DIYbanter - OT-John Kerry

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)

- Metalworking (https://www.diybanter.com/metalworking/)

- - OT-John Kerry (https://www.diybanter.com/metalworking/14467-ot-john-kerry.html)

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:54:01 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You do have a point. Until now they have engaged on only trial runs, Sabra
and Shatila, so as to gage world opinion. Since the US did not complain
very much and Bush called the man responsible, Sharon, "A man of peace",
Israel rightfully assumes that they have the green light for more genocide.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The
demographics
of the situation is a problem that they must deal with if they are
to remain a Jewish (racist) state. Genocide is the only way of "adjusting"
the demographic equation.

Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they
don't seem inclined to go that way. Only genocide guarantees their
ethnic purity.

Pete.

I wonder if Mossad reads your posts?

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:54:01 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You do have a point. Until now they have engaged on only trial runs,
Sabra
and Shatila, so as to gage world opinion. Since the US did not complain
very much and Bush called the man responsible, Sharon, "A man of peace",
Israel rightfully assumes that they have the green light for more
genocide.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The
demographics
of the situation is a problem that they must deal with if they are
to remain a Jewish (racist) state. Genocide is the only way of
"adjusting"
the demographic equation.

Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they
don't seem inclined to go that way. Only genocide guarantees their
ethnic purity.

Pete.

I wonder if Mossad reads your posts?

Gunner

I am not saying anything that Mossad doesn't already know.

Pete.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

That's true, but it hardly means it's our duty to make them
stop fighting.

I agree. But trying to get them to stop fighting so they will "buy
some beads" is not building an empire, which I think is what started
this branch.

G I love pointing out to "liberals" that what they want the US to do
in foreign countries is Militaristic Imperialism by any definition, or
Economic Imperialism by their own definition.

Then they're not very efficient at genocide. BTW, I'm no friend of Israel, I
think you're way overstating your case.

He blew his case with the first post :o).
Greg Sefton

Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they
don't seem inclined to go that way.

Pete, the Palestinian terrorsists could have what they want if they would stop
blowing up children indiscriminately too. eevery time the blow up a bus, they
make the case for Israeli retaliation.
Greg Sefton

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:31:23 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

That's true, but it hardly means it's our duty to make them
stop fighting.

I agree. But trying to get them to stop fighting so they will "buy
some beads" is not building an empire, which I think is what started
this branch.

It doesn't matter why we are trying to control other
countries. It's the control that makes the imperialism.

imperialism (îm-pîr´ê-e-lîz´em) noun
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by
territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic
and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
- impe´rialist adjective & noun
- impe´rialis´tic adjective
- impe´rialis´tically adverb

G I love pointing out to "liberals" that what they want the US to do
in foreign countries is Militaristic Imperialism by any definition, or
Economic Imperialism by their own definition.

"Liberals" don't mind imperialism, so long as they are
running the show.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:46:46 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:54:01 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You do have a point. Until now they have engaged on only trial runs,
Sabra
and Shatila, so as to gage world opinion. Since the US did not complain
very much and Bush called the man responsible, Sharon, "A man of peace",
Israel rightfully assumes that they have the green light for more
genocide.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The
demographics
of the situation is a problem that they must deal with if they are
to remain a Jewish (racist) state. Genocide is the only way of
"adjusting"
the demographic equation.

Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they
don't seem inclined to go that way. Only genocide guarantees their
ethnic purity.

Pete.

I wonder if Mossad reads your posts?

Gunner

I am not saying anything that Mossad doesn't already know.

Pete.

Talk about living dangerously.

Shrug...its your freedom, and your life.

Ill have to ask Ari if they have a file on you.

Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
snip------very BIG snip-----

Is this the sort of thing you want?

Bob

Thanks, Bob. Very well done.

Harold

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:41:17 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...

Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,

numerous

Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist state.. maybe.

But

then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't a race, in case you're
wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other countries
may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide, assassinations,
and torture.

Pete.

A friend of mine is a very black Jew. He went to Israel a couple years
ago and had a very nice time. He is taking his Asian (Jewish) wife along
this next year.

Btw..what race are Palestinians? I seemed to have missed that genotype
in biology.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Seems to me citizens of Israel were air lifted (rescue) from many African states,
the past Soviet and Eastern Block, most of Europe have gone there themselves
to to additional freedom.

Hum -

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:41:12 -0600, Bob G wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:15:47 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

Gary

You have a valid point.

I must say, tho, when I first read your post I was most inclined to
dismiss it right off the bat.

As I was at first certain you must be just a troll, a juvenile who
knew no better, etc.

Then I re-thought the matter. And it occurred to me you might
earnestly believe you made a valid argument.

I suppose it's possible, particularly if your schooling was after the
mid 70's. When folks started rewriting history in the text books.
And educational performance standards and expectations started
dropping.

I'm older than you. My father and uncles fought in WWII. I vividly
remember Korea.

Don't get me wrong. The old text books were indeed biased and
slanted, Gave mostly one side of the story. The issue is that many
of the new ones have re-written history in a fashion just as
inaccurate, biased, and slanted ... just the other way. Almost to the
point where some I've seen, not all, could well qualify more as works
of fiction than books of fact.

I think you ignore the well known historical axiom that the real story
is rarely understood until some time has passed and emotional distance
from the events has been established. That's because the emotional
and ideological baggage carried by those who actually lived through the
events colors their judgement, and also because often historical documents,
revealing real intentions and motivations, are concealed by governments
until well after those who instituted them can no longer be held culpable.

Truth, and learning to improve ourselves is NOT furthered by lies, or
one sided, biased views, etc. We are all best served by knowing the
whole story. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent.

Indeed, and we need to view those events not colored by the jingoism
and retoric of the time in which they occurred. That's one of the problems
we still have when discussing the Vietnam War. Many of the participants
still view it through the jingoist lens of the era in which they fought. They
aren't willing to step back and analyze the events rationally and
dispassionately.

Now, I don't know how much you read or what. So I'm sort of at a loss
for where to go from here. As I don't know WHICH version of the story
you read.

I like to think I've thoroughly studied the history of the 20th century.
I've read both the first hand accounts of those who participated
(including oral histories from my relatives), and later historical analysis
and unsealed documentation available from such sources as the
Library of Congress.

But since you equate, or try to equate, Dresden with the crashing of
those aircraft into the Twin Towers, I'll presume you've read at least
one accounting or explaination. And, given that you use it as your
argument, I presume it was slanted against America. And likely did
not give both sides of that debate, and may not have explained a
"whole picture" of the event.

You've certainly misunderstood my position. I have equated the
legitimacy of total war in WWII with the legitimacy of the total war
being waged by the Palestinian people to regain their lands and
rights.

I have not mentioned Al Qaeda, or the criminal actions of 911.
In my opinion, the latter have no legitimacy because their declared
objectives have no rationality. They are merely the criminal actions
of a religious cult, no different in principle from the followers of
Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Jerry Falwell.

Al Qaeda is not a national group. It is not directed by any national
government, certainly not Iraq. Using their actions as a cover for
invasion of that country is like saying we need to invade Italy
because we have a problem with the Mafia in New York. No one
would accept such an absurd argument if their passions weren't
inflamed, and their critical functions impaired.

Gary

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:43:09 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:41:17 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...

Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,

numerous

Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist state.. maybe.

But

then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't a race, in case you're
wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other countries
may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide, assassinations,
and torture.

Pete.

A friend of mine is a very black Jew. He went to Israel a couple years
ago and had a very nice time. He is taking his Asian (Jewish) wife along
this next year.

Btw..what race are Palestinians? I seemed to have missed that genotype
in biology.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Seems to me citizens of Israel were air lifted (rescue) from many African states,
the past Soviet and Eastern Block, most of Europe have gone there themselves
to to additional freedom.

Hum -

Martin

Indeed. Which is why I asked about the claimed racism Petty the
Anti-Semite kept spewing. I figured that Palestinians had to have been
some genotype Id never heard of before.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

Gary Coffman wrote:

You've certainly misunderstood my position. I have equated the
legitimacy of total war in WWII with the legitimacy of the total war
being waged by the Palestinian people to regain their lands and
rights.

Islam teaches that Moslems are supposed to any country they live in
Islamic, with a Sharia court system. In such countries, those who are
not Moslem have lesser rights in court, pay special taxes, and suffer
other restrictions. The southern negro in the US, pre WWII, had it
easy, compared to what nonMoslems are put through in Moslem countries.
The Isaelis have tried to make peace several times, but they are not
going to become second class citizens again.

Arafat is riding the tiger. He can only keep getting payoffs from the
US and EU if there is enough violence to show he is needed to "keep
the violence down". It cannot be too much or he will be regarded as
unsuccessful and the money will go elsewhere, but it has to be above a
certain minimum to show the militants that he is "fighting Zionism" in
order to retain his influence. If you recall a few years back, when
the Oslo Accords were being negotiated, he nearly got tossed out on
his ear by ambitious youngsters trying for his feed dish?

And, if you reexamine the Oslo Accords, you will find that the
"Palestinians" are further out of compliance than the Israelis.

As for the "Palestinian people":

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...e.asp?ID=11985
quote
Who are the "Palestinians?" "Palestine" comes from the Hebrew
(Semitic) word pelesheth, meaning "rolling" or migratory. (The root is
pawlash, meaning to roll, or wallow. "Palestine" also means
Philistine, or Philistia. Anciently, the Philistines inhabited the
coast south of the Phoenicians. The Philistines were a distinct group.

But today’s "Palestinians" are from Syria, Jordon, Lebanon. Arabs want
these countries to consider themselves Arab, because Arabs want to
surround Israel with anti-Zionists. A modern "Palestinian" rarely
claims his immediate national origins, let alone his ancient,
indigenous genes.
/quote

Effectively, they were people stirred out of their homes, who ended up
in that area while Turkey ruled it. Britain conquered it and handed it
over to the Jews (then had second thoughts).

Yes, some of them got ripped off by Jews stealing their homes, just as
Jews and Christians got ripped off by Moslems when they conquered
Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Jordan, Turkey, and Syria (from what I
read, all were Christian at the time the Moslems conquered them).

As an atheist, I think the best thing to do is to blockade the whole
area, allowing only guns and bullets in. When they run out of food,
ship them pork chops.

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:15:47 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

Gary

You have a valid point.

I must say, tho, when I first read your post I was most inclined to
dismiss it right off the bat.

As I was at first certain you must be just a troll, a juvenile who
knew no better, etc.

Then I re-thought the matter. And it occurred to me you might
earnestly believe you made a valid argument.

I suppose it's possible, particularly if your schooling was after the
mid 70's. When folks started rewriting history in the text books.
And educational performance standards and expectations started
dropping.

Don't get me wrong. The old text books were indeed biased and
slanted, Gave mostly one side of the story. The issue is that many
of the new ones have re-written history in a fashion just as
inaccurate, biased, and slanted ... just the other way. Almost to the
point where some I've seen, not all, could well qualify more as works
of fiction than books of fact.

I don't state the above simply as something heard second hand. My
work regularly and routinely takes me into schools of several school
districts. And out of curiosity I'll sometimes thumb thru modern text
books to see what the students are studying these days.

I am personally, fundamentaly opposed to presenting history in biased
fashion, either way. In text books. The reason is simple. The study
of history is meant as a mechanism of learning. Learning who we all
are, where we came from, what happened before us, and so forth. With,
as one of it's main points, the idea that we all learn from history.
What was right, what was wrong, what worked, what did not work, and so
forth.

Truth, and learning to improve ourselves is NOT furthered by lies, or
one sided, biased views, etc. We are all best served by knowing the
whole story. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent.

Biases passed off as factually the whole story does nothing more than
breed and further more misunderstanding. More understandings breeds
more hatred, more mistakes, etc.

Now, I don't know how much you read or what. So I'm sort of at a loss
for where to go from here. As I don't know WHICH version of the story
you read.

But since you equate, or try to equate, Dresden with the crashing of
those aircraft into the Twin Towers, I'll presume you've read at least
one accounting or explaination. And, given that you use it as your
argument, I presume it was slanted against America. And likely did
not give both sides of that debate, and may not have explained a
"whole picture" of the event.

Hmmmm. Let's try this.

Bear with me please.

He's dead now, but I used to know a fellow who was a bombadier in WW2.
For a while, til his aircraft was shot down. And he spent the rest of
the war in a German prisoner of war camp. He and I spent some time
talking about that war.

His side, as he related it to me. He was just a junior officer, a
bombadier. So he certainly was not privy to any high secrets. What
he did know was, that the Germans had invaded other countries first.
In some cases they'd done so most unexpectedly, after lying and saying
they had no such intention. They had killed hundreds of thousands, if
not more. At the time, no one had any sort of count. They'd robbed
and stolen, confiscated for their own use, etc ... the property of
others. Their soldiers, some of them ... almost certainly not all,
probably not even most ... had engaged in rape, senseless beatings of
people for no good reason other than their own entertainment and had
killed not only enemy soldiers but innocent civilians who'd not done
anything to harm them.

I will stress here, I do not believe MOST Germans, or German soldiers
engaged in atrocities. The friend of whom I speak, did not think so,
either. He'd gotten to know some of his guards while in that POW camp
and he told me that some of them did not like some of the stuff going
on, either.

This fits with my experience in my 55 years. And, yes, I have been in
war myself. And have the scars to show for it. Fact is, MOST folks,
of any group of peoples, are nice, decent folks. But, also, amongst
any peoples, there are those who are not.

Anyway, he knew the things above. He knew that England was being, and
had been, pounded by German explosives. Not targeted specifically at
military installations or munitions factories. German technology was
not yet that good. They were hitting whatever they could. Well aware
that mostly they were hitting civilians, but that was okay with them,
it suited their purpose.

He also knew something else he told me. That the Germans were in fact
a formidible foe. Generally as bright as any peoples of any country,
strong minded, strong willed, competent, capable, not weaklings,
dedicated, loyal to their country and peers, etc. And had some
scientists and engineers who were as good as any, anywhere. Their
machinest, mechanics, tin benders, electricians, molders, foundry
workers,and so forth ... as good as any anywhere.

In short, these were no meek, mild, weaklings and underdogs. They
were a serious foe. And at the time, nobody knew who was gonna win
that conflict, for sure. The Germans themselves thought they were at
least the equals of their foes and had no intentions of giving up
easily, if ever. And they were as dedicated to killing their enemies
and winning that war, as the allies were dedicated to defeating them.

Also, my friend told me that while he did not know much about it, the
rumors were making their rounds. That the Germans were actively
developing better weapons. And no one doubted they could do it. They
were bright, well educated, and trying as hard as their enemies. He'd
already heard rumors about poisons gases. The Germans had already
started using newer, longer range, higher payload rockets to slam
civilians in England. And some sort of new aircraft that moved so
fast that it could not be shot down except by the shearest of luck was
rumored to be in the works.

This last, was not just a rumor. Tho, my friend had not known it was
a reality until after he was relased from that POW camp. The Germans
had indeed been racing the clock. Trying to develop a useable,
workable "superfast" combat aircraft. Trying to do so before the
allies destroyed their ability to do so. It was a race. Just as they
raced to developed other, newer, more effective weapons the allies
could not deal with before the allies crippled their ability to make
them. In the case of the "superfast" fighter, the Germans succeeded,
almost.

They produced such using two different methods. One was a rocket
engine driven aircraft. The other was a jet engine driven aircraft.

And they were nearly untouchable by the allied forces. So fast a man
manually operating a machine gun in a bomber could not hit one except
by luck. And when one of these aircraft attacked allied aircraft, it
was pretty much the proverbial "turkey shoot". The German pilot had
the upper hand and could shoot down allied aircraft virtually at will.
Very good, very advanced aircraft for it's time. The Me292, IIRC from
memory.

But they were too late. And too few. The allies won that race. The
Germans never got a chance to produce more than a few. If they'd won
the new and better weapons production race, the outcome of that war
might well have been very different.

Anyway, my friend's general thoughts on the matter was that the
struggle in which he participated was an all out, life or death issue.
And while he did not do missions over Dresden himself, he participated
in other mass saturation bombings. I can tell you, he did not like
it. Not even a little. But at the time, he felt, truly felt, he had
no choice. That the Allies had no choice. Seemingly, the Germans had
no give to em. And if one gave em even half a chance, they'd win that
war. And more people would die at their hands. Plus, the thought was
on his mind, and that of his comrades, it was talked about all the
time. That the longer the war went on, the more people who'd die on
both sides. That it was best to end it as decisively and quickly as
possible. And that meant hitting the Germans hard, very hard, as
they'd already shown they'd not surrender easily. Often did not
surrender in the field until so utterly defeated they saw no hope.

The above is only meant to give you a glimpse of what was in his mind.
He faced a strong, formidible foe, easily his equal, who would not
give up or surrender easily. And who he knew, had attacked and
invaded others first. lied to people saying they would not ... but
then invaded them, had deliberately targeted civilians, and so forth.
So while he participated in bombing of a nature he despised, he felt
he had no choice. That none of them, he or his comrades, had any
other viable, better alternative.

I only intend to relate his thoughts, as an example of what at least
one of the real participants involved thought about doing the
bombings. Those were his thoughts. And, FWIW, are consistent with
the mind set of numerous other vets of that war with whom I've spoken
in my lifetime. I have known quite a few and have talked to them
about these things.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...n-World-War-II

The above, I think gives a pretty balanced view of what happened at
Dresden. And speaks about the controversy and debate pro and con.

Now, to be clear, generally understood and agreed upon international
convention was such that such aereal bombings were not consistant with
the generally agreed upon concept that one did not deliberately target
innocent civilians not engaged in directly aiding the war effort.

Meaning that civilians making weapons, transporting troops and war
supplies, etc were NOT excempted from attack.

Those refugees traveling thru Dresden were clearly not valid military
targets. Nor were the incidental civilians who simply lived in
Dresden but who were not engaged in the business of producing war
materials.

Problem. At the time there did not exist any reliable method to pick
and choose targets with much accuracy. Particularly when such targets
were located within, for instance, a city which was heavily populated
by innocents.

If you read history, and the stories about the fellows who flew
bombing missions against the Germans, you'll find out that the death
toll and casualty rate to the crews of those bombers was very high.
It was taking a major, all out effort to replace the crew members and
aircraft fast enough to keep up with the loss rate.

Even among those who survived missions physically; the stress, strain,
etc was so high that nervous breakdowns were a commonplace occurance.

The Germans were not just playing the role of helpless victim, they
fought back viciously and well. And for some time the skies over
Germany were filled with anti-aircraft fire, and German fighters. And
they took a heavy toll on those bombers. And the crew of those
bombers felt like the proverbial "sitting ducks". The death and
serious injury toll amongst those fellows was very high.

From a tactical point of view, this created a problem. If one flew low
enough, and carefully enough to try to strike one building among many,
such as a bomb factory in the middle of a city, the attackers were
often slaughtered. But if one flew higher, above the flak of the
anti-aircraft guns, one could not be so accurate. And accuracy with
bombs from planes at the time was iffy at best. If yah could hit the
same block a factory was on under the best conditions, you were doing
good. That was coming in at a lower altitude, slow and steady, taking
your time. And many or most times, trying to do that over a German
city meant your death. So, often, attack bombers flew higher, and
tried to saturate an area in hopes that at least a few of their bombs
hit the intended target.

For some time things settled down to what might be described best as a
viscious, all out, no holds barred, slug out and battle of shear will
power. Who could inflict the most damage, and who could withstand the
most punishment and still hold out til the end and emerge as the
winner? Neither side willing to give an inch until they absolutely
had to, no choice.

Thus, decisions were made. And Dresden and other places happened.
Despite the fact that while one group argued they had no real choice
and argued that the Germans themselves had targeted innocent
civilians; and the other side pointed out that international
agreements barring the -deliberate- targeting of innocent civilians
had been violated.

In the end, after the war, BTW, that argument was held for some time.
But there was no clear cut resolution. One of the issues at hand was
that Germany had in fact been the aggressor, and had themselves
violated the targeting of civilian things. And the other issue was
that at the time no one could think of a viable, workable, reliable,
alternative method that would have worked and still have brought
Germany to it's knees and willing to make peace. Hitler, and his
cohorts seemingly were willing to allow massive numbers of Germans to
die as long as he and his cohorts prevailed in the end.

I know of no one, among many WW2 vets I've known who felt good about
such attacks. The only thing they felt proud of was that they'd
prevailed and won and that a regime which killed countless people had
been defeated.

However, that event, and others you mentioned, left a sour taste in
EVERYBODY's mouth. And it was generally agreed upon by everyone that
such things should be avoided if at all possible in the future.

Viet Nam brought the issue up again. Tho technology had much
improved. We were much better at selective targeting. But no one
disagreed with the fact that this was not good enough. And that at
times methods were used that included saturation bombing, and that too
many bombs missed even when we tried more accurate bomb delivery
methods.

Yes, part of the issue was, on the part of the military, that more
accurate bombs meant more reliably killing enemy combatants or
destroying their war supplies. But that was FAR from the only
thoughts. It was always on the minds of those concerned that we wished
to avoid hitting innocent civilians. NOT, just because of
international law. Actually that was the least of it. The major
thought on this was because it was the right thing to do. One should
do what was necessary to avoid hitting innocents whenever one could.
It was the right thing, and the moral thing to do.

So a lot of time, money and effort went into developing better, and
more accurate weapons. And into training soldiers, sailors, and
airmen in better techniques and tactics and decision making. One of
the reasons we started training soldiers specifically for, and having
them practice tactics in cities where they'd face situations where
they needed to find an enemy hiding among civilians. And having them
develop and pratice techniques which we hoped would minimize
casualties among the innocent.

Which, realistically, is not possible to eliminate altogether.

Despite political rhetoric from those who use such to further
themselves, BTW, international agreements and understandings recognize
this fact. That -some- innocent casualties are, in fact, unavoidable.
What the rules call for is that one does not -deliberately- target
innocent civilians, and that one take every rasonable means to avoid
hitting them. "Reasonable" means. That does not mean a soldier is
asked to commit the equivalent of suicide to avoid hitting a civilian.
That is asked of no one. Not even policemen operate under those
rules.

The Al Qaeda -deliberately- targets civilians. Period. End of
subject. And we are committed to stopping this. And are trying our
best to accomplish it the the best, most moral fashion we can. But
are also dedicated to stopping what we consider their deliberate
murders of innocent civilians.

We held back, back when they were mostly targeting our military folks,
members of government (State Department and such), and so forth.
While we did not like it. Those were at least legitimate or
semi-legitimate targets. LONG ago we could have done what we've done
since 9/11. But restrainned ourselves.

I'm not saying we're a perfect people, and have no faults, or that
we're innately superior just because we're Americans.

I am saying we've tried, poorly at times, to be fair and reasonable,
and to work these things out. Some may not agree with us and that is
fine.

But this changes nothing. The Al Qaeda stepped over the line when
they began to deliberately target innocent civilians and we intend to
respond to that. Period. And have been. And have been prosecuting
them the best we can while trying to do so within the rules that the
international community has set. Which is more than can be said by
the terrorists.

If we truly did not care, if we took the stand and stance Al Qaeda and
their affliates have taken, trust me, we could have created such death
and destruction as the world has never seen. Death and destruction
such as what the Al Qaeda WISH they could sow upon others. And wish
they had the means to do.

Instead, we chose a more difficult route and method. Which has
resulted in many of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen dying when we
could have used a different means. And has resulted in great monetary
cost to us, many soldiers, sailors, and airmen being separated from
their familes and enduring hardships, etc.

We are doing our best. That is all I can say. But have no intention
of letting such terrorists have their way. We even gave Saddam a
chance to come to the table, in HONESTY, and come clean. He refused.
You can see the result.

Now, you may disagree, and that'd fine. That's your right.

But this has been my side of the story, what I believe and think.

Please, don't give me any BS about Al Qaeda having some valid position
because of past wrongs done to them. You probably don't want to go
there. Such arguments are usually bogus and counterproductive to
decreasing hate and discontent, anyway. Nobody can change the past,
nor even make up for it. The past is past. What counts is where do
we go from here, to settle things and establish peace so folks can get
on with their lives.

If you choose the BS arguments about past wrongs, and thus Al Qaeda
has some moral grounds for their actions. Then you bring up a bunch
of other issues and possible future strife, hatred, and more killing.

If Al Qaeda can claim justification for their actions due to past
wrongs. Then _I_ can claim the same. And maybe use it for
justification to come to YOUR home and murder you and your family and
seize your property. And then ask the world to forgive me and look
the other way.

Is this the sort of thing you want?

Bob

A bit from the german side , as seen from a civilian perspective .
The propaganda fed to the civilians painted a picture of a fearless leader
defending the fatherland from the savage uncivilised murdering foe .
This propaganda was swallowed , particularly by the younger kids at the time
, they were eventualy the emergency services , kids of 12 and 13 dragging
bodies from bombed buildings , if they were identifiable , these kids traced
and informed relatives , and fully believed that they were being attacked
without provokation.
Their own expirience of war was nil until the bombers came.......
This was the expirience of a cousin of my fathers , now deceased .

Volunteers were recruited in an active manner , ie , in the wee early ours
of the morning , SS personal would break the door down , drag the family
from their beds and offer a choice to the menfolk , volunteer to fight , or
be shot as a waste of food now, no pressure , answer now!....... most chose
to fight , and maybe come back to their families alive , instead of being
executed as a traitor who refused to defend the fatherland .
The only hope to see their family again was fight .....
This is my grandfathers expirience .

No-one is ever told the truth by their Govt , regardless who you are giving
your life for .
Myal

In article , Myal says...

Volunteers were recruited in an active manner , ie , in the wee early ours
of the morning , SS personal would break the door down , drag the family
from their beds and offer a choice to the menfolk , volunteer to fight , or
be shot as a waste of food now, no pressure , answer now!....... most chose
to fight , and maybe come back to their families alive , instead of being
executed as a traitor who refused to defend the fatherland .
The only hope to see their family again was fight .....
This is my grandfathers expirience .

No-one is ever told the truth by their Govt , regardless who you are giving
your life for .

Well this is certainly true. I think this aptly wraps around
to gunner's view of life, that it's a great deal easier to
get the truth from your government when you are holding them
at gunpoint, that if they are holding you. This sounds rather
trite and quite unlikely, except it did work for those revolutionaries
back in 1776.

Which reminds me, I really do want to bring that metal detector
up to the fort hill behind my house in the springtime.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:23:14 +1100, "Myal"
wrote:

A bit from the german side , as seen from a civilian perspective .
The propaganda fed to the civilians painted a picture of a fearless leader
defending the fatherland from the savage uncivilised murdering foe .
This propaganda was swallowed , particularly by the younger kids at the time
, they were eventualy the emergency services , kids of 12 and 13 dragging
bodies from bombed buildings , if they were identifiable , these kids traced
and informed relatives , and fully believed that they were being attacked
without provokation.
Their own expirience of war was nil until the bombers came.......
This was the expirience of a cousin of my fathers , now deceased .

And I have no doubt this was what some of them were told, Myal.

I also have no doubt that others, heard a different story and believed
theirs was the right way and the right thought, and that they were the
future and it was only right they should enforce their will upon
others.

What you heard varied. Depending on if you were one of the chosen by
the party, or one of the masses.

Volunteers were recruited in an active manner , ie , in the wee early ours
of the morning , SS personal would break the door down , drag the family
from their beds and offer a choice to the menfolk , volunteer to fight , or
be shot as a waste of food now, no pressure , answer now!....... most chose
to fight , and maybe come back to their families alive , instead of being
executed as a traitor who refused to defend the fatherland .
The only hope to see their family again was fight .....
This is my grandfathers expirience .

No-one is ever told the truth by their Govt , regardless who you are giving
your life for .
Myal

Not much for me to disagree with here, Myal. I have no doubts this
occurred to some. Others were willing to support the Furher and
believed in the "cause".

FWIW, Myal, I bear the Germans people themselves in general, no ill
will. Neither did the friend of mine of whom I spoke in the previous
post. Nor many others I knew who fought in that war. The German
people, in general, were not their enemies. The Nazis were.

And indeed you are correct. One should not automatically trust one's
government. There is absolutely NOTHING special about those men or
women. Not a one of them. They're subject to all the faults and
failings of any other common human being. Many are honest enough, as
much as most humans are, and well intended. But good intentions do
not mean they're right, nor does it mean they're making the right
decisions. Good intentions alone, merely paying lip service to "good
intentions" is utterly meaningless and useless and wasted breath.
What they DO, is the only thing which truly counts.

And there are some who are utterly, IMHO, without morals or true
purpose or goals or guidance ... except their own self service and
personal promotion. They pay lip service to serving the public, and
doing what is in the best interest of the people. But it's a lie.

I'm quite willing to believe it's a lie that some of this last group
are not even aware of as they have flim-flammed their own minds into
believing whatever they need to believe, and this changes moment by
monet depending on which way the wind is blowing, in order to achieve
their real goal. Personal success, more power, more fame, etc.

People, I have noted, seem to have an almost infinite capacity to
convince themselves of almost any belief. If that's what they were
inclined to believe in the first place.

I remember one incident. It was during the time I'd gotten out of the
Navy and had decided to be a cop. A thing I later changed my mind
about, and went back into the Navy.

I was riding partners with another guy, and we were cruising thru a
residential neighborhood late one night. When suddenly a guy ran in
front of our car. We slammed on the brakes and the guy fell down. We
thought for a moment we'd hit him. But we had not. When we jumped
out and looked, ohhh, it was a mess.

Later on doctors told us the guy had been stabbed 18 times. He'd also
been shot twice with a 12 gage shotgun. And the side of his skill was
shattered. As it turned out, his assailant had beat the victim's head
with the stock end of a shotgun until the stock had broken, He'd also
been beaten visciously, and had the finger prints on his neck from his
assailant's efforts to choke him to death.

We were utterly shocked to see he was still alive. He was leaking
blood from everywhere. We couldn't even detect a pulse. But he was
concious and spoke. Told us who did it and where to find him. Believe
it or not, the guy lived. We called for an ambulance and lucked out.
A full EMT unit just chanced to be only a few blocks away. Anyway we
went and found and fetched his assailant.

Yah know, the assailant was an intelligent fellow. Graduate of a very
good college, a superior one, with an advanced degree in science, a
master's. And .. he at first seemed as rational and logical as any
human I've ever met. Was even likeable, very much so.

BUT ...

He didn't understand why we wanted to arrest him. Oh, he admitted
he's done the assault, never denied it for a moment. He just didn't
understand why we should be ****ed about what he did. In his mind the
fellow had earned his treatment, he deserved it ! Why were we
arresting HIM? He was utterly convinced that what he'd done was
justified. And thought that no one in their right mind could doubt
this.

What had the other guy done? Made the fellow leave a bar when he'd
thought guy had drank enough.

No, it was not just the drink talking. That'd occurred much earlier.
Guy was sober when we arrested him. He felt that the guy had wronged
him and violated his rights by making him do what he'd not wanted to
do. Simple as that. Felt no man should tell him what he could or
could not do. And that such was so wrong, that whoever did it
DESERVED any punishment he got.

Sigh Over a lifetime, I have met others like this. Seemingly
bright, seemingly reasonable and logical. But they have convinced
themselves of whatever it is they wished to believe so utterly that
debating the matter with them is a total waste of time.

My best to you and yours,

Bob

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:04:52 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 06:41:12 -0600, Bob G wrote:

I suppose it's possible, particularly if your schooling was after the
mid 70's. When folks started rewriting history in the text books.
And educational performance standards and expectations started
dropping.

I'm older than you. My father and uncles fought in WWII. I vividly
remember Korea.

I can't say I vividly remember Korea. I didn't fight in that war.

My father did, as did one of my uncles. And dad's best friend, Spook.
Dad had a few scars. From bullets and shrapnel. Spook took 2
bullets. One which left an odd aftermath. He could move his left
side fine, but had no feeling in much of it.

Grandfather and one of his brothers was in WW2. Grandfather was a
Army mechanic in that war. He said they thought he was getting kinda
old for a front line infantry man. And he knew how to fix stuff
anyway. He never got shot or anything. But got a broken leg and some
busted ribs when the truck he was in was overturned by a close
artillery shell hit.

Wanna hear about my ancestor, Otis? I have letters he wrote home
while he was in the civil war.

Myself, I did 3 tours inland in Nam. I can match Kerry for numbers of
Purple Kuck Ups. Except 2 of those incidences almost killed me. I
lost a cousin in that war. My brother was in final training before his
unit was to be deployed there. But was in a training accident which
required multiple surgeries over time to correct. By the time they
got him fixed, they decided to give him a medical discharge. Another
cousin went in at Panama, and the first Iraq war in 1991. I have 2
nephews and a neice who went into Iraq this last time. One nephew has
been wounded, been back to the states and volunteered to go back
again. Because he believes in what he is doing. The other nephew is
coming home soon. The neice is already back.

I think you ignore the well known historical axiom that the real story
is rarely understood until some time has passed and emotional distance
from the events has been established. That's because the emotional
and ideological baggage carried by those who actually lived through the
events colors their judgement, and also because often historical documents,
revealing real intentions and motivations, are concealed by governments
until well after those who instituted them can no longer be held culpable.

Chuckle, spoken like a scholar who has spent his life safe on a campus
somewhere, reading his books and judging the world. Thinking to
himself, "Ohhh, if only they were as wise as I am !"

It is very true that the whole story rarely emerges until some time
after the event. Absolutely no doubt about this.

But to dismiss or ignore the "emotional baggage", as you put it, is to
ignore half the story.

Chuckle, but you have a point.

Perhaps next time a woman is being raped, and is horror struck,
frightened, and angry all at the same time; and manages to get a
weapon and kill her attacker. We should tell her that we do not wish
to hear about all that garbage "emotional baggage" stuff. It is no
excuse for her actions. She should have maintained control of
herself, resigned self to her fate. Asked her attacker, when he was
done, if he'd like seconds before he leaves. And let him have it if
that is what he wishes. Then, after he has gone she should have
calmly called the police, and most politely and civilly stated she
wished to file a complaint.

And, if your wife or daughter is ever raped ... and no, I would never
wish that upon them or you ... be sure that you tell them to not let
the event of their rape color their judgement. And don't let it color
yours either if you should come upon the perp in the act. Remember,
you must respect his rights and do nothing that MIGHT, by any stetch
of the imagination, violate a law.

Best if you just say, "Oh, sorry. Keep on doing what you're doing.
But I hope you will pardon me. I need to call my lawyer as I am going
to sue you. I'd call the police, but they might be rash and
judgemental and overreact. I simply can't condon that."

Truth, and learning to improve ourselves is NOT furthered by lies, or
one sided, biased views, etc. We are all best served by knowing the
whole story. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent.

Indeed, and we need to view those events not colored by the jingoism
and retoric of the time in which they occurred. That's one of the problems
we still have when discussing the Vietnam War. Many of the participants
still view it through the jingoist lens of the era in which they fought. They
aren't willing to step back and analyze the events rationally and
dispassionately.

Chuckle, really?

Perhaps you think me jingoistic?

Ahhh, I understand now. Quite obviously I am much too dumb, and of
such obviously inferior education and knowledge, that I could never
understand anything on my own. And thus can spout only jingoisms
about things I do not understand. Simply because I know no better.

I suppose that it must be true if you say so, you being so obviously
superior in intellect, knowledge, and understanding of all events

Chuckle, in all seriousness, Gary, is it really necessary for me to
point out of that several of the lines you wrote are nearly world for
for out of speeches I heard and books I read in the late 60's and the
70's?

What it sounds to me like, and I could be wrong, is that you're saying
is that if YOU engage in repeating lines said by others, straight out
the "it's our official position" book ... it's reason, logic, and well
considered and thoughtout discussion and debate.

But if others do it, taking a position with which you do not agree,
it's mere, simple minded jingoism spouted by those who obviously have
no real clue about they're saying.

Hmmmm ... interesting.

From Miriam Webster, Gary:

Main Entry: jin·go·ism
Function: noun: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by
a belligerent foreign policy

Now, Gary, would you kindly point out to me where in my posts I
enegaged in "extreme nationalism"? Where exactly did I ever state
that America is always right? Or that I believe Americans are always
better? Their wishes, wants, needs, desires, etc always superior to
others?

And please point out to me where, exactly, I supported a belligerant
foreign policy in general?

That is, unless, somehow you interpret the position that if I say to
someone, "Leave me alone and we'll get along. But if you hurt me or
mine, or my friends or neighbors; or threaten to do so in a way that
makes me honestly believe you are gonna actually carry through with
you threat; then I'll do what I must to stop you." That this
constitutes belligerance.

If that is true, Gary, then we must simply disband all military forces
and police departments throughout the world, immediately.

And when some fellow comes along and grabs your daughter and starts
beating her senseless, then raping her til she's torn and bloody ... I
will remind you that it's best if you just let him do as he will and
do not attempt to stop him. I sure would not want you to engage in
anything which might be construed to be belligerance, Gary.

After, you can always seek out your lawyer, and have him draft the
papers, and get them signed by a judge. Which you can then deliver to
that rapist as he's assaulting his next victim. I'm sure he'll listen
when you tell him that even tho you'd never, ever think of actually
using force to make him comply, those papers mean that he should
promptly cease and desist what he is doing and report on his own to
the courthouse for a trial.

Yep, sounds reasonable to me. I'm certain that even tho he knows no
one will MAKE him stop, that he'll understand the reasonableness of
your position, and understand that, after all, he is breaking the law.
Almost undoubtedly he'll stop. Hell, he'll probably even go lock
himself in a cell at the jailhouse. And stay there willingly. Even
tho there are no guards to make him stay.

Sounds good to me, Gary, if you say so I suppose I must believe.

I like to think I've thoroughly studied the history of the 20th century.
I've read both the first hand accounts of those who participated
(including oral histories from my relatives), and later historical analysis
and unsealed documentation available from such sources as the
Library of Congress.

So have I.

I know, I shouldn't have. Such things should be reserved for the
greater intellects such as yourself, sir.

A poor commoner like I could not possibly understand all that stuff.
I don't know why I even tried.

But since you equate, or try to equate, Dresden with the crashing of
those aircraft into the Twin Towers, I'll presume you've read at least
one accounting or explaination. And, given that you use it as your
argument, I presume it was slanted against America. And likely did
not give both sides of that debate, and may not have explained a
"whole picture" of the event.

You've certainly misunderstood my position. I have equated the
legitimacy of total war in WWII with the legitimacy of the total war
being waged by the Palestinian people to regain their lands and
rights.

I have not mentioned Al Qaeda, or the criminal actions of 911.
In my opinion, the latter have no legitimacy because their declared
objectives have no rationality. They are merely the criminal actions
of a religious cult, no different in principle from the followers of
Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Jerry Falwell.

Ohhh, now I understand. It's okay to be a fanatic and a terrorist.
But only if you, Gary, agree with the cause. In which case it is not
really either fanaticism or terrorism.

Oh, I agree with you that religious terrorism is a bad thing. But I
have a question.

Who did Jerry Falwell murder? How many babies? Innocent women going
about their business? How many bombs did he order his minions to set
off at bus stops, within buses, in school yards, in restaurants, etc.
When did he call for his fellow fanatics to strap bombs to their
bodies and then go kill whomever. It did not matter whether they were
innocent or not, what gender, what age, and so forth.

Cites, please. Not that I wish you to think I doubt your word, Gary,
it is just that I'd not heard about these actions on the part of Jerry
Falwell, and I habitually like to check out the facts for myself when
such allegations are made to see if I can find supporting evidence or
testimony. Rather than relying on one, single source of information.

I think, Gary, that perhaps there is some slight chance that you have
allowed your emotions and biases, and possibly some hatred you
probably will not admit to, to "color" your view. As opposed to
stepping back and examining things dispassionately and logically.

Gasp I'm sorry, I should not have said the above. I must be wrong.
There is no possibility in this world that Gary could be engaging in
the double-speak rhetoric simply meant to justify his own position and
biases; which he accuses others of doing. I know that. Only us old
fashioned, dumb as rocks, simple minded, jingoism spouting types do
that. Gary is much too wise, too fair, too logical, and too even
handed to ever allow himself to do that.

On a more serious note.

Gary, I understand, I think, the point you're trying to make as
regards to the Palestinians.

And there is some validity to their position and claims of wanting
land for themselves. I never denied that.

However, this is not a perfect world, and there are no perfect humans,
nor perfect decisions, nor perfect solutions.

Thus, we must deal with what we have, which is reality.

The reality is that the Israeli's possess the lands we now call
Israel. And that their country has been recognized by the UN, as well
as by the majority of other nations independently, as a valid nation.
And 6.5 million people who call themselves Israeli are in firm
possession, and have no intention of giving up their homes. Many of
those there, were born there. Even putting aside all arguments of a
religious nature about whose land it originally was and so forth. The
simple fact is to most of them, that place is ... in fact ... their
home. Most who are still alive were born there, grew up there, raised
their own families there, etc.

Now, the Palestinians have some valid claims themselves, IMHO. I've
never said otherwise.

What I have said is that everything I've read indicates that the
majority (not all) of both the average, on the street Israeli and
Palestinian seems to want peace and are willing to try to reach some
mutually acceptable compromise. And in fact, I pointed out that the
majority of the common, average people, both sides, seem to get along
pretty well.

The issue becomes one of some die hard extremists and fanatics. And
there are some on both sides. As well as corrupt politicians, on both
sides.

We convince both sides from time to time to come to the table, in an
earnest attempt to reach some acceptable compromise.

And each time it seems, the peace process is interrupted by the
extremists on one side or the other.

Most times, when it's the Israelis, it's some politico with an
extreme, unyielding and unbending postion (or one who may be taking a
payoff by special interest groups) who does not wish a real
compromise.

But other times it has been Palestinian extremists. Who can, will and
have resorted to not only killing Israelis. But have even resorted to
threats, and even carried out deadly strikes against their own people
who were willing to support a peaceful treaty that was a compromise.

Reality, Gary. This is what we have to deal with. Not some idealism
or dreams.

That Gary has decided that he believes the Palestinians have the
superior claim is pretty irrelevent.

That Gary states he believes it's perfectly fine for the Palestinian
extremists groups to do anything they wish, that it is okay for them
to go to any extremes, that it just fine and justified that they
deliberately target schools, cafes with innocent folks enjoying a cup
of coffee and a sandwich with friends, bus loads of shoppers and folk
on their way back and forth to peaceful work, and so forth ... is a
pretty extreme and jingoistic position to take, Gary.

I'm surprised you'd take it.

Now, I have no idea of what you are like, in reality, as a person.
And anything I've said which you may find offensive to yourself as a
person ... I really did not intend to be some attack upon you.

I was trying to stir you up and get you to think this thing through.
Not necessarily to make you agree with me. But rather to show you how
certain things you have said, if carried just a bit further along in
the direction of the positions you _appear_ to take, might look to me.

You are an adult person, and I have no reason to doubt you're at
least as bright as myself, if not more so. And you are perfectly
capable of making up your own mind. And whichever position you take,
it may be one just as valid as mine, or even more so. I do not know.
I am no expert in these matters, by a long shot.

In honest fact, I am not trying to put you down.

I am attempting to give you my view.

And my view is that the things the Allies did in WW2, were later
looked upon by those very same Allies and they were not happy.
While it may well have been a necessity given the situation and who
they faced. That necessity being an arguable point with pros and cons
on both sides. We as a people looked at the events and the majority
have come to the conclusion that mass carpet bombing, fire bombing,
etc ... acts of war and combat, death and destruction, which
deliberately targeted what were most likely innocent civilians, or
simply ignored their presence ... was NOT a good thing. Even in self
defense.

And while it may (or may not) have been necessary at the time, given
the state of the art of warfare, weapons systems, and so forth. And
may well have (or possibly not) saved more lives in the long run on
both sides by hastening the end of the war. Most of us still looked
at those events in hindsight and said to ourselves, "We are not happy.
There has got to be a better way in the future. We must try harder to
target the true bad guys instead of just killing people willy-nilly,
many of whom probably did not want to fight in the first place."

So things have changed. Most of us, in what we call the "civilized"
world. Which does not just include America, or America and Europe.
Rather, I think it includes most reasonable, thoughtful people
anywhere. (I could be wrong but have not seen evidence to the
contrary.) Have come to the conclusion that we do not think that
dropping or planting bombs in the middle of innocent people
deliberately making the decision that's it's okay to kill just anyone
as long as we win is a good thing. We tend to think that this sort of
thing should be avoided whenever possible.

Given, that it is considered unreasonable to just expect a man to lay
down his weapons and die peacefully rather than defending his own life
or that of his comrades. That would not be a reasonable expectation.
We generally do not call the killing of another person in defense of
your life, or defense of your fellow citizen's life an unjustified
crime.

Note .. I stated in defense of life. i.e. If he does not fight, he
will certainly, or at least belives, he will die anyway. Or someone
else who is being attacked by the attacker will.

Thus we try, do our best, tho our best is not perfect by any means ...
to deliberately target only the real targets. Thus, for instance, we
send men and women into Afghanistan and Iraq, and even tho the Al
Qaeda and Taliban and Saddam and his minions do not play by the same
rules. We order our folks to restrain themselves, control themselves
as best as possible.

Don't blow up a school filled with children to get one guy. Or to
"make a statement". Do your very best, even when under fire, when
you're ****ting your pants and sweating and thinking you may die any
moment ... to target the bad guys. Rather than to just spray and pray
that amongst all those innocent folks you know to be in front of you
that you might manage to get that one bad guy. And so forth.

Why do you think our casualties in Iraq are what they are, Gary?
While not perfect at it, and recognizing that mistakes happen, those
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are doing their best to get the
bad guys with the least possible casualties inflicted upon civilians
they can achieve. Often doing so even tho the methods put themselves
at even greater risk than other methods.

Yes, they sometimes screw up. And sometimes equipment screws up. And
sometimes information they have is wrong or incomplete. But again,
I'll point out that it's not a perfect world and there are no perfect
solutions or answers. But they try their best, and for every
"accident" there are a hundred or a thousand other incidents where
soldiers deliberately hold fire, even while they're under fire and
taking casualties. Consciously, deliberately attempting to seek out
the real enemy among many innocents, and trying to figure out a way to
get him with as little damage to them as they can achieve.

Even tho the other side has no such reservations. Even tho the other
side most willingly will target innocent civilians. Don't care who
they kill. Just as long as they kill someone, and make their
"statement". Which is, "Fear us ! Bow to us ! Bend to our WILL !
We do not care what you want, or who or how many we hurt. All that
matters is what WE WANT ! So we will kill ... your people, our
people, or third parties who do not take sides. We do not care
because our cause is justified and more worthy than your cause. No
matter how many disagree with us."

The Palestinian extremists do the same, Gary. Claiming "good cause".

But is it a good cause when even the majority of the people who call
themselves Palestinian do not really want war and more killing? Yes,
they want a home. Quite understandable and I do not blame them for
that. However, most have stated they're willing to accept some
compromise. They're willing to give a little if the Israelis give a
little. And from all I've read, the majority of the Israelis feel
much the same.

It is the extremists, unbending and unyielding on both sides, IMHO who
keep this from happening.

I would like to point out that it seems, and I may be wrong, it
certainly would not be the first time, that from what you type in your
posts it appears that your own view and vision seems somewhat
discolored. By what appears to be a bias against religious people.

Now, you have a perfect right to dislike the religious, of whatever
religion you choose, or all of them.

But be cautious you do not let this bias slant your thinking. There
are fanatics and extremists among the religious, ceratinly. I do not
like such folks myself. However, most religious persons of most
religions I've met, and I've known many of many religions, are
peaceful folks. And want to kill no one. Engaging in rhetheoric,
debate, discussion, saying you do not approve of how others live and
things they do, going to the voting booth and voting along the lines
of your convictions, petitioning for new laws or rules which agree
with the way they believe ... which is what the majority of the
religious do, as versus taking up a weapon and killing those who
disagree wtih them ... is reasonable. And no different, at all, from
what those who oppose religion, and disbelieve in it do. Don't like
their positions? Your right. Vote. Get out there and stir up those
who believe as you do and get them to vote. If enough agree with you,
and the courts and legislature agree with you. You will win out.

But be cautious in your own thinking. To say that "such and such is
bad and evil" when someone who is religious does it citing religious
justifications. But to then turn around and say, "However, if you
have some other justification, not religiously based, then it's okay.
Kill whomever, and how many, in any way you wish. There are no limits
or restrictions as far as I am concerned which should be placed upon
you."

Is perhaps not a good position to take.

Hell, Gary, if we make our decisions like that. Saying that past
events and injustices, unfairness and inequities, now justify any and
all actions, no matter how atrocious. Then we should at least
consider the consequences.

If the Palestinian extremists are justified to go to any lenghts, no
matter how horrid or who it hurts, even if it kills folks who had no
hand whatsoever in the decision making processes of the past. Or,
perhaps some of them did, but now wish to make peace, compromise, stop
the killing on both sides, and get on with life.

If that's your position, Gary. Would it not then be okay for me to
claim I am justified in murdering and raping your family and friends?
Would I not be able to have some claim that _I_ did not agree upon the
current division and ownership of land as it now exists, and that I
have dead ancestors who died as a result of decisions made by your
ancestors. And thus have some justification, under the arguments you
make, to commence to blowing up schools, buses, movie theatres,
restaurants, night clubs, and so forth. Or to just build my own crude
rockets and missles and just start launching them into residential
neighborshoods. Knowing full well that the people I'm most liking
killing and injuring did not have a hand in the wrong doing that I
claim was done to me and mine?

After all, Gary, I can make a perfectly valid case that "your" people
took land, homes, and property away from "my people" at gunpoint.
Killing those who resisted. And those who did not were then marched
along a trail now called the "Trail of Tears" in winter, most on foot.
With inadequate food, medicine, coats and blankets. And that it's
estimated at least one in 4 died during that trip which forced them
off their own land.

Don't worry about it tho. I have no such intentions. My neighbors
around me did not do it. And I am one who belives in letting the
sleeping dog lay right where he is. That my best course of action,
that everyone's best course of action is to let the past ... stay
there. And to worry more about today. And tomorrow. Because no one
can change the past, it is done. But, hopefully we can change today,
and tomorrow. Your people and mine, reached a compromise in the past.
Put aside what had been done. Most of us, anyway. And moved on.

I personally think it is time for Israel and the Palestinians to do
the same. BOTH sides.

I am afraid we'll just have to disagree. I can not justify in my mind
the repeated terrorists attacks by the extreme Palestinians. I do not
care how justified they think their "cause" is. It is time to move
on. All that is gonna result by keeping it up is more death on both
sides. And in the end, the Palestinians will almost certainly lose if
they do not bend and yield somewhat in their position.

If the MAJORITY of Palestinians felt just as extreme in their
positions as the members of those extremist groups, why is it then
that the suicide bomber attacks are not on the order of hundreds per
day, rather than being as few and sporatic as they are? Why are not
the streets of Israeli cities filled with dedicated snipers, killing
all that they can, and fighting to the end? Thousands and thousands
of Palestinians cross into Israel every day. And they have friends
and relations on the inside of Israel. Israel is a place where it's
really easy to get a rifle.

I think the answer is, Gary, just as I asserted. The extremists, who
want no compromise, on both sides, are a minority.

My best to your and yours,

Bob

Jim Dauven wrote in message ...
I think that you should go back and look at John Kerry

John Kerry lead the effort to defund the CIA, NSA to the
amount of 1.3 billion dollars from 1997 to 2000. Now ask
your self why we couldn't find out about 9/11.

Defunding the CIA was part of the "big plan". We needed terrorism to
spur military/industrial growth.

"Erik Aronesty" wrote in message
om...
: Jim Dauven wrote in message
...
: I think that you should go back and look at John Kerry
:
: John Kerry lead the effort to defund the CIA, NSA to the
: amount of 1.3 billion dollars from 1997 to 2000. Now ask
: your self why we couldn't find out about 9/11.
:
: Defunding the CIA was part of the "big plan". We needed terrorism to
: spur military/industrial growth.