so bombing and killing is sorta like modern medical care?

"collateral damage" is a stopgap justification to placate people, it has
no real meaning. its like saying that a rapist shouldnt be charged for
damage to clothing, since it was merely collateral damage from the crime
(and please dont attack that example, its explicative not definitive)

And your idea of what somebody from an oil family does - is just
stupid.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:23:36 GMT,

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:56:14 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:29:30 GMT,

No one said I did. I just pointed out that during WW2 the Allies
targeted churches and also remember that since the Vatican was also
part of the Axis we bombed it to though FDR put a stop to it fearing
catholics in the US Military would revolt.

Give me an example of a church being targeted. Also give me an
example of the Vatican being targeted.

How about the fact they were targeted and bombed.

I asked for an example of a church being targeted. Apparently you
cannot supply one.

Note: I am not asking for an example of a church getting hit as
collateral damage - I want an example where somebody was told your
mission is to attack this church.

Consult DR WHO on that please since my own time machine is broken.
Look when your on a mission to flatten a city do you think God has
this big umbrella? If an entire neighborhood is the target then so is
the church. And what about the churches and temples at Nagasaki and
Heroshima?

As I pointed out - I was not interested in examples of collator al
damage.

Then I fail to see your problem with an elected Iraqi government.

Oh I see the problem OK. I see the Sunis all ***** because they
feel under represented. Bush wants to stay in Iraq so he can invade
Iran from it and to control the oil in both. That's what someone from
an oil familiy does.

Of course to some Sunnis 'under representation' is anything short of
total control. The rest are afraid of two things: that the Shia may
treat them the same way they treated the Shia when they were in power
and of the Sunni thugs who will kill them and their families if they
do not 'support' them.

And your idea of what somebody from an oil family does - is just
stupid.





--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As soon as the terrorists leave

We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.

So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque recently?

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:52 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> said in alt.atheism:

In article <cpnav054u8nnm03mp03cc35v6a9rct9ds1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well,

and

most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply

aren't

interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more

than

that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?

Whether you are right or wrong in your analysis, exactly what

actions do

you want to be taken? Or are you simply venting?

First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As soon as the terrorists leave, we'll leave too. Until then, we
should remain, killing as many as possible.

Next we stop the "we have a god-given duty to force democracy on the
entire world" crap.

You think the Afghans who voted for the first time last October were
"forced"? Not according to the video feeds I watched of the long lines
of people anxiously waiting to vote. I suspect it will be the same for
Iraq, although I'm reasonably certain terrorists will attempt some form
of violence and mayhem. Why do Bush haters continually and
fundamentally underestimate the desire of people, ALL people, to want
to be free and elect their own leaders?

Third, we stop trying to be the worst bullies in human history.

You obviously haven't read much history.

Those will do for starters.

Straightening up our own country, laws, economy, etc., would also be
nice.

I think a great start towards "straightening up our own country" would
be to hold all those liberals who threatened to move to a different
country if Bush was elected to their word.

mj

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:52 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> said in alt.atheism:


First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As soon as the terrorists leave, we'll leave too. Until then, we
should remain, killing as many as possible.

I think a great start towards "straightening up our own country"

be to hold all those liberals who threatened to move to a different
country if Bush was elected to their word.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:52 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> said in alt.atheism:

In article <cpnav054u8nnm03mp03cc35v6a9rct9ds1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well, and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?

Whether you are right or wrong in your analysis, exactly what actions do
you want to be taken? Or are you simply venting?

First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Next we stop the "we have a god-given duty to force democracy on the
entire world" crap.

Third, we stop trying to be the worst bullies in human history.

Those will do for starters.

Straightening up our own country, laws, economy, etc., would also be
nice.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:07:50 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> said in alt.atheism:

BTW, are you aware that the troops deployed in Iraq simply did not
care what either Bush or Kerry did in the early 70s?

Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well, and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons.

Others simply aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war.

You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?