harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research.

What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.

Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. *snicker*

TDD

harry wrote:
On May 15, 2:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:

harry wrote:
(snip)
You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. �They have made a start in Australia I �believe.
And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

We made a start in the 1920s.
and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.



I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) �I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.
exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places.

and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.

Damn Harry, how much Guinness have you quaffed this morning? Your
sentence structure just went all to hell. I know you're better educated
than that, what would your old headmaster say?

TDD

harry wrote:

What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

Close. Bush actually said: "Walk softly, carry a big stick, and wallop the
hell out of someone every so often."

harry wrote:

Heroes? Hunting lions with spears? Well, I guess if spears was all
they had
and their livelihood was at risk...

But, given modern society, I can think of several words that would
be far
more appropriate than "hero," with "fool" being at the top of the
list.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Real sportsmen fight their prey on equal terms. The cowardly give
their prey no chance.
& BTW, the Masia's is not a modern society. But in no way inferior.

I suppose that's one definition of "sportsman," albeit one I would not use.

Consider a golfer: the ball can't hit back (although to be fair, the ball
sometimes wounds a spectator).

harry wrote:
On May 14, 9:39?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Hmm. ?I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! ? :-)

Well, He DID say "trade your cloak for a sword"...

Where is that?

Uh, in the New Testament. Specifically:

Luke 22:36
"He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and
likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy
one."

That instruction was for His followers only. Jesus himself had no need for a
weapon inasmuch as He could miracle an aggressor into a toad should the need
arise.

On May 15, 12:12�pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 2:18 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:

harry wrote:
(snip)
You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. They have made a start in Australia I believe.
And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

We made a start in the 1920s.
and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.

I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.
exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places.

and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.

Damn Harry, how much Guinness have you quaffed this morning? Your
sentence structure just went all to hell. I know you're better educated
than that, what would your old headmaster say?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I apologise. You are right about the grammar, I was rushing. Also
came to the keyboard late in life! :-0 I have trouble with my
wireless link from time to time too.
I don't drink beer. Horrible taste. I'm told yours is even worse. :-)

HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 8:41?pm, Oren wrote:

What is a Progressive?

A "Progressive" is the new name for "liberal" (U.S. liberal). Same
people, same policies, different name.

Their policies, platforms, and promises so tarnished the old name,
they had to come up with a new one.

That's all.

I got ahead of the curve. An appropriate definition took place just today:

"Sis, 'progressivism' is basically ego; a held belief that one's intentions
equals actual results."

http://daybydaycartoon.com/

On May 15, 1:44�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

Close. Bush actually said: "Walk softly, carry a big stick, and wallop the
hell out of someone every so often."

.....but only if they can't hit back.
You need to be careful who you try to push around these days. At
sometime in the not too distant future a terrorist will nuke New
York. They don't need any fancy missiles, just a shipping container.
Or maybe they'll sneak it in from Mexico or Canada.
We already have a muslim bomb (Pakistan). I wonder what would happen
if Pakistan went extreme?

On May 15, 12:08�pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research.

What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.

Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. �*snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not that you're renouned for speaking softly. And you didn't get far
in Vietnam. The last word hasn't been had in Iraq/Afghanistan yet
either. They're just waiting for you to go home. It took forty
years to democrify Japan, why should it be quicker in Iraq?
The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.
Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.

On May 15, 1:52�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 9:39?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Hmm. ?I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other weapon?
Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! ? :-)

Well, He DID say "trade your cloak for a sword"...

Where is that?

Uh, in the New Testament. Specifically:

Luke 22:36
"He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and
likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy
one."

That instruction was for His followers only. Jesus himself had no need for a
weapon inasmuch as He could miracle an aggressor into a toad should the need
arise.

Now I had never noticed that bit. The wording is strange.
I did find this:-http://www.ecapc.org/articles/
RensbeD_HS4_BuyASword.asp

On May 15, 1:57�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 8:41?pm, Oren wrote:

What is a Progressive?

A "Progressive" is the new name for "liberal" (U.S. liberal). Same
people, same policies, different name.

Their policies, platforms, and promises so tarnished the old name,
they had to come up with a new one.

That's all.

I got ahead of the curve. An appropriate definition took place just today:

"Sis, 'progressivism' is basically ego; a held belief that one's intentions
equals actual results."

http://daybydaycartoon.com/

You know this word has been bandied about over here too. I was
interested in your interpretation of it. It seems to fit B-liar to a
Tee.

aemeijers wrote in
:

harry wrote:
(snip)

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best
chances for successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.

"starting a gunfight" is NOT "self-defense".
the law is pretty clear on self-defense in most states.
One has to have reasonable basis for using lethal force in self-defense.
Evidently,"harry" is ignorant of the law,too.

You are just spouting NRS drivel.

it's NRA,and not "drivel". even the FBI and police admit it.
(the non-political working cops,not the chiefs)


I'm a peaceful man- I'll never start a gunfight. But if someone else
does, and he dies instead of me because I had a gun available, well, I
fail to see a problem. I'm no cowboy- I go out of my way to avoid
hanging out with stupid people, drunks, druggies, and criminals, and
situations and areas where violence is a common way of settling
disputes. But if said stupid people, et al, come to my quiet little
corner of the world and start something, I will do my best to make
sure I'm not the one leaving on a gurney.



"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

that anti's can't argue with this statement.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

harry wrote:
On May 15, 12:12�pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 2:18 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:
harry wrote:
(snip)
You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. They have made a start in Australia I believe.
And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
We made a start in the 1920s.
and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.
I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.
exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places.
and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.
But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.
Damn Harry, how much Guinness have you quaffed this morning? Your
sentence structure just went all to hell. I know you're better educated
than that, what would your old headmaster say?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I apologise. You are right about the grammar, I was rushing. Also
came to the keyboard late in life! :-0 I have trouble with my
wireless link from time to time too.
I don't drink beer. Horrible taste. I'm told yours is even worse. :-)

I wouldn't know about beer, it looks like urine to me. Believe it or
not, I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life. Besides,
if I made errors in sentence structure and spelling, Sister Autopsy,
one of the Irish nuns from the Catholic parochial gulag I was remanded
to as a small boy would hunt me down and torture me.

TDD

On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:26:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 15, 6:29?am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 14, 11:40?am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 6:48 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The reason we so many "bug eyed Afghanis is enitrely the fault of the
USA.
The USSR identified there was a problem in Afghanistan and was well on
the way to resolving it by their usual brutal methods. ?The USA for no
good reason, decided to arm and train the Afghans. ?We are all paying
the price for this foolishness. Once again no-one in the US government
was interested in history.

First rule. ?Never give the cloth-heads guns.

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. ?The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. ?They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? ?The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. ?Iran? ?Venezuela? ?Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hitler declared war on te USA just after the Japanese attack on Pearl
harbour. You did not come running tour aid. ? Learn your HISTORY.

...and we were sitting on our hands before that? ?You do know your Spitfires
would have been cute hangar queens without Texas sweet? ?No, I suppose not.
You didn't have a chance with the Battle of Brittan without US' help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your Mustang was powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.

Which we had no use for, in your version of "history".

You had to
beg us for the plans for it so you could make your own after you
learned how. I think Packhard built Merlin engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650
Later you had to beg for the plans for jet engines. We never did tell
you about our electronic computers that routinely cracked the German
Enigma codes and saved thousands of US lives.
There now, you can learn about it, the secret is out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

You are stupid. Only a total idiot would reinvent that much history.

There were a handful of US pilots flew spitfires in the battle of
Britain. They masquaraded as Canadians mostly.

What did they use for fuel? Your ****?

On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 15, 6:30?am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:05 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

Pull all troops out of the UK and Germany. ?Put them in Poland, if necessary.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why Poland?

Because, at least until Obama, they rather appreciated our support. I'm sure
they would appreciate the money. You? We made a big mistake in WWII.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 15, 12:08?pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research.

What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.

Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. ?*snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not that you're renouned for speaking softly. And you didn't get far
in Vietnam.

Actually, we got pretty far in Vietnam, considering that the mess was run by
Demonicrats. At the end, of course, the Demonicrats gave away the store, and
the 57K souls.

The last word hasn't been had in Iraq/Afghanistan yet
either. They're just waiting for you to go home. It took forty
years to democrify Japan, why should it be quicker in Iraq?

No one said it would. It is working, though. Afganistan will be tougher.
Might have to kill a lot more of them.

The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.

Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.

....in spades.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 04:40:55 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!

That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of
the world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after
Rome fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of
convenience. Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.


so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on
the US,originating from bases in that "nation"? (and the others resist
our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide"
when they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.


What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD

Trouble is, big sticks only work well on targets you can identify. A
shifting nomadic group of bipedal kamikaze weapons, that look and act
just like the indigenous population they sprang from and live among, is
awful hard to draw a bead on.

Aside from the kamikaze part, it reminds me of the VC in Viet Nam. Smile
and work with you by day, attack you when you least expect it.

Yes, that requires different tactics. Ones leftists have no stomach for.

Sometimes I think that the 1st and 2nd world countries brought it on
themselves, bringing modern arms, comms, and transport to these 4th
world countries. Too bad we can't just all pull back and let them try to
get out of the 1800s on their own.

Putting the worms back in the can is impossible. Given the recent trends in
nukes, keeping worms canned doesn't appear to be possible either.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:21:39 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:08:16 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , aemeijers
wrote:
[...]
get rid of the 'forbidden fruit' factor
Yep. When my boys were toddlers, I told them that they were not to handle
the
guns alone, but any time they wanted to, all they had to do was ask, and I
would get the guns out of the cabinet -- one at a time -- and we would look
at
them *together*. About once a year, they'd ask. And I'd put down whatever I
was doing, open the gun cabinet, and show them the guns. They're both safe
and
responsible hunters now, at ages 22 and 18.
Yepper. Nobody in my family ever hunted, but we all learned to shoot
before the age of 10, when we could hold the .22 single-shot without
assistance. Guns were No Big Deal, just something else to move out of
the way from behind the door when you were cleaning or painting. Of
course, back then, you could just go out in the country and plink into a
hillside, and nobody gave a damn. Now, you'd be hearing sirens before
you got through the first 50 rounds, unless you have your own acreage
big enough to disperse the sound.
You didn't even have to go to the country. My old boss grew up in Los
Angeles. When he was in grade school, he'd go home after school, grab
the .22 rifle, and head down the street to the park. Cops would stop and
give him a ride.

A guy I used to work with carried his .22 rifle to school. The gym teacher
locked it up in a locker during the day. They had an intermural shooting team
in high school. He lived in New York City, BTW.

I know a guy who grew up in Alaska, he and all the other kids carried
rifles and shotguns with them on the way to school. When they arrived
at school, they put the guns, snow shoes and heavy parkas into their
lockers. The reason they all carried guns had something to do with not
wanting to become bear scat. The local bear population considered all
the unarmed schoolchildren to be quite tasty.

In outlying areas, sure. Another cow-orker kept a .223 in his car so he could
go fishing after school.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:47:21 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

Heroes? Hunting lions with spears? Well, I guess if spears was all
they had
and their livelihood was at risk...

But, given modern society, I can think of several words that would
be far
more appropriate than "hero," with "fool" being at the top of the
list.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Real sportsmen fight their prey on equal terms. The cowardly give
their prey no chance.
& BTW, the Masia's is not a modern society. But in no way inferior.

I suppose that's one definition of "sportsman," albeit one I would not use.

Consider a golfer: the ball can't hit back (although to be fair, the ball
sometimes wounds a spectator).

You can't eat golf balls, either.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:38:22 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:52:58 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

WWJC?
What Would Jesus Carry?

Probably an Uzzi.

Naaaa, Jesus would carry a Tavor sniper version.

No, I think Uzzi is a much better fit: http://www.search.com/reference/Uzzi

;-)

On May 15, 3:19�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:26:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 15, 6:29?am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 14, 11:40?am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 6:48 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD

The reason we so many "bug eyed Afghanis is enitrely the fault of the
USA.
The USSR identified there was a problem in Afghanistan and was well on
the way to resolving it by their usual brutal methods. ?The USA for no
good reason, decided to arm and train the Afghans. ?We are all paying
the price for this foolishness. Once again no-one in the US government
was interested in history.

First rule. ?Never give the cloth-heads guns.

The USA needs to be at perpetual war to enrich the republican-owned
arms industry. ?The war in the ME was started because the USSR had
(temporarily) fallen by the wayside.
Those poor American boys dying in far off places are dying to enrich
the wealthy elite of America. ?They are not BTW fighting to defend
America. They are fighting and dying to defend the fascist state of
Israel.
They need a gun culture in America so they have a reserve of gun-
trained, misinformed, ill-educated youth to use as gun fodder so they
can fill their pocket with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So who will be next? ?The war in Afghanistan is getting unpopular and
unprofitable. ?Iran? ?Venezuela? ?Hah! Now there's a thought. Oil
rich, close at hand and socialist. Ideal target i say!

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hitler declared war on te USA just after the Japanese attack on Pearl
harbour. You did not come running tour aid. ? Learn your HISTORY.

...and we were sitting on our hands before that? ?You do know your Spitfires
would have been cute hangar queens without Texas sweet? ?No, I suppose not.
You didn't have a chance with the Battle of Brittan without US' help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your Mustang was powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.

Which we had no use for, in your version of "history".

You had to
beg us for the plans for it so you could make your own after you
learned how. �I think �Packhard built Merlin engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650
Later you had to beg for the plans for jet engines. �We never did tell
you about our electronic computers that routinely cracked the German
Enigma codes and saved thousands of US lives.
There now, you can learn about it, the secret is out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

You are stupid. �Only a total idiot would reinvent that much history.

There were a handful of US pilots flew spitfires in the battle of
Britain. They masquaraded as Canadians mostly.

What did they use for fuel? �Your ****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly which bit is reinvented?
Oh and BTW, it was a British scientist invented the internet too.

On May 15, 3:20�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 15, 6:30?am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:22:05 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:40:41 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Harry, have you thought about why you're not speaking German right now?
It might have something to do with an evil, selfish, former colony that
came to the aid of Great Britain about 70 years ago. It's funny that
this horrid, selfish, terror exporting, gun worshiping, imperialist,
evil country I live in is so quick to offer or come to the aid of those
people who spit in our face. Perhaps my country should tell the rest of
the world to bugger off?

TDD

Agree.

Stop all foreign aid immediately - pay our damn bills, first.

I speak as many languages as Harry. English, Redneck and Profanity.

Pull all troops out of the UK and Germany. ?Put them in Poland, if necessary.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why Poland?

Because, at least until Obama, they rather appreciated our support. �I'm sure
they would appreciate the money. �You? �We made a big mistake in WWII.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would they need to be in Poland? You planning on invading Russia?

On May 15, 3:25�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 15, 12:08?pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research..

What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.

Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. ?*snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not that you're renouned for speaking softly. �And you didn't get far
in Vietnam. �

Actually, we got pretty far in Vietnam, considering that the mess was run by
Demonicrats. �At the end, of course, the Demonicrats gave away the store, and
the 57K souls.

The last word hasn't been had in Iraq/Afghanistan yet
either. �They're just waiting for you to go home. � It took forty
years to democrify Japan, why should it be quicker in Iraq?

No one said it would. �It is working, though. �Afganistan will be tougher.
Might have to kill a lot more of them.

The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. �Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.

Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. �You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.

...in spades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know fascisism when I see it. rounding up people and putting them in
concentration camps. Stealing their land and property. Dropping
(American supplied) cluster bombs on civilians. Raining down (American
supplied) phosphorus on civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians. They
are the scum of the earth and they are your "friends".
All exact parallels to Nazi Germany.
These are the causes of 11/9, nothing to do with non-existent WMDs,
Iraq & only slightly Afghanistan. You are damned half wits. If you
chase Alqaeda out of Afghanistan they will go to Yemen. If you chase
them out of Yemen, they will go to Somalia. And you already have been
chased out of Somalia.

On May 15, 3:28�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 04:40:55 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!

That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of
the world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after
Rome fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of
convenience. Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.

so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on
the US,originating from bases in that "nation"? (and the others resist
our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide"
when they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.

What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD

Trouble is, big sticks only work well on targets you can identify. �A
shifting nomadic group of bipedal kamikaze weapons, that look and act
just like the indigenous population they sprang from and live among, is
awful hard to draw a bead on.

Aside from the kamikaze part, it reminds me of the VC in Viet Nam. Smile
and work with you by day, attack you when you least expect it.

Yes, that requires different tactics. �Ones leftists have no stomach for.

Sometimes I think that the 1st and 2nd world countries brought it on
themselves, bringing modern arms, comms, �and transport to these 4th
world countries. Too bad we can't just all pull back and let them try to
get out of the 1800s on their own.

Putting the worms back in the can is impossible. �Given the recent trends in
nukes, keeping worms canned doesn't appear to be possible either. �- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so. You are going to have to learn to mind your own business
& cease interfering.

On May 15, 2:56�pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote :

harry wrote:
(snip)

But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best
chances for successful self-defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.

"starting a gunfight" is NOT "self-defense".
the law is pretty clear on self-defense in most states.
One has to have reasonable basis for using lethal force in self-defense.
Evidently,"harry" is ignorant of the law,too.

You are just spouting NRS drivel.

it's NRA,and not "drivel". even the FBI and police admit it.
(the non-political working cops,not the chiefs)



I'm a peaceful man- I'll never start a gunfight. But if someone else
does, and he dies instead of me because I had a gun available, well, I
fail to see a problem. I'm no cowboy- I go out of my way to avoid
hanging out with stupid people, drunks, druggies, and criminals, and
situations and areas where violence is a common way of settling
disputes. But if said stupid people, et al, come to my quiet little
corner of the world and start something, I will do my best to make
sure I'm not the one leaving on a gurney.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder

that anti's can't argue with this statement.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

I never heard of this "Snyder" but the man is a half wit. Probably in
the pay of the NRA and arms manufacturers in the USA.

On May 15, 3:03�pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 12:12 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 2:18 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote om:
harry wrote:
(snip)
You have to make a start somewhere. There's something mentally
defective about anyone who thinks they need to carry/posses a gun to
impress people. They have made a start in Australia I believe.
And it has NOT been successfull.
After enactment of their "strict gun control",there was little change in
crime,in fact,it's been increasing. Same goes for Britain and Japan.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
We made a start in the 1920s.
and it only made things worse. Like everywhere else.
Gun control hasn't worked in ANY nation on Earth.
I have no interest whatsoever in impressing people, and do not carry a
gun off my property, since this state requires a carry permit for
handguns, and I never got around to dealing with the red tape to get
one. I don't hunt, so there is no need to carry a long gun anywhere.. I
purposely bought a house in an area where guns are not carried as a
fashion accessory or manhood enhancer. (My office, sadly, is in such an
area- I do not like going there late at night.) I don't display them on
a wall or anything, or tell anyone about them unless they ask, and then
not always, because I'd rather not advertise that my house is worth
robbing. Guns are a tool, nothing more.
exactly.
It's not about "impressing" anyone,it's about having the means to defend
yourself and others if necessary.
Reasonable people recognize that police are not always around to protect
you or your property,and that they take some time to arrive when called,and
that YOU have to take steps to do it yourself,within the law.
Reasonable people recognize that trouble can strike in many public places.
and for most people,a firearm is the best tool for the job.
It can be used by almost anyone to successfully defend against
bigger,stronger,or more numerous attackers,with the best chances for
success and with the least risk to ones self.
One cannot always run,flee or retreat to a "safe place" until police can be
called and they actually arrive. Nor can any reasonable person expect a 90
lb woman to fight off a 200 lb male,or several attackers with any other
weapon or by unarmed combat methods. Not everyone is physically capable of
that or by using a knife or club against another person or persons in self-
defense.
But the EVIDENCE has shown that using a gun gives you the best chances for
successful self-defense.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Commonsense tels you if you start a gunfight somemight get killed.
You are just spouting NRS drivel.
Damn Harry, how much Guinness have you quaffed this morning? Your
sentence structure just went all to hell. I know you're better educated
than that, what would your old headmaster say?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

�I apologise. You are right about the grammar, I was rushing. �Also
came to the keyboard late in life! �:-0 �I have trouble with my
wireless link from time to time too.
I don't drink beer. Horrible taste. �I'm told yours is even worse. �:-)

I wouldn't know about beer, it looks like urine to me. Believe it or
not, I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life. Besides,
if I made errors in sentence structure and spelling, Sister Autopsy,
one of the Irish nuns from the Catholic parochial gulag I was remanded
to as a small boy would hunt me down and torture me.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Things could have been worse. You might have had a priestofile
teaching you.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:59:46 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 15, 3:25?pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 15, 12:08?pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds like "W".

My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research.

What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.

Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. ?*snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not that you're renouned for speaking softly. ?And you didn't get far
in Vietnam. ?

Actually, we got pretty far in Vietnam, considering that the mess was run by
Demonicrats. ?At the end, of course, the Demonicrats gave away the store, and
the 57K souls.

The last word hasn't been had in Iraq/Afghanistan yet
either. ?They're just waiting for you to go home. ? It took forty
years to democrify Japan, why should it be quicker in Iraq?

No one said it would. ?It is working, though. ?Afganistan will be tougher.
Might have to kill a lot more of them.

The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. ?Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.

Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. ?You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.

...in spades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know fascisism when I see it.

So, you're able to look in a mirror; add psychopath to the list.

rounding up people and putting them in
concentration camps.

No, you just want to exterminate Jews. That's perfectly understandable.

Stealing their land and property.

Wrong. You want to kill the Jews so *you* can steal their property.

Dropping
(American supplied) cluster bombs on civilians. Raining down (American
supplied) phosphorus on civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians. They
are the scum of the earth and they are your "friends".

You are incredibly stupid. ...and just when I thought you were just a bad
troll.

All exact parallels to Nazi Germany.

Your wishing all the Jews dead seems a bit like Nazi Germany, no? Oh, that's
right. Jews aren't people.

These are the causes of 11/9, nothing to do with non-existent WMDs,
Iraq & only slightly Afghanistan. You are damned half wits. If you
chase Alqaeda out of Afghanistan they will go to Yemen. If you chase
them out of Yemen, they will go to Somalia. And you already have been
chased out of Somalia.

You *are* stupid.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 12:00:54 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 15, 3:28?pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 04:40:55 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
news:ZsCdndcymbAbS3DWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews. com:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!

That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?

I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of
the world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after
Rome fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of
convenience. Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.

so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on
the US,originating from bases in that "nation"? (and the others resist
our retribution...)

What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)

either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide"
when they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.

Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.

We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.

What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."

TDD

Trouble is, big sticks only work well on targets you can identify. ?A
shifting nomadic group of bipedal kamikaze weapons, that look and act
just like the indigenous population they sprang from and live among, is
awful hard to draw a bead on.

Aside from the kamikaze part, it reminds me of the VC in Viet Nam. Smile
and work with you by day, attack you when you least expect it.

Yes, that requires different tactics. ?Ones leftists have no stomach for.

Sometimes I think that the 1st and 2nd world countries brought it on
themselves, bringing modern arms, comms, ?and transport to these 4th
world countries. Too bad we can't just all pull back and let them try to
get out of the 1800s on their own.

Putting the worms back in the can is impossible. ?Given the recent trends in
nukes, keeping worms canned doesn't appear to be possible either. ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so. You are going to have to learn to mind your own business
& cease interfering.

No, some just have to be killed before they can kill. You're just too stupid
to see that. Being a Europeon, you'll be first to go.

harry wrote:
(snip)
The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. �Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.
Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. �You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.
...in spades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know fascisism when I see it. rounding up people and putting them in
concentration camps. Stealing their land and property. Dropping
(American supplied) cluster bombs on civilians. Raining down (American
supplied) phosphorus on civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians. They
are the scum of the earth and they are your "friends".
All exact parallels to Nazi Germany.

A clue for you Harry- The Israelis and the Palestinians are BOTH wrong,
and they BOTH lie a lot. Neither side has a convincing title to the
land- which side to believe depends mainly on which year's borders you
start your argument from. Going back to Balfour declaration and blaming
the Brits for the fubar is as good an explanation as any. As I noted
previously, the locals did not draw the borders there a hundred years
ago, the West did.

Short of brain-wiping all of them to forget their respective tragic
histories, and finding a way to keep religion out of their politics,
there will never be peace in the middle east. If these were kids in a
sandbox, the nearest adult would kick them ALL out, and tell them if
they can't share, none of them get it. The west gave Israel (back) to
the Jews out of guilt, even though it really wasn't theirs to give. But
since then, by having their act together compared to their Keystone Cop
neighbors, the Israelis have earned that land as much as any other
country that was created out of land taken from others, has. The Brits
did a good deal of takeovers back in the day, too, remember. No new
country ever got created without somebody else getting the short end of
the stick. It isn't fair, but it is reality. Funny how none of the
self-exiled Palestinians that used to live in what is now Israel were
taken in by their Arab brethren. One would almost think they didn't want
them either. Understandable that after 3-4 generations in the camps,
their world-view is a little biased.

Apologies to the group for continuing this wildly off-topic endless
thread branch, and indulging Harry the troll. I'm done.

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote in news:Q-
:

harry wrote:
(snip)
The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. �Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.
Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. �You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.
...in spades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know fascisism when I see it. rounding up people and putting them in
concentration camps. Stealing their land and property. Dropping
(American supplied) cluster bombs on civilians. Raining down (American
supplied) phosphorus on civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians. They
are the scum of the earth and they are your "friends".
All exact parallels to Nazi Germany.

A clue for you Harry- The Israelis and the Palestinians are BOTH wrong,
and they BOTH lie a lot. Neither side has a convincing title to the
land- which side to believe depends mainly on which year's borders you
start your argument from. Going back to Balfour declaration and blaming
the Brits for the fubar is as good an explanation as any. As I noted
previously, the locals did not draw the borders there a hundred years
ago, the West did.

Short of brain-wiping all of them to forget their respective tragic
histories, and finding a way to keep religion out of their politics,
there will never be peace in the middle east. If these were kids in a
sandbox, the nearest adult would kick them ALL out, and tell them if
they can't share, none of them get it. The west gave Israel (back) to
the Jews out of guilt, even though it really wasn't theirs to give. But
since then, by having their act together compared to their Keystone Cop
neighbors, the Israelis have earned that land as much as any other
country that was created out of land taken from others, has. The Brits
did a good deal of takeovers back in the day, too, remember. No new
country ever got created without somebody else getting the short end of
the stick. It isn't fair, but it is reality. Funny how none of the
self-exiled Palestinians that used to live in what is now Israel were
taken in by their Arab brethren. One would almost think they didn't want
them either. Understandable that after 3-4 generations in the camps,
their world-view is a little biased.

Apologies to the group for continuing this wildly off-topic endless
thread branch, and indulging Harry the troll. I'm done.


Israel's land was NOT "taken from others".
It was taken from them,in Roman times. And since then,Jews have lived there
continuously,but persecuted. The Al-Aqsa mosque is built on Jewish Temple
remains. Jews have a long,tremendous history in that land,1000's of years.


what do you think about the new mosque going up at the World Trade Center
property?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in news:Q-
:

(snip)


Israel's land was NOT "taken from others".
It was taken from them,in Roman times. And since then,Jews have lived there
continuously,but persecuted. The Al-Aqsa mosque is built on Jewish Temple
remains. Jews have a long,tremendous history in that land,1000's of years.


Apologies if you find this offensive, but I do not accept that modern
Israel is the legal successor to the Israel of old. It isn't at all like
the liberated former Soviet states where the old records still existed,
and some of the people who were kicked out or lost property are actually
still around. Sure, what was done to old Israel was a sin, but there
were multiple intervening governments recognized as the valid government
for the area, that granted recognized titles to land, etc. The current
state of Israel may share the name of a former country on the same
(roughly) site, but it is not the same country. When US was organized,
they mostly recognized the old land grants from whatever country started
whatever colony. Old Spanish land grants were recognized when US took
over FL and the Southwest, as were French land descriptions and titles
in Louisiana. I think when the west 'chartered' modern Israel, they
harbored the illusion that something similar would happen- a new
government would be there, but anybody that wanted to stay would not
lose anything. Obviously, their grasp of the hatred on the ground there
was limited. A large part of the non-Jewish population heeded the
Arab-issued call to flee, with promises that it would only be for a few
months. (and if the propaganda ads in US News are correct, the new
government did not force them to leave- they fled on their own.) None
of the other Arab states wanted them, and they wanted the wound to
fester, so they were put into the camps. A few generations later, there
are a whole lot more of them, way too many for Israeli society to absorb
without abandoning their core purpose of being 'the Jewish homeland'.
Plenty of blame to go around for all the nation-states that stuck their
finger in this mess over the last 20 centuries. But at this point,
because none of the immediate parties can see past their religions and
the sins that were committed against their forefathers, I truly believe
there never will be peace there. A real good example of why religion and
government should not mix, IMHO.

(and for actual historians waiting to jump in and correct me- save your
flames- I never claimed to be a Mideast expert. all of the above is just
off the top of my head from reading news reports for forty years and
watching history channel.)


what do you think about the new mosque going up at the World Trade Center
property?

At or near? As long as tax money isn't paying for it, I could basically
give a rip one way or the other- I regard all religious structures as
pointless (albeit sometimes quite impressive from a style and
engineering POV), and think the land and buildings should be taxed like
any other commercial structure. But if somebody wants to finance it, and
somebody wants to rent or sell them the land, they can do whatever they
want. Mainstream mostly-secularized Moslems in this country didn't drive
airliners into buildings, 19 fundie whack jobs from Saudi Arabia did.
(or was it 16 from Saudi, and 3 for elsewhere? I can't remember...)

--
aem sends...

harry wrote:

Exactly which bit is reinvented?
Oh and BTW, it was a British scientist invented the internet too.

Uh, no. According to some, Al Gore invented the internet.

Most others agree that the internet was a confluence of several separate
parts (packet switching, innovations and protocols developed at NPL, RAND,
and MIT). Many of these pieces were hooked together in ARPANET, the first
incarnation of what would later become the Internet.

There was no single "internet" that sprang full-blown from the head of Zeus,
but virtually ALL the major pieces were developed, invented, and implemented
in the U.S.

harry wrote:

....but only if they can't hit back.
You need to be careful who you try to push around these days. At
sometime in the not too distant future a terrorist will nuke New
York. They don't need any fancy missiles, just a shipping container.
Or maybe they'll sneak it in from Mexico or Canada.
We already have a muslim bomb (Pakistan). I wonder what would happen
if Pakistan went extreme?

You're right - it could happen.

Should that unfortunate event occur, we turn Mecca and Medina into a sea of
glass.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Sometimes I think that the 1st and 2nd world countries brought it on
themselves, bringing modern arms, comms, and transport to these 4th
world countries. Too bad we can't just all pull back and let them
try to get out of the 1800s on their own.

Putting the worms back in the can is impossible. Given the recent
trends in nukes, keeping worms canned doesn't appear to be possible
either.

I'm not TOO worried. The Muslims hate each other more than they hate us.

And their apostate neighbor is easier to kill.

harry wrote:

Putting the worms back in the can is impossible. ?Given the recent
trends in
nukes, keeping worms canned doesn't appear to be possible either. ?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so. You are going to have to learn to mind your own business
& cease interfering.

That would be nice, but not possible. For better or worse, we ARE the
world's policeman. No one else, just us.

harry wrote:
On May 15, 1:52?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 14, 9:39?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Hmm. ?I wonder if Jesus carried a Glock or indeed any other
weapon? Maybe this is why you are the Great Satan! ? :-)

Well, He DID say "trade your cloak for a sword"...

Where is that?

Uh, in the New Testament. Specifically:

Luke 22:36
"He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it,
and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his
cloak and buy one."

That instruction was for His followers only. Jesus himself had no
need for a weapon inasmuch as He could miracle an aggressor into a
toad should the need arise.

Now I had never noticed that bit. The wording is strange.
I did find this:-http://www.ecapc.org/articles/
RensbeD_HS4_BuyASword.asp

Interesting reference you found. It's fascinating that the author of the
reference goes so far as to say: "... it is quite possible that [the words
of this verse] are Luke's own creation."

Imagine that! A professor of New Testament studies proposing that a quote
attributed to Jesus in one of the Gospels was manufactured for unstated and
unknown purposes...

What a hoot! Kinda puts paid to the "inerrancy" claim, doesn't it?

harry wrote:

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that
the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the
criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the
law-abiding." ---------- Jeff Snyder


I never heard of this "Snyder" but the man is a half wit. Probably in
the pay of the NRA and arms manufacturers in the USA.

What difference does his affiliation, political inclination, parentage, or
even sanity have to do with the truth of the statement?

Unless you're falling back on the technique of attacking the messenger
instead of the message.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Exactly which bit is reinvented?
Oh and BTW, it was a British scientist invented the internet too.

Oh, Harry, what shall I do with you. One Brit is credited with
developing the _World Wide Web_ (maybe others).

Not the Internet. Thank Our Military Might for helping you.

Contrary to popular belief, Gore did not invent ARPANET.

harry wrote:
On May 15, 3:25�pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 15, 12:08?pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 15, 4:26 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in
:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
My Russian cousins lost so many people in the war and they have
every right to be paranoid. Hitler should have paid attention to
history. The Russians are very pragmatic and will grind anyone
into the ground who is foolish enough to attack them on their
home turf, Ruskies don't play. Boris, have you hugged a terrorist
today? Da! Hugged him like bear till eyeballs pop out!
That's why we have so many bug-eyed Afghanis?
I don't believe anyone will ever be able to conquer Afghanistan. It
will take an autochthonous government to control that country and
even then, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible.
TDD
It is stretching the term to call it a country. Most of that part of the
world is really ****ant little feifdoms, much like Europe after Rome
fell, and the borders on the map a western invention of convenience.
Loyalty is to clan/village/sect, not to nation-state.
so what happens when one of those sects decides to launch attacks on the
US,originating from bases in that "nation"?
(and the others resist our retribution...)
What would YOU do?(as one responsible for US security and defense.)
either some Afghan group takes authority and keeps some control over
them all,or it's a lawless land and anything goes,including "genocide" when
they attack the US from there,or go there to hide from us.
Our problem is that we listen to our whiners,weenies,and politically
correct and give them too much weight.
And lots of OUR people unnecessarily die from doing that.
Israel has pretty much the same problem.
We MUST establish that attacking the US is a REALLY bad idea.
We can be a good friend or a terrible enemy. We can't be both.
What was it that ancient Cave Politician said? "Walk softly but
carry a big stick."
TDD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sounds like "W".
My fault, it's a common misquote, it happens when one doesn't research.
What Theodore Roosevelt said was not "walk softly but carry a big stick"
as is often mis-quoted. He gave his famous quote during a speech in 1903:
There is a homely old adage which runs: "Speak softly and carry a big
stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly, and
yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly
efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.
Darn, we need another Teddy Roosevelt as president, he would scare the
crap out of all those sissy Europeans and we would probably wind up
nuking Iran or any other pipsqueak who shakes a fist at us. It's funny
how Kadafi shut the hell up when RR sent the Air Force and Navy to knock
on his door. ?*snicker*
TDD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not that you're renouned for speaking softly. �And you didn't get far
in Vietnam. �
Actually, we got pretty far in Vietnam, considering that the mess was run by
Demonicrats. �At the end, of course, the Demonicrats gave away the store, and
the 57K souls.

The last word hasn't been had in Iraq/Afghanistan yet
either. �They're just waiting for you to go home. � It took forty
years to democrify Japan, why should it be quicker in Iraq?
No one said it would. �It is working, though. �Afganistan will be tougher.
Might have to kill a lot more of them.

The solution to the problem lies not in armed force. It's in minding
your own business. �Like leaving these Jews to stew in their own
juice.
Ah, now we get to your anti-Semitic core. �You *are* a piece of ****.

Cease sending armis to Israel and support the Palestiians and all your
problems will be solved. And before you start, Israel is not a
democracy.
...in spades.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know fascisism when I see it. rounding up people and putting them in
concentration camps. Stealing their land and property. Dropping
(American supplied) cluster bombs on civilians. Raining down (American
supplied) phosphorus on civilians. Shooting unarmed civilians. They
are the scum of the earth and they are your "friends".
All exact parallels to Nazi Germany.
These are the causes of 11/9, nothing to do with non-existent WMDs,
Iraq & only slightly Afghanistan. You are damned half wits. If you
chase Alqaeda out of Afghanistan they will go to Yemen. If you chase
them out of Yemen, they will go to Somalia. And you already have been
chased out of Somalia.

Darn, aren't you going to blame the French for selling them aircraft?

TDD

On May 16, 2:22�am, aemeijers wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote in news:Q-
:

(snip)



Israel's land was NOT "taken from others". �
It was taken from them,in Roman times. And since then,Jews have lived there
continuously,but persecuted. The Al-Aqsa mosque is built on Jewish Temple
remains. Jews have a long,tremendous history in that land,1000's of years.

Apologies if you find this offensive, but I do not accept that modern
Israel is the legal successor to the Israel of old. It isn't at all like
the liberated former Soviet states where the old records still existed,
and some of the people who were kicked out or lost property are actually
still around. Sure, what was done to old Israel was a sin, but there
were multiple intervening governments recognized as the valid government
for the area, that granted recognized titles to land, etc. The current
state of Israel may share the name of a former country on the same
(roughly) site, �but it is not the same country. When US was organized,
they mostly recognized the old land grants from whatever country started
whatever colony. Old Spanish land grants were recognized when US took
over FL and the Southwest, as were French land descriptions and titles
in Louisiana. I think when the west 'chartered' modern Israel, they
harbored the illusion that something similar would happen- a new
government would be there, but anybody that wanted to stay would not
lose anything. Obviously, their grasp of the hatred on the ground there
was limited. A large part of the non-Jewish population heeded the
Arab-issued call to flee, with promises that it would only be for a few
months. (and if the propaganda ads in US News are correct, the new
government did not force them to leave- they fled on their own.) �None
of the other Arab states wanted them, and they wanted the wound to
fester, so they were put into the camps. A few generations later, there
are a whole lot more of them, way too many for Israeli society to absorb
without abandoning their core purpose of being 'the Jewish homeland'.
Plenty of blame to go around for all the nation-states that stuck their
finger in this mess over the last 20 centuries. But at this point,
because none of the immediate parties can see past their religions and
the sins that were committed against their forefathers, I truly believe
there never will be peace there. A real good example of why religion and
government should not mix, IMHO.

(and for actual historians waiting to jump in and correct me- save your
flames- I never claimed to be a Mideast expert. all of the above is just
off the top of my head from reading news reports for forty years and
watching history channel.)



what do you think about the new mosque going up at the World Trade Center
property?

At or near? As long as tax money isn't paying for it, I could basically
give a rip one way or the other- I regard all religious structures as
pointless (albeit sometimes quite impressive from a style and
engineering POV), and think the land and buildings should be taxed like
any other commercial structure. But if somebody wants to finance it, and
somebody wants to rent or sell them the land, they can do whatever they
want. Mainstream mostly-secularized Moslems in this country didn't drive
airliners into buildings, 19 fundie whack jobs from Saudi Arabia did.
(or was it 16 from Saudi, and 3 for elsewhere? I can't remember...)

--
aem sends...

All the above, exactly so. And none of America's business to
interfere. Just leave them get on with it.