On Mon, 10 May 2004 03:09:23 GMT, m II
wrote:

Howard wrote:

Mike,
I usually don't partake of name calling or cheap shots here, but today
is an exception.

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don’t you know that you are

Yeah..I though that was pretty funny too when I posted it in another
group a couple of years ago. There's nothing new under the sun..

Back then, I though it was a pretty unique put down. I was wrong.

Google gives us over three thousand hits...

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=puk...=Google+Search
http://tinyurl.com/3hctg

It's too bad you had to save it so long, for so little effect.


mike
Well, I don't know about little effect, it made me feel good.

-=jd=- wrote:

This doesn't excuse the actions of either side by *any* stretch of the
imagination. I'm offering it to provide you with a realistic point of
reference before you embarass yourself by only condemning one side.

The history of Soviet expansionism into Asia is a pretty long one. Lots
of countries have disappeared because of Russian imperialism. Many of
these occupied countries want their independence back. When they do,
they get stepped on hard.

Next, will you be telling me that the Russian atrocities committed
during the Hungarian uprising were ok. Or the Squashing of the Chech
revolt. Or the starving of three million Ukranians by the communist
scum. The expansion of Russian empire eastwards wasn't as well
documented in the West. The loss in life may have been horrendous.



mike

MII,

Thank 'you' once again for self-identifying yourself
in your posts and your writing as someone who:

* Hates America and Americans.

* Hates Israel and Jews.

* Believes that "The Jews" 'control' America.

* Respects the Islam-O-Fascist for standing up to America and Israel.

How, Oh So 'canadian' and "Neo-European" of 'you' !

From a "You'All" to 'you' - God Bless America ~ RHF
..
..
= adl = m II wrote in message
= adl = news:DlAnc.31178$LA4.5715@edtnps84...
T. Early wrote:

Ahh--the "zionist led US government." The picture becomes clearer.

You had no idea did you? That topic is all the rage in conspiratorial
circles. zionism even controls all Jewish thought.

================================================== =====
It does not dream only about an American empire, in the style of the
Roman one, but also of an Israeli mini-empire, under the control of the
extreme right and the settlers. It wants to change the regimes in all
Arab countries. It will cause permanent chaos in the region, the
consequences of which it is impossible to foresee.

Its mental world consists of a mixture of ideological fervor and crass
material interests, an exaggerated American patriotism and right-wing
Zionism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html

================================================== =====

The vampire/glutton himself has told us who controls America:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie...Search&meta =

http://tinyurl.com/2a7h9
================================================== =====

I found these things on the internet, so we KNOW they are true!

mike

..

Noel wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004 05:09:43 GMT, m II
wrote:


The history of Soviet expansionism into Asia is a pretty long one.


That's strange, as the Soviet history wasn't particularly long. And
Checnya was part of Russia long before the USSR came into being.

I should have said Russian expansion into Asia. Most of the Soviet
expansiom was Westwards, with a lot of help from the Allies. It will
take a while to get used to NOT associating Russia and communism.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/russia/kazan.html

When the Bolsheviks took over, they din't give anything back.



mike

-=jd=- wrote:
On Mon 10 May 2004 01:09:43a, m II wrote in
message news:r8Enc.31222$LA4.29569@edtnps84:


-=jd=- wrote:


This doesn't excuse the actions of either side by *any* stretch of the
imagination. I'm offering it to provide you with a realistic point of
reference before you embarass yourself by only condemning one side.

The history of Soviet expansionism into Asia is a pretty long one. Lots
of countries have disappeared because of Russian imperialism. Many of
these occupied countries want their independence back. When they do,
they get stepped on hard.

Next, will you be telling me that the Russian atrocities committed
during the Hungarian uprising were ok. Or the Squashing of the Chech
revolt. Or the starving of three million Ukranians by the communist
scum. The expansion of Russian empire eastwards wasn't as well
documented in the West. The loss in life may have been horrendous.



Typical liberal response: spin, deflect and if all else fails & one's
position is entirely untenable (as in the current issue of MII's lack of a
valid point of reference) change the meaning of what the other person
said, or just make-up something outright. Next time, be sure not to
include the quoted portion of the other person's post that highlights the
dubious tactic you've chosen to take..

This sounds suspiciously like a college level debate coach I'm somewhat
familiar with... Hmmm...

In any event, you've completely ignored everything in my post and made up
something entirely different. Now why would you do that? Most likely
because you have absolutely no standing for your *selective* condemnations
when both sides are committing attrocites, especially the muslims. But you
have no valid point of reference, so you are ignorant. Innocently
ignorant, but ignorant about the subject you are speaking on nonetheless.

The fact that you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that the muslims
are in dire need of condemnation _as well as the Russians_ belies your
blinders. I'll leave it to the other readers to form their own opinion
about the "type" of blinders you so readily don.

Read the quoted portion of my post you included, then justify your
statements. Please show me where I excuse *anyone*. I'll offer the same
$50 bounty to you as I did before when you... er, I mean "MWB", tried the
same lame debate tactic. I also called you...er, I mean "MWB" to task on
that one as well. If you can't support your position, don't make it worse
by changing someone else's words to suit your made-up argument...

Here, let me include my whole post again, then after you go view those
vids of muslim combatants doing what they apparently do best, then you
come back here and ignore muslim attrocities at your own risk. I will be
poised and ready to point you out for the hypocrite that you are. Until
then, you have no valid point of reference to condemn anyone involved in
the conflict. Below, I give you a link on a silver platter to provide you
with that valid point of reference from a liberal anti-war source. You
should be thrilled!

Here's the post again:
**********************
Perhaps the Russians became accustomed to treating those Chechen muslims
as those muslims treated the Russians:

http://www.thenausea.com/chechenya.html

Make sure you watch the execution of the two russian officers. Also,
you'll want to see the Russian soldier with his eyes cut out before the
peaceful, loving muslims killed him. Try to keep both of your eye wide
open as you view these.

Then, afterwards, you can tell us all how the Chechen muslims are so
innocent in comparison to the mean old sadistic Russians.

This doesn't excuse the actions of either side by *any* stretch of the
imagination. I'm offering it to provide you with a realistic point of
reference before you embarass yourself by only condemning one side.
**********************

Again: This doesn't excuse the actions of either side by *any* stretch of
the imagination. I'm offering it to provide you with a realistic point of
reference before you embarass yourself by only condemning one side.

Let me go over that just *one-more-time*: Again: This doesn't excuse the
actions of either side by *any* stretch of the imagination. I'm offering
it to provide you with a realistic point of reference before you embarass
yourself by only condemning one side.

I can repeat that again, if needed...

Spank you very much!

-=jd=-

I am the hypocrite? I think not. The Chechens were on the US side during
the Cold war, don't you remember? These same people *STILL* want their
freedom. They haven't changed. **WASHINGTON** has changed. From being
'heroes of anti communism' to 'terrorist' without ANY change in their
ideaology. Don't you think people NOTICE this disposable type of
friendship on the part of your politicians? Does this activity instill
TRUST in future alliances? Not likely.

When Barry Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice." it only applied to American business interests? I thought he
meant it more on a universal scale.


mike

m II wrote:

RHF wrote:

Thank 'you' once again for self-identifying yourself
in your posts and your writing as someone who:

* Hates America and Americans.

Not so. Most Americans are fine people. The ones that can't see how
their rights are being eroded by corrupt oil interests are to be
EDUCATED, not hated.

Take your damn Canadian education and shove it, retard. The time when America, or Americans, needs to be 'educated' by
Canada will never come.

Get over it will you.

-=jd=- wrote:

What does any of that have to do with your personal choice to refuse to
condemn the muslims as well for their attrocities? Why does which "side"
they were on have any bearing on your *selective* condemnation of
attrocities? Now you have demonstrated you are a hypocrite on a whole new
level! Good-Gravy Man! When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing
to do is to stop digging! You are the only one who can be perceived as
"defending" attrocities by your selective condemnation that refuses to
condemn the Chechen muslims for their barbarous acts.

I'm afraid I won't be able to allow you to spin your way out of this one.

You still remain steadfast in your failure to also condemn the muslims in
Chechnya for their attrocities. You still fail to have a valid point of
reference when you freely choose to *selectively* condemn attrocities.

It's *EASY* to condemn the Islamic types who commit these atrocities. I
have no love for Islam per se. In certain circles, the tenets of Islam
have caused what can best be described as a mental illness, of the same
variety heard on nut case shortwave 'religious' broacdasts.

Lunacy is lunacy and it doesn't respect borders or political camps.

I should have been clearer in my rants, as you seem to have mistaken my
postings as a defense. It's not now or ever has been a defense. What
I've been trying to show, is that there *is* a lead up to what these
people do.

In the vast majority of cases, whether it's a real or perceived wrong,
it appears that REVENGE is a major cause of the action.

Look at the insanity in Palestine or, previously, in the Northern part
of Ireland. It never ends and it's always 'the other side' that's a
criminal.

Look at Custer and the Little Big Horn. Custer may well have been a
mental case who had NO business being in the Military. Seen in the
retrospect of what the westward moving settlers had already done to the
native population, ask yourself this.

Was Custer a hero or *******? Did the 'natives' act in a spontaneous
manner or did something lead them to the events?

The hard core perverts will be by in a minute to tell us that every
'bloody indian' should have been exterminated BEFORE the troubles
started. That opinion is the one I am against, not yours, where all
atrocities are condemned.



mike

Noel wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:55:08 GMT, m II
wrote:


I am the hypocrite? I think not. The Chechens were on the US side during
the Cold war, don't you remember?


And before that, they were considered to be Nazi collaborators, which
is why Stalin sent them on a little holiday in Khazakstan.


These same people *STILL* want their freedom.


Some want their freedom. Some want to do what Chechens have
traditionally done throughout the recorded history of the region -
make trouble for their neighbours.


Sure..where have heard THAT before? This script is getting stale pretty
fast.

See a pattern here? Look for Chechnya in this article.
================================================== ==================

WAR ON TERROR
U.S. presence in Georgia
about oil?
Russia says American military there to protect access to petroleum
Posted: March 1, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Toby Westerman
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

U.S. intervention in the former Soviet republic of Georgia is not so
much to fight terrorists but to establish a "firm foothold" in the
Caucasus region in order to protect its access to the vast oil reserves
of the Caucasus and Central Asia, according to official Russian sources.

The action "may lead to unpredictable consequences" and "may involve
costs both material and political," Moscow said, characterizing reports
of the U.S. military presence in Georgia as "shocking news."

The remarks were carried by the Voice of Russia World Service, the
official broadcasting service of the Russian government, and cited from
an earlier RIA Novosti report.

U.S. military advisers will assist the Georgian military in the struggle
against terrorist elements located primarily in the remote Pankisi Gorge
region, where several thousand Islamic fighters have taken refuge from
the conflict in neighboring Chechnya

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26657

================================================

N8KDV schrieb:


Take your damn Canadian education and shove it,
retard. The time when America, or Americans, needs
to be 'educated' by Canada will never come.



So you proved you are one of those to be educated by whomever.
You may ask MWB to teach you. At least he is US-american....
:-))

-=jd=- wrote:
On Mon 10 May 2004 02:09:56p, m II wrote in
message news:UzPnc.43821$U75.21266@edtnps89:


-=jd=- wrote:


What does any of that have to do with your personal choice to refuse to
condemn the muslims as well for their attrocities? Why does which
"Side"
they were on have any bearing on your *selective* condemnation of
attrocities? Now you have demonstrated you are a hypocrite on a whole
new
level! Good-Gravy Man! When you find yourself in a hole, the first
thing
to do is to stop digging! You are the only one who can be perceived as
"defending" attrocities by your selective condemnation that refuses to
condemn the Chechen muslims for their barbarous acts.

I'm afraid I won't be able to allow you to spin your way out of this
one.

You still remain steadfast in your failure to also condemn the muslims
in
Chechnya for their attrocities. You still fail to have a valid point of
reference when you freely choose to *selectively* condemn attrocities.

It's *EASY* to condemn the Islamic types who commit these atrocities. I
have no love for Islam per se. In certain circles, the tenets of Islam
have caused what can best be described as a mental illness, of the same
variety heard on nut case shortwave 'religious' broacdasts.

Lunacy is lunacy and it doesn't respect borders or political camps.

I should have been clearer in my rants, as you seem to have mistaken my
postings as a defense. It's not now or ever has been a defense. What
I've been trying to show, is that there *is* a lead up to what these
people do.

In the vast majority of cases, whether it's a real or perceived wrong,
it appears that REVENGE is a major cause of the action.

Look at the insanity in Palestine or, previously, in the Northern part
of Ireland. It never ends and it's always 'the other side' that's a
criminal.

Look at Custer and the Little Big Horn. Custer may well have been a
mental case who had NO business being in the Military. Seen in the
retrospect of what the westward moving settlers had already done to the
native population, ask yourself this.

Was Custer a hero or *******? Did the 'natives' act in a spontaneous
manner or did something lead them to the events?

The hard core perverts will be by in a minute to tell us that every
'bloody indian' should have been exterminated BEFORE the troubles
started. That opinion is the one I am against, not yours, where all
atrocities are condemned.




I have no idea what the Israeli-Pallie, Custer, American Indians have to
do with what started this sub-discussion: you condemning Russians for
killing some livestock, but not having a clue as to the extent of the
attrocities of the Chechen muslim combatants and veritibly ignoring it -
then going on to resist documented evidence that would make self-evident
the selective spin you were seemingly applying: "The Russains are animals
to the Chechens!"

Depending on the observer, that could certainly be quite relative. If you
want to bring grneral provocation and retaliation into the mix, the
muslims are cast in a far harsher light. Unless you feel destroying some
livestock by the Russians equates to slow, casual beheading of Russian
officers, or the removal of eyes prior to killing a Russian.

What you need to do is resist your bias and not try to explain away *any*
attrocity based on provocation or retaliation. That kind of silliness
could lead to someone ludicrously claiming:
"...MII's assertion may provide justification for the treatment of those
Abu Ghraib POWs as retaliation for those contractors being hacked-up and
hung on display!"

There is no justification. Not all Russians, Muslims, Americans, are to be
condemned based on the actions of a few -and- those few are to be
resoundingly condemned for their actions. This you most certainly know,
but your insatiable liberal desire to paint with the broadest of brushes,
simply for self-serving emotional and dramatic effect with total disregard
for the actual facts is patently obvious.

I don't normally care about petty spin, but when it is applied against
something as dead-serious as sub-human attrocities simply for emotional
effect to further someone's twisted political agenda, I get to call
"Bull****". You know far better - shame on you!

-=jd=-


good grief