Re: OT: We got it up!

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:28:07 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:59:23 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:39:38 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>> <eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>The point was, "terrorism" is the last line of defense of a people
>>>who are being invaded by the inexorable US war machine.
>>
>> That's absurd. The first attempt to bring down the WTC was in 1992.
>
> Kinda about the time Israel was occupying the Sinai Peninsula by
> force?

What a doof! Why did Israel occupy the Sanai? ...and you're off by a
couple of decades. Sheesh! Toke up another one, Rich. You're batting
..000 now.


>> Islamic terrorists have been bringing down planes and ships for
>> decades. These guys aren't acting on the behalf of, or for the welfare
>> of, any people but themselves. They want to be the Taliban, to rule
>> absolutely without anyone's vote or consent, to keep their women down
>> and send their young men off to die, leaving that many more young women
>> for themselves.
>
> They want us to get off their back so that they can run their sovereign
> state in tha manner of their own choosing,

Who is "they"? You really don't get it, eh?

> just like we did. We threw
> off the chains of the King, and we jumped in to defend Europe from
> Hitler - can't you see, from their Point of View, that we're
> indistinguishable from Hitler, on our jihad of conquest?

Again, who is "they"? The Taliban? Good idea Rich <the idiot>.

> When somebody sends a hundred billion dollars' worth of weapons of mass
> destruction, and a hundred and fifteen thousand soldiers, into your back
> yard, isn't that an invasion?

Oh, it was Iraqis that bombed the London tubes? Grow up!

> Who _cares_ what they want? They are not us.

I care! They want *US*! If you're too drugged up to understand that
simple fact, don't stop me from trying to defend myself!

> In the US, there are laws
> against discrimination.

Discrimination? You've totally lost it. Perhaps you should move in with
Bemelman.

> (or, there used to be - nowadays, it seems, you
> can discriminate against people who look like ay-rabs.)

Discriminate? If they're not citizens, send 'em back for looking
cross-eyed. They have no inherent right to be here. There here at the US
government's leisure.

> But we made a
> decision a couple hundred years ago, and wrote it into the constitution
> - we are not a theocracy.

You really need to read some more. The *US* government isnt' a theocracy,
but there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state can't be
(congress shall pass no law...). Indeed PA was. Your friends on the
courts have since decided that the Constitution is meaningless, so...

> If somebody else wants to be a theocracy,

That really isnt' the point. It's defense. They want to kill us, and say
so every day. You want them to succeed, because you're a "pacifist".
Fine, you drop on the next bomb. You will meet 72 Catholic virgins on
the other side; giving your life for Christ.

> isn't that their right? Didn't women, in their own right, get the right
> to vote?

In Afganistan? In Iraq? What the hell are you yammering on about?

> Didn't the slaves get emancipated by their own wherewithal, and
> the help of one sane president? If the women of the muslimic countries
> want to throw off the chains of their oppressors, maybe they could
> follow the example of Lady Mo - seduce the soldiers, and when they fall
> asleep, cut their throat.

Good idea, except their baby's throats were slit in front of them,
instead.

> What sickness is it that impels you to meddle in other peoples' internal
> affaris?

It's *not* "internal" at all. It is our security, whether you believe it
or not.

>>>Those people are fighting for their _lives_. The US is murdering
>>>people. The US is now king planetary bully.
>>
>> Shiites are killing Sunni women and children in food markets to repel
>> the US bully? Absurd.
>
> Well, aren't those people grown-ups? Are we big uncle sugardaddy to the
> whole fucking _WORLD?_ We're not supposed to be, you know. That's the
> part about Freedom that so horrifies the neonazis - "Freedom is Good, as
> long as you're free in _MY_ style." They think that "Freedom" means
> "Free to be just like us, if you've got the proper white skin and
> embrace _our_ values, and to hell with Allah".

WOuldn't it be nice if they all got along in peace? THey haven't been
doing a great job of it for centuries. Maybe it's time for a little help
down the right path.

>>>Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
>>
>> My father and uncles fought for the peace you enjoy. Neither Germany,
>> Japan, Austria, nor Italy have attacked anyone since.
>
> Maybe that's because Germany, Japan, Austria, and Italy have somehow,
> along the line, acquired "SANITY"?

Exactly. They didn't get "it" by themselves. They had to beaten over the
head with a clue-stick. Nothing has changed. Peaceniks were in abundance
in WWII too.

> Freedom means, "I might disagree with you, but you have a right to be as
> foolish as you choose to be, and it's not my place to retrain you,
> unless you ask me to." My dear ol' Dad, rest his soul, used to quip, "I
> may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
> right to remain uninformed."

....unless you are a thread to me and mine. Then you meet Mr. Loisville
(or Mr. Smith), right across the forehead! No appologies, you die first.

> Personally, I don't totally embrace that philosophy - I will continue to
> attempt to inform you of your own stupidity. And warmongering is just
> plain bad.

You are simply stupid, beyond hope. ...nothing new here.

> Who cares who started it? Let's be the bigger man and end it! It's in
> our power, you know. "OK, sorry about invading you and murdering your
> women and children - if we stop invading you and murdering your
> citizens, will you stop fighting back?"

No, I really don't care who started it. I didn't. I will do my best to
make sure *WE* end it though. If that takes making a lot of glass, so be
it.

> What do we have to lose, but our immortal souls?

You assume a lot, as usual.

--
Keith
.