Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 19:27
VIEWED: 12002
PAGE 1 of 1
A few months ago, I started a poll on my website about when Osama Bin Laden will be captured in relation to the US election.
TAKE THE POLL:
http://www.strangefinger.com/index.html#bl
Bush is running out of time, but low and behold:
U.S. Capture of bin Laden Close
Sep 4,2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap
/20040904/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_bin_laden_1
What's your opinion on this matter? I'm guessing Bin Laden will be caught in mid-October. Hmmm.
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah... notice how they found Saddam right when Bush's approval ratings were lowest? I think they might even know right where Osama is, and come October 30th or so, we'll get the big announcement that he's in captivity. And Bush gets four more years.
Either that or the electronic voting machines with no paper trail that are constructed by financial supporters of the Republican party will get him a win...
Anybody remember how he won the election without winning the popular vote last time?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Disgusting. Nothing since going into Iraq, and now, suddenly, right before the election, "we're getting close" to Bin Laden. It's like an efing teaser trailer. How is it that people continue to buy into this crap?
I'm writing a book: "Everything I needed to know about post 9/11 politics I learned in junior high." The RNC was a week long version of the jock sitting behind you coughing "loser" with all his pals laughing. And people respond by giving Bush a "double digit" lead. Cheney says, "We don't need a permission slip to defend the United States." Are we all twelve now? I can hear the new rhetoric now: "George Bush will not be sent to bed without any supper! He will not be grounded! He will go to the party on Friday night! He will borrow Dad's car! While John Kerrey stays home studying for a history exam! Our team is red hot, your team is doodly-squat!"
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The capture of Bin Laden will be good news not only for the Bush administration, but fot the entire western world, and reluctantly, the whole world. If it comes before the election that's good, and if it comes after, that's also good. I don't think the timing is really under Bush's control.
From the Department of Rendundancy Department.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I predicted a year ago that Bin Laden would be "captured" right before the election. If he's not already in custody, waiting to be trotted out the week before the election, that is.
It's already been made abundantly clear that Iraq had no WMDs, and the CIA admits Iraq had no part in September 11th. Yet 1,000 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi innocents have died because Bush's puppet masters wanted Iraq's oil.
Despite that, most of America seems to blindly support Bush and Cheney, whose rampant jingoism would be laughable if everyone weren't taking it seriously.
I'm all for homeland security, but the war in Iraq is wrong, our men and women are dying over there for corporate blood money, and Bush is a tool of those selfsame corporations. He's got to go.
Kerry may prove to be no better, but at least there's a chance. Bush has proven to be bad for America and Americans. He sickens me.
gojiro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Succatash,
I was wondering what you might make of this ?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Could there be a much bigger story hiding here ?
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to think we can remove Bush and tone down the insanity.
If the message in the video is true, then it's too late. We are doomed.
Helpless helpless helpess helpless
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hate to say it but Bush isn't really the problem...
Your countries foriegn policy from about Eisenhower on has been making enemies all over the place
Republican or Democrat they seem to want to control everyone elses business... and now instead of attacking the lackey US appointed dictator.. they are taking the fight back to America
Bush is only part of it, a bigger solution has to be found... and soon
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey Succatash,
I was wondering what you might make of this ?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Could there be a much bigger story hiding here ?
Nice! I'd come across this information before but not in such a concise form. Thank you.
At moments like this I get the feeling that the internet is gonna be the savior of us all. I think this is why there's been such a lock-down on conventional media in the past few years. Conservative forces and think tanks that have been hard at work protecting "free enterprise" from "liberal fascism" for the past 30 years have been laboring under a pre-internet model. With every passing day they must be feeling more and more screwed. So their only hope is to keep the heartland of America away from the internet and keep them watching fox news and reading USA Today. As long as they can keep the notion that "any wacko can put up a webpage" and use the term "conspiracy theory" to destroy the credibility of any information that falls outside their "mainstream" they figure they can maintain control. But it sure seems like just a matter of time before the internet matures into the primary source of news and information for people in this country.HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Every time I read postings like these, I almost cry. I'm deeply grateful to read and learn from the informed, thoughtful, cogent, eloquent people who give a damn.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to say thanks, I had second thoughts about posting that link... I thought I was going to be flamed, told off, etc
It is really nice to know that this medium of the internet really does connect like minded people...
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey Succatash,
I was wondering what you might make of this ?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Could there be a much bigger story hiding here ?
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
Even Snopes.com has debunked this one. As well as people I know who saw the 757 hit the building.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
A few months ago, I started a poll on my website about when Osama Bin Laden will be captured in relation to the US election.
Bush is running out of time, but low and behold:
U.S. Capture of bin Laden Close
What's your opinion on this matter? I'm guessing Bin Laden will be caught in mid-October. Hmmm.
I agree, but its an American tradition. Back during the Civil War Lincoln "arranged" to have Atlanta fall before the election to secure victory. Same thing with Roosevelt in WW2, first he arranged the liberation of France before the election, then he got Hitler to hold off on the Battle of the Bulge until after it was over.
Please. Its three years between Sept 11, 2001 and Nov 2, 2004. There's a good chance of catching Bin Ladden in that time and just as good a chance of catching him after.
This is just an excuse by the Bush haters to deny the President credit if he comes through before the election while also bashing him for failing to catch Bin Ladden in the years since 9/11.
My prediction is that it will work out just like Saddam. We will look and look and look and then, one morning we will wake up and there he will be and we can stop looking and laugh at how bad he looks.
Hmm... Maybe I should predict that Bin Ladden will not be found before the election because John Kerry would lose. Yeah. Kerry and wife have a huge multi-national corporation and billions of dollars at their disposal. THey also have the sympathy of the French govt. Maybe its just a bit to convienent that Bin Ladden has not been found. Then, if Kerry wins and Bin Ladden is suddenly "found" then Kerry is the great leader. Damn Kerry and the Democrats! I can't believe they'd keep Bin Ladden from justice just so they can play their political games.
Or...Nader, I bet he has Bin Ladden hidden in a safe house in McComb, Illinois...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hate to say it but Bush isn't really the problem...
Your countries foriegn policy from about Eisenhower on has been making enemies all over the place
Our policy has been the proliferation of liberty. It has succeeded on an unprecedented scale.
Eisenhower led the free world when half the world was under the thumb of Communism. Eastern Europe was behind an Iron curtain. China was building its worker paradise on the backs of its billion slaves.
We drew a line against Communist expansion and opposed it at every turn. In every land free people could count on American aid and the enslaved masses could secretly dream the American Dream. We freed China from the thrall of the Comintern and divided our enemies against themselves. One great enemy fell the other has changed its nature, reducing its threat and people by the hundreds of millions know liberty and freedom and the friendship of the United States.
In the days of the Cold War we made enemies of the Soviets and their allies. But afterwards the Poles, Czechs, Slavaks, Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians came to know us as as friends and allies. As have the peoples of many former Soviet states. This was American policy, to seek new friends through liberty and oppose those who stand against it. In the nineties we faltered and failed to transfer our fight against the Communist threat to the terror threat our preoccupation with Communism masked. We have paid the price with blood and now carry on with a renewed purpose.
We chose the peoples of the Middle East not as enemies, but as future allies in a free and democratic region. This is American policy today.
Some nations, even former allies such as France, oppose our policy. Some seek a return to their own traditional policies of non-violent appeasment which seem so rational and civilized yet have proven to be far more destuctive then policies of premption and confrontation. Others are led by leaders who themselves saw great personal financial benefit from the existence of corrupt terror regimes such as Saddam Hussein.
Fear, greed, and outdated beliefs, these are the motivations of those who oppose the War on Terror. Those same beliefs drive many of those who are fighting this war. Three sides to the conflict, those who fight for and against the terrorists and those who oppose the fighting all together, all driven by the same motivation.
Why chose the American side? Because war is upon us. Russia and France have both learned that there is no sideline and the bodies of Russian children, the heads of French journalists, and the ruins of great buildings tell us which side is the right side.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey Succatash,
I was wondering what you might make of this ?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Could there be a much bigger story hiding here ?
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
Here's a link to photos of the airplane debris found inside the pentagon
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
I just think there are too many slick looking sites and videos spreading around baseless lies.
As far as Bin Laden is concerned I just hope they catch him soon, don't care specifically when, just soon. Someone with his financial resources and evil motives should not be allowed the time and freedom to plan an even more devestating attack.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would be very happy if somebody would debunk the small hole theory (I actually don't want to believe that there are elements in our own government in cahoots with the hijackers), but I can't say that those websites do the job.
First of all they spend a lot of time debunking obviously inaccurate text (badly translated from the french, maybe?).
Secondly, I've seen more wreckage from the Roswell crash site. A tire. And a sheet of metal with some rivets? So the plane was going so fast that it just evaporated on impact and yet punched through four rings of the Pentagon?
Surely, we can do better than that. These debunking websites offer sketchier evidence than a Michael Moore Documentary.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I couldn't listen because I don't have the equipment, but I gather that the idea was that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile?
I followed that up. Ran across an aeronuatical engineer's assessment of how that could be. Basically, he used the crash of El Al Flight 1862 into a large Dutch apartment building in 1992 as an example of what a similar crash site and debris looks like. The "hole" was indeed very small, and there was very little visible plane debris. The small hole was was attributed to the fact that the wings snap off at the building face.
However, the INTERESTING thing about this crash is that for years afterwards, the local residents complained of vague and untraceable health effects. Looking back, they found that over 38 hours of crash site videotape, most audiotape, and almost all photos had been destroyed by the Dutch government. Independent investigators checked the site for known contaminants and found a little radioactivity- ultimately traced to the construction detail of using spent uranium (for weight) in the aelerons counterweights- but not enough to cause serious health effects.
It wasn't until eight years later, when someone leaked an (apparently stolen) copy of the manifest that ppl figured out that the plane carried three of four ingrediants to make SARIN, that the flight was indeed bound for ISRAEL, and that the contents had been APPROVED BY THE USA COMMERCE DEPARTMENT.
YES INDEED, OUR FRIEND AND ALLY ISRAEL HAD BEEN MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS. So, there are actually THREE Middle East countries that had WMD, all beginning with the letter "I".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah- making the world safe for democracy... NOT!!!
Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier claim that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.
The attorney general's human rights unit ordered arrest(s)... in Saravena, a town long besieged by leftist rebels. Since 2002, United States military trainers have been training Colombian soldiers in Saravena in counterguerrilla techniques
www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/americas/07CND-COLO.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did the people under Pinochet enjoy the " proliferation of liberty", or under Batista, or the Shah, or Somosa, or Diem, the list goes on
Since you all apparently saved us from the Russians, who now will save us from the Americans ?
While I oppose some of the tactics in this war, I agree with the reasons why many of these people oppose you, if your troops came into my country, I would also kill as many Americans as I could.
Time to step back, because your walking towards a mighty big cliff.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you Signy for a sensible explanation. Why is it that these websites always have to take the long way home through sarcastic gulch and belittlement canyon? All they need is an explanation for the small hole and the lack of debris. And they always seem to have made their minds up way ahead of time. They seem designed merely as entertainment for the already convinced. Sheesh.
I really don't want to get into it with Hero, really (been there, done that), but how does he post as King of All Cynics one minute, telling us that even Honest Abe Lincoln manipulated the civil war for political gain, and the next minute get all misty-eyed over the Purest of Pure Motives he finds in our American Military? LOL ...Good times.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I couldn't listen because I don't have the equipment, but I gather that the idea was that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile?
I followed that up. Ran across an aeronuatical engineer's assessment of how that could be. Basically, he used the crash of El Al Flight 1862 into a large Dutch apartment building in 1992 as an example of what a similar crash site and debris looks like. The "hole" was indeed very small, and there was very little visible plane debris. The small hole was was attributed to the fact that the wings snap off at the building face.
Thanks for helping debunk the "Missle hit the Pentagon" theory. Since I tend to think of our government as just stupid, rather than evil, I never saw much point to blowing up our own military headquarters.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh yeah- making the world safe for democracy... NOT!!!
Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier claim that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.
The attorney general's human rights unit ordered arrest(s)... in Saravena, a town long besieged by leftist rebels. Since 2002, United States military trainers have been training Colombian soldiers in Saravena in counterguerrilla techniques
www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/americas/07CND-COLO.html
So leftist rebels, who some might characterize as guerrillas, have been besieging Saravena for a long time. And U.S. trainers have been instructing the Colombian soldiers in Saravena, who are presumably fighting these guerillas who've been besieging them for a long time, in counterguerilla tactics? Yep. Sounds like another conspiricy to me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I would accept your sarcasm with a great deal of sang-froid if I hadn't met someone (a lowly illegal housekeeper) whose entire village had been massacred by government troops. They (troops) put out a flyer saying that there was going to be a union meeting at the village church at a certain date and time, and when about 400 people showed up the troops barred the doors and machine-gunned everyone inside. This was not much different than what happened in Beslan, except it was funded in part by the USA. I bet THAT won't set off any deep response... after all, it's just part of our larger effort to save the world.
The Colombian government has had a long collaberation with right-wing paramilitaries, and a long and well-documented history of brutality towards its own citizens, and yet the USA has consistently trained, armed, and funded them. This was not meant to be the entire argument about the whole of US history in Latin America, just the latest example of our turning them into a nice little cheap=labor colony.
BTW-Please pick up a copy of one of this year's far-left publications, National Geographic. You will find a spread on what life is like on the guerilla side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, JCobb and who ever else is Pro-Freedom -
Just give it up folks LOL. I have. I applaud your passion for freedom and intelligence, your ability to see through the inane conspiracy theories and propagandic rhetoric. It's just not worth the frustration.
On these boards , America is the great evil, Period. America and GW Bush are what is wrong in the world. Terrorists are heroes. Islamafascists are heroes and the victims of the great oppressor. Communist Guerilla warriors are heroes. Anyone who is Anti-America, Anti-Democracy, Anti-Israeli, Anti-Capitalism, Pro-Dumbass is welcome on these boards.
Anyone who is Pro-Democracy, Pro-Freedom, Pro-America, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Capitalism and Anti-terrorist, Anti Islamafascist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Dumbass ---- Is a Neo-Nazi Fascist Bigot and All-around Evil.
PS. I subscribe to National Geographic. It is not Deep Left, Nor is it political in my opinion. Pro- Environment does not make you a leftist. As I recall a recent issue on Saudi Arabia,specifically claimed the problem with Saudi Arabia was its LAZY ASSED youth, go figure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, I would accept your sarcasm with a great deal of sang-froid if I hadn't met someone (a lowly illegal housekeeper) whose entire village had been massacred by government troops. They (troops) put out a flyer saying that there was going to be a union meeting at the village church at a certain date and time, and when about 400 people showed up the troops barred the doors and machine-gunned everyone inside. This was not much different than what happened in Beslan, except it was funded in part by the USA. I bet THAT won't set off any deep response... after all, it's just part of our larger effort to save the world.
The Colombian government has had a long collaberation with right-wing paramilitaries, and a long and well-documented history of brutality towards its own citizens, and yet the USA has consistently trained, armed, and funded them. This was not meant to be the entire argument about the whole of US history in Latin America, just the latest example of our turning them into a nice little cheap=labor colony.
BTW-Please pick up a copy of one of this year's far-left publications, National Geographic. You will find a spread on what life is like on the guerilla side.
The Geographic article was interesting.
I realize that the U.S. has supported repressive regimes, both in Columbia and the ones Gino mentioned above. I suspect that the old cold warriors who originated these policies 30 or 40 years ago went in with eyes open but holding their noses, because they understood there was no real win available. They probably considered right-wing dictators over Communist dictators the lesser of two evils.
Considering that the places where the leftist guerillas won, Cuba and Vietnam, are not exactly hotbeds of freedom either, I'm not sure those old commie fighters weren't correct. Since we're trading anicdotal stories... One of my co-workers is originally from Vietnam. In 1975 his father was put in a "re-education" camp for 8 years by the communist regime and was one of the lucky few to get out alive. It wasn't until '94 that they were able to get out of the country and come here.
I'd rather we not be involved in Columbia nowadays myself, but that decision was made long ago. I'm not too sure that our departure at this point wouldn't result in a bigger loss of life than if we stayed.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.
Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".
The massacre of Colombian civilians in a church, the massacre of East Timorese, Sudanese, Beslan children and parents in a school, or workers in the Twin Towers ALL deserve our outrage. One is not more deserving than another, and one action is not more culpable than another. If you are going to be anti-terrorist, just make sure you spread the blame WHEREVER it belongs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm still suprised at this following but here it goes.
The US has passed a law in wich the parlament (or is it senate?) gives permission to invade The Netherlands should we (I'm Dutch) hold American soldiers there in the International Criminal Court. We are a NATO allie in fact and the US has legalised plans to invade us. Poeple might say 'duh you are holding our poeple.' but they would't be there without reason and if they can't be prooven guilty they will not be sentenced.
What suprises me the most is that no where on the internet or in any other country any mention of this law wich makes this claim kinda dubious. The best I could find was a newsgroup quote, but ask any Dutch person who follows the news. It at least was all over our news.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, in another thread we have a discussion going about the intertwining of terrorist and hero. They both rely on violence perpetrated by an individual (or a small group) to attain social/ political ends. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" may be true in more than just a flippant way.
Perhaps if we did not rely on heros so much, we wouldn't have terrorists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
By the way, in another thread we have a discussion going about the intertwining of terrorist and hero. They both rely on violence perpetrated by an individual (or a small group) to attain social/ political ends. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" may be true in more than just a flippant way.
Perhaps if we did not rely on heros so much, we wouldn't have terrorists.
Yeah, I can see that distinction .. NOT.
How many "Heroes" attach bombs to themselves, take 1200 people hostage, many children and then start blowing shit up? Also how many of these "Heroes (to Signym anyways)" who use these tactics are rabid Islama-fascists and how many are not.
True Heroes don't specifically target civilians (or children). Cowards(terrorists) do.
Death to Islamafascism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Did the people under Pinochet enjoy the " proliferation of liberty", or under Batista, or the Shah, or Somosa, or Diem, the list goes on
Good question. Why not add all the people who suffered needlessly at the hands of brutal dictators in the years following WW2?
A professor once summed it up this way: "When two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers."
There is little doubt that the US could have opposed all the dictatorships that existed in the world since 1950. It would have set our hand against most of Africa, Asia, Central and South America. Our resources would have been depleted and our alliances strained or broken. Thus leaving the world to the Communists.
You mentioned Chile, which suffered through dictatoship to emerge into Demcracy, Cuba, now over 50 years in the grip of Communist slavery, Iran, gripped in the terror and tragedy of radical Islam, Nicaraugua, which saw a fight to freedom in the '80s result in free elections in the '90s, Vietnam, which is now a workers paradise made up of Communists slaves.
Now my list: Poland, South Korea, Czech Republic, Salvakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Estonia, Kuwait, Egypt, Nicaraugua, Chile, Afganistan, Japan, Germany (East and West), France, Mexico, Pakistan, Phillipines, South Africa, Guana, Panama, and Free Iraq...as you say: "the list goes on". These are a few of the nations and a few of the billions of people who have benefited from American policy since 1945.
Sure, its a bumpy road, and sometimes you have to play nice with some of the bad guys until you bring down the worse guys (particularly when they have an arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at you). But our policy has always been headed in this direction. An end to Communism, a liberated Europe, an end to terror, and a world more free, more safe, and more hopeful then we inherited.
There may not be an end to the challenges we face, who can say what will rise once the scourge of radical Islam is put down, but the hope of the free world is that America will be there to meet it.
Quote:
Since you all apparently saved us from the Russians, who now will save us from the Americans ?
I'm sure Bin Ladden, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and countless other evil men have wondered the same thing.
Quote:
Time to step back, because your walking towards a mighty big cliff.
Yeah, its the one we throw tyrants and terrorists over.
Unlike nations like France, we stand at the edge of that cliff and face the evils of the world.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.
Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".
The massacre of Colombian civilians in a church, the massacre of East Timorese, Sudanese, Beslan children and parents in a school, or workers in the Twin Towers ALL deserve our outrage. One is not more deserving than another, and one action is not more culpable than another. If you are going to be anti-terrorist, just make sure you spread the blame WHEREVER it belongs.
I would generally agree with this. Actively trageting civilians for intimidation purposes should not be acceptable. In some cases infrastructure which has both military and civilian uses, such as bridges, electrical grids or transportation networks, could be considered a legitimate target of war.
Also, unfortunately, some military or para-military forces have no compunction about hiding within and firing from civilian areas, knowing that any response will cause civilian casualties.
Loss of military ethics has always been a particular problem when major powers fight proxy wars, since control over the proxies actions can never be as tight as over one's own forces.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Anyone who is Pro-Democracy, Pro-Freedom, Pro-America, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Capitalism and Anti-terrorist, Anti Islamafascist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Dumbass ---- Is a Neo-Nazi Fascist Bigot and All-around Evil.
Well, I can't subscribe to being particularly Pro-Israel. I think they've pretty much screwed the pooch with their repressive policies towards the Palestinians.
What really interests me, though, is the tendency of some folk here to think that just because you disagree with them on some things, you disagree on everything.
For example, if I don't believe all these 'Missle hit the Pentagon', 'We're just in it for the oil/cheap labor/power', 'Bush lied about WMD just so we could invade Iraq' conspiracy theories, I must be pro-Bush. But that's not it at all. I don't believe them because they're pure bull.
No one ever mentions Bush's pandering to the religious right on abortion rights or gender issues. No one mentions stem-cell research or cloning. No one mentions health care. I have a stand on those issues, and it's not pro-Bush. I guess they'd rather live in their 'evil empire' fantasies than deal with what I consider real issues.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Anyone who is Pro-Democracy, Pro-Freedom, Pro-America, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Capitalism and Anti-terrorist, Anti Islamafascist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Big Government, Anti-Dumbass ---- Is a Neo-Nazi Fascist Bigot and All-around Evil.
Well, I can't subscribe to being particularly Pro-Israel. I think they've pretty much screwed the pooch with their repressive policies towards the Palestinians.
What really interests me, though, is the tendency of some folk here to think that just because you disagree with them on some things, you disagree on everything.
For example, if I don't believe all these 'Missle hit the Pentagon', 'We're just in it for the oil/cheap labor/power', 'Bush lied about WMD just so we could invade Iraq' conspiracy theories, I must be pro-Bush. But that's not it at all. I don't believe them because they're pure bull.
No one ever mentions Bush's pandering to the religious right on abortion rights or gender issues. No one mentions stem-cell research or cloning. No one mentions health care. I have a stand on those issues, and it's not pro-Bush. I guess they'd rather live in their 'evil empire' fantasies than deal with what I consider real issues.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well, I agree with you almost 100%, there is one area I don't, but thats healthy IMHO. It's a damn big job being the leader of the Greatest Country in the world (I'm biased..deal with it), I still think National Security is the #1 issue at the moment. All the other things will fall into place once we have achieved that for real.
There are some things I agree with in Bush's new agenda and some I don't. I personally think that the healthcare and retirement savings plan is a good idea. Is it perfect..no. There are still a number of issues regarding it that need to be sorted out, but its a start. I disagree with his stance on Same-Sex unions, or abortion rights (though I think terminating a pregnancy after the first tri-mester for any other reason then the health of the mother is wrong, there are thousands of families waiting to adopt). Stem cell research ban is still beyond me, that one I can't figure out. Cloning Ban --also beyond me LOL.
Pro-America, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Capitalism. Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Dumbass
"Let Freedom Reign, death to Islamafascism"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
I'm still suprised at this following but here it goes.
The US has passed a law in wich the parlament (or is it senate?) gives permission to invade The Netherlands should we (I'm Dutch) hold American soldiers there in the International Criminal Court. We are a NATO allie in fact and the US has legalised plans to invade us. Poeple might say 'duh you are holding our poeple.' but they would't be there without reason and if they can't be prooven guilty they will not be sentenced.
What suprises me the most is that no where on the internet or in any other country any mention of this law wich makes this claim kinda dubious. The best I could find was a newsgroup quote, but ask any Dutch person who follows the news. It at least was all over our news.
They're probably talking about either HR 1154 or HR 2050; two pieces of proposed legislation that address specifically the International Criminal Court and courts of universal jurisdiction in general. Both have been sitting in the House Committee on International Relations for over a year with no action. To see them go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ enter HR1154 or HR2050 in the "Bill Number" box and click "Search".
Then there is one law "22 USC Sec. 262-1" that prohibits extradition of a US citizen to the International Criminal Court, but there's nothing about declaring war. I think this link'll work.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+7
01+0++%28%27international%20criminal%20court%27%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I suspect that the old cold warriors who originated these policies 30 or 40 years ago went in with eyes open but holding their noses, because they understood there was no real win available. They probably considered right-wing dictators over Communist dictators the lesser of two evils.
Considering that the places where the leftist guerillas won, Cuba and Vietnam, are not exactly hotbeds of freedom either, I'm not sure those old commie fighters weren't correct. Since we're trading anicdotal stories... One of my co-workers is originally from Vietnam. In 1975 his father was put in a "re-education" camp for 8 years by the communist regime and was one of the lucky few to get out alive. It wasn't until '94 that they were able to get out of the country and come here.
And so we have two nations-
Colombia, where they didn't have elections until recently, and most of the population is dirt-poor and illiterate, with no runnning water, no medical service, and where people are gunned down, disappeared, or tortured to death in jail...
...and Cuba, where they don't have free elections but most people have an decent standard of living despite a US embargo, a 90% literacy rate, running water, and medical service * ... and people are disappeared. (I haven't heard of much torture in Cuban jails, have you?) (*Please see your UN rankings on human development for the statistics)
Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There is little doubt that the US could have opposed all the dictatorships that existed in the world since 1950.
It would be better if if the USA had simply not PROMOTED so many dictatorships!
Quote:
Cuba, now over 50 years in the grip of Communist slavery
With a living standard better than most other Latin Americna countries.
Quote:
Nicaraugua, which saw a fight to freedom in the '80s result in free elections in the '90s
And a dire rise in hunger, homelessness, infant mortality, and illiteracy once the country became safe for capitalism.
Quote:
Poland, South Korea, Czech Republic, Salvakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Estonia, Kuwait, Egypt, Nicaraugua, Chile, Afganistan, Japan, Germany (East and West), France, Mexico, Pakistan, Phillipines, South Africa, Guana, Panama, and Free Iraq...as you say: "the list goes on". These are a few of the nations and a few of the billions of people who have benefited from American policy since 1945.
I can't say much about the other countries, but I have realtives in Poland AND in Hungary, and while they like free elections they are not so happy with capitalism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terrorists are terrorists, whether they are Muslim, Israeli, Serbian, Russian or American.
Anyone who targets a civilian population for death or injury or who destroys basic civilian infrastructure is a terrorist. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I care about the justification, whether it's as noble as "freedom" or as trivial as "He started it".
The massacre of Colombian civilians in a church, the massacre of East Timorese, Sudanese, Beslan children and parents in a school, or workers in the Twin Towers ALL deserve our outrage. One is not more deserving than another, and one action is not more culpable than another. If you are going to be anti-terrorist, just make sure you spread the blame WHEREVER it belongs.
I would generally agree with this. Actively trageting civilians for intimidation purposes should not be acceptable. In some cases infrastructure which has both military and civilian uses, such as bridges, electrical grids or transportation networks, could be considered a legitimate target of war.
I agree with SignyM, it's bad to target innocent civilians in principle. That raises the question, was it wrong to firebomb and nuke enemy cities in WWII? Lot's of our targets weren't infastructure, just the houses of workers, the rationale being that they'd be to demoralized to make weapons. Do you guys think that was right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?
And since we charge Osama bin Laden with terrorism because he inspires and funds terrorists (although he hasn't actually blown himself up yet) then individuals or groups that inspire and fund OTHERS to target civilians are also terrorists?
I just want to mkae sure that I have this PERFECTLY clear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We haven't had Americans in the ICC so there would be no reason for it to be working.
It didnt exactly say declaring war, just occupying the space where the ICC is and take the prisoner out. No matter how you turn it it's still a breach of soverenty of a NATO allie. Even Tony Blair was said to have been dead set against it.
Personally I don't quite care about it (other then that they have plans to invade my country wich my poeple went to war for over 80 years for(long story wich is irrelevant)) but what strikes me the most is that the US media and most media totally ignores it. I don't think that is right and the poeple who determine who will lead them ought to know what they do, this is actually the first time I met a person online who knew what I was talking about and didn't just dismis it because I coudlt come up with an internet link (thanks for that btw).
But about the terrorist/hero thing. Hitler for example spoke of a train sabotage done by the Dutch resistance an act of terrorism. Nelson Mandela was also called a terrorist by the apartheid regime. But reckonizing them as actual terrorists would be falling for the ploy Hitler and the apartheid government set up.
They are not terrorists, poeple like Bin Laden en Hamas have no intention of trying to kill as few as possible poeple to get their goal, they want to kill as many heithens as possible. The ANC tried to reach their goal peacefully for 48 years before they even remotely used violence. Hitler had europe in a almost totaletarian lock where you would be caught and arrested if you did the slightest thing against the nazi occupation (my grandfather was sent to a concentrationcamp for looking at some motorcycles.. he escaped though).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
China was building its worker paradise on the backs of its billion slaves.
Quote:
We freed China from the thrall of the Comintern and divided our enemies against themselves.
Just so you know, they're still selling Mao statues and busts and revering his tomb over there. They also have an authoritarian, corrupt government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?
And since we charge Osama bin Laden with terrorism because he inspires and funds terrorists (although he hasn't actually blown himself up yet) then individuals or groups that inspire and fund OTHERS to target civilians are also terrorists?
I just want to mkae sure that I have this PERFECTLY clear.
Wow? LOL. I'm not sure what your after, but I'm sure it's some sort of twisted view LOL. I would have to say that yes what you state is a pretty precise definition of what a terrorist is except that terrorists target civilians and Civilian infrastructures for the sole purpose of instilling terror.
Pro-America, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Capitalism. Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Dumbass
"Let Freedom Reign, death to Islamafascism"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, its just the French
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry
See all the other countries opposed to your insanity
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yeah, its just the French
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry
See all the other countries opposed to your insanity
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
I guess it's a good thing only Americans get to vote for their leaders LOL.
They called Churchill insane too when he warned of the Nazi menace. We shall see what transpires over the next 10 years or so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Churchill also wanted to institute concetration camps in India during the thirtys to quell the independance movement there
He was more than a little nuts, worked during the war but notice his lack of re-election after the war
Vote for your own leader sure, but stay at home next time, it appears your welcome is wearing out quite rapidly
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
We haven't had Americans in the ICC so there would be no reason for it to be working.
It didnt exactly say declaring war, just occupying the space where the ICC is and take the prisoner out. No matter how you turn it it's still a breach of soverenty of a NATO allie. Even Tony Blair was said to have been dead set against it.
Personally I don't quite care about it (other then that they have plans to invade my country wich my poeple went to war for over 80 years for(long story wich is irrelevant)) but what strikes me the most is that the US media and most media totally ignores it. I don't think that is right and the poeple who determine who will lead them ought to know what they do, this is actually the first time I met a person online who knew what I was talking about and didn't just dismis it because I coudlt come up with an internet link (thanks for that btw).
I don't know how it is in Holland, but here in the U.S. most legislation is proposed with the knowledge that it will never become law. It's done either to make a point about something, or so the author can send a newsletter to his constituents saying that he is "fighting to protect our servicemen from trumped-up charges in foreign courts", for example. The media doesn't pay too much attention because the practice is so common.
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
But about the terrorist/hero thing. Hitler for example spoke of a train sabotage done by the Dutch resistance an act of terrorism. Nelson Mandela was also called a terrorist by the apartheid regime. But reckonizing them as actual terrorists would be falling for the ploy Hitler and the apartheid government set up.
They are not terrorists, poeple like Bin Laden en Hamas have no intention of trying to kill as few as possible poeple to get their goal, they want to kill as many heithens as possible. The ANC tried to reach their goal peacefully for 48 years before they even remotely used violence. Hitler had europe in a almost totaletarian lock where you would be caught and arrested if you did the slightest thing against the nazi occupation (my grandfather was sent to a concentrationcamp for looking at some motorcycles.. he escaped though).
I would agree with this.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?
Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?
Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?
If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?
If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?
If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?
I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.
There aren't just two points on the line:
Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist
With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.
Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.
I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yeah, its just the French
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry
See all the other countries opposed to your insanity
A lot of people were dead wrong about Reagan as well. They opposed the hard line American policies and military buildup in the '80s. They were wrong then and wrong now. If the polls even reflect real opinion, polls are easy to manipulate.
I think that when the war is far away then its easy to catch a couple sound bites from a biased media outlet like the BBC (which makes up stories) or Al Jazeera (which is a terrorist mouthpiece, although I think they make an honost effort at fairness in thier dishonost world) and form a rash judgment.
But I guarantee that when they are called upon to bury their children by the hundreds the day after a terrorist attack on their local school, they not only pray that Bush wins the election but they secretly wish he could lead their country as well.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I don't know how it is in Holland, but here in the U.S. most legislation is proposed with the knowledge that it will never become law. It's done either to make a point about something, or so the author can send a newsletter to his constituents saying that he is "fighting to protect our servicemen from trumped-up charges in foreign courts", for example. The media doesn't pay too much attention because the practice is so common.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I assume Bush made the piece of legislation (from what I understand only the US president is allowed to issue potential law).
Then I believe it is without precedent that a president tried to issue a law wherein he would have been able to invade a NATO allie (sp?) for following international law. I think that says enough personally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
I assume Bush made the piece of legislation (from what I understand only the US president is allowed to issue potential law).
Then I believe it is without precedent that a president tried to issue a law wherein he would have been able to invade a NATO allie (sp?) for following international law. I think that says enough personally.
Actually, any one of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives can propose legislation. The President can suggest legislation, but it's up to Congress to actually submit, debate, and vote on it.
All Bills (pieces of proposed legislation) are first submitted to the Senate or House(of Representatives) committee in charge of that type of bill, say Appropriations or Armed Services. The committee must approve the bill, by majority vote, before it even makes it to the floor (the full Senate or House.) It is then debated and voted on again. If it passes in the Senate, it still has to recieve the approval of the House, and vice versa. The it must be signed by the President to become law. He can also veto it, but the veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of congress.
The beauty of the system is actually in how slowly and inefficiently it works.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?
Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?
Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?
If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?
If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?
If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?
I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.
There aren't just two points on the line:
Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist
With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.
Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.
I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well put and much more eloquent then I. Thanks
"Paulie, get the ball cutters" - Tony Soprano
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yeah, I can see that distinction .. NOT.
How many "Heroes" attach bombs to themselves, take 1200 people hostage, many children and then start blowing shit up? Also how many of these "Heroes (to Signym anyways)" who use these tactics are rabid Islama-fascists and how many are not.
True Heroes don't specifically target civilians (or children). Cowards(terrorists) do.
Death to Islamafascism
If only it were that simple. I am sure that many would state (probably inclutding you) that the RAF and the USAF were heroes during WW2, but they specifically targeted innocent civilians in cities such as Dresden, Cologne, Berlin, etc... in order to reduce moral in Germany.
(Remember, not all German were actually Nazis, many German communists and democrats died in concentration camps, many more had to hide, and since jews weren't allowed into airraid-shelters they were particularly at risk)
Here is a link to a paper on this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtm
One other thing: The Russian terrorists who took hostages in a school in Beslan and in a theatre in Moscow, are neither fascists (neither is Osama bin Laden for that matter), and while they do seem to have links to Al Quaida (according to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3293441.stm) they fight for a VERY different cause, they are not defined by being Muslim but rather by being ethnic Chechans, and there conflict with Russia is not something that has come up over the last few years, they have been at each others throats for hundreds of years.
If you believe that all the worst terrorists are muslims, then maybe you should look up the attacks on the Tokyo with sarin(?) gas, the entire Yugoslavian(sp?) conflict, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, and many more.
My Religion teacher had an interesting explanation as to why "muslim terrorists" are more visible to the outside world than other terrorists, namely because in many countries that have a predominantly muslim population, there is over-abundance of weaponry available to common people at a low price. Many terrorists may have the will to carry out horrific attacks, but not all of them have the means.
On another note I'd like to sincerely thank ConnorFlynn, for his keen observation about my political motivations. Yes, of course I would prefer dictators! if I could, I'd kill all Americans myself, preferably with a machete, just to make it more gruesomely enjoyable! Also I will stop buying food, because I think the pure concept of exchanging money for goods is pure evil and should be eradicated from this planet! (maybe with a machete?) Also for his correct assumption that I in fact dispise the concept of intelligence and only truly appreciate people who are dumbasses. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should be killed (now where is that machete?)
(Oh... before someone actually takes that last paragraph serious: I was being sarcastic)
Unsincerely,
Coward (<- oh yes, I am one, but I have not and I do not intend to kill civilians)
--------------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a general note:
No, I do not support the "missile" theory of what hit the Pentagon.
But I'm moved that some people 'get it'.
It's not that Bush and his administration lied about the tax cuts, about pollution reduction, and joblessness and real wages, or even about WMD, 9/11 and Iraq.
It's that they're engaged in the 'big lie'.
Not only do they manipulate the news, they twist events for political gain.
Nothing that oozes out from the White House can be taken at face value.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And so we have two nations-
Colombia, where they didn't have elections until recently, and most of the population is dirt-poor and illiterate, with no runnning water, no medical service, and where people are gunned down, disappeared, or tortured to death in jail...
...and Cuba, where they don't have free elections but most people have an decent standard of living despite a US embargo, a 90% literacy rate, running water, and medical service * ... and people are disappeared. (I haven't heard of much torture in Cuban jails, have you?) (*Please see your UN rankings on human development for the statistics)
Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!
Still haven't decided, Geezer? Me neither! Let's see... a tyranny that impoverishes just about everyone while making a few people fabulously wealthy, versus a tyranny that provides the best standard of living possible for as many as possible. Yeah, I know, it's a difficult decision. Well, when you decide let me know... I can't seem to figure this one out!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it all has to do with a tiny word: Fear. Got some? Got a lot?
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
And so we have two nations-
Colombia...
...and Cuba. Hmmm... which to choose? Tough choice, I'll admit that!
Still haven't decided, Geezer? Me neither! Let's see... a tyranny that impoverishes just about everyone while making a few people fabulously wealthy, versus a tyranny that provides the best standard of living possible for as many as possible. Yeah, I know, it's a difficult decision. Well, when you decide let me know... I can't seem to figure this one out!
Columbia is no prize, and, if these were the only two choices, I'd probably rather sit on the beach in Cuba with a mojito and keep my mouth shut.
Columbia is one of those places where the two (or maybe three, if you count the drug cartels) sides have been fighting so long that they have moved near or into the terrorist realm. The US got involved long ago during the cold war when any anti-communist regime was the best of a bad lot. We're probably still there trying to cut down the flow of drugs, as much as anything. Admittedly this is in support of domestic politics, and presidents for both parties have run on fighting the "War on drugs" overseas.
I'm not sure there is a good solution for Columbia. It would be political suicide for an administration to pull out and be seen as soft on drugs, not to mention that what little ethical control we exert over the Columbian military would be gone. In the world of modern sensibilities we can't just go in and take the whole thing over, even if it were done for their own good.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As a general note:
No, I do not support the "missile" theory of what hit the Pentagon.
But I'm moved that some people 'get it'.
It's not that Bush and his administration lied about the tax cuts, about pollution reduction, and joblessness and real wages, or even about WMD, 9/11 and Iraq.
It's that they're engaged in the 'big lie'.
Not only do they manipulate the news, they twist events for political gain.
Nothing that oozes out from the White House can be taken at face value.
Maybe if it was a little less one-note. maybe if there was a little less hate for and objectification of those who don't agree with you on absolutely everything. Maybe if you, or any of the extreme Anti-Bushies, would talk about what Kerry could do for the country that Bush can't. I'd be interested in that.
But we don't get that from you. Even if we think Bush is misguided or downright wrong on some things, the fact that we don't consider him evil incarnate makes us right-wing neo-con liars. You end up being the one who spews hate. You make it impossible to actually discuss the issues. You actually do your views a dis-service by your strident retoric.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've posted lots, and lots on all sorts of topics. Facts, history, quotes, urls etc etc. Grow up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've posted lots, and lots on all sorts of topics. Facts, history, quotes, urls etc etc. Grow up.
Maybe I'm thinking of stuff like this:
"Bush is taking lessons from Hitler ... and Bill Gates. Bill Gates of FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD works.
To get Bush's message, you'd have to take the u-soft FUD pitch and add greed and hate.
Bush's campaign panders to those unclean things. It's not fact-based."
Or maybe the way you managed to sabotage the 9/11 thread.
It could even be that I'm just tarring you with the same brush as some of your "Bush is evil" compatriots. Ghoulman comes to mind. I note SignyM has called me "right-wing" on a couple of occasions as well, although we often have good discussions. Let's just talk about something else for a while.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something is strange you guys.... we're on a site titled "FIREFLYFANS.NET".... why are we talking about the US election.... I am sure that it is important to many of you, heck, I'm 14 and it's pretty important to me, but that's not what this site is about... you want to talk about politics go to a political chat room, where you can talk to people who agree with you or disagree with you accordingly.
I didn't start watching Firefly because they all are political junkies, becuase they support the same things I support. Nathon Fillion may like Kerry better than Bush, but does Mal?... The truth is, that we are united under one banner, and that banner waves neither the Elephant, nor the Donkey, that banner waves the colors of the true Sci-Fi fan, that banner is us. We are Democrats, Republicans, Americans, Canadiens, Palestinian, Asian..... We are Browncoats... and we are Firefly Fans..... Go talk about politics somewhere else... when we fight (or what you would call "discuss") something that makes people choose sides, we will be a broken group of fans.... lets not start something that may leave us with enemies....
Let's stay Browncoats together... nothing else...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Araglas, I understand where you are coming from on this. The Real World Event Discussions set of threads on this site has ballooned recently. If Haken decides that these threads are distracting from the main purpose of this site - to provide a place for fans of Firefly to virtually congregate - and decides to shut down these types of threads then I won't complain. I come to this site first and foremost to engage in this great community of fireflyfans.
For me, this is the only site where I regularly post. Many of my posts are in the General Discussions threads. Many of my posts are in the Real World Event Discussions threads. I appreciate having the Real World section of the web site because there are a lot of topics that I have an opinion on, albeit maybe an uninformed one, that I feel safe discussing here. Safe in that I know the people who I am engaged in discussion with, although we might disagree on the particular topic, do have one thing in common - a love of Firefly. We share that in common and so it is easier for me to be less judgemental in regards to their opinions on other topics. I have learned a lot from many different people in these threads. Because of our differing philosophical beliefs we access different sources of information and that is fascinating to me.
I try very hard not to attack people personally but rather to state my position and attempt to provide supplemental information to back that position up. Many of these topics in this section evoke strong emotions and so it is harder at times to refrain from engaging in flaming.
I would be saddened if this section were removed. But I would understand. It is only a peripheral part of this site. The main reason that I come here would still remain. To look at it from another direction, I would be very disappointed if a new Firefly fan got turned off from this community because of anything said in the Real World Event Discussion section.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasie double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?
Araglas- Probably one of the most interesting aspects of the show (at least for me) is that it is deeply political. Politics drives the plot- from the destruction of Earth-that-was to the centralization of the Alliance and the resistance of the outlying worlds. I think because of that, the show attracted a number of politically impassioned viewers, especially libertarians and liberals (or farther left). I personally think Joss wanted it that way- that's why the focus is not on whiz-bang technology or aliens, but on the very human problems of justice, freedom, security, individualism, and conformity. That being said, my guess would be that Joss believes that the BEST way to engage people is through a good story, not through polemics, and if this thread were to turn people off to the story then he'd vote to shut it down.
It's a great disappointment when I find a science fiction writer who dreams up an extreme physical milieu (Helliconia, the surface of a neutron star) and then creates a society that is a stupid white man's view of African tribalism... no real imgination, and certainly no insight! I'm not sure what you like about FF, but CJ Cherryh wrote an along similar lines in her Downbelow Station series- oddly, she even used the term Alliance, but in her stories that term describes the breakaway worlds, not the central core.
Anyway, if you will be patient I think the threads will die down a bit. This is the anniversary of 9-11, and also a very anxious time for a lot of people- those who believe that WW3 is here and only GWB can save us, and those who think that WW3 is coming BECAUSE of GWB. Pretty heavy-duty stuff. Hopefully, we will all remember to behave like grownups and keep the conversation civil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Whyizzit that Cheney can say something as egregious as 'Vote for us or die' (paraphrased) and ConnerFlynn can say something as extreme as "Well World War three is here" with nary a lifted eyebrow, but all replies have to be somehow moderate, neutral, dispassionate? Seems there is a pervasive double standard at work here and possibly some unconscious bias, no?
Cheney's statement is hardly new news, or a new tactic. Compare to Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" commercial. (requires Realplayer) http://www.tvparty.com/trailers/johnsonpres.ram
Found here: http://www.tvparty.com/comjing.html
Based on the context, I thought that ConnerFlynn had tongue firmly in cheek with the WWIII statement.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.
As far as ConnorFlynn is concerned- no, I don't think his tongue is firmly in cheek. Based on the tenor and content of his other posts I think he's dead serious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, and Lyndon Johnson got the response that he deserved... massive and sometimes violent antiwar protests and eventually getting booted out of office! Johnson was called all sort of nasty but perfectly applicable names.
Remember that the reason for Johnson's commercial was that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, was actually talking about using nukes in SE Asia. And Johnson did win that election. Johnson was also the president who pushed through some of the most far reaching civil rights legislation and court rulings of the 20th century. If he hadn't inherited Vietnam from JFK, he might be considered one of the greatest presidents.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I know. The difference between Johnson and Bush is that Johnson has SOME redeeming qualities, and Bush has none, as far as I can tell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?
On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.
On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.
I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To make this more explicit, if Johnson was dumped out of ofiice because of Vietnam despite all of the positive things he'd done, what about Bush?
Johnson chose not to run in '68. He was never voted out. And you actually preferred Nixon?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On the negative side, he lied us into Iraq (which despite Cheney's pesistance had nothing to do with terrorism in the USA) and was responsible for 1000 American deaths and created a record deficit out of a surplus, and lost us millions of jobs.
On the positive side he...uh...gave lots of money to the ultra wealthy and uh... uh... created an giveaway to the pharmas with his drug plan and.... uh... promised to take away money from failing schools.
I mean, I really can't think of a single thing that he's done that has had a positive impact on the average person- can you???
I'm certainly not happy with his pandering to the Religious Right, for example, but I have no problem with going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'm holding off on the Iraq situation until I see how (or if) the elections go in January.
Here are a couple of seemingly positive things I've found :
"Bush Tax Cuts Erased Income Tax Burden for 7.8 Million Families"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html
"New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear Income Tax Burden"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbostudy2.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I may be a big idiot here, but that whole "wealthiest Americans bare highest tax burden thing" sure sounds like a lovely euphemistic spin on the reality that the poorest Americans are getting a lot poorer. Perhaps the statistic merely reflects that there are many more single parent homes with multiple dependants who make less than $20,000 a year--hence, a "dramatic increase" in "zero-filers." If an extra $500 per child is having such a dramatic affect on the stats, doesn't that suggest that there are an awful lot of poeple who are just really, really poor?
And most people who are concerned about the rich getting richer are not conserned with the "top 60%" of Americans getting rich (I bet most Americans would be pretty happy about that, right? 60%=most), they're conserned about the top 15, 10 or 1%. I'm not a big math genius, but I don't think that website had anything specific to say about the top 15%. Sounds an awful lot like the top 15% are still winning big, the extremely poor are getting so poor that a few hundred dollars changes their lives and the middle class are getting stuck with the bill again, so what's the big change?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, whoopee, the tax burden is reduced. Manwhile, more people are poorer than ever before, more people don't have health insurance and (if Bush had his way) fewer people would get paid overtime. He gives with one hand, he takes with two.
Without looking at the totality "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (NO) and jsut looking at the so-called tax cut, as a stimulous measure it was a total flop. What it really did was transfer money from the moderatley well-off to the ultra wealthy. What "quintile" numbers DON'T show you is that the ultra-wealthy- those making a million or more- pay no taxes. It gets buried in the top quintile average.
As far as Johnson- no, I didn't prefer Nixon. But Nixon followed Johnson's path of lying to the public and he got what HE deserved.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Signy,
For a guy that hates it when people assume that his lack of sympathy for the left means he's right-wing, Geezer sure likes to throw up these polarizing kinds of "questions."
Quote:
And you actually preferred Nixon?
Hasn't he been reading your posts long enough to know the answer to that already? Yeah, you're a regular Ben Stein! Y'all love you some Nixon! LOL! Guys like the Geez seem to think the rest of us are all so simple minded.
BTW: I don't know if you're up on Ben Stein but I just heard him on Hardball (damn, or was it Larry King?), anyway, he was asked about Watergate and he said that all of us would be a lot better off if the break-in had never been found out, that it would be better for the country if Nixon had gotten away with it. I think Chris Matthews just stared at him. LOL!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know where Geezer's sympathies lie. Impartiality is NOT his forte!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know where Geezer's sympathies lie. Impartiality is NOT his forte!
Unlike yourself, of course.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!
I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants. Preferably, from my POV, by not deifying elephants to begin with.
Now, if someone were to be able to PROVE to me that growing and maintaining elephants is a good thing for all cocerned, I would change my mind. But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.
BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!
I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants.
Oh, you're on my side then. I meet all those qualifications except for the kids. Have to substitute nieces and nephews.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.
Not from me. What you hear from me is that I find it objectionable that you demonize the opposition as lying masterminds of evil rather than considering that they just might have different viewpoints, or might just not be extremely competent. I don't agree with much of Bush's domestic policy, but I understand it's just disagreement, not good vs. evil.
Some of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may support the formation of democracies, but not sure we're "forcing" capitalism on the world with our military bases (which were mostly there prior to the Bush Administration, I believe).
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!
Not sure I've seen the "power grab" reference. cites?
Edit: Never mind. Found it. http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6
222980
Which of your liberties has Bush taken away? Please be specific.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm now seriously doubting that Bin Laden will be caught before the U.S. presidential election.
It looks like I was wrong.
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
A few months ago, I started a poll on my website about when Osama Bin Laden will be captured in relation to the US election.
TAKE THE POLL:
http://www.strangefinger.com/index.html#bl
Bush is running out of time, but low and behold:
U.S. Capture of bin Laden Close
Sep 4,2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap
/20040904/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_bin_laden_1
What's your opinion on this matter? I'm guessing Bin Laden will be caught in mid-October. Hmmm.
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
But then again, if Bush isn't concerned (his own words) about Bin Laden, why the hell should we be now?
If this is his "october surprise" it's not much of one and it ain't gonna work.
It will probably be seen as a pitiful and transparently political move. Well, amongst people with functioning brains, anyway.
"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but I never said I was impartial!!!
I follow the facts, but I DO take a side: the side of the average working person of the world, who only wants to be able to have control over his/her life, be remunerated justly for efforts, pass on a better world to their kids, and not be sh*t on by societal elephants.
Oh, you're on my side then. I meet all those qualifications except for the kids. Have to substitute nieces and nephews.Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But right now, all I'm hearing is that it's OK to lie to the nation on every conceiveable issue, force capitalism on the world with 800+ military installations, and transfer wealth to the wealthy and power to the powerful.
Not from me. What you hear from me is that I find it objectionable that you demonize the opposition as lying masterminds of evil rather than considering that they just might have different viewpoints, or might just not be extremely competent. I don't agree with much of Bush's domestic policy, but I understand it's just disagreement, not good vs. evil.
Some of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may support the formation of democracies, but not sure we're "forcing" capitalism on the world with our military bases (which were mostly there prior to the Bush Administration, I believe).Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, do you not find it strange that when Putin decides to take away liberties in Russia to fight terrorism it's called a "power grab", but when Bush does it it's called patriotism? Funny how we can be objective about everyone but ourselves!
Not sure I've seen the "power grab" reference. cites?
Edit: Never mind. Found it. http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6
222980
>B>Which of your liberties has Bush taken away? Please be specific.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Don't be the frog in the pot of water:
go to aclu.org to find out about civil liberties.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME