Harry Krause wrote:

I see no reason to go into gory details. I have previously stated I was
a civilian employee of the U.S. Government, I was in SE Asia during the
"Vietnam War," I saw some horrid sights directly related to that war and
no, I was NOT in the CIA. And just to help you along in your quest, I
worked for an Air Force general.


Here we go with the bull**** again.

Ya notice, never any direct information from this ass? Just a dribble of
"information" here and there, as he pieces together a lie.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Harry Krause wrote:

"Charles" was garbage in his previous identity here, and remains
garbage. He's been in my bozo bin for years, as have several others.
They don't go away when you ignore them, but there's less bad odor in here.

To be esteemed as "garbage" by you is indeed an honor.

Problem is, I haven't been here for "years", but that's ok, just more of
your on-the-fly horse****.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

basskisser wrote:

As I suspected, absolutely NOTHING of anything on topic to interject.
Typical conservative, just a blow hard

I'm not a conservative but since you lack a brain your mistake is understandable.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

But Old Harry sure does that know why our great Fuhrer bush is the worst
thing to come along since the plague, and I think that could even be argued.

Ron Livingstone, mayor of London, recently said, "I actually believe
that he (president bush) is the greatest living threat to life on our
planet." I couldn't have put it better myself.

Think about it: the Iraqi invasion, the environment, our loss of respect
in the world community, our economy (as if the US economy really is the
only thing that's important in the world), human rights, AIDS, ...

This guy really does go off the charts when it comes to disaster.

In article ,
says...
jps wrote in message . ..
In article ,
says...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:9N2Cb.7842

..... News reports of dead children -
those must be in my imagination.


Ex post facto reports of civilian casualties must of necessity be
looked upon with a jaundiced eye.


Whew, that's a pretty sick perspective. What do you think the time
limit should be on dead children?

We spend thousands of man hours looking for a pretty girl in N. Dakota
and don't blink an eye when 9 kids and then another 6 are killed by
mistake.

It just doesn't matter as much when they're brown, does it?

jps

Oh yeah, were just sittin here in CT thinkin' how can my tax dollars
go to killing some brown children.. You are still just a ****in idiot

Sorry, your logic escapes me. Did I say that we're actively investing
in killing brown people? No.

What I said is that when brown people are accidently killed, it means
next to nothing in comparison to some poor white girl in middle America
who got hauled off by a lunatic.

They're equally horrific endings, but seemingly 15 little brown kids
getting collateralized doesn't elicit the kind of sympathy or outrage
one white college student from N. Dakota warrants.

Each and every one of those dead children were someone's precious child.

Now, why don't you rethink your ****ed up logic and attempt to make a
reasonable argument against me.

jps

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

Ex post facto reports of civilian casualties must of necessity be
looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

Whew, that's a pretty sick perspective. What do you think the time
limit should be on dead children?

We spend thousands of man hours looking for a pretty girl in N. Dakota
and don't blink an eye when 9 kids and then another 6 are killed by
mistake.

It just doesn't matter as much when they're brown, does it?

I know it is always convenient for you to try to play a race card in
political arguments, thinking you can preempt the moral high ground, but you
really ought to be careful.

About what? Looking out for innocent people who have nothing to do with
the horrific acts of an asshole?

Would we, in this country, decide that 15 kids were an acceptable number
of collateral damage if we needed to terminate someone? Has that ever
been the case in a McDonald's rampage or somebody going postal on a
Wednesday afternoon in Bum****, America?

Are you going to foist the "everything's fair in war" crap on me now?
Truth is, they knew that asshole was surrounded by kids and they took
him out anyway. Not surgically but with a nice big-assed bomb. It's
the same thick headed American attitude we have about training kids to
go and be military police in Iraq. They don't know **** about the
language, the culture, what's acceptable, what's not. Brute force is
all we care about.

When a miserable little **** makes an insulting
and presumptuous statement like yours, you have no idea of the background of
the person to whom you're directing your remarks. Suffice it to say that
you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Killing little children is an act of barbarism the type of which we
would expect from a ruthless ******* like Saddam. You're okay playing
by his rules?

But that's really not the point of the original post. There have been
numerous documented cases in several countries in the mid-east of
governments using their own people, including children, as human shields.

That makes it okay.

When these people get killed, news outlets, including American sources, are
more than willing to blast the story ad nauseam, with little or no reference
to the fact that these people were likely placed in harm's way by their own
government, by force. There have been cases in both Iraq wars wherein there
were civilian casualties resulting from explosions with which US tactical
operations had no connection. In virtually all these cases there was video
feed available within minutes from al Jazeera or al Arabiya of injured
children being rushed to hospitals, blood soaked, wailing adults, etc.
Injuries and deaths very real and very tragic, but no one, including US news
sources, asks how the local Arab news crews happened to be in exactly the
right spot so quickly, and no one, including US news sources, gives any
credence to the US Forces' statements that this was not a result of their
operations.

Nice sidestep. We were talking about a specific incident, not a random
occurrence where Arab television just happened to be there.

History has shown, for the benefit of those who care to pay attention, that
these governments and military forces will create their own "collateral
damage" for consumption by the ever-gluttonous international news agencies.
Anyone who *does not* look upon these reports with at least some initial
skepticism is being naive in the extreme.

Good disinformation there John. You keep eatin' that crapola and
spewing it out. Have a bucket of KFC "Atkins Weight Loss Diet" Chicken
with extra lard and no carbohydrates and a large sugar free coke when
you're sittin' down to watch some Arab-manipulated killing of children.
They just don't value life nearly as much over there anyway. Not like
us White Folk.

jps

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:9N2Cb.7842

..... News reports of dead children -
those must be in my imagination.

Not at all, the report are real, and tragic. What is under-reported is
the fact that the target terrorists were successfully hit, target
venues were vetted in advance as clear of civilians, attack pilots saw
no children in the target area (in the one case that involved an open
field), and that the "placement" of civilian casualties is commonplace
in that part of the world, since they know full well that CNN will run
the story over and over and over. Ex post facto reports of civilian
casualties must of necessity be looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

I think my rantings are well-placed. You attempted to decrement the
validity of Doug's complaint of dead children by citing the fact that
these vermin use children as shields.

My point is: we would treat a perp who's thought responsible for
violence or murder in the states as hostile and ready for death by any
SWAT team. We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

If the kids are brown and half-way around the world it just doesn't
matter as much.

So much for our moral superiority.

Charles wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:

As I suspected, absolutely NOTHING of anything on topic to interject.
Typical conservative, just a blow hard

I'm not a conservative but since you lack a brain your mistake is understandable.

-- Charlie
BWAAAHAAA!! Now THAT'S a good one!!!!

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 13 Dec 2003 07:03:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message m...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

Did I miss anything?

Yes. The neurotransmitters between your axons.
\
Idiot. You've not given one sentence that opposes, with accuracy,
anything in the original post.

You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

Personally, I've read it. But I didn't see in it anywhere that allows
Bush to kill you simply for making your original post to this thread.
If you find such a provision, please point it out. Otherwise we'll just
have to assume that you were being specious with your line above and
really have no legitimate rebuttal.

Steve

Oh, you poor person. Here you try to come off on this newsgroup as a
know it all, and then say something that stupid! You want an exact
"provision" in the Patriot Act allowing Bush to kill someone for
writing to a newsgroup? That is just plain stupid, Steve, and you know
it.
But, there are many, many provisions for the detention of someone who
is just *thought* to be subversive. Who knows where this detention
could lead.....hmm, kinda like Saddam in Iraq, huh?