dadiOH wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:

Not so. Neither Jews nor Catholics condone suicide. No Jewish or
Christian group I've ever heard of has resorted to such.

Uh, yeah, right.

Neither the Jews in Israel (or anywhere) nor the IRA has ever
attacked a civilian target.

Yer funny.

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the
IRA or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians.
Just one. And I'll quit giggling.

The King David Hotel.

The King David Hotel bombing (1946) was the headquarters of the British
Military headquarters as well as the offices of the Mandate Secretariat. It
also housed the intelligence division of the British Police. Further, the
Irgun, the Jewish group responsible for the bombing, provided advance
warning of the impending blast (which the British chose to ignore).

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:41:36 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:49:52 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ivan Marsh wrote:

That's not a rational assumption. I haven't said anything about Bush
other than to suggest that terrorism recruiting has increased since
the invasion of Iraq... which it has.

That claim is pretty hard to prove since there's no census. Where are
all these terrorists of which you speak?

There has not been one successful terrorist attack against the U.S.
or U.S. interests since 2003.

The Bush administrations itself has claimed recruiting has increased,
as has every military leader in the theatre.

I'd be grateful for a link. Google "terrorist recruitment bush/military
leaders" yields claims by John Kerry, the BBC, and others, but nothing by
Bush himself or any current military leaders.

I have no doubt that recruitment of terrorists continues; but I suspect the
actual numbers recruited have diminished drastically.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/15497.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb16.html

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

clipped




There were American oil companies in there somewhere, no?



Probably not. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed in 1927 (Treaty of
Jeddah) through 1932; oil wasn't discovered until 1938.

Prior to westerners' proclaiming the worth of oil, the Bedouins thought that
black, sticky stuff was effluvia from sick camels. They used it to treat bee
bites.




Hey, Bub, read this )
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu....discovery.htm

Then be sure to read the "About Us" link )

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:


But that's the chance our volunteers took when they signed up for the
opportunity to wreak havoc.

They did not sign up to be lied to by the commander in chief.
Since many have re-upped since the "lied to" stuff started coming
out years ago, it would seem that they either they did, or don't feel
they have been.


Interestingly, 85% of those who served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
re-enlisted when their enlistment anniversary arrived.. Just last week,
the 1st Infantry Division, now on its THIRD tour of duty in Iraq,
reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in the first six months of
the fiscal year!

It's called stop-loss.

Actually stop-loss ONLY applies to those who don't re-up if they have
needed skills. Stop loss is involuntary extension of enlistment,
re-enlistment, again by definition, is when they decide voluntarily to
stick around .


Our troops WANT to be there, they NEED to be there, they ENJOY being
there! We need to support our troops by continuing to provide them with
the opportunity to kill people and blow **** up. Hoo-Rah!

None of my friends that are there believe any of the crap that's being
shoveled at them by the Bush administration.

Oh well, that settles that argument. If I had known that such a
compelling data point was out there, I would have never even started
this whole discussion.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:49:05 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In a similar spirit of levity, name one. Point to an attack by the IRA
or Jewish groups in Israel that specifically targeted civilians. Just
one. And I'll quit giggling.

Depending on how you divvy up the factions, the Provos (an IRA
offshoot) did bomb Harrods, not exactly a military target. Same with
Canary Wharf. In the interest of equal time, protestants blew up that a
betting parlor frequented by Catholics in Belfast in 92. For awhile in
the 90s, both sides in this particular dispute took turns bombing
and/or shooting up civilian targets in an action/reaction manner. The
lists go on and on. Actually the IRA has a long history of going after
civilian targets.

I stand corrected. In the main, the IRA attacked police stations and
offices of government, but, you're right. They did, from time to time,
go after civilian targets in a terroristic mode.

My buddy that worked in London for a few years had the pub two doors down
from his flat blown to bits in one of the last IRA attacks. Luckily he was
at work at the time.

It was clearly not a military target.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:23:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

But that's the chance our volunteers took when they signed up for the
opportunity to wreak havoc.

They did not sign up to be lied to by the commander in chief.
Since many have re-upped since the "lied to" stuff started coming
out years ago, it would seem that they either they did, or don't feel
they have been.

It's a bit more complicated than that. One of my friends is career
military and is well aware that he's been lied to.

Interestingly, 85% of those who served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
re-enlisted when their enlistment anniversary arrived.. Just last
week, the 1st Infantry Division, now on its THIRD tour of duty in
Iraq, reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in the first six
months of the fiscal year!

It's called stop-loss.

Actually stop-loss ONLY applies to those who don't re-up if they have
needed skills. Stop loss is involuntary extension of enlistment,
re-enlistment, again by definition, is when they decide voluntarily to
stick around.

See above.

Our troops WANT to be there, they NEED to be there, they ENJOY being
there! We need to support our troops by continuing to provide them
with the opportunity to kill people and blow **** up. Hoo-Rah!

None of my friends that are there believe any of the crap that's being
shoveled at them by the Bush administration.

Oh well, that settles that argument. If I had known that such a
compelling data point was out there, I would have never even started
this whole discussion.

Sorry if first hand knowledge seems irrelevant to you. I'll let my buddy
that manned a machine gun on the back of a Hummer the first trip through
the center of Baghdad know that his experience and opinion are meaningless.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

On 5/29/2008 12:32 PM spake thus:

Answer us this: Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?

Timothy McVeigh was a muslim? Interesting?

How about all those abortion-clinic bombers and abortion-doc assassins?
All "ragheads", eh?


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

clipped

Thanks.

Of course the site to which you point is an apologist for the barbarians.

I took my information from:

"Abdul Aziz's military and political successes were not mirrored
economically until vast reserves of oil were discovered in March 1938."

which appears in the unbiased and authoritative link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia




Oh, I think the whole mess with Bin Laden is probably because Laura
jilted him and took
up George "I don't remember whether I did or not" Bush. THAT would make
complete
sense )

OBL went to school in ......Texas?

Norminn wrote:
clipped




There were American oil companies in there somewhere, no?



Probably not. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed in 1927 (Treaty
of Jeddah) through 1932; oil wasn't discovered until 1938.

Prior to westerners' proclaiming the worth of oil, the Bedouins
thought that black, sticky stuff was effluvia from sick camels. They
used it to treat bee bites.




Hey, Bub, read this )
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu....discovery.htm

Then be sure to read the "About Us" link )

Thanks.

Of course the site to which you point is an apologist for the barbarians.

I took my information from:

"Abdul Aziz's military and political successes were not mirrored
economically until vast reserves of oil were discovered in March 1938."

which appears in the unbiased and authoritative link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

Ivan Marsh wrote:


It's a bit more complicated than that. One of my friends is career
military and is well aware that he's been lied to.


I don't think you've wrapped your mind around the point: whether the troops
were lied to or promised lollipops is irrelevant - at least to them.

They're there.

They WANT to be there. They ENJOY what they're doing. They DON'T want to
come home.

Would anyone want to be a fire fighter if there were no fires? Would anyone
want to be a physician if there were no sick people?

These people are WARRIORS! The need wars. It is our job to provide a war
every decade or so to keep the tip of the spear sharp! We have military
missions (aside from Marine embassy guards) in over 80 countries as we
speak. These folks are not school crossing guards. They are administering
and teaching the fine art of killing.

The march.

For duty's sake. For honor's sake. For glory's sake.

For their lands. For their families. For their freedoms.

Father. Sons. Uncles. Freed Slaves. Citizen soldiers. Free Greeks all.

They march.

"Just there, the barbarians huddle - sheer terror gripping tight their
hearts with icey fingers, knowing full well what horrors they faced at the
swords and spears of 300. There they stare now at the face of TEN THOUSAND
Spartans leading thirty thousand free Greeks!"

Rudy wrote:

Can you LEAVE HOME REPAIR out of this CRAP

"Janithor"

BUT I ****ING LOVE HOME REPAIR!

Islam sucks, too. It's the oldest cult there is. Anyone in question
about it hasn't researched the Quran enough, it's as simple as that.
Well, or they're a Muslim.

*******S!

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:


They did not sign up to be lied to by the commander in chief.
Since many have re-upped since the "lied to" stuff started coming
out years ago, it would seem that they either they did, or don't feel
they have been.

It's a bit more complicated than that. One of my friends is career
military and is well aware that he's been lied to.
Again, I am impressed with the depth of your research. Your buddy
may (or/a may not) feel that way, and thus that can be extrapolated to
the entire military.


Interestingly, 85% of those who served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
re-enlisted when their enlistment anniversary arrived.. Just last
week, the 1st Infantry Division, now on its THIRD tour of duty in
Iraq, reported it met its annual re-enlistment goal in the first six
months of the fiscal year!

It's called stop-loss.

Actually stop-loss ONLY applies to those who don't re-up if they have
needed skills. Stop loss is involuntary extension of enlistment,
re-enlistment, again by definition, is when they decide voluntarily to
stick around.

See above.

Nothing to see. Stop loss applies only to those leaving. Nothing
about your n=1 pronouncements changes that. Your buddy stayed in and
re-upped because he voluteered to do so.


Oh well, that settles that argument. If I had known that such a
compelling data point was out there, I would have never even started
this whole discussion.

Sorry if first hand knowledge seems irrelevant to you. I'll let my buddy
that manned a machine gun on the back of a Hummer the first trip through
the center of Baghdad know that his experience and opinion are meaningless.
Anecdote is not the singular of data. Make sure he also knows that you
are using his experiences as indications of how everyone in the service
feels. I am sure he'll be real happy that you are using him in that
manner.

BoredToTears wrote:

You're correct. I apologize for giving the IRA more credit for being
civilized than they deserve.


No apology necessary. Sometimes the received wisdom is, well, not very
wise or particularly informed.

It's now about people and communities, building bridges and
reconciliation. Human things: democracy and peace, and all the
difficulties and rewards that go hand-in-hand with those two huge
burdens. The world is a better place because of the peace process in
Northern Ireland and if it can happen there, in the face of such
bitterness, surely it can happen anywhere. A little naive perhaps but
here's hoping.

I don't think "peace" should be the goal. I think peace is but a consequence
of democracy. Democracies don't go to war with each other - generally*. And
there's never been a famine in a democracy. Maybe it's even more meta-like
than democracy. It could be capitalism that breeds both democracy AND peace.
Right now, China is in the grasp of capitalistic ideas, so we'll see how
that works out.

--------
* The only war I can think of between two democracies was the recent
unplesantness in the U.S., that is, The Second War of Independence. But,
even there, the North acted more like a dictator than a democracy.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


--------
* The only war I can think of between two democracies was the recent
unplesantness in the U.S., that is, The Second War of Independence. But,
even there, the North acted more like a dictator than a democracy.

The Accepted Politically Correct reference is "The Unpleasantness
Between the States". I thought you should know...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


--------
* The only war I can think of between two democracies was the recent
unplesantness in the U.S., that is, The Second War of Independence.
But, even there, the North acted more like a dictator than a
democracy.

The Accepted Politically Correct reference is "The Unpleasantness
Between the States". I thought you should know...

Yeah, we sometimes call it "The Recent Unplesantness," but I take your
meaning.

On May 30, 10:46*pm, laraine wrote:
On May 29, 4:41 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:



"Answer us this: *Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? *How many
Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill innocents?"

Srebrenica massacre --different method.

C.

I assume not Jews involved though.

I just remembered the comedy show
Bridget Loves Bernie from the 70's --
I used to think that was the funniest
show I had ever seen... we need more
like that... though I guess some didn't
like it back then, and maybe it was
naive too...

Also, just heard about some Lebanese
lecturer who is married to someone
Jewish, and who talks about it... can't
find her name though.

C.

"Answer us this: *Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? *How many
Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill innocents?"

Why should jews strap on bombs to kill people when the US gives them
cluster bombs and aircraft?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:54:35 -0500, nick hull wrote:

"Answer us this: Â*Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? Â*How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?"

Why should jews strap on bombs to kill people when the US gives them
cluster bombs and aircraft?

We don't give them cluster bombs and aircraft... we sell them cluster
bombs and aircraft.

In article ,
Ivan Marsh wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:54:35 -0500, nick hull wrote:

"Answer us this: Â*Why has every terrorist of late been muslim? Â*How
many Jews or Christians raise their kids to strap on bombs to kill
innocents?"

Why should jews strap on bombs to kill people when the US gives them
cluster bombs and aircraft?

We don't give them cluster bombs and aircraft... we sell them cluster
bombs and aircraft.

Then forgive the debt

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **