Copper theft

I don't think he's popular enough to assassinate.

...

Fields and his ilk bring out the hate word at the first opportunity.

I reckon it's become a major danger to world peace and stability. Through sheer incompetence, arrogance and stupidity.

Graham

The cities aren't the problem anyway.

And do you think attacking any of those targets would hurt terrorists or the general public more - or even your own forces ? How do they get around with no bridges ? This *isn't* a conventional war ffs ! Nor do you want to bomb the country back several more centuries. We're supposed to be there to help

Graham

acre

The job should have been given to the locals. It would have kept them busy and out of trouble and gainfully employed. Instead we've ( you've really ) used foreign contractors which has caused ever greater resentment.

Graham

That is what history tells us.

"Free" (from slavery) doesn't mean they had any real options for employment. This was supposed to be a fresh start in the "old country". It was actually started long before the civil war by American "liberals" who wanted to help runaway and freed slaves. This was supposed to be their promised land

What did you think the history was? You do seem to ask more questions than you answer. Are we doing your homework?

Is it a fact or not ?

Why are you so ashamed of it ?

Graham

Homer hath not the mental capacity to be a student ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Just ignorant Americans like yourself Fields.

Graham

You mean Islam*ism*. It's nothing to do with where it's practiced.

Graham

No, I want to see if you know as much about your country and its history as I do.

...

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...

Bush owes us an apology

The President of the United States owes this country an apology. It will not be offered, of course. He does not realize its necessity. There are now none around him who would tell him or could. The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential. An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people. Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell. In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom." Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom. The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase. "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?" "If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison." And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees. What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right. All of us agree about that. Except, it seems, this President. With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right. And then there was that one, most awful phrase. In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark. "It's unacceptable to think," he said.

When he visited London, what ? 2 yrs ago, his route had to be 'protected' from the damn demonstrating public. I bet the US media didn't mention that.

Graham

I suppose we could split hairs all day but I think we both understand what I am talking about. Radical fundamentalists are the main cause of most of the strife in the world these days and that is not limited to any one religion. You had the problem in Ireland, The French had it in Algiers and we are all seeing it in the middle east with several different players. If Christianity and Judiasm was gone tomorrow the Sunnis and Shiites would still be killing each other. Pakistan and India would still be fighting in Cashmere. Africa is ripping itself apart over tribal differences we can't even distinguish. Hell we have a religious war going on here in America with our own home grown religious zealots killing doctors and bombing clinics over abortion. Another cult religion "environmentalism" has terrorists spiking trees and fire bombing ski resorts. Then there are the radical PETA nuts who blow up research labs. Even the athiests have become a religion and they can't stop preaching at us. The whole thing is crazy to me. I am not a huge fan of any "ism". I think China is going to take over the world simply because they pretty much banned religion. I feel I am a spiritual person but I will not bore you with the details. I don't dislike religious people but keep your "joy" to yourself.

Ah yes. I've seen him on YouTube totally destroying Rummy and God did it need to be done. When intelligent criticism become labelled as unpatriotic or traitorus by a bunch of Fascists you only need to look at 1930s Germany to see what's going on. Didn't *they* have 'secret prisons' too btw ?

Graham

Yes. However it's only recently I discovered that this one has a specific name that Muslims recognise too.

It certainly doesn't help.

In truth that was more about Republicanism but nm. Religion played its part in helping keep the communities away from dialogue.

That too and there should be greater condemnation of it.

No damn excuse for that either.

Or that.

They ought to look into humanism really.

A lot of them don't practice 'joy' that much though.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...

That's mainly a reaction to the extreme religious zealotry and ignorance in the USA.

See

I am still not convinced that this is true - but it is not impossible. It has received almost no media attention. Note this passage:

"Edwin introduced himself to the jury as National Legal Director for American Atheists and asked the prospective jury in the Oklahoma panhandle if they could accept the testimony of an Atheist over that of a professed Christian. When the jury looked at him blankly, the judge asked the prospects if they understood the question. One woman spoke for many in the group by asking "What is an Atheist?" Edwin explained that an Atheist was a person who did not believe in a god or gods or in a supernatural world, and that the defendant and his entire family were such persons. Many of the prospects said they could not believe such a person over a Christian and were struck for cause. To their credit, many members of the jury panel, including two ministers' wives, told the judge they could not be fair to an Atheist in such a situation and were excused".

BTW:

"The night of the verdict, tornados of unusual violence descended on the panhandle of Oklahoma. The home of the school principal who had brought the false charges against Chuck Smalkowski was severely damaged. This fact has no relationship whatsoever to the verdict." OTOH, "There is a god - and she is an atheist"!

bollocks.

We know exactly how to do it. It can't be done by conventional military means though.

Graham

It wasn't supposed to take 30 yrs though was it. It was supposed to be over in an instant and we'd be welcomed with open arms.

I guess maybe they didn't like us blowing up their country ?

Graham

Why do you have this perverse notion we need protecting from Jihadists?

Graham