astrov Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 "Am I not allowed to feel sorrow for those in the World Trade Center because I was from Seattle?" You just said you didn't live in Sudan, so you couldn't sympathize with that disaster. Quote
scott_harpell Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 You are putting words into my mouth. That is a ridiculous thing to imply. I do not have a direct connection with the events in Sudan. I am horrified about the goings on in Sudan as well as the Congo. You cannot imply that I can't sympathize with their plight. You don't know me and your generalizations and your tactics are poor form. Quote
IceIceBaby Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Just give them what they want, they are terrorist and they don’t value life…. But wait….they want free Chechnya what for??? Do the dead care about borders? is their Spirit/Ghost need a land?…I think the terrorist of any kind got what they wanted when someone kills them—“world freedom” just in metaphysical way. sadly enough they take unwilling passengers with them in that journey toward freedom. The way I see it we should all join them in their way to freedom. like that we all get what we wanted we understand them and their “fight” and willing to give ourselves as road bricks for them to march on . we should talk to them to find the best seats on the bus ohh you poor terrorist look what they done to you those bad bad peoples here, take my childe too. What all of you taking about diplomacy??? no one who would like the physical world can reason with terror!!!!!!! no diplomacy needed or required just harsh and massive response Quote
arlen Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 The more I read about the Chechnyan problems, the more I'm convinced that it's just stupid to try to simplify it enough to make a point. For example, there's a pretty compelling case for the possibility that the "separatist terrorists" were actually pro-Russia fanatics in the Moscow Theatre disaster and it's a possibility in this latest case. Read some of Andrew Meier's writing for details. In any case, it's the guy claiming to know who's right and who's wrong in this incident that is truly the dumbass. Once again, Greg wins that prize Quote
larrythellama Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Yup the russians have killed many checnyans, children, women and men. its seems from my little reading on the subject that the majority of the issue lies with russia's occupation of checnya. seems like a simple idea to remove your presence there and stop seeing children slaughtered. i am sure scott will say it is more complicated then that and what not, but i dont see how so? the imperalistic time perios in the world is other, now it is time for people to allow distinct peoples to have their own lands in a way that is not controlled by outside forces. the problem is that there is too much mineral wealth in many of these poor(?) countries for the christains to ignore. when was the last time the issues in indonesia seemed to be any of importance to the christains? another tangent i cannot see how these 3rd world countries who have a large majority of the worlds mineral wealth still remain soo poor? wouldnt one think that since their countries are being rapped by christain companies that they would be reapping profits from the action? hmmm...... Quote
gotterdamerung Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Greg, don't worry or get yourself all worked up. These people on this site (no matter how well educated they may consider themselves) are only the fringe dwellers about to fall off the grid you're dealing with here. These are the same sheep that would have let themselves be marched off to the oven debating the whole thing rather than fighting, kicking and screaming. I don't fight for you. You are not my country men. Quote
gotterdamerung Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Sure I do, but you don't. Newsflash...I've been fighting in Iraq for 14 months. I bet you've been sitting on your liberal ass. With a name like Arlen I doubt you're even from America. I don't fight for you. Get it? Quote
larrythellama Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 yeah mike you fight for the almighty dollar! Quote
dmuja Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 yeah mike you fight for the almighty dollar! and you get up and go to work for....? money bad.., bad money, bad money Quote
Fairweather Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 (edited) Greg, don't worry or get yourself all worked up. These people on this site (no matter how well educated they may consider themselves) are only the fringe dwellers about to fall off the grid you're dealing with here. These are the same sheep that would have let themselves be marched off to the oven debating the whole thing rather than fighting, kicking and screaming. I don't fight for you. You are not my country men. I thank you, G. My 15 year old son and his mother thank you too. I suspect he might have to bear part of this burden in the future if the action you are taking now is left incomplete by our leaders' timidity, whoever they may be, in the near future. Tell those with whom you serve (both civilian and enlisted) that this family, and this Cascadeclimber is truly greatful. As for Chechnya, I hope our nation will turn its back and allow Putin to crush these muslim baby killers. How long is the world going to put up with their shit? How much credence will we continue lend thier liberal apologists here at home who are unable to see the affront to free western liberal thought these very people represent? Just the more recent deeds: June 14, 1995 Chechen gunmen take 2,000 hostages at a hospital in southern Russian town of Budyonnovsk, near Chechnya. After failed attempts at force, Russia negotiates the hostages' release in exchange for the gunmen's escape. More than 100 die.Jan. 9, 1996 Chechen militants seize 3,000 hostages at a hospital in southern Russian town of Kizlyar. Rebels release most, then head for Chechnya with about 100 hostages. Rebels are stopped in a village and attacked by Russian troops. At least 78 die in weeklong fight.Jan. 16, 1996 Six Turks and three Chechens hold 255 hostages on ferry in Black Sea, threatening to blow up ship if Russia doesn't halt battles in southern Russia. The rebels surrender after three days.March 9, 1996 Turkish sympathizer hijacks jetliner flying out of Cyprus to draw attention to situation in Chechnya. The sympathizer surrenders after plane lands in Munich, Germany.Sept. 4, 1999 Bomb destroys a building housing Russian military officers and families in Buinaksk in Russia's Dagestan region. Sixty-four die. Russian officials blame Chechen rebels, but never prove their involvement.Sept. 9, 1999 Explosion wrecks a nine-story apartment building in southeast Moscow, killing almost 100. Authorities suspect a Chechen bomb, although no evidence is ever provided to support the claim.Sept. 13, 1999 A bomb destroys an apartment building in southern Moscow, killing 70. Officials blame Chechens, but nobody is ever charged in the attack.Sept. 16, 1999 Bombs shear off the front of a nine-story apartment building in Volgodonsk, 500 miles south of Moscow. Nearly 20 are killed. Authorities again blame Chechens rebels, but nobody is charged.March 16, 2001 Three Chechens hijack a Russian airliner leaving Istanbul and divert it to Saudi Arabia. Saudi forces storm plane, killing one hijacker and two hostages.April 22, 2001 Some 20 gunmen hold about 120 people for 12 hours at a hotel in Istanbul, Turkey, to protest Russian actions in Chechnya. The rebels later surrender to police and release the hostages.May 4, 2002 Lone gunman holds 13 people hostage at a hotel in Istanbul to protest situation in Chechnya. The gunman surrenders after an hour. Oct. 24, 2002 Chechen rebels seize 800 people in a Moscow theater. After a three-day standoff, Russian authorities launch a rescue attempt in which all 41 attackers are killed along with 127 hostages who succumb to a knockout gas used to incapacitate the assailants.July 5, 2003 Double suicide bombing at a Moscow rock concert kills the female attackers and 15 other people.July 10, 2003 A Russian security agent dies in Moscow while trying to defuse a bomb a woman had tried to carry into a cafe on central Moscow’s main street.Aug. 1, 2003 50 people are killed in Mozdok, North Ossetia, when a truck bomb smashes through the gates of a hospital where Russian soldiers injured in Chechnya are treated.Sept. 16, 2003 Two suicide bombers drive a truck laden with explosives into a government security services building near Chechnya, killing three people and injuring 25.Dec. 5, 2003 Suicide bombing on commuter train in southern Russia kills 44 people. President Vladimir Putin condemns attack as bid to destabilize the country two days before parliamentary elections. Six people were killed in two blasts on the same railway line in September.Dec. 9, 2003 Female suicide bomber blows herself up outside Moscow’s National Hotel, across from the Kremlin and Red Square, killing five bystanders.Feb. 6, 2004 An explosion rips through a subway car in the Moscow metro during rush hour, killing 41 people. June 21- 22, 2004 Chechen rebels kill at least 92 people, mostly law-enforcement officers and officials, while setting fire to police and government buildings around Nazran, the main city of the neighboring republic of Ingushetia. Aug. 25, 2004 Chechen suicide bombers blamed for explosions that kill 90 people on board two Russian planes. ....And meanwhile in Sudan the UN is taking FIRM action while followers of the "religion of peace" march on: More Darfur villagers forced from homes U.N. receives reports of more clashes in Sudan region The Associated Press Updated: 6:03 p.m. ET Sept. 5, 2004 KHARTOUM, Sudan - A U.N. spokesman on Sunday said the world body keeps receiving reports of clashes continuing throughout Sudan’s Darfur region, where up to 4,000 people are believed to have been forced from their villages in recent days. The Sudanese government has been under intense international pressure to do more to end the violence in the western region, where a 19-month ethnic conflict has killed an estimated 30,000 people and driven more than 1 million from their homes into displacement camps inside Sudan or into neighboring Chad. “We keep receiving reports of insecurity in Darfur that is leading to the further displacement” of Darfurians from their homes, U.N. spokeswoman Radhia Achouri told The Associated Press in Egypt during a telephone interview. Her comments follow the release of a report by the U.N.’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which says violence in North Darfur has forced thousands from their homes since late August. The report said attacks on villages south of Zam Zam, 10 miles south of the regional capital, Al-Fasher, “have resulted in a population movement of around 3,000-4,000 persons,” adding that about half of the people have been settled in a displacement camp in Zam Zam. The United Nations describes the situation in Darfur as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It has also called on the Sudanese government to do more to disarm Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, blamed for attacking African villagers. The United States accuses Sudanese authorities of backing the militia, a claim Khartoum denies. A Security Council resolution gave the government 30 days — or until Aug. 30 — to work to disarm the Janjaweed or face possible diplomatic or economic sanctions. After the deadline passed, U.N. envoy to Sudan, Jab Pronk, delivered a report to the Security Council this week concluding that the time for sanctions “had not yet arrived and that we should give the government a few more weeks.” The United States reacted angrily to that recommendation, and EU foreign ministers on Saturday reaffirmed that they would push for U.N. sanctions against impoverished Sudan — including a possible oil boycott and cutting EU financial aid — if the government does not take action. Achouri, the U.N. spokeswoman, said the United Nations keeps receiving regular reports of violence involving warring tribes, government troops, the Janjaweed and rebels in areas outside zones that the Sudanese government had designated as safe areas where displaced people could go to for protection. She added, however, that U.N. organizations have received no reports of Sudanese government forces instigating any of the violence. Sudanese authorities say they deserve credit from the international community for trying to bring the Darfur crisis under control through improving security conditions and the passage of relief aid to the region. The United Nations has credited Sudan with improving the security situation but urged that more be done. Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a close U.S. ally, on Sunday called for the Darfur crisis to be solved without foreign interference, saying he was concerned about Sudan’s territorial integrity, the official Petra news agency reported. He did not elaborate. Sudan’s foreign minister has said his government is willing to allow increased numbers of foreign forces and monitors into Darfur to observe a rarely adhered to April 8 cease-fire between Sudanese authorities and rebels, provided Khartoum has the final say in choosing which countries provide more forces. His comments follow U.N. calls on Sudan’s government to allow more than 3,000 troops enter Darfur, something Khartoum has not sanctioned. Sudan has been cool on allowing Western nations deploy forces to Darfur, but has shown more support for troops and monitors being sent by the African Union, which currently has about 80 military observers in Darfur protected by just over 300 soldiers Edited September 6, 2004 by Fairweather Quote
snoboy Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Damn it timmay, where is that barfing greamlin? It's really needed these days! Quote
larrythellama Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 ahh the understanding and tolerate republican again shows how much he cares for others opinions! what a limp dicked office slob! rot in your capitalistic hateful christain society! Quote
larrythellama Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches Setting Kerry's record right—again. By Fred Kaplan Posted Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 11:50 AM PT Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them. In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not. Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong. Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees. This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely. What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992: Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend. Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough: Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them. I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry. In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie. Before moving on to Cheney's speech, we should pause to note two truly weird passages in Zell's address. My favorite: Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief. A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"? Most people call this a "presidential election." Someone should tell Zell they happen every four years; he can look it up in that same place where he did the research on Kerry's voting record ("I've got more documents," he said on CNN, waving two pieces of paper that he'd taken from his coat pocket, "than in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library combined.") The other oddball remark: "Nothing makes me madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Huge applause line, but is he kidding? The U.S. troops in Iraq are occupiers. Even Bush has said so. If he doesn't understand this, then he doesn't understand what our problems are. Cheney followed Zell, and couldn't help but begin with … not a lie, but certainly a howler: "People tell me Sen. Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair. [Pause] I said, 'How do you think I got the job?' " Funny, apparently self-deprecating line, but does anybody remember how he did get the job? Bush had asked Cheney to conduct the search for a vice presidential candidate, and he came up with himself. He got the job because he picked himself. Later in the speech, Cheney made this comment: "Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger. That thought might have been comforting; it was also false." Who are these people who thought this? The implication is that it was the Democrats who preceded Bush and Cheney. But it was Bill Clinton's administration that stopped the millennium attack on LAX. It was Clinton's national security adviser who told Condoleezza Rice, during the transition period, that she'd be spending more time on al-Qaida that on any other issue. It was Rice who didn't call the first Cabinet meeting on al-Qaida until just days before Sept. 11. It was Bush's attorney general who told a Justice Department assistant that he didn't want to hear anything more about counterterrorism. It was Bush who spent 40 percent of his time out of town in his first eight months of office, while his CIA director and National Security Council terrorism specialists ran around with their "hair on fire," trying to get higher-ups to heed their warnings of an imminent attack. "President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures," Cheney said. What is an empty threat if not the warnings Bush gave the North Koreans to stop building a nuclear arsenal? What is a halfway measure if not Bush's decision to topple the Taliban yet leave Afghanistan to the warlords and the poppy farmers; to bust up al-Qaida's training camps yet fail to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose name has virtually gone unmentioned at this convention); to topple the Iraqi regime yet plan nothing for the aftermath? "Time and again Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security," Cheney said. The first example he cited of these wrong calls: "Sen. Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.' " Yes, Kerry did say this—in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s? The second example of Kerry's wrong calls: "During the 1980s, Sen. Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiative that brought victory in the Cold War." We've been over this—unless Cheney is talking about the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka the "star wars" missile-defense plan. It may be true that SDI played some role in prompting the Soviet Union's conciliation, though it was at best a minor role—and wouldn't have been even that, had it not been for Mikhail Gorbachev. But two more points should be made. First, lots of lawmakers opposed SDI; almost no scientist thought it would work, especially as Reagan conceived it (a shield that would shoot down all nuclear missiles and therefore render nukes "impotent and obsolete"). Second, Kerry voted not to kill SDI, but to limit its funding. "Even in the post-9/11 period," Cheney continued, "Sen. Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side." A big laugh line, as it was when Cheney first uttered it on Aug. 12 before a group of veterans. But Cheney knows this is nonsense. Here's the full Kerry quote, from an address to journalists on Aug. 5: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side." In context, it's clear that "sensitive," a word that has several definitions, is not meant as a synonym for "soft." And Cheney, who is not a stupid man, knows this. "He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere. "Sen. Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve," Cheney continued, "as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent countries." No, that's not it. Kerry thinks that other countries should go along with our actions—that a president must work hard at diplomacy to get them to go along with us—because going it alone often leads to failure. Cheney should ask his old colleague Brent Scowcroft or his old boss W's father about this. Or he should simply go to Iraq and see what unilateralism has wrought. Quote
Lars Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 that article has as much, if not more, political spin than the speech they are trying to discredit. its just another attempt from the democratic party at damage control. Quote
arlen Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Sure I do, but you don't. No, really. You're blustering like a fanatical idiot. Really. Newsflash...I've been fighting in Iraq for 14 months. I bet you've been sitting on your liberal ass. With a name like Arlen I doubt you're even from America. I don't fight for you. Get it? It just isn't newsworthy what you do, where, for whom, or even if there's actual fighting involved. I don't even care that much that you can't spell your own screen name right, but it is kind of interesting in a Bush as Hagen kind of way. Quote
Fairweather Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 I don't even care that much that you can't spell your own screen name right, but it is kind of interesting in a Bush as Hagen kind of way. Maybe you should refer to your Pocket Style Guide. While not wholly incorrect, your redundant use of the word that in the sentence above shows poor style. In the first instance, that should properly be implied. I would expect more from a teacher. BTW, you're a left wing nut-job even if you do have an Appalchian, red-neck, hillbilliy name. And, uh, I almost forgot....Fuck Off. Larry the Llama molester, DON'T talk to me about tolerance. The tolerance you purvey is nothing more than self-hatred and limp-dicked (your words) denial. Quote
larrythellama Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 fairweather how do know i molest animals, why dont we dip back down to some bush speak and go with a classic kindegarten insult. "takes one to know one" so who do you molest? and back to climbing news, what have you climbed as of late? i am thinking maybe at most your obese wife. Quote
snoboy Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 I thknk they both need to go back to kindergarten... maybe they can learn to edit their personal attacks out while they are there. Quote
AaronB Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Are you kidding. This is a great thread.. 40+ guys threatening ass kicking. Reminds me of my days on the Pipeline in El Centro. Quote
pope Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 its just another attempt from the democratic party at damage control. Yes, telling lies can certainly do a lot of damage, and the Time/Newsweek polls demonstrate that fact. Again, during the debates you will see George Junior attempt to persuade us with similar jive, only he will be IMMEDIATELY exposed for, on the one hand, being a God-damned liar, and on the other hand, insulting the intelligence of his audience (who are evidently fairly stupid, again based on the recent polls). Larry, you are without conscience. Quote
pope Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Now I'm curious as to why not a single vet at the RNC kicked this guy's teeth down his throat: offensive little prick Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.