sad news, indeed

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"Alaskan420" wrote in message
news:mIIng.1044$Bb.569@trndny01...

P.S. Wayne, personnal attacks don't validate your political view. Show
me
facts. I am a logical person. My opinions can change.


If you think that was a personal attack, you need to do some re-reading
and
read other posts. Saying you don't have the weapons is not implying you're
stupid, it's saying it's not an area where, in my not so humble opinion,
you
aren't on the same playing field.

As an aside and to illustrate the point, I dabble in carpentry and
woodworking. I also own a boat, a specialized fishing boat used only a few
geologically distinct streams in Michigan. The boat needs re-work, which I
could do myself, if I wanted to bring it to Indianapolis but I don't
really
have the garage space nor the time so I hired it out via a friend to a
gentleman. When discussing this person it was hired out to, a third party
made some comment about this guy's intellectual ability. I met the guy on
Saturday, toured his shop, and generally shot the crap. He doesn't fly
fish
which was the cause of the comment, but he is an amazing carpenter, makes
amazing boats and does work that if he was a painter, could be on a par
with
a Monet. I could sand and re-epoxy the boat, he's going to make it look
like
new and finish it so I won't be doing it again in five year. So what if he
never studied the art of debate? His debating skills came from yanking
wounded soldiers out of Vietnamese rice paddies, a long recuperation from
wounds, and a love for working with wood. He's as smart or smarter than
the
next guy, just in a different area.

Facts, such as they are, can be hard to come by, much less validate but as
someone else so neatly put it, some of what appears to me to be your
*opinion* were stated as facts. There are a whole bunch of formally (and
unformally) educated people here. I learned a long time ago, posting the
wrong thing as a fact will very quickly blow up in your face.

If in your opinion, you think the undeclared *war* in Iraq is worth it in
the battle *against terrorism*, then so be it. It wasn't a killing field
before hand, it was a dictatorship and given the issues trying to get the
disparate parties to agree, then maybe one can see why it was *governed*
that way. We didn't need to use up 2,500+ US servicemen's lives and
countless others wounded and maimed to join the fray. That's my opinion
anyway. Regardless it has occurred, lets clean the mess up and do what we
can to lessen future casualties and get back to the issue at hand. We
didn't
do the right thing in Vietnam by our dead, hopefully somehow, someway,
this
current administration can find their way out of this thing without
repeating the legacy.



Where did you read me claim or imply that the war in Iraq was worth it? In
fact, just the opposite is true. I believe that by our focusing on Iraq we
are seriously wasting resources and limited political clout which could be
used much more effectively in the "war on terrorism".

I agree that the moment we found the truth behind the lie in Iraq concerning
our reason for being there we should have withdrawn. But we didn't. As for
the war being all about oil....James A. Paul, executive director of the
Global Policy Forum makes a compelling case for oil being a major factor but
even he cautions that it is a serious oversimplification to think that was
the only motivation.

But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, (THIS IS NOT MY OPINION),
why would going to war for a resource so vital to our society and our daily
lives be so wrong. Historically much larger wars have been fought for lesser
reasons. Yes, we should be doing more to reduce our oil dependence but
that's not part of this discussion.

Also, I would certainly consider the slaughter of up to 180,000 Kurds a
"killing field". But again, nowhere in my posts did you read me using the
fact that Iraq had serious internal troubles as a justification for the loss
of a single American life. I made that statement to refute rw's contention
that we created the killing field in Iraq.

What I am asserting is that Islamic terrorism has been around a very long
time. That it has nothing to do with GWB or whoever may be president and in
reality has very little to do with America. Islamic terrorism is based on an
ideology that cannot tolerate any who do not believe as they do. Fundamental
Islamic leaders have stated, (well documented), that their goal is the death
of all infidels. It is their jihad. Simple and succinct. How do you
negotiate a meaningful peace with a position that only demands your death?
Do we divide the island? "A" team over there, "B" team over here?

To claim, as many of the posters here do, that we are the cause of all of
this and have brought it on ourselves is extremely short sighted and
dangerous. At some point a real discussion must take place without the
America bashing that liberals seem so fond of. Conservatives aren't right
either. If a people want to be free they should step up to the plate and
demand their own freedom. We have no right or mandate to democratize the
globe. On some levels that is as preposterous as the Islamic goal, (without
the infidels must die part).



--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

Alaskan420 wrote:

What I am asserting is that Islamic terrorism ......

..... Islamic terrorism is based on .....

....On some levels that is as preposterous as the Islamic goal....

Truly breathtaking ignorance.

--
John Russell aka JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Alaskan420 wrote:

What I am asserting is that Islamic terrorism ......

..... Islamic terrorism is based on .....

....On some levels that is as preposterous as the Islamic goal....

Truly breathtaking ignorance.

--
John Russell aka JR

If you think so you are more of a fool than I gave you credit for....


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

Alaskan420 wrote:


Where did you read me claim or imply that the war in Iraq was worth it? In
fact, just the opposite is true. I believe that by our focusing on Iraq we
are seriously wasting resources and limited political clout which could be
used much more effectively in the "war on terrorism".

I agree that the moment we found the truth behind the lie in Iraq concerning
our reason for being there we should have withdrawn. But we didn't. As for
the war being all about oil....James A. Paul, executive director of the
Global Policy Forum makes a compelling case for oil being a major factor but
even he cautions that it is a serious oversimplification to think that was
the only motivation.

But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, (THIS IS NOT MY OPINION),
why would going to war for a resource so vital to our society and our daily
lives be so wrong. Historically much larger wars have been fought for lesser
reasons. Yes, we should be doing more to reduce our oil dependence but
that's not part of this discussion.

Also, I would certainly consider the slaughter of up to 180,000 Kurds a
"killing field". But again, nowhere in my posts did you read me using the
fact that Iraq had serious internal troubles as a justification for the loss
of a single American life. I made that statement to refute rw's contention
that we created the killing field in Iraq.

What I am asserting is that Islamic terrorism has been around a very long
time. That it has nothing to do with GWB or whoever may be president and in
reality has very little to do with America. Islamic terrorism is based on an
ideology that cannot tolerate any who do not believe as they do. Fundamental
Islamic leaders have stated, (well documented), that their goal is the death
of all infidels. It is their jihad. Simple and succinct. How do you
negotiate a meaningful peace with a position that only demands your death?
Do we divide the island? "A" team over there, "B" team over here?

To claim, as many of the posters here do, that we are the cause of all of
this and have brought it on ourselves is extremely short sighted and
dangerous. At some point a real discussion must take place without the
America bashing that liberals seem so fond of. Conservatives aren't right
either. If a people want to be free they should step up to the plate and
demand their own freedom. We have no right or mandate to democratize the
globe. On some levels that is as preposterous as the Islamic goal, (without
the infidels must die part).

Soap boxes don't really make you taller, you know......they just make
you think you look that way.

Wolfgang
the boy honestly appears to believe he can pull it off.

Alaskan420 wrote:

Do you just find it convenient to forget the USS Cole, (Clinton)? The
embassy bombings in Mogadishu, (Clinton)? Or any of the other 138,643
Islamic terrorist attacks recorded since 1967?

It would help your case if you didn't "remember" bombings that didn't
happen or cite figures with no basis in fact.

- JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Alaskan420 wrote:

Do you just find it convenient to forget the USS Cole, (Clinton)? The
embassy bombings in Mogadishu, (Clinton)? Or any of the other 138,643
Islamic terrorist attacks recorded since 1967?

It would help your case if you didn't "remember" bombings that didn't
happen or cite figures with no basis in fact.

- JR

ARE YOU INSANE? Anyone else here want to back this guy up and claim that
the USS Cole or the embassy bombings in Mogadishu did not occur?

If you folks want to have a reasonable discussion fine. But this type of
claim just goes too far.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:46:36 GMT, "Alaskan420"
wrote:


"JR" wrote in message
...
Alaskan420 wrote:

Do you just find it convenient to forget the USS Cole, (Clinton)? The
embassy bombings in Mogadishu, (Clinton)? Or any of the other 138,643
Islamic terrorist attacks recorded since 1967?

It would help your case if you didn't "remember" bombings that didn't
happen or cite figures with no basis in fact.

- JR

ARE YOU INSANE? Anyone else here want to back this guy up and claim that
the USS Cole or the embassy bombings in Mogadishu did not occur?

Sure, what the hell...there has not been a US embassy in Somalia,
Mogadishu or elsewhere, since 1990 or 1991.

If you folks want to have a reasonable discussion fine. But this type of
claim just goes too far.

Um, OK.

Alaskan420 wrote:
ARE YOU INSANE? Anyone else here want to back this guy up and claim that
the USS Cole or the embassy bombings in Mogadishu did not occur?

If you folks want to have a reasonable discussion fine. But this type of
claim just goes too far.

Tell me all about the embassy bombing in Mogadishu, Ric.

- JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Alaskan420 wrote:
ARE YOU INSANE? Anyone else here want to back this guy up and claim
that
the USS Cole or the embassy bombings in Mogadishu did not occur?

If you folks want to have a reasonable discussion fine. But this type of
claim just goes too far.

Tell me all about the embassy bombing in Mogadishu, Ric.

- JR

My mistake. I was thinking about the attacks in 1998 in Africa. When the
accused bombers took refuge in Somalia.

"The bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the
bombing of a hotel in Kenya in 2002 are thought to have been carried out by
a Mogadishu-based Al Qaeda cell."

Source, Boston Globe....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/art..._claim_rout_of
_us_tied_forces_in_somalia

I stand corrected. You are hereby not insane.

However, being wrong about where a particular bombing occurred does not
negate my point.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

Alaskan420 wrote:

Wow! The LA Times? Well, there's an unbiased source for you. Why didn't you
go all out and quote the NY Times or Geraldo?

Yes, Uncle Rush woulda been such a credible source.

The Nazi and Soviet propaganda machines put a lot of effort into
discrediting the independent press in their countries as well.