--
On 23 Oct 2004 at 23:37, Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I
believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have
ever encountered.
Why don't you pick one particular factual claim, for example
that Bin Laden was a CIA agent, and defend it,
--
James A. Donald wrote:
You guys just keep making up facts.
There were no branches of the armed services in the towers.
You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed
in a CIA coup, and all those similar
Can you guys please take it outside? The majority of us just isn't
interested.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:49:52PM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
Nail your colors to the mast. Pick one of the above and defend
it.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 9:56 PM +0200 10/24/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Can you guys please take it outside? The majority of us just isn't
interested.
Oh, please. TantoWho's this us, white man?/Tanto
Personally, I'm having a lot of fun watching this.
What amazes me the most
Steve Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] The defensive aspect here is to allow the attackers to attack from
distance beyond the reach of the other side's active defenses, thus not
risking anything more than a piece of overpriced electronics.
If some asshole is coming at you with a
--
James A. Donald:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but
because they were evil.
J.A. Terranson
Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that
overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning.
Doubtless he is, but to suggest that he is comparably evil to
the
--
On 23 Oct 2004 at 19:25, J.A. Terranson wrote:
There are all givens to the rest of us - I am trying to fit
these arguments into Donald's Reality Distortion Field.
Is it also a given to you, as it is to Tyler, that the US
attacked North Korea, and that the reason for this attack was
to
Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is
quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an
exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it
hard to
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
You guys just keep making up facts.
There were no branches of the armed services in the towers.
You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama Bin
Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed in a
CIA coup, and all those
From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 23, 2004 7:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing
up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were
--
On 23 Oct 2004 at 23:37, Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I
believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have
ever encountered.
Why don't you pick one particular factual claim, for example
that Bin Laden was a CIA agent, and defend it,
--
James A. Donald wrote:
You guys just keep making up facts.
There were no branches of the armed services in the towers.
You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed
in a CIA coup, and all those similar
Can you guys please take it outside? The majority of us just isn't
interested.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:49:52PM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
Nail your colors to the mast. Pick one of the above and defend
it.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 9:56 PM +0200 10/24/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Can you guys please take it outside? The majority of us just isn't
interested.
Oh, please. TantoWho's this us, white man?/Tanto
Personally, I'm having a lot of fun watching this.
What amazes me the most
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi
Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were
Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two
--
On 22 Oct 2004 at 11:12, Bill Stewart wrote:
James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't
foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo
probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary
groups. But many of them were described by the US
propagandists as
At 01:03 PM 10/23/04 -0400, John Kelsey wrote:
Blowing up a building full of random people because a few of them are
associated with some action you really disagree with is just outside
the realm of the sort of moral decision I can figure out. Just like
flying planes into buildings full of people
--
John Kelsey
I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which
you differentiate hitting the two towers from the
Oklaholma City bombing.
James A. Donald:
The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two
towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building.
J.A.
--
On 23 Oct 2004 at 19:25, J.A. Terranson wrote:
There are all givens to the rest of us - I am trying to fit
these arguments into Donald's Reality Distortion Field.
Is it also a given to you, as it is to Tyler, that the US
attacked North Korea, and that the reason for this attack was
to
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but
because they were evil.
Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of
high velocity lead poisoning.
If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the
unaware in advance of the impact on Telecom, the rest was certainly a
conscious decision.
-TD
From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:14:22 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 23
Steve Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] The defensive aspect here is to allow the attackers to attack from
distance beyond the reach of the other side's active defenses, thus not
risking anything more than a piece of overpriced electronics.
If some asshole is coming at you with a
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:37:02PM -0400, Adam wrote:
None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and
infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're
going through it with such vigor.
That thread bores me to tears.
I miss technical content. Or, at least,
--
James A. Donald:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but
because they were evil.
J.A. Terranson
Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that
overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning.
Doubtless he is, but to suggest that he is comparably evil to
the
At 11:37 PM -0400 10/23/04, Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered.
No, that was Tim May. The world champion troll if there ever was one --
among other things. :-).
James is right, of
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is
quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an
exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it
hard to believe that
--
James A. Donald
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi
Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were
Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two
towers, then they would be defending
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing
up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were, to say the
least, impacted (actually, the company I work for lost 11 people and
relocated to NJ for about
There were several USG offices in the Twin Towers, some of
them intelligence. In addition, CIA was located in 7 WTC, along
with Secret Service and military offices. The military offices
were used as cover for the others. There was far more USG in
WTC than in Murrah, and the lesson learned in OKC
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
You guys just keep making up facts.
There were no branches of the armed services in the towers.
You are just spouting bullshit, like the story that Osama Bin
Laden was trained by the CIA, that Saddam was installed in a
CIA coup, and all those
From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 23, 2004 7:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing
up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were
Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is
quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an
exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it
hard to
At 02:20 AM 10/21/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual
reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in
the middle of a war with no adequate explanation.
At 09:21 AM 10/22/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
J.A. Terranson
No. We
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 22, 2004 12:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia
was certainly not under attack. If they were
--
James A. Donald
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi
Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were
Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two
towers, then they would be defending
--
On 22 Oct 2004 at 11:12, Bill Stewart wrote:
James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't
foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo
probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary
groups. But many of them were described by the US
propagandists as
There were several USG offices in the Twin Towers, some of
them intelligence. In addition, CIA was located in 7 WTC, along
with Secret Service and military offices. The military offices
were used as cover for the others. There was far more USG in
WTC than in Murrah, and the lesson learned in OKC
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi
Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were
Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but
because they were evil.
Using this line of reasoning, Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of
high velocity lead poisoning.
If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the
unaware in advance of the impact on Telecom, the rest was certainly a
conscious decision.
-TD
From: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:14:22 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 23
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Let us not forget the more tangible 'value' in bombing the WTC and messing
up things downtown. First of all, the companies in the WTC were, to say the
least, impacted (actually, the company I work for lost 11 people and
relocated to NJ for about
At 01:03 PM 10/23/04 -0400, John Kelsey wrote:
Blowing up a building full of random people because a few of them are
associated with some action you really disagree with is just outside
the realm of the sort of moral decision I can figure out. Just like
flying planes into buildings full of people
--
John Kelsey
I'm still trying to understand the moral theory on which
you differentiate hitting the two towers from the
Oklaholma City bombing.
James A. Donald:
The pentagon did not have a branch office in the two
towers. BATF had an office in the Murrah building.
J.A.
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is
quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an
exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it
hard to believe that
At 11:37 PM -0400 10/23/04, Adam wrote:
You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that
he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered.
No, that was Tim May. The world champion troll if there ever was one --
among other things. :-).
James is right, of
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:37:02PM -0400, Adam wrote:
None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and
infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're
going through it with such vigor.
That thread bores me to tears.
I miss technical content. Or, at least,
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 22, 2004 12:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia
was certainly not under attack. If they were
At 02:20 AM 10/21/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual
reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in
the middle of a war with no adequate explanation.
At 09:21 AM 10/22/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
J.A. Terranson
No. We
--
James A. Donald wrote:
We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up.
J.A. Terranson
No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia
was certainly not
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 20, 2004 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo,
and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their
complaints make it sound like a beach
--
On 22 Oct 2004 at 0:00, John Kelsey wrote:
All but one of the comments I read about involved a lot of
complaints about mistreatment, albeit often with the
admission that Gitmo was still better than being in an Afghan
prison. As a nitpick, though, it's not at all clear that most
of
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you
to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack
to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people
who
--
On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you
to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack
to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people
who show every sign of trying to kill us ,
--
James A. Donald wrote:
We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up.
J.A. Terranson
No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
All of the terrorists came from countries that were
beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia
was certainly not
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 20, 2004 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Airport insanity
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo,
and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their
complaints make it sound like a beach
--
On 22 Oct 2004 at 0:00, John Kelsey wrote:
All but one of the comments I read about involved a lot of
complaints about mistreatment, albeit often with the
admission that Gitmo was still better than being in an Afghan
prison. As a nitpick, though, it's not at all clear that most
of
I made no claims, you did, rather I asked you sarcastically to validate
your claims, after which you further assumed on top of other mistaken
assumptions, that I made claims countering yours, which I did not.
Perhaps you should examine your own words.
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general
--
On 21 Oct 2004 at 10:26, Sunder wrote:
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general who sees yourself
as equal to those scumbags that have risen in power to lead
or enslave nations since you seem to constantly say they
should have done X, and not Y
When people are under attack, you
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:43:16AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
When people are under attack, you cannot tell them to suck it
up, which is what you are doing. If we had no government, we
I'm not under attack. Are you? The Ghengis Khan thing's
been a while back.
might well be doing
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a
clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up?
All I did was point out that you weren't there and therefore any comment
you care to make about it is bound to be flawed.
Please find yourself a clue store
--
On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you
to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack
to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people
who show every sign of trying to kill us ,
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you
to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack
to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people
who
--
On 20 Oct 2004 at 21:27, Sunder wrote:
I repeat:
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard,
interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's
weren't tortured?
We know torture did not occur, because lots of people have been
released who were and are extremely
I made no claims, you did, rather I asked you sarcastically to validate
your claims, after which you further assumed on top of other mistaken
assumptions, that I made claims countering yours, which I did not.
Perhaps you should examine your own words.
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:43:16AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
When people are under attack, you cannot tell them to suck it
up, which is what you are doing. If we had no government, we
I'm not under attack. Are you? The Ghengis Khan thing's
been a while back.
might well be doing
--
On 21 Oct 2004 at 10:26, Sunder wrote:
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general who sees yourself
as equal to those scumbags that have risen in power to lead
or enslave nations since you seem to constantly say they
should have done X, and not Y
When people are under attack, you
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a
clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up?
All I did was point out that you weren't there and therefore any comment
you care to make about it is bound to be flawed.
Please find yourself a clue store
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
Here is my prescription for winning the war on terrorism
We SHOULD rely on shock and awe, administered by men in white
coats far from the scene.
SNIP
The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable
practices, subvert
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable
practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and
annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should
deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources,
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator,
and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
Wow, you are good... or phrased another way, what brand of crack are you
smokin' 'cause the rest of us thin it's some really good shit and would
like
--
James A. Donald wrote:
The US government should expose and condemn these
objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable
regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The
pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of
economic resources, by
--
On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote:
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard,
interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's
weren't tortured?
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo,
and in the nearly all cases the most
I repeat:
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator,
and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
And I add:
And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners
committed in order to be placed in Gitmo?
No? to both questions?
--
James A. Donald wrote:
The US government should expose and condemn these
objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable
regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The
pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of
economic resources, by
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable
practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and
annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should
deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources,
I repeat:
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator,
and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
And I add:
And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners
committed in order to be placed in Gitmo?
No? to both questions?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
Here is my prescription for winning the war on terrorism
We SHOULD rely on shock and awe, administered by men in white
coats far from the scene.
SNIP
The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable
practices, subvert
--
On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote:
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard,
interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's
weren't tortured?
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo,
and in the nearly all cases the most
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator,
and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
Wow, you are good... or phrased another way, what brand of crack are you
smokin' 'cause the rest of us thin it's some really good shit and would
like
James Donald recently wrote
Thomas Shaddack wrote:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows
when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to
blacklist *you*.
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people
interested in anon ecash go on suicide
Damian Gerow
I've had more than one comment about my ID photos that amount
to basically: You look like you've just left a terrorist
training camp.
As Erma Bombeck wrote, by the time you look like your
passport photo, it's time to come home from vacation.
An extra couple of red-eye flights
At 12:18 PM 10/18/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm
: : Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to
: : renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners
: : of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have
: :
Bill Stewart wrote...
Unfortunately, the primary algorithm seems to work like this:
- Somebody puts a name on some list because it seems like a
good idea at the time, and there's no due process required.
- Everybody copies lists from everybody else,
with minimal attempt to track
--
Thomas Shaddack:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who
knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a
ground to blacklist *you*.
James A. Donald:
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people
interested in anon ecash go on suicide
--
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm
: : Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to
: : renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners
: : of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have
: : returned to terrorism, at times with
James,
I appreciate your valiant if futile effort to defend honorable
militarism, but you appear not to understand that much of
current US military doctrine is aimed at terrorizing enemy
forces, en masse, into submission, not merely courageously
killing each combatant, mano a mano.
Carpet
--
On 19 Oct 2004 at 14:46, John Young wrote:
you appear not to understand that much of current US military
doctrine is aimed at terrorizing enemy forces, en masse, into
submission, not merely courageously killing each combatant,
mano a mano.
Carpet bombing, bunker-busting, cruise
Bill Stewart wrote...
Unfortunately, the primary algorithm seems to work like this:
- Somebody puts a name on some list because it seems like a
good idea at the time, and there's no due process required.
- Everybody copies lists from everybody else,
with minimal attempt to track
James,
I appreciate your valiant if futile effort to defend honorable
militarism, but you appear not to understand that much of
current US military doctrine is aimed at terrorizing enemy
forces, en masse, into submission, not merely courageously
killing each combatant, mano a mano.
Carpet
--
Thomas Shaddack:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who
knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a
ground to blacklist *you*.
James A. Donald:
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people
interested in anon ecash go on suicide
At 12:18 PM 10/18/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm
: : Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to
: : renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners
: : of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have
: :
Damian Gerow
I've had more than one comment about my ID photos that amount
to basically: You look like you've just left a terrorist
training camp.
As Erma Bombeck wrote, by the time you look like your
passport photo, it's time to come home from vacation.
An extra couple of red-eye flights
--
On 19 Oct 2004 at 14:46, John Young wrote:
you appear not to understand that much of current US military
doctrine is aimed at terrorizing enemy forces, en masse, into
submission, not merely courageously killing each combatant,
mano a mano.
Carpet bombing, bunker-busting, cruise
--
Tyler Durden
Let's just state the obvious: September 11th occurred not
because we had a few crazy Muslim fundamentalists out
there that decided they hate our freedoms. The struck us
because we've been fuckin' over a large swath of the Muslim
(not only Arab) world for 100 years or
--
Tyler Durden
Your statement was that the US took special care in avoiding
harm to Muslims. In this case we have Muslims tortured at
Guantanamo and now angry as hell. And you expected...what?
I expected them to be KEPT in Guantanamo.
Furthermore, they were not tortured, though they
--
On 18 Oct 2004 at 13:35, John Young wrote:
James is wired to be unempathetic about victims, as was
McVeigh, as are fearless military and criminal killers, as
are national leaders of a yellow stripe who never taste the
bitter end of their exculpatory spin.
What makes the wire work is
--
On 18 Oct 2004 at 15:31, Tyler Durden wrote:
Aside from that, your posts are completely saturated with the
They're more evil than we are therefore it's OK for us to be
fuckin them over logic.
They are more evil that we are, as demonstrated by their
propensity to kill all sorts of
--
James A. Donald:
Sadre protected himself with Iraqi women and young children
as human shields, showing that he expected the Pentagon to
show more concern for Iraqi lives than he did.
Thomas Shaddack
Pentagon protects their people by distance - being it by
bombing from high
--
John Kelsey
It's one thing if you see some guy lighting a fuse sticking
out of his shoe, and quite another if you say You look kinda
terroristy; I'm sending you off the plane. This works as a
reasonable strategy only if:
a. The probability ratios don't work out so that the
--
James A. Donald:
Mc Veigh did not target innocents, and if he did target a
plane full of innocents, perhaps in order to kill one
guilty man on board, there is no way in hell he himself
would be on that plane.
John Kelsey
Well, he targeted a building full of innocents, so he
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
