X-No-Archive:

In article .com,
"tack" wrote:

On Feb 22, 5:18 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:51 pm, wrote:

I emailed a photo to tack1.That's all the photo(s) I will send.
cuhulin

That's cool. I'll check.

Yes, I got the photo. She died too young. What kind of cancer?




Moonlight Mile sent another diatribe. I did not read it, except for
the first paragraph and the last. Too distressing for me to read the
writings of fools and nuts. I will no longer read nor respond to him
or David. David is unwise, but Mile is a nutjob. It would be well if
you and DXace and all others ignore them; maybe they'll go away. I do
not participate in these groups to find kooks, flakes, and haters. I
took history in college, and enjoyed it. Made excellent grades.
History is important, it should be studied carefully, but very rarely
is. Something I noticed in American history is that the country
should not be here. From the beginning and through every period of
American history, we've overcome pitfall after pitfall, beat all the
odds. The odds are overwhelming that we still exist, and exist with
so much power. Like Paul Harvey said, we have only 5% of the worlds
population, but half of all its good things. I firmly believe the
hand of Providence is in it. There is so much that should've gone
wrong; a benevolent first president that could have become king, but
guided a young Republic. The first of Presidential elections went
with a smooth transition of power (there was much enmity between
parties involved) which never occurred before in history. And on and
on and on.

Something else I learned: Judge past historical players NOT by your
own standards, or the present day standards. They must be judged by
the standards of the period, and of their PEERS. When they lived, the
future did not exist! No brainer, ha.
Too easy to fall into the hindsight trap. The US had many faults and
did some bad things, but the only proper way to judge her is by
comparing her to other peoples and nations during the relevant periods.

Hey, moron. I was asked to post again. I did so. I have a much more material.
If you didn't have your head up your ass, you would bothered to read my post and
realized that at least some of U.S. misdeeds are not at all in the distant past.
And if you wanted to know even more about your "great" country and even more
recent misdeeds. You must have no awareness of recent national and international
events. The U.S. attacked Afghanistan w/o proper cause, killing not one person
known to be directly connected with the 9/11 attacks. All reasons for attacking
Iraq _again_ (March 20, 2003) have been discredited, and we're still there after
nearly 4 years. The Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. We've
imposed a puppet goverment there, built 4 permanent military bases there we are
staying there permanently. Same thing in Afghanistan! We've tortured innocent
people; we've wiretapped our own people. This is not hindsight! What the hell
would be a relevant period if not the _present period_. Read the book I
mentioned in an earlier posts--lots of good stuff, almost all reliably sourced.
You got the balls to face the truth? Do you anything of current events?????? You
and peqple like you should not be allowed to vote.

I have no idea what Paul Harvey or you mean by "good things". If you mean
wealth, then your point is specious at best. We actively prevent other countries
from modernizing and acquiring wealth.

I just have no idea what it takes to get through to people like you. You don't
even bother to read when the material heads towards the painful truths. Doesn't
matter, I guess. The U.S. is in for a very painful fall, soon if conservative
Republicans regain full control.

Here's some timeless wisdom for you:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --?

Like I said, what you believe or don't believe, doesn't matter. The realities
I've described will not go away.


Last, I'll point out that you failed to show the simple courtesy I requested in
my previous post. I shouldn't have had to make that request...it's a USENET
courtesy!

MM

Moonlight Mile wrote:

The U.S. attacked Afghanistan w/o proper cause,

other than 3000 dead americans, i suppose...

killing not one person
known to be directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

we destroyed the taliban who supported, aided, abetted and conspired
with those who did. those involved in a conspiracy are just as guilty
as those who implement it....a basic fact of law...

All reasons for attacking
Iraq _again_ (March 20, 2003) have been discredited, and we're still there after
nearly 4 years. The Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam. We've
imposed a puppet goverment

?? a govt elected by the people in elections monitored by the UN...

oh i forgot. he hates arabs.

I just have no idea what it takes to get through to people like you.

you cant even get thru to yourself. it's no wonder you can't reach
anyone else.

X-No-Archive:

In article om,
"wf3h" wrote:

Moonlight Mile wrote:

The U.S. attacked Afghanistan w/o proper cause,

other than 3000 dead americans, i suppose...

Afghanistan did not kill those 3000 people. Terrorists, who had _some_
association with al Qaeda did that.

killing not one person
known to be directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

we destroyed the taliban who supported, aided, abetted and conspired
with those who did. those involved in a conspiracy are just as guilty
as those who implement it....a basic fact of law...

There is no evidence that the Taliban aided, abetted, and conspired with the
9/11 terrorists. The terrorists were Egyptian. Trained by Al Qaeda? Maybe? To do
what? Not known with certainty. The U.S. assumed ( unequivocally asserted ) that
the training was to hijack airplanes. What al Qaeda/bin Laden has clearly stated
is that the U.S. stop supporting oppressive regimes in the Middle East and in
other Muslim countries. It may seem paradoxical, but if these "pro-American"/
unpopular regimes were overthrown or voted out of office, not much would change
except the U.S. would probably no longer be attacked by so-called extremists.
Muslim nations would have every reason to make peace with us, trade with us
(oil). The problem is that we would be unable to control and dominate them.
Afghanistan was being bombed by the U.S. in the 1990s. 9/11 was not an
unprovoked attack. It is probably true that 9/11 was a convenient excuse to
invade and control Afghanistan so that we could build and control pipelines to
transport oil and gas from the east side of the Caspian Sea, pipelines planned
to run through Afghanistan. It is also true that Iraq was attacked so we could
control their resources, build pipelines through Iraq. The neo-conservatives
never dreamed that the price would be so high in American lives or $. An Afghan
or Iraqi life is not worth anything to a neo-conservative.

It seems that the U.N.'s approval is not very important anymore. When denied it,
the U.S. claims the right to attack anyone, anytime, for any reason. When the
U.N. Security Council members are bullied and bribed into approval, the hides
behind that. Case in point: Iran _does_ absolutely have the right to enich
uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S. claims Iran is doing so to make nuclear
weapons, but the U.S. has absolutely no proof that Iran is planning to build
nuclear weapons. Still, U.N. S.C members are bullied/bribed into passing
resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran. No proof is required. The U.S. is
simply not required to provide proof.

All reasons for attacking
Iraq _again_ (March 20, 2003) have been discredited, and we're still there
after
nearly 4 years. The Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam.
We've
imposed a puppet goverment

?? a govt elected by the people in elections monitored by the UN...

The election was contrived and staged by the U.S. Only those having the American
"seal of approval" could play the game. In short, Jalal Talabani was hand-picked
by the U.S. Do you really think the Iraqis would have elected a Kurd as
President? Compare Iraq to Nicaragua whose is President now President Daniel
Ortega. Ortega would probably have been elected as President of Nicaragua way
back in the 1980s if The U.S., under our second most recently mentally ill (the
only qualification required to be nominated as Republican Presidential candidate
is that he be mentally ill) Republican President (Ronald Wilson Reagon =666)
waged a civil war which against Ortega/Nicaragua and the people fully understood
that that civil war would continue if they (fairly/U.N monitored) elected
Ortega. So the U.S. has a long, unpleasant history of imposing governments, that
the people don't want, on other countries.


oh i forgot. he hates arabs.

I hate no one. I distrust my government and have no faith in the "wisdom" of the
American people. They elected Reagon twice, Bush twice. I got some land in FL...
Case closed!


I just have no idea what it takes to get through to people like you.

you cant even get thru to yourself. it's no wonder you can't reach
anyone else.

Insult me if you must. But read Blum's "Rogue State:" A Guide..."

At this point, pardon me if I do what I came to this NG to do...i.e. learn more
about SW.

MM

"Insults, like violence, are the last resort
of the incompetent."--Freud ( I think )

Moonlight Mile wrote:
X-No-Archive:

In article om,
"wf3h" wrote:
The U.S. attacked Afghanistan w/o proper cause,

other than 3000 dead americans, i suppose...

Afghanistan did not kill those 3000 people. Terrorists, who had _some_
association with al Qaeda did that.

ah, the racist rigidity of the fundamentalist mind.

he believes that the nation state is the only way to judge historical
events, not realizing that the nation state was invented in 1648.

uh, where do you think AQ was based (by the way...do you KNOW what 'al
qaeda' means?).

so, yes, afghanistan did attack us.


killing not one person
known to be directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

we destroyed the taliban who supported, aided, abetted and conspired
with those who did. those involved in a conspiracy are just as guilty
as those who implement it....a basic fact of law...

There is no evidence that the Taliban aided, abetted, and conspired with the
9/11 terrorists.

other than, of course, AQ was based in afghanistan and bin laden knew
of, and approved the plan which was formulated by sheikh khalid
mohammed...also AQ...

The terrorists were Egyptian.

uh, no. 15/19 were saudi arabians.

Trained by Al Qaeda? Maybe? To do
what? Not known with certainty. The U.S. assumed ( unequivocally asserted ) that
the training was to hijack airplanes.

guess he's never read about the flight school training the terrorists
took...

What al Qaeda/bin Laden has clearly stated
is that the U.S. stop supporting oppressive regimes in the Middle East

is there any other kind? and what is 'support'? we had no relations
with libya yet they were as murderous as any. we had no relations with
the sudan yet they caused a civil war which killed 300,000. the french
had $10B in oil contracts with hussein...

yet you think ONLY the US 'supports' (sic) these regimes.

and bin laden's remedy? why...islamist fascism...a goal you have NEVER
condemned. why?

because you're a racist. that's why.

and in
other Muslim countries. It may seem paradoxical, but if these "pro-American"/
unpopular regimes were overthrown or voted out of office, not much would change
except the U.S. would probably no longer be attacked by so-called extremists.

more racist day dreams. if you READ qutb or azzam you KNOW they've
been planning to attack the west for 60 years.

but, no. you prefer the white man's burden. you prefer to think of
yourself heroically standing astride history, defending the ignorant
savage muslims....who are too stupid to invent fascist ideologies.

Muslim nations would have every reason to make peace with us

uh, why? why do you think that, because this is YOUR belief it's also
THEIRS? where have they believed in peace? in democratic bangladesh
where they've called for jihad against a democracy? in india where
they do the same?

WHERE is your evidence for your cult belief?

, trade with us
(oil). The problem is that we would be unable to control and dominate them.
Afghanistan was being bombed by the U.S. in the 1990s.

and we helped liberate them from soviet imperialist aggression...

9/11 was not an
unprovoked attack. It is probably true that 9/11 was a convenient excuse to
invade and control Afghanistan so that we could build and control pipelines to
transport oil and gas from the east side of the Caspian Sea

jesus...is there ANY cliche that you won't vomit?

i guess you didn't know the taliban visited the US in 1994 to discuss
a pipeline...long BEFORE the war. and it's been 5 years since we
liberated afghanistan and there's no pipeline. you seem to ignore the
evidence in favor of cliche of the moment.

, pipelines planned
to run through Afghanistan. It is also true that Iraq was attacked so we could
control their resources, build pipelines through Iraq.

well let's see. we've spent $300B to get oil worth a few billion that
we can't extract for 25 years.

yes, i can see you know as little about math as you do about history.

It seems that the U.N.'s approval is not very important anymore.

except, of course, the taliban killed the UN high commissioner in
iraq...

When denied it,
the U.S. claims the right to attack anyone, anytime, for any reason. When the
U.N. Security Council members are bullied and bribed into approval, the hides
behind that. Case in point: Iran _does_ absolutely have the right to enich
uranium for peaceful purposes.

gee. al baradei seems to think they're hiding things...why didn't the
iranians tell him about the enrichment facility at natanz? i'm a
physical chemist and can tell you that was, to put it mildly, a
significant oversite.

The U.S. claims Iran is doing so to make nuclear
weapons, but the U.S. has absolutely no proof that Iran is planning to build
nuclear weapons. Still, U.N. S.C members are bullied/bribed into passing
resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran. No proof is required. The U.S. is
simply not required to provide proof.

other than the fact that, as the IAEA has stated, the iranians have
lied.

oh...incidentally...if the UN is such a US puppet, how many UN troops
are in iraq?

precisely zero. none.

so, again, your point is squarely on top of your head.


All reasons for attacking
Iraq _again_ (March 20, 2003) have been discredited, and we're still there
after
nearly 4 years. The Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam.
We've
imposed a puppet goverment

?? a govt elected by the people in elections monitored by the UN...

The election was contrived and staged by the U.S

the UN didn't think so. in fact, no one but you believes that.

.. Only those having the American
"seal of approval" could play the game. In short, Jalal Talabani was hand-picked
by the U.S. Do you really think the Iraqis would have elected a Kurd as
President?

who would they have elected? arab islamic ideology forbids democracy,
let alone nationalism

Compare Iraq to Nicaragua

irrelevant.


.. So the U.S. has a long, unpleasant history of imposing governments,
that
the people don't want, on other countries.

perhaps you'd prefer we hand germany back to the nazis? the japanese
back to the 'bushido' culture? that what you're advocating?

or afghanistan to the islamist fascists?



oh i forgot. he hates arabs.

I hate no one. I distrust my government and have no faith in the "wisdom" of the
American people. They elected Reagon twice, Bush twice. I got some land in FL...
Case closed!

and muslims have done what with their first democracy in the middle
east? murdered 40,000 of their own people. but you ignore
that...because you don't particularly care about arabs, or what drives
islamist ideology. you can't conceive of anything that isn't related
to the 'white mans burden'.



I just have no idea what it takes to get through to people like you.

you cant even get thru to yourself. it's no wonder you can't reach
anyone else.

Insult me if you must. But read Blum's "Rogue State:" A Guide..."

and YOU should read arab writers instead of white western ones. you're
a prime example of what said called an 'orientalist'.

www.devilfinder.com Northeast Intelligence CIA and Al-Qaeda

Who do you think invented Al-Qaeda? I read a very interesting article
about that last year.
cuhulin