OT: American flyers bomb their allies AGAIN !

[krw]

In article <46D2D181.AE06C0E@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

David Brown wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Don't you think the State Department has been given insight about him? I
don't think he could get into the country.
You'd want to exclude someone simply for not agreeing with the Republican agenda ?
---
Not me.

I'd want to exclude someone because of their professed belief that
the best Americans are dead Americans.

I'd want to exclude such a person from the privilege to breath.

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.

My intolerance of American idiocy is simply the result of their own intolerance that you
have so amply illustrated.

Americans apparently believe in the 'freedom' only to agree with their blinkered and
uneducated outlook.

So that's why you rant on about school busses, eh dumb donkey?

--
Keith

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:45:23 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:20:56 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



David Brown wrote:

Radiosrfun wrote:

claims in one post - that Germany "bombed" the U.S. I don't know of any
history book or Veteran from those years - that will agree with that. If

Actually, I believe he claimed that Germany had planned to build bombers
capable of reaching the USA, and had built a couple of prototypes -
something I find perfectly believable (though I have not done any
checking of sources). His wording exaggerated the truth, but he didn't
claim that Germany actually bombed the USA.

Indeed I didn't make any such claim.

That the Germans planned to bomb the USA (and planned to do so long before Pearl
Harbor) with the first intercontinental bomber and indeed built 2 prototypes is an
undisputable fact however. It's rumoured that one of the prototypes actually made
a 'dry' trial run too.

By the time it was ready, the Germans had mastered rocketry, so the need for a
manned bomber was less of a priority.

---
Yes, of course.

The V2, with a range of 250 miles, was going to do the job
instead...

He'd be a sad, funny joke if he wasn't such an unfunny, retarded
jackass.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:26:28 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it)

Like I said, fuckhead. Don't jack off at the mouth about something
when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

David Brown wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.


Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?


First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".

Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.

Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.

And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".

See above. How is turning the US into a sheet of glass NOT
"Contributing to the downfall of the USA".


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

David Brown wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.

Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".

I hadn't previously realised that extravagant lying was another one of your
traits.

Of course, since it's not archived, no doubt you reckon you're free to make up
any manner of old nonsense. I have to say that what you suggest gives a
fascinating insight into the workings of your tortured mind, not least that
you're obsessed with nuclear war it seems.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

David Brown wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

I'm forever fascinated that Americans often respond to even quite mild
criticism (a.k.a freedom of speech) with the like of death threats and somehow
think this is perfectly 'normal' behaviour. The irony of it !

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.


Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

Americans do indeed seem to believe that the use of nuclear weapons should only
be an option available to themselves.

Graham

 

[David Brown]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:26:28 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.

Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

---
If you're trying to be objective, be careful.

I'm trying, but it's not always easy! In this group, there is a
tendency for extreme replies, along with black-and-white judgements.
When I disagree with one poster's extremist viewpoint, it does not mean
I agree with another poster's opposite extremist viewpoint - but it can
sometimes be hard to make people understand that.

It sounds like you're taking sides.

The point isn't whether Americans have advocated nuking other
places, it's about Graham being anti-American and advocating nuking
the US.

Graham is anti-American - there's no doubt there. If you've seen posts
from him advocating nuking the US, I'll believe you, though I haven't
seen such posts myself. And there have been plenty of posts from
Americans advocating nuking other places (a google search will find
piles of them). I agree that this was not the direct point being made
here, but I think it's a relevant comparison.

---

Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.

---
Technically, ..."for anyone who could read it", yes?

For anyone who could _not_ read it, it would have gone right over
their heads.

Sorry, I did not write what I meant there: "he made that point clear
enough himself for anyone who did not already know" - I must have been
thinking of something else while writing that sentence. I meant that
his opinions are pretty clear from his posts, even if he had not stated
explicitly his anti-American stance.

---

Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.

---
OK, but in Graham's case it's abundantly clear that he's far from
neutral.

Indeed, in Eeyore's case - but I'm reacting to the idea that if a person
does not hold one extreme view, they necessarily hold the opposite
extreme view.

---

And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".

---
Apply "reductio ad absurdum" and it should become obvious that in
Graham's case, laissez faire isn't what he's after.

I would be surprised to find his anti-Americanism stretching much beyond
a hobby on s.e.d. Perhaps he also boycotts McDonalds and Starbuck's,
but I doubt if he is doing anything that damages the USA. I could be
wrong, of course - I don't know the guy except for his posts.

Besides, I think the quote's a little off...

My meaning was "advocating contributing to the downfall of the USA."

OK, although I still think that's giving him more credit than he
deserves - it could only be an issue if he was actually influencing
people. The same applies to all the other posters in s.e.d. - if a
reader is that easily swayed by the posts, he could just as easily get
the impression that America is full of gutter-mouthed war mongers, since
such posters are loud and common. I can't see anyone taking the
political discussions in s.e.d. that seriously (the on-topic discussions
are often serious and interesting, of course).

Kind of in the same vein as trying to convince someone to give Lee
Harvey Oswald the bullets.

You overestimate Eeyore (I hope!).

mvh.,

David

 

[David Brown]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

David Brown wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.

Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.


It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".

Since you claims he said that, and Eeyore claims he did not, and I have
no way of checking the sources, I can't tell one way or the other.

Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.

Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.

And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".


See above. How is turning the US into a sheet of glass NOT
"Contributing to the downfall of the USA".

"Turning the US into a sheet of glass" would certainly classify as
"contributing to the downfall of the USA". But *writing* that he
*wanted* that to happen, does not. It barely classifies as "advocating
contributing to the downfall of the USA", unless this newsgroup is
followed by the leaders of other nuclear powers.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:27:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

David Brown wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.

Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".

I hadn't previously realised that extravagant lying was another one of your
traits.

Of course, since it's not archived, no doubt you reckon you're free to make up
any manner of old nonsense. I have to say that what you suggest gives a
fascinating insight into the workings of your tortured mind, not least that
you're obsessed with nuclear war it seems.

Graham

I'll bet that I have it, you retarded fuck. Give me a day or so to
dig.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:42:51 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.

Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.


It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".


Since you claims he said that, and Eeyore claims he did not, and I have
no way of checking the sources, I can't tell one way or the other.


Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.

Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.

And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".


See above. How is turning the US into a sheet of glass NOT
"Contributing to the downfall of the USA".


"Turning the US into a sheet of glass" would certainly classify as
"contributing to the downfall of the USA". But *writing* that he
*wanted* that to happen, does not.

Bullshit. His words contribute to the masses of ill informed people
all over the world. If it were not for fucktards like him, there would
not be hundreds of 911 conspiracy sites online, or sites that claim no
plane hit the Pentagon.

He is an asswipe, and you are as well for defending him without being
informed. You are part of the problem with you blatant "has the right to
spew" attitude.

If he has the right to spew, and his spew causes damage, we have the
right to curtail the damage.

It barely classifies as "advocating
contributing to the downfall of the USA", unless this newsgroup is
followed by the leaders of other nuclear powers.

You're an idiot.

 

[David Brown]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:42:51 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes . But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.

Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?

First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.

It was on news:alt.binaries.schematics.electronic so that it isn't
archived anywhere. He wanted "The world powers to work together to turn
America into a sheet of glass from the Canadian border to the Mexican
border".

Since you claims he said that, and Eeyore claims he did not, and I have
no way of checking the sources, I can't tell one way or the other.

Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.

Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.

And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".

See above. How is turning the US into a sheet of glass NOT
"Contributing to the downfall of the USA".

"Turning the US into a sheet of glass" would certainly classify as
"contributing to the downfall of the USA". But *writing* that he
*wanted* that to happen, does not.

Bullshit. His words contribute to the masses of ill informed people
all over the world. If it were not for fucktards like him, there would
not be hundreds of 911 conspiracy sites online, or sites that claim no
plane hit the Pentagon.

Of course there would be that sort of conspiracy site - they are mostly
written by Americans who are very much pro-America. They just believe
that we are all being deluded in some way by someone, and want others to
see what they believe to be the truth. They quite often think there is
some giant coverup by the CIA, or the US administration or something,
but they are not anti-America (for the most part - with crackpots, there
is no end to the variations).

And it's worth pointing out that just occasionally, crackpot conspiracy
theorists may turn out to be right. It is certainly much preferable to
have a selection of weird ideas out there to being dumbed down and only
ever thinking and believing what we are told to think and believe.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to say daft things.

*Encouraging* hate or violence is a different matter, and is not part of
the right to free speech. But Eeyore does not *encourage* hate, but
merely professes it.

He is an asswipe, and you are as well for defending him without being
informed. You are part of the problem with you blatant "has the right to
spew" attitude.

That's the old black-and-white "you're part of the solution, or you're
part of the problem" viewpoint again. Back here on planet Earth, most
people are somewhere in the middle on most issues.

I don't agree with a lot of Eeyore's opinions, but I defend his right to
express them. If he makes threats of violence, I will *not* defend
those threats, or his rights to make them - just as I object to such
threats against him. Do you understand the difference I am trying to
explain here?

If he has the right to spew, and his spew causes damage, we have the
right to curtail the damage.

His "spew" does *not* cause damage. I really can't understand why
people think it might. It would be a different matter if he were in an
influential position - a church pastor (or iman, or whatever) telling
his congregation that their enemies should be destroyed is a problem, as
is a state leader telling his country about the evils of another state.
But the guy is an electronics engineer chatting on a newsgroup - he's
harmless.

If you really think he is a serious threat, then I'm sure the British
authorities would like to know. Other than that, you are perfectly in
your rights to ask him to shut up, but freedom of speech does not
stretch as far as death threats. That applies to you, Eeyore, and
everyone else in the same way.

It barely classifies as "advocating
contributing to the downfall of the USA", unless this newsgroup is
followed by the leaders of other nuclear powers.


You're an idiot.

You're entitled to express your opinion.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:40:40 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

I don't agree with a lot of Eeyore's opinions, but I defend his right to
express them. If he makes threats of violence, I will *not* defend
those threats, or his rights to make them - just as I object to such
threats against him.

Then you had better jump off his wagon, chucko. He has made such
attacks, and is a danger to all peaceful nations in the world.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:40:40 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

His "spew" does *not* cause damage.

Fuck you. It most certainly does.

 

[Eeyore]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

I don't agree with a lot of Eeyore's opinions, but I defend his right to
express them. If he makes threats of violence, I will *not* defend
those threats, or his rights to make them - just as I object to such
threats against him.

Then you had better jump off his wagon, chucko. He has made such
attacks, and is a danger to all peaceful nations in the world.

Really ? It's the USA that going round invading nations and threatening war with
more that's the danger to a peaceful world.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

His "spew" does *not* cause damage.

Fuck you. It most certainly does.

LMAO !

Graham

 

[David Brown]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:40:40 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

I don't agree with a lot of Eeyore's opinions, but I defend his right to
express them. If he makes threats of violence, I will *not* defend
those threats, or his rights to make them - just as I object to such
threats against him.


Then you had better jump off his wagon, chucko. He has made such
attacks, and is a danger to all peaceful nations in the world.

Well, I guess I'm not going to get any better explanation than that from
you, so I'll leave this thread there.