OT: About the beheading: Dad says Bush is responsible

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c8cigv$758$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>,
"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

"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?

Yes, mostly, but most people would be offended. (I'd get

very sick to my stomach.) There might be some local laws,
but KKK is a hate group, Islam isn't a 'hate group' per se.
Comparing without 'contrasting' KKK or Nazi garb vs. Islamic
garb shows a racist/religious bias. I still don't see that
Islam is the 'enemy', but there is a problem very similar to
history of other religions.

Can I get the picture taken for my drivers license while wearing it?

For the private act of identification, there should be no problem

with showing your face on ids that need not be shown to every
pervert. The problem is the PUBLIC partial undressing of little
Moslem girls in France (for example.)

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.

This helps to show that some countries are definite supporters of

terroism. Arafat made a BIG MISTAKE by his suggestion of terrorism
against his enemies. He probably knew that old-Europe would ignore
it, but that makes EU complicit in terrorism.

John

 

[Nico Coesel]

Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

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.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. After all, this is the stuff design
engineers talk about during coffee and lunch break )

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Guy Macon]

Charles Edmondson <edmondson@ieee.org> says...

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.

It isn't just Robin Williams who thinks that this is a good idea...

Libertarian foreign policy: Defending America (not the world)
http://www.lp.org/issues/national-defense.html

For A New Isolationism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard41.html

Thoughts on Isolationism vs. Interventionism
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/Musings/War/isolationism.html
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/Musings/War/isolationism1.html
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/Musings/War/isolationism2.html
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/Musings/War/isolationism3.html
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/Musings/War/isolationism4.html

http://www.noninterventionist.com/
"NonInterventionist.Com supports the original American ideal of
a non interventionist foreign policy. We believe this policy
worked well; helping to foster international goodwill, protecting
human freedom, and building economic prosperity through free trade.
However, some politicans weren't simply happy with peace and
prosperity, they began to envision a larger mission for America:
forcefully intervening in the business of other countries."
http://www.noninterventionist.com/


The War Prayer by Mark Twain (1905)
http://www.libertystory.net/LSDOCTWAINWARPRAYER.htm

 

[Guy Macon]

Nico Coesel <nico@puntnl.niks> says...

Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

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.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. After all, this is the stuff design
engineers talk about during coffee and lunch break )

There are two schools of thought here. The above is one. The other
is that it is undesirable to have 30,000 newsgroups all talking about
whatever is in the news today. Neither group is going to disappear or
change. The answer is to label the non-electronics posts with "[OT]".
(*PLEASE* folks, show that you understand the concept of "standards"
and use the string "[OT]" and not "OT:" "(ot)". "{Off-Topic}" or any
other variation. Why make the users put in multiple filters for no
reason?) Julie should simply filter out any posts with the "[OT]"
string in the title and let Nico discuss whatever he wishes in peace.
This is the way Real Engineers solve this sort of problem.

Julie's solution to this problem (everybody stops posting on topics
that Julie doesn't want to read about) is unworkable. My solution
(Most people label their posts by adding/deleting "[OT]" and Julie
uses the filtering capability of her newsreader) is workable.

 

[Guy Macon]

John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> says...

You are yet another fool with yet another conspiracy theory. The
problem is that your leftist friends

This sort of statement tends towards non-communication. Even if what
you say is right, calling someone who disagrees a fool is unlikely
to convince anyone.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <f62dnduBy6dQLDfdRVn-gw@speakeasy.net>,
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:

John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> says...

You are yet another fool with yet another conspiracy theory. The
problem is that your leftist friends

This sort of statement tends towards non-communication. Even if what
you say is right, calling someone who disagrees a fool is unlikely
to convince anyone.

Okay -- you are right. His 'supposition' without fact (or reasonable

evidence) doesn't convince anyone other than the already converted.

Instead of assuming access to 'mainstream' media, I have instead been
posting links or information from the sources. This appears to be
the only way to wake the overly zealous Kerry advocates start looking
at him as the 'FRIGHTENING' somewhat creepy person that he really is.

As Senator, I don't have a problem with Kerry, but his behavior in
the battlefield (which I can provide info, if desired) shows a
certain 'instability' that would be inappropriate for the Presidency.

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

Instead of assuming access to 'mainstream' media, I have instead been
posting links or information from the sources. This appears to be
the only way to wake the overly zealous Kerry advocates start looking
at him as the 'FRIGHTENING' somewhat creepy person that he really is.

No, you haven't been posting links, you've been posting masses
of name-calling and unsupported gross bold sinful slander.

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c8edf60299u@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Instead of assuming access to 'mainstream' media, I have instead been
posting links or information from the sources. This appears to be
the only way to wake the overly zealous Kerry advocates start looking
at him as the 'FRIGHTENING' somewhat creepy person that he really is.

No, you haven't been posting links, you've been posting masses
of name-calling and unsupported gross bold sinful slander.

Actually, they are quotes from other sites... I have also posted

a links or two (AFAIR.) However, if you are honest, you have
to admit that John Friggen Kerry is a shady character. Remember,
all of his commanding officers don't want to see him as president.
Statistically, MANY MORE should accept Kerry as president, so there
is DEFINITELY alot wrong with Kerry.

If you want links for all of the information (instead of information
from the links), then so be it.

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

If you want links for all of the information (instead of information
from the links), then so be it.

We'll read information from reputable sites, your unmitigated
trash we'd rather avoid at all costs.

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[Richard Henry]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:f62dnduBy6dQLDfdRVn-gw@speakeasy.net...

John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> says...

You are yet another fool with yet another conspiracy theory. The
problem is that your leftist friends

This sort of statement tends towards non-communication. Even if what
you say is right, calling someone who disagrees a fool is unlikely
to convince anyone.

Have you noticed that no one is agreeing with Dyson any more?

Do you think he cares?

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:c8ed5j$26nt$2@news.iquest.net...

As Senator, I don't have a problem with Kerry, but his behavior in
the battlefield (which I can provide info, if desired) shows a
certain 'instability' that would be inappropriate for the Presidency.

This is what I would call 'typical' American narrow minded reasoning.
I have no idea what Kerry did some 40 years ago, but is it really
that important? People learn and change over time. You have changed
too, you were probably very normal 40 years ago, but look at yourself
now, totally fucked up! What and how you were 40 years ago is totally
irrelevant.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c8do4j$20ee$1@news.iquest.net>...

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,

<snipped usual rubbish>

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.

Franco predates the cold war. And it was precisely your enthusiasm for
right wing trade-union bashers like Somoza in Nicaragua and Battista
in Cuba that made the defective Russian communist system the only
source of support for administrations like Castro's, who were
sincerely interested in the well-being of the people they ruled - see
what Menken had to say

http://www.mcn.org/c/irapilgrim/POL13.html

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,

No. Not for a minute. He is very much your kind of guy - as you will
see if you go back through the list of your other pets. US-inspired
military take-overs are remarkably frequent, for a country that talks
so much about "freedom".

<snipped the rest of the bilge>

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.

If correct, that would just make us a pair - not that I take my
conspiracy theory seriously enough to put me into your league. I only
trot out that stuff to satirise the rubbish that you come up with.

<snip most of the rest of the vapourings>

while France likes to partially undress little
Moslem girls?

It is true that ultra-orthodox Jewish wives shave their hair to
minimise the erotic effect of a full head of female hair on their
strangely susceptible husbands, but this is widely seen as a comic
aberration. The French ban on head-scarves in school is part of a
wider ban on visible symbols of religious affiliation, including
skullcaps and large crosses and crucifixes, and your reaction is
unusual - it would seem that you are posting from some kind of secure
psychiatric institution. Were you a child molester?

I note that your observation that removing head-scarves consitutes
"partial undressing" doesn't consitute convincing evidence that you
were a child molester, but I'd be negligent if I missed the
opportunity to satirise your standards of evidence.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Paul Burke]

Bill Sloman wrote:

The French ban on head-scarves in school is part of a
wider ban on visible symbols of religious affiliation, including
skullcaps and large crosses and crucifixes

Got to disagree with you here Bill. The French ban seems to me to be
directed largely at Muslims, as a racist reaction to the success of le
Pen's vile campaigns. (It's noticeable that only 'large' crucifixes are
affected.) And to some cultures, the resulting exposure, unobjectionable
by our standards, will feel like an exposure - imagine the reaction to,
say, an African country requiring Western women to go topless.

But for the nutty right to take issue with this is a little bit rich.

Paul Burke

 

[Winfield Hill]

Bill Sloman wrote...

It is true that ultra-orthodox Jewish wives shave their hair to
minimise the erotic effect of a full head of female hair on their
strangely susceptible husbands, but this is widely seen as a comic
aberration. The French ban on head-scarves in school is part of a
wider ban on visible symbols of religious affiliation, including
skullcaps and large crosses and crucifixes, and your reaction is
unusual - it would seem that you are posting from some kind of
secure psychiatric institution. Were you a child molester?

I note that your observation that removing head-scarves consitutes
"partial undressing" doesn't consitute convincing evidence that you
were a child molester, but I'd be negligent if I missed the
opportunity to satirise your standards of evidence.

Your evidence that Dyson is a child molester is much better than his
"evidence" that I am a draft dodger, as he has stated or strongly
implied in multiple posts, and placed in bold public headlines for
all to read. However, if it turns out that John S. Dyson really is
a child molester, I of course am still *not* a draft dodger!

In fact I twisted in the wind for three years during the war, with my
PhD deferment lost after I changed to EE. Furthermore, I went to the
MIT recruiting office to sign up, but wasn't able to speak to anyone
or fill out a form for three hours (fortunately I became very hungry
and left - my wife would probably have killed me if she found out!).

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[Guy Macon]

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> says...

Your evidence that Dyson is a child molester is much better than his
"evidence" that I am a draft dodger, as he has stated or strongly
implied in multiple posts, and placed in bold public headlines for
all to read. However, if it turns out that John S. Dyson really is
a child molester, I of course am still *not* a draft dodger!

In fact I twisted in the wind for three years during the war, with my
PhD deferment lost after I changed to EE. Furthermore, I went to the
MIT recruiting office to sign up, but wasn't able to speak to anyone
or fill out a form for three hours (fortunately I became very hungry
and left - my wife would probably have killed me if she found out!).

*I* accuse you of having an eight letter first name! AND of using
the Evil "OT:" instead of using "[OT]" as God intended! AND of
using a server that doesn't put IP addresses in the NNTP-Posting-Host:
field! I dare you to deny any of these accusations!!!

 

[Bill Sloman]

Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote in message news:<2h12jbF7kl6fU1@uni-berlin.de>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

The French ban on head-scarves in school is part of a
wider ban on visible symbols of religious affiliation, including
skullcaps and large crosses and crucifixes

Got to disagree with you here Bill. The French ban seems to me to be
directed largely at Muslims, as a racist reaction to the success of le
Pen's vile campaigns. (It's noticeable that only 'large' crucifixes are
affected.) And to some cultures, the resulting exposure, unobjectionable
by our standards, will feel like an exposure - imagine the reaction to,
say, an African country requiring Western women to go topless.

My reading of the comments in the Dutch press was that there were
pre-existing bans on other - more overt - marks of religious
affiliation, and the ban on head-scarves was tagged onto these other
bans.

I don't think that le Pen is anywhere near the level of Milosevic or
Hitler when it comes to inciting aggression between ethnic groups, and
the Moroccans in France have their own activists who are also
polarising the situation for their own purposes - the ban of
head-scarves does seem to directed specifically against the Moroccan
activists, to make it more difficult for them to use their influence
to force more Moroccan girls to wear the head-scarf, and thus make it
less obvious that they can exert that sort of influence.

You may see the ban as pandering to le Pen's racism, but my
understanding is that the ban is in fact aimed at the Moroccan
racists, notably the Arab-trained Muslim imans who want their
congregations to be visibly orthodox Muslims rather than blending into
the rest of the French citizenery.

But for the nutty right to take issue with this is a little bit rich.

Agreed.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen