Re: OT Flame War

"Group Moderator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pJked.299746$D%.230454@attbi_s51...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> What exactly did he do that took courage?

He invaded the Soviet Union for one thing. But almost everything [censored]

did

Quoted message said:

took enormous courage.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

You really are a moron

<snip>

Quoted message said:

[censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else we
might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had courage,
whatever else we might think of him.

[censored] had accomplished something that staggered the "Western World" at the
time. He'd signed a "non-aggression pact" with the Soviet Union. He
reneged for no good reason (other than his own grandiose plans that included
the oilfields in the Caucasus to feed his "war machine"😉. The man was
insane and "full of himself". His own Generals advised against it and were
soundly reprimanded for having the temerity to question his "grand scheme".
He did manage to pull Germany out of the hole the "Western Powers" put them
in with the Treaty of Versailles. If you're the student of history I think
you are you'll recognize that his rise to power would not have been possible
if Germany had been treated with fairly following the "victory" the Allies
had enjoyed after WWI.

Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason other than to "grandstand" about how
"great a job" he was doing fighting international terrorism. It backfired.
Not a single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found. I don't doubt
they're out there though (the Desert's a big place).

Quoted message said:

Neither [censored] nor Bush could have
done what they did if they had been cowards.

I don't know about the rest of you but seeing "Bush" and "[censored]" in the
same sentence makes me a tad uncomfortable.

Quoted message said:

Those Muslim terrorists who
took down the World Trade Center and murdered 3000 people, whatever else
we
might think of them, also had courage.

They were idiots. They were liars. They were insane by every standard you
care to name. Is it possible that you'd admire someone llike Jim Jones "for
his courage" as well?? Puh-leeze!!!

Quoted message said:

did if they had been cowards. Leuck, you [censored] idiot with no brain, can
you comprehend? Next time think before you ask a stupid question.

Ed, your viewpoint is often thought provoking. I see you have a fair number
of detractors as well. They say there's a fine line between genius and
insanity. Which side of that line are you treading with *this*??

Quoted message said:

Mike Said:
Pardon Leuck, he thinks with the little head between his legs. 🙂
Leuck wins the assclown award for THREE months in a row.
http://goofysplace.com/assclown.htm

Dang!!! Thank you Leuck!! You jerk!! :-))

Frank Olson said:

...
I don't know about the rest of you but seeing "Bush" and "[censored]" in the
same sentence makes me a tad uncomfortable....

I believe that this makes people uncomfortable for two very different
reasons.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VfHfd.40610$Pl.33755@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

"Group Moderator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:pJked.299746$D%.230454@attbi_s51...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> > What exactly did he do that took courage?
>
> He invaded the Soviet Union for one thing. But almost everything [censored]
did
> took enormous courage.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else we
might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had
courage,
whatever else we might think of him.

[censored] had accomplished something that staggered the "Western World" at
the time. He'd signed a "non-aggression pact" with the Soviet Union. He
reneged for no good reason (other than his own grandiose plans that
included the oilfields in the Caucasus to feed his "war machine"😉. The
man was insane and "full of himself". His own Generals advised against it
and were soundly reprimanded for having the temerity to question his
"grand scheme". He did manage to pull Germany out of the hole the "Western
Powers" put them in with the Treaty of Versailles. If you're the student
of history I think you are you'll recognize that his rise to power would
not have been possible if Germany had been treated with fairly following
the "victory" the Allies had enjoyed after WWI.

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of Russia,
but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many considered a
foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as foolhardy as many
imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good reasons for doing what he
did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else we
might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had
courage,
whatever else we might think of him.

Please note the phrase, " ... whatever else we might think of him." Of
course, if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then I can
appreciate that you would be adrift at sea when it comes to making
discriminations.

Quoted message said:

Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason other than to "grandstand" about how
"great a job" he was doing fighting international terrorism. It
backfired. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found. I
don't doubt they're out there though (the Desert's a big place).

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in office -
and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware of. Vote for
Kerry and you will get another Clinton.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those Muslim terrorists who
took down the World Trade Center and murdered 3000 people, whatever else
we
might think of them, also had courage.

They were idiots. They were liars. They were insane by every standard
you care to name. Is it possible that you'd admire someone llike Jim
Jones "for his courage" as well?? Puh-leeze!!!

A good gut reaction, but it is undeniable that they were brave and showed
courage. They gave their lives in a cause in which they believed. Because
they (the Muslim terrorists) are like how they are, we need to track them
down and kill them without mercy. Who do you think will do the better job at
this, Bush or Kerry?

To ascribe insanity as an explanation for why evil doers do what they do is
always wrongheaded. No one in this world can do anything on a large scale
without lots of support. [censored] had his support (the German nation) and the
Muslim terrorists have their support ( radical Islam).
[...]

Quoted message said:

Ed, your viewpoint is often thought provoking. I see you have a fair
number of detractors as well. They say there's a fine line between genius
and insanity. Which side of that line are you treading with *this*??

Flattery will get you nowhere. I determined from early childhood on that I
was exceptional and only had correct and righteous thoughts about everything
under the sun. I take no credit for this; it is my genius that I was simply
born with.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of

Russia,

Quoted message said:

but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many considered

a

Quoted message said:

foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as foolhardy as many
imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good reasons for doing what he
did.

Since they were allies he had no reason to do what he did and it was
foolhardy because he didn't count on

A: Russia having harsh winters

B: Russian manpower and the ability to throw them in to combat regardless of
the cost

C: Massive manufacturing factories constructed east of the Urals which
created the overwhelming armor that later crushed Germany's forces

D: He decided what the military should do instead of the generals

He may have been smart in taking power but lousy once he had it

Quoted message said:

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in

office -

Quoted message said:

and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware of. Vote

for

Quoted message said:

Kerry and you will get another Clinton.

Frank lives in Canada, he can't vote for any candidate in the US

"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FRUfd.14043$HA.10308@attbi_s01...
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in

office -

Quoted message said:

and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware of. Vote

for

Quoted message said:

Kerry and you will get another Clinton.

Frank lives in Canada, he can't vote for any candidate in the US

Frank and all the rest of the world wish they lived in America and that they
could vote in our elections. Most of Canada and Europe would vote for Kerry
if they could which is reason enough to keep them at arm's length. We
already have enough stupid voters in this country with adding to them with
numskulls from Canada and Europe.

"Four More Years" for you know who!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FRUfd.14043$HA.10308@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of

Russia,

Quoted message said:

but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many
considered

a

Quoted message said:

foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as foolhardy as many
imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good reasons for doing what he
did.

Since they were allies he had no reason to do what he did and it was
foolhardy because he didn't count on

A: Russia having harsh winters

[censored] and the Germans knew all about the Russian winter, but they were
counting on a quick victory. And they just about achieved it too. Germany
and Russia were never allies except on a scrap of paper. [censored]'s whole plan
was to conquer the East in order to expand Germany.

Quoted message said:

B: Russian manpower and the ability to throw them in to combat regardless
of
the cost

The Germans slaughtered the Russians in great numbers. I think it was mainly
US aid to Russia that made the critical difference, not Russian numbers or
Russian space - or even the vaunted Russian winter.

Quoted message said:

C: Massive manufacturing factories constructed east of the Urals which
created the overwhelming armor that later crushed Germany's forces

US aid had a lot to do with that. But I admit, anyone who would attack
Russia and not achieve a quick victory is in for a world of trouble.

Quoted message said:

D: He decided what the military should do instead of the generals

Agreed, but the German generals were always cautious and [censored] knew he had
to push them and be aggressive in order to win. He knew Germany was weaker
in the long run than his enemies and that only quick victories based on
extremely aggressive maneuvers would give him the edge.

Quoted message said:

He may have been smart in taking power but lousy once he had it

[censored] was not as bad a geopolitical thinker and a general as most think. He
took risks and gambled, but he was not insane. The last word has not yet
been written on Adolf [censored] and Germany in the period leading up to and
including WW II.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

Frank lives in Canada, he can't vote for any candidate in the US

LOL....says who? Happens all the time, especially near Texas and Arizona and
New Mexico.

James S. Prine

"...there are yet Jomsvikings living!" From RED ORM
http://hometown.aol.com/jsprine/

True forgot about that 🙂

"James S. Prine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frank lives in Canada, he can't vote for any candidate in the US

LOL....says who? Happens all the time, especially near Texas and Arizona

and

Quoted message said:

New Mexico.

James S. Prine

"...there are yet Jomsvikings living!" From RED ORM
http://hometown.aol.com/jsprine/

"James S. Prine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frank lives in Canada, he can't vote for any candidate in the US

LOL....says who? Happens all the time, especially near Texas and Arizona
and
New Mexico.

Right you are James. The Dems would register anyone at all as long as they
think they are going to vote Dem.

I would make registration to vote much more difficult so that everyone would
have to prove they are a citizen of the US and a resident of their voting
precinct. All this easy registration makes it way too easy for fraud.
Minnesota is one of the worst states in this regard. I want a lot of hurdles
and hoops for everyone to jump through before they can vote. Easy voting
does nothing but encourage fraud.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] had accomplished something that staggered the "Western World" at
the time. He'd signed a "non-aggression pact" with the Soviet Union. He
reneged for no good reason (other than his own grandiose plans that
included the oilfields in the Caucasus to feed his "war machine"😉. The
man was insane and "full of himself". His own Generals advised against
it and were soundly reprimanded for having the temerity to question his
"grand scheme". He did manage to pull Germany out of the hole the
"Western Powers" put them in with the Treaty of Versailles. If you're
the student of history I think you are you'll recognize that his rise to
power would not have been possible if Germany had been treated with
fairly following the "victory" the Allies had enjoyed after WWI.

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of
Russia, but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many
considered a foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as
foolhardy as many imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good reasons
for doing what he did.

The Soviet Union was out of the equation with the signing of the
non-aggression pact. His attack of the Soviet Union ensured Germany was in
another disasterous two front war. His attack on Poland was equally stupid.
He could have negotiated for the Danzig Corridor. Chamberlain was a wimp
and would have caved in to any demand to preserve "Peace in Our Time"...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else we
might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had
courage,
whatever else we might think of him.

Please note the phrase, " ... whatever else we might think of him." Of
course, if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then I can
appreciate that you would be adrift at sea when it comes to making
discriminations.

Quoted message said:

Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason other than to "grandstand" about how
"great a job" he was doing fighting international terrorism. It
backfired. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found.
I don't doubt they're out there though (the Desert's a big place).

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in
office - and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware
of. Vote for Kerry and you will get another Clinton.
[...]

You can't stop terrorism. Terrorists don't wear recognizable uniforms or
walk around with a big "T" stamped on their cheeks. Terrorists spend a lot
of time learning to "blend in" and disappear. The "War on Terrorism" is
just a phrase someone put together like the "Axis of Evil". I find it
ludicrous that a person can spend two hours at an airport going through
"umpteen" inspections and checks while something like 51,000 people walk
across the border between Mexico and the US every year with *no* baggage
checks and *no* requests for identification. You're never going to catch a
terrorist by having some customs officer ask questions like: "Was your
baggage ever out of your sight? Did you pack it all yourself?" when all
they have to do is drive a few miles out of Tijuana, and walk a couple of
"Stinger" missles and AK-47's across the border.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those Muslim terrorists who
took down the World Trade Center and murdered 3000 people, whatever else
we
might think of them, also had courage.

They were idiots. They were liars. They were insane by every standard
you care to name. Is it possible that you'd admire someone llike Jim
Jones "for his courage" as well?? Puh-leeze!!!

A good gut reaction, but it is undeniable that they were brave and showed
courage.

They were *cowards*. I hope every last one of them is enjoying Satan's
hospitality.

Quoted message said:

They gave their lives in a cause in which they believed.

Where in the Quran does it advocate immolating yourself and a bunch of
*innocent* people? Please point out the chapter and verse.

Quoted message said:

Because they (the Muslim terrorists) are like how they are, we need to
track them down and kill them without mercy.

Good luck!!

Quoted message said:

Who do you think will do the better job at this, Bush or Kerry?

Neither. For reasons I've already stated.

Quoted message said:

To ascribe insanity as an explanation for why evil doers do what they do
is always wrongheaded. No one in this world can do anything on a large
scale without lots of support. [censored] had his support (the German nation)

Heh... [censored] put anyone that didn't agree with his policies into
concentration camps (or had them executed as enemies of the State). Do you
believe for one minute that a man like [censored] could have come to power if it
wasn't for the crippling "reparations" the allies demanded after WWI?? I
don't think so.

Quoted message said:

and the Muslim terrorists have their support ( radical Islam).

Yes... and there will be more David Koresh's, Jim Jones's...

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Ed, your viewpoint is often thought provoking. I see you have a fair
number of detractors as well. They say there's a fine line between
genius and insanity. Which side of that line are you treading with
*this*??

Flattery will get you nowhere. I determined from early childhood on that I
was exceptional and only had correct and righteous thoughts about
everything under the sun. I take no credit for this; it is my genius that
I was simply born with.

And the meek will inherit the earth... which leaves the oceans for all you
Geniuses and Lawyers... Happy swimming!! :-))

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:02Fgd.65577$Pl.14361@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] had accomplished something that staggered the "Western World" at
the time. He'd signed a "non-aggression pact" with the Soviet Union.
He reneged for no good reason (other than his own grandiose plans that
included the oilfields in the Caucasus to feed his "war machine"😉. The
man was insane and "full of himself". His own Generals advised against
it and were soundly reprimanded for having the temerity to question his
"grand scheme". He did manage to pull Germany out of the hole the
"Western Powers" put them in with the Treaty of Versailles. If you're
the student of history I think you are you'll recognize that his rise to
power would not have been possible if Germany had been treated with
fairly following the "victory" the Allies had enjoyed after WWI.

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of
Russia, but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many
considered a foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as
foolhardy as many imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good reasons
for doing what he did.

The Soviet Union was out of the equation with the signing of the
non-aggression pact. His attack of the Soviet Union ensured Germany was
in another disasterous two front war. His attack on Poland was equally
stupid. He could have negotiated for the Danzig Corridor. Chamberlain was
a wimp and would have caved in to any demand to preserve "Peace in Our
Time"...

Yes, yes ... everybody knows about the two front war. I am pointing out that
it was not as stupid as most think. The German armed forces under [censored] in
the early 1940's were as strong as Germany was ever as likely to get and the
Soviet Union was only going to get stronger. Therefore, it made sense for
[censored] to attack the Soviet Union when he did (given his geopolitical aims)
even though it became a two front war for Germany.

If [censored] had stopped his aggression with the annexation of the Sudetenland,
he would have gone down in history as the greatest German statesman of all
time. He would now be revered in Germany which would totally dominate all of
central Europe. Unfortunately for Germany, WW II intervened as a result of
the invasion of Poland.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else
> we
> might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had
> courage,
> whatever else we might think of him.

Please note the phrase, " ... whatever else we might think of him." Of
course, if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then I can
appreciate that you would be adrift at sea when it comes to making
discriminations.

Quoted message said:

Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason other than to "grandstand" about
how "great a job" he was doing fighting international terrorism. It
backfired. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found.
I don't doubt they're out there though (the Desert's a big place).

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in
office - and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware
of. Vote for Kerry and you will get another Clinton.
[...]

You can't stop terrorism. Terrorists don't wear recognizable uniforms or
walk around with a big "T" stamped on their cheeks. Terrorists spend a
lot of time learning to "blend in" and disappear. The "War on Terrorism"
is just a phrase someone put together like the "Axis of Evil". I find it
ludicrous that a person can spend two hours at an airport going through
"umpteen" inspections and checks while something like 51,000 people walk
across the border between Mexico and the US every year with *no* baggage
checks and *no* requests for identification. You're never going to catch
a terrorist by having some customs officer ask questions like: "Was your
baggage ever out of your sight? Did you pack it all yourself?" when all
they have to do is drive a few miles out of Tijuana, and walk a couple of
"Stinger" missles and AK-47's across the border.

The War on Terrorism may well turn out to be a 50 year war, kind of like the
Cold War all over again. The danger the Terrorists represent is that they
could get their hands on nuclear weapons any number of ways which would
create a whole new ball game for the West and civilization in general. The
Europeans would not mind periodic murders of their people from time to time
due to terrorist strikes, but we Americans will not put up with that. We
will take the war to them and do our best to wipe them out. I believe it may
well take a nuclear strike by the Terrorists before the g.d. liberals ever
come on board and realize we are at war.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Those Muslim terrorists who
> took down the World Trade Center and murdered 3000 people, whatever
> else we
> might think of them, also had courage.

They were idiots. They were liars. They were insane by every standard
you care to name. Is it possible that you'd admire someone llike Jim
Jones "for his courage" as well?? Puh-leeze!!!

A good gut reaction, but it is undeniable that they were brave and showed
courage.

They were *cowards*. I hope every last one of them is enjoying Satan's
hospitality.

Another good gut reaction. Mine too. But these Islamic terrorists are a
formidable enemy and we have to take them seriously if we are to survive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They gave their lives in a cause in which they believed.

Where in the Quran does it advocate immolating yourself and a bunch of
*innocent* people? Please point out the chapter and verse.

Islam is a religion of the sword. That is how they made conversions in the
first place - convert or die! You should read the history of Islam and it's
conquests if you do not think that is the case. Also, look up Jihad while
you are at it. The fact is that Islam is not a peaceful religion and it
never has been. The Crusades were merely a defensive reaction to the Muslim
attempted conquests of Christian Europe. To hate Muslims and their
despicable religion is just common sense. Try to get real why don't you?
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To ascribe insanity as an explanation for why evil doers do what they do
is always wrongheaded. No one in this world can do anything on a large
scale without lots of support. [censored] had his support (the German nation)

Heh... [censored] put anyone that didn't agree with his policies into
concentration camps (or had them executed as enemies of the State). Do
you believe for one minute that a man like [censored] could have come to power
if it wasn't for the crippling "reparations" the allies demanded after
WWI?? I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

and the Muslim terrorists have their support ( radical Islam).

Yes... and there will be more David Koresh's, Jim Jones's...

There is a history to everything and if you would understand what is going
on in the world you need to become acquainted with that history.

Thank God we have leaders in the US who know what is at stake and are doing
something about it. Just sitting around and wringing your hands, the
Clinton-Kerry liberal modus operandi, is not going to solve anything.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:02Fgd.65577$Pl.14361@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> [censored] had accomplished something that staggered the "Western World" at
> the time. He'd signed a "non-aggression pact" with the Soviet Union.
> He reneged for no good reason (other than his own grandiose plans that
> included the oilfields in the Caucasus to feed his "war machine"😉. The
> man was insane and "full of himself". His own Generals advised against
> it and were soundly reprimanded for having the temerity to question his
> "grand scheme". He did manage to pull Germany out of the hole the
> "Western Powers" put them in with the Treaty of Versailles. If you're
> the student of history I think you are you'll recognize that his rise
> to power would not have been possible if Germany had been treated with
> fairly following the "victory" the Allies had enjoyed after WWI.

We were not discussing the history of what led up to the invasion of
Russia, but of what it took for one man, [censored], to embark on what many
considered a foolhardy enterprise. I pointed out that it was not as
foolhardy as many imagined it to be and that [censored] had very good
reasons for doing what he did.

The Soviet Union was out of the equation with the signing of the
non-aggression pact. His attack of the Soviet Union ensured Germany was
in another disasterous two front war. His attack on Poland was equally
stupid. He could have negotiated for the Danzig Corridor. Chamberlain
was a wimp and would have caved in to any demand to preserve "Peace in
Our Time"...

Yes, yes ... everybody knows about the two front war. I am pointing out
that it was not as stupid as most think. The German armed forces under
[censored] in the early 1940's were as strong as Germany was ever as likely to
get and the Soviet Union was only going to get stronger. Therefore, it
made sense for [censored] to attack the Soviet Union when he did (given his
geopolitical aims) even though it became a two front war for Germany.

If [censored] had stopped his aggression with the annexation of the
Sudetenland, he would have gone down in history as the greatest German
statesman of all time. He would now be revered in Germany which would
totally dominate all of central Europe. Unfortunately for Germany, WW II
intervened as a result of the invasion of Poland.

Unfortunately for Germany, [censored] was an insane megalomaniac.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> [censored] invaded the Soviet Union because he had courage, whatever else
>> we
>> might think of him, the same way Bush invaded Iraq because he had
>> courage,
>> whatever else we might think of him.

Please note the phrase, " ... whatever else we might think of him." Of
course, if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then I can
appreciate that you would be adrift at sea when it comes to making
discriminations.

> Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason other than to "grandstand" about
> how "great a job" he was doing fighting international terrorism. It
> backfired. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found.
> I don't doubt they're out there though (the Desert's a big place).

Clinton did damn little about the terrorists all the time he was in
office - and he never did stop a single terrorist attack that I am aware
of. Vote for Kerry and you will get another Clinton.
[...]

You can't stop terrorism. Terrorists don't wear recognizable uniforms or
walk around with a big "T" stamped on their cheeks. Terrorists spend a
lot of time learning to "blend in" and disappear. The "War on Terrorism"
is just a phrase someone put together like the "Axis of Evil". I find it
ludicrous that a person can spend two hours at an airport going through
"umpteen" inspections and checks while something like 51,000 people walk
across the border between Mexico and the US every year with *no* baggage
checks and *no* requests for identification. You're never going to catch
a terrorist by having some customs officer ask questions like: "Was your
baggage ever out of your sight? Did you pack it all yourself?" when all
they have to do is drive a few miles out of Tijuana, and walk a couple of
"Stinger" missles and AK-47's across the border.

The War on Terrorism may well turn out to be a 50 year war, kind of like
the Cold War all over again.

You can't fight a war with an enemy you can't see or who won't follow
established military rules of engagment. That includes the Geneva
Convention for the fair treatment of POW's.

Quoted message said:

The danger the Terrorists represent is that they could get their hands on
nuclear weapons any number of ways which would create a whole new ball
game for the West and civilization in general.

I agree. The problem with global terrorism is that it's just that. Global.
Timothy McVeigh was a US Citizen and a terrorist. As far as I know he
wasn't a "Muslim".

Quoted message said:

The Europeans would not mind periodic murders of their people from time to
time due to terrorist strikes, but we Americans will not put up with that.

What???

Quoted message said:

We will take the war to them and do our best to wipe them out.

How?? Terrorism is *global*. Your next-door-neighbor may well be a
terrorist and you wouldn't even know until one day he decided to blow your
block to "Kingdom Come".

Quoted message said:

I believe it may well take a nuclear strike by the Terrorists before the
g.d. liberals ever come on board and realize we are at war.

That "day" isn't far off. The only problem is how do you fight a war with
someone that won't "stand up" to fight.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Those Muslim terrorists who
>> took down the World Trade Center and murdered 3000 people, whatever
>> else we
>> might think of them, also had courage.
>
> They were idiots. They were liars. They were insane by every standard
> you care to name. Is it possible that you'd admire someone llike Jim
> Jones "for his courage" as well?? Puh-leeze!!!

A good gut reaction, but it is undeniable that they were brave and
showed courage.

They were *cowards*. I hope every last one of them is enjoying Satan's
hospitality.

Another good gut reaction. Mine too. But these Islamic terrorists are a
formidable enemy and we have to take them seriously if we are to survive.

You have a very narrow view of the world if you think all terrorists are
"Islamic".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They gave their lives in a cause in which they believed.

Where in the Quran does it advocate immolating yourself and a bunch of
*innocent* people? Please point out the chapter and verse.

Islam is a religion of the sword.

"Islam" is a religion of peace.

Quoted message said:

That is how they made conversions in the first place - convert or die!

Wrong. The Quran teaches tolerance of others and respect for their beliefs.
A few "clerics" have decided otherwise. You should read it sometime.

Quoted message said:

You should read the history of Islam and it's conquests if you do not
think that is the case.

There has been war ever since F. Flintstone picked up the first club.

Quoted message said:

Also, look up Jihad while you are at it.

It means "struggle", and most often refers to the one within all of us.

Quoted message said:

The fact is that Islam is not a peaceful religion and it never has been.

Neither has Christianity.

Quoted message said:

The Crusades were merely a defensive reaction to the Muslim attempted
conquests of Christian Europe. To hate Muslims and their despicable
religion is just common sense. Try to get real why don't you?

What's despicable about a religion that espouses one true God and one true
Faith??

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To ascribe insanity as an explanation for why evil doers do what they do
is always wrongheaded. No one in this world can do anything on a large
scale without lots of support. [censored] had his support (the German
nation)

Heh... [censored] put anyone that didn't agree with his policies into
concentration camps (or had them executed as enemies of the State). Do
you believe for one minute that a man like [censored] could have come to
power if it wasn't for the crippling "reparations" the allies demanded
after WWI?? I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

and the Muslim terrorists have their support ( radical Islam).

Yes... and there will be more David Koresh's, Jim Jones's...

There is a history to everything and if you would understand what is going
on in the world you need to become acquainted with that history.

I like taking off my colored specs before reading history.

Quoted message said:

Thank God we have leaders in the US who know what is at stake and are
doing something about it.

What have "they" done, exactly?? Over-run a sovereign State because they
didn't like the "politics"?? There certainly were no WMD's anywhere. The
US foreign policy has been one of "hot and cold", "pro and con". "Mixed
messages" make for poor foreign policy. For years the US supported the Shah
of Iran and were one of the first to vilify him as a criminal when world
opinion turned against him. Imelda has a closet full of shoes purchased
with US dollars. What exactly was Vietnam about anyhow??

Quoted message said:

Just sitting around and wringing your hands, the Clinton-Kerry liberal
modus operandi, is not going to solve anything.

And declaring "war" on "ghosts" and "phantoms" will accomplish what??

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:0u%gd.75203$Pl.27749@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If [censored] had stopped his aggression with the annexation of the
Sudetenland, he would have gone down in history as the greatest German
statesman of all time. He would now be revered in Germany which would
totally dominate all of central Europe. Unfortunately for Germany, WW II
intervened as a result of the invasion of Poland.

Unfortunately for Germany, [censored] was an insane megalomaniac.

I do not much care for explanations that ascribe insanity to heads of
nations. Actually, it is not possible to become a head of state without
being totally sane. Evil exists in this world and there is nothing insane
about it. The Muslim terrorists are not insane either. That is precisely why
they are so dangerous.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The War on Terrorism may well turn out to be a 50 year war, kind of like
the Cold War all over again.

You can't fight a war with an enemy you can't see or who won't follow
established military rules of engagment. That includes the Geneva
Convention for the fair treatment of POW's.

This War on Terrorism is something new under the sun. I think it is going to
be a very prolonged kind of warfare. It will be a protracted conflict.
Eventually it will have to be won on the ideological level. Islam as it
exists presently in the world can not be allowed to continue. It must be
reformed. What makes the situation so untenable is the possibility that
these Muslim terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons. Otherwise
it would not amount to a hill of beans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The danger the Terrorists represent is that they could get their hands on
nuclear weapons any number of ways which would create a whole new ball
game for the West and civilization in general.

I agree. The problem with global terrorism is that it's just that.
Global. Timothy McVeigh was a US Citizen and a terrorist. As far as I
know he wasn't a "Muslim".

McVeigh had no backing whatsoever. Therefore he was not in the least bit
dangerous to civilization. He was just another common criminal. It is
ideological backing which makes Islamic terrorism something that we have to
take seriously.
[...]

Quoted message said:

How?? Terrorism is *global*. Your next-door-neighbor may well be a
terrorist and you wouldn't even know until one day he decided to blow your
block to "Kingdom Come".

You are confused and muddled on this. The enemy is very specific and can be
targeted like any enemy. The enemy is Islamic extremism which is to be found
almost exclusively in the Middle East.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Wrong. The Quran teaches tolerance of others and respect for their
beliefs. A few "clerics" have decided otherwise. You should read it
sometime.

Islam has never been reformed. It is a religion of simple primitive people
who have no sophistication whatsoever. You are just ignorant on the Muslim
religion. The only cure for it is to read history, not the g.d. Koran.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank God we have leaders in the US who know what is at stake and are
doing something about it.

What have "they" done, exactly?? Over-run a sovereign State because they
didn't like the "politics"?? There certainly were no WMD's anywhere. The
US foreign policy has been one of "hot and cold", "pro and con". "Mixed
messages" make for poor foreign policy.

To think that we could ever get a handle on Islamic terrorism without taking
out Sadaam's Iraq is just plain insane. You sir are a screwball.

For years the US supported the Shah

Quoted message said:

of Iran and were one of the first to vilify him as a criminal when world
opinion turned against him. Imelda has a closet full of shoes purchased
with US dollars. What exactly was Vietnam about anyhow??

We should have supported the Shah against the clerics. Iran would be a
hundred times better off if we had. The Shah was bent on reforming and
Westernizing Iran. The g.d. crazy clerics took Iran back to the Middle Ages.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just sitting around and wringing your hands, the Clinton-Kerry liberal
modus operandi, is not going to solve anything.

Quoted message said:

And declaring "war" on "ghosts" and "phantoms" will accomplish what??

We need to hunt down and kill these Islamic terrorists in the interests of
US security and in the interests of Western civilization. Why the hell don't
you go to Iran and try to live there if you think it is in any way superior
to Western civilization.

I am fed up with g.d. liberals who will not defend this country and who will
not defend Western civilization against the barbarians. Screw you all the
way to hell and back, you treasonous [censored], a traitor not only to America
but a traitor to Christendom and to Western Civilization (one and the same).

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:0u%gd.75203$Pl.27749@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If [censored] had stopped his aggression with the annexation of the
Sudetenland, he would have gone down in history as the greatest German
statesman of all time. He would now be revered in Germany which would
totally dominate all of central Europe. Unfortunately for Germany, WW II
intervened as a result of the invasion of Poland.

Unfortunately for Germany, [censored] was an insane megalomaniac.

I do not much care for explanations that ascribe insanity to heads of
nations. Actually, it is not possible to become a head of state without
being totally sane. Evil exists in this world and there is nothing insane
about it. The Muslim terrorists are not insane either. That is precisely
why they are so dangerous.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The War on Terrorism may well turn out to be a 50 year war, kind of like
the Cold War all over again.

You can't fight a war with an enemy you can't see or who won't follow
established military rules of engagment. That includes the Geneva
Convention for the fair treatment of POW's.

This War on Terrorism is something new under the sun. I think it is going
to be a very prolonged kind of warfare. It will be a protracted conflict.
Eventually it will have to be won on the ideological level. Islam as it
exists presently in the world can not be allowed to continue.

And you call me a "screwball"...

Quoted message said:

It must be reformed.

Heh... Islam doesn't need reforming. They have their "Jim Jones" and
"David Koresh's" too.

Quoted message said:

What makes the situation so untenable is the possibility that these Muslim
terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons. Otherwise it would
not amount to a hill of beans.

I don't think we have anything to fear on that score. After all we're going
to partner with Canada for the North American Missile Defense System...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The danger the Terrorists represent is that they could get their hands
on nuclear weapons any number of ways which would create a whole new
ball game for the West and civilization in general.

I agree. The problem with global terrorism is that it's just that.
Global. Timothy McVeigh was a US Citizen and a terrorist. As far as I
know he wasn't a "Muslim".

McVeigh had no backing whatsoever. Therefore he was not in the least bit
dangerous to civilization. He was just another common criminal. It is
ideological backing which makes Islamic terrorism something that we have
to take seriously.

Better to put our money in the war on drugs. We certainly aren't going to
be able to stop someone bent on immolating themselves (and taking as many
innocent people with him as he can).

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

How?? Terrorism is *global*. Your next-door-neighbor may well be a
terrorist and you wouldn't even know until one day he decided to blow
your block to "Kingdom Come".

You are confused and muddled on this. The enemy is very specific and can
be targeted like any enemy.

Heh... Yup... and a fat lot of good it's been "targeting" Usama Bin
Laden...

Quoted message said:

The enemy is Islamic extremism which is to be found almost exclusively in
the Middle East.

There are a whole lot of people with grudges against the US. What makes a
person an "extremist"?? Perhaps we should be looking at our own involvment
in the "process"...

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Wrong. The Quran teaches tolerance of others and respect for their
beliefs. A few "clerics" have decided otherwise. You should read it
sometime.

Islam has never been reformed.

Neither has "Christianity".

Quoted message said:

It is a religion of simple primitive people who have no sophistication
whatsoever.

So is Christianity. I find it amazing that you would think like this. My
mistake. I thought you were an itellectual. You're proving to be nothing
more than a crackpot.

Quoted message said:

You are just ignorant on the Muslim religion.

I've read the Quran. You obviously haven't. To condemn an entire faith
based on supposition and heresay puts you in the same league as [censored]'s
minions... Let's throw them all in concentration camps.

Quoted message said:

The only cure for it is to read history, not the g.d. Koran.

History is written by the victors.

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank God we have leaders in the US who know what is at stake and are
doing something about it.

What have "they" done, exactly?? Over-run a sovereign State because they
didn't like the "politics"?? There certainly were no WMD's anywhere.
The US foreign policy has been one of "hot and cold", "pro and con".
"Mixed messages" make for poor foreign policy.

To think that we could ever get a handle on Islamic terrorism without
taking out Sadaam's Iraq is just plain insane. You sir are a screwball.

Heh... Sure... and while we're over there, let's take out Iran, Turkey,
and Pakistan (the only Islamic nation *with* nuclear capability). Oh I
forgot. We haven't quit "finished" off Afganistan.

Quoted message said:

For years the US supported the Shah

Quoted message said:

of Iran and were one of the first to vilify him as a criminal when world
opinion turned against him. Imelda has a closet full of shoes purchased
with US dollars. What exactly was Vietnam about anyhow??

We should have supported the Shah against the clerics.

Uh-huh... And continued to sponsor State Terrorism... Or did you miss that
part in the history of Iran??

Quoted message said:

Iran would be a hundred times better off if we had.

The rich would have gotten richer and the rest would have...

Quoted message said:

The Shah was bent on reforming and Westernizing Iran.

Horse-twaddle. The Shah was the mirror of Saddam Hussein. Only he wasn't
elected.

Quoted message said:

The g.d. crazy clerics took Iran back to the Middle Ages.

There will always be people that interpret the Bible in a literal sense.
It's when these select few "in power" decide what's "good" and who's "bad"
that we genuinely have to fear. Our ancestors fought for our freedoms and
it's up to us to preserve them. I don't think Bush has done a very good job
at it. He's covered up and outright lied about the reason for invading
another sovereign State. Clinton was lousy as well. We need statesmen the
likes of Roosevelt, Pitt, Disraeli, Ghandi, and Churchill. These men had
integrity, honesty, and embraced new ideas. They also had vision, something
that's sadly lacking in the White House.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just sitting around and wringing your hands, the Clinton-Kerry liberal
modus operandi, is not going to solve anything.

Quoted message said:

And declaring "war" on "ghosts" and "phantoms" will accomplish what??

We need to hunt down and kill these Islamic terrorists in the interests of
US security and in the interests of Western civilization.

Go for it. Make sure the person you're about to kill *is* a Terrorist
before you pull the trigger though...

Quoted message said:

Why the hell don't you go to Iran and try to live there if you think it is
in any way superior to Western civilization.

Where did I say that?? Of all the "Muslim" nations, why on earth would I
pick Iran to live in?? Bahrain is much nicer. So is Turkey.

Quoted message said:

I am fed up with g.d. liberals who will not defend this country and who
will not defend Western civilization against the barbarians.

Newsflash... There are "barbarians" among us.

Quoted message said:

Screw you all the way to hell and back, you treasonous [censored], a traitor
not only to America but a traitor to Christendom and to Western
Civilization (one and the same).

You know absolutely nothing about me. Sorry if I don't "toe the party
line". I had no idea expressing an opinion that was the least contrary to
your own would condemn me as a "traitor". Christ taught us to "love" each
other and I seem to recall there's a Comandment about "not killing one
another" too... Seems to me your "version" of Christianity is a bit
"skewed" there buddy.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:05:48 GMT, "Frank Olson"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<MV1hd.72153$%k.71336@pd7tw2no>:

Quoted message said:

We need statesmen the
likes of Roosevelt, Pitt, Disraeli, Ghandi, and Churchill.

Really? Churchill was all for gassing the Kurds, you know. I don't
think any of those named were whiter than white, even Ghandi.

Actually what we probably need is a system where the president could
come from a background other than rich white guys deeply in hock to
big business.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Frank Olson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MV1hd.72153$%k.71336@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This War on Terrorism is something new under the sun. I think it is going
to be a very prolonged kind of warfare. It will be a protracted conflict.
Eventually it will have to be won on the ideological level. Islam as it
exists presently in the world can not be allowed to continue.

And you call me a "screwball"...

Quoted message said:

It must be reformed.

Heh... Islam doesn't need reforming. They have their "Jim Jones" and
"David Koresh's" too.

The whole g.d. religion is composed of nothing but radical extremists who
think anyone who is not a Muslim ought to be killed. Let us hope they kill
off liberals like you first as you are a worthless piece of [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What makes the situation so untenable is the possibility that these
Muslim terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons. Otherwise it
would not amount to a hill of beans.

I don't think we have anything to fear on that score. After all we're
going to partner with Canada for the North American Missile Defense
System...

They could possibly smuggle into this country a nuclear weapon in a
suitcase. What the hell damn good is a missile defense system against that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The danger the Terrorists represent is that they could get their hands
> on nuclear weapons any number of ways which would create a whole new
> ball game for the West and civilization in general.

I agree. The problem with global terrorism is that it's just that.
Global. Timothy McVeigh was a US Citizen and a terrorist. As far as I
know he wasn't a "Muslim".

McVeigh had no backing whatsoever. Therefore he was not in the least bit
dangerous to civilization. He was just another common criminal. It is
ideological backing which makes Islamic terrorism something that we have
to take seriously.

Better to put our money in the war on drugs. We certainly aren't going to
be able to stop someone bent on immolating themselves (and taking as many
innocent people with him as he can).

You sure as hell aren't going stop anyone from doing anything. Why the hell
don't you lay down and die and get it over with. [censored] all liberals like you
all the way to hell and back.
[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How?? Terrorism is *global*. Your next-door-neighbor may well be a
terrorist and you wouldn't even know until one day he decided to blow
your block to "Kingdom Come".

You are confused and muddled on this. The enemy is very specific and can
be targeted like any enemy.

Heh... Yup... and a fat lot of good it's been "targeting" Usama Bin
Laden...

Why don't you go [censored] yourself Frank. Or better yet, bend over and let Usama
[censored] you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The enemy is Islamic extremism which is to be found almost exclusively in
the Middle East.

There are a whole lot of people with grudges against the US. What makes a
person an "extremist"?? Perhaps we should be looking at our own
involvment in the "process"...

9/11 - you stupid jackass! Ever hear of it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Wrong. The Quran teaches tolerance of others and respect for their
beliefs. A few "clerics" have decided otherwise. You should read it
sometime.

Islam has never been reformed.

Neither has "Christianity".

What the [censored] do you think the Reformation was all about, you g.d. stupid
jackass!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a religion of simple primitive people who have no sophistication
whatsoever.

So is Christianity. I find it amazing that you would think like this.
My mistake. I thought you were an itellectual. You're proving to be
nothing more than a crackpot.

Christianity is a universal religion that has undergone repeated
reformations and is highly sophisticated. To compare Christianity to Islam
marks you for the extreme ignoramus that you are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are just ignorant on the Muslim religion.

I've read the Quran. You obviously haven't. To condemn an entire faith
based on supposition and heresay puts you in the same league as [censored]'s
minions... Let's throw them all in concentration camps.

I have already told you to screw the g.d. Koran. Read the history of the
Muslim conquest instead you stupid jackass!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only cure for it is to read history, not the g.d. Koran.

History is written by the victors.

Better to be a victor than a loser like you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

> Thank God we have leaders in the US who know what is at stake and are
> doing something about it.

What have "they" done, exactly?? Over-run a sovereign State because
they didn't like the "politics"?? There certainly were no WMD's
anywhere. The US foreign policy has been one of "hot and cold", "pro and
con". "Mixed messages" make for poor foreign policy.

To think that we could ever get a handle on Islamic terrorism without
taking out Sadaam's Iraq is just plain insane. You sir are a screwball.

Heh... Sure... and while we're over there, let's take out Iran, Turkey,
and Pakistan (the only Islamic nation *with* nuclear capability). Oh I
forgot. We haven't quit "finished" off Afganistan.

Why don't you lie down and let others [censored] over you like the scum that you
are. You are nothing but a g.d. pacifist who would not even defend your own
[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For years the US supported the Shah

Quoted message said:

of Iran and were one of the first to vilify him as a criminal when world
opinion turned against him. Imelda has a closet full of shoes purchased
with US dollars. What exactly was Vietnam about anyhow??

We should have supported the Shah against the clerics.

Uh-huh... And continued to sponsor State Terrorism... Or did you miss
that part in the history of Iran??

Quoted message said:

Iran would be a hundred times better off if we had.

The rich would have gotten richer and the rest would have...

Quoted message said:

The Shah was bent on reforming and Westernizing Iran.

Horse-twaddle. The Shah was the mirror of Saddam Hussein. Only he wasn't
elected.

The Shah was in no way anything at all like Sadaam. You are the God
Damnedest dumbest son of a [censored] who ever lived.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The g.d. crazy clerics took Iran back to the Middle Ages.

There will always be people that interpret the Bible in a literal sense.
It's when these select few "in power" decide what's "good" and who's "bad"
that we genuinely have to fear. Our ancestors fought for our freedoms and
it's up to us to preserve them. I don't think Bush has done a very good
job at it. He's covered up and outright lied about the reason for
invading another sovereign State. Clinton was lousy as well. We need
statesmen the likes of Roosevelt, Pitt, Disraeli, Ghandi, and Churchill.
These men had integrity, honesty, and embraced new ideas. They also had
vision, something that's sadly lacking in the White House.

Your thinking on the Bible is as juvenile as your thinking on everything
else. Bush showed enormous courage to take on the Muslim terrorists like he
did, including Iraq. Why the hell didn't you like Clinton? He did nothing
about everything (except for [censored] interns) and that is what you would do
too. Clinton was your man and so is Kerry. Vote for that stupid son of a
[censored] and you will get exactly what you deserve. Defeat and humiliation. Is
that what you want for America? That is what the g.d. French want and most
of the rest of the g.d. Europeans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Just sitting around and wringing your hands, the Clinton-Kerry liberal
> modus operandi, is not going to solve anything.

Quoted message said:

And declaring "war" on "ghosts" and "phantoms" will accomplish what??

We need to hunt down and kill these Islamic terrorists in the interests
of US security and in the interests of Western civilization.

Go for it. Make sure the person you're about to kill *is* a Terrorist
before you pull the trigger though...

Maybe first we got to kill treasonous [censored] like you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why the hell don't you go to Iran and try to live there if you think it
is in any way superior to Western civilization.

Where did I say that?? Of all the "Muslim" nations, why on earth would I
pick Iran to live in?? Bahrain is much nicer. So is Turkey.

Bahrain is living on Western oil money. God Damn it! Go to Iran you stupid
son of [censored] and see how you like it there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am fed up with g.d. liberals who will not defend this country and who
will not defend Western civilization against the barbarians.

Newsflash... There are "barbarians" among us.

Newsflash - get a brain why don't you? You are the most stupid [censored] ever
to post to ARBR.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Screw you all the way to hell and back, you treasonous [censored], a traitor
not only to America but a traitor to Christendom and to Western
Civilization (one and the same).

You know absolutely nothing about me. Sorry if I don't "toe the party
line". I had no idea expressing an opinion that was the least contrary to
your own would condemn me as a "traitor". Christ taught us to "love" each
other and I seem to recall there's a Comandment about "not killing one
another" too... Seems to me your "version" of Christianity is a bit
"skewed" there buddy.

You are not a Christian at all. You are a treasonous [censored] who deserves to
be taken out and shot. Get thee to Iran where those Muslims will know how to
[censored] you over. When they cut off your head, I will rejoice. You are worse
than the Muslim scum because you will not defend America and the West. Go
join the [censored] Muslim East why don't you?

--
[censored] Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Frank Olson said:

...
Heh... Yup... and a fat lot of good it's been "targeting" Usama Bin
Laden...

Speaking of Usama bin Laden, did you see the entire text of his latest
speech? It said, "America will be at the risk of attack as long as
Edward Dolan of Worthington, Minnesota continues to express his hatred
of Islam, Muslims, and Palestinians while praising the murderous actions
of Bush and Sharon.” 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:05:48 GMT, "Frank Olson"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<MV1hd.72153$%k.71336@pd7tw2no>:

Quoted message said:

We need statesmen the
likes of Roosevelt, Pitt, Disraeli, Ghandi, and Churchill.

Really? Churchill was all for gassing the Kurds, you know. I don't
think any of those named were whiter than white, even Ghandi.

I believe Ghandi was a Hindu of Indian parents. How was Ghandi white?

Quoted message said:

Actually what we probably need is a system where the president could
come from a background other than rich white guys deeply in hock to
big business.

Is Wal-Mart big business? If so, I highly approve of it. I can go to
Wal-Mart and get things cheaper there than I ever could from the local
merchants who I believe were all small businesses. Big business - good;
small business - bad.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Mr. Ed (Dolan) said:

...g.d...[censored]...hell damn...hell...[censored]...hell...[censored]...[censored]...jackass...[censored]...g.d...
jackass...screw...g.d....jackass...[censored]...scum...g.d...[censored]....God
Damnedest dumbest son of a [censored]...hell...[censored]...son of a [censored]...g.d...g.d....
[censored]...[censored]...[censored]...[censored]...scum...[censored]....

Somebody must be suffering from irritable bowels again.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant