bad news on the doorstep.......

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Oct 20, 5:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> > I travel around the country a fair bit these days and in states that
> >> > don't have early primaries Ron Paul is the *only* candidate I've seen
> >> > signs for. They're all homemade.
>
> >> Henry, Ron Paul has a lot of loony ideas as well.
>
> >> It is my opinion that we were stuck going into Iraq one way or another
> >> because of the threat of militant Islamasism.
>
> > You've so got your head up your ass.
>
> > Saddam's model wasn't Mohammed, it was Stalin.
>
> You moron - Saddam had been courting Islamic Extremists for years in order
> to increase his standing in the middle east. It was purely a matter of time
> before he started turning dirty bombs, poison gas and biological warfare
> agents over to the extremists as the only way to prove his support of them.



He wouldn't do that for 2 reasons:

1) weapons which had a trail that led back to Saddam would result in
the US pulverizing him. That would not accomplish his goal of
maximizing his personal power. Saddam proved that he was unwilling to
use unconventional weaons vs. the Untited States in the 1991 Gulf War.
He had the mustard gas weapons then. He had gassed the Kurds just a
few years earlier. Then, when we kicked him out of Kuwait and killed
hundred of thousands of his soldiers, he declined to use them. That
was sure proof of him being a rational player. An extremist like bin
Laden would have used those weapons.

2) if the extremists has any success whatsoever against the West with
WMD, their next targets would be people like Saddam himself. While
Saddam's goal was to create a familial dynastic empire, dominting the
entire region, the extremists' goal is to establish an Islamist
caliphate to rule the region. The two goals are not compatible.


As it is, it's worked out quite nicely for the extremists. The United
States has taken out the largest secular state in the region and the
extremists have a small but significant toehold in the resulting civil
war. Those are the Sunni extremists - the Shiite extremists of the
Iranian Islamist regime to the west is smacking its chops as its
Shiite militias infiltrate the police, the army and the goverment of
the "government" we have created there.


Nice job W!

A brilliant foreign policy! It's hard to imagine how it could have
been done any better!

 

[Davey Crockett]

* Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> a écrit profondement:
|
| As it is, it's worked out quite nicely for the extremists. The United
| States has taken out the largest secular state in the region and the
| extremists have a small but significant toehold in the resulting civil
| war. Those are the Sunni extremists - the Shiite extremists of the
| Iranian Islamist regime to the west is smacking its chops as its
| Shiite militias infiltrate the police, the army and the goverment of
| the "government" we have created there.
|
|
| Nice job W!
|
| A brilliant foreign policy! It's hard to imagine how it could have
| been done any better!
|

But Iraq is free

You can hear him say so

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=30&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

--
RON PAUL
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against the Iraq war.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Oct 20, 12:41 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You know, there's only a few hundred Islamists who seriously believe
> > that they will ever be able to create the world-wide "caliphate" and a few
> > thousand more who are along to help punish the West. They certainly aren't
> > particularly well armed. So the idea that Islamism truly represents a threat
> > to the West is ludicrous at best. The people who want to believe it that
> > there is a threat that the West will be toppled are a bunch of clowns who wet
> > their pants at the least bit of a fright. One thing is certain about the
> > invasion of Iraq: it has *helped* the cause of Islamism.

> Howard that's as far out a statement as any I've heard made here.
> Serious Islamic fundamentalists have most of the governments in the
> Middle East really worried. The movement is growing throught the world
> at a rapid rate, especially among the young. Europe has expressed
> serious concern about the increase in violent anti-semitism and
> Islamic fundamentalist activities in many of their countries.
> Pretty tough for a few hundred people to accommplish. You routinely
> call Tom on outrageous statements. This is in that category and maybe
> then some.
> But Hey they didn't have a cross continent empire, they don't have a
> passionate driving belief, they don't feel that the West hates them,
> nope, no anger, no oil money, no desire to become martyrs.
> Mein Kampf was meaningless too, as was Grand Mufti Husseini, Goebbels
> and Hitlers buddy who is the spiritual, and former driving force
> behind the Pan-Arab anti-west movement. He was Arafat's teacher and
> friend, is the most respected man in the middle east of this, and the
> last century. But hey, none of that matters.
> Have you read transcripts of sermons that are regularly broadcast, or
> given in the Middle East, Europe, and other areas. There are a hell of
> a lot more young people being indoctrinated into this than there, ever
> were, Nazis. They have a bigger beef to get them rolling too. But that
> doesn't matter. There's only a couple of hundred. Oh yeah. There
> weren't even that many in a Munich beerhall, and they had to create
> something to build on. Nope shouldn't be concerned.

Well, I did say that there were a only a few who really believe that they will
create a *world-wide* "caliphate. I'm sure there are many who believe they can do a
job on the areas that have *existing large or majority Muslim populations*. The idea
that they will ever be able to topple the West is a non-starter. That's the point I'm
trying to make. There will never be a time when this country is made to pray to Mecca
en mass. It just isn't going to happen. I don't argue that it's happening in the
Middle East or that there are people hyping that over there. But I seriously doubt
that there are all that many people who truly believe that they're going to be able
to topple the West.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Kyle Legate]

Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> Well, I did say that there were a only a few who really believe that they will
> create a *world-wide* "caliphate. I'm sure there are many who believe they can do a
> job on the areas that have *existing large or majority Muslim populations*. The idea
> that they will ever be able to topple the West is a non-starter. That's the point I'm
> trying to make. There will never be a time when this country is made to pray to Mecca
> en mass. It just isn't going to happen. I don't argue that it's happening in the
> Middle East or that there are people hyping that over there. But I seriously doubt
> that there are all that many people who truly believe that they're going to be able
> to topple the West.
>

These guys think long term. You never know what will happen in 500 years.

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 18, 11:54 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:48 pm, Davey Crockett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > RON PAUL
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I travel around the country a fair bit these days and in states that
> > don't have early primaries Ron Paul is the *only* candidate I've seen
> > signs for. They're all homemade.
>
> > It's a true grassroots movement. From what I've heard, he's the only
> > only presidential candidate that tells the truth about our foreign
> > policy.
>
> On the other hand:http://thismodernworld.com/3892

Leave it to a moron like Kveck to believe that gay marriage has been
"banned" and not something that never was. Also abortion is murder
straight up and up. If you're for murder then be sure to identify
yourself so that others can show you what it's like.

Greg Saunders believes like any zealot that the Republicans made and
continue the deficit. It's, like, the latest Demo-moron line and he'll
follow it like every good lemming. The truth is that the Dems are
crazy mad that the deficit has been run up so far that they can't make
orders of magnitude increases like they actually want to do.

Check out this statement from Saunders: "It's enough to make you
wonder if "libertarians" like Ron Paul aren't just a bunch of phonies
or sellouts who will support a party whose platform they find
abhorrent as long as they get their precious tax cuts." Forgive me but
isn't that the pot calling the kettle?

Ron Paul is a bit looney. But he is at least an honest looney. What
does Hillary stand for besides getting votes by saying anything at
all?

It will be a little slice of heaven when Hillary is elected and you
all get to live under your own great choice. I'll be able to laugh at
all of you before the jackbooted blackshirts kick in my door and haul
me off to a reeducation camp which would plainly meet the Democrat's
approval.

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 21, 11:45 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:41 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You know, there's only a few hundred Islamists who seriously believe
> > > that they will ever be able to create the world-wide "caliphate" and a few
> > > thousand more who are along to help punish the West. They certainly aren't
> > > particularly well armed. So the idea that Islamism truly represents a threat
> > > to the West is ludicrous at best. The people who want to believe it that
> > > there is a threat that the West will be toppled are a bunch of clowns who wet
> > > their pants at the least bit of a fright. One thing is certain about the
> > > invasion of Iraq: it has *helped* the cause of Islamism.
> > Howard that's as far out a statement as any I've heard made here.
> > Serious Islamic fundamentalists have most of the governments in the
> > Middle East really worried. The movement is growing throught the world
> > at a rapid rate, especially among the young. Europe has expressed
> > serious concern about the increase in violent anti-semitism and
> > Islamic fundamentalist activities in many of their countries.
> > Pretty tough for a few hundred people to accommplish. You routinely
> > call Tom on outrageous statements. This is in that category and maybe
> > then some.
> > But Hey they didn't have a cross continent empire, they don't have a
> > passionate driving belief, they don't feel that the West hates them,
> > nope, no anger, no oil money, no desire to become martyrs.
> > Mein Kampf was meaningless too, as was Grand Mufti Husseini, Goebbels
> > and Hitlers buddy who is the spiritual, and former driving force
> > behind the Pan-Arab anti-west movement. He was Arafat's teacher and
> > friend, is the most respected man in the middle east of this, and the
> > last century. But hey, none of that matters.
> > Have you read transcripts of sermons that are regularly broadcast, or
> > given in the Middle East, Europe, and other areas. There are a hell of
> > a lot more young people being indoctrinated into this than there, ever
> > were, Nazis. They have a bigger beef to get them rolling too. But that
> > doesn't matter. There's only a couple of hundred. Oh yeah. There
> > weren't even that many in a Munich beerhall, and they had to create
> > something to build on. Nope shouldn't be concerned.
>
> Well, I did say that there were a only a few who really believe that they will
> create a *world-wide* "caliphate. I'm sure there are many who believe they can do a
> job on the areas that have *existing large or majority Muslim populations*. The idea
> that they will ever be able to topple the West is a non-starter. That's the point I'm
> trying to make. There will never be a time when this country is made to pray to Mecca
> en mass. It just isn't going to happen. I don't argue that it's happening in the
> Middle East or that there are people hyping that over there. But I seriously doubt
> that there are all that many people who truly believe that they're going to be able
> to topple the West.

I love seeing you demonstrate your lack of education in the matters
you choose to write about. I suggest you just study history a bit to
see what the Muslims did when they were the power in north Africa and
the fringes of Europe.

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 22, 2:45 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:41 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You know, there's only a few hundred Islamists who seriously believe
> > > that they will ever be able to create the world-wide "caliphate" and a few
> > > thousand more who are along to help punish the West. They certainly aren't
> > > particularly well armed. So the idea that Islamism truly represents a threat
> > > to the West is ludicrous at best. The people who want to believe it that
> > > there is a threat that the West will be toppled are a bunch of clowns who wet
> > > their pants at the least bit of a fright. One thing is certain about the
> > > invasion of Iraq: it has *helped* the cause of Islamism.
> > Howard that's as far out a statement as any I've heard made here.
> > Serious Islamic fundamentalists have most of the governments in the
> > Middle East really worried. The movement is growing throught the world
> > at a rapid rate, especially among the young. Europe has expressed
> > serious concern about the increase in violent anti-semitism and
> > Islamic fundamentalist activities in many of their countries.
> > Pretty tough for a few hundred people to accommplish. You routinely
> > call Tom on outrageous statements. This is in that category and maybe
> > then some.
> > But Hey they didn't have a cross continent empire, they don't have a
> > passionate driving belief, they don't feel that the West hates them,
> > nope, no anger, no oil money, no desire to become martyrs.
> > Mein Kampf was meaningless too, as was Grand Mufti Husseini, Goebbels
> > and Hitlers buddy who is the spiritual, and former driving force
> > behind the Pan-Arab anti-west movement. He was Arafat's teacher and
> > friend, is the most respected man in the middle east of this, and the
> > last century. But hey, none of that matters.
> > Have you read transcripts of sermons that are regularly broadcast, or
> > given in the Middle East, Europe, and other areas. There are a hell of
> > a lot more young people being indoctrinated into this than there, ever
> > were, Nazis. They have a bigger beef to get them rolling too. But that
> > doesn't matter. There's only a couple of hundred. Oh yeah. There
> > weren't even that many in a Munich beerhall, and they had to create
> > something to build on. Nope shouldn't be concerned.
>
> Well, I did say that there were a only a few who really believe that they will
> create a *world-wide* "caliphate. I'm sure there are many who believe they can do a
> job on the areas that have *existing large or majority Muslim populations*. The idea
> that they will ever be able to topple the West is a non-starter. That's the point I'm
> trying to make. There will never be a time when this country is made to pray to Mecca
> en mass. It just isn't going to happen. I don't argue that it's happening in the
> Middle East or that there are people hyping that over there. But I seriously doubt
> that there are all that many people who truly believe that they're going to be able
> to topple the West.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Howard I do think that several Middle Eastern states, starting with
Pakistan could fall to extremists in the next 10 years, and I could
easily see terrorism and unconventional warfare, on a scale to make
the 70s Red Brigades, etc... look like a joke in the next decade too.
Lots of it financed by ther same Saudis who are financing things now.
I agree the US is not going to be converted anytime soon, but they
could very well cripple our strategic oil supplies and start ww3 that
way. The oil embargo on Imperial Japan forced them to attack the west,
lack of oil crippled Rommels panzers, it'd force us to fight wars
directly for oil. I think that you grossly underestimate the threat.
It won't be conventional, it'll be IEDs, assasinations, suicide
bombers hitting all over, especially western Europe. They are training
the children to become suicide bombers, that nothing is better than
killing infidels, that they need to do that for honor and respect. You
been following all the honor killing stories?
We won't fight an unrestricted conventional war, like we did in ww2,
again. We would rather convert than do that, and we are incapable of
winning an unconventional war for the same reasons. We have tied our
own hands, rip ourselves more than the enemy, and they very happily
exploit that. The Vietnamese figured that out against the French, and
we've been getting our teeth kicked in because of it ever since. They
hit us, and we hit ourselves, then we quit because it's un-winnable,
and it is because we aren't willing to do what it takes anymore, which
we were in WW1 and 2.
Every success they have, every press story screaming about the
"civilians" killed when a mortar team are taken out, even when they
are pureposely using the "civilians", and the "civilians" are hiding
weapons, ammo, and fighters. Providing logistic support and intel,
make us weak beatable, and they know it.
The French Foreign Legion was incredibly successful in Indo-china
when they finally decided to fight the same way. It was too little,
too late, and the Euro press crucified them for it. People were
relieved of command, they went back to playing nice, they died, they
lost.
We are doing exactly the same thing because we can't believe they
would use women, children, old people, and every other means possible
to win, both in the field, and in the press because we cut our own
throats.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
What I forgot to add is this Liberal bumper sticker which is all over
the Valley here:
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world"
If you believe it for peace and justice, why wouldn't you believe
that an even larger, more fanatical and committed group could do it
too?
Bill C

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
(nothing that makes any sense)

You know your favorite candidate Hillary is missing something serious when
the leftist rags are beginning to print the stuff she's doing - for
instance - seems as how all of the bus boys and dishwashers in Chinatown
have been giving her campaign one and two thousand dollar donations.
Strangely enough most of them aren't registered to vote and fully a third of
them can't be found.

Seems as how all sorts of donations have been pouring into Bill Clinton's
"foundation" and he won't make the donors public.

Looks like the Chinese military is intent on getting the Clintons back in
office just like you. Oh, yeah, and most of the Muslim extremist
organizations are advising Americans to vote for Hillary as well.

She's really the people's candidate all right.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>* MMan <[email protected]> a écrit profondement:
> |
> | On Oct 18, 10:48 pm, Davey Crockett <[email protected]> wrote:
> | > Lots more Job Opportunities for the AssHoles that have made a career
> | > out of Anti Doping
> |
> | Given the latest revelations about sexual abuse of students by
> | teachers, I can just imagine what sort of people are going to sign up
> | to enforce even more control over students' bodies, including getting
> | them in secluded rooms where they have to drop trou.
> |
> | Yep, it's all about "anti-doping". Sure it is.
> |
> | Spirit of sport, my ass.
> |
> |
>
> I'm with you 100 percent there
>
> But society is sick, so we are stuck with perverts masquerading as
> "do-gooders" or perhaps the reverse with genuine do-gooders being
> invaded/infiltrated by perverts.
>
> Look at the revelations now coming out of Portugal regarding
> paedophiles in governmental and judicial circles reaching all the way
> to the top. - I think it was in Britain's Daily Mail but lost the link
> now
>
> Or check out Zeitgeist some rainy afternoon - a powerful movie the
> mainstream media is virtually totally ignoring
>
> http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
>
>
> Nobody seems to care anymore unfortunately.

Everyone is too busy screaming at Iban Mayo for doping.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Oct 18, 11:54 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,

> > On the other hand:http://thismodernworld.com/3892
>
> Leave it to a moron like Kveck to believe that gay marriage has been
> "banned" and not something that never was.

"Banned" in this case means to pass laws that make sure that it doesn't happen.
But you knew that.

> Also abortion is murder straight up and up. If you're for murder then be sure
> to identify yourself so that others can show you what it's like.

You know, most people don't want abortion but most people also prefer that choice
to be left to the woman (and that number increases every year). If you don't want
'em, don't have one.

> Greg Saunders believes like any zealot that the Republicans made and
> continue the deficit. It's, like, the latest Demo-moron line and he'll
> follow it like every good lemming. The truth is that the Dems are
> crazy mad that the deficit has been run up so far that they can't make
> orders of magnitude increases like they actually want to do.

Heh. Rabid ramblings.

> Check out this statement from Saunders: "It's enough to make you
> wonder if "libertarians" like Ron Paul aren't just a bunch of phonies
> or sellouts who will support a party whose platform they find
> abhorrent as long as they get their precious tax cuts." Forgive me but
> isn't that the pot calling the kettle?

No.

> Ron Paul is a bit looney. But he is at least an honest looney. What
> does Hillary stand for besides getting votes by saying anything at
> all?

Tom, you've said that Romney looks like your choice (granted, that was with a
proviso: "the only one I could vote for though not without holding my nose is Mitt
Romney"). How often does he say something that doesn't contradict what he said five
minutes earlier? Not very often.

> It will be a little slice of heaven when Hillary is elected and you
> all get to live under your own great choice. I'll be able to laugh at
> all of you before the jackbooted blackshirts kick in my door and haul
> me off to a reeducation camp which would plainly meet the Democrat's
> approval.

Heh. Paranoic, rabid ramblings.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Oct 22, 2:45 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,

> > Well, I did say that there were a only a few who really believe that
> > they will create a *world-wide* "caliphate. I'm sure there are many who believe
> > they can do a job on the areas that have *existing large or majority Muslim
> > populations*. The idea that they will ever be able to topple the West is a
> > non-starter. That's the point I'm trying to make. There will never be a time
> > when this country is made to pray to Mecca en mass. It just isn't going to happen.
> > I don't argue that it's happening in the Middle East or that there are people
> > hyping that over there. But I seriously doubt that there are all that many people
> > who truly believe that they're going to be able to topple the West.

> Howard I do think that several Middle Eastern states, starting with
> Pakistan could fall to extremists in the next 10 years, and I could
> easily see terrorism and unconventional warfare, on a scale to make
> the 70s Red Brigades, etc... look like a joke in the next decade too.
> Lots of it financed by ther same Saudis who are financing things now.

I certainly agree that several states (Pakistan being the first) could fall. But,
again, they have a majority Muslim population. And that possibility (or liklihood of
increased terrorism across the world (but most likely in Europe) is reasonably high.
(And that coincides with the point I made about terrorists honing their skills in
Iraq now, then moving on - this was brought up in the most recent NIE.)

> I agree the US is not going to be converted anytime soon, but they
> could very well cripple our strategic oil supplies and start ww3 that
> way. The oil embargo on Imperial Japan forced them to attack the west,
> lack of oil crippled Rommels panzers, it'd force us to fight wars
> directly for oil. I think that you grossly underestimate the threat.

I agree that the oil aspect is one to be careful of. But all we need to do is look
at the result of our invasion of Iraq: it really did turn a lot of Middle Easterners
against us even more than they already were. Attacking Iran would be a wet dream for
Cheney, Lieberman, and Kristol, but strategically it would be a bigger disaster than
Iraq.

> It won't be conventional, it'll be IEDs, assasinations, suicide
> bombers hitting all over, especially western Europe. They are training
> the children to become suicide bombers, that nothing is better than
> killing infidels, that they need to do that for honor and respect. You
> been following all the honor killing stories?
> We won't fight an unrestricted conventional war, like we did in ww2,
> again. We would rather convert than do that, and we are incapable of
> winning an unconventional war for the same reasons. We have tied our
> own hands, rip ourselves more than the enemy, and they very happily
> exploit that. The Vietnamese figured that out against the French, and
> we've been getting our teeth kicked in because of it ever since. They
> hit us, and we hit ourselves, then we quit because it's un-winnable,
> and it is because we aren't willing to do what it takes anymore, which
> we were in WW1 and 2.

To a degree, I agree with most of that, except the last bit. An entenched
insurgency that is based on the local population is going to be pretty much
impossible to truly crush, no matter what methodology is used.

> Every success they have, every press story screaming about the
> "civilians" killed when a mortar team are taken out, even when they
> are pureposely using the "civilians", and the "civilians" are hiding
> weapons, ammo, and fighters. Providing logistic support and intel,
> make us weak beatable, and they know it.
> The French Foreign Legion was incredibly successful in Indo-china
> when they finally decided to fight the same way. It was too little,
> too late, and the Euro press crucified them for it. People were
> relieved of command, they went back to playing nice, they died, they
> lost.

The problem with going to those tactics is that it doesn't seem to change the
dynamic enough. The population still supports the insurgents and is willing to accept
the casualties. They may have setbacks but, in time, they will prevail.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> I love seeing you demonstrate your lack of education in the matters
> you choose to write about. I suggest you just study history a bit to
> see what the Muslims did when they were the power in north Africa and
> the fringes of Europe.

Funny that you'd say that, Tom. YOu were the one who spent a ton of time telling
everyone that the reasons that people like bin Laden attacked us were their hatred of
shows like "Friends" and Guess Jeans ads rather than US support of Israel or US
foreign policy. Enough said.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 22, 12:55 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard I do think that several Middle Eastern states, starting with
> Pakistan could fall to extremists in the next 10 years, and I could
> easily see terrorism and unconventional warfare, on a scale to make
> the 70s Red Brigades, etc... look like a joke in the next decade too.
> Lots of it financed by ther same Saudis who are financing things now.
> I agree the US is not going to be converted anytime soon, but they
> could very well cripple our strategic oil supplies and start ww3 that
> way. The oil embargo on Imperial Japan forced them to attack the west,
> lack of oil crippled Rommels panzers, it'd force us to fight wars
> directly for oil. I think that you grossly underestimate the threat.
> It won't be conventional, it'll be IEDs, assasinations, suicide
> bombers hitting all over, especially western Europe. They are training
> the children to become suicide bombers, that nothing is better than
> killing infidels, that they need to do that for honor and respect. You
> been following all the honor killing stories?
> We won't fight an unrestricted conventional war, like we did in ww2,
> again. We would rather convert than do that, and we are incapable of
> winning an unconventional war for the same reasons. We have tied our
> own hands, rip ourselves more than the enemy, and they very happily
> exploit that. The Vietnamese figured that out against the French, and
> we've been getting our teeth kicked in because of it ever since. They
> hit us, and we hit ourselves, then we quit because it's un-winnable,
> and it is because we aren't willing to do what it takes anymore, which
> we were in WW1 and 2.

"They" can't start World War 3. In order for a World War 3 to
start, there have to be very large powers that are willing to fight
each other. Even given our current snippy relations with Russia
and China, that isn't the case. Hell, we aren't even mad enough
to fight France. (Did you know France has THE BOMB?! Duck!)

People are getting hysterical. I think there's a syndrome of
wanting to feel that you're living at a world-historical turning
point. It leads to some crazy rhetoric, as pointed out here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346

Ben

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 23, 2:26 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
..
>
> "They" can't start World War 3. In order for a World War 3 to
> start, there have to be very large powers that are willing to fight
> each other. Even given our current snippy relations with Russia
> and China, that isn't the case. Hell, we aren't even mad enough
> to fight France. (Did you know France has THE BOMB?! Duck!)
>
> People are getting hysterical. I think there's a syndrome of
> wanting to feel that you're living at a world-historical turning
> point. It leads to some crazy rhetoric, as pointed out here:http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Two flash points to start ww3. Either someone nukes Israel, or the
Arabs cut off oil to the west/US and we launch a wholesale invasion to
get it back. If you don't think the US would support a massive war for
oil you're crazy. Once they had to park their cars, gas was rationed
at $20 a gallon. Food prices went up by 10x, etc... we'd go to war.
I don't see it happening, but if enough oil producing countries
become anti-US / fundamentalist, AND China and Russia are willing to
buy the oil then we could be screwed.
Bush's continuing push for Democracy, as Henry's pointed out a
million times, is moronic. That hands Pakistan, and it's nukes, to the
hardline Taleban supporters in a landslide.
What I see is them being able to increasingly destabilize the
countries in the M.E. Not as Howard says, because of Iraq, which is
adding to their recruiting, but has also allowed us to kill a lot of
their best people and connections, but the fact that while a few are
incredibly rich based on the oil, most are dirt poor and screwed by
their leaders who are taking their resources for personal gain. The
other thing they see their leaders as doing, is selling out their
honor to the west for profit.
What keeps coming through in the military reports is how they value
"Honor" and that they are killing our troops because we don't respect
them and Islam. Of course the only way to "respect" it is to bow down
to it. The Quaran, and tradition make it clear that there's no real
middle ground, except becoming second class citizens, being forced to
hide your religion, live in certain areas, be taxed because of it,
etc...All of which are historical reality in fundamentalist states, or
worse. Try bringing a bible into Saudi.
Bill C
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 23, 2:26 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:


It leads to some crazy rhetoric, as pointed out here:http://
www.newsweek.com/id/57346
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What the Newsweek piece leaves out of the equation is how the US
reacts to religion. You've got a good sized number of significant
people on the far left here screraming about a neo-con imposed US
theocracy and rounding up atheists and others. The neo-cons are
screaming the same thing about Iran. Most of us are just avoiding the
nutjobs, but it's hard when Iran, and Syria ARE supplying weapons and
technology to Islamic crusaders hell bent on killing infidels, whether
they be in Madrid, Washigton, Beirut, or Iraq. Civilian has no meaning
in their world, until the use it against us. That's based in religion
too. We did it. Charlemagne happily slaughtered a couple thousand
germanic men women and children because they didn't convert fast
enough one day.
Nothing's changed.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Charlema.html
By dint of forced conversions, wholesale massacres, and the
transportation of thousands of Saxons to the interior of the Frankish
kingdom, Charlemagne made his domination over Saxony complete

Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 23, 12:47 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

<bunch snipped>
>
> > It will be a little slice of heaven when Hillary is elected and you
> > all get to live under your own great choice. I'll be able to laugh at
> > all of you before the jackbooted blackshirts kick in my door and haul
> > me off to a reeducation camp which would plainly meet the Democrat's
> > approval.
>
> Heh. Paranoic, rabid ramblings.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Change Hillary to Bush, and democrat to Republican and it looks like
it was snipped from one of the leftist blogs.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 23, 12:47 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
<bunch snipped>
>
> The problem with going to those tactics is that it doesn't seem to change the
> dynamic enough. The population still supports the insurgents and is willing to accept
> the casualties. They may have setbacks but, in time, they will prevail.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Serious question Howard.
What's the plan from the left? If we can't fight them because that
just makes more of them. That seemed to work pretty well in WW 1 and
2. Which we'd have lost, or still be fighting/negotiating, because
fighting them doesn't work, right??
If you are citing the active support for the active combatants by the
civilians, why aren't they legitimate targets, just as our supply
centers, bases, factories , convoys, etc...are considered to be?
What is actually bad enough to fight the organization as a whole in
your mind? Is there anything?
I say that we've been following the approach you, and the rest of the
left advocate with Tibet, and Sudan. In one the culture is being
exterminated, and in less than a century, for all intents and
purposes, "Tibet" will cease to exist, and in the other hundreds of
thousands are being slaughtered, tortured, raped, kids are being
forced to soldier, or are choosing to do it. Is it better to let it go
on indefinitely rather than to totally crush, and kill the people
supporting and driving this genocide? I'd trade the possible million
dead up front to totally remove the people responsible for doing and
supporting this, including those "civilians". For some reason there
seems to be the idea that the people, no matter how evil they are,
feeding clothing, housing, carrying/hiding supplies for, providing
intelligence for, etc... those making the bombs and committing the
atrocities are blameless victims who need to be appeased, fed
sheltered, and protected no matter what they did. And the worst war
criminal becomes on of thoise people, to those on the left, as soon as
they, and I'm not saying he because some of the women are just as bad,
put down their rifle or RPG.
We're still hunting down kids who, at the end of the war were pressed
into SS service against the Soviets who were executing whole villages,
as criminals, and kiscking them out of western countries, but Arafat
got a peace prize, and Gueverra and Castro are heroes.
This all goes with the spin that Islamic attacks are a Bush legacy,
and something totally new since Afghanistan and Iraq that a lot of
those on the left are spinning today. Anyone with a tiny knowledge of
history knbows that's BS.
From the Crusades, on to Napoleon and the Brits in the M.E. there was
fighting, ambushes, and massacres. Most of which happened before Bush
was born.
How is it that the left ignores the died in the wool, brutal ties,
not just to the Nazis, but in formulating the final solution, by the
Pan-Arabs and turns out on campuses to support them, while raving
about the Bush families business connections to the early Nazis?
What's your personal take on this stuff.
I might be misreading you, but you seem convinced that they aren't
any big deal, or long term threat, and are misunderstood, but have
ranted about Joe Leiberman and anyone to his right.
I'm pretty cranky with having been sick, but David Crosby breaking
out the "baby killers" blast, again, and noone at either CNN, or NBC
even questioning it has really ****** me off.
Seems to me there's massively more support for Islamic terrorists
among the left here than for our troops.
Bill C

 

[William Asher]

Bill C wrote:

> I'm pretty cranky with having been sick, but David Crosby breaking
> out the "baby killers" blast, again, and noone at either CNN, or NBC
> even questioning it has really ****** me off.
> Seems to me there's massively more support for Islamic terrorists
> among the left here than for our troops.

I don't see this at all. Garry Trudeau is as good an example of the
mainstream "left" as anyone, and his treatment of the soldiers in Iraq has
been touching, sympathetic, and wholly supportive. You don't find that
"baby-killer" attitude in other left-leaning publications, such as The
Nation or The Progressive, or in other left-leaning cartoonists such as the
Tom-Tom club (Toles and Tomorrow). Coverage of the soldiers' experiences
in the print and in the graphic media has been balanced, even with the
civilian carnage. Furthermore, Trudeau's treatment of the soldiers in Viet
Nam was also fairly sympathetic, considering the times anyway.

Crosby is a drug-addled doofus whose best years were 4 decades ago. Why
anyone would listen to anything he says and think it has any relevance to
reality is beyond me. Someone I know commented that "Crosby has more than
a few loose solder joints."

--
Bill Asher

 

[Bill C]

On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Crosby is a drug-addled doofus whose best years were 4 decades ago. Why
> anyone would listen to anything he says and think it has any relevance to
> reality is beyond me. Someone I know commented that "Crosby has more than
> a few loose solder joints."
>
> --
> Bill Asher

It's my prejudice, but I think the left, in general, for publication,
has learned what to say. In private conversations, and with a lot of
the people here in Happy Valley, and in the blogs Crosby's attitude
seem to be typical. Same as it was, same as it always will be. A lot
of the returning vets still talk about being harrassed at the local
universities, both from the other students and faculty, even though,
for publication, they all say We support the troops, but not the war".
I Don't buy it anymore than Nixon's "I am not a crook", but like I
said that's due to personal experience, cynicism, and general
hostility on my part.
What really ****** me off is that NOONE questioned his statements at
either outlet. You can bet your ass they would've questioned Coulter
or any right wing nutcase.
Bill C