Sorry. That's war.

The latest blockbuster coming out is the movie "Troy." What was that
about? A girl?

Of all humanity's historical accounts, what is more prevalent than
war?

How have prisoners ever been treated? Check out the movie "The
Passion." That was 2000 years ago.

Yes, be outraged. Be angry. Call it unjust, evil, and inhumane. It is.

But it is human. It doesn't matter if you are American, Iraqi, or from
the far reaches, we will always have war. And if you turn your back on
war, it will hit you in the back. We HAD been turning our back on the
terrorist-war, and it hit us on 9/11.

You will NEVER get any society of humans to act in a non-human manner.

Indyrose

In article , wrote:

Should we not stop and rethink what we did that make them hate us so much that
life aren't worth living?


No, we shouldn't. What in hell makes it OUR fault, when THEY blow up innocent
civilians?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Agkistrodon"


But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by
new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
"terrorists".

Bull.

You really don't know much about the Middle East, do you?

The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups

How did we miss the Irish Republican Army? Why aren't we fighting South
Mollucan terrorists? The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax. It's a war on
anybody who doesn't appreciate and support "American interests." Read
"power interests".

and it's likely most
terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists.

They religious rebels. They had no power under Hussein. Hell, Hussein
executed several of his family so the fighting with his group has nothing to
do with Hussein's terrorists. In fact, who is the American pointman in
Falujah? One of Saddam's ex-generals!
We are witnessing the fragmentation of Iraq along religious alignments.
Al-Sadr is a Shi'ite and he's structuring a post-American Iraq that will
either be broken up due to in-fighting between sects and clans (Kurds,
Sunnis, Shi'ites) or controlled by another tough guy Husseinoid.

But when they're shooting
at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call
them.

It certainly does. We must not confuse the situation we have created with
the one that went before. The Mehdi Army is not Saddam's army. We are
fighting new terrorists that we have created from people who were not
terrorists before we invaded and destroyed the poilitical integrity of Iraq.
Do you know what the word "integrity" means?

Agkistrodon

Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
standard to meet when dealing with such people.

2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
allies) harm.


This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:

SNIP

Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
of war).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

situations *was not by our choice*, but a choice made by the enemy. The
US could materially eliminate the killing of innocents (especially given
the precision of our current weapons systems) if the enemy would engage
with any level of honor, wear uniforms, and separate themselves from the
population.


But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by

'Don't read much news do you. Bush made it clear in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 that ALL terror groups and their state sponsors
were considered targets. He specifically named Iraq as such as state
sponsor.

new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
"terrorists".

That's a distinction without a difference.



4) We did not start this mess.


That is highly debatable. Since we are allied with Israel and did
much to get Israel instituted as a state, we very well might have just

No, no. no. Your dearly beloved UN was the causal agent for bringing
Israel into existence. Yes, the US pushed and supported it, but the
UN made it happen.


on that basis alone. But then you add in our longstanding activities
with regard to oil interests and you just might conclude that we did
do something that comes close to "starting this mess."

Which "longstanding activities"? The ones where US companies sunk
billions into the exploration and development of new oil fields. You know,
the ones that helped elevate a backward medevial tribal culture into 20th
C technology and creature comforts? Ask the Arabic peoples if they'd
like to go back to riding around on camels and give up air conditioning,
modern medicine, and universities...



Militant Islam has been declaring Jihad
on the West for over a generation. It has acted upon it repeatedly,
culminating with 9/11.


That is because of the Israeli connection AND because of our history
of repression of Islamic fundamentalism through our stooges such as
the Pahlavi family. 9/11 should also be considered in light of our

There is certainly some truth to that. It still does not justify the use
of non-uniformed combatants attacking innocent civilians around the
world. Had the terrorists exclusively targeted US military
installations, this would be a very different discussion in my view.
Instead, yhey declared "war" but targeted civilians. They are cowards
and they are evil. They need to be eradicated with maximum prejudice. I
don't care about their cause, their pain, their plight, or their
sadness. They need to die in as large a number and as fast as we can
dispatch them.


failure to leave Saudi Arabia at the end of Gulf War I. One of
Osama's biggest gripes against us is exactly that point. So, 9/11
more an outgrowth of GWI than any Jihad agaionst the western
countries. Further, the calls for Jihad haven't really been effective
in getting up Muslim's anywhere but the Mideast.

This is complete and irredeemable nonsense. Militant Islam has been
infecting the mainstream of the Islamic community for decades. GW I, the
so-called "plight" of the Palestinians, the presence of Israel et al are
red herrings to cover the real intent of the "new" (old) Islam: to
attack liberal Western democracy wherever it can be found. Such
liberalism is a threat to the religious nutcases that are behind radical
Islam. It is also a threat to the thug governments of the Middle East.
There is _nothing_ that could ever been done to reach detente' w/people
like UBL. You don't negotiate with evil, you kill it where you find it.




Bush properly delared war on ANY state that
operates to support terror in any form.


How about the African states that use it "in any form". Hutus...
Tutsis? How about Norther Ireland? No, there are many governments

All in good time and if and only if they are a threat to the larger
freedom of the planet. Sad as it may be, internal conflicts that
are in no danger of running wild elsewhere are not our problem. Bosnia
leaps to mind. By the way, you may not have heard: N. Ireland has
calmed down some. They're trying to fix it peacefully.

that use terror to control their subjects and that is one form of
terrorism. How about Israeli terrorism against Palestinians?

This is so dumb as to not merit response, but... The Israelis have never
conciously targeted the civilian Palestinian population for murder. Once
again, the "Religion Of Peace" (via its religious and political leaders)
tells its people to harbor fighters wearing civilian garb. You ever see
an Israeli child with Semtex strapped to their body wander through the
Palestinian section of town? You ever see Israeli soldiers purposefully putting
bullets through the head of Palestinian 5 year olds? The Israelis are
sometimes wrong, but they are not the concious and purposeful murders of
people they know to be innocent.




9/11 is not the reason we're in
Iraq. The fact that Sadaam had hatched a plan to assassinate a US
President is more than enough justification to take him out.


No, it isn't. After that plot went astray, he was told not to do that
again. He didn't. No American was ever a target of any terrorist
attack by SH except for GHWB.

Well, while you are busy trying to empathize with that Poor Little
Man, Sadaam, I prefer to see him die screaming because he tried to
kill an American president. I would feel the same way even if he'd
gone after a President I hated, like Clinton. Principle is at stake
here.


The fact

that he openly supported the Palestinian suicide murderers that target
innocents is justification enough.


No, it isn't. He never attacked us. Shall we pursue similar wars
whenever one state uses terroprist strategies against neighbors in a
border dispute. Why didn't we invade Chechnya for its use of terror
against Russians?

Because the Russians took care of it on their own, that's why. If such
conflicts are entirely internal matters, then I agree we should stay out.
But SH inserting himself into the Palestian murder missions internationalized
the conflict (more than it already was) and threatened to further undermine
the stability of the region. If we had historically stayed out of the area
completely, then I'd agree w/you. But we have not - we've been engaged
there forever, so we have an interest in the outcome, however unpleasant it
may be.


The fact that his intelligence

services were well known to cooperate with Al Queda and their fellow
travelers is justification enough.


Not ONE SHRED of evidence indicates this!!

You mean the CIA hasn't been sharing its files with you? OK - our
government claims they have proof, but cannot share the details with the
rest of us because it might compromise our intel processes. Now, what is
more likely: a) That hundreds or even thousands of government,
intelligence, and legislative officials of both parties conspired
together to make up the story and hold the lie together daily (because
we all know how good the Congress Critters are at keeping a secret,
especially a big one like this) OR b) It's true.





Bush's great mistake was leaning on

the WMD argument - he didn't need it, and it was a tenous thing in the
first place because it is hard to prove even when absolutely true - the
evidence can be "disappeared" rapidly. He should have invaded without
any further discussion on that basis of those three facts alone and told
the UN to go scratch.


What three "facts"?

The attempted assassination, SH's support for Palestinian terrorism, and
the collusion of Iraqi intelligence with Al Queda.



5) A better solution all around 25 years ago, would have been to pull
out of the region entirely, and let them all have at each other. In the
50 or so years Israel has been a modern state, less than 100,000 Jews
and Arabs in total have been killed in that conflict. But in that same
time, north of 3 *Million* Muslims have killed *each other* in the
region. The West should have stayed out and let them continue to kill
each other in large numbers. They would either cease to exist or decide
to change their way of thinking, either of which would be good for the
rest of the world.


A better solution would have been fifty years ago when we had a chance
to change the face of Islam by introducing modern education and
development into Iran. We could have, over a generation or two,
developed an understanding of Islamic philosophy by shepherd boys that
would have been modernistic as well as in tune with many of the more
abstract Islamic thinkers of the 8th, 9th, 10th etc. Centuries. Islam
had a level of enlightenment in it that far exceeded that of
Christianity. It still does but its fundamentalist practitioners are
so concrete in their approach that they find their exact equivalents
in Chrsitianity. Read some of those Rapture books by LaHaye (is it?).
They are as bllodthirsty as ever the most fundamentalist Mullah ever
was.

They certainly are. You frequently see Christian Evangelicals sending
their children off as suicide bombers. Just last week I attended a
Fundamentalist service where Jews and Muslims were being beheaded on
video tape. Let's never forget that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell fund
hijackings and murder of handicapped people. Oh, and did I mention how
the Southern Baptists are teaching their people to fly jets into
buildings so they can kill a few Catholics?

Yeah, you're right - Islam is the highly enlightened culture. The rest of
us Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists et al are the barbarians.




Snip to end... your rightwing misconceptions and justifications are
boring.

It may interest you to know that I am by no means right wing. I have
considerable opposition to most of the Right agenda. Over the years I
have supported and voted for people in all corners of politics: Left, Right,
Independent and Libertarian. However, as of the past several years, I will
no longer EVER support any Left candidate so long as I live. Why? The
Right may be wrong about lots of things (Compassionate Conservatism,
Gay Marriage, The War On Drugs, ...) but they're just, well, wrong. The
Left is _stupid_ and therefore very dangerous. The Left would have us
lay down and die while we try to "understand" the terrorist point of view.
The Left is full of genius analysis like the one above:

"They are as bllodthirsty as ever the most fundamentalist
Mullah ever was."

The Left cannot make any kind of nuanced distinctions between actions based
upon the intent of the actor. The Left is morally corrupt and no longer deserves
to exist in its present form. The Left that used to defend Free Speech now
inhibits it on university campuses. The Left that used to challenge the power
of government now exploits it for its own political ends. The Left that used
to believe in freedom and opportunity for all citizens now wants everyone
to be enslaved by government.

I am a Libertarian. I rarely vote for anyone else anymore. I had (and have)
real reservations about our presence in Iraq. But given the behavior of the
enemy, I think President Bush has done all that can be done. I further think
that had he NOT gone to Iraq, the slightest shred of evidence of SH colluding
with Al Queda, no matter how indirect, would have been used as political
fodder by the Left to try and discredit him. The Left doesn't care about
the health of our Union, after all, they care about raw, rancid power.

In short, I have forever abandoned the Left because of the kind of thinking
you've demonstrated here ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

George wrote:

On 14 May 2004 10:17:15 -0700, (Agkistrodon) wrote:


That is because of the Israeli connection AND because of our history
of repression of Islamic fundamentalism through our stooges such as


I really do not like to participate in this thread, but many seems to forget or
ignore the endless killing, target killing, humiliation and YEARS suffering of
Palestinian in the West banks and Gaza Strip.


Let's also not forget that for many of those years, the Palestinians lived
under ... uh, let's see now ... oh yeah ... MUSLIM (Jordanian) rule. Let's
not forget that they have more civil liberties under Israel than they did
under Jordan. Let's not forget that, when people attempted to leave the
Palestinian camps when resettlement was offered, they were murdered by
*their own* "army". (The PA needs these people to suffer or their cause
disappears.) Let's not forget the hundreds of millions of dollars that
were sent to the PA for the people disappeared into Arafat and his cronies'
personal bank accounts. Let's not forget that these
Poor Oppressed Palestinians (tm) are so civilized that they encourage
their own children to self-destruct by means of explosives.


Are Palestinians also human like us, has father, mother, son or daughter too?

This is an irrelevant, stupid, and pernicious argument. Every living human
fits into that category. Pol Pot and Stalin had a mothers, so did Mother Theresa.
Does this make them all equally valuable? Should this mean that no force
should be brought to bear on despots like Pol Pot and Stalin? "Humanness"
is not the sole critera by which we judge how others should be treated. A much
bigger factor is _their actions_.

Should they be treated like animals? While the "settlers" continue to expand

People should be treated in accordance with their actions. I used to have
some compassion for the Palestinians. So long as their beef was with the
Israeli government and its army, it was a legitimate thing. The moment they
started using their own children as suicide weapons, they ceased being worthy
of any compassion or quarter given. At this point, I couldn't care less
what Israel does to them. If the Palestinians want their cause to be aired
fairly, they have to back down from their evil tribal barbarism and at the
very least take the lives of their own people seriously. Then they need to
confront their enemy as an army, not as a bunch of slithering cowards hiding
behind civilian clothing and living among non-combatants. If that becomes the
case (it won't), then I'm all for the West staying out of the discussion
entirely.

"settlements" while "talk" going on. We could go in there and end their misery
once and for all or let the Israelis and Palestinians destroy themselves without
getting us in endless troubles?

I vote for the latter. Let's get out, take our hands off the area entirely,
buck up to $8 a gallon gas (or whatever it would be) and sell tickets to the
show. My prediction: The entire Arab penninsula would be speaking Hebrew in
under a generation.


Should we not stop and rethink what we did that make them hate us so much that
life aren't worth living?

Any group of people that purposefuly destroys its own youth is not worthy of
survival.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Anonymoose Ihatespam wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote in
: :

: Mark & Juanita wrote:
::
:
:: There is a world of difference between an accident of war
:
:
: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%
: of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?

: And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?


It's in the Taguba report. Heard of that? Bothered to read it?


-- Andy Barss

"Agki Strodon"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

"Agkistrodon"


But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by
new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
"terrorists".

Bull.

You really don't know much about the Middle East, do you?


I know enough to call the above statement bull.


The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups


How did we miss the Irish Republican Army?


They haven't been very active in a while but would be targeted
if they were. The war on terrorism is global, not a US war.


Why aren't we fighting South
Mollucan terrorists?


"We" can't do it all today.


The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax.


I'm still hoping yopu'll make a substantive comment.


It's a war on
anybody who doesn't appreciate and support "American interests." Read
"power interests".



yawn.


and it's likely most
terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists.



They religious rebels. They had no power under Hussein. Hell, Hussein
executed several of his family so the fighting with his group has nothing to
do with Hussein's terrorists. In fact, who is the American pointman in
Falujah? One of Saddam's ex-generals!


Your point was...?


We are witnessing the fragmentation of Iraq along religious alignments.
Al-Sadr is a Shi'ite and he's structuring a post-American Iraq that will
either be broken up due to in-fighting between sects and clans (Kurds,
Sunnis, Shi'ites) or controlled by another tough guy Husseinoid.


I nominate John Kerry after his unsucessful whitehouse run.
He's a man for everyone, at least once.



But when they're shooting
at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call
them.


It certainly does.


Tell that to they guy that has his legs blown off or the family
of the deceased.


We must not confuse the situation we have created with
the one that went before. The Mehdi Army is not Saddam's army. We are
fighting new terrorists that we have created


We created them?


from people who were not
terrorists before we invaded and destroyed the poilitical integrity of Iraq.


LOL !!!!! Political integrity !!! Thanks for that one !


Do you know what the word "integrity" means?

Agkistrodon


Do you? It's nice we have a middle east expert here!!!!

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Anonymoose Ihatespam wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote in
: :

: Mark & Juanita wrote:
::
:
:: There is a world of difference between an accident of war
:
:
: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%
: of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?

: And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?


It's in the Taguba report. Heard of that? Bothered to read it?


-- Andy Barss

Hey, Andy, have you read every piece of paper that's been written on the
subject of Iraq? When you have, you can chide someone for not having read
the Taguba report. All the relevant section states is that approx. 60% of
the detainees who were being held for "Crimes Against the Coalition" are
deemed to no longer pose a threat. The number you really want is the number
of Iraqis being "tortured" who are part of this group. And then you're
going to have to back out the number of photos that don't represent actual
torture. Sorry...in my book, pointing at a guys wang doesn't constitute
torture.

todd

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news
Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
standard to meet when dealing with such people.

2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
allies) harm.


This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:

SNIP

Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
of war).
--


We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it on
them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we would
have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another year.

Agkistrodon

They religious rebels. They had no power under Hussein. Hell, Hussein
executed several of his family so the fighting with his group has
nothing to
do with Hussein's terrorists. In fact, who is the American pointman in
Falujah? One of Saddam's ex-generals!


Your point was...?

You don't get it?? Wow!


We are witnessing the fragmentation of Iraq along religious alignments.
Al-Sadr is a Shi'ite and he's structuring a post-American Iraq that will
either be broken up due to in-fighting between sects and clans (Kurds,
Sunnis, Shi'ites) or controlled by another tough guy Husseinoid.


I nominate John Kerry after his unsucessful whitehouse run.
He's a man for everyone, at least once.

Typical evasive rightwing failure to respond to the issue.



But when they're shooting
at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you
call
them.


It certainly does.


Tell that to they guy that has his legs blown off or the family
of the deceased.

That could be said of anyone on any side in any "war."


We must not confuse the situation we have created with
the one that went before. The Mehdi Army is not Saddam's army. We are
fighting new terrorists that we have created


We created them?


Yes... prior to our invasion, al-Sadr was just another kook fundie. The
removal of Saddam's repression enabled the present situation. We are
fighting people who want either dominance of all Iraq or a separate nation.
Why didn't someone predict this?

from people who were not
terrorists before we invaded and destroyed the poilitical integrity of
Iraq.


LOL !!!!! Political integrity !!! Thanks for that one !



Do you know what the word "integrity" means?

Agkistrodon


Do you? It's nice we have a middle east expert here!!!!



You see, you don't know! Integrity, in this sense, means unity. Iraq was
one whole but now it is fractionated by groups seeking power. "Integrity"
is related to the word "integer" which means... well, you tell us. Can you?
Don't look it up. Just answer from your "knowledge."

Agkistrodon

In article . net, "Agki Strodon" wrote:

We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it on
them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we would
have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another year.

This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for that,
please?

BTW, a fascinating history of the German effort to develop an atomic bomb is
given in the book "Heisenberg's War". Although Werner Heisenberg was a deeply
patriotic German, he was *not* a Nazi, and was uncomfortable with the idea of
putting such a weapon in Hitler's hands. There's considerable evidence that he
deliberately sandbagged the German atomic weapons program.

Also, FWIW, the planned target for the first American atomic weapon was not
Hiroshima, or indeed anywhere in Japan. It was Berlin. But the Nazis
surrendered before the bomb was ready.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:55:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for that,
please?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Todd Fatheree wrote:

: Hey, Andy, have you read every piece of paper that's been written on the
: subject of Iraq?


No, have you?


But I have read a lot, including the Taguba report. Which is the most
relevant "piece of paper" to the issue at hand. It's not some obscure
little document. It's the official military investigation into
allegations of abuse, and it was commissioned by the ranking military
officer in Iraq.

: When you have, you can chide someone for not having read
: the Taguba report.

Anyone who comments on this issue should have already read the
report.

All the relevant section states is that approx. 60% of
: the detainees who were being held for "Crimes Against the Coalition" are
: deemed to no longer pose a threat.

So, either they were terrorists and have had a verified
change o' heart, or else they weren't threats to
society to begin with. Which was my point.

: Sorry...in my book, pointing at a guys wang doesn't constitute
: torture.

How about being sodomized with a chemical light? Beaten?

Look, it's pretty clear. Some of the detainees at the prison were
mistreated, in violation fo the Geneva Convention. This has been known
since December, with preceding reports suggesting this was so going back
to September. This much is uncontroversial.

Where the debating gets pointful is in respect to two questions:

a) Did this form of treatment originate with the
rank and file soldiers, or higher up the chain of command?

b) Did the personnel higher up the chain of command (up to and including
Rumsfeld and Bush) know about this, and are they responsible for some of
the blame? Did they ignore the Taguba report, and related reports from
the Red Cross?

-- Andy Barss

You apparently confuse a "beheading" which is traditionaly quick
with a slow sawing off beheading with a knife. I couldn't compare
the two until I had the facts. You don't have them either but that
doesn't seem to matter.

I'm not confusing anything. I don't see how murder by torture can be
considered in any way morally superior to murder by beheading. And I'm not
referring solely to the one news item I posted, but in general to all the
beating deaths of Iraqis over the last year while in US or British custody.

An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%
of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?

And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?

The number is actually quite a bit higher. From the Red Cross report on
Iraqi prisoner abuse:

"Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their
estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty had
been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests
to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."

To date, I know of no American soldier brought up on murder charges. To
date, I've not heard Congress grill Rumsfled on anything other than the
naked pics.

I won't do your homework for you. You made the claims, now back them
up.

And stop equating a brutal beheading with prisoner abuse.

Ok, I'll do your homework for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/W..._040507-1.html

And this is just the beginning.

On 14 May 2004 10:17:15 -0700, (Agkistrodon)
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in message ...
xrongor wrote:

SNIP

its actually very simple. what bothers me is that some people actually do
.... big snip

A better solution would have been fifty years ago when we had a chance
to change the face of Islam by introducing modern education and
development into Iran. We could have, over a generation or two,
developed an understanding of Islamic philosophy by shepherd boys that
would have been modernistic as well as in tune with many of the more
abstract Islamic thinkers of the 8th, 9th, 10th etc. Centuries. Islam
had a level of enlightenment in it that far exceeded that of
Christianity.

Oh yeah, it had such a level of enlightenment that the only surviving
Christians or Jews in the Islamic countries were either second-class
citizens or slaves. It was so enlightened that the once-Christian Egypt
had its library in Alexandria burned and any Jews or Christians killed or
converted. Very enlightened indeed.


It still does but its fundamentalist practitioners are
so concrete in their approach that they find their exact equivalents
in Chrsitianity.

With the exception of the Inquisition, which many would argue strayed so
far from Orthodox Christianity as to make associating those actions with
Christianity unreasonable, Christianity has never advocated the use of
force for conversion.

Read some of those Rapture books by LaHaye (is it?).
They are as bllodthirsty as ever the most fundamentalist Mullah ever
was.


Haven't read any of the books as they are not actually orthodox doctrine
regarding the end times. However, I seriously doubt that these books
advocate the sending out of believing children with explosives strapped to
themselves to blow up infidels.


Snip to end... your rightwing misconceptions and justifications are
boring.

Agkistrodon

Greetings and Salutations.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:44:47 -0700,
wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:47:48 GMT, Tom Veatch
wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:29:31 -0700, wrote:


I think there's some back story we're not getting. for instance, what
the hell was he doing there?


According to the news reports I've read - for whatever they might be worth - he owns a small company and was hustling business for
that company - "looking for work".

any idea what that "work" was? there's too much doublespeak going
around for me to not be suspicious. it's like the use of "private
contractor" for mercenary. those guys ARE legitimate targets in
wartime, and considering that they commit the most obscene of the
atrocities, they will (and should) be prime targets.

I wondered this myself. According to several sources,
he was in the business of repairing communications towers,
and, apparently felt that Iraq was likely to have a lot of
opportunities for work.







According to those same reports:

1. He had been detained by the Iraqi police/US Military, who apparently were not satisfied with that explanation of his
presence.
I suspect that ANYONE foreign (and especially Westerners) who
are there and not attached to either a military or military contracted
operation are going to be suspect.

2. He was released by the US Military only after (his parents?) brought suit in Federal Court.

And according to some recent reports, he checked out as a
legitimate businessman on a valid mission.

3. Almost immediately (a couple of days?) after his release he dropped from view and reappeared in this video.

Frankly, when I heard, earlier in the week, that the military
had supposedly picked him up for suspicion of drug trafficking, my
first thought that was they decided, when they could not prove
anything, to go ahead and dump him out in the courtyard of either
one of the drug lords, or, one of the various fanatically anti-
drug factions...

I'd guess that whatever it was, it wasn't particularly aboveboard, nor
was it in the iraqi people's best interest....

Hard to say. Apparently he had a great sense of sympathy
for the Iraqi situation, and was actually trying to help them rebuild
their infrastructure.
While one never knows, there is no hard evidence so far that
he was anything other than what he said he was...a bright, technically
competent fellow who had a great taste for adventure, and, perhaps a
bit more idealism than was good for him.
It does not seem that this should, in any way, lessen the
condemnation of the fanatics who killed him, and their actions.
They have not helped their case in MOST of the world, although I
suspect that in several areas it is playing well.





My suggestion for anyone is to stay the Hell out of a combat zone if you don't absolutely have to be there.


absolutely.


I agree. It is just not wise to go into an area that is still
actively hostile, unless one has a fairly large gun, lots of ammo,
body armor, and, several buddies to watch one's back.
Dave Mundt

Andrew Barss wrote:
: Mark & Juanita wrote:
: :

: : There is a world of difference between an accident of war


: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
: whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?


And mark and juanita again fail to reply to the thread. They introduce
controversy, then run away from it. Again and again.


-- Andy Barss

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:55:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for
that,
please?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/



Regards,
Tom.

Thank you, Tom, for looking that up.

Agkistrodon

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article . net, "Agki
Strodon" wrote:

We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it
on
them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we
would
have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another
year.

This is the first I ever heard that the Japanese had any nuclear weapons
program at all during WWII. Can you cite an authoritative source for that,
please?

BTW, a fascinating history of the German effort to develop an atomic bomb
is
given in the book "Heisenberg's War". Although Werner Heisenberg was a
deeply
patriotic German, he was *not* a Nazi, and was uncomfortable with the idea
of
putting such a weapon in Hitler's hands. There's considerable evidence
that he
deliberately sandbagged the German atomic weapons program.

Did the book say he was an anti-Semite? I've heard conflicting stories on
that and never got it clear. Apparently there were some references to him
by physicists that I heard back in my undergrad days in which he is
purported to have referred to nuclear reactions in bomb making as "Jewish
physics."

Then again, I am uncertain (;-)]




Also, FWIW, the planned target for the first American atomic weapon was
not
Hiroshima, or indeed anywhere in Japan. It was Berlin. But the Nazis
surrendered before the bomb was ready.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)


Yeah, the Russkies took care of Berlin.

But who is going to be our next bogeyman?

Agkistrodon

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 12 May 2004 21:54:20 GMT, Allen Zucher
wrote:
AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS CAUGHT ON VIDEO
The video can be found and downloaded he

(snip)

20 bucks says it's a .scr, an .exe, or another virus-transmitting format.


Not bad! What better idea would there be to get Americans to download
viruses than to give them something they absolutely HAVE to see?

Agkistrodon

On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:01:35 GMT, Agki Strodon wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

20 bucks says it's a .scr, an .exe, or another virus-transmitting format.

Not bad! What better idea would there be to get Americans to download
viruses than to give them something they absolutely HAVE to see?

Bah. It's a Windows thing, not an "American" thing. My computers
would be remarkably unimpressed by any such thing. Oddly enough, I've
got no feelings of "HAVE to see" about the video either. Maybe you're
wrong on, oh, all counts?

Are you here for woodworking, by the way? I don't recall seeing your
name in any on-topic posts.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Andrew Barss wrote:
: Mark & Juanita wrote:
: :

: : There is a world of difference between an accident of war


: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
: whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?


And mark and juanita again fail to reply to the thread. They introduce
controversy, then run away from it. Again and again.


-- Andy Barss


No Andy, just a reasonable decision regarding the use of my time. Some
comments are simply not worth responding to. In the case cited above, I had
responded to a very similar comment within the thread and didn't feel it
worth pointing out that if one considers having someone stand naked with a
hood or pair of women's panties on their head to be torture, then a new
name must be found for a description of the various acts of barbarism
perpetrated upon prisoners that resulted in mutilation and death. As to
the perpetratrators of the "torture" pictures, the military is already
pursuing action against them. In those cases where excessive force was
used, that too is being investigated and the perpetrators will likely be
prosecuted as well (as opposed to promoted under the former Iraqi regime)

You further took the quote above out of context in which the word
"accident" had absolutely no connection in the conversation at hand to the
detainee question. The extension from a discussion comparing deliberate
barbarism with accidental collateral damage in a wartime action to
mistreatment of detainees was simply not worth the effort of reply.

In article . net, "Agki Strodon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
BTW, a fascinating history of the German effort to develop an atomic bomb is
given in the book "Heisenberg's War". Although Werner Heisenberg was a
deeply patriotic German, he was *not* a Nazi, and was uncomfortable with the idea
of putting such a weapon in Hitler's hands. There's considerable evidence that he
deliberately sandbagged the German atomic weapons program.

Did the book say he was an anti-Semite? I've heard conflicting stories on
that and never got it clear. Apparently there were some references to him
by physicists that I heard back in my undergrad days in which he is
purported to have referred to nuclear reactions in bomb making as "Jewish
physics."

Quite the opposite, in fact. The book notes that Heisenberg's career suffered,
early on [1], because he refused to disavow the [scientifically correct]
"Jewish physics" taught by Einstein and Bohr, among others. That slur came
from Hitler, not from Heisenberg; as I said, Heisenberg was a patriotic
German, but not a Nazi. The book quotes him as expressing in a letter his
regret that "science can be poisoned by political passions."

[1] This was salvaged through the oldest of methods: family connections.
Heisenberg's maternal grandfather and Heinrich Himmler's father had been high
school classmates and close friends.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Andrew Barss wrote in news:c83g4p$eho$1
@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

Anonymoose Ihatespam wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote in
: :

: Mark & Juanita wrote:
::
:
:: There is a world of difference between an accident of war
:
:
: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%
: of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?

: And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?


It's in the Taguba report. Heard of that? Bothered to read it?

Yes and No. But, as Todd points out to you, "detained for the wrong
reasons" and "deemed to no longer pose a threat" are two different things.
Which is worse, my skepticism as to the validity and source of that 60%
figure, or your misuse of it?

Tim for President!

What I meant was that the publicity about the video was going to suck a lot
of Americans into downloading it... maybe because we're Americans.

Are you here for woodworking, by the way? I don't recall seeing your
name in any on-topic posts.


Yes... I'm an amateur and have been making sawdust for about three years now
and preparing for retirement after 30 years with the US gov as an
"Environmental Scientist." I am sick and tired of many of the things I used
to like to do... stuff like working through all the problems in a calculus
book for the fun of it or following the dinosaur to bird controversy
(evolutionary biology was my real field) .. but now I find that I just don't
care about that any more.

I have posted a number of questions and answers vis-a-vis the real subject
of this group. Sometimes people get going on things that get their danders
up - like this crap about Iraq, terrorism, and killing each other. It ain't
about that. It's about what kind of blade makes the best cut in ebony or
what is the right speed to push pine through a 3 hp table saw set up with a
10" combo blade.

Agkistrodon

On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:51:38 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


"Agkistrodon"


But we declared war on Saddam and not the rest of the terrorist
groups. The present fighting is not being waged by Saddamites but by
new groups that should probably be called "rebels" rather than
"terrorists".

Bull. The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups and it's likely most
terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists. But when they're shooting
at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call them.



nope. it's a war on uppity arabs with oil.

On 14 May 2004 16:40:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
standard to meet when dealing with such people.

2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
allies) harm.


This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:

SNIP

Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
of war).



umm.... how many american ships did germany sink prior to that point?

On 14 May 2004 18:00:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

You don't negotiate with evil, you kill it where you find it.


exactly OBL's philosophy.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 13:30:44 -0500, Anonymoose Ihatespam wrote:

Tim for President!

He's got my vote, but I don't think he's stupid enough to want the job

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Sat, 15 May 2004 13:28:24 -0700, wrote:

On 14 May 2004 18:00:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

You don't negotiate with evil, you kill it where you find it.


exactly OBL's philosophy.



You are exactly right. Which brings us to the question. Who defines "evil", what is that definition, and if I don't like your
definition, what do I do about it. And I've kinda got a feeling that therein, or somewhere close by, is the root of the current
conflict. (Which conflict? Take your pick.)

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Anonymoose wrote:
Tim for President!

lol - sorry I wasn't born a US citizen. Unless they change the
law, I can't be President. If they do change the law, then its
me against Aaaaaanold )


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:

On 14 May 2004 16:40:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
standard to meet when dealing with such people.

2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
allies) harm.


This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:

SNIP

Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
of war).




umm.... how many american ships did germany sink prior to that point?

I don't recall - there were some, but we were supplying their enemy with
war materiale' at the time iirc.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:

On 14 May 2004 18:00:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


You don't negotiate with evil, you kill it where you find it.



exactly OBL's philosophy.

Another bit of genius analysis and oversimplification...





No, UBL's philosophy is to kill anyone that _disagrees_ with you. Mine
is to kill the terrorist who do violence against you (or credibly threaten
to do so). I am more than happy to coexist on the planet with any form
of Islam, including radical Islam, so long as they do not use force and
threat to shove their views down everyone else's throat in the attempt
to create a global Islam state. If UBL had gotten up and denounced the
West loudly and done nothing else, there would be no issue.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Anonymoose wrote:

Tim for President!


lol - sorry I wasn't born a US citizen. Unless they change the
law, I can't be President. If they do change the law, then its
me against Aaaaaanold )



Oh, and BTW, I am completely OPPOSED to changing this law. It's there
for a good reason. Naturalized citizens ought not to be eligible
for the highest political office in the land... Then again, a good
many of the US-born citizens who have (and are currently) running
for office have no business there either, but that's a story for
another day ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 15 May 2004 17:00:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Oh, and BTW, I am completely OPPOSED to changing this law. It's there
for a good reason. Naturalized citizens ought not to be eligible
for the highest political office in the land... Then again, a good
many of the US-born citizens who have (and are currently) running
for office have no business there either, but that's a story for
another day ...

Weren't Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. born other than as US
citizens?

I think that Van Buren was the first one born after the Revolution.

Maybe that provision was written into the Constitution at a later
date.

It's sorta funny, though.



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On 15 May 2004 17:00:07 EDT, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Oh, and BTW, I am completely OPPOSED to changing this law. It's there
for a good reason. Naturalized citizens ought not to be eligible
for the highest political office in the land... Then again, a good
many of the US-born citizens who have (and are currently) running
for office have no business there either, but that's a story for
another day ...

Weren't Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. born other than as US
citizens?

Yes, but the Constitution provided for that. (see below)

I think that Van Buren was the first one born after the Revolution.

Correct. John Tyler was the first one born after the adoption of the
Constitution.

Maybe that provision was written into the Constitution at a later
date.

Nope, it wasn't changed. It reads:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States." [U.S. Constitution, Article II,
Section 1, clause 5]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.