War on humanity

[Saint]

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:02:58 GMT, Saint <notme@nospam.org> wrote:

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

No photographic evidence? Sorry - no credibility.

 

[michael turner]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:02:58 +0000, Saint wrote:

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You expect us to believe some innane BLOG posted by a 'Jo' ??

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
zvxr.gheare1963@ivetva.arg

 

[Chuck Harris]

Soeren wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:14a290dha0mo3641abnn5hgvts0aoo6fsr@4ax.com:


On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:02:58 GMT, Saint <notme@nospam.org> wrote:


For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

No photographic evidence? Sorry - no credibility.


Photos could be faked, so they won't automatically give credibility.
(Seems any reason can be used to keep the war going... Sad thing really,
must be compensation for not getting laid

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Saint]

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.

It's amazing how fast people can judge things as made up crap just for
the fact that it contradicts what they have been fed to parrot. Here's
the same thing from a more credible source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3669331.stm

It's also amazing how somebody can dare to mention getting laid while
people are getting killed on both sides overthere. And this is real
blood, unlike the one you see in your late night movies.

 

[Soeren]

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:14a290dha0mo3641abnn5hgvts0aoo6fsr@4ax.com:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:02:58 GMT, Saint <notme@nospam.org> wrote:

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

No photographic evidence? Sorry - no credibility.

Photos could be faked, so they won't automatically give credibility.
(Seems any reason can be used to keep the war going... Sad thing really,
must be compensation for not getting laid


--
Regards,
Soeren

* If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer *

 

[Saint]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <Vyjkc.59458$G_.31936@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Saint <notme@nospam.org> writes:

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.


It's amazing how fast people can judge things as made up crap just for
the fact that it contradicts what they have been fed to parrot. Here's
the same thing from a more credible source.


Remember: the BBC has clearly shown anti-US bias... Their even handedness
has been totally disproven on this specific matter. You cannot believe
the BBC to be your bible. Note that the old Russian govt/party newspaper
was called 'Truth' (AFAIR), and you would likely believe that also.

John

anti-US : maybe
bias : why?

just the fact that it is anti-US doesn't make it biased, unless the
united states is always right. And just the fact that their report
becomes in your favor doesn't mean they are unbiased. In one way or
another you can always choose what to believe. And there's no such a
thing as a completely credible media source. Even among the iraqi
people, if your son was killed by Saddam then you're pro-US, if your
child was killed in a misdirected air ride then you're anti-US.
Maybe time will be the only judge, when we see whether iraq will turn
into the oasis of freedom in the middle east, or the 53rd US state after
Israel and Afghanistan, and the gold mine for americans and only
american companies which is higly likely. Unfortunately, the united
states history in the world rarely says anything about going into a war
with millions of dollars and casualties just for the sake of human
rights and liberation. Comon, who can believe you John!

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <Vyjkc.59458$G_.31936@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Saint <notme@nospam.org> writes:

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.


It's amazing how fast people can judge things as made up crap just for
the fact that it contradicts what they have been fed to parrot. Here's
the same thing from a more credible source.

Remember: the BBC has clearly shown anti-US bias... Their even handedness

has been totally disproven on this specific matter. You cannot believe
the BBC to be your bible. Note that the old Russian govt/party newspaper
was called 'Truth' (AFAIR), and you would likely believe that also.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <jAkkc.59801$G_.1367@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Saint <notme@nospam.org> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <Vyjkc.59458$G_.31936@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Saint <notme@nospam.org> writes:

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.


It's amazing how fast people can judge things as made up crap just for
the fact that it contradicts what they have been fed to parrot. Here's
the same thing from a more credible source.


Remember: the BBC has clearly shown anti-US bias... Their even handedness
has been totally disproven on this specific matter. You cannot believe
the BBC to be your bible. Note that the old Russian govt/party newspaper
was called 'Truth' (AFAIR), and you would likely believe that also.

John

anti-US : maybe
bias : why?

If you logically assume anti-US positions, then that definitely

demonstrates bias. Not everything that the US does is wrong -- unless
you are biased. Not everything that the BBC does is wrong either, and
I am not biased against it, but have seen enough evidence on the
Iraq and war on terror to realize that anything that hurts America
seems to be a good thing to people like you (and the BBC.) So,
it is WISE to use BBC as an information source, but not to TRUST
them for accuracy. I have seen various kinds of errors on BBC
sites, and don't have any more respect for them than any other
news site like (e.g. Al Jazeera, Pravda, ...)

just the fact that it is anti-US doesn't make it biased, unless the
united states is always right.

Wrong, the assumption that the US is wrong (which is the BBC and your

mentality), then that makes them biased and prejudiced. BBC really
sounds like Pravda (which also made such assumptions) in those important
regards.

BBC has already been proven to be quite dishonest on the Iraq issues.
They are in a cleanup phase, and need a cultural shift towards truth
away from bias.

Of course, the dishonest claims in BBC might circularly make you
feel good (because of your own bias), but that only dyseducates you
into further dysfunction . When comparing research with retail
news, it is so interesting as to the dyseducation that the BBC-only
types have sometimes gotten.

John

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Saint wrote:

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php
-------------

More lies from Al Jazeera. Ho-hum.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Saint wrote:

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's continuation
or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or feelings.

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all credibility
over here.

Made up crap like that blog does nothing to improve the situation.


It's amazing how fast people can judge things as made up crap just for
the fact that it contradicts what they have been fed to parrot. Here's
the same thing from a more credible source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3669331.stm
-----------------

You're also deluded into the notion that the BBC isn't screwed.
They just feed the peep=holes what they want to think.

It's also amazing how somebody can dare to mention getting laid while
people are getting killed on both sides overthere. And this is real
blood, unlike the one you see in your late night movies.
------------------

Amazing how asshole pussies like you imagine we don't know better
than YOU what blood is!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Saint wrote:

anti-US : maybe
bias : why?

just the fact that it is anti-US doesn't make it biased.
---------------

That isn't why or how it has proven itself to be biased.
The BBC simply tells people what they want to hear, it's a
JUST A BUSINESS, it's NOT some magical truth-agency!

Take your whining little third world political axe someplace
else, you shit-minded little pussy. The middle east is a
shit-pile of the world's crap that has been swept into that
corner, and we're finally getting around to cleaning it out
as the last phase of spring cleaning after the long dark
winter called the Dark Ages.

Islam is a piece of stinking shit that has to be eliminated from
the earth, a little now, a lot more later, along with Fundy
Xtianity of all sorts, but Islam's worse and most violently
vicious, so it has to be first.

The whole middle east is nothing but a hostage situation and
we're just the swat team. If they release their poor impoverished
and brainwashed hostages we will take them away in cuffs, else
we'll be happy to kill them. No negotation with terorists or
hostage takers.

The world's now to the point where it is time to demand that
nothing be permitted unless it is done through channels under
the rule of law, and the UN ain't the law. They're a debate
club and mostly represent little petty dicatorships.

If the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Palestinians or whoever the fuck they
think they are want to bomb people instead of just competing
for votes, then we'll hunt all of them down and kill them ALL
like the rabid dogs they are!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:46:30 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

Remember: the BBC has clearly shown anti-US bias... Their even handedness
has been totally disproven on this specific matter. You cannot believe
the BBC to be your bible. Note that the old Russian govt/party newspaper
was called 'Truth' (AFAIR), and you would likely believe that also.

Thanks for reminding me to re-institute my sig, John.
Yes, the BBC has been in a very sorry state of affairs for over 20
years now, I'm afraid. Long gone are the days of impartial, objective
reporting. :-(

--

The BBC: licenced at public expense to spread lies.

 

[Saint]

John S. Dyson wrote:

If you logically assume anti-US positions, then that definitely
demonstrates bias. Not everything that the US does is wrong -- unless
you are biased. Not everything that the BBC does is wrong either, and
I am not biased against it, but have seen enough evidence on the
Iraq and war on terror to realize that anything that hurts America
seems to be a good thing to people like you (and the BBC.) So,
it is WISE to use BBC as an information source, but not to TRUST
them for accuracy. I have seen various kinds of errors on BBC
sites, and don't have any more respect for them than any other
news site like (e.g. Al Jazeera, Pravda, ...)


The only "evidence" that you posessed is that it's not parrotting the

trash you used to believe in. If those whole purposes behind the
supposed war on terror and iraq invasion are not as clean as they seem,
then there's no point in assuming the US will do any good deeds over
there. I hope your "evidence" wasn't that they claimed there are no
weapons of mass destruction, just before every body realized it.

just the fact that it is anti-US doesn't make it biased, unless the
united states is always right.


Wrong, the assumption that the US is wrong (which is the BBC and your
mentality), then that makes them biased and prejudiced. BBC really
sounds like Pravda (which also made such assumptions) in those important
regards.

BBC has already been proven to be quite dishonest on the Iraq issues.
They are in a cleanup phase, and need a cultural shift towards truth
away from bias.

Of course, the dishonest claims in BBC might circularly make you
feel good (because of your own bias), but that only dyseducates you
into further dysfunction . When comparing research with retail
news, it is so interesting as to the dyseducation that the BBC-only
types have sometimes gotten.

Pushing the words again, claiming that there's a hidden assumption of US
is wrong, without trying to find out whether they are really right or
wrong. And claiming "dishonesty" is another form of the "evidence" that
seems to exist only in your mind.
The BBC is credible enough to present the picture as it looks, unlike
most US news agencies who have a great history of censoring and
selective hiding. Firing reporters after 9/11 for their views, and recently:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/29/abc.nightline/index.html

It's surely more comfortable for you to rest back and relax discussing
the BBC bias and stay away from the main course of war. It's not very
disturbing to hear numbers of people being killed, mostly on the iraqi
civilian side and attribute the numbers to news bias.

 

[Saint]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

It's also amazing how somebody can dare to mention getting laid while
people are getting killed on both sides overthere. And this is real
blood, unlike the one you see in your late night movies.

------------------
Amazing how asshole pussies like you imagine we don't know better
than YOU what blood is!!

Ya I'm sorry. Forgot about G.I. Joe

 

[Saint]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

That isn't why or how it has proven itself to be biased.
The BBC simply tells people what they want to hear, it's a
JUST A BUSINESS, it's NOT some magical truth-agency!

Same goes for your "unbiased" agencies. Difference is: they tell what

the government wants people to hear.

Take your whining little third world political axe someplace
else, you shit-minded little pussy. The middle east is a
shit-pile of the world's crap that has been swept into that
corner, and we're finally getting around to cleaning it out
as the last phase of spring cleaning after the long dark
winter called the Dark Ages.

If you are up to it. But your hands are not clean enough for the job.
Hiroshima, Vietnam, and all sort of colonization power exercised in the
past century returned the world well back to the dark ages.

Islam is a piece of stinking shit that has to be eliminated from
the earth, a little now, a lot more later, along with Fundy
Xtianity of all sorts, but Islam's worse and most violently
vicious, so it has to be first.

That would probably suggest that you are jew. No wonder, the world for
you is jews jews jews and then gentiles.

The whole middle east is nothing but a hostage situation and
we're just the swat team. If they release their poor impoverished
and brainwashed hostages we will take them away in cuffs, else
we'll be happy to kill them. No negotation with terorists or
hostage takers.

You're not up to the argument. It's not very hard to come up with
something close to your mouthshit and unclaimed trash, and thirst for
blood. But why type more than what can fit into your bumhead.

The world's now to the point where it is time to demand that
nothing be permitted unless it is done through channels under
the rule of law, and the UN ain't the law. They're a debate
club and mostly represent little petty dicatorships.

dictatorship? hahahaha. What you say is a typical definition of

dictatorship. Again you parrot what you don't understand.

If the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Palestinians or whoever the fuck they
think they are want to bomb people instead of just competing
for votes, then we'll hunt all of them down and kill them ALL
like the rabid dogs they are!!

-Steve

They won't do any more good than americans competing for votes and
coming up with George Bush, whom under his command and support America
and Israel launched attacks and bombs in which the iraqi and palestinean
civilians casualties greatly outperforms those killed under all sorts of
suicide bombing attacks.

Your government is successfully misleading you to believe that "anti-US
government" or "anti-US policies" is necessarily "anti-American". Which
in turn turns you to be one of their most favourite pro-government
parrots. Americans have built very good human values that would rather
be spread to the world, if only the governments believed in anything
else other than brutal force, and divide and conquer approaches.
you are led into believing that the anti-US attitude in the middle east
is due to jealousy and hate of freedom, rather than an unclean past in
the region by America and its allies for the past century.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:07:12 +0100) it happened michael turner
<zvxr.gheare1963@ivetva.arg> wrote in
<pan.2004.04.29.17.07.09.676000@ivetva.arg>:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:02:58 +0000, Saint wrote:

For all you suckers supporting the war in iraq. Check and see what a
real war is

http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/feature/display/114/index.php

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I think that is inapropiate.

You and the criminal Bush.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:46:30 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in <c6si6m$2as4$2@news.iquest.net>:

Remember: the BBC has clearly shown anti-US bias... Their even handedness
has been totally disproven on this specific matter. You cannot believe
the BBC to be your bible. Note that the old Russian govt/party newspaper
was called 'Truth' (AFAIR), and you would likely believe that also.

John
Talking about bible, did Jesus tell you to go and kill innocent people, women

and children?
The BBC is a bunch of Bush propagandist in my view, with blaring Blair as
an overdose.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:10:24 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409218BF.6C72@armory.com>:

Saint wrote:

anti-US : maybe
bias : why?

just the fact that it is anti-US doesn't make it biased.
---------------
That isn't why or how it has proven itself to be biased.
The BBC simply tells people what they want to hear, it's a
JUST A BUSINESS, it's NOT some magical truth-agency!

Take your whining little third world political axe someplace
else, you shit-minded little pussy. The middle east is a
shit-pile of the world's crap that has been swept into that
corner, and we're finally getting around to cleaning it out
as the last phase of spring cleaning after the long dark
winter called the Dark Ages.

Islam is a piece of stinking shit that has to be eliminated from
the earth, a little now, a lot more later, along with Fundy
Xtianity of all sorts, but Islam's worse and most violently
vicious, so it has to be first.

The whole middle east is nothing but a hostage situation and
we're just the swat team. If they release their poor impoverished
and brainwashed hostages we will take them away in cuffs, else
we'll be happy to kill them. No negotation with terorists or
hostage takers.

The world's now to the point where it is time to demand that
nothing be permitted unless it is done through channels under
the rule of law, and the UN ain't the law. They're a debate
club and mostly represent little petty dicatorships.

If the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Palestinians or whoever the fuck they
think they are want to bomb people instead of just competing
for votes, then we'll hunt all of them down and kill them ALL
like the rabid dogs they are!!

-Steve
YOU started the bombing.

Sad nutcase.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <UFtkc.120351$L31.111453@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Saint <notme@nospam.org> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

If you logically assume anti-US positions, then that definitely
demonstrates bias. Not everything that the US does is wrong -- unless
you are biased. Not everything that the BBC does is wrong either, and
I am not biased against it, but have seen enough evidence on the
Iraq and war on terror to realize that anything that hurts America
seems to be a good thing to people like you (and the BBC.) So,
it is WISE to use BBC as an information source, but not to TRUST
them for accuracy. I have seen various kinds of errors on BBC
sites, and don't have any more respect for them than any other
news site like (e.g. Al Jazeera, Pravda, ...)


The only "evidence" that you posessed is that it's not parrotting the
trash you used to believe in.

And BBC is parroting the trash that you believe in. I have

heard enough information from both news sources and individuals
to understand the situation fairly well.

You can continue to listen to the BBC lies, and that is sad for you.
The saddest thing for you is that you are being led astray into the
abyss that will pull everyone in. Welcome 12th century :-(.

(Again, not everything the BBC says is lies, but it is bad when they
mix the lies with the truth.)

John