OT: About the beheading: Dad says Bush is responsible

[Rich Grise]

The decapitated kid's dad was just on TeeVee, saying that the
Bush administration is no better than the people who killed his
kid. He says, Bush and the administration perpretrated a
preemptive war, and goes on that "The America I grew up in
wouldn't perpretrate an preemptive war."

So the dead kid's dad, at least, sees the truth.

It's very encouraging, actually.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Stefan Heinzmann]

Rich Grise wrote:

The decapitated kid's dad was just on TeeVee, saying that the
Bush administration is no better than the people who killed his
kid. He says, Bush and the administration perpretrated a
preemptive war, and goes on that "The America I grew up in
wouldn't perpretrate an preemptive war."

So the dead kid's dad, at least, sees the truth.

It's very encouraging, actually.

While I agree with you regarding the preemptive war and Bush's
responsibility, I don't think that the opinion of the victim's dad
carries any particular weight. If you want justice, don't trust the
victim or the relatives. It is far too likely that their judgment is
affected by the pain they suffer.

So I don't find anything encouraging in it, I'm afraid. The whole thing
just saddens me.

--
Cheers
Stefan

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <_GDpc.130485$G_.34151@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:

The decapitated kid's dad was just on TeeVee, saying that the
Bush administration is no better than the people who killed his
kid.

Actually, a lack of wisdom seems to exist in that family. Unfortunately

for Nick, his own silliness cost him his life.

So the dead kid's dad, at least, sees the truth.

Nick and his dad both seem to be rather incompetent and

his Dad is overly invested in the pollyanna trusting of
the UN by people like Kerry and his ceding-Constitution ilk. How
competent could it be for a Jew (with a Jewish name), with
an Israeli visa stamp on his passport, and travelling alone
(without arranged support of a larger organization) in a nation
that is even generally more anti-Jew (also
infested with extremist Jew-haters) than Germany or
France? Answer: not competent or wise at all. There has
NEVER been any implication by the US government that
Iraq is already a liberal (non-Islamic biased) democracy,
or that it ever will be... (Hint, US administration has
said -- however ignored -- that the Iraqi government will
be culturally an Iraqi government, and will NOT be an
image of the US government...)

Frankly, Nicks' dad is a perfect example of poor parenting,
where Nick was obivously not taught about being self-protective
or not recognizing that the world (outside of the USA) is a very
dangerous place (especially for Jews outside of the USA.) Nicks
Dad must still be ignoring the fact that the US needs to
protect all of its population from the uncivilized idiots
and their supporters in the world (e.g. Usama, Saddam,
old-Europe.)

It is all too common for Jew haters (europeons) to use the even worse
behaviors of other Jew haters (Islamists) as an excuse for someone
else's problems. Question: was it FDRs fault that American
Jews who would travel in Europe were in more danger than
Jews travelling in the US? (No matter the prejudice in
the early 20th century, the US wasn't known for killing
and burning 10000's of Jews or even Blacks at the scale
of the Europeans in that timeframe. Even in the 1920's on,
the American cinema -- a predominant means of
communications --- certainly tolerated significant diversity,
while their family members would be regularly killed in Europe,
and considered to be subhumans by the true subhuman, inhumane,
self proclaimed "superior race"!!!)

John

 

[Rich Grise]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c88l6p$guj$1@news.iquest.net...

Nick and his dad both seem to be rather incompetent and
his Dad is overly invested in the pollyanna trusting of
the UN by people like Kerry and his ceding-Constitution ilk. How
competent could it be for a Jew (with a Jewish name), with
an Israeli visa stamp on his passport, and travelling alone
(without arranged support of a larger organization) in a nation
that is even generally more anti-Jew (also
infested with extremist Jew-haters) than Germany or
France? Answer: not competent or wise at all.

Oh, so you're saying that actually he was killed by his own
stupidity?

Works for me.

(now if we could just figure out a way to legally execute
antismokerists...)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <hhXpc.207366$L31.78954@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c88l6p$guj$1@news.iquest.net...

Nick and his dad both seem to be rather incompetent and
his Dad is overly invested in the pollyanna trusting of
the UN by people like Kerry and his ceding-Constitution ilk. How
competent could it be for a Jew (with a Jewish name), with
an Israeli visa stamp on his passport, and travelling alone
(without arranged support of a larger organization) in a nation
that is even generally more anti-Jew (also
infested with extremist Jew-haters) than Germany or
France? Answer: not competent or wise at all.

Oh, so you're saying that actually he was killed by his own
stupidity?

More accurately: he was killed by Al Queda people who took

advantage his stupidity, and Berg was an easy target for the
terrorists.

It is a lie (or incompetent claim) that Bush caused Bergs death,
but it is also not quite accurate to claim that Berg caused
his own death (I hope that I ddn't make that exact claim). If
there is a root cause, it is based upon the 10yrs of near
laissez faire against the terrorists and the terrorist supporting
regime (Saddam's) and alot of crap grew around that festering
mess.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c89i6s$pdg$3@news.iquest.net...

It is a lie (or incompetent claim) that Bush caused Bergs death,
but it is also not quite accurate to claim that Berg caused
his own death (I hope that I ddn't make that exact claim). If
there is a root cause, it is based upon the 10yrs of near
laissez faire against the terrorists and the terrorist supporting
regime (Saddam's) and alot of crap grew around that festering
mess.

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists. So-
called "terrorism" is a response by those overwhelmed by an
inexorable, unfeeling oppression machine.

That's the operative word - response. It's a response that's
used when ordinary battle tactics are a lost cause.

Hell, during the American Revolution, I'm sure the redcoats
thought of the patriots as the day's equivalent of terrorists.
It all depends on who's convinced they're "right," which,
by the way, has nothing to do with what's real.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Wouter van Ooijen (www.vo]

It all depends on who's convinced they're "right," which,
by the way, has nothing to do with what's real.

It all depends on who wins in the end, for he will (re) write the
history books and assign the proper names (freedom fighter, patriot,
terrorist, traitor, etc)




Wouter van Ooijen

-- ------------------------------------
http://www.voti.nl
PICmicro chips, programmers, consulting

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!

That's the operative word - response. It's a response that's
used when ordinary battle tactics are a lost cause.

Or a tantrum thrown by a Narcissist when the world just will not bend to his
will -

f.ex. The RAF in West Germany or the ETA; Is it "oppression" that 99.5% of
the population *does not* vote for a Marxist state? And does merely that one
cannot have ones way justify killing people?

Apparantly, to some people, it does!

 

[Mike Page]

Rich Grise wrote:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c89i6s$pdg$3@news.iquest.net...


It is a lie (or incompetent claim) that Bush caused Bergs death,
but it is also not quite accurate to claim that Berg caused
his own death (I hope that I ddn't make that exact claim). If
there is a root cause, it is based upon the 10yrs of near
laissez faire against the terrorists and the terrorist supporting
regime (Saddam's) and alot of crap grew around that festering
mess.


This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists. So-
called "terrorism" is a response by those overwhelmed by an
inexorable, unfeeling oppression machine.

A definition of terrorism based on response just doesn't work for me. A
terrorist is someone who attacks person A (usually an innocent in
relation to their declared goals) in the hope he will get something from
person B (whose power he covets). They are gangsters with a political
agenda; subtle and clever people, who use "response" as a cover. They
won't fight their enemy (wonder why ?) directly, but prefer to pick off
the weak and innocent.

That's the operative word - response. It's a response that's
used when ordinary battle tactics are a lost cause.
^^^^^^^^^^^

Because they *say* they are responding, are they ? Because they say "you
started it", did you ? This is playground talk.


--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk

 

[Julie]

Rich Grise wrote:

The decapitated kid's dad was just on TeeVee, saying that the
Bush administration is no better than the people who killed his
kid. He says, Bush and the administration perpretrated a
preemptive war, and goes on that "The America I grew up in
wouldn't perpretrate an preemptive war."

So the dead kid's dad, at least, sees the truth.

It's very encouraging, actually.

Cheers!
Rich

This discussion is not appropriate in this forum, OT or otherwise.

Please take these discussions to the appropriate forum, or conduct off-line
with those that interested in such debates.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c89i6s$pdg$3@news.iquest.net...

It is a lie (or incompetent claim) that Bush caused Bergs death,
but it is also not quite accurate to claim that Berg caused
his own death (I hope that I ddn't make that exact claim). If
there is a root cause, it is based upon the 10yrs of near
laissez faire against the terrorists and the terrorist supporting
regime (Saddam's) and alot of crap grew around that festering
mess.

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists. So-
called "terrorism" is a response by those overwhelmed by an
inexorable, unfeeling oppression machine.

Yes, the Taliban were so oppressive (I mean, REALLY OPPRESSIVE), so

Al Queda attacks the US? Hmmm, your logic is silly. Whether or
not you might be 'right' about my claim to be false, your own
claim is totally 'off-the-wall.' Try again.... At least, women
in Afghanistan can get medical attention now, but I guess that
it is people like you who would claim that women didn't need
medical attention during the Taliban rule?

Remember: Afghanistan was actually SOMEWHAT liberal in the
cities for a while, but I guess that your silly logic about the
obvious source of oppression: the Taliban and Al Queda had forced the
attacks on the US because of their oppression? Again: Afghanistan
used to be SOMEWHAT liberal in the cities.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com>
wrote in message news:c8ahsh$9eg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!

Well, I'm chomping at the bit to try it! Call back all the US
military (except where they're explicitly, overtly invited),
and quit shoving US ideology down everybody's throat on the
planet, and let's watch!

This is called an "experiment," and is one of the fundamental
principles of the scientific method.

When do we start?

BTW, I'll bet, say, a year's pay?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <jIeqc.136737$G_.31614@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:c8ahsh$9eg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!

Well, I'm chomping at the bit to try it! Call back all the US
military (except where they're explicitly, overtly invited),
and quit shoving US ideology down everybody's throat on the
^^^^^^^^^^^ Yep, freedom really does suck

and is an athema to the terrorists and you, right?

planet, and let's watch!

Remember: the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are due directly

to the war against terrorists along with the ongoing trouble from
Saddam. Now, if you want to talk about 'oppression', lets talk
about Saddam's Iraqi state, the Afghani Taliban state, and the
oppression goal against non-Islamists by Al Queda. (If you think that
the US wants to spend resources on the anti-terror war effort,
especially when the horrid and ethically decayed old-European
states aren't willing
to help with their fair share, then you totally misunderstand
the fact that VERY FEW in the US want to spend resources on the
effort, even though it is definitely necessary.)

Frankly, I'd like to see the American military totally withdraw
from Germany and Korea. France, however, fights the war against
terrorists by partially disrobing young Moslem girls because of
their offensive clothing. (Perhaps it is really a perversion,
where they wish to see little girls with minimal clothing?) I
am sure that the partial disrobing of little Moslem girls is
effective (but ohhh so very 'old-Europe' in approach against
"enemies.")

The good news (and a near freebie) has been the carrot and stick
negotations between UK,US and Libya and Quadaffi growing into
a more mature and realistic individual. He certainly doesnt'
want the wrath of the US, and the US now has much of his old
WMD materials for safe keeping and hopefully destruction. With
a more united front from old-Europe, the liberation of Iraq
might have been much less painful, but that would have guaranteed
the loss of the illegal European Oil For Food profits, without
any cost to the US for the trouble.

(If only Arafat wouldn't suggest that his people should terrorize
their enemies -- even recently, then he wouldn't be considered the
terrorist (and friend of the Europeans) that he really is also.)
I'll bet that much of the European press didn't even cover Arafats'
recent order of more terrorism.

John

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c8bue5$1fut$1@news.iquest.net...

I am sure that the partial disrobing of little Moslem girls is
effective (but ohhh so very 'old-Europe' in approach against
"enemies.")

Can I freely wear a KKK costume in the US?
Can I get the picture taken for my drivers license while wearing it?

I'll bet that much of the European press didn't even cover Arafats'
recent order of more terrorism.

What do you think - the EU pays around 4 million Euros per year to the
bastard, the majority flying right back to his Swiss bank account and the
rest spent on armed goons keeping his mafioso "regime" together.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:jIeqc.136737$G_.31614@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

When do we start?

Shut down the Internet, Shut down international trade, Stop importing Oil,
Give all your money to charity, Join the Amish people and accept as the
"Will of God" that about 2/3 of the population will die from starvation and
curable diseases until a sustainable population has been reached.

But that's what Al-Quaida wants you to do is it not? Surrender your life to
some "God" that generally cares only about the number of prayers you say,
the correctness of the ritual and the adherence to "the rules".

The US has grown large, it will cast a shadow and create waves where it
goes - this offends people. Live with it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c8bue5$1fut$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <jIeqc.136737$G_.31614@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:c8ahsh$9eg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!

Well, I'm chomping at the bit to try it! Call back all the US
military (except where they're explicitly, overtly invited),
and quit shoving US ideology down everybody's throat on the
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, freedom really does suck
and is an athema to the terrorists and you, right?

planet, and let's watch!

Remember: the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are due directly
to the war against terrorists along with the ongoing trouble from
Saddam.

Your claim that the U.S. supports "freedom" outside the US is not
supported by history, unless you contrue "freedom" as the freedom of
capitalists to exploit their workers and customers without
interference from busy-body trade unions, safety-at-work laws,
anti-pollution regulations and effective measures against corruption.

The people whom you have supported in the past - Franco, Somoza, the
Sha of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, aren't exactly
loveable democrats, and most, like your current pet, Pervez Musharraf
in Pakistan, came to power via military coups.

Your claim that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Irak is
"due directly to the war against terrorists along with the ongoing
trouble from Saddam" is somewhat naive.

Dubbya put a bare minimum of troops into Afghanistan, clearly not
enough to capture Osama bin Laden or to dismantle the Al Q'iada
network in the country, in order to lull the American public into
thinking that something was being done to apprehend the perpetrators
of 9/11, without actually disabling the very convenient boogy man that
justified the continuing extraordinarily high U.S. military budget -
otherwise known as the pork-barrel for Dubbya's friends and
supporters.

The invasion of Irak had even less to do with repressing international
terrorism - the exact timing was determined by the demands of Dubbya's
re-election campaign. In terms of dealing with "ongoing trouble" from
Irak, the present situation is killing U.S. soldiers faster than the
pre-invasion situation. It is probably also killing more Iraki's, but
since your guys don't care about Iraki deaths - not enough to keep
track of them, anyway - this is a pointless speculation.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

Frankly, Nicks' dad is a perfect example of poor parenting,
where Nick was obivously not taught about being self-protective
or not recognizing that the world (outside of the USA) is a very
dangerous place (especially for Jews outside of the USA.) Nicks
Dad must still be ignoring the fact that the US needs to
protect all of its population from the uncivilized idiots
and their supporters in the world (e.g. Usama, Saddam,
old-Europe.)

The family are idiots and have no legal standing to sue- the US
government should send them a bill for the 10's of thousands spent by
the State Dept, FBI, military, and other intelligence sources because of
all the trouble he caused, where he deliberately put himself in harm's
way despite every effort and advisory to get him out of the area -that
were ignored or refused- and it's not like these agencies were not
already swamped with more pressing matters than this. Then the idiot
father made the statement that the AlQaeda killed the best friend they
had - what an idiot! Berg looked to be heavily drugged at the time of
the decapitation-which is a good thing because it must have taken two
minutes for that incompetent Arab to saw his head off.

 

[Tim Auton]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]

The people whom you have supported in the past - Franco, Somoza, the
Sha of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, aren't exactly
loveable democrats, and most, like your current pet, Pervez Musharraf
in Pakistan, came to power via military coups.

I have a nasty feeling supporting Musharraf (who miraculously went
from being called General to President shortly before the invasion of
Afghanistan) is going to come back to haunt the USA (and Britain) in
the same way Bin Laden, Hussein and the other miscreants supported by
the US have. The difference here is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Smart move.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Rich Grise wrote:

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:c8ahsh$9eg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...


This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!


Well, I'm chomping at the bit to try it! Call back all the US
military (except where they're explicitly, overtly invited),
and quit shoving US ideology down everybody's throat on the
planet, and let's watch!

This is called an "experiment," and is one of the fundamental
principles of the scientific method.

When do we start?

BTW, I'll bet, say, a year's pay?

Thanks,
Rich


Anyone see the "Robin Williams" peace plan? I don't have a copy

anymore, but it was essentially "Call back the military, close the
borders, and tell the rest of the world where to go!" It was an
interesting thought experiment. I really liked the part where we told
OPEC we would buy oil at $10/barrel, and if they didn't like the price,
go jump!

--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <7c584d27.0405180308.10ba86ee@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c8bue5$1fut$1@news.iquest.net>...
In article <jIeqc.136737$G_.31614@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:c8ahsh$9eg$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:bVZpc.208223$L31.125379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

This is so flagrantly false it makes me sick. If there had, in
fact, been laissez faire, there would be no terrorists.

I think you would loose that bet, were you to wager!

Well, I'm chomping at the bit to try it! Call back all the US
military (except where they're explicitly, overtly invited),
and quit shoving US ideology down everybody's throat on the
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, freedom really does suck
and is an athema to the terrorists and you, right?

planet, and let's watch!

Remember: the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are due directly
to the war against terrorists along with the ongoing trouble from
Saddam.

Your claim that the U.S. supports "freedom" outside the US is not
supported by history,

Remember the cold war? Oh yeah, that is the war that the leftists

lost... Convienient to forget it, right? That is perhaps the strongest
motivator for mistaken US policy. Historical European policy has usually
been worse. Iraq directly results from idiotic European policy, for
exmample (totally ignoring traditional associations.)

The people whom you have supported in the past - Franco, Somoza, the
Sha of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, aren't exactly

Read the paragraph above WRT the cold war.

loveable democrats, and most, like your current pet, Pervez Musharraf
in Pakistan, came to power via military coups.

If you don't think that the US government isn't "holding it's nose"

in the necessary dealings with Musharraf, then you don't understand
the necessity of dealing with him (after great pressure.) At least,
Pervez is much better than the Taliban and Saddam -- and the Europeans
had been pressuring the US to deal more kindly with too many despots.
At least, they are learning their lesson (e.g. Castro's behavior) recently.

The US has backed off alot since the end of the cold war, but old-Europe
has tried to fill in the gaps (e.g. France's intimate hand shaking with
the true murderous despots.)

Your claim that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Irak is
"due directly to the war against terrorists along with the ongoing
trouble from Saddam" is somewhat naive.

You are yet another fool with yet another conspiracy theory. The

problem is that your leftist friends in Europe are those who are really
supporting the tyrants. Note that it isn't 'supporting' a tyrant when
there are 'deals' made with them. Frances intimate and unnecessary
dealings with the true
mass murdering African tyrants (oh yeah, racist old-Europe doesn't
count them as human beings, right?) totally indict any notion of
'promoting democracy.' Alas, at least Musharraf has been helping
to collect your friends, the Al Queda terrorists (and has helped
to get some really big ones.) Musharraf has gotten some really
big terrorists, while France likes to partially undress little
Moslem girls?

John