Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal widens; Pentagon investigating

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

Was Wimp Hill really a draft dodger?

I don't know if he was or not- I do recall some mention in a post by him
that he was sympathetic to or a participant in campus anti-war rallies
of the time. He seems to be a bit quick on downing the entire military
every chance he gets- calling their leadership arrogant and incompetent.

(Not even GWB was a 'dodger',

I am sorry to say that GWB was a dodger- the National Guard was a very
popular means of obtaining deferment- so much so that by late 1960's you
had to have political connections to get in.

and the 'war criminal' Kerry wasn't
a 'dodger' either, even though he left the service based upon
on of his 'purple hearts' resulting from a superficial self-injury.)

Right - this is the latest scandal- the Navy doctors who treated his
so-called war wounds are now testifying that the other men in his unit
told them that the wounds were not from combat. Kerry is a total fraud
on that score, and of course we have the factual record of his seditious
and treasonous protest activities to undermine the US military action in
southeast Asia and endanger the troops there. And most importantly,
there is his abuse of position in the US Senate of voting against every
single critical military weapon and improvement appropriations- he is
probably the most anti-/un-American atrocity to have ever hit those
chambers- and the damned bastard was caught on tape deliberately
omitting the words "under God" during a pledge of allegiance in the
Senate. The future of America will be John Kerry's personal experiment
in new age politics if the worthless brain-damaged hippie trash come out
of their drug stupor long enough to make it to the voting booth.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <409D4149.1060107@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

(Not even GWB was a 'dodger',

I am sorry to say that GWB was a dodger- the National Guard was a very
popular means of obtaining deferment- so much so that by late 1960's you
had to have political connections to get in.

If you define 'dodging' as joining alternative service, then I disagree.

If someone does join alternative service, even peace corp type stuff
(whatever is allowed), then that isn't the same as the cowards who
do dodge in my own definition (e.g. go to canada, etc.)

Perhaps it is 'less good' to have joined the national guard, but it
was certainly VERY WRONG to effectively use a scratch as a vehicle
for a political career. (The comment from the Doctor related to Kerry's
claim during treatment that he'd be the next John Kennedy or somesuch.)

Kerry was obviously politically motivated for his entire life instead
of living a life with/about normal things. This had obviously cultivated
him as a liar (in common terms, not excusing his dishonesty by
sophistry) during his entire life. There is almost NO WAY that Kerry
can have the normal life experience that would prepare him for the
ultimate office of leadership. This certainly does NOT disqualify him
for the Senate.

Frankly, I don't think that GHWB had adequate life experience either,
however great his experience was. GWB has been much more down to earth,
and alot less 'arrogant/elite'. We don't need any more of that 'arrogant
and elite' class like Kerry (or to a lesser, more honest extent, GHWB)
as President. Maybe an exceptional example will appear someday, but not
yet.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:m2fo90d0odo1jk43pbkksl46oht7g1re5r@4ax.com...

One of those guys who wants to benefit from the freedoms that US
enforcement maintains, but take no personal responsibility?

Absolutely wrong, on all three counts.

I benefit from Freedom by, of all things, being Free. Imagine
that!

The idea that "US enforcement" "maintains" freedom is simply
fallacious. The murder of innocent Iraqi civilians has
absolutely nothing to do with whether or not _I_ am free.

And, it might not be obvious at the face of it, but I don't
need Steve Walz's permission to be Free. Or yours, for that
matter.

And I take personal responsibility for everything that I'm
personally responsible for. Which, when you get right down
to it, isn't a whole heck of a lot.

Remember, I don't subscribe to the idea that I'm "responsible"
just because somebody opines that I "should" be "responsible"
for something.

I've heard it said that claims of responsibility are very
often used to actually evade responsibility.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Reg Edwards]

What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

 

[Reg Edwards]

Draft dodgers just don't like being on the losing side. Can you blame them?

 

[Winfield Hill]

Fred Bloggs wrote...

John S. Dyson wrote:

Was Wimp Hill really a draft dodger?

I don't know if he was or not- I do recall some mention in a post by him
that he was sympathetic to or a participant in campus anti-war rallies
of the time. He seems to be a bit quick on downing the entire military
every chance he gets- calling their leadership arrogant and incompetent.

No, that's your faulty memory at work again. In fact I have the highest
respect for our military leaders, and in fact I have *never* uttered a
negative word against them. When I had a secret security clearance I
attended their private conference meetings and on occasion briefed them
concerning issues of importance in which I had some expertise. So I
have had some first-hand experience with their professionalism.

My criticism is leveled at Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and at their
stupid policies. I was disappointed with Powell's uncharacteristic
lies made in his critical speech, which I stopped work to listen to in
its entirety (which changed my opinion about the impending war, until
soon after the war when I realized that he had been lying, after which
I became angry about it all). My respect for Tony Blair has also dropped
considerably at this point.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7jrb502hoj@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

Fred Bloggs wrote...

My criticism is leveled at Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and at their
stupid policies. I was disappointed with Powell's uncharacteristic
lies made in his critical speech, which I stopped work to listen to in
its entirety (which changed my opinion about the impending war, until
soon after the war when I realized that he had been lying, after which
I became angry about it all). My respect for Tony Blair has also dropped
considerably at this point.

Please provide evidence of lies (if you know what the word means.) Also,

if you used the 'logic skills' that you must have for your electronics
work, you should be able to re-evaluate your guess (that they were telling
lies), and to recognize that the much higher probability is that the
intelligence agencies were all providing defective intelligence. Geesh,
even the FRENCH (yes, the FRENCH) had admitted to the WMDs. However,
it would be dishonest and incredibly short sighted to guess that the
only reason for liberating Iraq was to eliminate the WMDS (which, given
ALL intelligence agencies, they did exist -- admittedly with varying
probabilites.) Of course, the process of determining the state of WMDS
in Iraq might have actually distorted the situation adequately (they
moved to Syria?) that the measurement itself was incorrect?!?!?

Think again: people who you strongly suggest wouldn't LIE (again
look at the definition of the word) had stated something that appears
now to be untrue. If you look at the entire situation, you'd realize
that they really weren't TELLING LIES.

Again, instead of changing your hypothesis that you have to assume
that anyone dealing with Bush is telling lies (geesh, refer to
Kerry for proven whoppers), you should realize that the highest probability
is that the intelligence was defective.

Note that EVEN the cashflow associated with Oil For Food was distorted,
and would have been an interesting input WRT the capabilities for Saddam
to purchase weapons!!! (Instead, the money was going to corrupt business
people: the French, Russians, probably Germans and also the Clinton
Friend Marc Rich.)

You are obviously too bought-in to your prejudices, and don't even
seem to remember the public French and German intelligence before the war.
Geesh, it is likely that with the weakened CIA (after the loss of too many
greybeards/field officers in the 1995-1996 timeframe) we needed to
depend upon external intelligence sources.

There were definitely alot of facts that conspired against Saddams'
continued rule, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. For 'telling
lies', you might have to look at both the definition of the phrase,
and also try to find out where/why the flawed intelligence appeared.

There was definitely some overly zealous 'judgement' WRT Saddam's
capabilities, but they made sense considering all of the excess
cash flowing around (Oil For Food didn't add up.)

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7j9o9$2or$6@news.iquest.net>...

In article <gt5q90hg1qcmntov32dsv7cubvpp407l15@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <1jnp9093qv0m69fkmf2vv6oedjc9r993ii@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

Go back and read your pointless trash and you may find that for all
you _think_ you know the stupid claims being made are yours.

You should do so yourself. Your rant is 'interesting', and shows
some 'instability.'

C'mon, Dyson, is that the best you can do?

Nope -- you are just silly and profane... Leftists tend to be
like that... (Hint, Rummy needs protection from people like YOU
and Usama, for example.)

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed to
ridiculous lengths.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote...

John S. Dyson wrote:


Was Wimp Hill really a draft dodger?

I don't know if he was or not- I do recall some mention in a post by him
that he was sympathetic to or a participant in campus anti-war rallies
of the time. He seems to be a bit quick on downing the entire military
every chance he gets- calling their leadership arrogant and incompetent.


No, that's your faulty memory at work again. In fact I have the highest
respect for our military leaders, and in fact I have *never* uttered a
negative word against them.

My memory is not faulty at all- in fact it is exceptionally capacious
when it comes to what is commonly known as "dirt"- and this is an
unfortunate thing I'm sure. You did in fact launch into an anti-military
tirade in the various threads ranting about the looting of the Iraqi
museums- Spring of 2003....

When I had a secret security clearance I
attended their private conference meetings and on occasion briefed them
concerning issues of importance in which I had some expertise. So I
have had some first-hand experience with their professionalism.

I can guess what that expertise was.... They do have a serious problem
with receiving constructive criticism of the way they do business-
leveraging their authority to fail at some hack form of intimidation
rather than reform.

My criticism is leveled at Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and at their
stupid policies. I was disappointed with Powell's uncharacteristic
lies made in his critical speech, which I stopped work to listen to in
its entirety (which changed my opinion about the impending war, until
soon after the war when I realized that he had been lying, after which
I became angry about it all). My respect for Tony Blair has also dropped
considerably at this point.

These people were not lying- they were deceived by the so-called
intelligence community just like everyone else.

 

[John Fields]

On 8 May 2004 19:48:49 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed to
ridiculous lengths.

---
<G>

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <409D4149.1060107@nospam.com>, Fred Bloggs
nospam@nospam.com> writes:

(Not even GWB was a 'dodger',

I am sorry to say that GWB was a dodger- the National Guard was a
very popular means of obtaining deferment- so much so that by late
1960's you had to have political connections to get in.


If you define 'dodging' as joining alternative service, then I
disagree. If someone does join alternative service, even peace corp
type stuff (whatever is allowed), then that isn't the same as the
cowards who do dodge in my own definition (e.g. go to canada, etc.)

I call this dodging and especially so when it pertains to any individual
who aspires to the Presidency. The illegal activities are called
evasion- things like fleeing to Canada, falsifying medical records, and
so forth.

Perhaps it is 'less good' to have joined the national guard, but it
was certainly VERY WRONG to effectively use a scratch as a vehicle
for a political career. (The comment from the Doctor related to
Kerry's claim during treatment that he'd be the next John Kennedy or
somesuch.)

If the latest information is correct- then Kerry has committed a felony
level offense under the UCMJ and should be retroactively Court Martialed.

Kerry was obviously politically motivated for his entire life instead
of living a life with/about normal things. This had obviously
cultivated him as a liar (in common terms, not excusing his
dishonesty by sophistry) during his entire life. There is almost NO
WAY that Kerry can have the normal life experience that would prepare
him for the ultimate office of leadership. This certainly does NOT
disqualify him for the Senate.

Right- he is thoroughly unscrupulous and unfit for the job- one of the
lowest life forms in America.

Frankly, I don't think that GHWB had adequate life experience
either, however great his experience was. GWB has been much more
down to earth, and alot less 'arrogant/elite'. We don't need any
more of that 'arrogant and elite' class like Kerry (or to a lesser,
more honest extent, GHWB) as President. Maybe an exceptional example
will appear someday, but not yet.

As Abraham Lincoln observed: people without vices have few good
qualities; and this means that the US will never have effective
political leadership again.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

Bill Sloman wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed
to ridiculous lengths.

G

I think it's not so much Dyson being mis-informed, although he
is, but his amazing definition of leftist, which encompasses
most of the western world and most of the U.S. for that matter.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[KR Williams]

In article <409E3A67.50208@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...

Winfield Hill wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote...

My criticism is leveled at Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and at their
stupid policies. I was disappointed with Powell's uncharacteristic
lies made in his critical speech, which I stopped work to listen to in
its entirety (which changed my opinion about the impending war, until
soon after the war when I realized that he had been lying, after which
I became angry about it all). My respect for Tony Blair has also dropped
considerably at this point.

These people were not lying- they were deceived by the so-called
intelligence community just like everyone else.

I'm not sure they were deceived about anything. I don't think
this book is closed yet.

"Curious lack of curiosity about WMD"
http://www.larryelder.com/

--
Keith

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 8 May 2004 19:48:49 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed to
ridiculous lengths.

FFS, Bill; *everybody's* a *rightist* from your PoV. I'll wager you're
a huge admirer of Joe Stalin if the truth be known. Come on! Let's
have it! I've met your type before...
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <vcdq90d47q8g207e40hlt4cf9qm4ads6b0@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 18:43:21 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <gt5q90hg1qcmntov32dsv7cubvpp407l15@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

C'mon, Dyson, is that the best you can do?

Nope -- you are just silly and profane... Leftists tend to be
like that... (Hint, Rummy needs protection from people like YOU
and Usama, for example.)

---
The "discredit by association" gambit, huh, loser? You're an amateur
with delusions of adequacy.
---

Nope, your idiocy is shown by your threading debacle. (Hint this

isn't a new thread.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7levp0226f@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

John Fields wrote...

Bill Sloman wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed
to ridiculous lengths.

G

I think it's not so much Dyson being mis-informed, although he
is, but his amazing definition of leftist, which encompasses
most of the western world and most of the U.S. for that matter.

Actually, lets define the 'center' as being John F. Kennedy. Given

that, I am quite centrist. This would be far right for you.

(Don't confuse John F. Kennedy with Teddy Kennedy, who is a idiot
leftist -- more idiot than left.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <7e9q90h9rbcnn0p3i2pligg7plehqja9o0@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

Rest of your off CONTINUED topic nonsense elided...
I kept the nonsense below for reference .

John, John, John... None of the stuff you're posting here appears to
have any relevance to electronics at all. Give it a rest, eh? Thanks.

I am ONLY responding to earlier comments in the thread. Most of the

comments against the US needed to be responded.

(Note that I am NOT creating new threads -- per the idiots claims,
but only changing the subject line. The threading mechanism in proper
netnews readers is orthogonal.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <MPG.1b08193e7f9a9fa9989846@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:

In article <409E3A67.50208@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...


Winfield Hill wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote...

My criticism is leveled at Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and at their
stupid policies. I was disappointed with Powell's uncharacteristic
lies made in his critical speech, which I stopped work to listen to in
its entirety (which changed my opinion about the impending war, until
soon after the war when I realized that he had been lying, after which
I became angry about it all). My respect for Tony Blair has also dropped
considerably at this point.

These people were not lying- they were deceived by the so-called
intelligence community just like everyone else.

I'm not sure they were deceived about anything. I don't think
this book is closed yet.

"Curious lack of curiosity about WMD"
http://www.larryelder.com/

There are some new 'tidbits' that it is POSSIBLE that Libya's 'nuclear'

program was actually a part of Saddams'. The structure of the program
might have been different than our weakened intelligence programs
might have surmised: it might have been an Islamist WMD program,
and not just Saddams (who was partially funding it.) (Part of
Quadaffi coming clean might have been related to that.)

It is true that there is still a high probability of an Iraq based
nuke/WMD program, but the current operating assumption for the public
would be that there wasn't on.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:

What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures

DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
not quite torture.

A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
in store against Americans in Iraq.

When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and
accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
disgusted.

This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
of similar values.

John

 

[Richard Henry]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:409E3EF8.30306@nospam.com...

I call this dodging and especially so when it pertains to any individual
who aspires to the Presidency. The illegal activities are called
evasion- things like fleeing to Canada, falsifying medical records, and
so forth.

Sometimes all you have to do is put an envelope with your name on it at the
bottom of a big pile of trash.