Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:39:00 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic?

---
Go back and read it again.

As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was
claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the
poster and, thus, his claims.

I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically
preclude also being right.

I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads,
computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a
pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness.

---
Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality !

The Muslim Brotherhood *is not* ISLAM ffs ! Egyptian courts have even
sentenced of their members to their deaths.

---
What we've been talking about for what seems ages is radical
Islam/Islamists. Are you saying the the Muslim Brotherhood isn't
Islamist?
---

also, Googling for "Radical Islam western overthrow" yields some
interesting hits.

Interesting to the paranoid maybe ?

---
Interesting to anyone who's interested in radical Islam. Isn't that
you as well?
---

As far as mental illness goes, I suggest that your rabid
pathological hatred for America and your unrelenting Ameriphobia
might be something you'd like to talk about with a psychiatrist.
Psychiatric care _is_ free under your system, isn't it? So what've
you got to lose except that chip on your shoulder and that ache in
your guts?

As someone who can defend a US warship shooting down a civilian airliner
without even as much as an apology, it seems to me that you're the one in
need of psychiatric help actually.

---
Reading more about it there do appear to be extenuating
circumstances and confusion which led up to the attack on the
airplane, and as I stated earlier, shit happens.

I read that statements of deep regret were issued after the
incident, and that's close enough to an apology for me.

Psychiatric help? I'm not the one with the raging hate for America
deciding how I live my life and being my entire raison d'étre, you
are, so unless you want to give yourself an embolism, I think a
trip to the shrink is something you should seriously consider. What
could it hurt? It's free, too, isn't it? Something else I wonder
about you, do you still live with your parents?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:16:55 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) Gave us:

In article <egdb10$8qk_002@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[... Iran ...]
Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated?

It could be that they don't intend to detonate them. Put your self in
their shoes. They see:

(1)
Iraq has no WMDs and gets invaded by the US.

(2)
N. Korea has WMDs and remains safely in power.

Don't shit yourself. Having the ENTIRE world pissed off at you is
hardly "safely in power". One: They had NO power to begin with.
They are one of the most under-developed and backward nations left in
the world. Two: a huge, goose stepping army is not power, nor are the
weapons. This will soon be proven. Remeber them sailing a missile
over Japan? Between them and China, you can bet that N. Korea is
gonna be a hurt pup, pretty fucking soon too.

Looking at these two cases, Iran may take the leason that the only way to
not be invaded by the US is to have WMDs.

They'll eat a plate of shit as well. They just got bumped down one
notch on the list.

If you detonate one you don't
have it anymore so you would stockpile them unused. The second advantage
to never using them is that they don't actually have to work. They just
have to look good enough that the other side assumes they might.

Trust me. Retarded governments like N. Korea and Iran will pay for
dabbling. And that right soon. They intimidate no one, and their
stupid provocations are gonna get them in a world of shit, and the
world will approve too.

 

In article <egdvtv$31b$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <JHgWg.3$25.68@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <egb8h8$og6$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[....]
Somehow you think that not wanting to risk India and Pakistan flinging
nukes at each other makes the effort non-serious. I disagree.

You don't understand, I'm afraid.

Oh, but I do understand. I disagree with what you have (at least appear
to have) concluded about the warning.

Of course nobody would want to risk
an exchange between India and Pakistan over such issue. Yet, it was
not a secret that Osama and his friends had connections within the
Pakistani military and intelligence establishment and it didn't take a
genius to figure out that any forewarning passed to Pakistan will,
with very high probability, be transferred to Osama, fast

It cerrtainly could not have been done before the warning was given. The
warning was IIRC very short notice.

The missilles had to fly over at least 4-500 miles of Pakistani
territory. That's close to an hour at Tomahawk speed. And, the
warning had to be issued before they crossed the Pakistani border.
So, at a modest estimate, the warning had to be at least an hour
before impact. Plenty of itme.

The Pakistani inteligence called the
ISI is well know to be infiltrated. This means that some members not all
members are working for the other side. The warning went not to the ISI
but to the government. If would then have to travel through the
government to the ISI and then within the ISI to a corrupt person who
would then have to have OBL's number on speed dial. It is very likely
that Musharraf knowing that the ISI is infiltrated would delay telling
them of the warning until after the missiles have reached the target.

the time we're talking about is before 9/11, thus before Musharraf

became an ally in the war on terror. In fact, the US-Pakistani
relations were far from friendly at that time. Thus, no reason to expect
Musharraf to be especially cooperative in this respect (and plenty of
reasons to expect otherwise). And, it wasn't only the ISI that was
infiltrated at that time.

(that he
ended up not being there, anyway, is utterly irrelevant to the issue).

Atually it is relevant. If he was there, he would be dead now and you
would not be claiming that the attack was "not serious".

If he was there *and* if he wouldn't get any warning (and a warning

even 5 minutes prior to impact would've been sufficient), which, as I
wrote, was a hell of a lot to expect. In fact, you've no way to know
that he wasn't there and didn't get a warning, you don't really think
he would announce something like this, do you?

The intelligence said that OBL was going to be at the location. He had
planned to go there and be there at exactly the time the missile hit the
place. This was a very serious attempt to kill him.

As I said above, it is only serious when you've ground assets capable
of confirming that yes, he's there.

No. This is simply false. If someone shot down Airforce One who thought
the president was on it it would be a very serious effort to kill the
president. That person would not need to have a person on Airforce One
for it to be considered serious. If someone blew up the White House
thinking the president was there it would be serious. If someone blew up
a farm house in Idaho thinking the president was there, it would be
serious. now s/president/OBL/

Sorry, not in this case. People involved in clandestine operations
are known to change their schedules often and unpredictably and just
being told that "he's expected to be there at such and such date" is
not something to base a serious operation on.

We're not talking about devices
with great destructive range here, it was enough for him to go a
quarter mile away from the perimeter, for whatever reason, to be safe.

He was planning to be inside the building that got blown up. He would
have been very dead if he had stuck to his plans.

And why should you expect him to stick to his plans. Read above.
People in his branch of activity do not stay alive long by sticking to
schedules.

There is no fixation on OBL. Taking out the leadership of the other side
is a normal thing to want to do.

It is a normal thing to do to the extent that it deosn't distract from
other things. It is rarely the main thing to do.

It is the thing we know about because a lot of attention was drawn to it.
A quick search via google indicates that it wasn't the only thing done.

From:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html
***
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and
fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in
the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were
priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace
process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the
priority of that administration.
***

Which positively proves that this is what Clarke said. And that's all
it proves. Somehow, with all this "high priority" not much was done.
Now, get out of this defensive crouch, I'm *not* trying to blame
anything specific on Clinton here, the facts of the matter are that,
first, Islamic extremism started way earlier than this, second,
Bin Laden was just one of the figures involved and third, nobody in
the West, regardless of political orientation, was taking the issue as
to be more than "nuissance". it was something of sufficient priority
to deal with only to the extent that it could be done without
straining any diplomatic relations, offending any people, ruffling any
feathers etc. It took 9/11 to change the priority rating (nad even
this just for some people, not all).

Today there is a lack of seriousness
about the effort against terrorists. This I see as a political
calculation by the republicans. They can call anything they want part of
the "war on terror" so long as that "war" never actually ends.

The war will take a long time but the lack of seriousness is on the
side of the democrats. By and large they don't even recognize that

If the republicans are left in charge the "war" will be eternal. So far
all they have done is made things a lot worse. If the democrats did
nothing, it would be better than what the republicans have done so far.
The democrats have and do take the terrorism issue very seriously. I
guess it is just the latest republican talking point from Faux News of
Rush Limbaugh that says they don't.

OK, I'll take your bringing up "talking point" as a good indication
that you run out of things to say.

At the time Clinton tried to take out OBL he was really a leader.

Sigh. What is it that you don't understand here. Any movement and
any organization have a leader. This *does not* mean that the
movement/organization is dependent on any specific person as a leader.

You still haven't caught on! OBL was the leader he is what at that time
made it a coordinated group. Without him it would have been more
fragmented.

Without him, somebody else would be leading it. There was nothing
about it (and still isn't) making him indispensible. As I already
mentioned, this is not a "hero worship" movement.

This would have made them much less of a threat. Without a
centeral leader the other efforts to mop them up would be more effective.

Hardly. the movement (and it is not the only movement) is highly

decentralized as it is.

Taking out the leadership of the other side is a key part of an effort
such as the one we find ourselves in today. Drying up their funding and
trying to prevent them from making new converts is also important. Doing
stuff like attacking Iraq works directly against all three of these.

Nope. Talking about "drying up their funding and preventing them from
making new converts", by itself is akin to talking about teaching pigs
to fly.

This is simply false. Here are obvious methods for attacking each.

(1) They get a lot of the funding from "charities" which can outlawed in
the US so that US funds stop going to them.

While some funds come from the charities in the west, the majority of

the funds and support come from Middle Eastern sources. There is lots
of money there to be skimmed of the top of the oil payments. Even if
you manage to completely stop all money transfers from the west (note
the "even if", how well do we manage to control drug money?) it'll
have no meore than secondary impact on the funding of Islamic
extremism.

(2) Fund free schools in the middle east so that the poor have a option
besides the madrassas.

Aha. And you think that you just come to Arab countries, tell them

"you really don't know how to educate your kids properly, so I'll do
it for you" and they say "oh, sorry, we didn't know it can be done
better, here, take our kids and teach them". How much sillier can you
get? In no place over there is the educational model going to shift
from madrassas to secular schooling without the shift being supported
by massive physical force, a force to be exercised either by you or by
a local government which is willing to throw its weight behind the
shift. And, given the viciousness of the opposition, no local
government will pick this fight unless they've good reasons to believe
that they may be hurt worse by you, if they don't do it, than by the
extremists if they do.

You fit the pattern. You're seeking "feel good solutions" which don't
necessitate dirtying one's hands and carry few immediate risks. And,
when they do nothing useful you'll be able to claim "at least I
tried". I'm afraid that the time for such passed, long ago.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:42:45 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Oh, well... shit happens.

That seems to cover most American actions these days.

Shame that a load of it doesn't end up drowning your lame ass.

 

[JoeBloe]

On 09 Oct 2006 22:12:15 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
Gave us:

They don't need any grip, they have overtaken all christianity. :-(

Letters, Weapons (still the same as before, nothing new), Politic (it
is not a democracy, IMO), Language, collected Knowledge (like
our pre-sapiens apes, when they could not grip to something new, they
fiercely attack -e.g Odyssee 2001 'HAL'), etc.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Dude, you are fucking retarded.

 

[JoeBloe]

On 9 Oct 2006 16:36:22 -0700, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> Gave us:

The Arabs WILL get nukes .

You're an idiot.

There will NOT be WW III .

That's because any nation (particularly a terrorist state) is gonna
get the shit bombed out of them. Sooner than you think.

The USA will
quietly

pull out of Middle East and never return .

Once we get done blowing the fuck out of the retarded elements
residing there, we'll leave. We'll also come back any time we damn
well feel like it, you stupid fuck.

Osama Bin Laden will get the market price for his oil ....

You're an idiot. He doesn't have any oil, and he doesn't have much
longer to live either, whether we track him down or not.

Peace at last , brought to you by nuclear power ......

You forgot an "a" between "by" and "nuclear". That power would be
us, and yes, we will bring peace, one way or another.

"Mutually assured self destruction "

We do not self destruct, we defend. Ourselves as well as our
allies, and any other peaceful nation that gets overrun by fucktard
warmongers.

ended all wars ......

You're an idiot. You're also a top posting Usenet TWIT!

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:42:45 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:32:13 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to court and the
bitterness continues.

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

That seems to cover most American actions these days.

---
Everybody's. We just get blamed more for it because we do more,
chump.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

Such an eloquent way to talk about our President and his cronies.

Eric Lucas


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsipli21267dacokcujhkbupfteemur4rkr@4ax.com...

> fucktard warmongers.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe wrote:

On 09 Oct 2006 22:12:15 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
Gave us:

They don't need any grip, they have overtaken all christianity. :-(

Letters, Weapons (still the same as before, nothing new), Politic
(it is not a democracy, IMO), Language, collected Knowledge (like
our pre-sapiens apes, when they could not grip to something new,
they fiercely attack -e.g Odyssee 2001 'HAL'), etc.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Dude, you are fucking retarded.

You have nothing new.... that's the fact.

Only mind-blister


You are the 'million years nothing happens' culture.



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Fields]

On 09 Oct 2006 22:12:15 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality !



They don't need any grip, they have overtaken all christianity. :-(

Letters, Weapons (still the same as before, nothing new), Politic (it
is not a democracy, IMO), Language, collected Knowledge (like
our pre-sapiens apes, when they could not grip to something new, they
fiercely attack -e.g Odyssee 2001 'HAL'), etc.

---
Hmmm.... We made those movies, didn't we?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[joseph2k]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

joseph2k wrote:


I did not expect such ignorance from you. Via your VA pension you have
several bank accounts, though you do not control any of them. And yes,
they can be and are used to track you.


Can't you read? I clearly stated, "I DO NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT". I
am not stupid enough to give any personal information to anyone. I
don't have any credit cards, nor do I want any. I haven't used any
credit for over 20 years, and I don't intend to. I drive a 19 year old
Ford ranger that I rescued from the crusher. When it can't be repaired
cheaply I'll either find another castoff, or just give up driving. It
causes too much pain for me to drive, anyway.

The VA sends me a paper check each month, BTW.

And yes, they use that paper check to track you also. If you ever go to a
VA hospital they set up even more accounts to track you. Are you getting
the picture yet?

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rfoli2ln4911r52r106i82beiib20uo3k4@4ax.com...

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:42:45 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:32:13 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was
nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn
away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently
warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a
military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto
a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

Oh, well... shit happens.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and
compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm
sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen
to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to
court and the
bitterness continues.

Oh, well... shit happens.

That seems to cover most American actions these days.

Everybody's. We just get blamed more for it because we do more,
chump.

Waaaaaa, that's nothing but a whiny bullshit excuse for more bad behavior.
We get blamed for more because, as the self-proclaimed cops of the free
world, we *should* be held to a much higher standard. If we're going to try
to take the high road and shove our values down other peoples' throats, we
damn well better make sure we live up to those values first.

If an Iranian warship had gunned down an American passenger jet in climbing
flight in an established commercial traffic pattern for "no good reason" (as
I'm sure we would loudly proclaim, if the tables were turned), we would have
bombed Teheran into oblivion without thinking twice. What takes courage and
heart is to understand *their* point of view, and meet them halfway. It's
called diplomacy, and it says a lot bad about our country that we refused
to.

Eric Lucas

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe wrote:

We do not self destruct, we defend. Ourselves as well as our
allies, and any other peaceful nation that gets overrun by fucktard
warmongers.

You have not much allies in Irak.

ended all wars ......

You're an idiot. You're also a top posting Usenet TWIT!

Who cares about that? Bill Gates might also top post....



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: The fat Land under your cursed asses gives you the power. Now you
have overcome with this all and grab anywhere for the needed resources,
to feed your fleet, or how did You say...

Drive by Rail

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic?

---
Go back and read it again.

As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was
claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the
poster and, thus, his claims.

I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically
preclude also being right.

I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads,
computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a
pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness.

---
Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality !

The Muslim Brotherhood *is not* ISLAM ffs ! Egyptian courts have even
sentenced of their members to their deaths.

---
What we've been talking about for what seems ages is radical
Islam/Islamists. Are you saying the the Muslim Brotherhood isn't
Islamist?

Islam and Islamist are 2 entirely different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing them.

The Muslim Brotherhood is indeed *Islamist*.

Graham

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

Hmmm.... We made those movies, didn't we?

YESSS.





Good Movie!


Don't forget the English actors... Sir Alec Guinness, for example.


And Chevy Chase.





Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:39:00 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

As someone who can defend a US warship shooting down a civilian airliner
without even as much as an apology, it seems to me that you're the one in
need of psychiatric help actually.

---
Reading more about it there do appear to be extenuating
circumstances and confusion which led up to the attack on the
airplane,

The confusion was entirely the making of the commander and crew of the
Vincennes. Another source ( see Jonathan Kirwan's post ) has the Exec
imforming Capt Rogers of the Vincennes that the aircraft was in fact an
airliner some 2 minutes before the missiles were fired !

and as I stated earlier, shit happens.

And should be accompanied by compensation and a *full* apology

I read that statements of deep regret were issued after the
incident, and that's close enough to an apology for me.

I consider it to be pretty lame together with a refusal to consider
compensation that had to be fought for in the courts. Considering that
compensation was indeed finally paid ( and goodness knows how anyone thought
they could get away with it ) how much more sensible might it have been and
better for international relations to simply 'fess up and pay up ?

do you still live with your parents?

My parents died 38 and 34 years ago

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

I think a trip to the shrink is something you should seriously consider.

I think a dose of reality is something you should seriously consider.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated?

It could be that they don't intend to detonate them. Put your self in
their shoes. They see:

(1)
Iraq has no WMDs and gets invaded by the US.

(2)
N. Korea has WMDs and remains safely in power.

Don't shit yourself. Having the ENTIRE world pissed off at you is
hardly "safely in power". One: They had NO power to begin with.
They are one of the most under-developed and backward nations left in
the world. Two: a huge, goose stepping army is not power, nor are the
weapons. This will soon be proven. Remeber them sailing a missile
over Japan? Between them and China, you can bet that N. Korea is
gonna be a hurt pup, pretty fucking soon too.

Unless China does something N Korea is going to be just fine.

Trust me. Retarded governments like N. Korea and Iran will pay for
dabbling. And that right soon. They intimidate no one, and their
stupid provocations are gonna get them in a world of shit, and the
world will approve too.

The world will not approve of a US attack on Iran ( Israel might of course ).
The one in the shit will be the USA.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On 9 Oct 2006 16:36:22 -0700, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> Gave us:

The Arabs WILL get nukes .

You're an idiot.

There will NOT be WW III .

That's because any nation (particularly a terrorist state) is gonna
get the shit bombed out of them. Sooner than you think.

How long do you reckon the USA can get away with behaving as the 'world
cowboy' ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

Oh, well... shit happens.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to court and the
bitterness continues.

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

That seems to cover most American actions these days.

---
Everybody's. We just get blamed more for it because we do more,
chump.

You make more mistakes simply because Americans are sloppy about everything.

Graham