Religions > Atheism > OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JPG" |
| Date: |
07 Jul 2005 06:18:45 AM |
| Object: |
OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. ***** religion.
JPG
.
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 01:36:04 PM |
|
|
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote in
news:5be5d198c8pbffodjvv8epdtku95857n80@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:42:05 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote in
news:gv65d1h7rhpplvrets79r1oia58ci0crau@4ax.com:
On 8 Jul 2005 02:33:07 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C62807F25B255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives.
We tried that before 9/11. 9/11 was the result.
But thanks for playing.
So why aren't you enlisting in the Bushie fascist Crusade?
Because he's a snivelling little coward, along with most of the
pro-war crowd. It's one thing to hold an opinion, quite another to
back it up with action.
So what action are *YOU* taking to back up your opinion? Going to Iraq
to be a human shield? Maybe signing up for the Jihad?
I have been opposed to the war since the possibility of it happening
was first suggested.
Yes, it's quite clear that you have some vested emotional interest in
protecting those who murder eight year old boys for scribbling the wrong
thing in their textbooks, and raping 12 year old girls for their families'
sins. That you somehow *need* to know that such things are legal somewhere
in the world.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion isinvolved. |
07 Jul 2005 09:05:02 PM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. ***** religion.
JPG
My bet religion has 100% to do with it. Even if only in the minds of the sick
perpetrators, their religions provides some kind of pathetic excuse for their
actions.
But at the root of it all there is envy and racial hatred, add religion and you get
an animal that is almost impossible to control. It could be humanity has to live
with these sick morons for the rest of our time on earth. One day they will find
an atomic weapon powerful to wipe us all out, then there will be no more humanity.
All in the name of imaginary gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion isinvolved. |
07 Jul 2005 06:33:58 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. ***** religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst
London has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is
NOT to say the attacks were justified.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:23:45 AM |
|
|
"James Ascher" <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gq8ze.14028$jX6.9785@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of
the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst London
has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is NOT to say
the attacks were justified.
James
Er the IRA weren't religiously inspired. They wanted a united ireland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 03:25:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>
wrote:
"James Ascher" <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gq8ze.14028$jX6.9785@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of
the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst London
has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is NOT to say
the attacks were justified.
James
Er the IRA weren't religiously inspired. They wanted a united ireland.
Er.. The catholics wanted the north united with the catholic south,
the protestants were particulalrly anti-catholic and didn't want
anything to do with the south. Excuse me if I'm wrong but that does
sound a tad religious to me.
--
"And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of
human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason
and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable
- and we believe they can do it again."
-- John F. Kennedy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 03:59:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>
wrote:
"James Ascher" <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gq8ze.14028$jX6.9785@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of
the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst London
has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is NOT to say
the attacks were justified.
James
Er the IRA weren't religiously inspired. They wanted a united ireland.
I think it's combination of political and religious ideaologies. The
IRA tended to target protestants, regardless of their political views
(some protestants also want a united Ireland). The two sides are also
encouraged (in the more extreme families) to hate people of the
'opposing' religion. The territorial battle is definitely a part of
it, and a large part, but there is more to it than that IMO.
I guess it depends who you ask :-)
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion isinvolved. |
07 Jul 2005 06:36:52 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"James Ascher" <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gq8ze.14028$jX6.9785@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of
the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst London
has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is NOT to say
the attacks were justified.
James
Er the IRA weren't religiously inspired. They wanted a united ireland.
You don't think a desire for a majority-Catholic Ireland was a factor in
their efforts?
James
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 07:07:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:33:58 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. ***** religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst
London has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is
NOT to say the attacks were justified.
This is very different to an IRA London attack. The biggest IRA bomb
(Nat West Tower) was designed to damage property - the bomb went off
on a Sunday when the square mile was practically empty, and despite
the size of the bomb and the damage only one person was killed. Most
IRA attacks were minor in comparison to this one. Even at the height
of the IRA's London campaign, they relied on confusion and disruption
to the transport system.
This attack was designed to kill and injure as many people as
possible. The attacks were co-ordinated to take place when the
transport system was at its busiest to maximise casualties. This is a
sort of terrorism that nobody in Britain has ever seen, and it's
deeply shocking. It looks like an Al Quaeda-style Muslim extremist
attack. I'm hoping they catch the people responsible and batter the
***** out of them. I spent an hour this morning desperately texting
people in London to see if they were OK and I'm still a bit shaky
about the whole thing. I have no idea what the idiots think they are
going to achieve by this.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 10:39:12 AM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:b96qc196rohf8aid7eg0jqvpb0kjr132sn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:33:58 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove
of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst
London has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is
NOT to say the attacks were justified.
This is very different to an IRA London attack. The biggest IRA bomb
(Nat West Tower) was designed to damage property - the bomb went off
on a Sunday when the square mile was practically empty, and despite
the size of the bomb and the damage only one person was killed. Most
IRA attacks were minor in comparison to this one. Even at the height
of the IRA's London campaign, they relied on confusion and disruption
to the transport system.
This attack was designed to kill and injure as many people as
possible. The attacks were co-ordinated to take place when the
transport system was at its busiest to maximise casualties. This is a
sort of terrorism that nobody in Britain has ever seen, and it's
deeply shocking. It looks like an Al Quaeda-style Muslim extremist
attack. I'm hoping they catch the people responsible and batter the
***** out of them. I spent an hour this morning desperately texting
people in London to see if they were OK and I'm still a bit shaky
about the whole thing. I have no idea what the idiots think they are
going to achieve by this.
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I do.
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:05:59 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:A0cze.5390$3Y3.1396@trnddc09...
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:b96qc196rohf8aid7eg0jqvpb0kjr132sn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:33:58 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove
of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as
well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst
London has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is
NOT to say the attacks were justified.
This is very different to an IRA London attack. The biggest IRA bomb
(Nat West Tower) was designed to damage property - the bomb went off
on a Sunday when the square mile was practically empty, and despite
the size of the bomb and the damage only one person was killed. Most
IRA attacks were minor in comparison to this one. Even at the height
of the IRA's London campaign, they relied on confusion and disruption
to the transport system.
This attack was designed to kill and injure as many people as
possible. The attacks were co-ordinated to take place when the
transport system was at its busiest to maximise casualties. This is a
sort of terrorism that nobody in Britain has ever seen, and it's
deeply shocking. It looks like an Al Quaeda-style Muslim extremist
attack. I'm hoping they catch the people responsible and batter the
***** out of them. I spent an hour this morning desperately texting
people in London to see if they were OK and I'm still a bit shaky
about the whole thing. I have no idea what the idiots think they are
going to achieve by this.
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
"Spain" did no such thing. For reasons more complicated than the
simple-minded would care to contemplate (such as the cynical attempt to
exploit the bombings by the party already in power, amongst other factors),
Spain's electorate shifted a *very few* percentage points to the Socialist
Party, which simply enacted what it had already promised to do. What kind
of an insane bigot are you, Diana, that you would draw such an overarching
conclusion about an entire society based upon a tiny shift in demographics?
It's like claiming that all of the United States have decided to enact a
christian theocracy because of the results of the last two presidential
elections.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:04:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:b96qc196rohf8aid7eg0jqvpb0kjr132sn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:33:58 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove
of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky
pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been
rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of
the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the
bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. *****
religion.
Despite people being killed in the attacks, it's far from the worst
London has seen. The IRA regularly attacked with more force - which is
NOT to say the attacks were justified.
This is very different to an IRA London attack. The biggest IRA bomb
(Nat West Tower) was designed to damage property - the bomb went off
on a Sunday when the square mile was practically empty, and despite
the size of the bomb and the damage only one person was killed. Most
IRA attacks were minor in comparison to this one. Even at the height
of the IRA's London campaign, they relied on confusion and disruption
to the transport system.
This attack was designed to kill and injure as many people as
possible. The attacks were co-ordinated to take place when the
transport system was at its busiest to maximise casualties. This is a
sort of terrorism that nobody in Britain has ever seen, and it's
deeply shocking. It looks like an Al Quaeda-style Muslim extremist
attack. I'm hoping they catch the people responsible and batter the
***** out of them. I spent an hour this morning desperately texting
people in London to see if they were OK and I'm still a bit shaky
about the whole thing. I have no idea what the idiots think they are
going to achieve by this.
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I do.
Psychic now, are you?
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians). It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 01:16:21 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many, many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub. Not when France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bad Wolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 02:13:43 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's
the betting religion is involved." in alt.atheism, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many, many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub. Not when France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
When did you start taking any notice of what was going on in the
world? Yesterday? Learn some history, or at least some facts, and no,
I'm not going to spoon-feed you with them. You are too ignorant for me
to know where to start. Do a quick google on 'Halabjah' just for
starters.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 05:35:39 PM |
|
|
"Bad Wolf" <Badwolf@tardis.com> wrote in message
news:2cvqc11dp1fkt1imjqik87vtks0i0gksog@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's
the betting religion is involved." in alt.atheism, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for
the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that
the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub. Not when
France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
When did you start taking any notice of what was going on in the
world? Yesterday? Learn some history, or at least some facts, and no,
I'm not going to spoon-feed you with them. You are too ignorant for me
to know where to start. Do a quick google on 'Halabjah' just for
starters.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Y'know, If *I* had responded with something like this, y'all would have been
all over me like white on rice. It is nonresponsive, insulting and
condescending.
Not to mention stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 02:30:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government. They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many, many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
Al Quaeda attacked them on 9/11. The response you are talking about
had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. If you believe it did, feel
free to post some hard evidence of the links between Iraq and 9/11.
Your government could not find any.
That's why the US/UK are partially responsible.
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub.
It makes far more sense than the naive idea that the attack on Iraq
had something to do with 9/11. Even the Republicans have dropped that
piece of tattered fiction.
Not when France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
That's the most bizarre and twisted piece of logic you've come out
with so far. No European can criticize the US because European
countries have been just as guilty? That's not hypocrisy at all. It
would be hypocritical if I said that the UK Government were blameless
but I didn't. In fact, I said that Blair bears some of the
responsibility for this mess. There are plenty of countries in Europe
and elsewhere which have benefitted from Saddam's regime (including
France and the US). I'm not being a hypocrite by criticising any of
them.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 05:46:43 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for
the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that
the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing government
because of the terrorism. Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs. which
group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists achieved
their goals here; they influenced the elections through violence and through
fear.
They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
They were divided, yes. But all the money was on the other side winning the
election...until the attacks.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
yes, our government did. We also helped put Saddam in power. Doesn't that
make it our responsibility to take them OUT, as well?
Al Quaeda attacked them on 9/11. The response you are talking about
had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. If you believe it did, feel
free to post some hard evidence of the links between Iraq and 9/11.
Your government could not find any.
I believe that Tony Blair put it best when he said that this is a war
against terrorism; Iraq was attacked for two main reasons; first, because
those in power truly DID believe that they had weapons of mass destruction
(and Saddam made no real attempt to disabuse anybody of that notion) and
second, because it was the logical first step. We were not out to catch the
guys that bombed the WTC so much as we were out to stop TERRORISM. Wherever,
whoever, whatever the target of that terrorism. Iraq/Saddam had been in
violation of UN Resolutions for over a decade and showed absolutely NO signs
of co-operation. We had dealt with Afghanistan (mostly). It was their turn.
It was the logical step; for there is only one thing that will free any
people from terrorism, and that is freedom.
Call me naive if you wish, but Iraq has just had the first free elections it
has had in literally thousands of years. If we can pull this off; if we can
see to it that the citizens of Iraq have a truly democratic and free society
in which they may, individually, choose what to believe, what their
government is like, who to vote for...and prosper, don't you see how that
will be the death knell of the chokehold theocratical Islam has on that
area? That's the ONLY way to defeat terrorism.
That's why the US/UK are partially responsible.
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub.
It makes far more sense than the naive idea that the attack on Iraq
had something to do with 9/11. Even the Republicans have dropped that
piece of tattered fiction.
I have never figured that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. After all, Germany
and Italy were not responsible for Pearl Harbor, either....but we went to
war with them anyway.
Not when France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
That's the most bizarre and twisted piece of logic you've come out
with so far. No European can criticize the US because European
countries have been just as guilty? That's not hypocrisy at all. It
would be hypocritical if I said that the UK Government were blameless
but I didn't. In fact, I said that Blair bears some of the
responsibility for this mess. There are plenty of countries in Europe
and elsewhere which have benefitted from Saddam's regime (including
France and the US). I'm not being a hypocrite by criticising any of
them.
You are when the US isn't IN it for the oil. We have no stake in it, we
won't get any of it. In fact, 'oil' is the very LAST thing that the US is in
it for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
14 Jul 2005 10:33:57 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:nhize.10926$kh3.4146@trnddc03:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well
as I do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it
for the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they
ARE going to demand that those they target do what they want. I
realize that the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to
say,, simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like
Spain did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing
government because of the terrorism.
No, they elected the new Government, because their current Government
IGNORED the protests of the people, the vast majority of whom were
against Spain supporting Bushs' illegal Iraq invasion.
Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs.
which group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists
achieved their goals here; they influenced the elections through
violence and through fear.
*****. The people of Spain objected to their government following
Bush into Iraq. I know your a beliver in non-existant entities, and so
have a bit of a problem with FACTS, but you could at least try.
........Rest snipped....
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
14 Jul 2005 10:49:36 AM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:Xns9693A884DB7EAhellward@216.196.109.145:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:nhize.10926$kh3.4146@trnddc03:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well
as I do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it
for the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they
ARE going to demand that those they target do what they want. I
realize that the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to
say,, simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where
non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like
Spain did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing
government because of the terrorism.
No, they elected the new Government, because their current Government
IGNORED the protests of the people, the vast majority of whom were
against Spain supporting Bushs' illegal Iraq invasion.
What actually pushed them over the line was that the initial confusion
about attributing the attack to al Qaeda was exploited by the Leftists.
Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs.
which group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists
achieved their goals here; they influenced the elections through
violence and through fear.
*****. The people of Spain objected to their government following
Bush into Iraq. I know your a beliver in non-existant entities, and so
have a bit of a problem with FACTS, but you could at least try.
SOME people of Spain objected to that. And it got them no immunity from
the terrorists: at least eight more attacks have been foiled by Spanish
authorities.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 11:10:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:46:43 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for
the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that
the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing government
because of the terrorism. Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs. which
group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists achieved
their goals here; they influenced the elections through violence and through
fear.
That does not constitute proof of what is just your opinion. There
were plenty of polls in the US which predicted that Kerry would win
the election.
Regardless, Spain is a democracy. What gives you the right to demand
that the Spanish people risk their lives for an American cause?
They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
They were divided, yes. But all the money was on the other side winning the
election...until the attacks.
Is Kerry the US President?
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
yes, our government did. We also helped put Saddam in power. Doesn't that
make it our responsibility to take them OUT, as well?
Fascinating logic. You accept that the US helped to create AQ, but
still insist that nothing the US has done makes the situation their
fault?
This is just an idea, but maybe it would have been better not to
support them in the first place.
Al Quaeda attacked them on 9/11. The response you are talking about
had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. If you believe it did, feel
free to post some hard evidence of the links between Iraq and 9/11.
Your government could not find any.
I believe that Tony Blair put it best when he said that this is a war
against terrorism; Iraq was attacked for two main reasons; first, because
those in power truly DID believe that they had weapons of mass destruction
Rubbish. They were told repeatedly by the security services that
Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. They even accepted
this themselves. The Downing Street and the UK Government's 'dossier'
both make is very clear that the policy was decided first and the case
built around it. They did not believe that Saddam had WMDs.
(and Saddam made no real attempt to disabuse anybody of that notion) and
second, because it was the logical first step. We were not out to catch the
guys that bombed the WTC so much as we were out to stop TERRORISM. Wherever,
whoever, whatever the target of that terrorism. Iraq/Saddam had been in
violation of UN Resolutions for over a decade and showed absolutely NO signs
of co-operation. We had dealt with Afghanistan (mostly). It was their turn.
It was the logical step; for there is only one thing that will free any
people from terrorism, and that is freedom.
You are making the assumption that Iraq constituted a terrorist threat
that was worth killing tens of thousands of innocent people for. Where
is your evidence that Iraq was a terrorist threat? You repeatedly
claiming it does not make it true. Saudi Arabia has a far worse record
when it comes to funding terrorists.
Call me naive if you wish, but Iraq has just had the first free elections it
has had in literally thousands of years. If we can pull this off; if we can
see to it that the citizens of Iraq have a truly democratic and free society
in which they may, individually, choose what to believe, what their
government is like, who to vote for...and prosper, don't you see how that
will be the death knell of the chokehold theocratical Islam has on that
area? That's the ONLY way to defeat terrorism.
It will not defeat terrorism - it has already made it worse. Why can't
you see that? As you sit there glibly defending this supposed
anti-terrorist action against a non-terrorist nation, people in London
and Iraq are still dying.
If it happens (which is far from certain) it will have been achieved
at the cost of many more lives than have already been sacrificed. What
right do you or your Government or my Government have to decide that
it's acceptable to kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of people
(directly through military intervention or indirectly by stirring up a
hornet's nest) in order to get them the vote? Don't you think that
they had the right to make that decision themselves?
Iraq was a secular state. There are far worse countries in the Middle
East. Take a look at Saudi Arabia some time, and then look at your
rather simplistic view of the invasion of Iraq.
That's why the US/UK are partially responsible.
It's one thing him getting his own troops killed, but his stupid
policies have killed too many civilians, and as long as he refuses to
give up on Iraq's oil fields then people across Europe will continue
to die. I don't want my friends and family to be at risk so that
Americans can buy cheap petrol.
Don't give me the 'he's only in it for the oil' crap, bub.
It makes far more sense than the naive idea that the attack on Iraq
had something to do with 9/11. Even the Republicans have dropped that
piece of tattered fiction.
I have never figured that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. After all, Germany
and Italy were not responsible for Pearl Harbor, either....but we went to
war with them anyway.
So what, exactly, is your justification for supporting the bloodbath
in Iraq?
Not when France,
Germany and Russia have been propping Saddam up in power and allowing the
sort of atrocities he did because THEY wanted the oil. Nobody, and I mean
NOBODY in Europe, has the right to accuse AMERICA of doing anything 'just
for the oil'.
It is the height and breadth and epitome of hypocrisy.
That's the most bizarre and twisted piece of logic you've come out
with so far. No European can criticize the US because European
countries have been just as guilty? That's not hypocrisy at all. It
would be hypocritical if I said that the UK Government were blameless
but I didn't. In fact, I said that Blair bears some of the
responsibility for this mess. There are plenty of countries in Europe
and elsewhere which have benefitted from Saddam's regime (including
France and the US). I'm not being a hypocrite by criticising any of
them.
You are when the US isn't IN it for the oil. We have no stake in it, we
won't get any of it. In fact, 'oil' is the very LAST thing that the US is in
it for.
You can not present a single valid reason why Iraq was invaded, Bush
himself has talked about America's 'addiction' to oil, American oil
companies have already been awarded huge contracts in Iraq and
promised others, and yet you blindly deny that it's involved.
You still haven't backed up your accusation of hypocrisy.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 01:48:55 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:0b65d11usblibm3hv9acpalg32gib73imp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:46:43 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as
I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for
the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that
the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like
Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing government
because of the terrorism. Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs. which
group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists achieved
their goals here; they influenced the elections through violence and
through
fear.
That does not constitute proof of what is just your opinion. There
were plenty of polls in the US which predicted that Kerry would win
the election.
Regardless, Spain is a democracy. What gives you the right to demand
that the Spanish people risk their lives for an American cause?
I don't remember demanding anything. Simply observing that terrorist tactics
worked in Spain, and the terrorists who attacked the trains there got
precisely what they wanted.
They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
They were divided, yes. But all the money was on the other side winning
the
election...until the attacks.
Is Kerry the US President?
non sequitur. We aren't talking about the US presidencial election. We ARE
talking about the Spanish one....and the polls before that election were
close, but all predicting the re-election of the conservative government.
Whether you LIKE that or not is irrelevent. The terrorists didn't want that
government. They timed their attacks to affect the election and they did;
the conservative goverment was thrown out in favor of one that was, if not
downright supportive of the terrorist aims, certainly unwilling to buck
them; they got out of Iraq. The elections were rather completely affected. I
don't know any political analyst, of any stripe, that argues with this. They
may disagree on the desirability of the outcome, but nobody (but you,
evidently) argues that the terrorist attacks did not frighten people into
voting differently.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
yes, our government did. We also helped put Saddam in power. Doesn't that
make it our responsibility to take them OUT, as well?
Fascinating logic. You accept that the US helped to create AQ, but
still insist that nothing the US has done makes the situation their
fault?
Excuse me. Where have I ever insisted that 'nothing that the US has done
makes the situation their fault'??
I do believe that once one goofs, one should endeavor to repair that goof.
Inasmuch as we DID help put Saddam in power, then that would, seems to me,
make it very much our responsibility to get him OUT, when he abrogated every
agreement we made with him.
This is just an idea, but maybe it would have been better not to
support them in the first place.
Perhaps so. However, we can't go back and 'unsupport him' now, can we?
Absent certain experimental and esoteric physics theories, time only flows
one way. All we can do now is get him out.
<snip to end, looking forward to Fred's response>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 02:32:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:48:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:0b65d11usblibm3hv9acpalg32gib73imp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:46:43 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:le0rc1dojb2gr06iel2rjt0u7h0g0vldla@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:16:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:r8kqc1tctd0knvliq58a0kh1qknjpb6ubr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:39:12 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
You know what they think they are going to achieve by this as well as
I
do.
Psychic now, are you?
You think that the terrorists are going to say that they only did it for
the
special effects footage? It doesn't take a psychic to know that they ARE
going to demand that those they target do what they want. I realize that
the
temptation to disagree with anything someone on the right has to say,,
simply because the words are coming from the right, is almost
overwhelming;
but don't let that lead you into complete silliness.
I don't disagree with people just because they are politically right
wing. Another one of your straw men. If that were true, why would I
have agreed with your assessment of what constitutes a Christian?
Here's a clue: I wouldn't.
I asked a perfectly genuine question, you told me I already knew the
answer which was a bizarre response (although given your tendency to
put words into people's mouths in order to make an argument where non
exists, perhaps it's a tactic I should have expected).
They want Britain to accede to the demands of the terrorists, like
Spain
did.
Spain's withdrawal did not achieve anything (other than saving the
lives of Spanish civilians).
IT got Spain out of Iraq, which is what the terrorists wanted.
They would have withdrawn anyway. That's precisely why the people
elected a left-wing Government.
You have cause and effect mixed up. They elected a left wing government
because of the terrorism. Or weren't you aware of the timing, and the
predictions of which group would have won BEFORE the attacks, vs. which
group won after? That's the mechanism by which the terrorists achieved
their goals here; they influenced the elections through violence and
through
fear.
That does not constitute proof of what is just your opinion. There
were plenty of polls in the US which predicted that Kerry would win
the election.
Regardless, Spain is a democracy. What gives you the right to demand
that the Spanish people risk their lives for an American cause?
I don't remember demanding anything. Simply observing that terrorist tactics
worked in Spain, and the terrorists who attacked the trains there got
precisely what they wanted.
The Spanish people were opposed to the war from the start. Do you
think that they should have changed their vote just to prove that they
were not giving in to terrorists - even though they had already
expressed their opposition to the war before the attack?
You are assuming that they did a u-turn because of the attacks. That
is far from clear.
They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
They were divided, yes. But all the money was on the other side winning
the
election...until the attacks.
Is Kerry the US President?
non sequitur. We aren't talking about the US presidencial election. We ARE
talking about the Spanish one....and the polls before that election were
close, but all predicting the re-election of the conservative government.
It is not a non-sequitur. You are basing your opinion on poll results
which are notoriously unreliable, as the US election demonstrated. You
can not know that the polls were accurate, particularly if they showed
a close race.
Whether you LIKE that or not is irrelevent. The terrorists didn't want that
government. They timed their attacks to affect the election and they did;
the conservative goverment was thrown out in favor of one that was, if not
downright supportive of the terrorist aims, certainly unwilling to buck
them; they got out of Iraq. The elections were rather completely affected. I
don't know any political analyst, of any stripe, that argues with this. They
may disagree on the desirability of the outcome, but nobody (but you,
evidently) argues that the terrorist attacks did not frighten people into
voting differently.
And you are basing all of this on some opinion polls which even you
admit were close?
I have not claimed that some people voted differently as a result of
the attacks, but the idea that the election result was different is
nothing more than your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. Can you
come up with something more impressive than some unreliable poll
results?
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
yes, our government did. We also helped put Saddam in power. Doesn't that
make it our responsibility to take them OUT, as well?
Fascinating logic. You accept that the US helped to create AQ, but
still insist that nothing the US has done makes the situation their
fault?
Excuse me. Where have I ever insisted that 'nothing that the US has done
makes the situation their fault'??
You said "We took many, many years of attacks before we responded; how
is that our fault?". I was pointing out a fault or two.
I do believe that once one goofs, one should endeavor to repair that goof.
Inasmuch as we DID help put Saddam in power, then that would, seems to me,
make it very much our responsibility to get him OUT, when he abrogated every
agreement we made with him.
Even when he posed no threat, and was less involved in terrorism than
numerous other countries? How can you expect me to believe that this
war had any sort of a humanitarian basis when there are countries
which are far, far worse out there? Why Iraq? The US hasn't shown any
interest in undoing its other foreign policy mistakes.
This is just an idea, but maybe it would have been better not to
support them in the first place.
Perhaps so. However, we can't go back and 'unsupport him' now, can we?
Absent certain experimental and esoteric physics theories, time only flows
one way. All we can do now is get him out.
Why him and not leaders who are far, far worse?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 05:32:58 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:5qh5d155e3tqmtmdo43ppopves06js3s1a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:48:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
That does not constitute proof of what is just your opinion. There
were plenty of polls in the US which predicted that Kerry would win
the election.
Regardless, Spain is a democracy. What gives you the right to demand
that the Spanish people risk their lives for an American cause?
I don't remember demanding anything. Simply observing that terrorist
tactics
worked in Spain, and the terrorists who attacked the trains there got
precisely what they wanted.
The Spanish people were opposed to the war from the start.
Close to half of them were. Not all of them were. Enough of them supported
the idea so that the polls predicted that the conservative government would
remain in place.
Do you
think that they should have changed their vote just to prove that they
were not giving in to terrorists - even though they had already
expressed their opposition to the war before the attack?
Yes. I do.
You are assuming that they did a u-turn because of the attacks. That
is far from clear.
That those attacks affected enough votes to change the election isn't a
'possibility'. It's a fact. The polls before and after the election show
this, there isn't anybody who denies it. The only argument is whether that
change was a good thing or a bad thing.
They were sick of the bloodshed. The
Spanish people were opposed to the war long before Madrid was
attacked, just as the Brits were.
They were divided, yes. But all the money was on the other side winning
the
election...until the attacks.
Is Kerry the US President?
non sequitur. We aren't talking about the US presidencial election. We ARE
talking about the Spanish one....and the polls before that election were
close, but all predicting the re-election of the conservative government.
It is not a non-sequitur. You are basing your opinion on poll results
which are notoriously unreliable, as the US election demonstrated. You
can not know that the polls were accurate, particularly if they showed
a close race.
If the election had been a close one, you might have a point. It was,
however, not. The polls had Aznar leading over Zapatero. ALL of them did so
(not all the US polls agreed that Kerry would win, y'know...). After the
bombings, the voter turnout was rather large; 78%. That alone was unusual.
However, when everything was counted, the Socialists had won 164 seats to
the Popular Party's 147 seats. That's seventeen seats. That's not 'close'.
That's a very solid win.
Whether you LIKE that or not is irrelevent. The terrorists didn't want
that
government. They timed their attacks to affect the election and they did;
the conservative goverment was thrown out in favor of one that was, if not
downright supportive of the terrorist aims, certainly unwilling to buck
them; they got out of Iraq. The elections were rather completely affected.
I
don't know any political analyst, of any stripe, that argues with this.
They
may disagree on the desirability of the outcome, but nobody (but you,
evidently) argues that the terrorist attacks did not frighten people into
voting differently.
And you are basing all of this on some opinion polls which even you
admit were close?
No. I'm basing it on the fact that those opinion polls WERE close. And the
election was not.
I have not claimed that some people voted differently as a result of
the attacks, but the idea that the election result was different is
nothing more than your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. Can you
come up with something more impressive than some unreliable poll
results?
You reference the US polls as evidence that polling isn't accurate. However,
the US polls WERE pretty accurate within their measures of error, and not
all of them had Kerry winning, y'know. Some of them were actually right on
the money for the results.
However, the polls in Spain ALL had Aznar winning, albeit by a slim
margin...two or three seats. yet the election was not remotely close. The
difference was SEVENTEEN seats. That means that Zapatero didn't just get the
two or three seats he required to barely win. He got AT LEAST nine seats he
wasn't expected to get, and if he lost any, that lost one was replaced.
That is not a 'slim margin'.
It did not reduce the number of
casualties in Iraq. Britain's withdrawal would have a pretty small
impact too - the majority of casualties have been caused by the US
military. It was Bush who started this stupid bloody war, so British
troops *should* be withdrawn. Bush wanted this, let him finish it.
Actually, the terrorists started it.
Sorry, but that's the truth no matter how you look at it. We took
many,
many
years of attacks before we responded; how is that our fault?
Your government funded, armed and trained Al Quaeda. That makes them
partially responsible for the consequences. They made them into a
powerful force in Afghanistan, giving them millions of dollars.
yes, our government did. We also helped put Saddam in power. Doesn't
that
make it our responsibility to take them OUT, as well?
Fascinating logic. You accept that the US helped to create AQ, but
still insist that nothing the US has done makes the situation their
fault?
Excuse me. Where have I ever insisted that 'nothing that the US has done
makes the situation their fault'??
You said "We took many, many years of attacks before we responded; how
is that our fault?". I was pointing out a fault or two.
Ok, which is it? Should we have bombed him EARLIER rather than later? Is
that it?
I do believe that once one goofs, one should endeavor to repair that goof.
Inasmuch as we DID help put Saddam in power, then that would, seems to me,
make it very much our responsibility to get him OUT, when he abrogated
every
agreement we made with him.
Even when he posed no threat, and was less involved in terrorism than
numerous other countries?
I see. It's ok with you if we put a madman and a tyrant into power, as long
as he only kills his OWN people, right? We have no obligation to remove him
unless he is threatening YOU?
How can you expect me to believe that this
war had any sort of a humanitarian basis when there are countries
which are far, far worse out there? Why Iraq? The US hasn't shown any
interest in undoing its other foreign policy mistakes.
You need to make up your mind, you truly do. Either we fix our mistakes or
we don't. If you don't want us to, you can't use the 'it's our fault he's
in there' argument, can you? Indeed, that particular argument has always
made me go 'hmmn...???" Because when you think about it, if it IS our fault
he's in there, then it is ABSOLUTELY our responsibility to get him out.
To argue that we have no business attacking him and removing him from power
BECAUSE we put him in there in the first place makes absolutely no sense. It
is about as callous an attitude as I've ever come across, frankly. He was a
tyrant and a murderer; he did kill his own people with great abandon and
rather careless ease, and you argue that we have no business removing him
because he was no threat to US?
Isn't that a little like saying that we should leave the alligator in the
day care swimming pool, after all, he's only eating the neighbor kids, and
we're the ones who put him there in the first place?
This is just an idea, but maybe it would have been better not to
support them in the first place.
Perhaps so. However, we can't go back and 'unsupport him' now, can we?
Absent certain experimental and esoteric physics theories, time only flows
one way. All we can do now is get him out.
Why him and not leaders who are far, far worse?
He was first in line?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
