George W. Bush

Mark Hickey said:

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And what are the odds that there would be ONE Democrat working for
Diebold that would be capable of finding a "feature" in the software
that was purposely installed to allow manipulating the votes? I'd
put that at somewhere very, VERY near 100% (and it's very hard for
me to believe that they wouldn't come forward with the info).

They did. In fact, the code was accidentally released so there was a
huge stink about the deception and despite being decertified and
having a lot of states avoid buying the machine, no code changes
were ever made.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml

Unfortunately for the issue, some ignorant republicans like Mark
Hickey can't read or comprehend.

You HAVE to be kidding - that is your source??? They try to spin the
fact that there is a duplicate database into a "deception" by
comparing it to a "second set of books". LOL.

I suggest you stick to your bicycle, if you can handle it of course. You
software skills are obviously non-existent.

Mabye this demonstration is simple enough for you obviously rock encrusted
mind.
http://wheresthepaper.org/

and don't forget
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/16474
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A42085-2003Aug10&notFound=true
http://www.verifiedvoting.com/

I would refer you to IEEE.ORG articles on the issue but I suspect that you
are not a member and could not get access. There are, of course, many
websitse dedicated to the issue but the obvious one is that the vote must
know that his vote is counted correctly and black boxes without even the
possibility of a manual recount not only are inadequate to properly register
votes, but are illegal under the constitution which mandates that there MUST
be a record and a means of auditing the vote (i.e. a recount ).

Unfortunately, there are too many 'useful idiots' like you willing to have a
dictator as long as he's YOUR dictator. It remains to be seen if the silent
majority, who support a move towards real democracy, will allow voter fraud
to be institutionalised by such methods.

Quoted message said:

I suppose that might make sense to someone who's never actually been
around computers. To anyone else, it's exactly what SHOULD be in the
machine.

As a software engineer I should resent that, but actually it just moves me
to pity you.

Quoted message said:

Try again.

Try not to fall off the bike into the rocks so many times. There seem to be
indications of brain damage.

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On 06 Nov 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

Quoted message said:

.On the chance you are just a common troll, I'll respond no more. I
already .contributed two too many replies that are OT. Once again,
get a friggin' .life. Troll or not. Do you ever leave your computer?
.
.RW
.

Did you say something?

Have you come up with an original comeback line anytime since the Ford
administration?

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email hidden]

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey said:

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

> And what are the odds that there would be ONE Democrat working for
> Diebold that would be capable of finding a "feature" in the software
> that was purposely installed to allow manipulating the votes? I'd
> put that at somewhere very, VERY near 100% (and it's very hard for
> me to believe that they wouldn't come forward with the info).

BTW, I should point out you never actually answered my question. Your
"source" below simply points out that there are two databases, then
makes a comparison to an accounting firm having "two sets of books".

If there was indeed a "feature" to allow manipulation of the vote,
there has to be ONE Democrat on the payroll who would come forward.

Or perhaps you can explain to us all why a system with a backup
database would be EASIER to twiddle than one without a backup
database.

I won't hold my breath - you seem more interested in name calling
(which in itself proves you don't have a point, but I thought I'd give
you a chance to redeem yourself).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They did. In fact, the code was accidentally released so there was a
huge stink about the deception and despite being decertified and
having a lot of states avoid buying the machine, no code changes
were ever made.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml

Unfortunately for the issue, some ignorant republicans like Mark
Hickey can't read or comprehend.

You HAVE to be kidding - that is your source??? They try to spin the
fact that there is a duplicate database into a "deception" by
comparing it to a "second set of books". LOL.

I suggest you stick to your bicycle, if you can handle it of course. You
software skills are obviously non-existent.

Mabye this demonstration is simple enough for you obviously rock encrusted
mind.
http://wheresthepaper.org/

and don't forget
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/16474
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A42085-2003Aug10&notFound=true
http://www.verifiedvoting.com/

I would refer you to IEEE.ORG articles on the issue but I suspect that you
are not a member and could not get access. There are, of course, many
websitse dedicated to the issue but the obvious one is that the vote must
know that his vote is counted correctly and black boxes without even the
possibility of a manual recount not only are inadequate to properly register
votes, but are illegal under the constitution which mandates that there MUST
be a record and a means of auditing the vote (i.e. a recount ).

Unfortunately, there are too many 'useful idiots' like you willing to have a
dictator as long as he's YOUR dictator. It remains to be seen if the silent
majority, who support a move towards real democracy, will allow voter fraud
to be institutionalised by such methods.

Quoted message said:

I suppose that might make sense to someone who's never actually been
around computers. To anyone else, it's exactly what SHOULD be in the
machine.

As a software engineer I should resent that, but actually it just moves me
to pity you.

Quoted message said:

Try again.

Try not to fall off the bike into the rocks so many times. There seem to be
indications of brain damage.

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the Moderator said:

"Alan LeHun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
sparky@no_spam_engineer.com says...
> I certainly do appreciate the sacrifice. Coalition soldiers have
> killed a bunch of terrorists

Have they? Who?

The people who are shooting at alien soldiers within the borders of
their country. You can hardly call /them/ terrorists.

There are thousands of dead terrorists who crossed the Iraq borders
from terror cells scattered around the mideast.

Nah. The count is only at about eleven hundred dead American terrorists
coming in from outside of Iraq from their various 'cells' or military
stations in other arab nations. Not thousands. You must be talking about

the

Quoted message said:

live American terrorists.

Interesting perspective. Do you work at the UN?

the Moderator said:

"Hans Moleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

PS, 17 more coalition soldiers have died since my first post and the US
still has not caught a single terrorist responsible for 9/11 in Iraq.

I hope you appreciate their sacrifice.

I certainly do appreciate the sacrifice. Coalition soldiers have killed a
bunch of terrorists and continue to do so as we pontificate, behind our
keyboards.

But there's still millions of terrorists left to go in Iraq alone...

This is going to take a while.

Jack Dingler

the Moderator said:

"Alan LeHun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
sparky@no_spam_engineer.com says...

Quoted message said:

I certainly do appreciate the sacrifice. Coalition soldiers have killed

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bunch of terrorists

Have they? Who?

The people who are shooting at alien soldiers within the borders of
their country. You can hardly call /them/ terrorists.

There are thousands of dead terrorists who crossed the Iraq borders from
terror cells scattered around the mideast.

This reminds me of the days when French terrorists were coming to the US
and being slaughtered by the British.

Terrorism has been around for thousands for years if we only count
recorded history. But Bush will put an end to it in the four years. He's
simply amazing.

Jack Dingler

Mark Hickey said:

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey said:

And what are the odds that there would be ONE Democrat working for
Diebold that would be capable of finding a "feature" in the software
that was purposely installed to allow manipulating the votes? I'd put
that at somewhere very, VERY near 100% (and it's very hard for me to
believe that they wouldn't come forward with the info).

They did. In fact, the code was accidentally released so there was a huge
stink about the deception and despite being decertified and having a lot of
states avoid buying the machine, no code changes were ever made.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268819.shtml

Unfortunately for the issue, some ignorant republicans like Mark Hickey
can't read or comprehend.

You HAVE to be kidding - that is your source??? They try to spin the
fact that there is a duplicate database into a "deception" by
comparing it to a "second set of books". LOL.

I suppose that might make sense to someone who's never actually been
around computers. To anyone else, it's exactly what SHOULD be in the
machine.

Try again.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Yeah, I found those arguments a bit off myself. A better system would
still be auditable. The fact that this system can be hacked by double
clicking a file, and changing a few fields, and that there's absolutely
no way to detect this, is deeply disturbing to me. But clearly this is
the kind of system Republicans want, because this year they won. If they
had lost it would be the Dems supoorting an easily hacked system while
the Republicans would be screaming.

We need to simply fix this, then there's no question.

Jack Dingler

Mark Hickey said:

Jack Dingler said:

Jack Dingler wrote:

Actually, I think I may know which documents you're referring to. There
were some published with media fan fare, created after the Abu Graib
incidents took place, but before the media released the story.

If you have a link to documents handed down to the troops in Abu Graib
before the incidents took place, that would be an eye opener. If you
have documentation showing that the guards/troops/contracters were
required to read them, that would be great also.

Those documents were passed to the chain of command that includes the
soldiers in the Abu Graib prison. Whether they got to the guards in
question - I don't know... but it's kind of harsh to suggest that it's
a personal failure of the POTUS every time some private somewhere
isn't copied on a memo, don't you think?

At any rate, I doubt that any of the guards thought that leading
around naked prisoners with dog leashes was an "approved method",
whether or not they got the memo. Besides, they weren't interrogating
the prisoners - they were simply abusing them for the sheer (sick) fun
of it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Pretty sick of those soldiers to say that they were ordered to do this,
don't you think? Why didn't they just admit they tricked their
commanding officers 100% of the time?

So how did copies of those CDs get distributed up the chain of command
without anyone noticing? Didn't any officers look at them as they were
being filed and sent up the chain?

Jack Dingler

Mark Hickey said:

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>And what are the odds that there would be ONE Democrat working for
>>Diebold that would be capable of finding a "feature" in the software
>>that was purposely installed to allow manipulating the votes? I'd
>>put that at somewhere very, VERY near 100% (and it's very hard for
>>me to believe that they wouldn't come forward with the info).
>>
>>

BTW, I should point out you never actually answered my question. Your
"source" below simply points out that there are two databases, then
makes a comparison to an accounting firm having "two sets of books".

If there was indeed a "feature" to allow manipulation of the vote,
there has to be ONE Democrat on the payroll who would come forward.

Or perhaps you can explain to us all why a system with a backup
database would be EASIER to twiddle than one without a backup
database.

I won't hold my breath - you seem more interested in name calling
(which in itself proves you don't have a point, but I thought I'd give
you a chance to redeem yourself).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Uhm, Mark... The fact that you can double click thee databases to edit
them, and the edits are undetectable, is a security flaw. A real bad one.

You don't need to be a Democrat to understand basic computer security
techniques.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler said:

Uhm, Mark... The fact that you can double click thee databases to edit
them, and the edits are undetectable, is a security flaw. A real bad one.

You don't need to be a Democrat to understand basic computer security
techniques.

The issue is that it's not trivial to GET to the databases - just like
any voting system, there are procedural guarantees that prevent this
kind of thing from happening.

I did some reading about the potential flaws that have been bandied
about by the media (and moreso by the conspiracy theorists), and it
became pretty apparent that it's primarily much ado about nothing.

http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/realityvsfantasy.pdf

There's a link at the bottom of that document to one with enough
technical detail to throw buckets of cold water on most of those who
really think there's a high probability of serious voter fraud using
these machines - IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Jack Dingler said:

Mark Hickey wrote (not ot Jack, though...):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You HAVE to be kidding - that is your source??? They try to spin the
fact that there is a duplicate database into a "deception" by
comparing it to a "second set of books". LOL.

I suppose that might make sense to someone who's never actually been
around computers. To anyone else, it's exactly what SHOULD be in the
machine.

Try again.

Yeah, I found those arguments a bit off myself. A better system would
still be auditable. The fact that this system can be hacked by double
clicking a file, and changing a few fields, and that there's absolutely
no way to detect this, is deeply disturbing to me. But clearly this is
the kind of system Republicans want, because this year they won. If they
had lost it would be the Dems supoorting an easily hacked system while
the Republicans would be screaming.

We need to simply fix this, then there's no question.

I did a bit of reading on the reasons behind the "non-auditability" of
the machines, since on the surface it didn't make a lot of sense to
me.

Turns out it's all about protecting the privacy of the voters, so
there is no way to reconstruct the specific order the votes were cast
in (otherwise, you could say Chalo voted 125th on a particular
machine, and then you could make fun of him when you found out he
voted straight party Republican).

There ARE a number of "audit functions" though - to make sure the
number of voters and the number of votes match. I read another
lengthy treatise on another of the (slightly dated) articles by Avriel
Rubin that's been used to "discredit" electronic voting. It only made
me realize how impractical it would be to try to throw and election by
any of the possible (but unlikely) methods.

http://www.diebold.com/checksandbalances.pdf

Interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Jack Dingler said:

But there's still millions of terrorists left to go in Iraq alone...

Then they're not very effective - only able to kill about one GI per
thousand terrorists (give or take) in a year and a half (give or
take).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

the Moderator said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the Moderator said:

"Alan LeHun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> sparky@no_spam_engineer.com says...
>> I certainly do appreciate the sacrifice. Coalition soldiers have
>> killed a bunch of terrorists
>
> Have they? Who?
>
> The people who are shooting at alien soldiers within the borders of
> their country. You can hardly call /them/ terrorists.

There are thousands of dead terrorists who crossed the Iraq borders
from terror cells scattered around the mideast.

Nah. The count is only at about eleven hundred dead American
terrorists coming in from outside of Iraq from their various 'cells'
or military stations in other arab nations. Not thousands. You must
be talking about the live American terrorists.

Interesting perspective. Do you work at the UN?

Nope. Just an ordinary citizen who recognises that the cat may look at a
queen and that illegal is illegal regardless of social rank or miltiary
power. The whole war aginst Iraq was 'schock and awe' demonstration of
overwhelming might for the purpose of instilling terror ( this is the
definition of terrorism) and mostly against civilians who are dying at an
alarming rate of about 100 to one vs the terrrorist. The continuing
occupation is to 'teach them a lession by continued use of military threat'.
It is not an 'interesting perspective'. It is the truth. The insurgencies
are freedom fighters since it is their OWN country that they are trying to
free from horrors at the hands of America's 'neo-terrorism' experts.

Mark Hickey said:

Jack Dingler said:

Uhm, Mark... The fact that you can double click thee databases to
edit them, and the edits are undetectable, is a security flaw. A
real bad one.

You don't need to be a Democrat to understand basic computer security
techniques.

The issue is that it's not trivial to GET to the databases - just like
any voting system, there are procedural guarantees that prevent this
kind of thing from happening.

You are an idiot. There are many ways to access the database from local
ports to dial-up and no way to trace the resutls. There is NO justificatin
for having a 'double set of books' other than to 'fudge the results
indetectably' and when software experts tried, it took them all of five
minutes. Even they were shocked at how easy it was.

Mark Hickey said:

Jack Dingler said:

Mark Hickey wrote (not ot Jack, though...):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You HAVE to be kidding - that is your source??? They try to spin
the fact that there is a duplicate database into a "deception" by
comparing it to a "second set of books". LOL.

I suppose that might make sense to someone who's never actually been
around computers. To anyone else, it's exactly what SHOULD be in
the machine.

Try again.

Yeah, I found those arguments a bit off myself. A better system would
still be auditable. The fact that this system can be hacked by double
clicking a file, and changing a few fields, and that there's
absolutely no way to detect this, is deeply disturbing to me. But
clearly this is the kind of system Republicans want, because this
year they won. If they had lost it would be the Dems supoorting an
easily hacked system while the Republicans would be screaming.

We need to simply fix this, then there's no question.

I did a bit of reading on the reasons behind the "non-auditability" of
the machines, since on the surface it didn't make a lot of sense to
me.

I'm sure that the sun rising in the morning makes no sense to you. It is a
problem with stupidity.

Quoted message said:

Turns out it's all about protecting the privacy of the voters, so
there is no way to reconstruct the specific order the votes were cast
in (otherwise, you could say Chalo voted 125th on a particular
machine, and then you could make fun of him when you found out he
voted straight party Republican).

Now the spiin cycle..

Quoted message said:

There ARE a number of "audit functions" though - to make sure the
number of voters and the number of votes match.

However, the real kick comes when they switch votes from one candidate to
another. The functin of verifying voters is not the target issue. The double
entry is to assure that a local audit can return the real votes from one set
of books while the system reaturns a false set of results from another and
separate system of books. There is NO logical necessity for this setup other
than to make an untraceable voter fraud.

Quoted message said:

I read another
lengthy treatise on another of the (slightly dated) articles by Avriel
Rubin that's been used to "discredit" electronic voting. It only made
me realize how impractical it would be to try to throw and election by
any of the possible (but unlikely) methods.

http://www.diebold.com/checksandbalances.pdf

Obviously you reading skills are as bad as your software expertise. P.S. try
this reference.. \

Written for the IEEE, a prestigiouse standards setting organisation..

http://www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf

Quoted message said:

Interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing...

And you are obviously not interested in the facts, just in hiding the
potential or actual fraud since you feel it works in yoru favor. I suggest
you read the short piece by Pastor Martin Niemoller..

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey said:

Jack Dingler said:

Uhm, Mark... The fact that you can double click thee databases to
edit them, and the edits are undetectable, is a security flaw. A
real bad one.

You don't need to be a Democrat to understand basic computer security
techniques.

The issue is that it's not trivial to GET to the databases - just like
any voting system, there are procedural guarantees that prevent this
kind of thing from happening.

You are an idiot. There are many ways to access the database from local
ports to dial-up and no way to trace the resutls. There is NO justificatin
for having a 'double set of books' other than to 'fudge the results
indetectably' and when software experts tried, it took them all of five
minutes. Even they were shocked at how easy it was.

OK, so tell us (since you obviously consider yourself a genius) how a
conspirator is going to gain access to the machines, which are checked
just prior to the voting process. Ya' suppose someone just might
notice that you're playing with a laptop and cable when you're
supposed to be voting? Just maybe?

And since you're into "reading comprehension", I wonder how it is that
you never noticed that there are NO dial-up connections, or internet
connections on the machines. Only dedicated private point-to-point
systems. And even if someone DOES gain access to that comms link and
somehow figures out how to alter the communications, the system will
error out the results, prompting a review of the data on the machine.

And you STILL haven't answered my question - why would a machine with
TWO databases be easier to spoof than a machine with ONE database. I
figure if I ask the question often enough you might actually try to
answer it (not holding my breath). But if you are REALLY interested
in reality...

http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/realityvsfantasy.pdf

.... though again, I'm not holding my breath. But it is kind of fun to
see you get your knickers all in a twist trying to spin your way out
of admitting that you and your fellow conspiracy theorists don't have
a clue how the machines actually work.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Ian St. John said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did a bit of reading on the reasons behind the "non-auditability" of
the machines, since on the surface it didn't make a lot of sense to
me.

I'm sure that the sun rising in the morning makes no sense to you. It is a
problem with stupidity.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on stupidity, but I'll take your
word on it since you seem to be an expert.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Turns out it's all about protecting the privacy of the voters, so
there is no way to reconstruct the specific order the votes were cast
in (otherwise, you could say Chalo voted 125th on a particular
machine, and then you could make fun of him when you found out he
voted straight party Republican).

Quoted message said:

http://www.diebold.com/checksandbalances.pdf

Obviously you reading skills are as bad as your software expertise. P.S. try
this reference.. \

Written for the IEEE, a prestigiouse standards setting organisation..

http://www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf

If you'd actually read the article attached to the URL I posted, you'd
notice that it meticulously takes apart Rubin's claims, point by point
by point. His main contentions are centered around someone
compromising the machines via the 'net or dial-up connections
(something you mention in your previous post), when in fact the
machines DO NOT USE INTERNET OR DIAL UP CONNECTIONS. Kinda throws
quite a bit of cold water on Prof. Rubin's "expert status", huh? Any
potential for fraud would require both the cooperation of election
officials and the assistance of computer pukes who don't mind breaking
serious federal laws. In the end, voter fraud on the Diebold machines
is a lot tougher than doing it "the old fashioned way" (stuffing the
ballot box).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing...

And you are obviously not interested in the facts, just in hiding the
potential or actual fraud since you feel it works in yoru favor. I suggest
you read the short piece by Pastor Martin Niemoller..

I'd suggest you read THIS short piece from the Seattle Times...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002087790_voting11.html

It points out that the DNC, armed with thousands of lawyers, has
examined the potential for fraud - and though they have everything to
gain and nothing to lose, aren't even considering trying to make a
case for fraud.

"At this point the number of irregularities brought to our attention
is not going to change the outcome of the election," said DNC
spokesman Jano Cabrera. "The simple fact of the matter is that
Republicans received more votes than Democrats, and we're not
contesting this election."

To paraphrase: "Get over it".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack Dingler said:

But there's still millions of terrorists left to go in Iraq alone...

Then they're not very effective - only able to kill about one GI per
thousand terrorists (give or take) in a year and a half (give or
take).

Since 1000 GIs have died, that means there were 1,000, 000
terrorists in Iraq. Since there were on 25 terrorists involved in 9/11
that means that by invading Iraq, GWB increased the number of active
terrorists by approximately 4,000,000%. Is it any wonder the world
thinks GWB is a fool.

But he is not a fool. It is the American electorate who are the fools
allowing a devious liar like Bush to con them into thinking they
were voting in the national interest, when it was precisely the
opposite. Re-electing GWB has condemned at least another 1000
US marines to death, and millions of dollars more to be added to
GWB's fortune.

No wonder he struggles to keep a straight face when he
addresses the American people.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the Moderator said:

"Ian St. John" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the Moderator wrote:
> "Alan LeHun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> sparky@no_spam_engineer.com says...
>>> I certainly do appreciate the sacrifice. Coalition soldiers have
>>> killed a bunch of terrorists
>>
>> Have they? Who?
>>
>> The people who are shooting at alien soldiers within the borders of
>> their country. You can hardly call /them/ terrorists.
>
> There are thousands of dead terrorists who crossed the Iraq borders
> from terror cells scattered around the mideast.

Nah. The count is only at about eleven hundred dead American
terrorists coming in from outside of Iraq from their various 'cells'
or military stations in other arab nations. Not thousands. You must
be talking about the live American terrorists.

Interesting perspective. Do you work at the UN?

Nope. Just an ordinary citizen who recognises that the cat may look at a
queen and that illegal is illegal regardless of social rank or miltiary
power. The whole war aginst Iraq was 'schock and awe' demonstration of
overwhelming might for the purpose of instilling terror ( this is the
definition of terrorism) and mostly against civilians who are dying at an
alarming rate of about 100 to one vs the terrrorist. The continuing
occupation is to 'teach them a lession by continued use of military

threat'.

Quoted message said:

It is not an 'interesting perspective'. It is the truth. The insurgencies
are freedom fighters since it is their OWN country that they are trying to
free from horrors at the hands of America's 'neo-terrorism' experts.

I have a son in the Marine Corps. I will let him know that you consider him
a terrorist. When I served in the Marine Corps John Kerry called us baby
killers and criminals. I just consider the source in both instances.

"Alastair McDonald" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack Dingler said:

But there's still millions of terrorists left to go in Iraq alone...

Then they're not very effective - only able to kill about one GI per
thousand terrorists (give or take) in a year and a half (give or
take).

Since 1000 GIs have died, that means there were 1,000, 000
terrorists in Iraq. Since there were on 25 terrorists involved in 9/11
that means that by invading Iraq, GWB increased the number of active
terrorists by approximately 4,000,000%.

Thanks for helping me point out how silly Jack Dingler's numbers
really are.

Quoted message said:

Is it any wonder the world
thinks GWB is a fool.

Hmmm, but apparently you actually DO believe 'em. Oh well.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame