proven in history.
All I'm saying is that you are using the argument that you so opposed
when you heard it in the 50s and 60s from the right.
Yikes, you must think I was a child prodigy. In 1969 I was nine years
old, and in fact in 1972 as a 12 year old my political activity in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota was to go door to door to canvas
for...President Nixon. Though, to be sure, it was Rustow and the
democrats that rationalized support for dictators due to modernization
theory. I don't think people should support dictators like Saddam who
are brutal; but I think its reasonable to have relations with
authoritarian regimes that seem on the right basic track to creating
conditions that could allow democratic development.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
The belief everyone wants a democracy
and it will work if only the dictators were removed is naive; democracy
is a very difficult system to build, and it requires a political
culture that accepts compromise and tolerance, and a lack of corruption
(rule of law rather than rule of powerful people).
I think the Haitian situation has proved that it is counterproductive
for the Americans (and other international peacekeeping forces) to leave
early. The people need to understand the fundamental fact of true
democracy, that it is better to accept an election loss and let the
other side run the government, to come back and try again next election,
than it is to use force to effect a coup.
Bill, military presence cannot do that. That's a lesson that's clear:
you can't force democracy on a system.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
We need a counter-terrorism policy. We need to recognize that killing
al qaeda members has minimal impact (and if we butcher children and
women in the effort, it probably wins them more support and recruits
than they lose in a month of successful hits) as the numbers we get are
few.
So you are going to just go back to the let al Qaeda rebuild philosophy
of the Clinton administration. That got us 9/11, Scott.
No, Clinton did not have effective counter-terrorism policy either.
But we have polar opposites going on here. I suppose you could argue for
a middle ground.
You see things in a bianary way, I don't think you can look at things
like this as "polar opposites;" also political conditions have changed,
the GOP wouldn't let Clinton get away with things that Bush now can do
due to the terrorist threat.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Of course, the Sunni insurgents aren't even Islamic extremists,
they just are fighting a sectarian battle into which we've been lured
it's a policy that doesn't seem likely to improve security, but instead
will help assure a larger threat down the line.
The way to mitigate threat is to build strong democracies which
represent the views of the people. Give them hope for a better future
and they will be less likely to act in obscene desperation.
One way to stop hunger in the world is give everybody food and the
ability to grow more. All problems can be solved by simply asserting a
solution. But if the solution isn't realistic, it's not really a
solution.
I think I've explained the actual policies I believe will bring about
the change I advocate.
Huh? HOW!?
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by S. D. Finch
Iraq is no where near "Democratic" and never will be.
At least not in the foreseeable future. The whole policy was doomed
from the start because experts on the Mideast were ignored, voices of
opposition in the CIA were pushed aside, and decision makers allowed
their illusions and wishful thinking about the ability of military
power to create desired political outcomes to lead policy.
We are really going to see whether or not your status quo is best views
are better than activist action. See, I think that those in the state
dept supporting the status quo (and others with similar views) are who
got us into the problems in the first place. If the US had not allowed
itself to be pushed around by terrorists and others, they would not have
even dreamed they could knock down the WTC and topple the West.
No one has ever thought it possible in an era of globalization that the
status quo can be maintained. Things were changing, that was
inevitable. But only a fool simply goes out and starts wars because
the status quo isn't acceptable and they hope to mess things up and
pray to God that when things clear up they are better than before.
You are making an argument against using military force ever. That means
no ejection of Saddam from Kuwait, no Balkans bombings, no Panama
invasion, no Grenada invasion, no mucking around in Somalia chasing
around Adid.
No, I'm making an argument that you don't use military attacks just to
shake up the status quo.
I suppose that would be something like the Syrians blowing up a Lebanese
politician. The Americans, OTOH, have acted within the rules of war. And
they did deal with one of the implacable problems of the Middle East,
Saddam.
Using military attacks to just shake up the status quo is not rational
whether or not one acts within the rules of war. And US action in Iraq
has made the situation in the Mideast less stable than before, and has
directly led to Iranian hardliners assuming full political power and
presenting a threat far far behind anything that the defanged Saddam
presented by 2003.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
They have to be justified in terms of
tactics, strategy, an analysis of advantages and disadvantages,
consideration of possible unintended consequences, and concern for
having a just war. They have to be chosen with considerable debate and
careful attention to opposing views.
In other words, no use of force ever.
What a radical statement: if one analyzes advantages, disadvantages,
possible consequences, concern for a just war, and determines best
tactics and stratey, then NO military action would ever be used?! The
only way to justify military action in your view would be to ignore
rational analysis and, what, just go from the gut?
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
That's not only a poorly developed strategy, but in almost all cases
it's not rational.
It is rational to use force to the point that the enemy believes you are
willing to do so. Those who fear to ever use force are more likely to
have it used against them. That's just history.
Right now, we're playing into their hands, and they realize that our
use of force isn't enough to stop them, and in fact, weakens us
immensely. We're playing into their hands with the current policy, and
endangering our future. I don't think you realize how vulnerable we are
in the medium to long term.
It's these assertions that require reading your posts a few years or
even a decade from now. Time will certainly show which of us is correct.
Looking at this from an historical perspective, the US appears to be a
great power that is in decline, not understanding the limits of its
military power in a globalizing world, and not paying attention to
economic and political vulnerabilities.

I realize I'm far more "isolationist" than you are, and that this is an
unpopular view in American foreign policy. I really believe that our
ideals are what make us great, and that cooperating with friends and
working to build an international consensus on human rights (and for
international intervention when atrocities take place). If we act that
way, not making ourselves enemies by trying to shape global affairs,
and believing that our ideals due to their superiority assure our
system will work, we'll remain powerful, prosperous and respected. I
truly believe we're going down a path that not only won't work, but is
dangerous to our future. We're a great Republic. But we'll fail as an
empire.
ThomJeff
2006-01-14 19:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Maybe you're right. Maybe 40% approval means nothing to Bush.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
That would be the other 60%, I suppose.
Post by Martin McPhillips
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them,
If you send a missile into a civilian neighborhood, you've got to
be very sure that you get the target (and that the target was
very big), otherwise the "lesson" learned will be used against us.

Of course, you don't see this. Your blind obeyance to this
administration is well shown. You've shown--and continue to
show--absolutely no concern for civilian deaths.
Post by Martin McPhillips
and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
So that's what we're spending a half a trillion dollars on?
That's what we've spent over 2,000 lives on? That's
why we've now 30,000 injured (many seriously) soldiers?
That's why we've killed 30,000+ Iraqi civilians?

That's why we've uprooted the lives of 45-year-old
accountant NG members for multiple tours?

So that Iraq can vote for a government which more than
likely will be allied with Iran within the decade?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Your obsession with Erb is bizarre, and you can't seem to
manage a SINGLE retort without at least one ad hominem.

What a strange duck.

Thom
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 20:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White
House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for
the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Maybe you're right. Maybe 40% approval means nothing to
Bush.
I'm sure that 40% approval means precisely, to
him, that he has an approval of 40%. That is
not an unusually low number, particularly during
a war when the enemy has reliable supporters
among the party of the "loyal" opposition.

Harry Truman tanked at around 25% during the
Korean War. Now he has a ranking as a near-
great President, and he was.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
That would be the other 60%, I suppose.
No, the Democrats and their nutjob base
amount to far less than 60%.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them,
If you send a missile into a civilian neighborhood, you've
got to
be very sure that you get the target (and that the target
was
very big), otherwise the "lesson" learned will be used
against us.
Of course, you don't see this. Your blind obeyance to this
administration is well shown. You've shown--and continue
to
show--absolutely no concern for civilian deaths.
You're a liar, of course. I don't have
any of the details of what the CIA knew or
didn't know about the village in question.

If they were wrong, that's regretable and
tragic, and the people harmed should be
compensated. But I have a very strong
suspicion that the CIA didn't simply
overhear a rumor in a men's room
somewhere in Pakistan, stick a pin in
a map, and go blow the hell out of
a house. Nor do I believe that it is
probable that the location that was
struck was innocent, although it is
possible. I certainly don't give the
benefit of the doubt to first news
reports or local officials who would
likely be on the take from terrorists.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
So that's what we're spending a half a trillion dollars
on?
That's what we've spent over 2,000 lives on? That's
why we've now 30,000 injured (many seriously) soldiers?
That's why we've killed 30,000+ Iraqi civilians?
That's why we've uprooted the lives of 45-year-old
accountant NG members for multiple tours?
So that Iraq can vote for a government which more than
likely will be allied with Iran within the decade?
Your capacity for gobbling down the propaganda
is great. An Iraqi government dominated by
Iraqi Shi'a does not equal an alliance with
the government of Iran.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Your obsession with Erb is bizarre, and you can't seem to
manage a SINGLE retort without at least one ad hominem.
Erb is a convenient and reliable vessel of
Leftist propaganda, a semi-official liar
for the Left, and a bucket of golf balls
at the driving range.
Post by ThomJeff
What a strange duck.
If you weren't so stupid, perhaps I would pay
more attention to you, but your underlying
condition is not likely to change.
ThomJeff
2006-01-14 21:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White
House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for
the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Maybe you're right. Maybe 40% approval means nothing to
Bush.
I'm sure that 40% approval means precisely, to
him, that he has an approval of 40%. That is
not an unusually low number, particularly during
a war when the enemy has reliable supporters
among the party of the "loyal" opposition.
So, point taken. You believe that 40% approval in fact
means nothing to Bush. The daily speeches and photo-ops
are mere coincidence.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Harry Truman tanked at around 25% during the
Korean War. Now he has a ranking as a near-
great President, and he was.
Agreed. Though at least part of the root of Truman's lack of popularity
is almost the exact opposite of Bush's.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
That would be the other 60%, I suppose.
No, the Democrats and their nutjob base
amount to far less than 60%.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them,
If you send a missile into a civilian neighborhood, you've
got to
be very sure that you get the target (and that the target
was
very big), otherwise the "lesson" learned will be used
against us.
Of course, you don't see this. Your blind obeyance to this
administration is well shown. You've shown--and continue
to
show--absolutely no concern for civilian deaths.
You're a liar, of course.
How so? When have you shown concern for the thousands
of innocents killed in Iraq?

Even below, you state the victims should be "compensated"
(how do you compensate the dead children?), though I doubt
you would ever be convinced that they weren't guilty of
"something" (as in: "Nor do I believe that it is probable that
the location that was struck was innocent"). After all, only
Clinton's CIA, ATF or military could possibly screw something
up so fundamentally, right?
Post by Martin McPhillips
I don't have
any of the details of what the CIA knew or
didn't know about the village in question.
If they were wrong, that's regretable and
tragic, and the people harmed should be
compensated. But I have a very strong
suspicion that the CIA didn't simply
overhear a rumor in a men's room
somewhere in Pakistan, stick a pin in
a map, and go blow the hell out of
a house. Nor do I believe that it is
probable that the location that was
struck was innocent, although it is
possible. I certainly don't give the
benefit of the doubt to first news
reports or local officials who would
likely be on the take from terrorists.
This is not the first such failed attack.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
and no lesson for himself
from 11 million Iraqis voting in a free
democratic election under a new constitution.
So that's what we're spending a half a trillion dollars
on?
That's what we've spent over 2,000 lives on? That's
why we've now 30,000 injured (many seriously) soldiers?
That's why we've killed 30,000+ Iraqi civilians?
That's why we've uprooted the lives of 45-year-old
accountant NG members for multiple tours?
So that Iraq can vote for a government which more than
likely will be allied with Iran within the decade?
Your capacity for gobbling down the propaganda
is great.
Where do you get your information? Because you get your
information from this administration's news-feed machine
and venues with (what I consider) ironic names:

Reason Magazine
"Fair and Balanced" Fox

does not make your information more sacrosanct, nor less
worthy of the "propaganda" label.
Post by Martin McPhillips
An Iraqi government dominated by
Iraqi Shi'a does not equal an alliance with
the government of Iran.
True, yet what makes you think that the future government
will be more likely to be aligned with the US (or our interests)
than with Iran?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Reality is biting you right in your horse
face, Scott.
Your obsession with Erb is bizarre, and you can't seem to
manage a SINGLE retort without at least one ad hominem.
Erb is a convenient and reliable vessel of
Leftist propaganda, a semi-official liar
for the Left, and a bucket of golf balls
at the driving range.
Yet you rarely (if ever) engage in honest discussion, simply
throwing out idiotic right-wing platitudes:

• Scott sees every car bombing in Iraq as the fault of the U.S.

• he sees every U.S. airstrike on a terrorist hideout as "an act of evil."

• There's no more consistent spokesman for *any* enemy of the U.S. than
Scott Erb.

Actually, these were your first 3 sentences in your original response,
all of them absurd or ridiculously hyperbolic *at best*.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
What a strange duck.
If you weren't so stupid, perhaps I would pay
more attention to you,
You mean, like you "pay attention" to Erb?
Post by Martin McPhillips
but your underlying
condition is not likely to change.
Now, scurry back to nipping at Erb's heels and attempting
to pee on his shoes. It's what you do--er--"best."

What a sad pathetic existence you appear to lead. But then again,
how would I know, through my fog of my inchoate wit?

Thom
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 21:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White
House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for
the past year.
Scott thinks that what has become everyday partisan
politics is teaching the White House a lesson.
Maybe you're right. Maybe 40% approval means nothing to
Bush.
I'm sure that 40% approval means precisely, to
him, that he has an approval of 40%. That is
not an unusually low number, particularly during
a war when the enemy has reliable supporters
among the party of the "loyal" opposition.
So, point taken. You believe that 40% approval in fact
means nothing to Bush. The daily speeches and photo-ops
are mere coincidence.
No, dumb bunny, that's not what I said or
implied. I think Bush knows very well that
there is a degree of war weariness, but that
it is not an uncommon thing, particularly
when the "loyal" opposition has politicized
a war that they supported. But that is also
the reason why Democrats were assured defeat
in the 2004 presidential election, as their
war supporting candidate got Deanified and
had to cater to the party nutjob base in order
to win the nomination. Unfortunately, the party
base was energized by antiwar propaganda
generated by ANSWER and other organizations
which are uniformly anti-American. Voters
obviously didn't like that as it became
reflected in Kerry's confused campaign
and in his rhetoric.

Once Dean brought that idiocy into the
nomination process, Kerry, or anyone
else who was going to be nominated instead
of Dean, was finished.

So, in the approval poll that counts, George
Bush was re-elected president.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Harry Truman tanked at around 25% during the
Korean War. Now he has a ranking as a near-
great President, and he was.
Agreed. Though at least part of the root of Truman's lack
of popularity
is almost the exact opposite of Bush's.
Truman's lack of popularity was directly
related to the Korean War, which was
grinding on in stalemate mode.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
Indeed, the lesson that the White House has learned
is that the Democrats and their nutjob base
hate the United States.
That would be the other 60%, I suppose.
No, the Democrats and their nutjob base
amount to far less than 60%.
Post by ThomJeff
Post by Martin McPhillips
But Scott sees no lesson for terrorists in
acting against them,
If you send a missile into a civilian neighborhood,
you've got to
be very sure that you get the target (and that the
target was
very big), otherwise the "lesson" learned will be used
against us.
Of course, you don't see this. Your blind obeyance to
this
administration is well shown. You've shown--and continue
to
show--absolutely no concern for civilian deaths.
You're a liar, of course.
How so? When have you shown concern for the thousands
of innocents killed in Iraq?
It's not my purpose to "show concern".

I understand the tragedy of war.
Post by ThomJeff
Even below, you state the victims should be "compensated"
(how do you compensate the dead children?)
By making sure that their brothers and sisters
live in a reasonably modern and reasonably
free society where their parents can't be
murdered in the street for joining the police
or voting, and where they certainly can't
be rounded up and tortured for running into
Uday Hussein on a day when he got out of
the wrong side of bed.
Post by ThomJeff
, though I doubt
you would ever be convinced that they weren't guilty of
"something" (as in: "Nor do I believe that it is probable
that
the location that was struck was innocent"). After all,
only
Clinton's CIA, ATF or military could possibly screw
something
up so fundamentally, right?
You should trade in the sump pump and get
yourself a mind, you'll find it so much
more ready to do thinking.
nevermore
2006-01-14 19:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
oh yeah, and Erb declared that Gore was going to win, too.
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
ThomJeff
2006-01-14 20:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by nevermore
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
oh yeah, and Erb declared that Gore was going to win, too.
Yeah, woah. He was WAY OFF on that one, eh?
nevermore
2006-01-14 21:47:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:04:40 -0500, ThomJeff
Post by ThomJeff
Post by nevermore
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
oh yeah, and Erb declared that Gore was going to win, too.
Yeah, woah. He was WAY OFF on that one, eh?
Miles and miles

--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-14 20:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Jan 2006 10:10:56 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow
(the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms"
to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
The public response will be what it always is
when Gore goes off on these insane rants:
Thank God he isn't president.
John D.
2006-01-14 21:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 10:10:56 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow
(the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms"
to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
The public response will be what it always is
Thank God he isn't president.
You've got that right. I can hear him now demanding that congress pass
legislation to bring fruits and vegetables under government control as a
controlled substance. Have a look:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 01:02:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:51:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Martin McPhillips
On 14 Jan 2006 10:10:56 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow
(the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms"
to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
The public response will be what it always is
Thank God he isn't president.
And yet this "insane rant" seems to be getting quite a big of
attention.

Quake in your boots, little falangist.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
nevermore
2006-01-15 01:46:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:02:47 -0800, 2211 Dead
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:51:48 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Martin McPhillips
On 14 Jan 2006 10:10:56 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
On 14 Jan 2006 08:31:34 -0800, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House
need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality
bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the
past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow
(the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms"
to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
The public response will be what it always is
Thank God he isn't president.
And yet this "insane rant" seems to be getting quite a big of
attention.
<LOL> The moron Zepp thinks that because a few far left liberal
bloggers are talking about it, it "be getting quite a big of
attention."
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Quake in your boots, little falangist.
Why? Is Zepp going to fart? With the size of Zepp's ass, that might
reverberate all the way to Canada.

--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-14 22:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
One can only imagine what the reaction from the public will be if Gore
succeeds in ending blanket surveillance of phone calls which have a leg
outside the US, and the terrorists manage another major 9/11 or worse
attack here. Will that just be the end of the Democrat party?
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 01:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
One can only imagine what the reaction from the public will be if Gore
succeeds in ending blanket surveillance of phone calls which have a leg
outside the US, and the terrorists manage another major 9/11 or worse
attack here. Will that just be the end of the Democrat party?
Sometimes I get the impression that some on the right almost hope a
major terrorist attack comes so they can blame the Democrats! It's as
if they see the political winds shifting to the left, and think 'maybe
if a terrorist attack messes up the status quo we'll come back out on
top." ;-)

BUT, I do know that you don't want a major terrorist attack any more
than those who oppose the war want to see successful insurgent attacks
-- I realize you're giving a 'what if' analysis.

I think, though, if a major attack takes place most will conclude that
Bush has been ineffective. And if Iraq remains a mess, then attempts
to "blame the Democrats" (when the GOP controls the House, Senate and
White House!) will fail. Instead, people will look to see which
PERSON (not party) in 2008 seems more credible to find a new path. I
suspect, though its too early to tell for sure, that the corruption
scandals brewing will have the largest impact on who will control
Congress.
-Scott
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-15 02:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
One can only imagine what the reaction from the public will be if Gore
succeeds in ending blanket surveillance of phone calls which have a leg
outside the US, and the terrorists manage another major 9/11 or worse
attack here. Will that just be the end of the Democrat party?
Sometimes I get the impression that some on the right almost hope a
major terrorist attack comes so they can blame the Democrats!
If the Democrats take away the means by which the government can prevent
the attack, won't they get the blame no matter whether I try to affix it
on them or not?
Post by Scott Erb
It's as
if they see the political winds shifting to the left, and think 'maybe
if a terrorist attack messes up the status quo we'll come back out on
top." ;-)
Political winds shifting to the left? In what way? The new wind blows
for letting the terrorists do what they want?
Post by Scott Erb
BUT, I do know that you don't want a major terrorist attack any more
than those who oppose the war want to see successful insurgent attacks
-- I realize you're giving a 'what if' analysis.
I'm supporting actions that I believe reduce the likelihood of a future
successful attack. I think if there is such an attack that the demands
by the people to clamp down will be far greater at limiting liberty than
monitoring a few offshore phone chats.
Post by Scott Erb
I think, though, if a major attack takes place most will conclude that
Bush has been ineffective.
But what would be effective? I think they will conclude that is more
restrictions and civil liberties. We saw it after 9/11. I don't know why
you people refuse to learn.
Post by Scott Erb
And if Iraq remains a mess, then attempts
to "blame the Democrats" (when the GOP controls the House, Senate and
White House!) will fail. Instead, people will look to see which
PERSON (not party) in 2008 seems more credible to find a new path. I
suspect, though its too early to tell for sure, that the corruption
scandals brewing will have the largest impact on who will control
Congress.
The Republicans have a systemic advantage in the senate and the
presidency. They also seem to do well in the house. Even if you replace
some Republicans who manage to get in trouble under ridiculous
anti-lobbying laws, more will simply be elected.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 03:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
One can only imagine what the reaction from the public will be if Gore
succeeds in ending blanket surveillance of phone calls which have a leg
outside the US, and the terrorists manage another major 9/11 or worse
attack here. Will that just be the end of the Democrat party?
Sometimes I get the impression that some on the right almost hope a
major terrorist attack comes so they can blame the Democrats!
If the Democrats take away the means by which the government can prevent
the attack, won't they get the blame no matter whether I try to affix it
on them or not?
How can the Democrats do that without winning Congress in 2006? The
Courts might do that, or a mix of Democrats and Republicans. But the
GOP controls everything at this time.

In any event, I consider it a legal question, not a political one.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
It's as
if they see the political winds shifting to the left, and think 'maybe
if a terrorist attack messes up the status quo we'll come back out on
top." ;-)
Political winds shifting to the left? In what way? The new wind blows
for letting the terrorists do what they want?
Polls show extremely strong support for Democrats on issues and in
terms of Congress, and the low Bush polls suggest GOP danger in an off
year. 2008 should be interesting.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
BUT, I do know that you don't want a major terrorist attack any more
than those who oppose the war want to see successful insurgent attacks
-- I realize you're giving a 'what if' analysis.
I'm supporting actions that I believe reduce the likelihood of a future
successful attack. I think if there is such an attack that the demands
by the people to clamp down will be far greater at limiting liberty than
monitoring a few offshore phone chats.
Everyone wants to reduce the chances of a future attack, but of course
there is always a balance between safety and risk. Car accidents
certainly kill far more per year than terrorist attacks are likely to
achieve, even if they do get a major attack in. If we wanted to reduce
the threat of auto accidents, we could drop speed limits, strictly
enforce laws, and clamp down. The cost in freedom and economic
activity would be high. The balance for terrorism is that we shouldn't
sacrifice what we are as a people; we shouldn't give in to fear. We
should take seriously the Franklin quote "He who would sacrifice
freedom for security deserves neither."
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I think, though, if a major attack takes place most will conclude that
Bush has been ineffective.
But what would be effective? I think they will conclude that is more
restrictions and civil liberties. We saw it after 9/11. I don't know why
you people refuse to learn.
I think you're letting wishful thinking get in the way.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
And if Iraq remains a mess, then attempts
to "blame the Democrats" (when the GOP controls the House, Senate and
White House!) will fail. Instead, people will look to see which
PERSON (not party) in 2008 seems more credible to find a new path. I
suspect, though its too early to tell for sure, that the corruption
scandals brewing will have the largest impact on who will control
Congress.
The Republicans have a systemic advantage in the senate and the
presidency. They also seem to do well in the house. Even if you replace
some Republicans who manage to get in trouble under ridiculous
anti-lobbying laws, more will simply be elected.
Well, you're certainly optimistic. But unless Iraq improves, I think
change is inevitable.
World"
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-15 04:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
That vicious, cowardly little bastard in the White House need to go to
prison.
At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year.
I'll be very curious to see what Gore has to say tomorrow (the speech,
at Constitution Hall, is being billed as "a call to arms" to fight for
the Constitution) and what public response is.
One can only imagine what the reaction from the public will be if Gore
succeeds in ending blanket surveillance of phone calls which have a leg
outside the US, and the terrorists manage another major 9/11 or worse
attack here. Will that just be the end of the Democrat party?
Sometimes I get the impression that some on the right almost hope a
major terrorist attack comes so they can blame the Democrats!
If the Democrats take away the means by which the government can prevent
the attack, won't they get the blame no matter whether I try to affix it
on them or not?
How can the Democrats do that without winning Congress in 2006? The
By demanding that Bush not use the broad wiretapping of the phone system
with one leg outside the US. By pressuring Bush to close down Gitmo Bay.
There's a lot that the Democrats can try.
Post by Scott Erb
Courts might do that, or a mix of Democrats and Republicans. But the
GOP controls everything at this time.
They don't have cloture in the senate.
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, I consider it a legal question, not a political one.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
It's as
if they see the political winds shifting to the left, and think 'maybe
if a terrorist attack messes up the status quo we'll come back out on
top." ;-)
Political winds shifting to the left? In what way? The new wind blows
for letting the terrorists do what they want?
Polls show extremely strong support for Democrats on issues and in
terms of Congress, and the low Bush polls suggest GOP danger in an off
year. 2008 should be interesting.
Polls are way too early to matter.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
BUT, I do know that you don't want a major terrorist attack any more
than those who oppose the war want to see successful insurgent attacks
-- I realize you're giving a 'what if' analysis.
I'm supporting actions that I believe reduce the likelihood of a future
successful attack. I think if there is such an attack that the demands
by the people to clamp down will be far greater at limiting liberty than
monitoring a few offshore phone chats.
Everyone wants to reduce the chances of a future attack, but of course
there is always a balance between safety and risk. Car accidents
certainly kill far more per year than terrorist attacks are likely to
achieve, even if they do get a major attack in.
I think you know that people have discounted the 40,000 dead Americans
from car smashes and therefore they don't really rise above a ripple on
the pond.
Post by Scott Erb
If we wanted to reduce
the threat of auto accidents, we could drop speed limits, strictly
enforce laws, and clamp down. The cost in freedom and economic
activity would be high. The balance for terrorism is that we shouldn't
sacrifice what we are as a people; we shouldn't give in to fear. We
should take seriously the Franklin quote "He who would sacrifice
freedom for security deserves neither."
But what does that mean? Every time someone says we should concentrate
our efforts on people likely to be the terrorists, we are told by
Democrats that's racist "profiling". And then when everyone is looked
at, as in the broad wiretapping with a leg outside the US, that's wrong
too for some reason. Make up your minds!
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
I think, though, if a major attack takes place most will conclude that
Bush has been ineffective.
But what would be effective? I think they will conclude that is more
restrictions and civil liberties. We saw it after 9/11. I don't know why
you people refuse to learn.
I think you're letting wishful thinking get in the way.
Wishful thinking? I don't want a clamp down on civil liberties. I'm
trying to avoid that.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
And if Iraq remains a mess, then attempts
to "blame the Democrats" (when the GOP controls the House, Senate and
White House!) will fail. Instead, people will look to see which
PERSON (not party) in 2008 seems more credible to find a new path. I
suspect, though its too early to tell for sure, that the corruption
scandals brewing will have the largest impact on who will control
Congress.
The Republicans have a systemic advantage in the senate and the
presidency. They also seem to do well in the house. Even if you replace
some Republicans who manage to get in trouble under ridiculous
anti-lobbying laws, more will simply be elected.
Well, you're certainly optimistic. But unless Iraq improves, I think
change is inevitable.
As usual, the enemy sees that all he has to do is hold out to the next
election and the Democrats will give in.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
JH McCloskey
2006-01-15 03:43:51 UTC
Permalink
"At least the public is starting to wake up. Reality bites, and the
White House has been starting to learn that lesson for the past year. "

==

Nothing is dreamier, I'm afraid, than this sort imagining that now,
at last, the American public is finally "starting to wake up." At
least when we're only talking about our foreign and invasion policy.
Where's the bite? Iraq is only a TV show, Afghanistan is flushed down
the memory hole, and the curious incident that you yourself started
this thread with is utterly off the scope of practically everybody.

There's a sort of allegorical appropriateness in it, though, if you
remember that General Musharraf was among the foreign heads of state
that the GOP's Little Brother couldn't name when that rude reporter
gave the lad an unannounced quiz on the air back in 2000.

I suppose that now that The Boy can and does bomb the guy's country
he has probably had to learn the guy's name. Which makes Dubya one
American in a thousand, probably. Where's the bite, sir? Where's the
"reality"? "America bombs Pakistan/Collateral Damage Happens" isn't
bite, it isn't "reality," and even as a TV show it's very sad stuff.

After writing that, I just looked at your Yahoo link expecting
mangled limbs or at least some plausibly atrocious-lookin' atrocity,
somethin' that might maybe make the least indecent registered
Republican in three hundred pause and reflect for ten seconds. Instead
there's only this guy holding up one page of a damaged book. Even
setting aside that misspelled and mismoralized caption about "alegedly
damaged by....," it's only the page of an accidentally bombed book --
for everybody but a Muslim religionizer. The photo is attributed to
AP, but I suspect they got it from some indig source in Pakistan, or
maybe from or via al-Jazeera..

That image hollers "This must stop!" much louder than you do, sir,
but the people behind such an image will have a very different idea
from yours and mine about exactly what "this" is involved. That image
potentially hollers "THIS is how bad America hates Islam." Of course
if America had ever begun to hate Islam, you and I would be the first
to suggest that we Heirs of Enlightenment probably ought to knock our
hatred habits off with our other superstitons, but fortunately we have
not, by and large, even started hatin' in Islam's case.

The fun image being nothing to his purpose, poor Mr. McCloskey was
reduced to reading the tedious prose to see exactly what "this" Dr. Erb
wants stopped. (Or anyway, he would have been reduced, if he didn't
know about the incident independently already and hadn't reached more
or less Erbian conclusions on his own.

But let Erb himself judge my Erbanity: The first thing that crossed
_my_ mind was that it must be very miserable indeed to be a Little
Foreign Friend of the GOP yoked to the Rancho Crawford chariot -- the
Chariot of Total Victory Over Global Terrorism, or that was the
agitprop last month anyway -- as a "coalition" pardner who has to let
his own _Heimatland_ be bombed in order to save it. (Plus then the
rescue mission misfires.)

Being sorry for the likes of a rightist OnePercenter thug like
General Musharraf is not very easy or very congenial, but he's what Old
Euros would call a "Head of State," after all, no matter whether Little
Brother remembers his name or not, and I'm a statist and an Old Euro
fan -- and what's to become of any cause if all the comrades have to be
completely impeccable before we humble will support them? In the case
of Musharraf v. Bush -- perhaps equally shameless and opportunistic
rightist OnePercenters in their own domestic contexts -- I
instinctively sided with General Musharraf, because allowing some
particular Little Brother to bomb anywhere he likes anytime he likes
for the good of his alleged coalition pardners is "The Death of the
State."

Or maybe the I should call it "The Rape of Westphalia"? In either
case, please try to think of some vast Washington-Allston-like
allegorical pre-photographic canvas about as far removed from that AP
photo as possible.

And there's one mordant problem, sir. Our incumbent GOP geniuses are
not intrinsically bad guys, they aren't deliberately trying to murder
the State and ravish Ms. Sovereignty and re-install Mongol Dynasty
Family Values from Century XIII, but in practice and judgin' 'em by
their actual fruits, one might think all those allegorical-painting bad
things plausibly enough.

To sing "The cause of Gen. Musharraf is the cause of us all" would be
very silly indeed, but to suppose the statism of Pakistan should be the
common cause of all states makes sense to me.

Thus Mr. McCloskey knee-jerk reacted on the occasion of Dr. Erb's
"This has to stop."

My response was all very Harvard, all intellectual OnePercenter
words, no visuals need apply, except Harvard's pet painter who could
never finish his damn wannabe-masterpiece.

Dr. Erb and Mr. McCloskey both automatically think of a THIS THAT WE
DO UNTO THEM whenever we thing of a "this" that needs to be
expostulated about. But that's an utterly elitist and upper-class
arrogance, as it seems to me. There's no real "bite" or "reality" in
it that most folks can notice. Most wombschooled and downdumbed
neo-folks in America have delegated "bite" and "reality" up to their
GOP Little Brother and to their EIB Dr. Limbaugh. Neo-folks don't want
to worry about helping to steer America through the tricky shoals,
neo-folks can simply just assume we've all arrived already.

_Pereant omnes_ is what anybody adult and statist is bound to wish
about bein' encumbered upstart juvenile wingnut helpers like these, but
there we are: GOP Hyper- or Post-statism has only "creative
destruction", but look what "creative destruction" can do when it bombs
Pakistan and damages somebody's Quran!

Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison!

God knows best. Bomby days.
--JHM
Amadeus Unterhosen
2006-01-14 19:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Did you complain about what happened at Waco? Did you hear about what
happened there?
Foxtrot
2006-01-14 20:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?

You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
ThomJeff
2006-01-14 21:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
Nah, they weren't hiding. They know that Bush has no problem
killing innocent women and children. Apparently, they weren't there.

But, hey! No big deal right? We're "at war," so these types of sorts
of things happen. If your family was bombed you'd understand
just as well, right?

Or...perhaps you'd seek revenge?
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
Have you guys now officially changed the name from "collateral damage"
to "hiding behind" now?

It's hard to keep up.

Thom
Scott Erb
2006-01-14 22:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
So you rationalize our killing of innocents that way? Yet I don't
believe most of the strikes that kill civilians were really hitting
people being hidden behind.

In any event, things like this hurt us in real terms. It makes people
angry at the US, decreases the chances people will cooperate, and harms
us in many ways.
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
We're invading places and bombing homes. Perhaps we should recognize
that as invaders, we have to take some moral responsiblity for our
actions. You are the one hiding behind the skirts of civilians,
pretending that we can wash our hands of any moral concerns about what
we do and just blame the other side. How convenient.
Foxtrot
2006-01-15 00:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
So you rationalize our killing of innocents that way? Yet I don't
believe most of the strikes that kill civilians were really hitting
people being hidden behind.
Of course they are. They attack American forces then they go
home and surround themselves with women and children. They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, things like this hurt us in real terms. It makes people
angry at the US, decreases the chances people will cooperate, and harms
us in many ways.
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
We're invading places and bombing homes. Perhaps we should recognize
that as invaders, we have to take some moral responsiblity for our
actions. You are the one hiding behind the skirts of civilians,
pretending that we can wash our hands of any moral concerns about what
we do and just blame the other side. How convenient.
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period. The fact that they're
hiding behind women and children when they attack you doesn't
change your self-defense into an invasion.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 01:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
So you rationalize our killing of innocents that way? Yet I don't
believe most of the strikes that kill civilians were really hitting
people being hidden behind.
Of course they are. They attack American forces then they go
home and surround themselves with women and children. They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
So what is the US doing in their community?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, things like this hurt us in real terms. It makes people
angry at the US, decreases the chances people will cooperate, and harms
us in many ways.
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
We're invading places and bombing homes. Perhaps we should recognize
that as invaders, we have to take some moral responsiblity for our
actions. You are the one hiding behind the skirts of civilians,
pretending that we can wash our hands of any moral concerns about what
we do and just blame the other side. How convenient.
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period. The fact that they're
hiding behind women and children when they attack you doesn't
change your self-defense into an invasion.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 02:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
So you rationalize our killing of innocents that way? Yet I don't
believe most of the strikes that kill civilians were really hitting
people being hidden behind.
Of course they are. They attack American forces then they go
home and surround themselves with women and children.
Insurgents probably don't live in barracks since by its nature an
insurgency is embedded in the society. They live with their families.
The point is we're killing a lot of innocent people, and its not clear
if the people really are living with insurgents or not -- evidence
suggests a lot of mistakes are made. Plus, of course, things like this
do more to help recruit more insurgents than are killed in such
bombings. Its tactically a winning, if also immoral strategy.
Post by Foxtrot
They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
Yeah, that's how insurgencies operate. And they know that if we kill
innocents, that will just generate more support for them.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, things like this hurt us in real terms. It makes people
angry at the US, decreases the chances people will cooperate, and harms
us in many ways.
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Most people are reacting to the death of innocents, and often don't
believe that we were targetting insurgents. In any event, it's a
losing tactic in a "war" already lost.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
We're invading places and bombing homes. Perhaps we should recognize
that as invaders, we have to take some moral responsiblity for our
actions. You are the one hiding behind the skirts of civilians,
pretending that we can wash our hands of any moral concerns about what
we do and just blame the other side. How convenient.
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period.
So if the Soviets had invaded us back in the 80's a la "Red Dawn," and
we shot them and fought them in an insurgency after our government
folded, then it would be self-defense on their part and they'd be
justified.
Post by Foxtrot
The fact that they're
hiding behind women and children when they attack you doesn't
change your self-defense into an invasion.
We invaded -- it's not our country, neither Iraq nor Pakistan nor
Afghanistan. Now, perhaps one can justify the invasions, and even the
methods. But it is moral cowardness to simply pretend there isn't a
problem, that this isn't a troubling issue, and that killing of
innocent children is OK. It's also tactically stupid, because this
kind of thing is an insurgent's delight. They love when this stuff
happens, they revel in it, get all over the press in the Islamic world,
and expand recruitment, and further assure our failure.
Amadeus Unterhosen
2006-01-15 03:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Maybe the insurgents shouldn't attack American forces then hide
behind those innocent women and children, eh Erb?
So you rationalize our killing of innocents that way? Yet I don't
believe most of the strikes that kill civilians were really hitting
people being hidden behind.
Of course they are. They attack American forces then they go
home and surround themselves with women and children.
Insurgents probably don't live in barracks since by its nature an
insurgency is embedded in the society. They live with their families.
The point is we're killing a lot of innocent people, and its not clear
if the people really are living with insurgents or not -- evidence
suggests a lot of mistakes are made. Plus, of course, things like this
do more to help recruit more insurgents than are killed in such
bombings. Its tactically a winning, if also immoral strategy.
Post by Foxtrot
They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
Yeah, that's how insurgencies operate. And they know that if we kill
innocents, that will just generate more support for them.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
In any event, things like this hurt us in real terms. It makes people
angry at the US, decreases the chances people will cooperate, and harms
us in many ways.
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Most people are reacting to the death of innocents, and often don't
believe that we were targetting insurgents. In any event, it's a
losing tactic in a "war" already lost.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
You libs think it's our fault if we defend ourselves from dirtbags
who try to kill us then hide behind their own women and children,
don't you? Be honest.
We're invading places and bombing homes. Perhaps we should recognize
that as invaders, we have to take some moral responsiblity for our
actions. You are the one hiding behind the skirts of civilians,
pretending that we can wash our hands of any moral concerns about what
we do and just blame the other side. How convenient.
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period.
So if the Soviets had invaded us back in the 80's a la "Red Dawn," and
we shot them and fought them in an insurgency after our government
folded, then it would be self-defense on their part and they'd be
justified.
Post by Foxtrot
The fact that they're
hiding behind women and children when they attack you doesn't
change your self-defense into an invasion.
We invaded -- it's not our country, neither Iraq nor Pakistan nor
Afghanistan. Now, perhaps one can justify the invasions, and even the
methods. But it is moral cowardness to simply pretend there isn't a
problem, that this isn't a troubling issue, and that killing of
innocent children is OK. It's also tactically stupid, because this
kind of thing is an insurgent's delight. They love when this stuff
happens, they revel in it, get all over the press in the Islamic world,
and expand recruitment, and further assure our failure.
There is a problem. It is Islamic terrorism. It must be destroyed or
it will destroy us.
Foxtrot
2006-01-15 05:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
Yeah, that's how insurgencies operate. And they know that if we kill
innocents, that will just generate more support for them.
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Most people are reacting to the death of innocents, and often don't
believe that we were targetting insurgents. In any event, it's a
losing tactic in a "war" already lost.
Already lost?!? It has been already WON. The terrorist-friendly
Ba'athist regime is gone, and whatever government takes over
will not have the weaponry to be a threat to us. This is where I
disagree with Bush--time to declare victory and (mostly) get out.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period.
So if the Soviets had invaded us back in the 80's a la "Red Dawn," and
we shot them and fought them in an insurgency after our government
folded, then it would be self-defense on their part and they'd be
justified.
I like to think that our culture would be above disposing of our
fellow lives just to make political points.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 06:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
They
wear the same type of clothes as the non-combatants in their
community. Unlike our troops, who wear uniforms and don't have
their families along with them.
Yeah, that's how insurgencies operate. And they know that if we kill
innocents, that will just generate more support for them.
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Scott, I don't think Fauxy is capable of seeing Pakistani villagers as
being human, and he certainly cannot understand that they have the
same ties and emotional responses that Americans have.

I suspect that if a bomb went off, killing some of his friends and
neighbors, and it turned out the bomb was sent by Turks hoping to bag
some Kurds, I doubt he would consider his response to be "a form of
his religion".
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Non-issue. Anybody who sides with dirtbags who engage in
combat then hide behind innocent women and children will never
give us a fair judgment anyway.
Most people are reacting to the death of innocents, and often don't
believe that we were targetting insurgents. In any event, it's a
losing tactic in a "war" already lost.
Already lost?!? It has been already WON. The terrorist-friendly
Ba'athist regime is gone, and whatever government takes over
will not have the weaponry to be a threat to us. This is where I
disagree with Bush--time to declare victory and (mostly) get out.
Faux, you do understand the attack was in Pakistan, right? Not Iraq.

Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, and, vile as the Musharraf regime
is, it's better than having a rabidly theocratic regime take over
Pakistan and it's nuclear supply.

I think yesterday's fuck up has virtually ensured that this is exactly
what will happen.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Such left wing lunacy. It's self defense when you shoot back at
people who are shooting at you. Period.
So if the Soviets had invaded us back in the 80's a la "Red Dawn," and
we shot them and fought them in an insurgency after our government
folded, then it would be self-defense on their part and they'd be
justified.
I like to think that our culture would be above disposing of our
fellow lives just to make political points.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2006-01-15 06:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Scott, I don't think Fauxy is capable of seeing Pakistani villagers as
being human, and he certainly cannot understand that they have the
same ties and emotional responses that Americans have.
And I don't think that you understood my point that not all Muslims
see women and children as disposable props. I specifically noted
that *radical* Muslims were the intended audience, but you were
too obtuse to get it.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
Already lost?!? It has been already WON. The terrorist-friendly
Ba'athist regime is gone, and whatever government takes over
will not have the weaponry to be a threat to us. This is where I
disagree with Bush--time to declare victory and (mostly) get out.
Faux, you do understand the attack was in Pakistan, right? Not Iraq.
Of course.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, and, vile as the Musharraf regime
is, it's better than having a rabidly theocratic regime take over
Pakistan and it's nuclear supply.
I think yesterday's fuck up has virtually ensured that this is exactly
what will happen.
You think that the Pakistani government is going to be overthrown
over this incident? You have a very piss-poor history of predictions.
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 14:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Scott, I don't think Fauxy is capable of seeing Pakistani villagers as
being human, and he certainly cannot understand that they have the
same ties and emotional responses that Americans have.
And I don't think that you understood my point that not all Muslims
see women and children as disposable props. I specifically noted
that *radical* Muslims were the intended audience, but you were
too obtuse to get it.
"Audience"? Is that what the fascists are calling the targets now?
Audience?

How do you bomb a village without killing innocent men, women and
children?

If the police fire into your home and kill your entire family, are
they excused if they explain that they had word that a bank robber
might have been hiding in there?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
Already lost?!? It has been already WON. The terrorist-friendly
Ba'athist regime is gone, and whatever government takes over
will not have the weaponry to be a threat to us. This is where I
disagree with Bush--time to declare victory and (mostly) get out.
Faux, you do understand the attack was in Pakistan, right? Not Iraq.
Of course.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, and, vile as the Musharraf regime
is, it's better than having a rabidly theocratic regime take over
Pakistan and it's nuclear supply.
I think yesterday's fuck up has virtually ensured that this is exactly
what will happen.
You think that the Pakistani government is going to be overthrown
over this incident? You have a very piss-poor history of predictions.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2006-01-15 22:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Scott, I don't think Fauxy is capable of seeing Pakistani villagers as
being human, and he certainly cannot understand that they have the
same ties and emotional responses that Americans have.
And I don't think that you understood my point that not all Muslims
see women and children as disposable props. I specifically noted
that *radical* Muslims were the intended audience, but you were
too obtuse to get it.
"Audience"? Is that what the fascists are calling the targets now?
Audience?
No, it's their fellow Muslims that they hope to influence into
being Islamofascists by using their wives, sisters and children
as human shields.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
How do you bomb a village without killing innocent men, women and
children?
That's exactly WHY the insurgents hide behind innocent men,
women and children. It means that the insurgents are the ones
who endanger the innocent. Geez, you libs are dumb.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
If the police fire into your home and kill your entire family, are
they excused if they explain that they had word that a bank robber
might have been hiding in there?
Bad analogy. You're suggesting that the US either wants to kill
innocent people, or we don't care if we kill innocent people. It's
why nobody believes your usual alarmism and nasty allegations.

A better analogy would be that bank robbers have taken
hostages and are shooting at police and innocent bystanders
while hiding behind them. If police do nothing, the gunmen will
continue to kill. To carry the analogy further, you'd want the
police to retreat and hope that the criminals will make nice.
ISolaTEDwhaCkO
2006-01-15 22:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Foxtrot
That's right. They know that if they allow their local women and
children to get killed, it will increase support among radical Muslims.
And repulsively, they're perfectly happy to sacrifice their women
and children in such a way. It says a lot about their form of religion,
doesn't it?
Scott, I don't think Fauxy is capable of seeing Pakistani villagers as
being human, and he certainly cannot understand that they have the
same ties and emotional responses that Americans have.
And I don't think that you understood my point that not all Muslims
see women and children as disposable props. I specifically noted
that *radical* Muslims were the intended audience, but you were
too obtuse to get it.
"Audience"? Is that what the fascists are calling the targets now?
Audience?
No, it's their fellow Muslims that they hope to influence into
being Islamofascists by using their wives, sisters and children
as human shields.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
How do you bomb a village without killing innocent men, women and
children?
That's exactly WHY the insurgents hide behind innocent men,
women and children. It means that the insurgents are the ones
who endanger the innocent. Geez, you libs are dumb.
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
If the police fire into your home and kill your entire family, are
they excused if they explain that they had word that a bank robber
might have been hiding in there?
Bad analogy. You're suggesting that the US either wants to kill
innocent people, or we don't care if we kill innocent people. It's
why nobody believes your usual alarmism and nasty allegations.
A better analogy would be that bank robbers have taken
hostages and are shooting at police and innocent bystanders
while hiding behind them. If police do nothing, the gunmen will
continue to kill. To carry the analogy further, you'd want the
police to retreat and hope that the criminals will make nice.
how does one take onthe Chinese militarily, and survive, given that the
economic tentacles of the Chinese reach inot every aspect of American
society?

And don't forge ttthe Russians.

really.

Let's hear how YOU would handle it, other than blindly and stupidly
running into Iran?
Foxtrot
2006-01-15 22:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ISolaTEDwhaCkO
Post by Foxtrot
Bad analogy. You're suggesting that the US either wants to kill
innocent people, or we don't care if we kill innocent people. It's
why nobody believes your usual alarmism and nasty allegations.
A better analogy would be that bank robbers have taken
hostages and are shooting at police and innocent bystanders
while hiding behind them. If police do nothing, the gunmen will
continue to kill. To carry the analogy further, you'd want the
police to retreat and hope that the criminals will make nice.
how does one take onthe Chinese militarily, and survive, given that the
economic tentacles of the Chinese reach inot every aspect of American
society?
And don't forge ttthe Russians.
really.
Let's hear how YOU would handle it, other than blindly and stupidly
running into Iran?
WTF are you talking about, IsWhackOff?

Last I heard the Chinese or Russians weren't committing acts of
war against us or breaching earlier surrender agreements. What
have they got to do with the situation in the mideast?
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-14 21:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Typical for Al-Qaeda to locate themselves in civilian areas. But they know
that you and your ilk will come to their defense.

You disgust me,Scooter.
Martin McPhillips
2006-01-14 22:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Typical for Al-Qaeda to locate themselves in civilian
areas. But they know that you and your ilk will come to
their defense.
Indeed, he comes to their defense as well when
they blow up American soldiers and Iraqi
children. According to Scott, that's the
fault of American soldiers for being there
in the first place. So, Scott's an enemy
propagandist being paid by the State of
Maine.
Bully
2006-01-15 12:27:28 UTC
Permalink
I like your postings
Smart man
Are writing from NYC- if so that's a tough sell in NYC
bully
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 13:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bully
I like your postings
Smart man
Are writing from NYC- if so that's a tough sell in NYC
bully
I note that NYC went solidly Democratic in the 2004 election.


--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-15 16:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Bully
I like your postings
Smart man
Are writing from NYC- if so that's a tough sell in NYC
bully
I note that NYC went solidly Democratic in the 2004 election.
I note that Porkster's county went solidly Republican in the 2004 election.

{snickers}
nevermore
2006-01-15 18:45:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:45:34 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by 2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
Post by Bully
I like your postings
Smart man
Are writing from NYC- if so that's a tough sell in NYC
bully
I note that NYC went solidly Democratic in the 2004 election.
I note that Porkster's county went solidly Republican in the 2004 election.
{snickers}
I wonder how many voters around him were convinced to vote Republican
as a result of Zepp.

--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&


"No plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t know what did, and the
efforts by the normally reliable urbanlegends.com to debunk the
questions merely added to the questions." -- Zepp Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&
2211 Dead <zepp2211#2211finestplanet.com@>
2006-01-15 01:40:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:49:52 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
Typical for Al-Qaeda to locate themselves in civilian areas. But they know
that you and your ilk will come to their defense.
You disgust me,Scooter.
What are Americans doing bombing Pakistan?

You disgust all of us, Knickers.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-14 22:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
What is "this"? It is trolling to post URLs and vague comments intended
to force readers to look at those URLs and guess whatever it is you are
talking about. Try quoting or posting the entire text:

#begin quote
Survivors in Damadola denied militants were in their hamlet, but there
were news reports quoting unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up
to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.
#end quote

So the target included 11 enemy dead. It sounds like a good air strike
that needs to be repeated as often as possible.



#begin quote ibidem
In Damadola, villagers said all the dead were local people and denied
harbouring al-Zawahri or any other Islamic extremists in the ethnic
Pashtun hamlet about four miles from the border with
Afghanistan.
#end quote

They *always* deny they harboured al Qaeda. And then people like you
claim it was "innocent women and children" and then the US is unable to
act in its own sovereign interest. We know that the terrorists put women
and children around them for the expressed purpose of human shields and
in order to use their deaths for propaganda purposes. The fact that it
works so well for them every single time with you is what is so odd.
Don't you understand what they are doing?
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 02:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
What is "this"? It is trolling to post URLs and vague comments intended
to force readers to look at those URLs and guess whatever it is you are
Why? This thread has generated about sixty posts in just a few hours.
Apparently enough people were willing to actually click on the
newsstory.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote
Survivors in Damadola denied militants were in their hamlet, but there
were news reports quoting unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up
to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.
#end quote
So the target included 11 enemy dead. It sounds like a good air strike
that needs to be repeated as often as possible.
Why on earth would you trust "unidentified Pakistani officials." Don't
you know that such "sources" reflect how disinformation is spread?
What is meant by "enemy dead"? You need to develop a bit of critical
reflection.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote ibidem
In Damadola, villagers said all the dead were local people and denied
harbouring al-Zawahri or any other Islamic extremists in the ethnic
Pashtun hamlet about four miles from the border with
Afghanistan.
#end quote
They *always* deny they harboured al Qaeda.
So your logic is that because they deny it, then they must be lying?
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
And then people like you
claim it was "innocent women and children" and then the US is unable to
act in its own sovereign interest. We know that the terrorists put women
The reports of women and children being killed are very credible.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
and children around them for the expressed purpose of human shields and
in order to use their deaths for propaganda purposes. The fact that it
works so well for them every single time with you is what is so odd.
Don't you understand what they are doing?
If you read my posts, one of my criticisms of our actions is that it is
a very stupid tactic since it works into the hands of the insurgents
who love it when this sort of thing happens. It aids their cause
immensely, and hurts the US throughout the Islamic world. Even if a
top terrorist was there, the networks are such that new people rise to
the top, and getting one person isn't really all that important. If
you can't locate him and take him out cleanly, this kind of crude "bomb
and hope" tactic is doomed, it is what they want us to do. So fine,
ignore the ethical concerns about killing children if you wish. Just
on practicality along, the tactics are counter productive.
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
2006-01-15 05:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
What is "this"? It is trolling to post URLs and vague comments intended
to force readers to look at those URLs and guess whatever it is you are
Why? This thread has generated about sixty posts in just a few hours.
Apparently enough people were willing to actually click on the
newsstory.
You do know that in two weeks that story will expire and readers on
google won't have a clue what you are actually referring to. And what in
that story were you referring to? This is like when people top post.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote
Survivors in Damadola denied militants were in their hamlet, but there
were news reports quoting unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up
to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.
#end quote
So the target included 11 enemy dead. It sounds like a good air strike
that needs to be repeated as often as possible.
Why on earth would you trust "unidentified Pakistani officials." Don't
you know that such "sources" reflect how disinformation is spread?
What is meant by "enemy dead"? You need to develop a bit of critical
reflection.
If this was a CIA op, I think they thought they were attacking al Qaeda.
What exactly do you want in a war?
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote ibidem
In Damadola, villagers said all the dead were local people and denied
harbouring al-Zawahri or any other Islamic extremists in the ethnic
Pashtun hamlet about four miles from the border with
Afghanistan.
#end quote
They *always* deny they harboured al Qaeda.
So your logic is that because they deny it, then they must be lying?
That against your believing what they say. Why would you believe what
they say? They *always* say there were no al Qaeda. It's like there are
no al Qaeda anywhere. Or the US just targets buildings that don't have
al Qaeda. Silly.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
And then people like you
claim it was "innocent women and children" and then the US is unable to
act in its own sovereign interest. We know that the terrorists put women
The reports of women and children being killed are very credible.
I don't doubt that there was collateral damage.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
and children around them for the expressed purpose of human shields and
in order to use their deaths for propaganda purposes. The fact that it
works so well for them every single time with you is what is so odd.
Don't you understand what they are doing?
If you read my posts, one of my criticisms of our actions is that it is
a very stupid tactic since it works into the hands of the insurgents
who love it when this sort of thing happens.
But you make it no win. If we attack, any collateral damage makes us
evil. If we don't attack, al Qaeda just builds itself stronger.
Post by Scott Erb
It aids their cause
immensely, and hurts the US throughout the Islamic world. Even if a
top terrorist was there, the networks are such that new people rise to
the top, and getting one person isn't really all that important. If
Then we might as well not address terrorism at all. Let's just give up.
How are you for prayer rugs and your five pillars of Islam? Do we have
to Haj with the Iranians? Aren't they a little too, you know, into it?
Post by Scott Erb
you can't locate him and take him out cleanly, this kind of crude "bomb
and hope" tactic is doomed, it is what they want us to do. So fine,
You want the perfect one shot one kill efforts that Clinton wasn't even
willing to attempt? Clinton would only attempt rendition.
Post by Scott Erb
ignore the ethical concerns about killing children if you wish. Just
on practicality along, the tactics are counter productive.
I think they have the potential to get the Pashtuns to shift away from
support al Qaeda. If it is made clear that when they harbour al Qaeda,
they risk being bombed, they will be less likely to do that.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 14:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
What is "this"? It is trolling to post URLs and vague comments intended
to force readers to look at those URLs and guess whatever it is you are
Why? This thread has generated about sixty posts in just a few hours.
Apparently enough people were willing to actually click on the
newsstory.
You do know that in two weeks that story will expire and readers on
google won't have a clue what you are actually referring to. And what in
that story were you referring to? This is like when people top post.
I doubt very much that people will be reading that post two weeks from
now. I'm not writing for prosperity. I was referring to the incident
in general, nothing specific in the story.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote
Survivors in Damadola denied militants were in their hamlet, but there
were news reports quoting unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up
to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.
#end quote
So the target included 11 enemy dead. It sounds like a good air strike
that needs to be repeated as often as possible.
Why on earth would you trust "unidentified Pakistani officials." Don't
you know that such "sources" reflect how disinformation is spread?
What is meant by "enemy dead"? You need to develop a bit of critical
reflection.
If this was a CIA op, I think they thought they were attacking al Qaeda.
What exactly do you want in a war?
Effective and ethical tactics.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote ibidem
In Damadola, villagers said all the dead were local people and denied
harbouring al-Zawahri or any other Islamic extremists in the ethnic
Pashtun hamlet about four miles from the border with
Afghanistan.
#end quote
They *always* deny they harboured al Qaeda.
So your logic is that because they deny it, then they must be lying?
That against your believing what they say. Why would you believe what
they say? They *always* say there were no al Qaeda. It's like there are
no al Qaeda anywhere. Or the US just targets buildings that don't have
al Qaeda. Silly.
In other words, we don't have any certain knowledge, but there have
been enough dead women and children in such bombings, and historically
we always find out after wars how our attacks were less effective that
originally reported in war propaganda (e.g., Kosovo we destroyed mostly
dummy tanks and worthless targets, we bomb the Chinese embassy, and in
Gulf War I we had 10% smart bombs when that was almost all the military
was reporting upon). From experience and logic, it's clear a lot of
innocents are killed, and not clear that we're achieving anything of
value with these tactics.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
And then people like you
claim it was "innocent women and children" and then the US is unable to
act in its own sovereign interest. We know that the terrorists put women
The reports of women and children being killed are very credible.
I don't doubt that there was collateral damage.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
and children around them for the expressed purpose of human shields and
in order to use their deaths for propaganda purposes. The fact that it
works so well for them every single time with you is what is so odd.
Don't you understand what they are doing?
If you read my posts, one of my criticisms of our actions is that it is
a very stupid tactic since it works into the hands of the insurgents
who love it when this sort of thing happens.
But you make it no win. If we attack, any collateral damage makes us
evil. If we don't attack, al Qaeda just builds itself stronger.
Collateral damage isn't necessarily evil. One can make a strong case
that if an attack plays a role in weakening an adversary and protecting
future innocents, then in limited amounts its acceptable. Here the
damage is part of a tactic that isn't effective, and in fact is used by
the enemy to its advantage. Thus, it is killing innocents for no real
purpose.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
It aids their cause
immensely, and hurts the US throughout the Islamic world. Even if a
top terrorist was there, the networks are such that new people rise to
the top, and getting one person isn't really all that important. If
Then we might as well not address terrorism at all. Let's just give up.
Again, you don't seem to realize there are a variety of
counter-terrorist tactics. Wanting to ditch an ineffective one does not
mean one wants to do nothing.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
How are you for prayer rugs and your five pillars of Islam? Do we have
to Haj with the Iranians? Aren't they a little too, you know, into it?
Huh?
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
you can't locate him and take him out cleanly, this kind of crude "bomb
and hope" tactic is doomed, it is what they want us to do. So fine,
You want the perfect one shot one kill efforts that Clinton wasn't even
willing to attempt? Clinton would only attempt rendition.
I'm just saying this tactic is stupid: ineffective, helps the enemy,
and kills innocents. It doesn't work.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
ignore the ethical concerns about killing children if you wish. Just
on practicality along, the tactics are counter productive.
I think they have the potential to get the Pashtuns to shift away from
support al Qaeda. If it is made clear that when they harbour al Qaeda,
they risk being bombed, they will be less likely to do that.
History has one clear lesson: bombing people causes people to become
angry at those doing the bombing, and NOT to switch support from the
ones being bombed. We're expanding extremism.
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-15 16:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
This has to stop.
What is "this"? It is trolling to post URLs and vague comments intended
to force readers to look at those URLs and guess whatever it is you are
Why? This thread has generated about sixty posts in just a few hours.
Apparently enough people were willing to actually click on the
newsstory.
You do know that in two weeks that story will expire and readers on
google won't have a clue what you are actually referring to. And what in
that story were you referring to? This is like when people top post.
I doubt very much that people will be reading that post two weeks from
now. I'm not writing for prosperity. I was referring to the incident
in general, nothing specific in the story.
And when "prosperity" quotes your past posts you get all whiny and complain
of folks 'cherry-picking' your quotes 'out of context'! What a hoot!
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
#begin quote
Survivors in Damadola denied militants were in their hamlet, but there
were news reports quoting unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up
to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.
#end quote
So the target included 11 enemy dead. It sounds like a good air strike
that needs to be repeated as often as possible.
Why on earth would you trust "unidentified Pakistani officials." Don't
you know that such "sources" reflect how disinformation is spread?
What is meant by "enemy dead"? You need to develop a bit of critical
reflection.
If this was a CIA op, I think they thought they were attacking al Qaeda.
What exactly do you want in a war?
Effective and ethical tactics.
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
Scott Erb
2006-01-15 18:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a
set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone. That kind of view
misunderstands the nature of the threat, and causes one to embrace
counter-productive actions.

The key is to make terrorism a strategy that is ineffective and counter
productive. Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy. But military victory over
"terrorism" is impossible. Victory has to be cultural, political,
economic, and ultimately global. As it is, our actions help lead to
recruitment of more terrorists than we can kill -- and the insurgents
we kill in Iraq aren't the Islamic terrorist types, they are Sunnis
fighting an internal battle we just stuck ourselves in.

That's why the strategy now is so bad -- we're doing what the
extremists want, we are playing into their hands.
nevermore
2006-01-15 19:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a
set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone. That kind of view
misunderstands the nature of the threat, and causes one to embrace
counter-productive actions.
The key is to make terrorism a strategy that is ineffective and counter
productive. Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy. But military victory over
"terrorism" is impossible. Victory has to be cultural, political,
economic, and ultimately global. As it is, our actions help lead to
recruitment of more terrorists than we can kill -- and the insurgents
we kill in Iraq aren't the Islamic terrorist types, they are Sunnis
fighting an internal battle we just stuck ourselves in.
That's why the strategy now is so bad -- we're doing what the
extremists want, we are playing into their hands.
The world is a lot safer with cowardly loons like Erb hiding from
reality up in maine where he can't interfere with anything and vast
majority of the kids he lectures forget everything he says as soon as
they leave the classroom, like almost all Political Science students
do.
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&


"No plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t know what did, and the
efforts by the normally reliable urbanlegends.com to debunk the
questions merely added to the questions." -- Zepp Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-16 02:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a
set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone.
If there is no "war on terror" then why did you write the following post
last year?

Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Scott Erb" <***@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: 60 second spot
Lines: 27
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Message-ID: <eGmKe.580651$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.144.19
X-Complaints-To: ***@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1123677962 12.65.144.19 (Wed, 10
Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

How about this for a DNC ad in the 2006 Congressional campaign:

Voiceover: The war on terror. The enemy. (image of Bin Laden, al qaeda
groups, taliban). A global threat. (shifting images WTC, London, Madrid,
Saudi Arabia). A threat fed by extremist hatred. (images of radical
clerics teaching in Madrasses).

The President's solution? Attack Iraq to settle old scores (image of Saddam
smiling, maybe a quick shot of Bush the elder)

The result? Increased terror threats (images of papers reporting studies
that Iraq war aids terrorist recruitment), a weakened American military
(images of papers reporting stories on military stretched thin, recruitment
sluggish), over 3000 Americans dead (probably at that point), and the
terrorists delighted at our distraction (maybe Osama laughing).

The solution? Focused military action against the terrorists and their
supporters, not grand schemes of nation building (images of special ops
forces in action). Global cooperation to take down a global foe (not sure
what image here yet). And positive efforts to undercut the message of hate
being spread by the extremists, who despite their danger are a minority
(pictures of moderate and modern Muslims in the Mideast, demos against
extremists by Muslims).

We need a true winning strategy in the war on terror. Vote Democrat.

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

How simplistic are you, Scootter? How hypocritical? There's no war on
terror
UNLESS and UNTIL you WANT there to be.

What a joke and jerk you are. I'm sure glad you aren't teaching in MY state.
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-16 02:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>

Your failure to answer my question is noted.
Scott Erb
2006-01-16 02:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.

You couldn't handle it. That's OK; not everyone is smart enough to
understand the issues well enough to discuss substance. So go ahead,
go with emotion. That's fine.
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-16 12:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that
unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You did NOT answer my question.

Here, I'll give you another chance:

Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical
and ineffective?

Seems like a simple question to me. Why can't you answer it?
Scott Erb
2006-01-16 13:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You did NOT answer my question.
You lie. You snipped the answer in order to lie, how pathetically
lame.

Here it is again. I know it may be a bit complex for you. I'll help
you try to understand it if you have questions:

Or you can keep lying. That's permissible on usenet.
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a

set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone. That kind of view
misunderstands the nature of the threat, and causes one to embrace
counter-productive actions.

The key is to make terrorism a strategy that is ineffective and counter

productive. Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy. But military victory over
"terrorism" is impossible. Victory has to be cultural, political,
economic, and ultimately global. As it is, our actions help lead to
recruitment of more terrorists than we can kill -- and the insurgents
we kill in Iraq aren't the Islamic terrorist types, they are Sunnis
fighting an internal battle we just stuck ourselves in.

That's why the strategy now is so bad -- we're doing what the
extremists want, we are playing into their hands.
nevermore
2006-01-16 16:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You did NOT answer my question.
You lie. You snipped the answer in order to lie, how pathetically
lame.
Here it is again. I know it may be a bit complex for you. I'll help
Or you can keep lying. That's permissible on usenet.
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a
set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone. That kind of view
misunderstands the nature of the threat, and causes one to embrace
counter-productive actions.
The key is to make terrorism a strategy that is ineffective and counter
productive. Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy. But military victory over
"terrorism" is impossible. Victory has to be cultural, political,
economic, and ultimately global. As it is, our actions help lead to
recruitment of more terrorists than we can kill -- and the insurgents
we kill in Iraq aren't the Islamic terrorist types, they are Sunnis
fighting an internal battle we just stuck ourselves in.
That's why the strategy now is so bad -- we're doing what the
extremists want, we are playing into their hands.
It's like Kurt said. Cowardly Erb dodges the question.
--

Some of Zepp's stupid claims below:

"Well, that's the funny thing about terrorists. If they get what they
want, they stop being terrorists."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q5sc50lf1id03ms1i9truk78v2dk6052f5%404ax.com


"The South couldn't taken any more of the Missouri Compromise,
sensing (correctly) that it would kill slavery in the end,
and Lincoln planned to uphold it."
--Zepp Jamieson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9j2n5vsqfga7l2fsrt0polt2eg6lqs71hv%404ax.com


"The first amendment means that you are protected by law from haters."
--Zepp Jamieson
"http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_541474719


If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


"I just found out that Condoleezza Rice, the person who is responsible
for overseeing things for the administration in the event of domestic
catastrophe, the National Security advisor, spend last evening
attending a Broadway play."
--Greywolf Zepp 1amieson Sep 1, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/30ffcc5ea6364557?hl=en&


"No plane hit the Pentagon. I don’t know what did, and the
efforts by the normally reliable urbanlegends.com to debunk the
questions merely added to the questions." -- Zepp Jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/39d98c910d32047b?hl=en&
Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-16 23:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You did NOT answer my question.
You lie. You snipped the answer in order to lie, how pathetically
lame.
Nonsense. You never answered my question, but rather took off on your own
answering questions I never asked.

Here's my question yet again:

Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that
unethical and ineffective?

It's really not a complex question. Can you answer it or will you continue
to lie and evade as usual?

{snip}
Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy.
So tell me: Is it necessary to kill terrorists when we "go after them" in
this the way you suggest and do you believe that is ethical and effective?

These aren't really complex questions here, Scootter. You're not really
afraid to answer them, are you?

After all you "teach this stuff", right?

{snickers}
Scott Erb
2006-01-17 00:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You did NOT answer my question.
You lie. You snipped the answer in order to lie, how pathetically
lame.
Nonsense. You never answered my question, but rather took off on your own
answering questions I never asked.
It was a very thorough answer to your question. You are apparently
incapable of understanding it. However, I'll use this as an
opportunity to repost it. A lot of Americans are dying in vain in a
needless war that is making us less secure. People who care for
America have to do whatever we can to stop it.
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that unethical and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue. Terrorism is a strategy. There isn't a


set group of people out there who are "terrorists," and all we have to
do is kill them all and the problem will be gone. That kind of view
misunderstands the nature of the threat, and causes one to embrace
counter-productive actions.


The key is to make terrorism a strategy that is ineffective and counter



productive. Clearly, going after terrorists when possible with
military means is a part of that strategy. But military victory over
"terrorism" is impossible. Victory has to be cultural, political,
economic, and ultimately global. As it is, our actions help lead to
recruitment of more terrorists than we can kill -- and the insurgents
we kill in Iraq aren't the Islamic terrorist types, they are Sunnis
fighting an internal battle we just stuck ourselves in.


That's why the strategy now is so bad -- we're doing what the
extremists want, we are playing into their hands.

Kurt Nicklas
2006-01-16 12:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Do you want terrorists to die in the war on terror or is that
unethical
and
ineffective?
I think this question shows your fundamental and simplistic
misunderstanding of the issue.
<blather snipped>
Your failure to answer my question is noted.
I did answer your question. You snipped it.
You couldn't handle it. That's OK; not everyone is smart enough to
understand the issues well enough to discuss substance. So go ahead,
go with emotion. That's fine.
If there is no "war on terror" then why did you write the following post
last year?

Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Scott Erb" <***@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: 60 second spot
Lines: 27
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Message-ID: <eGmKe.580651$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.144.19
X-Complaints-To: ***@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1123677962 12.65.144.19 (Wed, 10
Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:46:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

How about this for a DNC ad in the 2006 Congressional campaign:

Voiceover: The war on terror. The enemy. (image of Bin Laden, al qaeda
groups, taliban). A global threat. (shifting images WTC, London, Madrid,
Saudi Arabia). A threat fed by extremist hatred. (images of radical
clerics teaching in Madrasses).

The President's solution? Attack Iraq to settle old scores (image of Saddam
smiling, maybe a quick shot of Bush the elder)

The result? Increased terror threats (images of papers reporting studies
that Iraq war aids terrorist recruitment), a weakened American military
(images of papers reporting stories on military stretched thin, recruitment
sluggish), over 3000 Americans dead (probably at that point), and the
terrorists delighted at our distraction (maybe Osama laughing).

The solution? Focused military action against the terrorists and their
supporters, not grand schemes of nation building (images of special ops
forces in action). Global cooperation to take down a global foe (not sure
what image here yet). And positive efforts to undercut the message of hate
being spread by the extremists, who despite their danger are a minority
(pictures of moderate and modern Muslims in the Mideast, demos against
extremists by Muslims).

We need a true winning strategy in the war on terror. Vote Democrat.

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

How simplistic are you, Scootter? How hypocritical? There's no war on
terror
UNLESS and UNTIL you WANT there to be.

What a joke and jerk you are. I'm sure glad you aren't teaching in MY state.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...