I CAN'T HEAR YOU????



<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:48:31 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >> ... Please don't be offended, this is the norm.
> >> >
> >> >Straw man.
> >>
> >> You seem to have a thing with this, something we should know?
> >
> >Yes, the official language on the net is English. Crack a (decent)
English
> >dictionary.
> >
> >
> >Stan,
>
> As you may remember, I've already posted the definition of this term for you. ...

No I don't recall that, and besides, I didn't need it as I know how to read a dictionary.

Stan
 
What name game???? Trying to figure out your/squirrely's actual name????

Stan +- +- +- +- <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >"squirrely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:IFyzb.216650$Dw6.791555@attbi_s02...
> >> Of course early American solution then is Stan's solution today> extermination, re-location. My
> >> strong suspicion is that if the shoe were on the other
> >foot,
> >> Stan would be a terrorist - or at least a terrorist leader.
> >
> >Straw man(s).
> >
> >
> >> Maybe extermination will work Stan, maybe not.
> >
> >Straw man.
> >
> >
> >Your "Close, Personal Friend",
> >
> >
> >Stan,
>
> Squirrely,
>
> Welcome to the name game.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:50:21 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> There's a difference in attacking someone and aiding someone else who's attacking someone.
> >
> >Not according to the law, legally the person aiding is known as an "accessory", and is usually
> >just as legally liable as the trigger person, so-to-say (at least, here in the States.)
> >
> >
> >Stan
>
> If you had actually read my entire reply and attempted to comprehend it, you would see that I'm
> not at odds with that statement. The burden is in the proof however and unless you can prove the
> person aided in the crime, then it's just an empty accusation.

Red-herring.

Your "Close, Personal Friend",

Stan
 
<[email protected]> continues to whine -
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:51:50 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:48:31 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> ... Please don't be offended, this is the norm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Straw man.
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to have a thing with this, something we should know?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, the official language on the net is English. Crack a (decent)
> >English
> >> >dictionary.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Stan,
> >>
> >> As you may remember, I've already posted the definition of this term for you. ...
> >
> >No I don't recall that, and besides, I didn't need it as I know how to
read
> >a dictionary.
> >
> >
> >Stan
>
> -----
> Point #1
> -----
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:06:26 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> Since Harry is obviously not going to defend the Talmud, I am directing these questions at
> >> you. You are the one that told him he couldn't read hebrew and therefore couldn't read the
> >> Talmud.
>
> Since you obviously misread this part of the original message, Harry is not the person who
> posted the quotes. I believe it was the hate monger XPUser that did. At that time, you asked the
> poster that posted the supposed "quotes" from the Talmud if he could in fact read Hebrew. The
> assumption that Harry wasn't trying to defend the Talmud came from the next paragraph in the
> message, which follows.
>
> -----
> Point #2
> -----
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:35:44 +0000 (UTC), "Harry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Sorry Guys, but I need to butt-in here. Having asked a very learned friend of mine about the
> >>quotes in the
Talmud.
> >>he actually laughed. The reason was, he said, that the Talmud is a collection of individuals
> >>discussing Jewish Law, much like supreme court justices do today. He also said that the quotes
> >>contained an element of truth in them, but had been taken out of context to such a degree that
the
> >>whole meaning had been distorted.
> >
> >This part of Harry's post pretty much clears up that HE didn't know much about it, so why in the
> >hell would he be trying to defend it with such vigor?
> >
> >>Straw man (I did not tell Harry he couldn't read Hebrew, etc.)
>
> Like I said at that time, Harry wasn't defending the Talmud as he didn't seem to know much about
> it. The fact he went to someone else is proof of that.
>
> -----
> Point #3
> -----
>
> >Main Entry: straw man Function: noun Date: 1896
> >1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily
> > confuted
> >2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction
> >
> >Which one do you claim to be? I personally consider you to fit definition #1 at this point
> >in time.
>
> Here's that definition you never bothered to read.
>
> -----
> Point #4
> -----
>
> >> > After careful thought and consideration "MIDIcian" (tm) typed:
> >> > > What I'm telling you, is if you can't read Hebrew, you can't know what the Talmud says
> >> > > (because it's written in Hebrew.)
> >> >
> >> > Is it not translated in any other language?
> >>
> >> Undoubtably. So tell me how you can know if the translation is correct
if
> >> you can't read the original document????
> >
> >I don't believe I accused you of telling Harry he couldn't read Hebrew. Do you deny that the
> >above text was written by you? My question to you was if YOU read Hebrew and if the quotes were
> >actually from the Talmud. You have attempted to redirect the question to other people and you
> >have avoided answering it.
>
> Here's the question (asked again). This was back on November 25th. Not that long ago.
>
> >When I first started conversing with you, you apparently had the idea that you could moderate
> >your own little discussion and that anyone that wanted to speak to you would join it. I was
> >somewhat impressed with your views although, as I pointed out at the time, you were not being
> >heard as you weren't part of the discussion. Since then, I have actually lost quite a bit of
> >respect for you as I have seen you start calling people names simply because they question your
> >arguments. If you're going to continue with this trend, please recreate your closed, private
> >thread...
>
> Do you remember this? It's from the same message.
>
> My conclusion is that you don't care enough about what anyone else's view is to bother to read
> their post. Your selective memory is just another convenient way to avoid anyone who doesn't
> agree with everything you have to say.
 
<[email protected]> continues to whine -
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:39:15 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"squirrely" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:aHQzb.27850$_M.116684@attbi_s54...
> >> Stan, here you are espousing extermination below
> >
> >******** (and a "straw man".)
> >
> >
> >> and you claim I'm making a Straw man argument??? call me slow, but I don't get it?
> >>
> >> From your prior message If the US withheld it's support, Israel would be forced to wipe out all
> >the
> >> Palestinians in (what is called) Palestine (these days) and retake
Israels
> >> land.
> >
> >I'm not suggesting extermination, nor am I suggesting that the US
withhold
> >it's support.
> >
> >Your's is a "straw man".
> >
> >
> >Stan
>
> You are suggesting extermination. At least twice now you've stated that Israel would be forced
> to wipe out the Palestinians. Do you honestly believe there is no other option?
>
> Your's is just a flat out lame argument...
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:10:41 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >What name game???? Trying to figure out your/squirrely's actual name????
> >
> >
> >Stan
>
> I was referring to your childish little game ...

Straw man(s).

> of calling people straw man (among others).

Straw man(s).

Stan
 
<[email protected]> continues to whine -
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:11:29 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:50:21 -0600, "\"MIDIcian\" \(tm\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >> There's a difference in attacking someone and aiding someone else who's attacking someone.
> >> >
> >> >Not according to the law, legally the person aiding is known as an "accessory", and is usually
> >> >just as legally liable as the trigger
person,
> >> >so-to-say (at least, here in the States.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Stan
> >>
> >> If you had actually read my entire reply and attempted to comprehend it, you would see that
> >> I'm not at odds with that statement. The burden is in the proof however and unless you can
> >> prove the person aided in the crime, then it's just an empty accusation.
> >
> >Red-herring.
> >
> >
> >Your "Close, Personal Friend",
> >
> >
> >Stan
>
> Why do you insist on not debating anything? You red-herring comment is just another childish
> waste of bandwidth. Start your own little "moderated" thread that you think you can control and
> go away. I really thought you were more mature than this when I first started talking to you but
> I see I made a big error in judgement there...
 
"no posessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Talmud. Jesus. Religion.
>
> It comes from god.

Perhaps *if* there's a supposed God, Jesus came from that supposed God.

But most religions are man made. Or astronaut (from another planet) made (the most likely scenerio.)

Stan
 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060009020606010506040107 Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Allow me to just say something. The fact of the matter is no one can prove there is no God. There
are signs and clues and to some they are clear, to others they are not. People nowadays widely
accept that there is no God and offer evolution as the explanation to many questions posed by a
godless universe. However, they do not realize that evolution is a theory and remains one till this
day. No compelling evidence for it. The "facts" cited in its favor are flawed and skewed. The theory
does offer an easy way out for ppl and, in my opinion, this is why it was widely accepted. It all
boils down to one's willingness to research each view and to come up with their conclusion based on
educated judgment. Simply saying "I am right you are wrong" will not lead anywhere and will only
serve to waste time. I really believe that before anyone would take it upon themselves to claim to
know the truth and to present what are mere opinions and speculations as fact, they should try to
humbly accept that they are not all-knowing and should do some homework before engaging in public
discussions about a very important issue. I for one believe that God created us all and created this
universe with all its wonders and beauty. I think one should just meditate over the amazing things
we see around us and take for granted. In everything in this universe there are signs to His majesty
and glory. By all this I am not trying to offend any of the parties here, and if I did it is
unintentional and I give my apology. I did not follow the thread from the beginning also. So maybe
what I just wrote may seem out of context, and maybe not! Simply my 2 cents. Thanks

"MIDIcian" (tm) wrote:

>"no posessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Talmud. Jesus. Religion.
>>
>>It comes from god.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps *if* there's a supposed God, Jesus came from that supposed God.
>
>But most religions are man made. Or astronaut (from another planet) made (the most likely
>scenerio.)
>
>
>Stan
>
>
>
>

--------------060009020606010506040107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body
text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> Allow me to just say something. <br> The fact of the matter is no
one can prove there is no God. There are signs and clues and to some they are clear, to others they
are not. People nowadays widely accept that there is no God and offer evolution as the explanation
to many questions posed by a godless universe. However, they do not realize that evolution is a
theory and remains one till this day. No compelling evidence for it. The "facts" cited in its favor
are flawed and skewed. The theory does offer an easy way out for ppl and, in my opinion, this is why
it was widely accepted. <br> It all boils down to one's willingness to research each view and to
come up with their conclusion based on educated judgment. Simply saying "I am right you are wrong"
will not lead anywhere and will only serve to waste time. I really believe that before anyone would
take it upon themselves to claim to know the truth and to present what are mere opinions and
speculations as fact, they should try to humbly accept that they are not all-knowing and should do
some homework before engaging in public discussions about a very important issue. <br> I for one
believe that God created us all and created this universe with all its wonders and beauty. I think
one should just meditate over the amazing things we see around us and take for granted. In
everything in this universe there are signs to His majesty and glory.<br> By all this I am not
trying to offend any of the parties here, and if I did it is unintentional and I give my apology. I
did not follow the thread from the beginning also. So maybe what I just wrote may seem out of
context, and maybe not!<br> Simply my 2 cents.<br> Thanks<br> <br> "MIDIcian" (tm) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">"no posessions" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a>
wrote in message <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:[email protected]
oogle.com">news:[email protected]</a>... </pre> <blockquote
type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Talmud. Jesus. Religion.

It comes from god. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Perhaps *if* there's a supposed God,
Jesus came from that supposed God.

But most religions are man made. Or astronaut (from another planet) made (the most likely scenerio.)

Stan

</pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>

--------------060009020606010506040107--
 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0299_01C3BAC0.9AFC0280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Imad Al-Ghouleh" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...

> Allow me to just say something.=20

I'm certainly not trying to stop you from sayinig something.

> The fact of the matter is no one can prove there is no God. ...

Red-herring.

> I for one believe that God ...

What (supposed) God???? I'm all ears.

Your "Close, Personal Friend",

Stan ------=_NextPart_000_0299_01C3BAC0.9AFC0280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type = content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1> <META content=3D"MSHTML
6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>"Imad Al-Ghouleh" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>> = wrote in=20
message <A=20 href=3D"news:[email protected]">news:YAUzb.14=
[email protected]</A>...</DIV>
<DV> </DIV>
<DVI>
<DVII>> Allow me to just say something. </DIV>
<DVIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm certainly not trying to stop you = from sayinig=20
something.</FONT></DIV>
<DX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2></FONT><FONT
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>
<DXI><BR>> The fact of the matter is no one can prove there is no = God.=20 ...</DIV>
<DXII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Red-herring.</FONT></DIV>
<DXIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXVI>> I for one believe that God ...</DIV>
<DXVII> </DIV>
<DXVIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What (supposed) God???? I'm all=20 ears.</FONT></DIV>
<DXIX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXX><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Your "Close, Personal = Friend",</FONT></DIV>
<DXXII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXIII><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Stan</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0299_01C3BAC0.9AFC0280--
 
"Harry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I have to take issue with you. You accuse Israel of being unable to make peace with it's former
> enemies. Sorry mate, but you're talking bolllocks. Israel has made peace with
Egypt,
> Jordan, Morocco, and a number of other Arab/Islamic nations. It cannot make peace with the
> Palestinians, because the Palestinians
cannot
> make peace amongst themselves, and decide what they want. As for taking territory, I repeat my
> earlier comments: The Arabs attacked Israel in 1948, in the attempt to wipe them out. This
was
> repeated in 1956 and 1973. Each time, they got their asses spanked and
lost
> territory as a result. The territory was spoils of war. It's like a game
of
> poker, when you have lost your shirt, and then start crying that it isn't fair. This is the
> reality. Harry

There's that old saying, isn't there - "All's fair in love and war".

Stan, www.thesequencers.us/Camel 'Just good-ol' Country girls and boys "getting" 'Down On The
Farm'' - ????
 
Dear Donovan

> Israel did indeed make peace with Jordan and Egypt.

A fair point -

but also fair to say that Egypt and Jordan don't have as much skin in the game as Palestinians.

I think my metaphor of the American Indian is a fair one though. Our European forefathers generally
treated the Indians unjustly, a fact most reasonable Americans acknowledge and regret. It was
actually disingenuous of early USA citizens to be surprised by Indian acts of terrorism. Of course
early American solution then is Stan's solution today> extermination, re-location. My strong
suspicion is that if the shoe were on the other foot, Stan would be a terrorist - or at least a
terrorist leader.

Maybe extermination will work Stan, maybe not. Palestinian's are not as isolated as the American
Indian of the 1800's. Heck, some Palestinians own American gas stations in my neighborhood! Lots of
Arabs in the Middle East too. Americans, Chinese and Japanese (largest oil consumers) need Arab oil
more than we need Israeli ????? oranges?? military intelligence please . . .

educate me Donovan: by implication you think Israel and Egypt/Jordan have good relations. I'll let
that ride. You also ask what countries Palestine has good relations with? Other than the USA, what
countries does Israel have a great relationship with? Let's face it, Egypt/Jordan would throw
Israel under the bus for any pretty girl in a short skirt.

Your initial point is a good one though, I under-stated Israel's maturity. Israel is not a teenager,
still young 20's though, full of thousands of Stan's with hormones, righteous rage, and bluster.
Time to make your way on your own though.

Cheers

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <c3Tyb.387150$Tr4.1132591@attbi_s03>, squirrely wrote:
> >
> > trading partners today. I see Isreal's inability to make peace with
former
> > combatants, as a national failing, and a sign of Isreal's basic
immaturity.
>
> Israel did indeed make peace with Jordan and Egypt.
>
> Perhaps you would care to name the nations that have good relations with
the
> Palestinians.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
That says it all Stan

""MIDIcian" (tm)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Harry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > I have to take issue with you. You accuse Israel of being unable to make peace with it's former
enemies.
> > Sorry mate, but you're talking bolllocks. Israel has made peace with
> Egypt,
> > Jordan, Morocco, and a number of other Arab/Islamic nations. It cannot make peace with the
> > Palestinians, because the Palestinians
> cannot
> > make peace amongst themselves, and decide what they want. As for taking territory, I repeat my
> > earlier comments: The Arabs attacked Israel in 1948, in the attempt to wipe them out. This
> was
> > repeated in 1956 and 1973. Each time, they got their asses spanked and
> lost
> > territory as a result. The territory was spoils of war. It's like a game
> of
> > poker, when you have lost your shirt, and then start crying that it
isn't
> > fair. This is the reality. Harry
>
> There's that old saying, isn't there - "All's fair in love and war".
>
>
> Stan, www.thesequencers.us/Camel 'Just good-ol' Country girls and boys "getting" 'Down On The
> Farm'' - ????
 
"squirrely" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:IFyzb.216650$Dw6.791555@attbi_s02...
> Of course early American solution then is Stan's solution today> extermination, re-location. My
> strong suspicion is that if the shoe were on the other
foot,
> Stan would be a terrorist - or at least a terrorist leader.

Straw man(s).

> Maybe extermination will work Stan, maybe not.

Straw man.

Your "Close, Personal Friend",

Stan, www.thesequencers.us nl: Lynryd Skynyrd on Rockline!!!!
 
""MIDIcian" (tm)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "squirrely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:IFyzb.216650$Dw6.791555@attbi_s02...
> > Of course early American solution then is Stan's solution today> extermination, re-location. My
> > strong suspicion is that if the shoe were on the other
> foot,
> > Stan would be a terrorist - or at least a terrorist leader.
>
> Straw man(s).
>
>
> > Maybe extermination will work Stan, maybe not.

Stan, here you are espousing extermination below, and you claim I'm making a Straw man argument???
call me slow, but I don't get it?

From your prior message If the US withheld it's support, Israel would be forced to wipe out all the
Palestinians in (what is called) Palestine (these days) and retake Israels land.

Stan

>
> Straw man.
>
>
> Your "Close, Personal Friend",
>
>
> Stan, www.thesequencers.us nl: Lynryd Skynyrd on Rockline!!!!
 
"squirrely" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:aHQzb.27850$_M.116684@attbi_s54...
> Stan, here you are espousing extermination below

******** (and a "straw man".)

> and you claim I'm making a Straw man argument??? call me slow, but I don't get it?
>
> From your prior message If the US withheld it's support, Israel would be forced to wipe out all
the
> Palestinians in (what is called) Palestine (these days) and retake Israels land.

I'm not suggesting extermination, nor am I suggesting that the US withhold it's support.

Your's is a "straw man".

Stan
 
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:32:49 -0500, Freida Gogh <[email protected]> wrote:

>real wrote:
>
>> Israel wouldn't have to resort to the measures it does in an effort to defend it's people, if the
>> palestinians weren't so hell bent on killing them in the first place.

Who's posting with a new pseudonym now? This is actually a double question, Real is new and so is
Freida Gogh. This whole thing was much easier to follow when it was just a limited number of
people using one name each.

>U.S. News Media Makes No Mention of Latest Israeli War Crime
>
>In the latest attack on civilians by the Jewish state, three Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli
>soldiers yesterday evening in central Gaza Strip. Contrary to claims made by the Israeli military,
>the three men, all from the same family, were unarmed and were shot as they drove a car to visit
>relatives for the Eid holiday.

And why would they? The US media is biased toward the Israelis.

>Israel Lied About Gaza Air Raid It now appears Flechette or similar device was used
>
>Whenever they attack and kill on a large enough scale to be noticed internationally, the Israeli
>military issues a public excuse for their actions, claiming that 'terrorists' or 'militants'
>(whatever that is) were targeted. Now one of their lies has been exposed, and it looks like a
>so-called 'targeted killing' really was a mass killing, since a Flechette-like weapon was used.

That's perfectly acceptable since Israel is at war. Read enough posts in this discussion and you
will realize that no amount of force used against the Palestinians is excessive. So long as it is
done in the interest of defending Israeli security, anything goes.

>When Palestinian witnesses had said that a recent air raid in Gaza, this time once again supposedly
>aimed at "militants," had actually killed at least 10 civilians guilty of nothing more than
>standing outside their homes, the Israeli military denied the claim, showing a piece of grainy film
>footage as "proof" that only two occupants of a car had been killed. The chief of the air force
>said that "only" two missiles were fired.

Excessive for a single car in a desolate area but what the hell. The US has used 2000 lb LGB's to
take out a single vehicle.

>According to the BBC, "The grainy black-and-white film showed the car driving along a deserted road
>when it was hit by two strikes, seconds apart, from the air. There were no civilians visible in the
>area at the time. Israeli air force commander Dan Halutz said Hellfire missiles had been fired by
>Apache helicopters, which he said had the effect of 'two assault grenades.'"

Footage provided by the IDF. Hardly a reliable source in this matter but I've heard no claims it
didn't go down just like they said. Two hellfire missiles would do an exponential amount of damage
compared to two assault grenades. One missile would do more damage than two grenades... BTW -
Hellfire missiles don't miss...

>
>The Associated Press adds yet more confirmation to the story of White

>previously reported by National Vanguard and American Dissident Voices. While emphasizing that some
>women go voluntarily, the article admits that many are held as virtual slaves and that the
>"Bedouin" smugglers and "Russian mafia" bosses are "Israelis" (read: Jews). Tiny Israel is

>corrupt politicians, such as the German MPs provided with 'call girls' in the case of Jewish
>establishment figure Michel Friedman.

and the rest of the world. However, anything that the National Vanguard picks up is either outright
propaganda or just conveinent. Jewish influence in borderline criminal activity has been hinted at
but due to the stigma of the anti-semite label, it hasn't been explored with any purpose.
 
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:46:32 +0000 (UTC), "Harry" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for that Psycho. Good pick-up on the names as well - It's our old pal Adolph again. Can't
>add anything to your replies, as I'd agree with them all.

Harry,

A lot of my post was serious but there was some sarcasm. I'll comment on the sarcastic parts below
just for clarification. I think I agree with you (and possibly even Stan) more than you think in
some cases.

><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:32:49 -0500, Freida Gogh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And why would they? The US media is biased toward the Israelis.

This comment was dead serious.

>> >Israel Lied About Gaza Air Raid It now appears Flechette or similar device was used
>> >
>> >Whenever they attack and kill on a large enough scale to be noticed internationally, the Israeli
>> >military issues a public excuse for their actions, claiming that 'terrorists' or 'militants'
>> >(whatever that is) were targeted. Now one of their lies has been exposed, and it looks like a
>> >so-called 'targeted killing' really was a mass killing, since a Flechette-like weapon was used.
>>
>> That's perfectly acceptable since Israel is at war. Read enough posts in this discussion and
>> you will realize that no amount of force used against the Palestinians is excessive. So long as
>> it is done in the interest of defending Israeli security, anything goes.

This was largely sarcastic, I've seen no eveidence that Israel is at war. Some people claim they
are as a way to justify some of thier over the top retaliatory attcks. Israel is constantly
overusing force in these matters but some people in this discussion don't think there is a
practical limit.

>> >When Palestinian witnesses had said that a recent air raid in Gaza, this time once again
>> >supposedly aimed at "militants," had actually killed at least 10 civilians guilty of nothing
>> >more than standing outside their homes, the Israeli military denied the claim, showing a piece
>> >of grainy film footage as "proof" that only two occupants of a car had been killed. The chief of
>> >the air force said that "only" two missiles were fired.
>>
>> Excessive for a single car in a desolate area but what the hell. The US has used 2000 lb LGB's
>> to take out a single vehicle.

Very serious (although it sounds sarcastic enough).

>> >According to the BBC, "The grainy black-and-white film showed the car driving along a deserted
>> >road when it was hit by two strikes, seconds apart, from the air. There were no civilians
>> >visible in the area at the time. Israeli air force commander Dan Halutz said Hellfire missiles
>> >had been fired by Apache helicopters, which he said had the effect of 'two assault grenades.'"
>>
>> Footage provided by the IDF. Hardly a reliable source in this matter but I've heard no claims
>> it didn't go down just like they said. Two hellfire missiles would do an exponential amount of
>> damage compared to two assault grenades. One missile would do more damage than two grenades...
>> BTW - Hellfire missiles don't miss...

Serious, the IDF is not a reliable source of information. They will provide what they want you to
know, that's it.

I hope that breakdown doesn't differ with what you thought you read, I just wanted to make sure
you knew where I was coming from. I believe the original message was pretty straight forward but I
just wanted to be sure. Misdirection is best left to those trying to hide something. As I am not,
I'd rather spell it out as plainly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back