"kurgan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Greylock wrote:

This is funny as hell. Bill Mahar is a riot.

Opions vary.

Personally I sorta think referring to American soldiers as "cowards"
is way beyond the pale.

That he wasn't taken off the air permanently is a travesty and a
damned shame.

Whoa. Let's get this straight. He didn't call American soldiers
cowardly. He
objected to the (stupid) remark by Dubya that the Qaedas who flew planes
into the WTC were "cowards." Mahar was right. They weren't cowards. They
were murders and nutbags, but not cowards.

What he DID say, in response, is this: "We have been the cowards lobbing
cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."


That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.



He's right. Flying cruise missiles into a foreign country at no risk to
ourselves, simultaneously puffing ourselves up for courage and moral
certitude while calling suicide attacks "cowardly," is
self-congratulation
going over the top. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza also
objected to
the characterization of the WTC attackers as cowards. Stupid is stupid,
and
self-congratulation is self-congratulation, no matter which side of the
political spectrum you're on.

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are
cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are
(relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of
us
in the indictment, because it's our government.

That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.

All you have provided is his "after the fact" attempt to squirm out of
the firestorm he created by his own arrogant assininity.



Maher's right about the 9/11 perpetrators. They were actually brave.
Misguided, but brave.

He's also right about our leaders are cowards. Only 1 politician in
Washington has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. They don't mind
sending your sons over there, but they won't send their own.

Don't let your ideology blind you to the truth. Or let it. I don't
really care.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


Totally wrong. I posted it elsewhere in this thread too. Lets get this
straight. What is cowardly was Saddam paying suicide bombers of low income
families 10k for each mission! Using Military actions such as cruise
missiles or what not is meant to minimize loss of our own people or assets
and obtain an objective. Using innocent civilians in any deliberate attempt
to cause fear is cowardly!

Nick

"kurgan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Greylock wrote:

This is funny as hell. Bill Mahar is a riot.

Opions vary.

Personally I sorta think referring to American soldiers as "cowards"
is way beyond the pale.

That he wasn't taken off the air permanently is a travesty and a
damned shame.

Whoa. Let's get this straight. He didn't call American soldiers
cowardly. He
objected to the (stupid) remark by Dubya that the Qaedas who flew planes
into the WTC were "cowards." Mahar was right. They weren't cowards. They
were murders and nutbags, but not cowards.

What he DID say, in response, is this: "We have been the cowards lobbing
cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."


That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.



He's right. Flying cruise missiles into a foreign country at no risk to
ourselves, simultaneously puffing ourselves up for courage and moral
certitude while calling suicide attacks "cowardly," is
self-congratulation
going over the top. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza also
objected to
the characterization of the WTC attackers as cowards. Stupid is stupid,
and
self-congratulation is self-congratulation, no matter which side of the
political spectrum you're on.

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are
cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are
(relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of
us
in the indictment, because it's our government.

That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.

All you have provided is his "after the fact" attempt to squirm out of
the firestorm he created by his own arrogant assininity.



Maher's right about the 9/11 perpetrators. They were actually brave.
Misguided, but brave.

I tend to think someone is "misguided" when they think it's OK to shoplift
or park in a "no parking" zone. It's an awfully mild way to describe
fanatical, mass-murdering fundamentalist terrorists. As for "brave," I tend
to apply that to those who overcome fear and danger to do waht needs to be
done, not those who were stupid enough to beleive that their mass-murdering
of infidels would earn them a spot in paradise with 72 virgins, although
their actions took some guts.

As for Maher, his comedy is often spot-on political commentary masquarading
as comedy, as is Jon Stewart's on the Daily Show. Bush bring out the best
in both. No one can create material like that.

He's also right about our leaders are cowards. Only 1 politician in
Washington has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. They don't mind
sending your sons over there, but they won't send their own.

Many are veterans themselves, just not most of the NeoCons. Moreover, a
parent cannot make a child enlist. I don't understand calls to "send" the
Bush daughters to fight in Iraq, for example.

Jeff

wrote:

In misc.survivalism Richard Lamb wrote:

The French National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Michael
Moore, backed up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums and Bill
Clinton on sax....

Man!, I LOVE this car!


Unlike the Anne Coulter quote, this was pretty funny.

Anybody remember Pat Paulson? He was one of the funniest political
comedians ever.

Hell, in the last election I would have voted for him. If he had run he
might actually have had a chance.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jeff McCann wrote:

Maher's right about the 9/11 perpetrators. They were actually brave.
Misguided, but brave.

I tend to think someone is "misguided" when they think it's OK to shoplift
or park in a "no parking" zone. It's an awfully mild way to describe
fanatical, mass-murdering fundamentalist terrorists. As for "brave," I tend
to apply that to those who overcome fear and danger to do waht needs to be
done, not those who were stupid enough to beleive that their mass-murdering
of infidels would earn them a spot in paradise with 72 virgins, although
their actions took some guts.



It's a mild term, but it's accurate. I'd call Japanese kamikazee pilots
the same thing.

From an objective point of view, where one doesn't take sides, the
American soldier jumping on a grenade to save his buddies is equally
brave as the Japanese kamikazee giving his life for his country, or the
Muslim suicide bomber, giving his life for his religion. It's all the
same thing.

We declare those actions to be moral or immoral depending upon whose
side those guys are fighting for. If we had American Kamikazees going
after Japanese aircraft carriers in WW2, we'd call them brave.

So, ya, "misguided" is apropos.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Start with murdering 100,000++ in Iraq,

You witnessed him killing them?

Saddam or the neocons?

Like asking to be shown those pesky "WMDs" ...

Consider:

So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement. If
he ever got one he might have hurt someone's cat or invaded
Antartica with it ."

It's murder, pure & simple. Of about ~ 100,000 ++ ...

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital
offense charged, be put to death." - Third Law, The Code of Hammurabi
written in about 1786 BC. In what is now (or was) Iraq.

The Neocon Menace is worse by far than the Communist Menace
ever was.
http://www.lincoln-ma.com/news_archi...cebuilders.htm
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

lying to congress,

About what WMD? I say it always what happened to all the WMD UNSCOM had
found that went missing?

Can you please repeat that in English?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

shooting lawyers,

One thing to bring up something that is very upsetting and unintentional,
next most people would agree shoot all lawyers first lol jk. I agree very
sad and to be honest I wish we all would be treated so humanely for things
we are sorry for doing.

Had you hit a pedestrian with your car .... and, it would seem
to be even more serious if done while committing another crime
(poaching) or drinking (guess what?)
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:06:12 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

What is cowardly was Saddam paying suicide bombers
of low income families 10k for each mission!

A good way to get rich quick, eh? 50 missions and
set for life ...
OTOH The neocons only pay about $250,000 .... though I
gather that more is optional ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6891515/

Beyond that, I think you lied.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:06:12 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Using innocent civilians in any deliberate
attempt to cause fear is cowardly!

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/shock-awe.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/kpw3g
http://tinyurl.com/mrep8

HTH
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:56:47 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Using Military actions such as cruise
missiles or what not is meant to minimize loss of our own people or assets
and obtain an objective.

It's to boost the profits of the suppliers?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:05:49 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote:


I tend to think someone is "misguided" when they think it's OK to shoplift
or park in a "no parking" zone. It's an awfully mild way to describe
fanatical, mass-murdering fundamentalist terrorists.

The term "criminals" comes to mind.
Not "war profiteers".
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:05:49 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

I don't understand calls to "send" the
Bush daughters to fight in Iraq, for example.

Might keep them off the party circuit .... you know
how their father turned out ....
--
Cliff

On 24 Feb 2006 09:56:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists
on a higher plane than our government for his own political purposes.

Rubbish.

Let's consider the numbers thus far .....
Probably about 2,000 Americans killed on 9-11 by criminals while Cheney had
the North American Air Defense force (under his PERSONAL direction)
off doing exercises in Greenland or Iceland (WHO told them to pick that one
day?).

Americans killed by the neocons attacking various nations thus far:
2,863 MINIMUM as of the lastest *official* numbers I found.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:23:51 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:19:41 -0500, wrote:

Cliff wrote:

Found those"WMDs"yet?

Probabably with the "oil for food money"

Ransom is always a good idea, right?

BTW, Most of the oil went outside the "oil for food money"
program, by pipeline to allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan ....
and from there no doubt to the likes of Exxon/Mobile.
It had all been reported in detail to the UN security council,
where the US had a veto ....

Negative they were testing the oils from tankers if you remember and can
tell what oil was from the embargoed Iraq.

It certainly is nice to know that no illegal oil got exported ....
Warms my heart it does.

Turkey had already had a pipeline
from Iraq going into their country and was allowed its oil. If you remember
Iraq purposely set up their tripple A fire along this pipeline and it was
once hit as collateral damage fuming Turkey. Much of these tactics from Iraq
caused us to use concrete bombs instead of explosive ones that can cause
more harm to people or assets as Iraq had purposely tried.

Hence Iraq is mostly demolished.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/p...q/fallujah.jpg
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Start with murdering 100,000++ in Iraq,

You witnessed him killing them?

Saddam or the neocons?

Like asking to be shown those pesky "WMDs" ...

Consider:

So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement. If
he ever got one he might have hurt someone's cat or invaded
Antartica with it ."

It's murder, pure & simple. Of about ~ 100,000 ++ ...

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital
offense charged, be put to death." - Third Law, The Code of Hammurabi
written in about 1786 BC. In what is now (or was) Iraq.

The Neocon Menace is worse by far than the Communist Menace
ever was.
http://www.lincoln-ma.com/news_archi...cebuilders.htm
--
Cliff

Happy hour already for you? You make no sense lol...

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

lying to congress,

About what WMD? I say it always what happened to all the WMD UNSCOM had
found that went missing?

Can you please repeat that in English?
--
Cliff

UNSCOM had accounted for numerous WMD in Iraq prior to getting kicked out in
98. Since that time no one knows what had happened to the existing stockpile
they knew of, that is no longer to be found, It was never destroyed. and is
out there somewere. Hans Blix also felt they just needed more time to find
them. Our past three Presidents felt there was WMD in Iraq and needed to get
Saddam out of power.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

shooting lawyers,

One thing to bring up something that is very upsetting and unintentional,
next most people would agree shoot all lawyers first lol jk. I agree very
sad and to be honest I wish we all would be treated so humanely for things
we are sorry for doing.

Had you hit a pedestrian with your car .... and, it would seem
to be even more serious if done while committing another crime
(poaching) or drinking (guess what?)
--
Cliff

Ok now you are off the wall. Poaching? lol...I already said it is
unfortunate that there is a double standard had anyone else made this
mistake by saying I wish we all would be treated humanely for things we are
sorry for doing.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:06:12 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

What is cowardly was Saddam paying suicide bombers
of low income families 10k for each mission!

A good way to get rich quick, eh? 50 missions and
set for life ...
OTOH The neocons only pay about $250,000 .... though I
gather that more is optional ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6891515/

Beyond that, I think you lied.
--
Cliff

Why do I bother I can tell you are trolling now. It was a known fact what
Saddam was doing paying suicide bombers. And what is this about 250k? This
is the SGLI look it up. We were always entitled to this. I am not getting
this article cause everyone gets it, we had to pay into it. All they are
talking about is adding another 150k to make it 400k so get your facts right
and read your article Cliffy boy before you try to sound smart. I remember
some young lady I knew killed herself state side, she 19 years old and her
family was able to collect. Was very sad event. Also when my friend killed
himself in Bosnia same thing.

"kurgan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nicholas Anthony wrote:


Maher's right about the 9/11 perpetrators. They were actually brave.
Misguided, but brave.

He's also right about our leaders are cowards. Only 1 politician in
Washington has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. They don't mind
sending your sons over there, but they won't send their own.

Don't let your ideology blind you to the truth. Or let it. I don't
really care.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


Totally wrong. I posted it elsewhere in this thread too. Lets get this
straight. What is cowardly was Saddam paying suicide bombers of low
income
families 10k for each mission! Using Military actions such as cruise
missiles or what not is meant to minimize loss of our own people or
assets
and obtain an objective. Using innocent civilians in any deliberate
attempt
to cause fear is cowardly!




Strawman.

Maher was talking about the 9/11 perpetrators (they were Saudis and
Egyptians), not Saddam.

I gave you an example of a cowardly act that is why I mentioned Saddam it
also sheds some more light on what an ass he was. Then I went into what BM
said.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 24 Feb 2006 09:56:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists
on a higher plane than our government for his own political purposes.

Rubbish.

Let's consider the numbers thus far .....
Probably about 2,000 Americans killed on 9-11 by criminals while Cheney
had
the North American Air Defense force (under his PERSONAL direction)
off doing exercises in Greenland or Iceland (WHO told them to pick that
one
day?).

Americans killed by the neocons attacking various nations thus far:
2,863 MINIMUM as of the lastest *official* numbers I found.
--
Cliff

You truly have no clue how it works.

Richard Lamb wrote:
Well, heard this one, Cliffy?


I just got my new Chevy Blazer, and returned to the dealer the next day,
complaining that I couldn't figure out how the radio worked.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. "Watch this!" he
said, "Nelson! The radio replied, "Ricky or Willie?" "Willie!"...and On The
Road Again came from the speakers.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say,
Beethoven!"
I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said, "Beatles!" I'd get one of
their awesome songs.

One day, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car, but I
swerved in time to avoid them. "Chicken**** Assholes!" I yelled.

The French National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Michael
Moore, backed up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums and Bill Clinton
on sax....

Man!, I LOVE this car!

It was obviously defective. A Bush speech should have played!

Dan

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:01:40 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


Anybody remember Pat Paulson?


Quite well.


He was one of the funniest political comedians ever.


He was a comedian?

That's P. Pat Paulson to you, buddy.

Dan

Greylock wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:52:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Greylock" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:16:54 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:



This is funny as hell. Bill Mahar is a riot.

Opions vary.

Personally I sorta think referring to American soldiers as "cowards"
is way beyond the pale.

That he wasn't taken off the air permanently is a travesty and a
damned shame.

Whoa. Let's get this straight. He didn't call American soldiers cowardly. He
objected to the (stupid) remark by Dubya that the Qaedas who flew planes
into the WTC were "cowards." Mahar was right. They weren't cowards. They
were murders and nutbags, but not cowards.

What he DID say, in response, is this: "We have been the cowards lobbing
cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."



That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.

You, sir, are a stupid ass, so kiss yourself.

He's right. Flying cruise missiles into a foreign country at no risk to
ourselves, simultaneously puffing ourselves up for courage and moral
certitude while calling suicide attacks "cowardly," is self-congratulation
going over the top. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza also objected to
the characterization of the WTC attackers as cowards. Stupid is stupid, and
self-congratulation is self-congratulation, no matter which side of the
political spectrum you're on.

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are (relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of us
in the indictment, because it's our government.


That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.

All you have provided is his "after the fact" attempt to squirm out of
the firestorm he created by his own arrogant assininity.

No, he is pointing out that your reading ability is somewhere around the
3rd grade level. And he did it far more politely than most of the rest
of us would have.

Dan

Probably about 2,000 Americans killed on 9-11 by criminals

AS OF MOST RECENT DATABASE UPDATE, 08/08/2004 1:26:29 AM:
CONFIRMED DEAD: 2948
REPORTED DEAD: 24
REPORTED MISSING: 24
TOTAL: 2996

Off by 33%, but don't let the details hang you up cliff.

"Greybutt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:52:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are
cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are
(relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of
us
in the indictment, because it's our government.

That is exactly what he said and both he - and you - can kiss
America's ass.

Well, thanks, Graybutt, but I try to stay clear of your end of the country.
Your hunters can't seem to tell the difference between a quail and a lawyer.

All you have provided is his "after the fact" attempt to squirm out of
the firestorm he created by his own arrogant assininity.

What I provided is the truth, as an antidote to your feeble lie.

Why don't you go shoot something, Graybutt, to help you chill out? Maybe you
can find a quail or something. Just don't swing the gun around behind you.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Since a coward is one who turns tail and runs, neither flying airplanes
into buildings nor lobbing cruise missiles is cowardly on the surface.

Sure, but Mahar was reflecting on the relative courage of somebody sitting
in an easy chair, pushing buttons and killing people thousands of miles
away, and then calling people who flew airplanes into buildings, knowing
they would die, "cowards." Calling them cowards is standing the truth on its
head.

And Mahar was far from the only one who recognized it. It's just that he's
the most pugnacious of the lot, and the most inclined to call things as he
sees them, political correctness be damned.

But in my opinion, the killing of innocent people in pursuit of a goal
is more cowardly than killing the guilty. And killing the innocent is
exactly what terrorists do.

Yeah. It appears we've killed something like 30,000 of them ourselves,
according to Dubya. But, of course, those were "oops" killings...

Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists on a higher plane than our
government
for his own political purposes.

I doubt if Mahar had a strategy, or a political purpose. He has a sharp eye
for bull****, and calling the terrorists "cowards" was a particularly ripe
piece of it.

That's all that was going on there, Gus. It probably wasn't something that
was considered much. That isn't Mahar's style. He speaks what's on his mind,
and it gets him into a lot of trouble. g

He also makes us uncomfortable with a lot of things he says. Brutal truths
have a way of doing that.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Greylock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:16:54 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:



This is funny as hell. Bill Mahar is a riot.

Opions vary.

Personally I sorta think referring to American soldiers as "cowards"
is way beyond the pale.

That he wasn't taken off the air permanently is a travesty and a
damned shame.

Whoa. Let's get this straight. He didn't call American soldiers
cowardly. He
objected to the (stupid) remark by Dubya that the Qaedas who flew planes
into the WTC were "cowards." Mahar was right. They weren't cowards. They
were murders and nutbags, but not cowards.

What he DID say, in response, is this: "We have been the cowards lobbing
cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."

He's right. Flying cruise missiles into a foreign country at no risk to
ourselves, simultaneously puffing ourselves up for courage and moral
certitude while calling suicide attacks "cowardly," is
self-congratulation
going over the top. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza also
objected to
the characterization of the WTC attackers as cowards. Stupid is stupid,
and
self-congratulation is self-congratulation, no matter which side of the
political spectrum you're on.

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are
cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are
(relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of
us
in the indictment, because it's our government.

--
Ed Huntress

Since a coward is one who turns tail and runs, neither flying airplanes
into buildings nor lobbing cruise missiles is cowardly on the surface.
But in my opinion, the killing of innocent people in pursuit of a goal
is more cowardly than killing the guilty. And killing the innocent is
exactly what terrorists do. Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists
on a higher plane than our government for his own political purposes.
Gus


No, he's not. What he is doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of our
government. At least the terrorists are honest, he's saying. They are out to
kill, just like we are, but they purposely kill people who we say are
innocent. We, on the other hand, also kill people we call innocent but then
claim we are different because we aren't doing it intentionally. That
supposedly lets us off the hook.

I don't know how you can say you are different from a terrorist when you
know your actions will result in the deaths of innocent people yet you do it
anyway. For instance, when we dropped bombs on Baghdad we knew that we were
going to kill people that we were not specifically trying to kill. But we
killed them just the same in the pursuit of our targets. The terrorists kill
innocent people too, and on purpose. To some people there is no real
difference, like to the people you kill and their families. If you kill
innocent people, you kill innocent people, period. In fact, if you want to
add them up you will find the we have killed the most innocent people. What
Mahr does is point out that the truth is the US government is on an equal
footing with the terrorists when it comes to killing innocent people. Both
sides do it. The difference is they have a different attitude about it than
we do, and that's about the only difference between the two. That and the
fact that we are better at it than they are. That's what Mahr was getting
at.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Greylock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:16:54 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:



This is funny as hell. Bill Mahar is a riot.

Opions vary.

Personally I sorta think referring to American soldiers as "cowards"
is way beyond the pale.

That he wasn't taken off the air permanently is a travesty and a
damned shame.

Whoa. Let's get this straight. He didn't call American soldiers
cowardly. He
objected to the (stupid) remark by Dubya that the Qaedas who flew planes
into the WTC were "cowards." Mahar was right. They weren't cowards. They
were murders and nutbags, but not cowards.

What he DID say, in response, is this: "We have been the cowards lobbing
cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the
airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not
cowardly."

He's right. Flying cruise missiles into a foreign country at no risk to
ourselves, simultaneously puffing ourselves up for courage and moral
certitude while calling suicide attacks "cowardly," is
self-congratulation
going over the top. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza also
objected to
the characterization of the WTC attackers as cowards. Stupid is stupid,
and
self-congratulation is self-congratulation, no matter which side of the
political spectrum you're on.

Let's make it clear again: Mahar did NOT say American soldiers are
cowards.
He said the leaders who flew cruise missiles into the enemy are
(relatively
speaking, or absolutely, as you choose) cowards. And he included all of
us
in the indictment, because it's our government.

--
Ed Huntress

Since a coward is one who turns tail and runs, neither flying airplanes
into buildings nor lobbing cruise missiles is cowardly on the surface.
But in my opinion, the killing of innocent people in pursuit of a goal
is more cowardly than killing the guilty. And killing the innocent is
exactly what terrorists do. Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists
on a higher plane than our government for his own political purposes.
Gus


No, he's not. What he is doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of our
government. At least the terrorists are honest, he's saying. They are out to
kill, just like we are, but they purposely kill people who we say are
innocent. We, on the other hand, also kill people we call innocent but then
claim we are different because we aren't doing it intentionally. That
supposedly lets us off the hook.

I don't know how you can say you are different from a terrorist when you
know your actions will result in the deaths of innocent people yet you do it
anyway. For instance, when we dropped bombs on Baghdad we knew that we were
going to kill people that we were not specifically trying to kill. But we
killed them just the same in the pursuit of our targets. The terrorists kill
innocent people too, and on purpose. To some people there is no real
difference, like to the people you kill and their families. If you kill
innocent people, you kill innocent people, period. In fact, if you want to
add them up you will find the we have killed the most innocent people. What
Mahr does is point out that the truth is the US government is on an equal
footing with the terrorists when it comes to killing innocent people. Both
sides do it. The difference is they have a different attitude about it than
we do, and that's about the only difference between the two. That and the
fact that we are better at it than they are. That's what Mahr was getting
at.

Hawke

I get the point but I see a difference between a terrorist trying to
kill as many innocent people as possible and an army doing everything
they can to try to minimize innocents being hurt and still get the job
done. The intent has got to have something to do with it.

Your "brave" terrorists are the ones who like to hide among women and
children so that if they get their butt blown away the others will too.
There's only so much of this "bravery" that I can take.
GW

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:38:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

You make no sense lol...

You need to think *first*.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:42:18 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

lying to congress,

About what WMD? I say it always what happened to all the WMD UNSCOM had
found that went missing?

Can you please repeat that in English?

SNIP prior sigs !!

UNSCOM had accounted for numerous WMD in Iraq prior to getting kicked out in
98. Since that time no one knows what had happened to the existing stockpile
they knew of, that is no longer to be found, It was never destroyed. and is
out there somewere. Hans Blix also felt they just needed more time to find
them. Our past three Presidents felt there was WMD in Iraq and needed to get
Saddam out of power.

You are at least one of:
Totally out of touch with reality and past & curreent events.
In the final stages of Winger's Disease.
Confusd by mindless winger propaganda beyond belief.
Braindead.

BTW, Found those "WMDs" yet? The ones that the inspectors and
Saddam said did not exist? The ones that most nations said did not
exist?

Mission to Mars: Beware, Wil Robinson!
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:44:23 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:51:08 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

shooting lawyers,

One thing to bring up something that is very upsetting and unintentional,
next most people would agree shoot all lawyers first lol jk. I agree very
sad and to be honest I wish we all would be treated so humanely for things
we are sorry for doing.

Had you hit a pedestrian with your car .... and, it would seem
to be even more serious if done while committing another crime
(poaching) or drinking (guess what?)

SNIP PRIOR SIG

Ok now you are off the wall. Poaching?

Theft was it then?

lol...I already said it is
unfortunate that there is a double standard had anyone else made this
mistake by saying I wish we all would be treated humanely for things we are
sorry for doing.

Unlike neocons & wingers ..... who like to torture & murder, among
their many other vile habits.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:03:20 -0800, dan wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:01:40 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


Anybody remember Pat Paulson?


Quite well.


He was one of the funniest political comedians ever.


He was a comedian?

That's P. Pat Paulson to you, buddy.

Recall his bit with the fishing in the stream?
"Priceless"

Too bad I cannot find it on the Web ... probably searching wrongly.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:53:36 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:06:12 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

What is cowardly was Saddam paying suicide bombers
of low income families 10k for each mission!

A good way to get rich quick, eh? 50 missions and
set for life ...
OTOH The neocons only pay about $250,000 .... though I
gather that more is optional ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6891515/

Beyond that, I think you lied.

SNIP PRIOR SIG !!!

Why do I bother I can tell you are trolling now.

And your judgement is ....

It was a known fact what
Saddam was doing paying suicide bombers.

How could he? They would be DEAD.

And what is this about 250k?

It's what neocons want to pay their own dead bomber's friends & relatives.
Seems like a much better paying job.

This
is the SGLI look it up. We were always entitled to this. I am not getting
this article cause everyone gets it, we had to pay into it. All they are
talking about is adding another 150k to make it 400k so get your facts right
and read your article Cliffy boy before you try to sound smart. I remember
some young lady I knew killed herself state side, she 19 years old and her
family was able to collect. Was very sad event. Also when my friend killed
himself in Bosnia same thing.

Paying the dead?
You brag about it but then blame Saddam .... how two-faced
can you get?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:55:40 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

I gave you an example of a cowardly act that is why I mentioned Saddam

Good point.
He offerd to fight the coward hand to hand and the coward is quite
a bit younger & probably in better health, what with 5 or 6
full time doctors giving him psych meds to try to control
things a bit.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:57:54 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Why don't you go shoot something, Graybutt, to help you chill out? Maybe you
can find a quail or something.

BEWARE the wild kind !!
They are clearly unsafe to be about & might attack.
Get the politically correct (Neocon party birds) kind: cage raised,
wings clipped, pedicured.
Be certain to use lots of armed bodyguards too, Great White Hunter.
And a guide so you can tell them from lawyers.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:57:47 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Feb 2006 09:56:36 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Mahar's strategy is to put the terrorists
on a higher plane than our government for his own political purposes.

Rubbish.

Let's consider the numbers thus far .....
Probably about 2,000 Americans killed on 9-11 by criminals while Cheney
had
the North American Air Defense force (under his PERSONAL direction)
off doing exercises in Greenland or Iceland (WHO told them to pick that
one
day?).

Americans killed by the neocons attacking various nations thus far:
2,863 MINIMUM as of the lastest *official* numbers I found.

SNIP PRIOR SIGS

You truly have no clue how it works.

You try it then: 2,286 + 266 + 311 (At LEAST) =

Need a calculator? Wheres jb ... probably has a free demo
(but the buttons are no doubt the wrong colour).....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:09:01 GMT, "Jim Newell" wrote:

Probably about 2,000 Americans killed on 9-11 by criminals

AS OF MOST RECENT DATABASE UPDATE, 08/08/2004 1:26:29 AM:
CONFIRMED DEAD: 2948
REPORTED DEAD: 24
REPORTED MISSING: 24
TOTAL: 2996

Off by 33%, but don't let the details hang you up cliff.

What part of the term "Americans" was unclear?
A great many in the WTC were not.
See "World" as in "World Trade Center"?

Reading comprehension impairment ... hand in hand with
Winger's Disease?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:24:10 -0800, "Hawke" wrote:

No, he's not. What he is doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of our
government. At least the terrorists are honest, he's saying. They are out to
kill,

They were making a point nobodey much got. Not after the neocon
spin & Faux lies and an unwillingness to think.
Not that it needed to be made as it was already quite clear.

If you don't want more of the same ... try solving the problems
with Israel AS A START.
50+ years has been long enough I think.

CLUE: When you don't have happy campers even if you are
getting rich ... don't expect all to go well. Work on the problems,
don't just make more of them the winger way.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:24:10 -0800, "Hawke" wrote:

That and the fact that we are better at it than they are.

Better at being "terrorists" & murdering ...
--
Cliff

On 25 Feb 2006 00:38:32 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

I get the point but I see a difference between a terrorist trying to
kill as many innocent people as possible

In point of fact, that clearly was NOT the intention of the folks on 9-11.
Many, many more could have been killed in other ways with little risk
of even being caught (and probaby cheaper to do with even less planning
required too).

Sorry if you've missed all of this but ....

BTW, A suicide killer cannot kill again. Seems to
be a one-time deal.
--
Cliff