Re: YOU MUST KNOW THIS MAN


"Don Bowey" <dbowey@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
news:C2FEEC65.75A94%dbowey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 9/1/07 3:25 AM, in article
46d93d05$0$72886$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
<frithiof.jensen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Destroy, yes, but not everyone and everything in sight when that is not
the
mission.

Extrapolation does not help demonstrate your comprehension of a written
text!

You are entitled to your opinion, but you do not get to determine
the mission. Fortunately.

Yep, that particular cluster*** is entirely the property of the US now -
what *is* "the mission" nowadays - apart from FUBAR?


Not a hard concept to grasp, I.M.O, there are like 5000 years of
experience
to draw from.

Many of us are not the barbaric animals of our far ancestors. Some of you
still gave unresolved issues.

The evidence hints at the opposite: More people have been killed in wars the
last 100 years than has been killed the 1900 years before that. Civilisation
enables exponential growth ALSO in the scale of violence.

So, you may sit on your high horse and all but the rest of the world
apparently does not.

Ok. So that means there are at least two of you who believe everyone of a
given religion should be wiped out; even the innocents who do not follow,
or
agree with, the wacko, extremist, jihad path.

I did not say that. You did.

Take a peek of the pictures of the burned children from Dresden, Hamburg or
Hiroshima; but of course they were only Nazis and Japs eh?

If it is ok to wage war on the entire population of a Nazi country then why
is it wrong to target the population of a muslim country given that the
hardcore Nazis, Baath'ists or jihaddis* will be in the same proportion of
the people - around 20%.

If losses of around 10-15% of the opponents population is not acceptable,
then one cannot Win and then one should not be fighting a war in the first
place but stay out of it!

And *THAT* is the point I was trying to make! Acts have consequences. If one
does not like the consequence, don't do the act. Easy as that (except for a
moron/geriatric like Cheney).

The US will *loose* in Iraq because they will not fight a war there -
probably because that would upset the Saudi's who payeth the ex US
presidents large "consultancy fees" - the phony war will grind on and on and
on through at least one democratic president and in the end more people will
have died than would have been killed by a real war in the first place.

As an added "bonus" there will be a generation of wacko children who grew up
during the mess and never had much school or anything except liberal access
to weapons and wiews of dead people; maybe a couple of family members too. A
rich vein for 40 years of more trouble!

If that was not bad enough in itself, then "people" will get ideas in seeing
the US incapable of dealing with a piss-ant country like Iraq; Similar to
what happened when Japan beat the crap out of imperial Russia in 1904:
letting the side down, putting all kinds of ideas into the heads of
colonialised people.

All the crazies and jihaddies will think: "If the US can loose in Iraq, what
*can* it do apart from the occasional bombing run, really"? Somebody will
have to start some *** to find out - the wise person will start it while
the US is overcommitted in Iraq just for fun.


Sad!

..... sure.

*as the election result in Palestine showed!


.

Quantcast