So, I can get Norton by some other infected computer sending it to me?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:55 -0500, wrote:

Norton IS a virus!!!

So is McAfee
I just switched to Norton. I see no difference although Norton found 2
infections McAfee didn't in data I have had for years.

On 2/16/2013 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:12:44 -0500, Norminn
wrote:

On 2/16/2013 6:44 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm sorry that happened to you, but what are the odds of me having a desk
top drive and two external drives from the same batch? Not in my life time.
Why not go with my explaination which is that I picked up a malware trojan
that destroyed my drives? Is that answer unacceptable for some reason?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
There was news about two weeks or so ago, about a really bad virus
hiding out in one of the universally used software thingies....Java? I
didn't bother with it because my computer is mechanically sick anyway
and whatever is out there has always been snagged by my friend, Norton.
My former family of computer professionals (four of them) each, at
some time or another, sent me a virus which Norton caught. They all
claimed Norton was junk, but I'm happy with it. Looking for a 'puter
not made in China. My first was a Micron, gift from my brother, with
quality we'll never see again.


Norton IS a virus!!!


Microsoft tried for a long time to make it so Nort didn't work...had to
fiddle with Win3.1 or 95 to keep it active. I don't know how many times
I had to fiddle with the Windows kernel problem to make my happy little
PC work, but finally, with the second version of Win95, MS finally got a
decent piece of software.....it would do anything, including keep open
20 windows of graphics stuff without hanging or crashing. Of course, MS
wouldn't make enough money unless it cranked out crap every couple of
years, so along came 2000. So sad that Micron had to give up pc mfg to
the cheapsters, as it was a wonderful pc.

Badmouth Norton all you want....haven't had a virus in 19 years of pc
use. Of course, using Netscape helped that matter a lot. RIP.

harry wrote:
The only country where "poor" people are fat.
Go figure/.

They are fat because they eat McDonalds ****.
There is no nourishment and malnourishment.
Just a tiny increment between them.

I'm told Americans think McDonalds is a restaurant.

If you had a REAL McDonald's in the UK, you might think differently.

For those of you who haven't experienced a UK Big Mac, think of a sandwich
made with fried lamb and garnished with cucumbers instead of tomatoes. Oh,
and it has a sauce so secret that no one can remember where it came from or
when.

harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their things?

Priceless!

On Feb 17, 1:53*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their things?

Priceless!

Worthless.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!
#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:48:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:09:39 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:17:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:55 -0500, wrote:

Norton IS a virus!!!

So is McAfee
I just switched to Norton. I see no difference although Norton found 2
infections McAfee didn't in data I have had for years.

I got fed up with them all so switched everything to M$ Security
Essentials.

Yep. I make an icon on the desktop to manually run MS Malicious
software Removal Tool (MRT). I runs once a month automatically in the
background. If I suspect something I do a manual run, plus MSE. Two
different programs - both free.

That is great if all you want is a scanner for trojans but most
viruses do their dirt in real time.

Which is why he runs MSE, also.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:51:46 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I use CD and DVD recordable disks for backups.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
That's fine if your files do not excede 700mb. 4gb or 8gb depending
on your media -but try backing up an 80GB database- - - - - -

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:48:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:09:39 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:17:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:20:55 -0500, wrote:

Norton IS a virus!!!

So is McAfee
I just switched to Norton. I see no difference although Norton found 2
infections McAfee didn't in data I have had for years.

I got fed up with them all so switched everything to M$ Security
Essentials.

Yep. I make an icon on the desktop to manually run MS Malicious
software Removal Tool (MRT). I runs once a month automatically in the
background. If I suspect something I do a manual run, plus MSE. Two
different programs - both free.

That is great if all you want is a scanner for trojans but most
viruses do their dirt in real time.

Which is why he runs MSE, also.

Exactly. MSE runs in real time, set to scan every day and warns of
any threats from web pages. My ports are limited (closed) to only
those essential behind the ISP firewall. In IE9, I also use "InPrivate
Browsing".

More than a few times MSE has saved my wife's Vista choke machine
with a popup showing the threat before hand. She visits coupon sites
which seem to be full of nastiness.

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Drives are so cheap that I stopped fooling with optical media for
backups years ago. They are still good for software, drivers etc and
you should have bootable tools on CD but my backup is to other drives
in other machines on my network and drives in static bags in a safe.

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Still the top posting idiot.
Can't you see that everyone else is carrying on in the approved manner?
I think you're hitting on the LSD too hard.

So, what kind of measure is "sleeve"?

Sounds like about 10, since your normal DVD is 4.5G.
How many DVDs have you used so far?
I hope you're not using re-writable, because they don't read back
worth a damn.

I'd really enjoy backing up my 100G of music files on
25 DVDs, I can't think of a better way to spend a few hours.

Buy a 1 Terrabyte USB disk drive for $75 and schedule automatic
backups every night without manual intervention.
Buy 2 if you insist on taking one of them off-site.

But go ahead, continue to try to convince us that optical media is
the way to go.

BTW, a virus didn't "destroy" your drive.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:51:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Still the top posting idiot.
Can't you see that everyone else is carrying on in the approved manner?
I think you're hitting on the LSD too hard.

So, what kind of measure is "sleeve"?

Sounds like about 10, since your normal DVD is 4.5G.
How many DVDs have you used so far?
I hope you're not using re-writable, because they don't read back
worth a damn.


Only if your reader or writer is defective. We used DVD-RW disks for
backup until the database got too big - then went to DVD-DL (8gb)
untill we outgree them - now use NAS drives
I'd really enjoy backing up my 100G of music files on
25 DVDs, I can't think of a better way to spend a few hours.

Buy a 1 Terrabyte USB disk drive for $75 and schedule automatic
backups every night without manual intervention.
Buy 2 if you insist on taking one of them off-site.

But go ahead, continue to try to convince us that optical media is
the way to go.

BTW, a virus didn't "destroy" your drive.
Agreed. If it did, it would pretty well be a "first"

writes:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:51:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Still the top posting idiot.
Can't you see that everyone else is carrying on in the approved manner?
I think you're hitting on the LSD too hard.

So, what kind of measure is "sleeve"?

Sounds like about 10, since your normal DVD is 4.5G.
How many DVDs have you used so far?
I hope you're not using re-writable, because they don't read back
worth a damn.


Only if your reader or writer is defective. We used DVD-RW disks for
backup until the database got too big - then went to DVD-DL (8gb)
untill we outgree them - now use NAS drives

Just my experience with CD-RW.

I tried them with 3 machines other than the machine they were burnt on.
Only 1 could see the data.

I tried to read one recently 4 years after it was burnt,
no data.

With my experience, I'd worry that the backups weren't all readable.
You don't find out until you need the data.

I actually do drive to drive backup (internal drives).
I don't feel a need to take the data off site
but if I did, I'd use a USB disk.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:22:42 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:47:25 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Just bear in mind "burned" media is not archival. I have some 10 year
old CDs that do not read anymore. They were stored in jewel cases in a
CD box in a cabinet
And I have some over 15 years old that still read just fine. In fact
I've never seen one that doesn't read now that read properly upon
completion that is not scratched.in the last 15 or more years. In the
real early years there were some "semi transparent" discs that lost
their reflectivity and were unreadable within months. And some older
readers could not read a burned disc, even the day it was written.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:33:16 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

writes:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:51:36 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Still the top posting idiot.
Can't you see that everyone else is carrying on in the approved manner?
I think you're hitting on the LSD too hard.

So, what kind of measure is "sleeve"?

Sounds like about 10, since your normal DVD is 4.5G.
How many DVDs have you used so far?
I hope you're not using re-writable, because they don't read back
worth a damn.


Only if your reader or writer is defective. We used DVD-RW disks for
backup until the database got too big - then went to DVD-DL (8gb)
untill we outgree them - now use NAS drives

Just my experience with CD-RW.

I tried them with 3 machines other than the machine they were burnt on.
Only 1 could see the data.

I tried to read one recently 4 years after it was burnt,
no data.

With my experience, I'd worry that the backups weren't all readable.
You don't find out until you need the data.

I actually do drive to drive backup (internal drives).
I don't feel a need to take the data off site
but if I did, I'd use a USB disk.
In my (rather extensive) experience with CDs, trouble reading a disk
is usually a problem with the reader. There were a couple widely
distributed drives that started failing to read burned disks insde of
2 yezrs, and stopped reading anything within 5.

An LG drive will usually read anything you can throw at it even when
over 10 years old. BENQ were good too,

Computer wizzard #2 tells me that Phillips disks last longer than others.
When I finish this sleeve (of 100) no name disks, I'll buy Phillips later.

I have some disks that go back about a decade. Some work fine, others do not
read.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Just bear in mind "burned" media is not archival. I have some 10 year
old CDs that do not read anymore. They were stored in jewel cases in a
CD box in a cabinet

Thanks for the field report. I've heard that differernt brands of disk have
different archival times.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
writes:

Just my experience with CD-RW.

I tried them with 3 machines other than the machine they were burnt on.
Only 1 could see the data.

I tried to read one recently 4 years after it was burnt,
no data.

With my experience, I'd worry that the backups weren't all readable.
You don't find out until you need the data.

I actually do drive to drive backup (internal drives).
I don't feel a need to take the data off site
but if I did, I'd use a USB disk.

--
Dan Espen

On Feb 17, 4:29*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

On Feb 17, 8:51*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" writes:
Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

Still the top posting idiot.
Can't you see that everyone else is carrying on in the approved manner?
I think you're hitting on the LSD too hard.

So, what kind of measure is "sleeve"?

Sounds like about 10, since your normal DVD is 4.5G.
How many DVDs have you used so far?
I hope you're not using re-writable, because they don't read back
worth a damn.

I'd really enjoy backing up my 100G of music files on
25 DVDs, I can't think of a better way to spend a few hours.

Buy a 1 Terrabyte USB disk drive for $75 and schedule automatic
backups every night without manual intervention.
Buy 2 if you insist on taking one of them off-site.

But go ahead, continue to try to convince us that optical media is
the way to go.

BTW, a virus didn't "destroy" your drive.

--
Dan Espen

But 2 if you insist on taking one off-site?
A number greater that 1 is essential with the above outlined scenario.
You're proposing to keep a USB drive in the PC and have it auto
backup every night, right? OK, so, sometime prior to backup,
the PC gets infected with a virus. That night the PC backs itself
up to the USB, complete with virus. Or the virus wipes out some
essential part of the drive, then 4 hours later the PC backs itself
up. Goodbye data.

That's why the typical backup strategy keeps at least several
backups going back in time, regardless of where they are stored.
The exact number and timeframe depend on how critical and
complete the restore must be.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 4:29 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..
#
# In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
# But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers
# to gobble up tax dollars.
# Oh except Greneda. They won there.

Poor harry
Why do you need to keep demonstrating you're a stupid and ignorant bigot ?

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

Or perhaps "saving the West Bank Israeli settlements" *is* preventing
WW-IV (III is long over).

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:47:25 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sleeve of DVD costs about $25 and has 450 gb of space. Totally unable to
corrupted by a virus or trojan that comes along later. What does a 450 gb
external drive cost? Can it get a trojan later, and die like my two external
drives?

What does a corrupted DVD cost? No thanks! A 500GB drive costs about
$50 and is a *lot* more reliable than ten DVDs.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29Â pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry
wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with it.
Learn some history instead of spouting some ignorant ideological cant

On Feb 18, 6:25*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry






gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

Hah. You don't actually think you won?
With Saddam out of the way,the islamonuts will take over. What do you
think all the current fighting is about?
You done them a big favour getting rid of Saddam.

Same will happen in Syria now (which would not have happened either
had Saddam still been in charge)

And in Afghanistan.

Libya, Tunisia, Egypt Yemen. The rest of North Africa is going the
same way, triggered by Iraq.

Think about Pakistan with nukes too.

But the real nuts live in Saudi Arabia.

I'll give it five or ten years and then we'll have WW3

On Feb 18, 10:18*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?



As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.


Or perhaps "saving the West Bank Israeli settlements" *is* preventing
WW-IV (III is long over).

That could be true also.

On Feb 18, 11:10*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...









On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29Â pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry
wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with it.

On Feb 19, 12:23*am, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:10:07 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with it.
Learn some history instead of spouting some ignorant ideological cant

I know plenty of history. This particular problem started when we
allowed displaced European Jews to occupy Palestinian territory after
WWII instead of just making the Germans and French give them their
property back ... and maybe a little more.
Unfortunately that would not have helped us pacify Germany.
I believe they did owe the Jews massive reparations but we did not
make the Germans pay, we made the Palestinians pay and they have been
paying more and more every year since.

*The new settlements on the West Bank are a threat to world peace and
it is just a matter of time before it spins out of control.
It certainly does not help that we are quickly losing all the North
African dictators who we have been paying off for a half century to
ignore it.
When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, Jordan and the Emirates
it is, game over.

All it would really take is for them to forge an alliance with China,
for the oil, and the west would be powerless to stop them if they
wanted to kick the Israelis off the west bank ... unless we really had
WWpick a number.
It would be an economic war, a war we lose. China can crush us by
simply redeeming their bonds instead of rolling them over.
Of course China could drive up interest rates by simply trying to sell
our debt, making US bonds a glut on the market. How much quantitative
easing (buying up un sellable bonds with printed money) can we stand
before we see rampant inflation?

Aha. We agree on something. You are entirely correct.
And both parties are nuclear armed.

On Feb 18, 7:23*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:10:07 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with it.
Learn some history instead of spouting some ignorant ideological cant

I know plenty of history. This particular problem started when we
allowed displaced European Jews to occupy Palestinian territory after
WWII instead of just making the Germans and French give them their
property back ... and maybe a little more.

Who exactly is this "we"? You make it sound like Palestine was
a peaceful place where everyone was getting along just fine until
some Jews from post WWII Europe showed up. The region had
been in conflict for a long time. While it's true there was a large
additional migration of Jews there after WWII, Jews had already
been migrating their for decades prior. And the area was in conflict,
as far back as WWII and after, when under British rule.
The Palestinians were fighting the British, the Jews, etc.
To be sure, the arrival of more Jews didn't help, but it's incorrect
to trace the origins of the problem to the aftermath of WWII



Unfortunately that would not have helped us pacify
Germany.
I believe they did owe the Jews massive reparations but we did not
make the Germans pay, we made the Palestinians pay and they have been
paying more and more every year since.

Again, who is this "we"? It was Russia that proposed the
resolution in the UN for Israeli statehood.




*The new settlements on the West Bank are a threat to world peace and
it is just a matter of time before it spins out of control.

I agree that the one thing that Isarel is doing that isn't helfpful
is building more settlements. But if you compare that to the
Palestinian position, which has been and continues to be that
Israel doesn't have a right to exist, it's not the major problem.



It certainly does not help that we are quickly losing all the North
African dictators who we have been paying off for a half century to
ignore it.


When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, Jordan and the Emirates
it is, game over.

Which seems to indicate that you recognize which side in
this conflict is really the loons.....



All it would really take is for them to forge an alliance with China,
for the oil, and the west would be powerless to stop them if they
wanted to kick the Israelis off the west bank ... unless we really had
WWpick a number.

The oil market is fungible. Jordan and Syria don't have
oil that amounts to anything. The UAE is a very westernized
and wealthy country. The chance of nut case Muslims taking it
over isn't likely. Even if they did, the rest of the scenario makes
no sense.


It would be an economic war, a war we lose. China can crush us by
simply redeeming their bonds instead of rolling them over.
Of course China could drive up interest rates by simply trying to sell
our debt, making US bonds a glut on the market. How much quantitative
easing (buying up un sellable bonds with printed money) can we stand
before we see rampant inflation?

I don't know, but we seem to be doing that right now, without
regard to what China does or doesn't do. There would be severe
repercussions for China if they ever attempted such a thing.
We are their largest trading partner and they would be killing
the value of their own investiment in the process. For what,
again exactly? To help the Palestinians? Like China gives a
rat's ass?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 12:23 am, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:10:07 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and
ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with
it.
Learn some history instead of spouting some ignorant ideological cant

I know plenty of history. This particular problem started when we
allowed displaced European Jews to occupy Palestinian territory after
WWII instead of just making the Germans and French give them their
property back ... and maybe a little more.
Unfortunately that would not have helped us pacify Germany.
I believe they did owe the Jews massive reparations but we did not
make the Germans pay, we made the Palestinians pay and they have been
paying more and more every year since.

The new settlements on the West Bank are a threat to world peace and
it is just a matter of time before it spins out of control.
It certainly does not help that we are quickly losing all the North
African dictators who we have been paying off for a half century to
ignore it.
When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, Jordan and the Emirates
it is, game over.

All it would really take is for them to forge an alliance with China,
for the oil, and the west would be powerless to stop them if they
wanted to kick the Israelis off the west bank ... unless we really had
WWpick a number.
It would be an economic war, a war we lose. China can crush us by
simply redeeming their bonds instead of rolling them over.
Of course China could drive up interest rates by simply trying to sell
our debt, making US bonds a glut on the market. How much quantitative
easing (buying up un sellable bonds with printed money) can we stand
before we see rampant inflation?
#
# Aha. We agree on something. You are entirely correct.
# And both parties are nuclear armed.

LOL
If you needed proof that your theory is wrong
You just got it..
snicker

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 18, 6:25 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry






gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.
#
# Hah. You don't actually think you won?
# With Saddam out of the way,the islamonuts will take over.
# What do you think all the current fighting is about?
# You done them a big favour getting rid of Saddam.

Yup they're so busy fighting and killing each other, that they're too busy
exporting all that elsewhere, into Western nations


#
# Same will happen in Syria now (which would not have happened
# either had Saddam still been in charge)

LOL

#
# And in Afghanistan.
# ibya, Tunisia, Egypt Yemen. The rest of North Africa is going the
# same way, triggered by Iraq.
#
# Think about Pakistan with nukes too.
#
# But the real nuts live in Saudi Arabia.
#
# I'll give it five or ten years and then we'll have WW3


The whole thing is the let the Muslims decimate each other and contain them.
They will go to such extremes that the rest of the world will be disgusted
with them and start pushing them back into the various cesspits they came
from.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 18, 11:10 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...









On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:37:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:29Â pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: harry
wrote:

Government subsidies, by definition, mean not cost effective.

True. But that is not the same as undesireable.

Is the US army cost effective?

You bet!

Killing possible enemies of this great republic and blowing up their
things?

Priceless!

#
# Worthless.
#

Yes harry, you are..

In the last sisty years, failed on every mission.
But it's only there to enable the rich arms manufacturers to gobble up
tax dollars.
Oh except Greneda. They won there.

As unpopular as it is, the Iraq war was a win too. There is a quasi
democratic government there that is not dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood and is not actively threatening Israel (the only reason we
went there in the first place).
I still am not sure it was worth it but as long as the neocons in the
US are willing to start WWIII to save the West Bank Israeli
settlements, it was better than the alternative.

The problem with that argument is that war has been a continuous and
ongoing
process in the Middle-East ever since Mohammed got started.
The US, Israel, or even your boogie-man neo-cons had nothing to do with
it.
Learn some history instead of spouting some ignorant ideological cant
#
# The problem is that the USA thinks democracy is OK for everyone.
# (That is democracy that gives them access to markets and commodities,
# not proper democracy). ie capitalist democracy

A stupid pinky would try to argue that.

#
# These countries need to be run by tin pot dictators.

Do they ?
Based on what ?


# They are not interested in or fit to be governed by democracy (True
# democracy or otherwise)
#

I'm not interested in "true democracy"
NO intelligent person is either
So-called "true democracy", is just another term for mob rule
And only idiots like you would try to sell that stupid ****.

#
# And Israel is not a democracy.
#

wrong again


#
# It will be gone soon fortunately.
#


At least, that's what the fascists are hoping..

On Feb 19, 10:46*am, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:54:37 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
I know plenty of history. This particular problem started when we
allowed displaced European Jews to occupy Palestinian territory after
WWII instead of just making the Germans and French give them their
property back ... and maybe a little more.

Who exactly is this "we"? * *You make it sound like Palestine was
a peaceful place where everyone was getting along just fine until
some Jews from post WWII Europe showed up. *The region had
been in conflict for a long time. *While it's true there was a large
additional migration of Jews there after WWII, Jews had already
been migrating their for decades prior. *And the area was in conflict,
as far back as WWII and after, when under British rule.
The Palestinians were fighting the British, the Jews, etc.
To be sure, the arrival of more Jews didn't help, but it's incorrect
to trace the origins of the problem to the aftermath of WWII

Prior to AIPAC, the US did not give a **** what happened in Palestine
and we certainly were not committed to go to war over it.


AIPAC? When was that organization even founded? I'll bet it
didn't exist in 1945, which is when you claim "we" created the
Palestinian problem. And as I pointed out, the Palestinians were
already having uprising, revolt, much like today even in the 1920s.
That area has been full of conflict and war for centuries.
To try to pin this specifically on the USA sending Jews there
after WWII is just bogus.




Unfortunately that would not have helped us pacify
Germany.
I believe they did owe the Jews massive reparations but we did not
make the Germans pay, we made the Palestinians pay and they have been
paying more and more every year since.

Again, who is this "we"? *It was Russia that proposed the
resolution in the UN for Israeli statehood.

"We" *is the US
The Soviets were as antisemitic as the Germans and French who were
happy to export the refugees.

So, it's as I thought. You place the blame for creating the
Palestinian
problem on the USA? The USA was not the sole determinent of what
transpired in post war Germany. The UK and Russia played a role. If
the USA could have dictated what happened, do you think there would
have
been a communist Eastern Europe? And it wasn't like all or even most
of the displaced Jews wanted to return or remain in a country that
had
been shoving them in ovens..... The USA's fault? Those Jews came
from all over Europe, including parts controlled by Russia.

Oh and as far as reparations, which you claim should have been
required to be made to the Jews, you're wrong on that too.
Reparations
WERE made by Germany.









*The new settlements on the West Bank are a threat to world peace and
it is just a matter of time before it spins out of control.

I agree that the one thing that Isarel is doing that isn't helfpful
is building more settlements. * But if you compare that to the
Palestinian position, which has been and continues to be that
Israel doesn't have a right to exist, it's not the major problem.

They think this is a nation that continues to expand into new
territory as long as it exists. The nazis called it *Lebensraum when
they did it.



Comparison of Jewish settlements to Nazis noted. I seem to
recall that there is a internet tenent that says whoever first invokes
Nazis has lost the argument.





It certainly does not help that we are quickly losing all the North
African dictators who we have been paying off for a half century to
ignore it.

When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, Jordan and the Emirates
it is, game over.

Which seems to indicate that you recognize which side in
this conflict is really the loons.....

Both side are loony



Not from my perspective. Israel is willing to let the Palestinians
exist.
The Palestinians continue to call for the destruction of Israel.
Israeil
responds to terrorists and rockets with targeted strikes, to try to
hit only
terrorists and minimize collateral damage. The Palestinians plant
bombs
on busses, send suicide bombers to kill children. Israel places a
similar value on human life as other western countries. The
Palestinians
not so much. And then look at what happens when Israel does give
the Palestinians some of what they want. Take Gaza for example.
Israel unilaterally withdrew. The Palestinians response? They
elected
the PLO as their govt and are using the territory to launch rockets
into
Israel.




All it would really take is for them to forge an alliance with China,
for the oil, and the west would be powerless to stop them if they
wanted to kick the Israelis off the west bank ... unless we really had
WWpick a number.

The oil market is fungible. * Jordan and Syria don't have
oil that amounts to anything. *The UAE is a very westernized
and wealthy country. *The chance of nut case Muslims taking it
over isn't likely. *Even if they did, the rest of the scenario makes
no sense.

It is true that as long as a country is so rich that they can bribe
their citizens into submission they have not caused much trouble.

It would be an economic war, a war we lose. China can crush us by
simply redeeming their bonds instead of rolling them over.
Of course China could drive up interest rates by simply trying to sell
our debt, making US bonds a glut on the market. How much quantitative
easing (buying up un sellable bonds with printed money) can we stand
before we see rampant inflation?

I don't know, but we seem to be doing that right now, without
regard to what China does or doesn't do. * There would be severe
repercussions for China if they ever attempted such a thing.
We are their largest trading partner and they would be killing
the value of their own investiment in the process. * For what,
again exactly? *To help the Palestinians? * Like China gives a
rat's ass?

It all depends on China doing exactly what it is doing right now. A
more nationalistic government might want to flex its muscles a little
more. If they wanted to roll over Taiwan, the easiest way to do it
would be to foment a war in the middle east and give us a choice of
who we want to save. They took Hong Kong from the Brits without firing
a shot.

Well, yeah, the 100 year lease was up..... Hardly an example of
aggression.....


They are already encroaching on a couple islands that Japan thinks
they own and threatening the water supply in the sub continent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:15 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So, you'd be comfortable with the US just
abandoning Israel and letting whatever happens, happen?

OK by me if they insist on continuing their expansion.

"They" wouldn't have expanded at all if *they* hadn't been attacked.
(Losing a) War has consequences.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:18:19 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
And what the heck has any of this got to do with smart meters? Or
smart anything?????

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:18:19 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
And what the heck has any of this got to do with smart meters? Or
smart anything?????

Why are you asking me ?
I'm not the one who segued the thread into Israel

Did your dope just wear off ?
Or did you just ingest some more ?

On Feb 19, 5:08*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:21:33 -0800 (PST), "









wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:46*am, wrote:
wrote:
I know plenty of history. This particular problem started when we
allowed displaced European Jews to occupy Palestinian territory after
WWII instead of just making the Germans and French give them their
property back ... and maybe a little more.

Who exactly is this "we"? * *You make it sound like Palestine was
a peaceful place where everyone was getting along just fine until
some Jews from post WWII Europe showed up. *The region had
been in conflict for a long time. *While it's true there was a large
additional migration of Jews there after WWII, Jews had already
been migrating their for decades prior. *And the area was in conflict,
as far back as WWII and after, when under British rule.
The Palestinians were fighting the British, the Jews, etc.
To be sure, the arrival of more Jews didn't help, but it's incorrect
to trace the origins of the problem to the aftermath of WWII

Prior to AIPAC, the US did not give a **** what happened in Palestine
and we certainly were not committed to go to war over it.

AIPAC? *When was that organization even founded? *I'll bet it
didn't exist in 1945, which is when you claim "we" created the
Palestinian problem. * And as I pointed out, the Palestinians were
already having uprising, revolt, much like today even in the 1920s.
That area has been full of conflict and war for centuries.
To try to pin this specifically on the USA sending Jews there
after WWII is just bogus.

The problem is not the conflict, it is the US involvement in the
conflict. AIPAC drives that.

Africa is always in conflict but we do not perceive that as a US
interest.









Unfortunately that would not have helped us pacify
Germany.
I believe they did owe the Jews massive reparations but we did not
make the Germans pay, we made the Palestinians pay and they have been
paying more and more every year since.

Again, who is this "we"? *It was Russia that proposed the
resolution in the UN for Israeli statehood.

"We" *is the US
The Soviets were as antisemitic as the Germans and French who were
happy to export the refugees.

So, it's as I thought. *You place the blame for creating the
Palestinian
problem on the USA? * The USA was not the sole determinent of what
transpired in post war Germany. *The UK and Russia played a role. *If
the USA could have dictated what happened, do you think there would
have
been a communist Eastern Europe? *And it wasn't like all or even most
of the displaced Jews wanted to return or remain in a country that
had
been shoving them in ovens..... * The USA's fault? *Those Jews came
from all over Europe, including parts controlled by Russia.

I said antisemitic people all over Europe supported the refugees going
somewhere else.

Oh and as far as reparations, which you claim should have been
required to be made to the Jews, you're wrong on that too.
Reparations
WERE made by Germany.

Cite that











*The new settlements on the West Bank are a threat to world peace and
it is just a matter of time before it spins out of control.

I agree that the one thing that Isarel is doing that isn't helfpful
is building more settlements. * But if you compare that to the
Palestinian position, which has been and continues to be that
Israel doesn't have a right to exist, it's not the major problem.

They think this is a nation that continues to expand into new
territory as long as it exists. The nazis called it *Lebensraum when
they did it.

Comparison of Jewish settlements to Nazis noted. *I seem to
recall that there is a internet tenent that says whoever first invokes
Nazis has lost the argument.

Without the Nazis, this whole issue would not exist.
The parallels are still valid tho.









It certainly does not help that we are quickly losing all the North
African dictators who we have been paying off for a half century to
ignore it.

When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, Jordan and the Emirates
it is, game over.

Which seems to indicate that you recognize which side in
this conflict is really the loons.....

Both side are loony

Not from my perspective. *Israel is willing to let the Palestinians
exist.
The Palestinians continue to call for the destruction of Israel.
Israeil
responds to terrorists and rockets *with targeted strikes, to try to
hit only
terrorists and minimize collateral damage. * The Palestinians plant
bombs
on busses, send suicide bombers to kill children. *Israel places a
similar value on human life as other western countries. *The
Palestinians
not so much. * And then look at what happens when Israel does give
the Palestinians some of what they want. *Take Gaza for example.
Israel unilaterally withdrew. *The Palestinians response? *They
elected
the PLO as their govt and are using the territory to launch rockets
into
Israel.

You are confusing Hamas with the PLO,
... or are all "towel heads" the same to you?
The fact is, Israel has consistently been expanding into Palestinian
areas.
If your neighbor kept moving his fence farther into your yard, you
would be mad too.
When the power scale was shifted the other way it was the Israelis who
were the terrorists.
The Israelis are treating the Palestinians within their borders as
second class citizens and they do not have a voice in the government.
The Palestinian areas of the West bank are clearly walled off ghettos.
You can see why it is so easy to make the parallel.

And don't forget the Gaza concentration camp.

On Feb 20, 2:09*am, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:52:35 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:15 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So, you'd be comfortable with the US just
abandoning Israel and letting whatever happens, happen?

OK by me if they insist on continuing their expansion.

"They" wouldn't have expanded at all if *they* hadn't been attacked.
(Losing a) War has consequences.

Bull****. These are just European aggressors on the final crusade.

When the world demands an end to apartheid and real elections in
Palestine, they might just get voted out of power.

Real elections? Who is denying the Palestinians the right
to real elections? They had elections and they chose Hamas, did they
not? And that was after Israel unilaterally
withdrew from Gaza. So, Israel made a big concession
which could have been a step towards a lasting peace and
it was met by the Palestinians electing those that call for
the destruction of Israel. That and then using Gaza to
launch rockets into Israel. Funny how you see Israel building some
more houses as a big deal, but don't
seem to recognize what the Palestinians are doing that
is 100X worse.

On Feb 20, 2:11*am, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:30:43 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:18:19 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
And what the heck has any of this got to do with smart meters? Or
smart anything?????

Why are you asking me ?
* *I'm not the one who segued the thread into Israel

It is hard to talk about oil and energy without it coming up.

Actually it's easy, because there isn't much direct
association. Neither the Palestinians, nor Israel have
any oil. And the rest of the Arab states that do have oil
don't care much about the Palestinians. If they did,
they would have all taken some in, built them some nice
towns with all their oil money.

On Feb 20, 12:43*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:09*am, wrote:









On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:52:35 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:15 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So, you'd be comfortable with the US just
abandoning Israel and letting whatever happens, happen?

OK by me if they insist on continuing their expansion.

"They" wouldn't have expanded at all if *they* hadn't been attacked.
(Losing a) War has consequences.

Bull****. These are just European aggressors on the final crusade.

When the world demands an end to apartheid and real elections in
Palestine, they might just get voted out of power.

Real elections? *Who is denying the Palestinians the right
to real elections? * They had elections and they chose Hamas, did they
not? * And that was after Israel unilaterally
withdrew from Gaza. *So, Israel made a big concession
which could have been a step towards a lasting peace and
it was met by the Palestinians electing those that call for
the destruction of Israel. *That and then using Gaza to
launch rockets into Israel. *Funny how you see Israel building some
more houses as a big deal, but don't
seem to recognize what the Palestinians are doing that
is 100X worse.

They want their land back. You know, the illegally occupied land.
I wonder what the USA would do if Mexico occupied Texas.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:09:21 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:52:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:15 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:14:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

So, you'd be comfortable with the US just
abandoning Israel and letting whatever happens, happen?

OK by me if they insist on continuing their expansion.

"They" wouldn't have expanded at all if *they* hadn't been attacked.
(Losing a) War has consequences.

Bull****.

It's no bull****. Perhaps you should study some history instead of
lying.

These are just European aggressors on the final crusade.

snipped - No need to discuss anything with an anti-Semitic bigot