|
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> <<snip>>
The idiot chimp Bu$h is simply un-electable!
Nonetheless , he was elected once and probably will be again.
Would anyone really vote for GW Bu$h if he
were the challenger, running on the EXACT same
platform ?
That his plan, if elected, would be to toss aside the
existing UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
That his plan, if elected, would be to ignore U$
intelligence to the contrary, and instead rely upon what Ahmed Chalabi
says.
That his plan, if elected, would be to divert resources and
troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda and instead attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
Iraq has more oil.
That he would, if elected, ignore the U.N. when it suited
him personally, and break international law by attacking, invading and
occupying a much weaker, smaller, sovereign nation, killing 30,000+
civilians in the process.
That he would, if elected, engage in a massive campaign of
lies, deceptions, manipulations and false propaganda to
attack, invade and occupy a country that does NOT have any WMD, and does NOT
have anything at
all to do with 9/11, squandering the lives of 1055+ U$ Soldiers in
the process.
That he would, if elected, and contrary to and in spite of
existing in depth analysis from U$ and foreign intelligence agencies,
and his own former CIA director father, who understood that
attacking Iraq and removing Saddam would create more
instability, more would danger, more terrorists, more anti-western
fanaticism, fracture most long standing alliances and
support, create a massive power vacuum, and foment disastrous civil war --
that he would ignore all of
the above and against international law, and without U.N.
authorization or approval, attack, invade and destroy Iraq anyway.
That he would, if elected, take a 200 BILLION $$ economic
surplus, and turn it into a 200 BILLION $$ plus DEFICIT in
3 years or less and give a massive tax break to the wealthiest 5% of America.
Much of this economic surplus was and is vapor-such as the "market
cap" of a company in Seattle whose only assets are an office complex
and the source code for a poorly written operating system and clumsy
office software, being worth several times that of a company with ten
billion dollars' worth of steel and glass mills, foundries, machine
tools and five times as many degreed engineers.
That he would, if elected, appoint a fanatical Holey Babble
thumping nutjob as Attorney General
In a sane society we tolerate Flat Earthers,
Stegasauruses-on-the-Arkers, and the like. We don't appoint them to
high office or tolerate those who do.
But no one said we were sane.
and proceed to eviscerate and gut
what's left of the U$ Constitution and Individual
rights/privacy.
Seriously, if G aWol Bu$h were running as the challenger
today, on the very same platform and record he in fact actually has,
would ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND vote for him?
People did. Whether they were in their right mind is arguable.
Remember the alternative, Algore.
|
| |
| |
Ted Azito wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> <<snip>>
The idiot chimp Bu$h is simply un-electable!
Nonetheless , he was elected once
No, he wasn't.
and probably will be again.
Go ahead then, bet your life on it, sucker.
Would anyone really vote for GW Bu$h if he
were the challenger, running on the EXACT same
platform ?
That his plan, if elected, would be to toss aside the
existing UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
That his plan, if elected, would be to ignore U$
intelligence to the contrary, and instead rely upon what
Ahmed Chalabi
says.
That his plan, if elected, would be to divert resources
and
troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden
and al
Qaeda and instead attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
Iraq has more oil.
That he would, if elected, ignore the U.N. when it suited
him personally, and break international law by attacking,
invading and occupying a much weaker, smaller, sovereign
nation, killing 30,000+ civilians in the process.
That he would, if elected, engage in a massive campaign of
lies, deceptions, manipulations and false propaganda to
attack, invade and occupy a country that does NOT have
any WMD, and does NOT have anything at
all to do with 9/11, squandering the lives of 1055+ U$
Soldiers in
the process.
That he would, if elected, and contrary to and in spite of
existing in depth analysis from U$ and foreign
intelligence agencies,
and his own former CIA director father, who understood
that
attacking Iraq and removing Saddam would create more
instability, more would danger, more terrorists, more
anti-western fanaticism, fracture most long standing
alliances and
support, create a massive power vacuum, and foment
disastrous civil war -- that he would ignore all of
the above and against international law, and without U.N.
authorization or approval, attack, invade and destroy
Iraq anyway.
That he would, if elected, take a 200 BILLION $$ economic
surplus, and turn it into a 200 BILLION $$ plus DEFICIT in
3 years or less and give a massive tax break to the
wealthiest 5% of America.
Much of this economic surplus was and is vapor-such as the
"market cap" of a company in Seattle whose only assets are an
office complex and the source code for a poorly written operating system
and clumsy office software, being worth several times that of a
company with ten billion dollars' worth of steel and glass mills, foundries,
machine tools and five times as many degreed engineers.
And don't forget, Dick Cheney says "let them eat eBay" .
That he would, if elected, appoint a fanatical Holey
Babble thumping nutjob as Attorney General
In a sane society we tolerate Flat Earthers,
Stegasauruses-on-the-Arkers, and the like.
Why tolerate the perverted and insane? They
just end up breeding and passing on their
defective mental illness to the next generation.
Like a festering boil, better to excise them
early.
We don't appoint
them to high office or tolerate those who do.
But no one said we were sane.
and proceed to eviscerate and gut
what's left of the U$ Constitution and Individual
rights/privacy.
Seriously, if G aWol Bu$h were running as the challenger
today, on the very same platform and record he in fact
actually has,
would ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND vote for him?
People did. Whether they were in their right mind is
arguable.
Remember the alternative, Algore.
So you'd trade boredom for death and destruction, eh?
"We are the strongest nation in the world today.
We should never apply that political, economic or military
power unilaterally. If we had followed the rule in Vietnam,
we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us,
not Japan, not Germany, not Britain, nor France.
If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the
merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning"
-- Robert McNamara
former US Secretary of Defense
reflecting on the errors of the Vietnam era.
|
| |
| |
Yes I would, because that means there would be a liberal in office and
NOTHING at all would be done about terrorists and threats to the US. At
least he would do something about it instead of trying to talk other
countries out of stuff....never gets things done. I hope Kerry wins so he
can make a few big decisions himself and screw up this country and then
we'll see what type of political party people favor in the event of a war.
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> <<snip>>
The idiot chimp Bu$h is simply un-electable!
Nonetheless , he was elected once and probably will be again.
Would anyone really vote for GW Bu$h if he
were the challenger, running on the EXACT same
platform ?
That his plan, if elected, would be to toss aside the
existing UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
That his plan, if elected, would be to ignore U$
intelligence to the contrary, and instead rely upon what Ahmed Chalabi
says.
That his plan, if elected, would be to divert resources and
troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda and instead attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
Iraq has more oil.
That he would, if elected, ignore the U.N. when it suited
him personally, and break international law by attacking, invading and
occupying a much weaker, smaller, sovereign nation, killing 30,000+
civilians in the process.
That he would, if elected, engage in a massive campaign of
lies, deceptions, manipulations and false propaganda to
attack, invade and occupy a country that does NOT have any WMD, and
does NOT
have anything at
all to do with 9/11, squandering the lives of 1055+ U$ Soldiers in
the process.
That he would, if elected, and contrary to and in spite of
existing in depth analysis from U$ and foreign intelligence agencies,
and his own former CIA director father, who understood that
attacking Iraq and removing Saddam would create more
instability, more would danger, more terrorists, more anti-western
fanaticism, fracture most long standing alliances and
support, create a massive power vacuum, and foment disastrous civil
war --
that he would ignore all of
the above and against international law, and without U.N.
authorization or approval, attack, invade and destroy Iraq anyway.
That he would, if elected, take a 200 BILLION $$ economic
surplus, and turn it into a 200 BILLION $$ plus DEFICIT in
3 years or less and give a massive tax break to the wealthiest 5% of
America.
Much of this economic surplus was and is vapor-such as the "market
cap" of a company in Seattle whose only assets are an office complex
and the source code for a poorly written operating system and clumsy
office software, being worth several times that of a company with ten
billion dollars' worth of steel and glass mills, foundries, machine
tools and five times as many degreed engineers.
That he would, if elected, appoint a fanatical Holey Babble
thumping nutjob as Attorney General
In a sane society we tolerate Flat Earthers,
Stegasauruses-on-the-Arkers, and the like. We don't appoint them to
high office or tolerate those who do.
But no one said we were sane.
and proceed to eviscerate and gut
what's left of the U$ Constitution and Individual
rights/privacy.
Seriously, if G aWol Bu$h were running as the challenger
today, on the very same platform and record he in fact actually has,
would ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND vote for him?
People did. Whether they were in their right mind is arguable.
Remember the alternative, Algore.
|
| |
| |
define terrorist
Yes I would, because that means there would be a liberal in office and
NOTHING at all would be done about terrorists and threats to the US. At
least he would do something about it instead of trying to talk other
countries out of stuff....never gets things done. I hope Kerry wins so he
can make a few big decisions himself and screw up this country and then
we'll see what type of political party people favor in the event of a war.
does NOT
have anything at
all to do with 9/11, squandering the lives of 1055+ U$ Soldiers in
the process.
That he would, if elected, and contrary to and in spite of
existing in depth analysis from U$ and foreign intelligence
agencies,
and his own former CIA director father, who understood that
attacking Iraq and removing Saddam would create more
instability, more would danger, more terrorists, more anti-western
fanaticism, fracture most long standing alliances and
support, create a massive power vacuum, and foment disastrous civil
war --
that he would ignore all of
the above and against international law, and without U.N.
authorization or approval, attack, invade and destroy Iraq anyway.
That he would, if elected, take a 200 BILLION $$ economic
surplus, and turn it into a 200 BILLION $$ plus DEFICIT in
3 years or less and give a massive tax break to the wealthiest 5% of
America.
|
| |
| |
aul Tiger wrote:
define terrorist
Someone who blows up a commerical airliner full of civilians?
Someone who bombs civlian hotels?
Anyone or any country who aids, abets, or harbours such a person or persons?
US Harbors known Terrorists and Murderers
NEW YORK -- The United States on May 21 failed to respond to Cuban accusations
that it had been promoting terrorism against the island. The two faced off in a
United Nations Security Council meeting, held at Cuba's request.
Havana's UN ambassador, Ricardo Alarcon, presented the council with all the
information in his possession on the 1976 bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner
off the coast of Barbados, in which all 73 passengers and crew members were
killed.
Cuba charges that Washington has protected and provided shelter to the two men
who planned the terrorist action, both Cuban exiles. Orlando Bosch, one of the
two, lives in Miami, Florida.
The other man, Luis Posada Carriles, is a known employee of the US government.
He never came to trial, having escaped from the Venezuelan prison where he was
being held. In US Senate hearings during the Iran-Contragate scandal, CIA
official Felix Rodriguez testified to having personally participated in Posada's
escape, and to having then assigned the fugitive terrorist to take charge of the
Oliver North arms-for-guns network at El Salvador's Ilopango air base.
In the Security Council meeting, Alarcon presented both public and confidential
US documents relating to the training of Cuban exile groups in US territory in
preparation for terrorist acts against the island. Faced with the documentation,
US representative Edward Perkins limited himself to arguing that the airliner
bombing took place "a long time ago". However, legal authorities point out that
there is no statute of limitations in such cases and that because of the
deliberate cover-up and withholding of information, a mistrial could be declared
in the case of Bosch, opening the way for a new trial.
Perkins claimed that the Cuban charges were slander, making no mention of
Washington's decision to allow Bosch to live in the country after the US Justice
Department ordered his deportation on grounds of terrorism. He denied that
Washington knows the whereabouts of Posada. Posada dropped out of sight after he
was identified as the US man overseeing operations in Ilopango.
The two ambassadors were the only speakers to address the council, and no action
was taken on a draft resolution presented by Cuba which would have condemned the
bombing of the Cuban plane and demanded that the United States give the council
all the evidence it has on the case.
Cuba had requested a formal Security Council meeting on the issue a month
earlier. But, charges Havana, US reluctance prevented the council from convening
more rapidly. Cuba has insisted the Security ting last January's declaration
strongly condemning international terrorism. Cuba argues that the Cuban airliner
bombing is no different from that of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, and
deserves the same treatment at the United Nations. Otherwise, it says, the
Security Council's credibility will be severely damaged.
Ambassador Alarcon told the Cuban daily Granma that, until justice is done,
Havana will not let the case of Cubana flight 455 rest. He said all the evidence
shows the United States violated the very anti-terrorist resolutions Washington
sponsored in the Security Council earlier this year.
Putting the issue of US terrorism before the council, said the Cuban diplomat,
is an uphill battle because Washington holds veto power, as do several of its
allies. But, said Alarcon, as the black residents of Los Angeles put it, there
will be no peace without justice. The Cuban ambassador said Havana will continue
to insist on the UN doing something about the case, and if the Security Council
does not act, Cuba will take it to the General Assembly.
|
| |
| |
Paul Tiger wrote:
Someone who blows up a commerical airliner full of civilians?
US Navy did that...
Someone who bombs civlian hotels?
US Army did that in Iraq...
Anyone or any country who aids, abets, or harbours such a person or
persons?
The USA did that for the IRA.
In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their cause.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
|
| |
| |
US Navy did that...
But it was not a terrorist action (see below), but instead a misguided
self-defense measure.
US Army did that in Iraq...
The Army bombed hotels? A cite, please?
persons?
The USA did that for the IRA.
True, and something a lot of us did not agree with at the time.
In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their cause.
Rubbish. They are defined by their definition:
"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (from USC,
Section 2656f(d))
The 1978 Bonn Summit defined terrorism to include, ""Acts of kidnapping,
hostage-taking, bomb attacks on innocents, hijacking..."
Princeton University has defined it as, "the calculated use of violence (or
threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through
intimindation or coercion or instilling fear."
The common thread through all of the common definitions of terrorism is the
fact that the *target* or objective for coercion is unarmed civilians.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Not if his target is the unarmed.
Brooks
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
|
| |
| |
But it was not a terrorist action (see below), but instead a misguided
self-defense measure.
I didn't see any qualification in the original remarks.
The Army bombed hotels? A cite, please?
Sorry, shelled...
In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their
cause.
Rubbish. They are defined by their definition:
"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (from USC,
Section 2656f(d))
The 1978 Bonn Summit defined terrorism to include, ""Acts of kidnapping,
hostage-taking, bomb attacks on innocents, hijacking..."
Who cares?
It's legalistic twaddle to allow persecution of anyone who disagrees with
the politics of the people concerned.
Princeton University has defined it as, "the calculated use of violence
(or
threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through
intimindation or coercion or instilling fear."
Again, who cares?
The common thread through all of the common definitions of terrorism is
the
fact that the *target* or objective for coercion is unarmed civilians.
So terrorising civilians who, as an extreme example, were collaborating with
the Nazis in WW2 was not legitimate?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Not if his target is the unarmed.
So shooting off duty soldiers is terrorism?
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
|
| |
| |
I didn't see any qualification in the original remarks.
Use some common sense, right?
Sorry, shelled...
"I didn't see any qualification [he did say "bombs"]...in the original
remarks"...right? Again, cite? Remember, use of direct fire weaponry such as
the coax and M2 doesn't qualify as "shelled". To be completely honest, I
don't think the use of the 120mm firing non-explosive rounds as a whopping
big sniper weapon would meet that criteria either. Anywho...they would have
been engaging hostile targets, so your comparison falls flat...
In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their
cause.
Who cares?
You obviously don't, which is why you seem so all-fired anxious to excuse
terrorists at every opportunity while trying to paint the military forces as
being no better than they are.
It's legalistic twaddle to allow persecution of anyone who disagrees with
the politics of the people concerned.
Eh? The terrorists are the ones doing the persecuting...you keep forgetting
that. We *prosecuted* the war; that is a bit different from "persecute".
(or
Again, who cares?
You should.
the
So terrorising civilians who, as an extreme example, were collaborating
with
the Nazis in WW2 was not legitimate?
Strawman. And not a very good one, I must say.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
So shooting off duty soldiers is terrorism?
When the objective is to terrorize, yes. It is simple really--even you
should be able to grasp it if you apply yourself beyond the "who cares"
stage.
Brooks
--
William Black
|
| |
| |
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> Paul Tiger wrote:
:> > define terrorist
:>
:> Someone who blows up a commerical airliner full of civilians?
::US Navy did that...
Has to be a deliberate act, not a mistake in identity.
:> Someone who bombs civlian hotels?
::US Army did that in Iraq...
Has to be a deliberate act, not bad targeting (and the US Army can't
'bomb' anyone, since they don't have the right kind of aircraft for
that).
:> Anyone or any country who aids, abets, or harbours such a person or
:persons?
::The USA did that for the IRA.
You're a liar.
:In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their cause.
Wrong.
:One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Stupidly wrong.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
|
| |
| |
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote:
:"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message
Has to be a deliberate act, not a mistake in identity.
Someone who bombs civlian hotels?
Has to be a deliberate act, not bad targeting (and the US
Army can't 'bomb' anyone, since they don't have the right
kind of aircraft for
that).
Anyone or any country who aids, abets, or harbours such a
person or persons?
You're a liar.
Wrong.
Stupidly wrong.
US involvement in Foreign assassinations or attempts since 1960
(in spite of 1976 U.S. presidential decree outlawing same)
1960 - General Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1961 - Francois Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo
1961 - General Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba , numerous attempts
1960s - Raul Castro, brother of Fidel.
1965 - Francisco Caamano, Opposition leader, Dominican Republic
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Ernesto Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander of Chilean Army
1970s, 81 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-86 - Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, numerous attempts
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeine, leader of Iran
1983 - General Ahmed Dlimi, Army commander of Morocco
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - All nine leaders of the Nicaraguan National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon Shiite leader
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998 - Osama bin Laden, former US supported "freedom fighter".
1999 - Slobodan Mlosevic, President of Yugoslavia
2001 - Osama bin Laden, al Qaida leader
2001 - Mullah Omar, religious leader of Taliban
2003 - Saddam Hussein and Family, Leader of Iraq
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"
- Thomas Jefferson Notes from Virginia
|
| |
| |
|
