Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
-- James A. Donald:
And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam.
Jamie Lawrence:
I don't care if he got a shave. I do care that the US fails to adhere to international law.
The US army would be wholly in compliance with international law even if it nailed Saddam's head to a post in central Baghdad with a nine inch nail. Saddam is not entitled to POW protections. He was running the war effort out of uniform and hidden amongst civilians, which has always been a shoot-on-the-spot violation of the rules of war, and his war effort consisted largely of terrorist attacks directed at civilians, which regrettably has not been a shoot-on-the-spot violation, but arguably should be.
I fail to understand why our "war" on "terrorism", which is apparently the mode that drives most of this sort of feeling, suddenly required knocking over a crippled tyrant.
The title of this thread is 'I am anti war. You lot support Saddam" I don't defend the war on Iraq. Why are you supporting Saddam? James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lSPP/JI5XquWeDE9Luo/hkP7TgMrx6R7x088utoG 4elBeRSFzJwkpZXIuL3j9uEkywuFYbl8gvR7GYjfN
On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers?
Straw man. You keep bringing up the World Trade Center attack as if Saddam ordered it, or was involved in some central way. No credible evidence has been presented...not even the usually-unreliable sources...that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Whether some Iraqis celebrated or not is beside the point...if that were the criterion for launching a war, we'd be at war with Syria, Egypt, France, China, and Malaysia, to name a few.) Going after the actual planners, financiers, and attackers involved in the 9/11 attacks is of course justified. "Liberating" Afghanistan and letting women in Kabul bare their legs and all was not justified (oh, and the women in Kabul are back to wearing scarves). Inasmuch as Iraq and the Baath regime was never linked in any credible or substantive way, beyond the merest of "maybe they met with Bin Laden's guys" rumors, and inasmuch as a 9/11 link was never even alleged by warmongers like Cheney and Perle and Rumsfield, the claim that Iraq was attacked because of the World Trade Center attack is ludicrous. You really are, down deep, a statist. You may have changed your stripes from supporting the Marxist variant of statism, but what you now support remains statism to the core. --Tim May
-- James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers?
Tim May:
Straw man. You keep bringing up the World Trade Center attack as if Saddam ordered it
Not a straw man. Those who think poor little Saddam was a victim, for the most part also think that the US 'created" the afghan resistance, and, particularly if they were European, think the that Americans had 9/11 coming to them. Saddam was not behind the 9/11 attack, but he was and is allied with those that were, and, the point of my argument, western socialists allied with him and them. Bin Laden, in obviously violation of the Koran which mandates capitalism, has taken socialism on board, Saddam, originally a secularist, has taken Sunni Islamicism on board, bridging what small ideological gap there was between him and Bin Laden, and western socialists are alarmingly willing to overlook the arabism and islamicism of the few remaining socialists in power. During the invasion of Iraq, most of the arab news feeds, or at least their corresponding english language websites, were reasonably fair and balanced, while the BBC went over the top with Saddamite propaganda. When I read the Al Jazeera web site, most of the entirely over the top propaganda came from western correspondents. Al Jazeera's own correspondants were for the most part OK. The western intellectuals are not reacting to this as a war of caucasians vs semites, but a war of ideologies -- German originated ideology vs English originated ideologies, with Saddam and Bin Laden incarnating Heidegger and Bush incarnating Locke. Very likely Saddam had nothing to do with causing 9/11, but Chomsky and the BBC did have something to do with causing 9/11. When one sees someone arguing that Americans had 9/11 coming, he frequently starts quoting improbable "facts" that originate from Chomsky, and backs them up with one of the nuttier BBC correspondents. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG G+7kcEq4buQwoHeoHjVTqtFSzhPgHya8+qSEMCmf 4DCEXYnOji1pOndYuB0c/QAbhZbtw9okutswHAyjN
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
-- James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring. As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org "If it was so, it might be; and it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." - Lewis Carrol
On Dec 23, 2003, at 3:07 PM, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring.
Chomsky lies. You repeat the sentiments of Chomsky and thus you are support Chomsky and are thus a liar and a supporter of the KGB High Command and a lap dog of the running dogs of the Kremlin.
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
You obviously endorse the views of George McGovern and other pinko(e)s who wish to pervert our precious bodily fluids.
As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god.
Chomsky lies. and you are obviously a sock puppet for the Trilateralist Bilderbergers. --Tim May, who has noticed for a long time that the cadence and even the phrasing that James Donald uses is remarkably like the cadence of those who used to talk about "the running dogs of capitalism." But he uses replacement phrases like "sock puppets of the KGB" instead. Which I guess shows that his indoctrination ran deep, though he is now ostensibly infiltrating the libertarian fringe.
At 04:40 PM 12/23/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Chomsky lies. and you are obviously a sock puppet for the Trilateralist Bilderbergers.
It's amazing how many people are building burgers these days instead of doing technical work, now that sockpuppets.com crashed. Usually they're round, and Wendy's makes square ones, but I haven't seen the trilateralist flavor before...
-- James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements.
You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized Saddam" And you still have not told us your take on the fall of the two towers --perhaps like Chomsky you are going to tell us that it was a great crime -- which Americans should be terribly ashamed for forcing Bin Laden to commit? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lQDrOCwfKGWJIHLGNcUoPPdowUAnjCfOC3NLJQyO 4kh4ZBgRszPBjikt7Hmhjyzo4flxrIcSKRcm10cux
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements.
You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized Saddam"
I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. Please reference when I said anything about a "poor little vicimized Saddam", "Terrible mistreatment", or anything even similar. Fact is, you are full of shit. You are not only full of shit, but you are also attempting to further your statist goals by attacking people who might say that you are full of shit. No matter what I say, you will hear what you will hear. Which reaffirms my general conclusion, which is you're not interesting.
And you still have not told us your take on the fall of the two towers -perhaps like Chomsky you are going to tell us that it was a great crime -- which Americans should be terribly ashamed for forcing Bin Laden to commit?
Simple: the people who want to do things like knock over buildings, should die. That taxpayer funded operations should kill them is silly, for both the base reason and the effect. Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that you didn't want to respond to:
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god.
Are you going to babble, or respond? Read out loud as: "James Donald has failed to respond". Or perhaps, "James Donald only reponds when he can score a point." Really, if you want to talk, then talk. Terrorism is stopped at home. (Synonyms abound. Freedom fighters have killed lots of counter-ensurgents.) If you would like to do anything more than promote war profits, then at least be a patriot. At least patriots were statists that were interesting. James: Give up before you really squander your goodwill. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org
-- James A. Donald
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Jamie Lawrence:
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements.
James A. Donald
You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized Saddam"
Jamie Lawrence
I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID 20031221161851.GE32589@clueinc.net You said: : : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law." implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law. You also said; : : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying. As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam.
Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that you didn't want to respond to:
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
Liar: I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action. There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ
At 08:14 PM 12/23/2003 -0800, CIA-apologist "James A. Donald"
-- James A. Donald
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Jamie Lawrence:
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements.
James A. Donald
You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like "poor little victimized Saddam"
Jamie Lawrence
I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID 20031221161851.GE32589@clueinc.net You said: : : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law." implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law.
You also said; : : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair.
These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying.
As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam.
Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that you didn't want to respond to:
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
Liar:
I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action.
"Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish." -James A. Donald, post on this thread, 12/20/2003 "...raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish." Down the memory hole we go folks. James is almost as much in denial about his lying as GWB. Confront him as you will, let the facts not be obstacles. Genocidal monsters unleashed, with the blessing of James, as we will not consider the consequences, because "we can do no wrong". Oh yeah.
There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that.
Funny, then, and quite logically inconsistent, that this thread is titled "I am antiwar...". I have not seen anything evidencing "antiwar: mentality from you, as you just justify it as all well, fine and dandy. Oh yeah, if WE kill 10,00o Iraqis, that's worth just 1 measly disheveled Saddam. You've got some funny math goin', boy. That's not even counting the Billions$$ of US $DEBT we cannot afford now.
Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse?
Who gives a flying F*CK about Dean, about Commies, about Capitalists, et al. Despite repeated and voluminous, historically verifiable and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even acknowledge there is ANY base grievance against US foreign policy, which has led to the current state of affairs (so-called "war on terror", blah blah blah). In your rather logically and cerebrally challenged world view, everything else is nothing but a "sock-puppet KGB conspiracy" against the US/CIA (which is giving the KGB considerably more credit I'm sure, then they deserve, if they were half as inept and incompetent as the CIA during the so-called "cold war period construct"). You see, all I care about is: I am not going to pay the bill for this inane shit (insane policy), and I would not give my life for it. I would not ALLOW any youth under my discretion to be seduced by these lies to lay down their life for this SHIT. This is not freedom ,or liberty, or liberation. You, James A Donald, are an armchair pussy Neo-con, who advocates others putting their lives and resources on the line for this utter CRAP and HYPOCRISY, and yet would not do so yourself (you are probably physically UNFIT for such military duty yourself). Intellectual, moral, and physical WIMPS as yourself are unfit to ask, much less demand others suffer the sacrifice to satisfy your self delusions and self-aggrandizement. People just like YOU DESERVE to die in RETALIATORY strikes to such MAD foreign policy. My only regret is that such attacks will not specifically target hard headed morons like you. And I for sure, would not weap a tear, because scum like you DESERVE such an end, in fact, DEMAND it it. That's not just an ad hominem, mind you. You don't respond to reason, you LIE and OBFUSCATE. You deserve your just fruits. Unfortunately, the actions and policies you advocate will inevitably and inexorably lead to the deaths of many innocents who do not share your limited views. But it will also end the tyranny of the ignorant, and the point is, if that is the case, then so be it. Systems seek equilibrium. Justice will be served, wisdom will prevail. That "it all" will have a higher cost than need be, is due to the ignorant likes of you. And don't think anyone will cry when the likes of you are gone, any more than Saddam, any more than the scum who hung at Nuremburg. Because you are really no different, exercising your tyranny behind the masses, than anything he ever did. What you advocate, is murder, coercion, torture (in the name of the almighty state). And people like you, deserve just the same as Saddam, because, at /ROOT, YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT. Screaming for "cruise missile strikes" from a 1,000 miles away, even whilst other unfortunate suckers are designated to push buttons you wouldn't even have the balls to push yourself. What a man! Oh yeah! What a MAN! -Max And I don't usually get quite this MAD, but such ignorance, such blindness, is the reason we are in this mess. I'd hang you myself, if but given the rope and the chance. If it could save ANOTHER 3,000 innocent lives, it'd be well worth it!
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mOt6pyE37ffUkwFENPIfhLpsNbx8+c/AFA3bkXDp 471tnWs02/4wMvR80m7OjAktOd7+2SdPyl966jWqZ
------------------------------------------------ A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington ------------------------------------------------- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate Extropian Principles... the Future, Now http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm ---
-- Jamie Lawrence
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
James A. Donald
Liar:
I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action.
baudmax23@earthlink.net Quoting me:
"...raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish."
That was the "raghead fanatic way of life should perish." Not "raghead fanatics should perish" baudmax23@earthlink.net
Funny, then, and quite logically inconsistent, that this thread is titled "I am antiwar...". I have not seen anything evidencing "antiwar: mentality from you,
I am anti war: You are pro war. Just that you are backing the side in the war that wants to kill me. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG T2Kb+BTaFEQldqTXeeVzZG8CQ4FuhYyYO8eAUhpP 4BrvcpxPzarsaCgfIQX7MXC8F/2QBKqKTjpJuL5Ia
At 12:20 AM 12/24/2003 -0800, "James A. Donald"
-- Jamie Lawrence
As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the "ragheads" (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse.
James A. Donald
Liar:
I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action.
baudmax23@earthlink.net Quoting me:
"...raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish."
That was the "raghead fanatic way of life should perish." Not "raghead fanatics should perish"
Oh some distinction.... and what if they do not lay down in the dust and relinquish their "way of life" as you demand, then you will have no choice but to make them perish? The James A. Donald definition of "freedom": relinquish your way of life, or else....?
baudmax23@earthlink.net
Funny, then, and quite logically inconsistent, that this thread is titled "I am antiwar...". I have not seen anything evidencing "antiwar: mentality from you,
I am anti war: You are pro war. Just that you are backing the side in the war that wants to kill me.
If it was up to me, we wouldn't be in this war, we'd have spent it on alternative energy instead. I think with $150+ Billion we'd have made progress on that front, thereby negating any "need" we have for Mideast oil. The mentality of people like you endangers us ALL, both here in "the homeland" as well as innocents abroad. That is the real message here which you have refused to hear, instead advocating continuation of the policies which have led us here. Policies based on well established and documented history of which you are both ignorant and in denial of. I hope you feel safer this Christmas, with your Code Orange. Oh yeah, but how can that be, I mean, aren't we safer now that that evil dictator Saddam has been captured?! hah hah hah sure we are. And all along we should have been focusing on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda who are the real threats. Oh well, what's $150B worth of military and intelligence resources... -Max
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG T2Kb+BTaFEQldqTXeeVzZG8CQ4FuhYyYO8eAUhpP 4BrvcpxPzarsaCgfIQX7MXC8F/2QBKqKTjpJuL5Ia
------------------------------------------------ A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington ------------------------------------------------- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate Extropian Principles... the Future, Now http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm ---
-- James A. Donald
That was the "raghead fanatic way of life should perish." Not "raghead fanatics should perish"
baudmax23@earthlink.net
Oh some distinction...
The difference between killing people and setting them free doubtless seems trivial to the fans of slavery and terror.
. and what if they do not lay down in the dust?
More likely they will dance in the streets. Observe what happened in Afghanistan. James A. Donald
I am anti war: You are pro war. Just that you are backing the side in the war that wants to kill me.
baudmax23@earthlink.net
If it was up to me, we wouldn't be in this war,
Probably we would not be in the Iraq war, but the fans of tyranny, yourself among them, would still be seeking to enslave us, which leads to events such as 9/11 It really is that they hate us for our (relative) freedom. I can see that on this list with all the big salt tears wept for poor little victimized Saddam, and the outraged indignation that various third worlders have been cruelly deprived of the wonderful socialism so generously bestowed upon them by various bloodstained, but nonetheless benevolent and popular, dictators. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG GE4Hj5Erjex0vf6z5ksoK284TV55SBe4e0zBbBpC 4yDNRBFArA+1mx7N/jkII87cHZCBxECiA6ZqOeec/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
It really is that they hate us for our (relative) freedom.
Believe it or not, but most people do not care about what way you live. The only way they know about your "freedom" by watching american TV. So blame it on yourself.
I can see that on this list with all the big salt tears wept for poor little victimized Saddam, and the outraged indignation that various third worlders have been cruelly deprived of the wonderful socialism so generously bestowed upon them by various bloodstained, but nonetheless benevolent and popular, dictators.
Sponsored either by the US or the ones you love to hate: USSR (who has perished over 10 years ago). M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+nMHGlCnxcrW2uuEQLpdgCgmrPkAHDpDioke2TetvDQ2o1HNVQAnRWQ AKAreSANbksHclFiPIGDk0mF =k07r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID 20031221161851.GE32589@clueinc.net You said: : : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law." implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law.
You also said; : : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair.
These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying.
As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam.
James, you are simply full of shit. I don't believe you're incapable of seeing the difference between calling Saddam a crippled tyrant and "support[ing] Saddam". I do believe you're willfully attempting to twist other people's words, and not even doing a good job of it. "A equals A" reasoning is for high school. If you look at the words I typed, instead of your fantasy-land model of reality, you might notice that you're making a fool of yourself.
I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action.
I have no idea what you've said in other forums. I merely pointed out what you have said here.
There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that.
There is ample evidence that you fail to argue about what people have _actually said_, impute motive and behaviour where there is none, and point to a grand Ellsworth Toohey-ish conspiracy that needs to be fought, improbably enough, by a nation-state.
Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse?
As I said, you're being boring. I suppose someone had to step up to the task of being the resident Choate. I have some cooking to do. Happy holidays, all! -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org A priest, a bear, and a programmer walked into a bar. And the bartender said, "What is this, a joke?"
-- James A. Donald:
You said: : : "I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law." implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law.
You also said; : : "knocking over a crippled tyrant." implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair.
These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying.
Jamie Lawrence
James, you are simply full of shit. I don't believe you're incapable of seeing the difference between calling Saddam a crippled tyrant and "support[ing] Saddam". I do believe you're willfully attempting to twist other people's words
You were already in a frenzy of rage before I accused you of weeping big salt tears for poor little victimized Saddam. My position on the Vietnam and Iraq wars is the same as that as the mainstream left of the Democratic party (or at least the same as the position they will be holding once the primaries are over), yet you reacted as if I had called for everyone like you to be gassed. The position you purport to hold is almost indistinguishable from my own and that of the Democrat party mainstream -- but that is not the position implied by your arguments, nor does it correspond to the emotions you express. Sometimes the position nominally taken by leading Democrats fail to correspond to the arguments and emotions they express also -- Dean has caught some flack for that -- but the discrepancy in your case has is far more visible than that of Dean, You will not catch Dean weeping big salt tears for Saddam, nor see him deeply shocked by the prospect that Saddam will be tried by his victims. and Dean has a legitimate excuse for his comparativelyt mild hypocrisy -- he is upset about the the impact of the coming execution of Saddam on his election campaign, not about the impact on the prospects for a world of slavery and fear. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kTerUTT9UTTp482foMMnkDUC/YqrMZtRcywtamEc 45Wu1KrbIBAMYIiC58VZi7gmTa4oJ9gneUTWvxK5e
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
When one sees someone arguing that Americans had 9/11 coming, he frequently starts quoting improbable "facts" that originate from Chomsky, and backs them up with one of the nuttier BBC correspondents.
Fuck Chomsky. We had it coming. Years ago. One cause above *all* others (although there are dozens): Israel. We have, through our total support of the israeli mass murder state, earned the retribution of civilized peoples. We lost 3k on 9/11. So what. How many have we killed through the goddamned israelis? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
-- J.A. Terranson
We had [9/11] coming. Years ago. One cause above *all* others (although there are dozens):
Israel.
We have, through our total support of the israeli mass murder state, earned the retribution of civilized peoples.
We lost 3k on 9/11. So what. How many have we killed through the goddamned israelis?
Considerably less than three thousand. And "we" did not kill them. The Israelis did. There are lots of states worse than Israel -- Iraq for one. In particular, the people in the two towers did not kill them. If Palestinians had bombed the white house or congress, that might well have been just. But Bin Laden's boys were children of wealth, power, and privilege. Even if they had been bombing Washington, they did not have just cause. And they were not bombing Washington, they were bombing the two towers. The 9/11 terrrorists were not Palestinians. They were not avenging Israeli dispossession of Palestinians, and had they been, they would have been hitting the wrong target. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IiyqcQhV2KJ4R1K+kGbr2aCFhK9VbUPrMe2F3cLJ 4d1RfbOAFufdjBnTDpLRiSNeujK8Q9celdJUVt1HA
participants (7)
-
baudmax23＠earthlink.net -
Bill Stewart -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Jamie Lawrence -
Michael Kalus -
Tim May