( OT ) Where have you gone, Rosy Scenario?
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On 26 May 2004 04:33:25 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Most snipped

Are you really that stupid?

b'asskisser, do any of these not apply to you?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dip****

John H

Wow, you are nothing short of a pure dunce. Go look for more pictures
of children "in the biblical sense".

( OT ) Where have you gone, Rosy Scenario?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
What positive contributions have the Arab nations made to
society in
the
last 100 years?

WTF??

Are you still on the "let's launch a holy crusade to
exterminate
the
Arabs" kick?

Let's assume, for a moment, that Arabs have not made any
'contributions
to society' in the past 100 years. Does that justify a war
against
any
or all Arab and/or Muslim nations?


My comment was in reponse to the statement that all Arab nations
hate
us.
Essentially, I'm saying "who cares"...they're irrelevant in the
whole
scheme
of things...unless of course they attack us. Only *then* do
they
become
relevant...and then I *do* say that their lack of contributions
to
society
should be considered when we're deciding just how many kiloton
nuke
we
should drop on 'em.


What positive contributions have *you* made, NOBBY?

Many. Let me use an anology. Were I to be arrested, for
instance,
the
judge
would look at my long list of positive contributions to my
community...and
his punishment would be doled out accordingly. If I were a
jobless
vagrant
who had many run-ins with the law and never contributed anything
useful
to
society, I'd have a lot harsher punishment. It happens all the
time
in
our
justice system. I'm saying "let's apply the same standard to
nations".

Time to bomb Iceland, then.

Obviously the point zipped right over your head. If Iceland were
turning
out terrorists as rapidly as the Middle East, you'd have to weigh
its
positive contributions vs. its negative contributions to society
when
deciding what level of punishment to inflict upon them.

What about the terrorists the U.S. are "turning out"? Should we bomb
ourselves? It' pretty shallow of you to think that if any global
occurence doesn't fit YOUR idea of *good*, then the country where that
instance occured should be bombed. Purely childish, grow up.

*My* idea of good? You mean, there are sane people in the World who
actually think that intentionally targeting women and children in
terrorist
attacks is a "good" thing? Are you one of those ****-ups?

No, you are, NOYB. We just done that....in Iraq.

"We just done that"? LOL. Classic.

Nevertheless, are you saying we *intentionally* targeted women and children
in terrorist attacks? Remember, the key word here is *intentionally*.

( OT ) Where have you gone, Rosy Scenario?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
What positive contributions have the Arab nations made to
society in
the
last 100 years?

WTF??

Are you still on the "let's launch a holy crusade to
exterminate
the
Arabs" kick?

Let's assume, for a moment, that Arabs have not made any
'contributions
to society' in the past 100 years. Does that justify a war
against
any
or all Arab and/or Muslim nations?


My comment was in reponse to the statement that all Arab
nations
hate
us.
Essentially, I'm saying "who cares"...they're irrelevant in
the
whole
scheme
of things...unless of course they attack us. Only *then* do
they
become
relevant...and then I *do* say that their lack of
contributions
to
society
should be considered when we're deciding just how many kiloton
nuke
we
should drop on 'em.


What positive contributions have *you* made, NOBBY?

Many. Let me use an anology. Were I to be arrested, for
instance,
the
judge
would look at my long list of positive contributions to my
community...and
his punishment would be doled out accordingly. If I were a
jobless
vagrant
who had many run-ins with the law and never contributed
anything
useful
to
society, I'd have a lot harsher punishment. It happens all
the
time
in
our
justice system. I'm saying "let's apply the same standard to
nations".

Time to bomb Iceland, then.

Obviously the point zipped right over your head. If Iceland were
turning
out terrorists as rapidly as the Middle East, you'd have to weigh
its
positive contributions vs. its negative contributions to society
when
deciding what level of punishment to inflict upon them.

What about the terrorists the U.S. are "turning out"? Should we bomb
ourselves? It' pretty shallow of you to think that if any global
occurence doesn't fit YOUR idea of *good*, then the country where
that
instance occured should be bombed. Purely childish, grow up.

*My* idea of good? You mean, there are sane people in the World who
actually think that intentionally targeting women and children in
terrorist
attacks is a "good" thing? Are you one of those ****-ups?

No, you are, NOYB. We just done that....in Iraq.

"We just done that"? LOL. Classic.

Nevertheless, are you saying we *intentionally* targeted women and
children
in terrorist attacks? Remember, the key word here is *intentionally*.



You are correct. Our weapons are specifically designed so that if they land
on a building containing men, women and children, they only kill the men.

( OT ) Where have you gone, Rosy Scenario?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
What positive contributions have the Arab nations made
to
society in
the
last 100 years?

WTF??

Are you still on the "let's launch a holy crusade to
exterminate
the
Arabs" kick?

Let's assume, for a moment, that Arabs have not made any
'contributions
to society' in the past 100 years. Does that justify a war
against
any
or all Arab and/or Muslim nations?


My comment was in reponse to the statement that all Arab
nations
hate
us.
Essentially, I'm saying "who cares"...they're irrelevant in
the
whole
scheme
of things...unless of course they attack us. Only *then* do
they
become
relevant...and then I *do* say that their lack of
contributions
to
society
should be considered when we're deciding just how many
kiloton
nuke
we
should drop on 'em.


What positive contributions have *you* made, NOBBY?

Many. Let me use an anology. Were I to be arrested, for
instance,
the
judge
would look at my long list of positive contributions to my
community...and
his punishment would be doled out accordingly. If I were a
jobless
vagrant
who had many run-ins with the law and never contributed
anything
useful
to
society, I'd have a lot harsher punishment. It happens all
the
time
in
our
justice system. I'm saying "let's apply the same standard
to
nations".

Time to bomb Iceland, then.

Obviously the point zipped right over your head. If Iceland
were
turning
out terrorists as rapidly as the Middle East, you'd have to
weigh
its
positive contributions vs. its negative contributions to society
when
deciding what level of punishment to inflict upon them.

What about the terrorists the U.S. are "turning out"? Should we
bomb
ourselves? It' pretty shallow of you to think that if any global
occurence doesn't fit YOUR idea of *good*, then the country where
that
instance occured should be bombed. Purely childish, grow up.

*My* idea of good? You mean, there are sane people in the World who
actually think that intentionally targeting women and children in
terrorist
attacks is a "good" thing? Are you one of those ****-ups?

No, you are, NOYB. We just done that....in Iraq.

"We just done that"? LOL. Classic.

Nevertheless, are you saying we *intentionally* targeted women and
children
in terrorist attacks? Remember, the key word here is *intentionally*.



You are correct. Our weapons are specifically designed so that if they
land
on a building containing men, women and children, they only kill the men.


We don't hide armed soldiers among women and children. So if American women
and children are killed by terrorists, it's not "collateral damage"...it's
intentional.

A wee bit difference there, Dougie.

( OT ) Where have you gone, Rosy Scenario?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
What positive contributions have the Arab nations made
to
society in
the
last 100 years?

WTF??

Are you still on the "let's launch a holy crusade to
exterminate
the
Arabs" kick?

Let's assume, for a moment, that Arabs have not made any
'contributions
to society' in the past 100 years. Does that justify a war
against
any
or all Arab and/or Muslim nations?


My comment was in reponse to the statement that all Arab
nations
hate
us.
Essentially, I'm saying "who cares"...they're irrelevant in
the
whole
scheme
of things...unless of course they attack us. Only *then* do
they
become
relevant...and then I *do* say that their lack of
contributions
to
society
should be considered when we're deciding just how many
kiloton
nuke
we
should drop on 'em.


What positive contributions have *you* made, NOBBY?

Many. Let me use an anology. Were I to be arrested, for
instance,
the
judge
would look at my long list of positive contributions to my
community...and
his punishment would be doled out accordingly. If I were a
jobless
vagrant
who had many run-ins with the law and never contributed
anything
useful
to
society, I'd have a lot harsher punishment. It happens all
the
time
in
our
justice system. I'm saying "let's apply the same standard
to
nations".

Time to bomb Iceland, then.

Obviously the point zipped right over your head. If Iceland
were
turning
out terrorists as rapidly as the Middle East, you'd have to
weigh
its
positive contributions vs. its negative contributions to society
when
deciding what level of punishment to inflict upon them.

What about the terrorists the U.S. are "turning out"? Should we
bomb
ourselves? It' pretty shallow of you to think that if any global
occurence doesn't fit YOUR idea of *good*, then the country where
that
instance occured should be bombed. Purely childish, grow up.

*My* idea of good? You mean, there are sane people in the World who
actually think that intentionally targeting women and children in
terrorist
attacks is a "good" thing? Are you one of those ****-ups?

No, you are, NOYB. We just done that....in Iraq.

"We just done that"? LOL. Classic.

Nevertheless, are you saying we *intentionally* targeted women and
children
in terrorist attacks? Remember, the key word here is *intentionally*.



You are correct. Our weapons are specifically designed so that if they
land
on a building containing men, women and children, they only kill the men.


We don't hide armed soldiers among women and children.

Horse****!!!!