On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Many
third world countries that only want to dominate one another do not deserve
nuclear power that can also be used to anniolate their neighbors.

raises hand

I get it now. Like India, Pakistan, China & Israel.
But the Swiss should be well armed with nukes just
in case the Pope gets out of line.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Why is it that Muslim countries can expand their borders through war

Like the US of Iraq & Afghanistan with all the pretty new US airbases?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Why is it that Muslim countries can expand their borders through war
and yet Israel who expanded to create buffer zones

IOW Expande the thefts via war .....
Good point.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Just
look at how after WWI we helped form these countries, gave them a source of
income with oil

"White Man's Burden".
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Every country has a right to defend itself but not to invade
others.

Have you considerd telling that one to those neocon idiots in
Washington?
Need a nice vacation in Cuba? Health care included, per herr
shrubbie's lawyers & advisors.

".... the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation
must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body
functions—in order to constitute torture." - The Gonzales Memo

You could ask the dead I suppose.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

If the US is the most dangerous country dont take its dangerous blood money!
I am paying to much in taxes as it is and getting no satisfaction with our
own results here.

So you would Nuke California?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Rather then being judgemental I would look at the persons actions and why
they do the things they do.

Remember the X-files episode "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose"?

[
Puppet: "There's something I've been wanting to ask you for some time
now. You've seen the things I do in the past as well as in the
future."

Clyde Bruckman: "They're terrible things."

Puppet: "I know they are. So tell me, please, why have I done them."

Clyde Bruckman: "Don't you understand yet son? Don't you get it?"
[Killer shakes his head] "You do the things you do because you're a
homicidal maniac."

Puppet: "That... that does explain a lot, doesn't it. It's all
starting to make sense now."
]

You voted for them, right? Several times ....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:41:24 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"kurgan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Nicholas Anthony wrote:


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.



Dude.

Saddam doesn't have anything to do with what Maher said. Strawman.

No kidding so does that mean I cant go outside of the conversation to
illustrate what a coward is then go back on topic as I had? Are you with the
usernet police that tell people how to think or express their point of
views? Did you stop everyone else in this thread dude that decided to
mention other things non relating as has been the case?

??
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:47:10 -0500, "Kathy" wrote:

Gee Ed, I was wondering how long it would take you to see this
one would _never_ be able to carry a tune! g

Aw, come on, Kathy.
Wind a few up yourself G.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:05:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Greybuns" wrote in message
.. .

I just LOVE the way you put words in peoples' mouths without their
permission or even knowledge.

I think it's time for you to crawl back up America's ass again, Greybuns (is
it some place close to Houston? It must be.). That warm, womblike atmosphere
will relax you and clear your head.




There ya go Ed.

When you are losing the argument - go for attacking the person in
hopes no one will notice that your gun is firing blanks.

Next time around, pick on someone on your own intellectual level -
like a retarded cocker spaniel.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:14:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Kathy" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Greybuns" wrote in message
...

I just LOVE the way you put words in peoples' mouths without
their
permission or even knowledge.

I think it's time for you to crawl back up America's ass again,
Greybuns (is
it some place close to Houston? It must be.). That warm,
womblike atmosphere
will relax you and clear your head.

--
Ed Huntress



Gee Ed, I was wondering how long it would take you to see this
one would _never_ be able to carry a tune! g

Greybuns is not to be taken seriously. However, give him a kazoo, and he can
play "The Star-Spangled Banner" by farting through it.

Ooooooo !!!!!

OK Ed. You really do have hidden talents.

A retarded cocker spaniel can't talk dirty and you can.

I see it doesn't embarrass you to behave like a grammar school
dropout, either.

And we should take YOU seriously.

LOL

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:37:34 GMT, Greylock wrote:

your gun is firing blanks

Is this another Cheney/Bush joke?
--
Cliff

"Greybuns" wrote in message
...


There ya go Ed.

When you are losing the argument - go for attacking the person in
hopes no one will notice that your gun is firing blanks.

You freaking idiot. You lost the argument when you were caught lying, before
your second message.

You're too stupid to know when to get out of the rain, Greybuns. Here's a
clue: It's raining, and it's on you.

Let's see if you can contort yourself, and kiss America's ass.

--
Ed Huntress

Nicholas Anthony wrote:

Dude.

Saddam doesn't have anything to do with what Maher said. Strawman.

No kidding so does that mean I cant go outside of the conversation to
illustrate what a coward is then go back on topic as I had? Are you with the
usernet police that tell people how to think or express their point of
views? Did you stop everyone else in this thread dude that decided to
mention other things non relating as has been the case?



Read the title of the thread. It's about Maher and what he said about
9/11.

What are you going to do next, use Jeffrey Dahmer in your "argument"?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:14:04 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Five points off for not giving your source.

shrug

A further five
points off if you have ever told anyone the ancient joke about
the guy who asks his girl friend if she likes Kipling.
She blushes and replies "I don't really know. I've never
kippled". :-)

I rather liked bits of Kipling G.
But many others more.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:14:04 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:11:44 -0500, Cliff
wrote in :

|On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:37:30 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:
|
|Just
|look at how after WWI we helped form these countries, gave them a source of
|income with oil
|
| "White Man's Burden".
Zadoc comment starts

Really, Cliff, you shouldn't assume that everyone knows the
source of this phrase.

But would wingers care?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:50:31 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Comments?

Bill Maher: George of the Bungle
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/201898.htm#more
[
"Seriously, Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you anymore. There's no
more money to spend; you used up all of that. You can't start another war
because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term
has become the Bush family nightma helping poor people."

"New rule: American must recall the president. That's what this country needs –
a good old-fashioned, California-style recall election, complete with Gary
Coleman, porno actresses, and action film stars. And just like Schwarzenegger's
predecessor here in California, George Bush is now so unpopular, he must now
defend his job against…Russell Crowe, because at this point I want a leader who
will throw a phone at somebody. In fact, let's have only phone throwers. Naomi
Campbell can be the vice president.

"Now I kid, but seriously, Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you anymore.
There's no more money to spend; you used up all of that. You can't start another
war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your
term has become the Bush family nightma helping poor people. Yeah, listen to
your mom, the cupboard's bare, the credit card's maxed out, and no one's
speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away.
Like you did with your military service. And the oil company. And the baseball
team. It's time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or
spaceman? Now, I know what you're saying, you're saying that there are so many
other things that you as president could involve yourself in. Please don't. I
know, there a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela, and eliminating the
sales tax of yachts, turning the space program over to the church and Social
Security to Fannie Mae, giving embryos the vote.

"But sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like
Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poor, I'm surprised you haven't given
yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was
a ****ty president, but even he never conceded an entire metropolis to rising
water and snakes. On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the
surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon, and the
city of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love
this country, I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the
other side. So yes, God does speak to you, and what he's saying is, 'Take a
hint.'"

-Bill Maher, HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher," Sept. 9, 2005
]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:50:31 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Comments?

[
George Bush says, 'Gore's book needs a lot of explaining.' Of course, Bush says
that about every book.
] - Bill Maher

[
President Bush is supporting Arnold but a lot of Republicans are not, because he
is actually quite liberal. Karl Rove said if his father wasn't a Nazi, he
wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all.
] - Bill Maher

[
The Clinton White House today said they would start to give national security
and intelligence briefings to George Bush. I don't know how well this is working
out. Today after the first one Bush said, 'I've got one question: What color is
the red phone?'
] - Bill Maher

[
The Dalai Lama visited the White House and told the President that he could
teach him to find a higher state of consciousness. Then after talking to Bush
for a few minutes, he said, "You know what? Let's just grab lunch."
] - Bill Maher
--
Cliff

On 26 Feb 2006 21:39:15 -0800, "kurgan" wrote:

What are you going to do next, use Jeffrey Dahmer in your "argument"?

Well, he was a good conservative, right?
And the wingers are eating their young ....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont
or cant fight back under the circumstances.

Then, we're cowards when we drop bombs and shrug our shoulders over the
"collateral damage"? I'm not saying we are, but it sounds like that fits
your definition. As long as we're going to split hairs, that's one that had
better be attended to.

Then lets attend to it. Are you saying that the WTC was actually a
military target, and the 3000 innocent men, women and children who
died were collateral damage? Oh, I get it! Those towers must have been
disguised missile silos :-{

Better get out the goop and patch up that argument, Ed. It don't hold
much water.

It may have taken carbide gonads to do what they did. But they're
cowards, Ed. And the only ones who can't see that wear turbans, and
buffoons like Bill Maher.

Sporting a new hat these days?

"Matt Stawicki" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont
or cant fight back under the circumstances.

Then, we're cowards when we drop bombs and shrug our shoulders over the
"collateral damage"? I'm not saying we are, but it sounds like that fits
your definition. As long as we're going to split hairs, that's one that had
better be attended to.

========
Then lets attend to it. Are you saying that the WTC was actually a
military target, and the 3000 innocent men, women and children who
died were collateral damage? Oh, I get it! Those towers must have been
disguised missile silos :-{

========

I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his definition
of "cowards."

========
Better get out the goop and patch up that argument, Ed. It don't hold
much water.

========

I didn't make the argument. It's Nicholas whose argument needs some careful
re-thinking.


========

It may have taken carbide gonads to do what they did. But they're
cowards, Ed. And the only ones who can't see that wear turbans, and
buffoons like Bill Maher.

=========

"Carbide gonads," on "cowards"? I think you need a new dictionary, Matt. Not
to mention, some more careful thought.

=========

Sporting a new hat these days?

=========

Yankees. Always. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Matt Stawicki" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont
or cant fight back under the circumstances.

Then, we're cowards when we drop bombs and shrug our shoulders over the
"collateral damage"? I'm not saying we are, but it sounds like that fits
your definition. As long as we're going to split hairs, that's one that had
better be attended to.

========
Then lets attend to it. Are you saying that the WTC was actually a
military target, and the 3000 innocent men, women and children who
died were collateral damage? Oh, I get it! Those towers must have been
disguised missile silos :-{

========

I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his definition
of "cowards."

========
Better get out the goop and patch up that argument, Ed. It don't hold
much water.

========

I didn't make the argument. It's Nicholas whose argument needs some careful
re-thinking.


========

It may have taken carbide gonads to do what they did. But they're
cowards, Ed. And the only ones who can't see that wear turbans, and
buffoons like Bill Maher.

=========

"Carbide gonads," on "cowards"? I think you need a new dictionary, Matt. Not
to mention, some more careful thought.

=========

Sporting a new hat these days?

=========

Yankees. Always. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave. Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god could actually
reward someone for doing that by giving them 72 virgins. Maybe the
bravery is the thought of having 72 ex-virgins bitching at you for all
eternity. g

Gus wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave. Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god could actually
reward someone for doing that by giving them 72 virgins. Maybe the
bravery is the thought of having 72 ex-virgins bitching at you for all
eternity. g

I think anyone prepared to give their life for a cause they believe in has
to be considered brave. One doesn't have to agree with their cause or their
methods though. I also wonder if most of these people really think they'll
get to heaven for blowing themselves up but then as an atheist I struggle
with any kind of god concept or why people believe in it.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his definition
of "cowards."

Since when have we been attacking civies?

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:59:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his definition
of "cowards."

Since when have we been attacking civies?



Pretty much since about a week after the fall of Saddam. That's pretty
much why there is the mess out there that there is. Within a couple of
months the locals that had welcomed the ousting of the Baath were
turning against the 'liberators'.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

the aftermath of fall of Saddam was botched, and botched badly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/re...20031126.shtml


Totally ****ed up says Paul Breman.

There were no plans of what to do afterwards, a vacuum was allowed to
develop and that has been filled by bombs. Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

"kurgan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Nicholas Anthony wrote:

Dude.

Saddam doesn't have anything to do with what Maher said. Strawman.

No kidding so does that mean I cant go outside of the conversation to
illustrate what a coward is then go back on topic as I had? Are you with
the
usernet police that tell people how to think or express their point of
views? Did you stop everyone else in this thread dude that decided to
mention other things non relating as has been the case?



Read the title of the thread. It's about Maher and what he said about
9/11.

What are you going to do next, use Jeffrey Dahmer in your "argument"?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

I cant believe that people like yourself can not follow along with others in
a conversation. I was making a point to illustrate an act of cowardness and
went right back on topic.

"Dave Baker" Dave wrote in message
om...

Gus wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave. Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god could actually
reward someone for doing that by giving them 72 virgins. Maybe the
bravery is the thought of having 72 ex-virgins bitching at you for all
eternity. g

I think anyone prepared to give their life for a cause they believe in has
to be considered brave. One doesn't have to agree with their cause or
their
methods though. I also wonder if most of these people really think they'll
get to heaven for blowing themselves up but then as an atheist I struggle
with any kind of god concept or why people believe in it.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt. These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly. Bravery in this case is directing your aggressions to the Military
or Government that you oppose not its civilians. Its like being a bully and
realizing you cant hurt the bully so you go after someone weak or
defenseless instead.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:32:35 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt. These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly. Bravery in this case is directing your aggressions to the Military
or Government that you oppose not its civilians. Its like being a bully and
realizing you cant hurt the bully so you go after someone weak or
defenseless instead.


So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:59:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his
definition
of "cowards."

Since when have we been attacking civies?



Pretty much since about a week after the fall of Saddam. That's pretty
much why there is the mess out there that there is. Within a couple of
months the locals that had welcomed the ousting of the Baath were
turning against the 'liberators'.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

the aftermath of fall of Saddam was botched, and botched badly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/re...20031126.shtml


Totally ****ed up says Paul Breman.

There were no plans of what to do afterwards, a vacuum was allowed to
develop and that has been filled by bombs. Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

Look at the whole dam picture and you tell me what had to be done.
Diplomatic talks failed, embargos failed and were killing millions of people
and needed to end, but before that could happen Saddam who vowed to use WMD
against us and our allies had to be removed. We tried the CIA, we tried
opposition groups inside of Iraq, the only thing left was to go invade Iraq
and remove him. Yes it was very difficult to do and would face problems. We
knew no matter what we would have a mess. You never can tell what will
happen and people who look at things hindsight which is the vast majority of
critics in this case are real low scum.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Matt Stawicki" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont
or cant fight back under the circumstances.

Then, we're cowards when we drop bombs and shrug our shoulders over the
"collateral damage"? I'm not saying we are, but it sounds like that fits
your definition. As long as we're going to split hairs, that's one that
had
better be attended to.

========
Then lets attend to it. Are you saying that the WTC was actually a
military target, and the 3000 innocent men, women and children who
died were collateral damage? Oh, I get it! Those towers must have been
disguised missile silos :-{

========

I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his
definition
of "cowards."

========
Better get out the goop and patch up that argument, Ed. It don't hold
much water.

========

I didn't make the argument. It's Nicholas whose argument needs some
careful
re-thinking.


========

It may have taken carbide gonads to do what they did. But they're
cowards, Ed. And the only ones who can't see that wear turbans, and
buffoons like Bill Maher.

=========

"Carbide gonads," on "cowards"? I think you need a new dictionary, Matt.
Not
to mention, some more careful thought.

=========

Sporting a new hat these days?

=========

Yankees. Always. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making conclusions as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose credibility
yourself in doing so.

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making conclusions
as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose credibility
yourself in doing so.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to weasel out of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your words or
bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I said nothing of the kind. But Nicholas has said that "the act of
cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that wont or cant fight back
under the circumstances." It sounds like something we've been doing
regularly in Iraq, right? So Nicholas has included the US in his
definition
of "cowards."

Since when have we been attacking civies?

Well, back on December 12th, Dubya said 30,000 Iraqis had been killed. How
do you suppose that happened?

--
Ed Huntress

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

I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave.

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing buttons to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that one
before answering.

Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god could actually
reward someone for doing that by giving them 72 virgins.

I think you've fallen into one of the self-serving "explanations" that some
pundits and politicians have grabbed at, like straws, to try to make sense
of why the WTC attackers did what they did. It's guesswork and it sounds
pretty stupid, actually.

Maybe the
bravery is the thought of having 72 ex-virgins bitching at you for all
eternity. g

From what I've heard from some Muslim scholars in the US, we're all wet on
the "virgin" story. That may be good for whipping up the grunts before an
attack, but that isn't what's going on with the big-time terrorists. They're
after something else. Have any ideas?

--
Ed Huntress

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

The difference here between a kamikaze and these people are the kamikazes
had no fuel to return from their missions so by crashing the planes into
their victims military assets made it a brave attempt.

How was that any "braver" than flying a planeload of people into the WTC?

These people hijacked
a plane of innoccent people, crashed into more innocent people which is
cowardly.

Why? It's vile, it's perverse beyond our imaginations, maybe. But what is
"cowardly" about it?

If you keep asking yourself these questions, Nicholas, you'll eventually
come to realize that you're using the word "cowardly" as invective, one of
the most hateful words you can think of to apply to someone you hate, one
that will diminish them in your mind and take away some of the sting.

But it's bull****. It's a word that means nothing in this context, except
that you've lost your bearings and you have a need to hate and diminish
those people, regardless of how silly and strained you have to make your
explanations, to make yourself feel better.

That's Ok for you, but it's not Ok for our military and political leaders.
They need to keep clear heads, and to have what it takes to avoid the cheap
shots, self delusions, and other nonsense that people like you can indulge
yourself with. As good military leaders know, slipping into that crap is a
good way to lose battles through self-delusion.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:47:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
.. .

Totally ****ed up says Paul Breman.

There were no plans of what to do afterwards, a vacuum was allowed to
develop and that has been filled by bombs. Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

Look at the whole dam picture and you tell me what had to be done.
Diplomatic talks failed, embargos failed and were killing millions of people
and needed to end, but before that could happen Saddam who vowed to use WMD
against us and our allies had to be removed. We tried the CIA, we tried
opposition groups inside of Iraq, the only thing left was to go invade Iraq
and remove him. Yes it was very difficult to do and would face problems. We
knew no matter what we would have a mess. You never can tell what will
happen and people who look at things hindsight which is the vast majority of
critics in this case are real low scum.



What hindsight? Most of the world could and did foretell what would
happen. The State Department said what would happen, but a group of
****wads like Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and Wolfowitz thought they knew
better, and the guy in charge is away with the faeries.
http://photobucket.com/albums/a181/s...pad/1143pe.jpg


Rush, rush, rush, gotta do it now, gotta do it now, rush, rush, rush,
do it on the cheap, yeah combat troops can secure the peace, do it on
the cheap.

They knew there'd be problems you say, but didn't bother with having
enough trained personel to provide security. Bremer says they were
some 30-50,000 light. Making it up day by day as they went along,
winging it on a national scale.

Kerching, kerching, kerching!
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And now all ****ed up and no way out.

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing buttons to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that one
before answering.

Let's just suppose that in support of his cause, someone strapped on a
suicide belt and went into the local day care center in your
neighborhood and blew up himself and a bunch of innocent kids. What a
brave soldier. (In the words of the great Homer Simpson, that was
sarcasm in case you didn't notice.) I suppose that just because he
killed himself his action isn't technically cowardly but by the fact
that he went after innocent people with the objective of terrorizing
others, I'd say it might be viewed as a cowardly tactic


From what I've heard from some Muslim scholars in the US, we're all wet on
the "virgin" story. That may be good for whipping up the grunts before an
attack, but that isn't what's going on with the big-time terrorists. They're
after something else. Have any ideas?

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam. They would like us all to live in the 12th century with them.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:20:21 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

I was making a point to illustrate an act of cowardness

Where?
--
Cliff

On 27 Feb 2006 07:22:22 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave. Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...pad/1143pe.jpg

[
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission
from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in
Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the
tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me,
"Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and
get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
]

The swearing was a nice touch, almost as good as shaking hands
with the one you wipe your tail end off with.

"The Revelation of St. George"
[
George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me
to strike at Saddam."
]
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06302003.html
--
Cliff

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:36:53 -0000, "Dave Baker" Dave wrote:


Gus wrote in message
roups.com...
I'm still having trouble thinking that commiting suicide by flying an
airplane into a tower full of people is brave. Maybe it's because the
person has been brainwashed into thinking that god could actually
reward someone for doing that by giving them 72 virgins. Maybe the
bravery is the thought of having 72 ex-virgins bitching at you for all
eternity. g

I think anyone prepared to give their life for a cause they believe in has
to be considered brave. One doesn't have to agree with their cause or their
methods though. I also wonder if most of these people really think they'll
get to heaven for blowing themselves up but then as an atheist I struggle
with any kind of god concept or why people believe in it.

"Noted Climatologist Pat Robertson said at a recent Intelligent
Design Weather Symposium that he believes that Florida's hurricane
problems are due to the devil. "

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/27/121328.php

From other sources:
"In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were
likely to hit communities that offended God."

Homeland insecurity said to donate money to Pat Robertson and
his racist group. I gather that they are number 2 on their preferred
list.
--
Cliff

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't know of anyone here who said it was "brave." I've said it isn't
cowardly, compared to sitting thousands of miles away and pushing
buttons to
kill people. Do you think there's something cowardly about sacrificing
your
own life to kill others, for a cause? You'd better think hard about that
one
before answering.

Let's just suppose that in support of his cause, someone strapped on a
suicide belt and went into the local day care center in your
neighborhood and blew up himself and a bunch of innocent kids. What a
brave soldier. (In the words of the great Homer Simpson, that was
sarcasm in case you didn't notice.) I suppose that just because he
killed himself his action isn't technically cowardly but by the fact
that he went after innocent people with the objective of terrorizing
others, I'd say it might be viewed as a cowardly tactic.

Something like, say, dropping a couple of atomic bombs on 200,000 people in
Japan, including many, many thousands of kids?

I think you're trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle, Gus.


From what I've heard from some Muslim scholars in the US, we're all wet
on
the "virgin" story. That may be good for whipping up the grunts before
an
attack, but that isn't what's going on with the big-time terrorists.
They're
after something else. Have any ideas?

My idea is that they want what they've told us, world-wide radical
Islam. They would like us all to live in the 12th century with them.

Probably so. At one point, though, they might have settled for just having
the Middle East live in the 12th century.

--
Ed Huntress