AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS CAUGHT ON VIDEO

It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

The video can be found and downloaded he

http://www.ogrish.com

Allen Zucher posits:

It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

All it took was one reason, either would have done, but for you to post it in a
woodworking group presents you as an asshole, particularly since this news has
been available for almost 48 hours now.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce

On 12 May 2004 22:36:35 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Allen Zucher posits:

It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

All it took was one reason, either would have done, but for you to post it in a
woodworking group presents you as an asshole, particularly since this news has
been available for almost 48 hours now.
Charlie Self

Geez, Charlie, you said "asshole." You know who has a hair trigger
that that sets off.

Although I agree with you 100%.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

"mp" wrote in message
...
It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that
he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting
this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

I'll vote for the intentional murder of an innocent person as most evil.

todd

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:38:41 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"mp" wrote in message
...
It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that
he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting
this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

I'll vote for the intentional murder of an innocent person as most evil.

todd




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

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".

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.
2. He was released by the US Military only after (his parents?) brought suit in Federal Court.
3. Almost immediately (a couple of days?) after his release he dropped from view and reappeared in this video.

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

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

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.






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.
2. He was released by the US Military only after (his parents?) brought suit in Federal Court.
3. Almost immediately (a couple of days?) after his release he dropped from view and reappeared in this video.

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





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


absolutely.




Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

In article , "mp"
wrote:

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

How does it matter which is more evil?

are you kidding? In an election year, it matters.

dave

Paul Kierstead wrote:

In article , "mp"
wrote:


Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?


How does it matter which is more evil?

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or
a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

How does it matter which is more evil?

That's my point. Killing innocent people is evil regardless of whether
they're American, Iraqi, or Jewish.

IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.


Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?

In article , "mp" wrote:
IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?


Even if those numbers are correct -- which I doubt -- it's still an order of
magnitude less than what Saddam was doing. Any rational individual would have
to consider that an improvement.

--
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.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message .com...
In article , "mp" wrote:
IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?


Even if those numbers are correct -- which I doubt -- it's still an order of
magnitude less than what Saddam was doing. Any rational individual would have
to consider that an improvement.


mp has apparently made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net .
Their count is 10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources including attacks by Iraqui
insurgents/terrorists, those hit by errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time
period, civilians running checkpoints, etc.


--
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.

"mp" wrote in message ...
IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?


mp,

You made this up. No surprise. The worst case numbers I found came from a website http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Their count is
10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources including attacks by Iraqui insurgents/terrorists, those hit by
errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above the "normal" for a time period, civilians running
checkpoints, etc.

There has been no systematic slaughter of civilians. All were indirect casualties of war. Unlike the attrocities committed by John
Kerry in Vietnam where he admits to taking part and knowing it was wrong.

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

The worst case numbers I found came from a website
http://www.iraqbodycount.net . Their count is
10994 and seems to include civilian deaths from any and all sources
including attacks by Iraqui insurgents/terrorists, those hit by
errant missles/gunfire by Iraqui army, any source that puts deaths above
the "normal" for a time period, civilians running
checkpoints, etc.

That is not the worst case number, but in fact the opposite. That website
lists all the deaths that they've been able to verify through official
sources. The actual number could easily be much higher.

There has been no systematic slaughter of civilians.

Thousands of dead Iraqis would disagree with you.

All were indirect casualties of war.

Really. Have you gone through the list and verified each death yourself?

Unlike the attrocities committed by John
Kerry in Vietnam where he admits to taking part and knowing it was wrong.

What's your point? Am I supposed to jump in here and defend Kerry? Good
luck.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:08:34 -0700, "mp" wrote:


Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?



Speaking of evil, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that were killed in the years prior to last year.
Where does that slaughter rate on the evil scale. And that does have everything to do with Iraq.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate
anywhere
on your evil scale?



Speaking of evil, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians that were killed in the years prior to last year.
Where does that slaughter rate on the evil scale. And that does have
everything to do with Iraq.

First off, you're quoting me out of context. The comment "didn't have
anything to do with Iraq" was in reference to 9/11. This a pathetically lame
attempt at a cheap shot.


Speaking of evil, what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians that were killed in the years prior to last year.
Where does that slaughter rate on the evil scale. And that does have
everything to do with Iraq.

I think the number is much higher than hundreds of thousands. No one knows
for sure, but I've seen reports of about 1,500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as
a result of the sanctions. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy and killed a lot of
people, but not on this scale.

How naive


"mp" wrote in message ...
IMHO, I think that hijacking 4 airliners full of people and ramming them
into buildings, while killing thousands as a result, definitely goes to
the top of the evil list............ Mark L.

Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq.

Speaking of evil, what about the 20,000 - 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
that have been killed in the last year? Does their slaughter rate anywhere
on your evil scale?

"mp" wrote in message
...

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

Hey mp, good to hear from you. I'm surprised any of you left tilters
(tablesaw refrence) would pipe in on this subject. Would you care to now
back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with al-Qaida and the war on terror? Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military to
find. What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was unjustified
because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

It is so gratifying to be right. You should try it sometime, mp.

Frank

"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
link.net...

"mp" wrote in message
...

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or
a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?

Hey mp, good to hear from you. I'm surprised any of you left tilters
(tablesaw refrence) would pipe in on this subject. Would you care to now
back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with al-Qaida and the war on terror? Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military
to
find. What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was
unjustified
because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

It is so gratifying to be right. You should try it sometime, mp.

so if we want to bomb france or britain or china, all we need to do is find
some al-qaida members in their country? finding them in a country = must be
associated with the government? sorry frank. nobody's buying this.

people like frank arent going to answer the 'which is more evil' question
because their 'truth' is too shameful for them to just come out and say it.
but here it is laid bare. this is what frank and the others are saying in a
nutshell: the US is allowed to kill foreign as many foreign civilians as we
want, in the hopes that we may get a few al-qaida because the life of a us
citizen is worth that much more than other people in the world.

where might the world be today if instead of those nice sterile shots of the
missile cams shown through the 90's, we saw the ones where people were
running, then exploding? what if the international media showed that in a
form as raw as the video of the beheading? how many americans really have
the stomach for that sort of thing?

the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
america truly hasnt figured this out yet.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...


so if we want to bomb france or britain or china, all we need to do is
find
some al-qaida members in their country? finding them in a country = must
be
associated with the government? sorry frank. nobody's buying this.


We would bomb ourselves then. No, this is clearly not the case and you have
to try hard to paint what's going on in this light. Iraq has harbored
terrorists for many years no matter how badly you would like to ignore it.


people like frank arent going to answer the 'which is more evil' question
because their 'truth' is too shameful for them to just come out and say
it.
but here it is laid bare. this is what frank and the others are saying in
a
nutshell: the US is allowed to kill foreign as many foreign civilians as
we
want, in the hopes that we may get a few al-qaida because the life of a us
citizen is worth that much more than other people in the world.


I don't usually answer questions which have such an incredibly shaky
premise. But just for you randy...

I think beheading a civilian is the most evil. First of all, I am unaware
of any beating to death instances of prisoners. I guess we will see since
not all of the info has been made public yet. But who are these prisoners?
Oh, I know, they are all falsly imprisoned, right? Only a mental midget to
try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone but terrorists and murderers
with American blood on their hands. I would suggest that dropping a bomb on
a crowded marketplace is a terrible thing. So I suppose we did this at some
point to kill innocent civilians according to you?

Randy, seriously for one second just think about this. Who is to blame when
civilians are hurt/maimed/killed in this case? The US who has given a
year's worth of warnings that we will make no distinction between terrorists
and those who harbor them or the terrorists who hide behind civilians, hide
in mosques, strap bombs to kids, etc? The truth is that civilian life means
exactly nill to those people. Your life means even less.


where might the world be today if instead of those nice sterile shots of
the
missile cams shown through the 90's, we saw the ones where people were
running, then exploding? what if the international media showed that in a
form as raw as the video of the beheading? how many americans really have
the stomach for that sort of thing?

I agree with you 100%. I also am of the opinion that there is no way we
could WWII today with the media that we have. I have not come to the
conclusion, however, that we shouldn't have been in WWII.


Frank

"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
link.net...

"xrongor" wrote in message
...


so if we want to bomb france or britain or china, all we need to do is
find
some al-qaida members in their country? finding them in a country =
must
be
associated with the government? sorry frank. nobody's buying this.


We would bomb ourselves then. No, this is clearly not the case and you
have
to try hard to paint what's going on in this light. Iraq has harbored
terrorists for many years no matter how badly you would like to ignore it.

lets say you are right. im not conceding this point except for the purpose
of this discussion. lets say iraq has harbored terrorists. does that mean
its ok to kill some civilians over there? the ones we're trying to
'liberate'? the ones who, by definition, arent part of the terrorists or
the iraq we are trying to destroy?



people like frank arent going to answer the 'which is more evil'
question
because their 'truth' is too shameful for them to just come out and say
it.
but here it is laid bare. this is what frank and the others are saying
in
a
nutshell: the US is allowed to kill foreign as many foreign civilians
as
we
want, in the hopes that we may get a few al-qaida because the life of a
us
citizen is worth that much more than other people in the world.


I don't usually answer questions which have such an incredibly shaky
premise. But just for you randy...

I think beheading a civilian is the most evil. First of all, I am unaware
of any beating to death instances of prisoners. I guess we will see since
not all of the info has been made public yet. But who are these
prisoners?
Oh, I know, they are all falsly imprisoned, right? Only a mental midget
to
try and suggest that these prisoners are anyone but terrorists and
murderers
with American blood on their hands.

im not sure where this is going. im not comparing what the us soldier did
to the prisoners to anything. thats another issue.

I would suggest that dropping a bomb on
a crowded marketplace is a terrible thing. So I suppose we did this at
some
point to kill innocent civilians according to you?

if you're suggesting we havent 'accidentally' bombed innocent civilians in
iraq repeatedly over the last decade, this discussion is over.


Randy, seriously for one second just think about this. Who is to blame
when
civilians are hurt/maimed/killed in this case? The US who has given a
year's worth of warnings that we will make no distinction between
terrorists
and those who harbor them or the terrorists who hide behind civilians,
hide
in mosques, strap bombs to kids, etc? The truth is that civilian life
means
exactly nill to those people. Your life means even less.

man you bought the whole package didnt ya. if a terrorist was hiding behind
an american we would try and rescue them. if a terrorist is hiding behind
an iraqi citizen, one of those citizens we're 'saving' from the saddam
regime, well, sorry, thats just too bad for them isnt it. and if they get
mad and do something about it, oh now they're a terrorist too.

if we apply the same standards to the 'terrorists', they attacked an
economic target (the wtc) and a few civilians accidentally got killed.
whats the diffence? how can we take the moral high ground when we're doing
the exact same thing?



where might the world be today if instead of those nice sterile shots of
the
missile cams shown through the 90's, we saw the ones where people were
running, then exploding? what if the international media showed that in
a
form as raw as the video of the beheading? how many americans really
have
the stomach for that sort of thing?

I agree with you 100%. I also am of the opinion that there is no way we
could WWII today with the media that we have. I have not come to the
conclusion, however, that we shouldn't have been in WWII.

if you are comparing wwii to the iraqi situation in terms of 'should we be
there', i think you dont have much to work with.

but to bring it full circle, the simple truth is that in the mind of many
americans, the beheading of that one person will serve to justify the acts
of the us no matter how wrong we are. no matter how lopsided the numbers of
casualties are. in short, its just the propaganda the us needed.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message ...


so if we want to bomb france or britain or china, all we need to do is find
some al-qaida members in their country? finding them in a country = must be
associated with the government? sorry frank. nobody's buying this.

Or Buffalo

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:23:28 -0600, "xrongor" wrote:


the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
america truly hasnt figured this out yet.

randy



The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

xrongor wrote:
the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
america truly hasnt figured this out yet.

Tom Veatch wrote:
The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).

I'm with Tom on this one. Family, community, country. The value
is highest closest to home. Deal with reality, not wishes.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Tom Veatch responds:

the point is simple. one life is one life. american, iraqi, or otherwise.
america truly hasnt figured this out yet.

randy



The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook
after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around
you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the
Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere
close to him/her, for that matter).

Tom's got my vote.

Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:05:52 GMT, Tom Veatch
wrote:


The point is not quite that simple, Randy. See if you have the same outlook after you've been dumped off in a hot LZ, or trying to
crawl into your helmet with rockets/mortars/artillery exploding all around you, or have g**ks inside the perimeter, or any number of
other scenarios too numerous to detail. My take is that the life of the Marine/Soldier/etc. beside me is worth one HELL of a lot
more than the life of that SOB shooting at me (or anybody standing anywhere close to him/her, for that matter).

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

I wholeheartedly agree with your POV on this, Tom.

My problem with the situation is the same problem I had forty-some
years ago, with those that got us into Vietnam.

There was an opportunity then, on the political level, to not involve
ourselves. Then, as now, we chose otherwise.

Once the Dogs of War have been unleashed, we should not expect them to
be other than what they are - and we should not expect war to be other
than what it is.

The military does not send men to war.

Politicians send men to war.

It is the politicians who pretend that there is a difference between
Isaac and Ishmael.

I wish only that those who send us to war were forced to experience
the results of their decisions - in a very personal and immediate way.

If they would send young men to bleed ,then let them bleed along with
them.

If they would send young men to die, then let them die along with
them.

Wars would be less frequent - and the Wreck would have more peaceful
things to contemplate.




Regards,
Tom.

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

Hey mp, good to hear from you. I'm surprised any of you left tilters
(tablesaw refrence) would pipe in on this subject. Would you care to now
back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with al-Qaida and the war on terror?

Oh, come on. You can't be serious.

Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military
to
find.

Unceremoniously? What did you expect? There wasn't any ceremony either when
the army threw a nearly dead prisoner off a bridge.

What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was unjustified
because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?


It is so gratifying to be right. You should try it sometime, mp.

Nothing has changed. If anything, there's an even greater public consensus
that the justification for the invasion was all a big lie.

Any "terrorists" that are in Iraq now are only there because they're
fighting the occupation. If a foreign country invaded the US, and you fought
against the occupation, would that make you a terrorist too?

"mp" wrote in message
...


Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?


Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
year after everyone else.

So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical thing
for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If we
were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
go there? Come on, give us a break.

Frank

Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?


Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
year after everyone else.

So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical
thing
for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If
we
were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
go there? Come on, give us a break.


Neither you nor anyone else can prove that Saddam had links to Bin Laden or
his organization, though many have tried.

The lies and propaganda that the WH used to justify the invasion has been
proven to be false. All of it. No WMD's, no links to al-Queada, no threat of
mushroom clouds on American soil.

What I find amazing is that people like yourself keep believing all this
crap in the absence of any hard evidence. That's changing, as recent polls
are showing that more and more American citizens are realizing they've been
hoodwinked. Some day you too may come to that realization.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:16:18 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


"mp" wrote in message
...


Do you really think that al-Queada was in Iraq during Saddam's regime?


Yes. Keep thinking about it mp, you may finally understand it and only a
year after everyone else.

So you think that we went into Afghanistan and completely threw al-Qaida
into chaos. And then, we turn our attention to Iraq. So, the logical thing
for al-Qaida to do is to pick up and follow us to continue fighting? If we
were suddenly distracted by an area where al-Qaida was not, why would they
go there? Come on, give us a break.

Frank



Frank,

The thing you have to understand with mp and his fellow-travellers
is that it doesn't matter what the circumstances, it is *always* the fault
of the US. The US attacked on 9/11? It was our fault -- we obviously did
something to make these people hate us. A civilian who went to Iraq to
help rebuild the country's telecommunications infrastructure was beheaded?
Obviously it was Bush's fault. USA Today the other day tried to generate
moral equivalence between humiliating prisoners (for which we don't
necessarily have the full story yet) with napalming civilians, killing
suspects, and other events that resulted in the DEATHS of people.

In the paradigm with which these people view the world, the US is evil,
any and all actions undertaken by the US are evil and the only dignified
response to any attack (physical, political, or editorial) is to roll over
and wet ourselves, thanking the perpetrators for reminding us how evil we
are and have been. They conveniently ignore the (documented) unearthing of
300,000 casualties of Saddam's regime and gloss over the *real* torture of
prisoners in Saddam's prisons. They draw moral equivalence between
*humiliating* prisoners with physically sawing off hands, drilling holes in
people, and literally beating people to death.

Bottom line is there is no way you will ever convince mp that the US is
anything other than an evil empire and that these radical muslim extremists
who behead prisoners, fly airplanes into buildings, topple buildings onto
homosexuals, destroy historical artifacts, or make the statement that "any
female American soldiers may be kept as slaves" are nothing more than
misunderstood people who have become that way because of the evil
oppression by the US.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 23:05:05 -0700, "mp" wrote:

-snip-
Any "terrorists" that are in Iraq now are only there because they're
fighting the occupation. If a foreign country invaded the US, and you fought
against the occupation, would that make you a terrorist too?


It would depend entirely on the tactics used. If I targeted the civilian population, yes, I would be a terrorist. If I ambushed
military patrols, attacked military depots/installations, then I would probably be an irregular or "guerrilla" soldier. And yes, I
do consider the "strategic bombing" of WW2 carried out against population centers by both sides to be "terrorist" activities. I note
that most military historians have concluded such raids had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

In article .net,
"Frank Ketchum" wrote:

Would you care to now
back up all of your claims before that the war in Iraq has nothing to do
with al-Qaida and the war on terror? Al-Qaida kidnapped and executed Nick
Berg in Baghdad and then dumped his body unceremoniously for the military to
find. What is al-Qaida doing there, mp? I thought this war was unjustified
because terrorists are not in Iraq. I thought this wasn't part of the war
on terror, but just a power grab for oil.

So you don't cotton to the notion that they (al-Q) have had the last
year to get a foothold in the country once Hussein's strict oversight
was removed?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com
http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html

In article , "mp" wrote:
It is very sad that this has happened. On reason this happened is that he
was American. Another reason is that he was Jewish. I am only posting this
so that people can see the reality of the evil that is out there.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?


The beheading. Particularly considering that it's the only one of the three
that _actually_took_place_.

--
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.

Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?


The beheading. Particularly considering that it's the only one of the
three
that _actually_took_place_.


So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you think
they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat out
of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
getting sodomized by a glowstick.

It really doesn't matter how anyone was killed on either side. It's all
evil.

In article , "mp" wrote:
Tell me, what's more evil - a beheading, beating detainees to death, or a
dropping a 500 pound bomb onto a crowded marketplace?


The beheading. Particularly considering that it's the only one of the
three
that _actually_took_place_.


So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you think
they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat out
of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
getting sodomized by a glowstick.

You implied they were beaten to death -- which has NOT happened.

And the bomb in the marketplace was not one of ours, either. It was a
terrorist truck bomb.



--
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.

So far, 23 or 24 Iraqis are known to have died in US custody. Do you
think
they died of lonliness, or perhaps they died from getting the crap beat
out
of them, as shown in recent photos. Could be too, that they died from the
humiliation of forced homosexual sex, or perhaps internal injuries after
getting sodomized by a glowstick.

You implied they were beaten to death -- which has NOT happened.

It HAS happened, and there are plenty of news reports that suggest
otherwise, both while in US and British custody. There's also photographic
evidence to back this up.

The following is quoted from a May 7th ABC news report about several marine
reservists being charged in a beating death.

"The photographs show a 52-year-old former Baath Party official, Nadem
Sadoon Hatab, who died at the detention center last June after a three-day
period in which he was allegedly subjected to beatings and karate kicks to
the chest and left to die naked in his own feces."

In the UK the Ministry of Defence is also investigating prisoner beathing
deaths at the hands of British troops. The February Red Cross report on
Iraqi prisoner abuse also mentions Iraqi beating deaths.


And the bomb in the marketplace was not one of ours, either. It was a
terrorist truck bomb.

I wasn't referring to the truck bomb. There were multiple other bombings,
some going back to the early days of the invasion.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:43:16 -0700, "mp" wrote:

-snip-

It really doesn't matter how anyone was killed on either side. It's all
evil.



Well, you said something I agree with. It IS all evil. But left unsaid is that the universe cares not one whit about the human race
or the life of any individual member of it. If uncaring is a measure of evil, then the universe is an evil place to live.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA