On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich

wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the
considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a
very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear
capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring
other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your
current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

--
Ed Huntress




Absolutely right on target, Ed.
Thanks.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of idiotic
jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm in Lower
Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes of Norfolk than to
any German line. There is a Dutch element, five generations back however.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of
idiotic jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:36:26 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of idiotic
jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.


Blink blink....blink....the Israelies are paranoid?????????

**** me running.

You actually stated that..on a public newsgroup.

You really think that way? Honestly, you are simply not trying to prove
you are brain damaged so we shouldnt expect too much from you?

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm in Lower
Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes of Norfolk than to
any German line. There is a Dutch element, five generations back however.


Seems that there are occasionally "sports" that show up in the family
line, kameraden.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:14:29 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of
idiotic jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


Indeed they do. Ive not run into one in many years, and to find one on a
beloved newsgroup....blink...stopped me solid for a moment.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:43:58 +0100, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

OTOH, anyone supporting the quasi-religious bigoted paranoia, deluded
world view, and continuing atrocious behavior of the Arabs does
nothing to stabilize the region, either. These hacks have been
hacking at each other for 4 millenia. A few democrazies aren't going
to faze them. shrug,sigh

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:43:58 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the
region.

Mark Rand
RTFM


Is that right Kluxer? Interesting. Did they tell you that at your Klan
meeting?

Or was that at your National Socialist dinner?


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests to
me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an unrealistic
view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western
countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying
Western-style rules of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in
which most countries understand the principles of non-proliferation
and the instability risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't
just Israel that's nervous. It's also much of the Arab Middle East,
who probably would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear
weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the
theoretical niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany
between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the
quasi-religious bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their
neighbours and those whose land they occupy, there would not quite
so much desire amongst those neighbours to wipe them off the face of
the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to
stabilize the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors"
suggests to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially
an unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out
their neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times
that they would do the same.

And having failed to conclude your thought, I'll do it myself.
We ought to just let the mother****ers, but before we do we ought to let
everyone know it's just that way.
THEN, they might sort it out but if not, who cares. Warren Buffet can just
write off Iscar.


--
John R. Carroll

I think the consequences for all of us would be a lot worse than you're
suggesting, if the world let that happen.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western
countries would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying
Western-style rules of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in
which most countries understand the principles of non-proliferation
and the instability risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't
just Israel that's nervous. It's also much of the Arab Middle East,
who probably would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear
weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the
theoretical niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany
between the wars. Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the
quasi-religious bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their
neighbours and those whose land they occupy, there would not quite
so much desire amongst those neighbours to wipe them off the face of
the earth. Supporting their deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to
stabilize the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors"
suggests to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially
an unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out
their neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times
that they would do the same.

And having failed to conclude your thought, I'll do it myself.
We ought to just let the mother****ers, but before we do we ought to let
everyone know it's just that way.
THEN, they might sort it out but if not, who cares. Warren Buffet can just
write off Iscar.


--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



I think the consequences for all of us would be a lot worse than
you're suggesting, if the world let that happen.

I didn't comment on the consequences.
Since you've brought it up, however, I think they would be trivial in the
negative sense.
I don't, for example, think that all of the rhetoric and bluster is very
much more than that.
What is happening to the Palestinians is being afforded the patina of
legitimacy because the world is unwilling to stick a finger in anyone's
chest and just tell them to figure it out, or else.

It's a game Ed.
I think I'll just stop here, but let me add one thing.
BAO DIEN TU
And this.

I just spent an hour or so with a kid that I consider a fine young man. He's
a Marine, but I set that side - queers that can't shoot straight, the lot
of them. He's about to deploy.

Here is what I told him.

Afghanastan looks just exactly like SE Asia to me and after listening to
McCrystal this morning, I'm as convinced as ever we'll **** this one up.

He was puzzled, and we both belong to the same fraternal brotherhood so he
knows my bonafides. I think he thought I was going to give him another of my
history lessons but I didn't.

What I said is that we've screwed the pooch in our efforts and need to pull
the plug ASAP knowing full well that we'll have to go back.

We can't get, today, from where we are to the important point that our enemy
will give up. That's all that matters.
We also can't walk away now and hold our water because the public won't
support it unless our poliical leadership explains it convincingly. That
isn't going to happen.

The ME is so far from that reality that it's funny and we need to do
something to get all of those **** heads to understand that with some degree
of humility. That is the element they all lack. The Thank You they can
provide is to sit down and settle their hash on their own. Time's Up.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



I think the consequences for all of us would be a lot worse than
you're suggesting, if the world let that happen.

I didn't comment on the consequences.
Since you've brought it up, however, I think they would be trivial in the
negative sense.
I don't, for example, think that all of the rhetoric and bluster is very
much more than that.
What is happening to the Palestinians is being afforded the patina of
legitimacy because the world is unwilling to stick a finger in anyone's
chest and just tell them to figure it out, or else.

It's a game Ed.
I think I'll just stop here, but let me add one thing.
BAO DIEN TU
And this.

I just spent an hour or so with a kid that I consider a fine young man.
He's
a Marine, but I set that side - queers that can't shoot straight, the lot
of them. He's about to deploy.

Here is what I told him.

Afghanastan looks just exactly like SE Asia to me and after listening to
McCrystal this morning, I'm as convinced as ever we'll **** this one up.

He was puzzled, and we both belong to the same fraternal brotherhood so he
knows my bonafides. I think he thought I was going to give him another of
my
history lessons but I didn't.

What I said is that we've screwed the pooch in our efforts and need to
pull
the plug ASAP knowing full well that we'll have to go back.

We can't get, today, from where we are to the important point that our
enemy
will give up. That's all that matters.
We also can't walk away now and hold our water because the public won't
support it unless our poliical leadership explains it convincingly. That
isn't going to happen.

The ME is so far from that reality that it's funny and we need to do
something to get all of those **** heads to understand that with some
degree
of humility. That is the element they all lack. The Thank You they can
provide is to sit down and settle their hash on their own. Time's Up.


--
John R. Carroll

Afghanistan has become a real miasma, but I'm not following it enough to
have an opinion about where it's going. It does give me the creeps,
especially in light of our Vietnam experience. But I'll have to leave that
one to others. I hope for the best but I think we'll survive the worst.

The Middle East is different, though, and the combination of oil, oil
wealth, nuclear weapons, and religious craziness looks like something we
can't back away from. It's always been frustrating to me, not because I
think one side or the other is all virtue, or that there is some simple
"fairness" that should be applied to solve the whole thing. It looks like
the best we'll ever achieve is to help institutionalize some kind of truce
that may keep the region from blowing up.

Because, if it blows up, we'll catch a fair dose of the fallout --
politically, economically, and otherwise. That could be the beginning of a
new world regime of extreme instability. Stability isn't fairness, but it
beats the alternative.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.
Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests to
me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an unrealistic
view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

IIRC... way back when, God commanded the Isrealites to destroy their
enemies, every last man, woman, child, and beast.
They didn't do it, and are still paying for the oversight.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries
would
accept.

This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style
rules
of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries
understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk
posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous.
It's
also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to
develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.

Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of
instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical
niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars.
Most
of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.
Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious
bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those
whose
land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those
neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their
deluded
world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize
the
region.

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you
probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests
to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an
unrealistic view of their neighbors.

If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their
neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they
would do the same.

IIRC... way back when, God commanded the Isrealites to destroy their
enemies, every last man, woman, child, and beast.
They didn't do it, and are still paying for the oversight.

That would have solved the Christian problem, all right. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or religion.

Mark Rand
RTFM


Yet you pick on the Jews, and give the jihadists a pass.

Way to Go Adolph...


Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:07:27 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked
for the last 60 years.


Actually,,its worked very very well. In the 6 times the Islamic nations
attempted to murder every living Jewish man, woman and child..the Jews
won. And didnt increase the size of their nation by a single square
foot. They could have taken the entire middle east as a prize each and
every time.

So OvenMeister...why DO you hate jews so much?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:03:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Blink blink....blink....the Israelies are paranoid?????????

**** me running.

You actually stated that..on a public newsgroup.

You really think that way? Honestly, you are simply not trying to prove
you are brain damaged so we shouldnt expect too much from you?


Given the atrocities that were carried out to the Jewish people before and
during the last war, it is almost beyond belief that their descendants are
behaving in a similar manner towards their neighbours and the owners of the
land they are occupying.

Until they can comprehend that the only solution is a diplomatic one and will
involve giving back some of what they have stolen, there can only ever be
hatred on both sides.

That diplomacy thing worked out well in the 1930s

Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked
for the last 60 years.

it has worked quite well. The Jew-haters learned that there is a heavy
price to pay if you **** with Israel.

Tight sanctions for a few years would be far more effective in encouraging a
diplomatic solution that continuing arms supplies.

Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? Is this his brother Billy?

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:35:20 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.

Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or religion.

Yet you pick on the Jews, and give the jihadists a pass.

Nah, they're indistinguishable. They're both child-mutilators, for example.

And hey, after all, these "jihadists" are only trying to protect their
homeland from the invaders.

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:14:29 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.

I'm not one to argue with the evidence. They certainly are a bunch of
idiotic jihadists that are poisoned by their paranoia.

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.


Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or religion.

Mark Rand
RTFM


Heil Hitler!!

(cue Horst Wessel song on 3...2..1...)



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news Ed Huntress wrote:
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:57:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



George Will Calls for Afghan Pullout:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26628.html

Saigon 2009. Interesting parallels:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...20/saigon_2009

At least one important difference: The Taliban is not as powerful or
unified a foe as the Viet Cong

Unfortunately this isn't the case.
That was how our conversation got started. That and my young friend
mentioned that he'd had his MOS changed.
He's going over as a convoy scout. I thought at first he meant he's been
assigned duty as a Recon Marine but that wasn't it.
His squad will be out in front of transport convoy's in Hummers to check the
roads for IED's and the reason he wanted to look me up and have a word was
the duty I pulled first, at the Forward Observer Infantry Training School,
and then at the Jungle Warfare Training Center as an instructor. One, in
Ahn Khe and the other, Bon Song. Unknown to me, his Officer had recommended
the visit. We'd met at a party when the unit was notified of their change
from reserve status to active duty.

I ended up describing TET, and the results, to him as well as how that
situation mirrored today's dilemma in Afghanistan.
In all of America's history in RVN, we never really lost a battle. America's
armed forces unleashed hell on Earth, year after year on a country the size
of a large postage stamp. We defoliated a third of the country and I've seen
track mounted artillery manned by Marines fire until the barrels of their
guns made the air around them shimmer while filling an area the size of a
football field or more with spent brass. Those units were receiving ammo as
fast as it could be brought up and they just busted open the packing with
iron bars and fired the stuff. I've seen an ARCLIGHT from as near as 2 KM
and that's way too close, even for an observer.

During TET, the North Vietnamese Regular Army was wiped out, very nearly to
the last man. So were the irregular's. We killed thousands of them. Tens of
thousands. I ordered concentrated artillery fire on a wooded area where we
thought, just thought mind you, a short battalion of enemy were laying low.
Three Bn's worth, TOT for fifteen minutes of AP quick. Then we brought in
rockets, napalm, and because they were lingering, Spooky. In the end, an
area about one Km wide to our front and two deep just ceased to exist
except as a brush fire. You couldn't even tell the area had been inhabited -
even by snakes, bugs or roaches. The Navy came in the following morning and
lit the area up all over again.

I'll bet that, or something like it, happened a thousand or more times in
the course of the six month's following TET.
But here is the point. None of that mattered, and that was what we all came
to understand, because in spite of all of that ****, they didn't give up.

We just couldn't "persuade" them to quit.

Will is right. I read his piece this afternoon as well as Bill Kristol's
mewling response to it.

What I'd do if it were my call is put two hundred air conditioned trailers
out on the range at Edwards and have the guys there drive UAV's over
Afghanistan 24/7/365. Everybody would get three squares, dinner and a movie
with the family every day. Everyone, that is, except the enemy, several
thousand miles away.

That is the answer to the question Bill Kristol poses.


--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:

Unfortunately this isn't the case.
That was how our conversation got started. That and my young friend
mentioned that he'd had his MOS changed.
He's going over as a convoy scout. I thought at first he meant he's been
assigned duty as a Recon Marine but that wasn't it.
His squad will be out in front of transport convoy's in Hummers to check the
roads for IED's and the reason he wanted to look me up and have a word was
the duty I pulled first, at the Forward Observer Infantry Training School,
and then at the Jungle Warfare Training Center as an instructor. One, in
Ahn Khe and the other, Bon Song. Unknown to me, his Officer had recommended
the visit. We'd met at a party when the unit was notified of their change
from reserve status to active duty.

I ended up describing TET, and the results, to him as well as how that
situation mirrored today's dilemma in Afghanistan.
In all of America's history in RVN, we never really lost a battle. America's
armed forces unleashed hell on Earth, year after year on a country the size
of a large postage stamp. We defoliated a third of the country and I've seen
track mounted artillery manned by Marines fire until the barrels of their
guns made the air around them shimmer while filling an area the size of a
football field or more with spent brass. Those units were receiving ammo as
fast as it could be brought up and they just busted open the packing with
iron bars and fired the stuff. I've seen an ARCLIGHT from as near as 2 KM
and that's way too close, even for an observer.

During TET, the North Vietnamese Regular Army was wiped out, very nearly to
the last man. So were the irregular's. We killed thousands of them. Tens of
thousands. I ordered concentrated artillery fire on a wooded area where we
thought, just thought mind you, a short battalion of enemy were laying low.
Three Bn's worth, TOT for fifteen minutes of AP quick. Then we brought in
rockets, napalm, and because they were lingering, Spooky. In the end, an
area about one Km wide to our front and two deep just ceased to exist
except as a brush fire. You couldn't even tell the area had been inhabited -
even by snakes, bugs or roaches. The Navy came in the following morning and
lit the area up all over again.

I'll bet that, or something like it, happened a thousand or more times in
the course of the six month's following TET.
But here is the point. None of that mattered, and that was what we all came
to understand, because in spite of all of that ****, they didn't give up.

We just couldn't "persuade" them to quit.

Will is right. I read his piece this afternoon as well as Bill Kristol's
mewling response to it.

What I'd do if it were my call is put two hundred air conditioned trailers
out on the range at Edwards and have the guys there drive UAV's over
Afghanistan 24/7/365. Everybody would get three squares, dinner and a movie
with the family every day. Everyone, that is, except the enemy, several
thousand miles away.

That is the answer to the question Bill Kristol poses.



And then Walter Chronkite said:

quote:
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders,
both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings
they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring
offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win
the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in
the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would
improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we
should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations,
not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that
the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost
certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible
escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and
that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere
commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more
American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer
to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the
evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on
the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are
mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On
the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few
months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big
gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the
only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an
honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the
best they could.
:end


and the war was lost... but not over...

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:35:20 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand
PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.
Anti-Semites come from all over.
Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or religion.
Yet you pick on the Jews, and give the jihadists a pass.

Nah, they're indistinguishable. They're both child-mutilators, for example.

And hey, after all, these "jihadists" are only trying to protect their
homeland from the invaders.

Thanks,
Rich

I wonder how he'd respond if some "Native Americans" went
on the "war Path" and did to him and his that way?
"Only trying to protect their homeland form the invaders"

I'll bet he'd be singing a different tune. :-)
...lew...

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:08:23 -0600, Lewis Hartswick wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:35:20 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand
PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.
Anti-Semites come from all over.
Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or
religion.
Yet you pick on the Jews, and give the jihadists a pass.

Nah, they're indistinguishable. They're both child-mutilators, for
example.

And hey, after all, these "jihadists" are only trying to protect their
homeland from the invaders.

I wonder how he'd respond if some "Native Americans" went on the "war
Path" and did to him and his that way? "Only trying to protect their
homeland form the invaders"

I'll bet he'd be singing a different tune. :-)

Clearly a case of mistaken identity - anyone who had participated in
the massacre(s) of the Original Americans would have to be much older
than I am.

Thanks anyway,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Clearly a case of mistaken identity - anyone who had participated in
the massacre(s) of the Original Americans would have to be much older
than I am.

You mean there were people here before the immigrants from Asia got
here 12,000+ years ago? Where did those guys come from? Africa,
originally, like all people?

David

David R.Birch wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Clearly a case of mistaken identity - anyone who had participated in
the massacre(s) of the Original Americans would have to be much older
than I am.

You mean there were people here before the immigrants from Asia got here
12,000+ years ago? Where did those guys come from? Africa, originally,
like all people?

Outer space. It's well documented

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:48:29 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:36:53 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:20:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that "Tom Del Rosso" on or
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when
the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable
extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option.
And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that
makes tracing the source easier.

This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared
for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the
12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his
re-appearance, is massive global strife.

It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second
coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and
waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases,
they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by
precipitating the Tribulation.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very
specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable
terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other
countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current
president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.


Mark Rand
RTFM

You are claiming then that the Isrealies are a bunch of idiotic
Jihadists whom simply kill Non Believers whenever they get the urge?

Interesting Herr Rand..most interesting indeed.

To quote an old catchphrase "Und Shtupid, too."

Jawol!

Gunner Asch.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
on or about Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:54:32 GMT
did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the
following:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:35:20 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:45:47 +0100, Mark Rand

PS, although My brother in law and sister run a profitable pig farm
in Lower Saxony, the family line is closer to the line of the Dukes
of Norfolk than to any German line. There is a Dutch element, five
generations back however.

Anti-Semites come from all over.

Not in the least, idiot.

A murdering ******* is a murdering ******* whatever is race or religion.

Yet you pick on the Jews, and give the jihadists a pass.

Nah, they're indistinguishable. They're both child-mutilators, for example.

And hey, after all, these "jihadists" are only trying to protect their
homeland from the invaders.

Close but no falafel, liberal-lite boy.

The Jihadists are trying to protect their way of life, and that
includes the right to kill infidels for blasphemy, and establish their
rules for all the other lesser peoples. They've adopted the suicide
bomber tactic from the Tamil, which is just such a progressive manner
of expressing political dissent.

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Mark Rand on or
about Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:07:27 +0100 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:03:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
Blink blink....blink....the Israelies are paranoid?????????
**** me running.
You actually stated that..on a public newsgroup.

You really think that way? Honestly, you are simply not trying to prove
you are brain damaged so we shouldnt expect too much from you?

Given the atrocities that were carried out to the Jewish people before and
during the last war, it is almost beyond belief that their descendants are
behaving in a similar manner towards their neighbours and the owners of the
land they are occupying.

Until they can comprehend that the only solution is a diplomatic one and will
involve giving back some of what they have stolen, there can only ever be
hatred on both sides.

Yeah, that diplomacy thing works out so well. When the other side
is willing to let you live. How's it going with the "No Locks Here"
sign on your door? You wouldn't want to offend someone by barring
their entry?

Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked
for the last 60 years.

Tight sanctions for a few years would be far more effective in encouraging a
diplomatic solution that continuing arms supplies.

So, you are in favor of letting someone else do all the actual
dirty work of killing off the Jews, poistine ne?

This isn't anti Semite, the Palestinians and Arabs are also Semites!

True. On the other hand "Anti-Semite" was coined because the
expression ""Jew hatred" was just so ... common.


You might not agree with this analysis. But then, I'm completely impartial and
you aren't :-|

Yeah, right. You're amoral, and unable to make a judgment about
minor things like good and evil.

tschus
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:32:48 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


their entry?

Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked
for the last 60 years.

Tight sanctions for a few years would be far more effective in encouraging a
diplomatic solution that continuing arms supplies.

So, you are in favor of letting someone else do all the actual
dirty work of killing off the Jews, poistine ne?

This isn't anti Semite, the Palestinians and Arabs are also Semites!

True. On the other hand "Anti-Semite" was coined because the
expression ""Jew hatred" was just so ... common.


You might not agree with this analysis. But then, I'm completely impartial and
you aren't :-|

Yeah, right. You're amoral, and unable to make a judgment about
minor things like good and evil.


Go and spend a month or two in the ghetto known as the Gaza strip and report
on what you find.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:52:02 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:32:48 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


their entry?

Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked
for the last 60 years.

Tight sanctions for a few years would be far more effective in encouraging a
diplomatic solution that continuing arms supplies.

So, you are in favor of letting someone else do all the actual
dirty work of killing off the Jews, poistine ne?

This isn't anti Semite, the Palestinians and Arabs are also Semites!

True. On the other hand "Anti-Semite" was coined because the
expression ""Jew hatred" was just so ... common.


You might not agree with this analysis. But then, I'm completely impartial and
you aren't :-|

Yeah, right. You're amoral, and unable to make a judgment about
minor things like good and evil.


Go and spend a month or two in the ghetto known as the Gaza strip and report
on what you find.


Mark Rand
RTFM


Actually...I did. My nieghor was killed by a terrorist from Syria.

1974

On my World Tour Walkabout. Just passing through.....


Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

RBnDFW wrote:

David R.Birch wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Clearly a case of mistaken identity - anyone who had participated in
the massacre(s) of the Original Americans would have to be much older
than I am.

You mean there were people here before the immigrants from Asia got here
12,000+ years ago? Where did those guys come from? Africa, originally,
like all people?

Outer space. It's well documented


Cliff was the latest arriveal. He escaped from their zoo.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!