On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:34:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Fri 19 Aug 2005 09:23:06a, David wrote in message
:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to
"initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy
Coat, Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some
"Official".

Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter
interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the
official "Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where
a named official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided
that information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's
being drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really
*zero* indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In
fact, by breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it
looks like S.Y. is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as
they are verified. Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is
perpetuating non-factual information that is aggravating an already
tragic situation - again, not through malice, just through shoddy,
journalism. And no-one's calling them on it (except me, of course).

-=jd=-
?

The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those
erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police,
ain't it?



The "Guardian" is just passing along what they heard - Note that they don't
quote an official either, and just presume it eminated from S.Y. Look at
that other link you provided - the one where you claimed to have found the
source. You source was a commuter. IN that same article, another commuter
"source" said the guy was wearing a bomb-belt with wires sticking out of
it. You *do* read the links you push, right?

-=jd=-
I am aware of the evolution of the story. The question is are these
guys Sterno bums? Did they hallucinate this vivid and quite wrong
version, or is it something else?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:39:14 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Fri 19 Aug 2005 09:26:01a, David wrote in message
:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:16:28 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

Heck, *one* shot could have sufficed if they just wanted to kill him,
but they believed they were trying to prevent a detonation (you places
yer bets, you takes yer chances). If, like the officers involved in this
shooting you think the guy can detonate a bomb, why risk it?

I had the impression that the task of the cop that grabbed him was to
pin his arms and hands in case he tried to reach for a detonator, while
someone else was responsible for taking the shots. And I'm sure his ears
may still be ringing...

-=jd=-

No bomb. Just panic.


I didn't get the impression it was the armed team's job to pat him down,
ask him questions, check him for drugs, or read him his rights. I had the
impression that their task was to turn him into a rag-doll as quickly as
possible. And they acccomplished their task with an apparent high level of
efficiency, not *panic*. It was someone else's job to point that team at
the right guy, and those charged with making the positive ID failed at
their task.

-=jd=-

Cops aren't supposed to behave like that. That's going over the line.

A free society has inherent risk.. That's the price we pay.

The cops cannot be that loose with lethal force. There is a flaw in
the system. I think those guys were drugged-up, on caffeine at least.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:09:46 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

Look, I realize you think that society should
tolerate radical islamic terrorists, but you'll need to come up with a
better argument than what you currently have...

I think what?

Society? Good one.

LookPal, the way I see it ''society'' gave up a long time ago. We
Westerners are raised as half-awake autonomic producer/consumers;
****ing dairy cattle at best.

What you call ''Islamic terrorists'' are people who don't want us to
infect them and who want us to go the **** away.

The best way to prevent attacks on our home soil would be for us to
quit attacking their home soil. Your remote control Robocop ain't
gonna do it.

Unfortunately,there are some corrupted cops all over the
World.Fortunately,most cops are good guys. www.devilfinder.com
Police Corruption
cuhulin

David wrote:


LookPal, the way I see it ''society'' gave up a long time ago. We
Westerners are raised as half-awake autonomic producer/consumers;

Well, mainly consumers anyway. "Producers" been dying a slow, painful
death since NAFTA, CAFTA, India and China...

****ing dairy cattle at best.

....or try "sheeple"--that works.

What you call ''Islamic terrorists'' are people who don't want us to
infect them and who want us to go the **** away.

If anyone was paying attention, that is *exactly* what Uncle Osama has
been saying all along.

The best way to prevent attacks on our home soil would be for us to
quit attacking their home soil.

Good idea...no, wait... strike that thought. It makes too much sense.

The best way is to be Armed and Dangerous.
cuhulin

A couple of articles in the middle isle (Clean Up on aisle 3!) at
www.rense.com blair/Police Outrageous Lies Exposed.Videos Contradict
blair/Police Claims About Killing.
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
How his ears are doing? On a fireing range with a bunch of other guys
fireing their Firearms (M1 Garand Rifles,at least) being fired,you only
hear the mechanical clicking noise of the Rifle you are fireing.I know
that is the way it was when I was at the Fireing Range at Fort
Gordon,Georgia in 1962.

The reports were obviously muffled by your head being so far up your ass.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:52:21 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


The *only* way they will stop attacking is if we all convert to islam or
submit to being slaves under islam. Otherwise, they have no choice but to
endeavor to slaughter us. That's not *my* rules; that's *their* rules. You
have absolutely no comprehension of radical islamic terrorists, other than
what the Bush-bashing web sites tell you. Wow! I *STILL* have you pegged!!
LOL!


-=jd=-

That's not what they say.

''WHAT THE CIA’S BIN LADEN EXPERT SAYS

The Commission’s analysis may have drawn on the writings of Michael
Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA
Counter-Terrorism Centre’s bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer,
who retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as ‘Anonymous’:
Through Our Enemies’ Eyes and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing
the War on Terror. (He was unmasked in the Boston Phoenix.)

Scheuer contests the view put forward by George W. Bush and Tony
Blair: ‘We in the United States and the West make a mistake when we
argue, as has [New York Times columnist] Thomas L. Friedman, that bin
Laden’s attacks are “not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. foreign
policy,” or, as Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin did in Survival in
early 2002, that bin Laden has “no discrete set of negotiatiable
political demands“.’ (Through Our Enemies’ Eyes, p. 256)

Scheuer argues that Osama bin Laden has ‘clear, focused, limited and
widely popular foreign policy goals’, including:

‘the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that
state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of
Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for
repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan,
et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources
and their sale at higher prices.’

Scheuer observes that, ‘Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and
Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy
America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical
warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.’
(Imperial Hubris, p. xviii)

Scheuer wrote, while still a serving CIA officer, ‘Bin Laden has been
precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of
the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and
democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in
the Muslim world.’ (Imperial Hubris, p. x) Scheuer goes further,
arguing that ‘the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin
Laden’s only indispensable allies’. (Imperial Hubris, p. xi)''

http://vitw.org/archives/947

Go to a Fireing Range and see/hear for yourself if you dont believe
me.Anybody who has been in the U.S.Military and on the Fireing Range
before will tell you the same thing.It is almost as though the Rifle has
a Silencer on it.In fact,the U.S.Navy was actually experimenting with a
Silenced Shotgun not many years ago,but that is a whole different story.
cuhulin

-=jd=- wrote:

On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:49:12p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:sUaNe.12405$Xw5.8566@trnddc02:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...

I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they
seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks.

Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can
get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with
their nerve.


**warning - don't read if you are easily squeamish**

I have a rule - if I'm not down to my last mag and I have to shoot someone
in order to stop them from doing something: I'm going to start shooting at
the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to keep shooting until they quit
doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place. Plus one
or two extra rounds.

Take the case of a hostage-taker holding a gun to a hostage's head. LA Co.
Sheriffs SWAT has found that when head-shot by a sniper (typically a .308),
there's hopeful-news and bad-news... Bad-News: The hostage taker *will*
most likely still fire his gun at least once. Hopeful-News: The hostage
taker's gun most likely *will not* still be pointed at the hostage's head
when it goes off.

It probably also depends also on what section of the head you are shooting.




If I was one of the guys told to go stop that suicide bomber from
detonating, In order to be sure, I think I would fire at least four rounds,
if not six, seven or ten. Figure *at least* three per second. I don't think
I would have the luxury of shooting someone "just a little bit".

Personal experience: At about 2 pm in upstate New York, a guy shoots
someone else, then himself (straight through over the ears), with a charter
arms .44 bulldog. He's still breathing on his own. After transporting to
the nearest hospital, they take a CAT/MRI/something scan, and reveal the
biggest cigar-shaped wound channel you could fit through his brain. He
didn't die until after 7pm that evening. The guy he shot survived, but
still has a chunk of lead in him.

So, is seven rounds excessive? Well, it depends on how badly you want to
make sure he can't push a button, and you only get one chance. Either way,
you are rolling a mighty big pair of dice...

I'll state the obvious and say it also depends on the kind of bullet that one
uses. As in Soft Point versus Full Metal Jacket. Just as a hunch, firing 7 soft
points will look a bit messier than 7 full metal jackets.....




If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a
policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large,
violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different
(though related) issue.

Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not
directed at jd...that's a serious query.)


If faced with a suicide bomber (in close proximity) that is about to
detonate, there is no other option if you want the best chance at stopping
him (and staying alive yourself). Anybody else is welcome to try and
negotiate, wrestle, bribe, whatever. Though I think that after you identify
yourself, there may be a big BOOM before you could form the "k" sound in
"Let's Talk"...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

JB

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:21:53 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


Oh look! A retired federal employee hawking a book. Well Now! Since he's
selling a book about it, I'm sure we don't need to consider the fatwa's
that contradict his assessment. That would be foolish of us to listen to
the radical islamic extremists that are calling for the destructin of the
west. Why, we should just listen to this one guy's opinion. After all, he's
selling a book about it! LOL!

-=jd=-
You have fallen into the trap of dismissing the messenger when the
message doesn't conform to your mistaken beliefs.

Bin Laden's message has been consistent. He reiterates the same
points on all his tapes. Here's the original deal:
__________________________________________________ ________________
Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998

Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman
al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i
Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah,
secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader
of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats
factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are
past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize
them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of
war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said
"I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no
one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow
of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who
disobey my orders." The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it
flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by
any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts,
consuming its riches and destroying its plantations. All this is
happening at a time when nations are attacking Muslims like people
fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and
the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events,
and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we
will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the
lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula,
plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its
people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the
Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring
Muslim peoples.

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all
the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against
the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though
all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end,
still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation
inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and
despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million...
despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the
horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted
blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and
devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and
economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert
attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims
there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the
strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all
the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan
into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to
guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade
occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear
declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have
throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an
individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was
revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-
Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam
in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed
at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed.
Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is
attacking religion and life."


On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the
following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and
military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the
al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for
their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and
unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of
Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all
together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or
oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye
not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are
ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord,
rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for
us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and
wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans
and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also
call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid
on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them,
and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a
lesson.

Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His
Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And
know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to
whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you,
that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so
heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the
hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with
the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous
penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in
the least. For God hath power over all things."


Almighty God also says "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For
ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

__________________________________________________ _______________

You wish that these people were insane, but they are merely operating
in self-defense.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:53:46 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


I haven't fallen into any trap, sunshine -- You have fallen into the trap
of believing that OBL is the sole spokesman for all radical islamic
terrorists, and you would be gravely mistaken. That belief of yours
explains much of your myopic view of the situation.

In any event, your author is contradicted by hordes of radical imams.
Remember, just because that retiree is seeking to supplement his income by
hawking a juicy book that conforms to your predisposed beliefs doesn't mean
that author is the only source of info on the issue (no matter how
desperately you wish him to be). But, don't just take *my* word for it,
google should be more than adequate to frustrate your author. See for
yourself.

-=jd=-

There are wacked-out preachers in every faith. They should all be
locked up.

It is militarily expedient to dismiss the enemy as insane and
subhuman. God forbid these are brave people willing to die for a
political goal.

A free society cannot stop these guys. Are you willing to risk being
shot dead because you might look funny on TV, in exchange for the
ILLUSION of security?

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:30:12 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



This *ILLUSION* you mention has not resulted in another major terrorist
attack on US soil since the WTC attack. Despite our removing two *ENTIRE*
islamic regimes that were sympathetic to the terrorists; Despite putting
hundreds of thousands of infidels on sacred islamic soil; Despite forcing
the terrorists into coming to us and teraing up *THEIR* neighborhood, I'd
have to say that's a darn solid "ILLUSION" of security so far. Besides, the
Brazilian was positively identified "by a committee" of two or more
decision makers. Although that one isolated incident resulted in a tragic
mistake, I don't know how to make that process more effective without
leaving yourself utterly defenseless. But then again, you perceive self-
defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking
about *your* personal liberty, and it appears we are since the majority
disagrees with you, then I say the majority opinion (which accepts self-
defense as both reasonable and prudent) should rightfully take precedence!

-=jd=-
You are coming from a very emotional, faith-based perspective and it
is really pointless to talk to you.

Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of
anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash.

If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and
a coward.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:11:17 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Sat 20 Aug 2005 10:45:52a, David wrote in message
:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:30:12 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



This *ILLUSION* you mention has not resulted in another major terrorist
attack on US soil since the WTC attack. Despite our removing two
*ENTIRE* islamic regimes that were sympathetic to the terrorists;
Despite putting hundreds of thousands of infidels on sacred islamic
soil; Despite forcing the terrorists into coming to us and teraing up
*THEIR* neighborhood, I'd have to say that's a darn solid "ILLUSION" of
security so far. Besides, the Brazilian was positively identified "by a
committee" of two or more decision makers. Although that one isolated
incident resulted in a tragic mistake, I don't know how to make that
process more effective without leaving yourself utterly defenseless. But
then again, you perceive self- defense as an affront to your liberty.
But, hey!! If we're only talking about *your* personal liberty, and it
appears we are since the majority disagrees with you, then I say the
majority opinion (which accepts self- defense as both reasonable and
prudent) should rightfully take precedence!

-=jd=-


You are coming from a very emotional, faith-based perspective and it
is really pointless to talk to you.


It is ridiculous that when cornered, you attempt to inject a point from out
of nowhere -- please point out where I introduced anything "faith-based"
into the discussion? What's that? You can't point that out because you just
"made-it-up"? I wonder why... Again, you have allowed yourself to be talked
into a box because you can't even defend yourself in *usenet* (of all
places), yet you propose to have a valid opinion on terrorism? LOL!!!


Because you start quoting ridiculous Bush Administration talking
points.

The majority can not determine the rights of a minority. Because the
****ing brain-dead idiots who watch TV ''News'' are scared is no
reason to trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact,
these are the times when our Liberties and Freedoms should be most
closely adhered to.

You are on the side of the despots.

I don't believe in an enemy called ''terrorism''. We are in an
assymetric conflict. The enemy is real and resourceful.

Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of
anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash.


That's besides the point, which was that you were publicly stating that
radical, islamic suicide-bombers who specifically target and blow up kids
are not insane and sub-human, but rather they are "brave". Now that I *can*
point out. Do I need to?

And we do not blow up kids? Give me a break. Just because we use
SLCMs and they use Plastique and nails, we are better?


If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and
a coward.


I don't see where we have given up *anything*. I do see where we have
mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared
enemy. That you lack the mental capability to discern the difference is
further evidence that you have no valid point of view. As far as tossing
about words like "traitor" and "coward", you may want to look in the mirror
and restate your public opinion that radical, islamic suicide-bombers that
deliberately target school-kids are *not* (in your opinion) insane or sub-
human, but are instead (in your opinion) "brave". Then let's see if it
sinks in who the actual "traitor" and/or "coward" really is. Note: I won't
hold my breath...

The government is using this ongoing unrest as an excuse to strip away
our freedom. If they were serious about protecting us they'd secure
chemical plants and nuclear stations, inspect every cargo container,
secure the porous borders, and seriously rethink foreign policy.

"-=jd=-" wrote
defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking
about *your* personal liberty,

YOU don't have any say at all about MY personal liberty.

and it appears we are since the majority
disagrees with you, then I say the majority opinion (which accepts self-
defense as both reasonable and prudent) should rightfully take precedence!

Well, now that you've bragged about being a member of the *herd mentality*
it's understandable why you rail against personal liberty.

"David" wrote
Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of
anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash.

What the Bush 101st Keyboard Chickenhawks espouse is hardly *anarchy*.
Go look it up www.m-w.com before you use it improperly again.

If you are willing to give up freedom for safety you are a traitor and
a coward.

A coward dies a thousand times.....

"-=jd=-" wrote
I don't see where we have given up *anything*.

Ya know, I believe you believe that. LOL

I do see where we have
mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared
enemy.

Oh *we* have, have *we*?
Well then, tell us exactly what YOU have done to defend and offend this so
called enemy.
Please be specific.

That you lack the mental capability to discern the difference is
further evidence that you have no valid point of view.

As opposed to your, ahem, view, that is nothing more than what fell out of
the front of yout TEEVEE set.

As far as tossing
about words like "traitor" and "coward", you may want to look in the
mirror
and restate your public opinion that radical, islamic suicide-bombers that
deliberately target school-kids are *not* (in your opinion) insane or sub-
human,

Is the above a macro, or just another fetish?

but are instead (in your opinion) "brave". Then let's see if it
sinks in who the actual "traitor" and/or "coward" really is. Note: I won't
hold my breath...

Until you get over there and ACT upon that which you claim to believe in you
are nothing but a blowhard hiding behind a keyboard.
That you want young Americans to sacrifice themselves in foreign lands for
your hedonistic ideals speaks volumes of your character.
Yes, the label *coward* fits you well and your own words were the taylor.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:49:44 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


"David" wrote
Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of
anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash.


b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of
governmental authority

People on the Left accuse Bush of having no plan for Iraq after
''shock and awe''. I disagree. I think they wanted exactly what is
happening, complete with our fighting forces being used like a
toreador's cape.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:47:10 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

The majority can not determine the rights of a minority.


The majority determines the rights for the majority. The minority gets the
option to accept the majority rule, or seek out a majority more compatible
to their liking somewhere else. No one is forcing the minority to just "sit
there and take it". They can roam the earth until they find some majority
that is as screwed-up as they are.

That's not how it works here. Rights are rights. If we did things
your way negroes would still have their own drinking fountains.


Hey, Hey, mind your temper there. There I go again frustrating you into
using profanity. There you go again with your invalid point of view that
asserts the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been "trashed" merely
because we have mounted a reasonable and prudent offense and defense to an
enemy that has declared war against us. Our founding fathers would *demand*
that we defend ourselves and defeat our determined foe. For anyone to
assert otherwise is patently laughable and nutty.

''Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the
House of Commons November 18, 1783

__________________________________________________ _______

According to your way of thinking, all an incompetent boob would need
to insure iron-clad power would be to ignore dozens of warnings and
let an attack happen.

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps you can point out newest amendment to the constitution. I don't see
anything new since the 27th amendment. That means there has been no change.
Or, are you in full-blown, drama-queen, exaggeration mode?

http://www.bordc.org/threats/index.php


If they were serious about protecting us



They *are* serious about protecting us. Are you really that much of a dolt?


they'd secure
chemical plants and nuclear stations, inspect every cargo container,
secure the porous borders, and seriously rethink foreign policy.


They are doing everything within reason when they are reasonably able to do
so. Demanding that the govt. secure the borders, chemical plants, nuclear
power stations and inspect every cargo container is unreasonable, and
logistically impossible to do to your (rickets) satisfaction. Although it
is not impossible to do given enough time and money, it is more likely that
the WOT will be over with before you could accomplish your laundry list of
whining points. In any event, you only demand it because it's the few scant
things you know full well *no-one* can feasibly do in short order -- not
even your hero. Rethinking foreign policy is something that is constantly
under review and is perpetually being adjusted and tweaked. However, your
ideas for foreign policy (if your posts in here are any hint) are something
that could be readily dismissed out of hand. So you can expect to suffer
much personal frustration when it comes to foreign policy. We will continue
to giggle at your expense.


You are again spouting official dogma.

The War on Terror is fake. It's only pupose is to help the Herbert
Bush Crime Family tighten its grip.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:50:28 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Sat 20 Aug 2005 12:47:08p, "Don" wrote in
message nk.net:

"-=jd=-" wrote
defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking
about *your* personal liberty,

YOU don't have any say at all about MY personal liberty.


Are you rickets? If not, what makes you think anyone was talking to *you*,
snapper-head?

Excuse me Dick, but this is an open forum.



You can call it "herd mentality", I call it "majority rule". And what
"personal liberties" have I railed against? Are you going to be another
brain-dead rickets poseur? It gets tiring, spanking you dolts.

''Majority rule'' is mob mentality. The majority is usually wrong.

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sat 20 Aug 2005 12:58:29p, "Don" wrote in
message nk.net:

"-=jd=-" wrote
I don't see where we have given up *anything*.

Ya know, I believe you believe that. LOL


Name something from the constitution or bill of rights that has been
officially repealed? Tell me exeacly how anything from the WOT to Homeland
Security has affected me or anyone I know negatively when it comes to
personal liberties and freedoms? I have a feeling I'll be waiting a
looooong time for you to get back to me.

I do see where we have
mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared
enemy.

Oh *we* have, have *we*?
Well then, tell us exactly what YOU have done to defend and offend this
so called enemy. Please be specific.


*We* as in the United States, simp. As far as what I have personally done,
I've served my country to include bleeding on foreign soil. If they would
take back what's left of me, I would *readily* go. Instead, I do what I
can. Currently, I work for a branch of the military as a civilian. Now it's
*your* turn, sunshine. What, if anything, have you done, or (like rickets)
are you content to leech off of the society that both protects and
tolerates you?

That you lack the mental capability to discern the difference is
further evidence that you have no valid point of view.

As opposed to your, ahem, view, that is nothing more than what fell out
of the front of yout TEEVEE set.


I don't watch ahem "TEEVEE". I get my news from the people who are
actually *there*. Exactly which DNC leg-humping blog do you get your
information from, sunshine? Gawd, you dolts are too easy...

As far as tossing
about words like "traitor" and "coward", you may want to look in the
mirror
and restate your public opinion that radical, islamic suicide-bombers
that deliberately target school-kids are *not* (in your opinion) insane
or sub- human,

Is the above a macro, or just another fetish?


No, that's rickets public opinion as revealed in this very message thread.
But then, knee-jerkers like yourself prefer to jump in and make foolish,
asses of themselves by presuming you have an informed opinion. Well, you
just demonstrated that you most certainly do not know what you are talking
about. So, are you "don" also asserting, like rickets, that radical islamic
suicide-bombers that deliberately target school-kids are *not* insane and
sub-human, but are instead "brave"? Do you stand with rickets on this
particular point? Tag, you're it.

but are instead (in your opinion) "brave". Then let's see if it
sinks in who the actual "traitor" and/or "coward" really is. Note: I
won't hold my breath...


Until you get over there and ACT upon that which you claim to believe in


I've only managed one brief work-related trip this year. Had I been allowed
to do so, I would have stayed. In any event, I've already served honorably
before. Can you say as much? And no, going to college on a grant doesn't
count. That would be "taking". I'd like to hear where you have "given
something back". Take your time, we can wait...


you are nothing but a blowhard hiding behind a keyboard.


No, in this case, with all the mistakes you are making with your baseless
presumptions, you would appear to be the blow-hard.


That you want young Americans to sacrifice themselves in foreign lands
for your hedonistic ideals speaks volumes of your character.


What "hedonistic" ideals? Show me where I've asserted anything that could
be construed (even by a simpleton like yourself) as "hedonistic"? I mean,
other than the hedonistic pleasure of smacking around idiots like yourself
and rickets... Otherwise, you simply presume too much and are publicly
displaying your ignorance, sunshine. I don't want our troops to sacrifice
themselves; I want the *enemy* to sacrifice themselves in a location of
*our* choosing! In addition, I will not stand in the way of those who
freely volunteer to serve and protect the U.S., as *I* served, and I will
do my utmost to support them where I am allowed to. Again, I do that 5-days
a week. I would do more if I were allowed.

And you aren't anyone to speak of character. So far, all you've managed to
publicly demonstrate is that like rickets, you apparently see the school-
kid targeting suicide bomber as "brave", instead of an insane, sub-human
terrorist like the rest of the rational world. You're about as sharp as a
donut, aren't you?

Yes, the label *coward* fits you well and your own words were the
taylor.


Nice try, but you'll need to do better than making all those false
presumptions. Perhaps you should have your "knee-jerk" reflex checked. I
hear Howard Dean is a doctor...

Yes he is... but he's not the type of doctor that many of these folks require.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:16:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

You can call it "mob mentality" if it feeds your paranoia adequately. The
rest of rational society *still* calls it "majority rule".

''Rational society'', eh?

Good one.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:34:21 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

These people have been plundering the planet for decades. They are
crazed gangsters. The Saudis (including Bin Laden) , the Bush Crime
Family, and a handful of others are working together to rob you and me
blind. If 9-11 wasn't actually perpetrated by them, it was certainly
the luckiest thing that ever happened to a criminal enterprise.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

You're hilarious!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Yeah. It's a hoot and a half.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, right?

David wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:34:21 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

These people have been plundering the planet for decades. They are
crazed gangsters. The Saudis (including Bin Laden) , the Bush Crime
Family, and a handful of others are working together to rob you and me
blind. If 9-11 wasn't actually perpetrated by them, it was certainly
the luckiest thing that ever happened to a criminal enterprise.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

You're hilarious!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Yeah. It's a hoot and a half.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, right?

If that man (sic) was you, then of course I would heartily recommend that no one
pay attention to him!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"-=jd=-" wrote
"Don" wrote
"-=jd=-" wrote
I do see where we have
mounted a reasonable and prudent defense and offense against a declared
enemy.

Oh *we* have, have *we*?
Well then, tell us exactly what YOU have done to defend and offend this
so called enemy. Please be specific.

*We* as in the United States, simp.

Welp, there ya have it folks, the child known as jd has spoken.
It presumes to speak for others, though it can barely speak for itself.
Pathetic, and worthy of being shot in the face.
I hope someone kills you in the next 24 hours.

"-=jd=-" wrote
smell like a trash-can full of used proctologist exam gloves?

Any other perversions you'd like to share with us?

"David" wrote
"Don" wrote:

"David" wrote
Personally, my gut tells me that the Bush people enjoy this kind of
anarchy because it helps them rake in the cash.

b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of
governmental authority

People on the Left accuse Bush of having no plan for Iraq after
''shock and awe''. I disagree. I think they wanted exactly what is
happening, complete with our fighting forces being used like a
toreador's cape.

Here, lets try *1a* first:
1 a : absence of government

Now, where is all this *anarchy* you speak of?

"-=jd=-" wrote
defense as an affront to your liberty. But, hey!! If we're only talking
about *your* personal liberty,

YOU don't have any say at all about MY personal liberty.

Are you rickets? If not, what makes you think anyone was talking to *you*,
snapper-head?

YOU still don't have any say, and that galls you something fierce. LOL

Well, now that you've bragged about being a member of the *herd
mentality* it's understandable why you rail against personal liberty.


You can call it "herd mentality", I call it "majority rule".

Of course you do, you have no choice.
As a member of the herd you will do exactly what you're told, no questions
asked.
Now shut your ass and get back in line, punk. LOL

"-=jd=-" wrote
You can call it "mob mentality" if it feeds your paranoia adequately. The
rest of rational society *still* calls it "majority rule".

There ya go again, thinking you can speak for others when you can barely
speak for yourself.
Well you don't get to speak for others jd, you just get to follow the leader
and do as you're told.
You willingly gave up your individuality long ago and in fact you brag about
it.
You deserve to be gang raped and then necklaced.

"David" wrote
"-=jd=-" wrote:
You can call it "mob mentality" if it feeds your paranoia adequately. The
rest of rational society *still* calls it "majority rule".

''Rational society'', eh?

Good one.

jd thinks that being just another cog in the machine is a worthy ambition.
It really has no choice, you know.
It's never had an original thought and everything it spews is mimic'd from
FOXNEWS.
One day soon the jd's of the world will have to reckon for their stupidity,
cowardice and laziness.
The true patriots will be right there to **** in his eyes and laugh all the
while. LOL
Then it'll be gutted and thrown on the torched pile of used up chicken****
slaves.
It'll be a glorious day indeed.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:32:04 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

I contribute. You leech. Despite your spittle-laced, rantings, you can't
change that. Does the truth hurt?

This seems to be a recurring theme with you.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:48:00 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

I feel your pain... NOT! But I do understand that you *must* be vigilant
and keep hoping for disaster.

The disaster has already happened.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:10:07 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


It's also one you haven't refuted. The ink is dry on that point, sunshine. If
you don't like being a leech, then contribute something meaningful. Holding
your hand out to the govt. is not contributing; that's leeching.

-=jd=-
I AM the government, Sweetheart.

You seem obsessed. Do you have a box of Kleenex handy?

David wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:48:00 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

I feel your pain... NOT! But I do understand that you *must* be vigilant
and keep hoping for disaster.

The disaster has already happened.

Yes, right about the time you used those drugs that put you way over the line...

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:10:07 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


It's also one you haven't refuted. The ink is dry on that point, sunshine. If
you don't like being a leech, then contribute something meaningful. Holding
your hand out to the govt. is not contributing; that's leeching.

-=jd=-
I AM the government, Sweetheart.

You seem obsessed. Do you have a box of Kleenex handy?

Did you soil yourself again, 'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:39:14 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Sun 21 Aug 2005 02:16:27p, David wrote in message
:

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:10:07 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


It's also one you haven't refuted. The ink is dry on that point,
sunshine. If you don't like being a leech, then contribute something
meaningful. Holding your hand out to the govt. is not contributing;
that's leeching.

-=jd=-


I AM the government, Sweetheart.


You need to revisit your civics lessons, sunshine. *WE* (collectively) are
the government. Not any single person and *especially* not you. So, answer
the question: are you still holding your hand out to the govt and leeching
off society?

I am He
as
You are He
as
You are me
and
We are all together.

"dxAce" wrote
Damn... another 'tard boy appears!

Looky, dx learned a new word, now its wearing it out. How sweet. Moron.

"dxAce" wrote
'Tard boy David meets 'tard boy Don...

Having a mother thats a ****tard has wrecked your sense of reality.
I hope you and her both are gang raped tonight.

"-=jd=-" wrote
bolster his weak argument;

You make my argument for me.
That socialists everywhere should suffer long painful deaths.