"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ks says...

Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi
medical
staff.

No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either. If she had
been,
I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.

When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way? She wasn't driving,
isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed,
and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.

Dude! She joined the Army! To a fat-**** leftist clone who builds
****ware speakers for a "living," her enlistment papers alone entitle
her to a full measure of ignorant scorn.

Not that this is particularly troublesome. I much prefer it when the
left openly expresses its pathological loathing of servicemen, instead
of disguising their traitorous leanings with a dozen layers of bat****
about "supporting the troops."

Yes, I agree.

Neil

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:52:10 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

In article , dipthot@my-
deja.com says...
... snip

I don't know what Dean would do. Our current resident-in-chief
himself said that he wasn't interested in nation-building during his
campaign. Being placed in power clearly changes one's perspective...


... of course you realize that during the campaign, the nation building
being discussed was such as being done in Kosovo and Haiti as well as
other places in which our national interest was not at stake. ... and
of course you realize that our country had not been directly attacked in
an act of war by terrorists who were being harbored and encouraged by
(and by extension, acting in proxy for) several nation-states.

Of course you realize those facts, to not do so would be disengenous,
and you wouldn't be that.


No less disengenous than your sly suggestion that
somehow the invasion of Iraq had any real connection
to the so-called "war on terrorism."

Can't catch Osama? **** it, let's show Saddam
some shock-and-awe.

Funny thing is, we can't seem to catch Saddam either,
much less those pesky WMDs.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Rafe B." wrote in message
news
So, what changed in twenty years? Nothing. When
it was convenient for us to do so, we played nice with
Saddam, called him our friend, sold him some
plague and poison gas to go use against the
Ayatollah. Even though we knew better.

The CBS article gets much more specific about what
was provided: "chemicals and germs, even anthrax
and bubonic plague". That was just for starters, of
course.

Saddam, like the Taliban -- is a monster of our own
making. We've got a long history of supporting
brutal dictators as long as it suits our perceived
self-interest at the moment.

And you wonder why so many people around the
world despise us? Are you that dense?

Whose' this, "We" you're talking about? I am not responsible for my (grand)
father's debts. G. Bush isn't responsible for the actions of Presidents
before him, and/or US policies before him either. So what has "our" past got
to do with either Mr. Bush's, or my, or your actions now? Look.....It's very
simple. Right here, right now, we are dealing with murders and tyrants who
are killing our innocents. They attacked our buildings on 9/11, and they
finance the recruitment and training of those who will attack us tomorrow. I
want this stopped. I don't give a damn about the past, or who hates, "us".
They should hate those who erred, and not me, or Mr. Bush. But whether or
not they hate me or him, I still want to go over there and kill those
murdering *******s in the desert. Why don't you?

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article , says...


Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


Isn't it fascinating when the dishonest mask slips for a moment, and we
get a nice, clear, pristine look at what the left *really* thinks about
servicemen and women.

Way to "support those troops," eh, Fatboy?


****zwerg, why does "support our troops" mean "enjoy watching them come
home in body bags" in your pea brain? And why did the "evil doing
thugs" allow Lynch to get proper medical treatment?

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article , says...


Gotta love this piece of business. The leftist media blows the Lynch
story up until it bears little relation to reality - and then the left
blames ... gueeeeeess who?


Let's see--cite, ****zwerg?


Cite what? Clearly you're familiar with Private Lynch - you know, the
young servicewoman you refer to as the "dumb bitch" - and her ordeal.


So when you say the "leftist media blew the story out of proportion"
instead of the truth that the Bush administration got caught up in its
own bull****, you don't even have a cite for this claim? Kind of makes
you a massive hypocrite, doesn't it.

In z%Vyb.192731$Dw6.738617@attbi_s02, on 12/02/2003
at 06:08 AM, "William Graham" said:


"Rafe B." wrote in message
news
So, what changed in twenty years? Nothing. When
it was convenient for us to do so, we played nice with
Saddam, called him our friend, sold him some
plague and poison gas to go use against the
Ayatollah. Even though we knew better.

The CBS article gets much more specific about what
was provided: "chemicals and germs, even anthrax
and bubonic plague". That was just for starters, of
course.

Saddam, like the Taliban -- is a monster of our own
making. We've got a long history of supporting
brutal dictators as long as it suits our perceived
self-interest at the moment.

And you wonder why so many people around the
world despise us? Are you that dense?

Whose' this, "We" you're talking about? I am not responsible for my
(grand) father's debts. G. Bush isn't responsible for the actions of
Presidents before him, and/or US policies before him either. So what has
"our" past got to do with either Mr. Bush's, or my, or your actions now?
Look.....It's very simple. Right here, right now, we are dealing with
murders and tyrants who are killing our innocents. They attacked our
buildings on 9/11, and they finance the recruitment and training of those
who will attack us tomorrow. I want this stopped. I don't give a damn
about the past, or who hates, "us". They should hate those who erred, and
not me, or Mr. Bush. But whether or not they hate me or him, I still want
to go over there and kill those murdering *******s in the desert. Why
don't you?

Do you really think everything stops and starts when the president is
changed?

NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"? At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


If she had been,
I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.


Now that's rich. Were Saddam's "death squads" busy that day?


When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.


She wasn't driving, isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed, and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.


I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with pretty
obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.


Bull****. Let's see some proof that "very few, if any" of the
insurgents are out for revenge for family members killed as "collateral
damage." Let's see some accurate collateral damage figures while you're
at it. And then tell us where those WMDs are.


Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.

killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?


What, this is a racial issue now?


Of course it is.


Saddam and his followers were and are white people. What did you think they
were?


Semites.


Or is your submission to political correctness so complete that you just
have to throw in some snide remark about white people from time to time,
whether relevant or not?


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
In article , dipthot@my-
deja.com says...
... snip

I don't know what Dean would do. Our current resident-in-chief
himself said that he wasn't interested in nation-building during his
campaign. Being placed in power clearly changes one's perspective...



... of course you realize that during the campaign, the nation building
being discussed was such as being done in Kosovo and Haiti as well as
other places in which our national interest was not at stake.



What part of a lack of WMDs and various other sundry lies about Iraq was
in our national interest?

In article z%Vyb.192731$Dw6.738617@attbi_s02, says...

I don't give a damn about the past, or who hates, "us".
They should hate those who erred, and not me, or Mr. Bush. But whether or
not they hate me or him, I still want to go over there and kill those
murdering *******s in the desert. Why don't you?

He needs them. The left has staked its political future on the ability
of a gaggle of towelheads to murder enough people that we lose our nerve
and cut 'n' run[1]. The hellish little compact is obvious; the
towelheads will scratch the Democrats' back by killing US soldiers, thus
hurting President Bush politically, while the Democrats will scratch the
towelheads' back by pulling out our troops if they manage to seize
power.

Way to Support The Troops, eh?

[1] This need is particularly poignant now that The Worst Economy In
Fifty Years(TM) has perversely decided to grow at eight percent.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon
the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it
opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped
the other genocide, Josef Stalin. It has marched for Mao,
Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has
slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated
against everything and everyone American for a century.
Broadly speaking, it hates [America] first, [Britain] second."
- Frederick Forsyth

William Graham wrote:
"Rafe B." wrote in message
news
So, what changed in twenty years? Nothing. When
it was convenient for us to do so, we played nice with
Saddam, called him our friend, sold him some
plague and poison gas to go use against the
Ayatollah. Even though we knew better.

The CBS article gets much more specific about what
was provided: "chemicals and germs, even anthrax
and bubonic plague". That was just for starters, of
course.

Saddam, like the Taliban -- is a monster of our own
making. We've got a long history of supporting
brutal dictators as long as it suits our perceived
self-interest at the moment.

And you wonder why so many people around the
world despise us? Are you that dense?


Whose' this, "We" you're talking about?


I guess one child got left behind.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi
medical
staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"?

I think you have your timeline and/or terminology a little mixed up. Let me
help you he

U.S. forces went to war against Iraqi forces when Saddam Hussein was Iraq's
political leader.

At that time there was what we call an "Iraqi army."

An army comprises large numbers of fighting men called "soldiers."

Civilians who carry out acts of terror are called "terrorists."

Terrorists are not soldiers.

Soldiers are not terrorists.

Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) captured Jessica Lynch and others after
ambushing their convoy.

Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) then brought Pvt. Lynch, who was severely
wounded, in for medical treatment.

Terrorists were not involved in that.

Now that Iraqi army no longer exists.

People attacking U.S. servicemen now are not soldiers.

They are terrorists.

See?



At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


If she had been,
I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.


Now that's rich. Were Saddam's "death squads" busy that day?

I don't think "Saddam's 'death squads'" were normally employed as regular
soldiers.




When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.

If that's your idea of sarcasm it's hard to follow.




She wasn't driving, isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed,
and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.

My propaganda?

Can you provide an example? I can't remember ever saying that Iraqis per se
are monstrous. It certainly is not my belief.




I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with
pretty
obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.


Bull****. Let's see some proof that "very few, if any" of the
insurgents are out for revenge for family members killed as "collateral
damage."

You're asking me to prove a negative.

I will freely commit to the statement that "very few, if any" of Santa
Claus's elves actually exist, or have ever existed. Can I give "some proof"
of that? No.


Let's see some accurate collateral damage figures while you're
at it. And then tell us where those WMDs are.

I don't know.




Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.

killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?


What, this is a racial issue now?


Of course it is.


Saddam and his followers were and are white people. What did you think
they
were?


Semites.

Semites are white people.




Or is your submission to political correctness so complete that you just
have to throw in some snide remark about white people from time to time,
whether relevant or not?


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.

You'd better bring something to read while you are waiting for all those
apologies.

Neil

NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi

medical

staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"?


I think you have your timeline and/or terminology a little mixed up. Let me
help you he

U.S. forces went to war against Iraqi forces when Saddam Hussein was Iraq's
political leader.

At that time there was what we call an "Iraqi army."

An army comprises large numbers of fighting men called "soldiers."

Civilians who carry out acts of terror are called "terrorists."


So you're saying at some point the "Iraqi army" became civilians. Can
you give me the Greenwich Mean Time on this, please?


Terrorists are not soldiers.


Even though we can "wage war" on them. Michael Moore had a funny thing
to say in his most recent book: "How do you wage war on a noun?"


Soldiers are not terrorists.


What about "death squad" members? What about pointed sticks?


Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) captured Jessica Lynch and others after
ambushing their convoy.

Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) then brought Pvt. Lynch, who was severely
wounded, in for medical treatment.

Terrorists were not involved in that.

Now that Iraqi army no longer exists.

People attacking U.S. servicemen now are not soldiers.


Proof?


They are terrorists.

See?


Yes, I see a mountain of bull****. The lack of WMDs has transmogrified
into a battle against horribly heinous insurgent terrorists.


At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


If she had been,

I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.


Now that's rich. Were Saddam's "death squads" busy that day?


I don't think "Saddam's 'death squads'" were normally employed as regular
soldiers.


Which means they weren't "terrorizing" people, by your definition.


When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.


If that's your idea of sarcasm it's hard to follow.


Agreed, if you have a penchant for spouting mountains of bull**** I can
see why it would be hard to follow.


She wasn't driving, isn't

the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed,

and

hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.


My propaganda?

Can you provide an example? I can't remember ever saying that Iraqis per se
are monstrous. It certainly is not my belief.


It's guilt by association, dude. Even if you aren't an asshole like
****zwerg, I haven't seen you put him in his place when he refers to
people as "towelheads", or hypocritically asks for "cites" when he isn't
capable of providing any of his own. As the Alan Parsons' song goes,
you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.


I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with

pretty

obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.


Bull****. Let's see some proof that "very few, if any" of the
insurgents are out for revenge for family members killed as "collateral
damage."


You're asking me to prove a negative.


No, I'm asking for some statistics that are even vaguely credible.


I will freely commit to the statement that "very few, if any" of Santa
Claus's elves actually exist, or have ever existed. Can I give "some proof"
of that? No.


That tells me what I need to know--even in your own mind your statement
was as credible as a search for Santa's elves.


Let's see some accurate collateral damage figures while you're
at it. And then tell us where those WMDs are.


I don't know.


Good reason to bomb the **** out a country. Good reason to impeach Bush
is more like.


Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.


killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?


What, this is a racial issue now?


Of course it is.



Saddam and his followers were and are white people. What did you think

they

were?


Semites.


Semites are white people.


In today's society, "racism" is used interchangeably with bigotry. On
Usenet, people like yourself use it to wriggle out of untenable positions.


Or is your submission to political correctness so complete that you just
have to throw in some snide remark about white people from time to time,
whether relevant or not?


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.


You'd better bring something to read while you are waiting for all those
apologies.


No doubt. And you'd better stick with "Letoured" because you really
don't belong in the same arena with me.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi

medical

staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi
medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"?


I think you have your timeline and/or terminology a little mixed up. Let
me
help you he

U.S. forces went to war against Iraqi forces when Saddam Hussein was
Iraq's
political leader.

At that time there was what we call an "Iraqi army."

An army comprises large numbers of fighting men called "soldiers."

Civilians who carry out acts of terror are called "terrorists."


So you're saying at some point the "Iraqi army" became civilians. Can
you give me the Greenwich Mean Time on this, please?

No.

The Iraqi army no longer exists, but the people it contained did not move to
Saturn. They are all still around somewhere, provided they are not dead.




Terrorists are not soldiers.


Even though we can "wage war" on them. Michael Moore had a funny thing
to say in his most recent book: "How do you wage war on a noun?"

The only thing funny about Michael Moore is his appearance.




Soldiers are not terrorists.


What about "death squad" members? What about pointed sticks?

What about 'em?




Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) captured Jessica Lynch and others after
ambushing their convoy.

Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) then brought Pvt. Lynch, who was
severely
wounded, in for medical treatment.

Terrorists were not involved in that.

Now that Iraqi army no longer exists.

People attacking U.S. servicemen now are not soldiers.


Proof?

The Iraqi army no longer exists.




They are terrorists.

See?


Yes, I see a mountain of bull****. The lack of WMDs has transmogrified
into a battle against horribly heinous insurgent terrorists.


At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


If she had been,

I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.


Now that's rich. Were Saddam's "death squads" busy that day?


I don't think "Saddam's 'death squads'" were normally employed as
regular
soldiers.


Which means they weren't "terrorizing" people, by your definition.

You're confusing yourself. Terrorizing people is the work of terrorists, not
regular soldiers.




When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical
treatment.


If that's your idea of sarcasm it's hard to follow.


Agreed, if you have a penchant for spouting mountains of bull**** I can
see why it would be hard to follow.


She wasn't driving, isn't

the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed,

and

hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.


My propaganda?

Can you provide an example? I can't remember ever saying that Iraqis per
se
are monstrous. It certainly is not my belief.


It's guilt by association, dude. Even if you aren't an asshole like
****zwerg, I haven't seen you put him in his place when he refers to
people as "towelheads", or hypocritically asks for "cites" when he isn't
capable of providing any of his own. As the Alan Parsons' song goes,
you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

There may actually be some connection between the apparently disconnected,
incoherent and irrelevant ideas in that paragraph, but I can't see it.





I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members
as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with

pretty

obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.


Bull****. Let's see some proof that "very few, if any" of the
insurgents are out for revenge for family members killed as "collateral
damage."


You're asking me to prove a negative.


No, I'm asking for some statistics that are even vaguely credible.


I will freely commit to the statement that "very few, if any" of Santa
Claus's elves actually exist, or have ever existed. Can I give "some
proof"
of that? No.


That tells me what I need to know--even in your own mind your statement
was as credible as a search for Santa's elves. [ . . . ]

I'm suggesting that your cherished "insurgents out for revenge for family
members killed" are about as numerous as Santa's elves.

Neil

trotsky wrote in message
SNIP

Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"? At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.

PFC. Lynch was captured following a firefight with Iraqi soldiers
during the war. This does differ somewhat from acts of insurgency
performed by non-uniformed members of a self-appointed partisan group.

SNIP

When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.


She wasn't driving, isn't
the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed, and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.

She was raped and brutalized AFTER being captured. That sure indicates
a level of "monstrousity" to me. She was treated well by the Iraqi
medical staff after she was dumped there, but the Iraqi soldiers
either were "monstrous" to her or allowed other Iraqis to be so prior
to dumping her in the hospital.

SNIP

You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.


Dave Hall

David Hall wrote:
trotsky wrote in message
SNIP


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"? At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


PFC. Lynch was captured following a firefight with Iraqi soldiers
during the war. This does differ somewhat from acts of insurgency
performed by non-uniformed members of a self-appointed partisan group.

SNIP


When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.


She wasn't driving, isn't

the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed, and
hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.


She was raped and brutalized AFTER being captured.


Apparently she wasn't so brutalized as to not be able to hit the talk
show circuit, though. Brutality is a relative thing--Japanese soldiers
did some things during WWII that I can't even speak of. Then again, the
U.S. in turn dropped A bombs on the Japanese so they could melt or die
of radiation poisoning. One can only imagine the birth defects that
were to follow. Regardless, when members of the Bush administration
tell us all the Iraqis are "thugs", "assassins", and have "death squads"
out the ass, one doesn't expect Lynch to be around to hit the talk show
circuit, but rather expects her raped and brutalized body to be dumped
in one of those unmarked graves we keep hearing about. And even that's
a stretch, because the bulk of the soldiers were supposed to be ****ed
because of all those WMDs that were floating around the country. Why is
Lynch even alive? Were the "thugs and assassins" on vacation that day?


That sure indicates
a level of "monstrousity" to me.


With that spelling I can see why you put the word in quotes. Were you
left behind too?


She was treated well by the Iraqi
medical staff after she was dumped there, but the Iraqi soldiers
either were "monstrous" to her or allowed other Iraqis to be so prior
to dumping her in the hospital.


That's a pretty vague explanation. That's all we've heard vis a vis Ms.
Lynch--vagaries. The propaganda machine wasn't workin' too good that day.


SNIP


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.


Non response noted. Can't you guys e-mail each other back and forth and
come up with a decent collective response?

Apparently she wasn't so brutalized as to not be able to hit the talk
show circuit, though. Brutality is a relative thing--Japanese soldiers
did some things during WWII that I can't even speak of.

What a sick *******. Being unable to walk and still months later ****ing using
a catater into a bag just isn't bad enough for you, is it? I guess you wanted
her dead for some sick reason

Then again, the
U.S. in turn dropped A bombs on the Japanese so they could melt or die
of radiation poisoning. One can only imagine the birth defects that
were to follow.

Some wouldn't have minded seeing a little new glass out there in the desert
around about 9-12-01. I personally am glad nothing like that was done. I doubt
that radiation is all that good for petroleum.

Regardless, when members of the Bush administration
tell us all the Iraqis are "thugs", "assassins", and have "death squads"
out the ass, one doesn't expect Lynch to be around to hit the talk show
circuit, but rather expects her raped and brutalized body to be dumped
in one of those unmarked graves we keep hearing about. And even that's
a stretch, because the bulk of the soldiers were supposed to be ****ed
because of all those WMDs that were floating around the country. Why is
Lynch even alive?

I guess after they were through raping her they thought (as is taught in
Islamic societies) that it is worse for a woman to be alive than dead after
being such a whore as to live through rape. You are a sick ******* indeed.

Were the "thugs and assassins" on vacation that day?


That sure indicates
a level of "monstrousity" to me.


With that spelling I can see why you put the word in quotes. Were you
left behind too?

Yep, a great argument on your part.


She was treated well by the Iraqi
medical staff after she was dumped there, but the Iraqi soldiers
either were "monstrous" to her or allowed other Iraqis to be so prior
to dumping her in the hospital.


That's a pretty vague explanation. That's all we've heard vis a vis Ms.
Lynch--vagaries. The propaganda machine wasn't workin' too good that day.


SNIP


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.


Non response noted. Can't you guys e-mail each other back and forth and
come up with a decent collective response?

Didn't have a damn thing to do with PFC Lynch which was the part of your
sickness to which I was responding .

Dave Hall

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Jerry McG wrote:

They are only "lies" to tyrant and commie-loving leftist screwballs who
secretly hate their Country and just love when people like the Afghans
and
Iraqis live under tyranny. The left loves all tyrants and hope one day
to
impose their brand of tyranny right here in their own homeland.
Unfortunately, when they call truth "lies", the rest of us understand
completely what they're all about.



I see, and you call detaining people indefinitely without access to
attorneys "freedom". Got it.

They gave one of them an attourney the other day....But he was a citizen of
the US. - The others are not citizens.

William Graham wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Jerry McG wrote:


They are only "lies" to tyrant and commie-loving leftist screwballs who
secretly hate their Country and just love when people like the Afghans

and

Iraqis live under tyranny. The left loves all tyrants and hope one day

to

impose their brand of tyranny right here in their own homeland.
Unfortunately, when they call truth "lies", the rest of us understand
completely what they're all about.



I see, and you call detaining people indefinitely without access to
attorneys "freedom". Got it.


They gave one of them an attourney the other day....But he was a citizen of
the US. - The others are not citizens.


Yeah, had he been "detained" (read: denied due process) for a year, or
was it two?

Not sure what this has to do with rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Seems to be going on for ever though.


"NJH" wrote in message
...

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Giftzwerg wrote:
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...


They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american
soldiers
treated that way?


Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, he was a journalist. Do the filthy terrorists treat a journalist
worse than they treat Jessica Lynch?

The terrorists do, yes. Of course. It wasn't terrorists who were treating
Jessica Lynch.


What did they do to her, give her
too many comfy pillows while they were treating her wounds?

Jessica Lynch evidently was treated very well by Iraqi doctors and nursing
staff. What on earth does that have to do with how terrorists treat
anyone?

Neil

"netnews.comcast.net" wrote in message
news:ElvJb.203276$8y1.710836@attbi_s52...
Been reading Noam Chomsky "literature" recently eh.....



"Mark" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Oh neil... are you listening??? -- Based on your comments here, I'm
wondering if perhaps you spent your 30 years around shrinks as *a
patient*
Now you're probably an out-patient -- if not, its okay. We all lie, at
least according to you -- and the resident nazi; gitszmo or whatever
his
name is. Did you guys escape from an old Laugh In skit?



Anyone who lets that Skank Coulter into their head, pro or con, is in
need of professional help.



I've read some of her stuff, she's an embarrassment.

What she is, is not liberal. - Refreshing, to me.........

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:JuvJb.203508$8y1.711087@attbi_s52...

What she is, is not liberal. - Refreshing, to me.........

What she is, is a psychopath.

Not sure why anyone would find that "refreshing".

--
-My Real Name