I was watching the news with pleasure, seeing the Taliban
flee from Kabul. May they all meet Allah soon.
Then it struck me that there are people
on this board who are against this from happening.
Shame on them. It's always wonderful to see fascists
flee. This is an update to those on the board
who lectured me as if they were experts on
military strategy, as well as those who seemed so
upset over America finally turning the guns on
the fascists.
I hope the bombing continues to be so effective,
and I hope some sort of halfway decent country can
be formed in the aftermath. What the people of
Afghanistan are beginning to have, at the very least,
is HOPE. If not much, certainly more than before.
It may not end up any better, but there's
a possiblity. Some men have already shaved
their beards, and some women have already removed
their veils. If the mission continues to be fought
properly, there's every reason to believe Afghanis
will be cheering in the streets someday soon.
Yet certain people here would deny them the chance
for that day in the sun.
Give war a chance.
Very good article in the new BRad Pitt issue of
Vanity Fair on Osama Bin Ladin. I did not know
one of his first entrances into ISlamist politics was to
go after the first female leader of the Middle East,
in Pakistan, like the sexist freak he is.
But the thing we're all dying to hear is of course...what did Brad Pitt have to say? Any exciting insights into the international man of mystery? Hmmm?
> I was watching the news with pleasure, seeing the Taliban
> flee from Kabul. May they all meet Allah soon.
> Then it struck me that there are people
> on this board who are against this from happening.
> Shame on them. It's always wonderful to see fascists
> flee. This is an update to those on the board
> who lectured me as if they were experts on
> military strategy, as well as those who seemed so
> upset over America finally turning the guns on
> the fascists.
> I hope the bombing continues to be so effective,
> and I hope some sort of halfway decent country can
> be formed in the aftermath. What the people of
> Afghanistan are beginning to have, at the very least,
> is HOPE. If not much, certainly more than before.
> It may not end up any better, but there's
> a possiblity. Some men have already shaved
> their beards, and some women have already removed
> their veils. If the mission continues to be fought
> properly, there's every reason to believe Afghanis
> will be cheering in the streets someday soon.
> Yet certain people here would deny them the chance
> for that day in the sun.
> Give war a chance.
> Very good article in the new BRad Pitt issue of
> Vanity Fair on Osama Bin Ladin. I did not know
> one of his first entrances into ISlamist politics was to
> go after the first female leader of the Middle East,
> in Pakistan, like the sexist freak he is.
> But the thing we're all dying to hear is of course...what did
> Brad Pitt have to say? Any exciting insights into the
> international man of mystery? Hmmm?
I'm saving the Pitt article for last, but it may be the article
I heard comments in the media about in which Pitt discusses
his mental breakdown. All I can tell you, though, is he's
shirtless on the cover, and I try not to look at the pics
too long as they make me feel rather inadequate.
This really does need to be rubbed in a few faces, considering
the content of their previous rants....
Some weeks back, Grim O'Grady wrote:
>>>>>
You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
>
the bombing is nothing but a public relations campaign.
> This really does need to be rubbed in a few faces, considering
> the content of their previous rants....
So have no innocent people been murdered? - you numbty.
> Some weeks back, Grim O'Grady wrote:
> You still miss the point, bombing doesn't work unless you bomb
> the nation to nothing, eg Dresden, Germany ww11.
> A dunce cap for her.
I'm a him, as you well know but you still use childishness to try & 'prove' your point. We will not know the full extent of the coalition bombing of Afghanistan is for quite a while as you well know these things are kept out of the public domain, it's part of your brainwashing therapy. - numbty
> These people, as well as the other voices of stupidity on this
> board (hello, Fred Flintstoned!), needed no prompting for their
> 2 cents when the war began. In their claims of moral
> superiority, they threw all kinds of deranged attacks at people
> -- "You think Afghanis are cockroaches who need to be
> exterminated"; "You support murdering innocent
> children"; "Bush and Blair are
> just as low as Bin Laden and deserve the be arrested too!"
> --
> but who's side were they really on?
I can only speak for myself in what I said, I was always & will always be on the side of the innocent. I see you are using those 'clever' words like "stupidity" again. - numbty (again)
> Their silence is noticed.
My silence as only been broken now because of you & your gung-ho clap-trappings. - you numbty.
> If the world followed their advice the citizens of Kabul would
> still be under the medievel terror regime. I am now cheering
> along with the innocent people of liberated Afghan cities as
> they watch their gang of opressers run for the hills to say
> their prayers. Some of them are finally playing music again. One
> wonders if Grim
> O'Grady, Suzanne, and the rest of that sorry lot of peacenik
> wannabes feel any happiness inside as the American coalition
> scored it's first victory of the war. The war that the decent
> people knew had to
> be fought. The war that cannot be lost.
Were to start? I'm glad you are cheering for the innocent, well how about showing some remorse for the innocents who won't be cheering because your beloved coalition have murdered them. I'm no peacenik, has if you'd bother to read my original postings back in September you'd know that I'm not a pacifist. I'm not the owner of a gun (unlike yourself who owns several) but I'm quite capable of violence. What 'decent' people are these that have killed innocent people? I think it is you young person who is going to get their nosed rubbed in it, unfortunately as more & more of the truth is established about the innocents that have died in your bloody war. The war is already lost to those innocents that have been murdered. - golden nugget numbty.
> Yes, the bombing has worked like a charm, and the pacifists and
> pessimists are the stupid ones. You live and you learn.
One day, possible when you are older (yes, I'm being patronising) you might just regret that statement. - sad numbty.
> The Taliban will soon be a memory. The terrorist network is
> next.
> And if future anti-civilization monsters start thinking about
> emulating Bin Laden, the good people of the world will slam down
> the hammer on them as well. We don't need the support of a few
> Chomsky-worshipping dolts who spoke of our bombing campaign as
> "silent genocide," but perhaps they ought to digest
> that
> being the voluntary spin-meisters for fascists does not make you
> moral or a friend to the oppressed. And perhaps they will
> overcome
> their irrational, extremist disgust for all things America and
> learn to be a bit more level-headed.
Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that trained & armed them in the first place) will be just another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next regime the coalition are priming?
I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is next." Who are they? You think the coalition are the 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even though they'd asked them not to. So where's the next big push on terrorism going to be? Are they going to start off in their own back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the mob he belonged to? Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk! You are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England? Are they going to receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb those in foreign parts.
Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the word 'pacifist' to me.
sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
peace off
Grim O'Grady
>>Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that trained & armed them in the first place) will be just another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next regime the coalition are priming?>I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is next." Who are they? You think the coalition are the 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even though they'd asked them not to.>So where's the next big push on terrorism going to be?>Are they going to start off in their own back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the mob he belonged to?>Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk!>You are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England?>Are they going to receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb those in foreign parts.>Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the word 'pacifist' to me.
sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
peace off Grim O'Grady
free thinkers of the world... there's 1 born everyday
This is very a long & boring reposte to loafing oaf/mr so&so, I suggest if you are not they then you leave now... otherwise be prepared to have your adjectival pants bored off you & donated to a charity of your choice.
You have been warned!
I will state my case for the last time as there is no point in trying to discuss with the numbty loafing oaf (very apt you wear the title so well & live up to every conception of it) mr so&so. He is so rightous but the terrorist bin laden is still out there alive & kicking, which he seems to have over looked, the total numbty.
I have agreed all along that the terrorist bin laden ought to be sought out & brought to justice, along with any terrorist organisations.
I am opposed to the innocent slaughter by the coalition forces.
> Well, as you should know if you read any varied news sources the
> coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal
> factions.
Is that right? Let's see what becomes of this statement.
> But I'm sure that's still not good enough for you.
You know me so well, thank you for telling me what to think.
> It is humorous isn't Mr. Grady, that bombing has done more for
> Afghanistan in the past two months than any form of diplomacy or
> tolerance for the Taliban has in the past ten years?
It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no humour in that.
> So obviously bombing does specifically work Grim, no matter what
> comes of it afterwards. Certainly your only other option is
> diplomacy alone, and I think unless you desire to be perceived
> as a complete dunce at this point, holding such a sentiment is
> useless.
I assume you are not talking about the bombing on Sept' 11th (at least I hope you are not).
Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware that goes with them if they are not to be used? Over 30 years ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke & his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found? 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits & still bombing?
> In fact, bombing can make a diplomatic effort more real, and
> much easier, as it has in this case.
If you was including the bombing of Sept' 11th (surely not) then is this the diplomatic responce?
> It's funny, this whole event will get swept under the rug by
> people like Grady, in the manner that Kosovo was.
Don't make me laugh (though you make a better comedian than someone to be taken seriously). Yugoslavia was the result of "the > coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal > factions." after ww2.
> Hey, ask the poeple of Kosovo if bombing works Grim.
Hey numbty ask the innocent dead ones how great it is!
> Innocent people were killed in WWII but surely you wouldn't
> consider military force useless in liberating the jews, would
> you?
Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world, with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.
> Well, maybe you would.
> Has it ever occurred to you that some people must die in order
> for other people to live and be liberated? I'm sure you haven't,
> which exhibits a gaping flaw in your own logic.
Is that what your coalition trained & armed the taliban for?
> So, basically we should have just done nothing and more innocent
> people could have been killed intentionally by the Taliban,
> instead of indirectly when trying to liberate them form it?
I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll invent (as you did in the past) something completely different. Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy is a waste of time & that military intervention is the best option?
> Are you honestly trying to defend that notion?
That innocent people should not be murdered? Yes of course I am. Idealistic, simplistic but surely better than your notion that innocent people will be killed.
> Don't ever say that you are for the innocent, for you truly
> aren't. You are for your own comfortable ideals that don't fully
> address the actual plight of those being opressed. It's about a
> political idenditity for which you sacrfice pragmatism in order
> to remain a fringe entity.
WTF. So now after all I've stated, thanks once again to you for telling me what I truly am. That's what the fascists do you know tell people what to do & think. The coalition trained & armed the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, just like it has done with other dictators in the middle east countries, & why? Because it wants to be the worlds police force & have control over nations & commerce in oil rich countries & it's surrounding neighbourhoods. Therefore being in cohesion with the oppressors of these nations. Talk a look in the mirror of pragmatism, have you actually read some of the 'facts' that you've come out with?
> It's pathetic, and offensive for you to even pretend that those
> in favor of military action are the ones who are causing
> innocent casualites, when your own position would have left many
> more to be murdered, tortured and made to be misreable so as to
> preserve your own religious notion of peace at all costs.
READ ABOVE POSTING, YES THE ONE THAT YOU NEVER SEEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
> How very, very sad, that you even made an effort to respond to
> this. I am shcoked that you see no good coming from what has
> occurred recently. Your own far left brainwashing has really
> done a number on you.
I see innocent people have been murdered, that's very sad, something you haven't had the decency to show any remorse for. If my own far left brainwashing has done a number on me as you so eloquently put it, at least I managed to escape the far right brainwashing that you can not appear to escape from, I made a choice you are but a sheep.
> I actually said to myself that I really can't imagine anyone
> opposing what has occurred through the bombing efforts, but I
> was again caught off guard. Unlike you, maybe Suzanne is smart
> enough to keep her mouth shut, and not seem as ridiculous and
> chidlish as you have, for there is no other way a response that
> opposes this effort can now be perceived.
(Talking to yourself eh? - careful with your admissions here). I told you in our original arguements that I'd had enough of trying to debate with you as it fell upon your deaf ears/blind eyes because you just became so selective & stupid with your own arguements. You forced me out of retirement by your gung-ho "look how righteous I am" statement. Childish, hnmmmn, I'm opposed to murder you are all in favour of it, well if that's being childish pass me a rusk.
> You've lost any chance at securing a highground on this subject.
> It is best that you relent, and admit that you were mistaken,
> and that force is sometimes necessary.
READ MY POST IN CAPS FURTHER UP - NUMBTY. Mistaken my arse.
> Your family really should conisder an intervention, and a
> serious attempt at deprogramming is in order.
When you out grow your mind numbtiness then let's talk about the order of deprogramming, you see at least I've taken a step out of the arena where I was programmed to believe in father christmas etc.
> What's your point?
STOP MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. (IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO IGNORE?)
> We couldn't bomb them or physically restrain them. We sugested
> and asked them to refrain. It's not like we are absolutely upset
> about it. It would have been ideal if they hadn't, but they did,
> and we're not really angry about that. They weren't doing
> anything horrible.
Selective bombing now are you? Have you seen the pictures of the taliban supporters being tortured, obviously not, but I bow down to your knowledge of what is 'horrible'! I see where your justice department lies.
> And the terrorist network that is next is anyone that is deemed
> a threat to national security.
Who's national security?
> Could be Iraq.
Oh no not that old chestnut, now who armed & trained that fellah & his band of oppressors there? Who bombed the fcuk out of Iraq & who despite all this bombing who is still their dictator, oh yes bombing innocent people really works, well done.
> He was caught and imprisoned without us having to resort to
> force. Those who were found to be invovled were sought out. He
> was not acting on part of a militia or any other group.
He was a nutter from an organisation of nutters he didn't get to where he is today by himself. Organized terrorists, (is that bells ringing? or is it just x-mas).
> And if someone is found to be plotting or enacting terrorist
> acts against us, then they will be sought. If they resist then
> there will be force used, just like there is force being used in
> this instance.
So racial hatred is ok with you, or do you have to wait until an act is done before going in all guns blazing?
> We obviously are going to be conncerned with those organizations
> that are an immediate threat to our own national security.
For that read "my comfortable white middle class world". (it must be catching this speaking for other people malarky)
> Besides, I don't have to agree with Bush's absurd position that
> we are going to eliminate every form of terrorism. I don't agree
> with it.
So which terrorists (besides race hate groups, as you've already made your position clear on them) are you also going to allow?
> Take it up with him. I agree with certain particulars. I can
> only speak for myself, and I'm not here to defend Bush. I'm here
> to defend the use of force as a tool for peace. And I think
> that's really what is being debated.
Great quote, "I can only speak for myself", as you like to speak for me so much. "force as a tool for peace" Idiot bully - that's marvelous.
> If the Ku Kulx Klan is found to be plotting terrorist attacks
> then that effort will be rightfully deconstructed. In fact,
> efforts have been intercepted in the past.
So you know admit the kkk are a terrorist organisation but you don't bomb the areas where they live? hnmmmn now why's that then?
> You know Grim, they are indeed mointoring domestic groups like
> the KKK over here, and have been for a long time.
But not bombing them, you told me in our earlier 'debatings' that bin laden has been monitored for years also.
> Grim, why would we need to bomb a domestic terrorist group?
So it's ok to have your own homebased terrorist organisations, d'uh terrorists murder people, that's why you need to do something about them.
> You're, making no sense, and it's quite disturbing. Unlike the
> Taliban, there's no need to bomb them to accomplish the
> objective. They are arrested and if they resist, fire fights
> ensue.
I'm making no sense, unlike your words of wisdom.
> Are you aware that some of the terrorist cells involved on 9/11
> have been recently taken apart in America without being bombed?
> Does that register with your logic? They were aligned aspects of
> Al Qaida, and they obviously were dealt with without being
> bombed. Does it occur to you that we may be bombing Afghanistan
> for a reson? Oh dear Jesus this is absurd.
Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously you've changed tact. Oh exspensive Christmas guy, this is absurd.
> There's a great logistical differences between attacking
> domestic terrorism and attacking a violent, foreign regime.
Yep, don't @#!!! on your own doorstep comes to mind.
> That comment was just embarassing. Please think these thinks
> about before posting, or just stop responding altogether.
I'm not sorry that you feel embarrassed & I only hope you take your own advice & stop responding all together now.
> You must be trolling with these thoughts. I feel guilty even
> responding, but there might be some impressionable child out
> there reading over this right now.
> sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
> peace off Grim O'Grady Okay, well, this concludes the
> "Maniac Hour" here on Channel Ten.
Impressive, I bet you could become a scriptwriter for Letterman.
> Please address any appreciatable letters to "Blind and
> Illogical Pacifist (AKA Grim O'grady).
My eyes are wide open & I'm no pacifist illogical or otherwise.
> Thanks for watching.
I'll leave you with this quote "Empty vessels make the most noise".
You've been a great audience, & it's goodnight from both of us.
Re: free thinkers of the world... there's 1 born everyday
Okay, it's official, you're nuts, but this is a bit fun, so I'll indulge you.
A majority of your post was incoherent and mangled gramatically, but we'll see what we can do.
>>It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no humour in that. So obviously bombing does specifically work Grim, no matter what
> comes of it afterwards. Certainly your only other option is
> diplomacy alone, and I think unless you desire to be perceived
> as a complete dunce at this point, holding such a sentiment is
> useless.
>>I assume you are not talking about the bombing on Sept' 11th (at least I hope you are not). Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware that goes with them if they are not to be used? Over 30 years ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke & his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found? 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits & still bombing?>If you was including the bombing of Sept' 11th (surely not) then is this the diplomatic responce?>Don't make me laugh (though you make a better comedian than someone to be taken seriously). Yugoslavia was the result of "the > coalition is priming a government based on the involved tribal > factions." after ww2.>Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world, with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.>I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll invent (as you did in the past) something completely different. Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy is a waste of time & that military intervention is the best option?>Selective bombing now are you? Have you seen the pictures of the taliban supporters being tortured, obviously not, but I bow down to your knowledge of what is 'horrible'! I see where your justice department lies.>Who's national security?>Oh no not that old chestnut, now who armed & trained that fellah & his band of oppressors there? Who bombed the fcuk out of Iraq & who despite all this bombing who is still their dictator, oh yes bombing innocent people really works, well done.>He was a nutter from an organisation of nutters he didn't get to where he is today by himself. Organized terrorists, (is that bells ringing? or is it just x-mas).>So racial hatred is ok with you, or do you have to wait until an act is done before going in all guns blazing?>So which terrorists (besides race hate groups, as you've already made your position clear on them) are you also going to allow?>So you know admit the kkk are a terrorist organisation but you don't bomb the areas where they live? hnmmmn now why's that then?>But not bombing them, you told me in our earlier 'debatings' that bin laden has been monitored for years also.>Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously you've changed tact. Oh exspensive Christmas guy, this is absurd.
> This is very a long & boring reposte to loafing oaf/mr
> so&so, I suggest if you are not they then you leave now...
Oh, but this is too intriguing to leave to just 2 other posters...
> I have agreed all along that the terrorist bin laden ought to be
> sought out & brought to justice, along with any terrorist
> organisations.
...which is what we've been DOING, in part.
> I am opposed to the innocent slaughter by the coalition forces.
War = casualties, some civilian. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?
> It wasn't my idea to arm & train the taliban to oppress
> Afghanistan, it was your logic that did that. I can find no
> humour in that.
You totally missed his point that, quite frankly, the use of force HAS yielded some positive results for the people of Afghanistan (and no, no no, not the dead ones, I know).
> Well numbty oaf/so&so you've just saved the coalition billions
> on the defence budgets, what's the point of training up all
> these special forces, surveilance teams & all the hardware
> that goes with them if they are not to be used?
If you turn on the news, you will see that they ARE being used. They're not using sticks and stones, you know.
> Over 30 years
> ago man walked on the moon, amazing technology but 1 bloke &
> his band of terrorists in Afghanistan in 2001 can't be found?
They're working on it.
> 'Intelligence' (I use that word lightly) told us all along that
> bin laden would be up in a cave out of the way, it seems like
> 'Intelligence' got it right, so why bomb the cities to bits
> & still bombing?
Because it is in these cities that the Taliban operates!! We're not just going around dropping bombs in schools and mrkets! We are knocking out key facilities which are impairing their ability to operate.
> Hey numbty ask the innocent dead ones how great it is!
> Innocent people were killed in ww2 but that's because the world,
> with it's blinkered thinkers (not unlike yourself today) allowed
> 1 bloke & his terrorist band of followers to exist in 1933.
The point is: IT HAPPENED.
And since it happened, something needed to be done. Christ! It's almost as if you're saying, "shame on Germany for 'allowing' such a monster to come to power; there's nothing we could (or should) do about it."
> I know you can't see this as it always semms to disappear from
> your version of my postings BUT I NEVER EVER SAID DO NOTHING, I
> SAID GO GET THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTROCITY! I know
> this will not register on your version of my posting or you'll
> invent (as you did in the past) something completely different.
> Are you in agreement then that voting for democracy
huh?
Is "voting for democracy" supposed to be an option in 'fixing' things in Afghanistan? That doesn't even make sense.
> is a waste
> of time & that military intervention is the best option?
So far, YES.
> That innocent people should not be murdered? Yes of course I am.
> Idealistic, simplistic but surely better than your notion that
> innocent people will be killed.
I just don't understand: WHAT, DO YOU PROPOSE, SHOULD BE DONE??
> I'm opposed to murder you are all in favour of it, well if
> that's being childish pass me a rusk.
Don't be a moron. I don't believe So&So and Oaf are in favor of murder! Murder is an unfortunate by-product of war and you need to accept this.
Anyway, to reiterate So&So's point, if you're opposed to the unintentional killings of the military in their attempts to liberate Afghanistan from the grips of the Taliban, then I would assume you're also opposed to the DELIBERATE MURDER of innocent individuals by the Taliban for "breaking" the most absurd "laws" of their f-ed up "religion."
> STOP MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. (IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO
> IGNORE?)
There's a difference between "kill" and "murder" - try not to make that mistake again.
> Our news stated that some of those involved with the attrocity
> of 11/9 are already over here in England. Does that register
> with your logic? I thought you were after bin laden, obviously
> you've changed tact.
That is for YOUR government to take care of. I'm sure Tony Blair has been monitoring terrorist elements in HIS country.
Amidst all your rantings and ravings, you still haven't given us any insight as to how YOU, Grim O'Grady, would go about solving this problem.
Seek out and kill bin Laden?
We're on it! But guess what?
That won't put an end to terrorism.
So that's my question to you. Would you mind answering it?
Oh, my god. This is a true american speaking... Exactly what propaganda sheets have you been reading?
I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how un-terrorlike he was?!
And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.
If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have happened.
By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.
USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.
L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance ?
Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.
"Oh the rhythm of life".
"Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your intellect.
Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.
But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so aptly execute.
Let's talk in ten months time.
BTW, how's Kosovo and Serbia nowadays? What about America's promised support to Romania after the bombings on Kosovo?
So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide after inflicting the wounds.
>>L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance? Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory
> switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.
What's your point? So it's a bad thing? There is no reason to be cheering at all? The fact is they are glad, and so are many other people, whether it's because of immediate relief or a sense of long term hope.
You have to start somewhere. Oh, but I forgot, if we had handle this by giving out hugs and counciling the Taliban on exactly why what they're doing is wrong, then everything would have transitioned perfectly, and a new dawn would break with butterflies dashing about and candy canes for everyone.
This knee-jerk cynicism is sickening and says a lot.
> "Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your
> intellect.
So, are you suggesting that strategic bombing doesn't work? You wouldn't dare go that far would you?
If you were one of the ones claiming that we should first attempt to understand the Taliban and Al Qaeda so that we could better appease them, then I'm sure many would be amazed by your own intellect.
> Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and
> the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.
You honestly cannot be serious employing such a false analogy as this one.
Terrorist attacks bent on revenge and military strikes designed to elimniate a violent army are two completely different purposes and scenarios. This display of logic is rather shocking.
> But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether
> or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so
> aptly execute.
No, we were specifically told that violence only begets violence and that the entire Muslim world would rise up against us, and that we would never achieve anyhting in Afghnaistan. We were only bombing rocks and tens remember? Also, it would be a quagmire similiar to Viet Nam, and the Taliban are relentless and will fight to the death.
We were told the same thing in Iraq only to watch as soldiers surrendered to television crews and Kuwait was effeciently protected from invasion.
Yeah, I see, now it's about some mysterious agenda that we have planned, such as an oil pipeline, right?
> Let's talk in ten months time.
No, let's talk about it now. No one knows what will happen in ten months time and no one is attempting to predicitthat. We are simply asserting that our intitial plan has worked, and has given more hope for change than any diplomatic effort ever could have.
> So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a
> decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide
> after inflicting the wounds.
Well, certainly it's never about liberation or protecting one form opression and attack, right? It's always about the idea of nation building that rarely ever works with an outside force involved, and the idea that the United States is supposed to support these liberated nations indefinitely, all the while ignoring its own problems.
So, eseentilaly we are required to not only fight for these nations, but support them financially as well right? We are suppossed to ignore any problems in our own country and concern ourselves with anothers economic success. I see. All the while we bare both the economic and military burden.
That's not realistic. A country has to take responsibilty for its own governement once the threat is eliminated, and only so much can be expected from the United States.
America was begged by the U.N. and the people of Somlia to help them in their civil war, and to get aid to them that was being intercepted, yet what happened when we obliged? We were attacked and many soldiers were killed.
Therefore we stayed out of the conflict in Rawanda because of that failure and were lambasted for it.
But again, nothing the U.S. does will ever appease your kind because your own brand of idealism never has to be tested. Even if it were and it failed, you would most likely blame the lack of ideal application as the source of its failure.
In the mean time, there are immediate problems to deal with that don't respond kindly to ideal application.
> L.O., shouldn't you be thanking the Northern Alliance ?
> Oh yes, people are cheering. Remember (do you have that memory
> switch?) they also cheered when the Taliban came into power.
> "Oh the rhythm of life".
From the NY Times today:
======
In Kabul, DVD's and TV's Fill the Shopping Bags; Burkas Sit
on the Shelves
Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov. 17 --
Two teenage boys spent the day savoring one of the rituals
of youth the world over. They cruised the city to see and
be seen, to pick up a favorite album, perhaps to shed a bit
of adolescent awkwardness....
...
In a narrow basement passageway of the Sarai Ahmadshahi market,
Wahid, a slender 20-year-old thread salesman, sat down with
his burka-clad female friend just a few feet away to enjoy
a 15-minute chat this afternoon. Such a long discussion in
public would have been both scandalous and illegal under the
Taliban, which decreed that an unmarried woman could speak
to a single man only long enough to make a quick purchase.
"With the freedom we have, women can sit on a chair and
talk," Wahid said, blushing like a schoolboy.
After thinking about it for a moment, he agreed to ask
his friend if she would speak to a foreigner. When asked if
she was happy with the changed in Afghanistan, she said,
"Yes." Her smile was so bright it glowed through the mesh
of her Burka.
======
You think you know what is best for the people of Afghanistan
more than they do. Well, they have lived under the most closed
and oppressive regime in the world for years, and they are
cheering their liberation. Apparently you think they are too
stupid to know they are wrong to cheer? Are they wrong to
cheer? What is it you're saying? Do they not deserve the
same kind of pleasures in life YOU enjoy? Would you not
want to be liberated if you found yourself under a Taliban
style regime?
> "Bombing does work" ... most will be amazed by your
> intellect.
So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?
> Who has still to be convinced? We remember Oaklahoma City, and
> the WTC "bombings". Sure, they work.
Yes, Oklahoma City, where a madman indiscriminately bombed
innocent people. And Sept. 11, where 19 state-sponsored
mass murderers indiscriminately missiled innocent people.
Quite a contrast from the coalition bombing campaign, which
had the most precisely aimed bombs in warfare history,
targetting the people who oppress, murder, and starve their
own people, and seek to impose such a life everywhere else.
> But when are you going to realize that it is not so much whether
> or not they work that is at stake, but the hidden agenda they so
> aptly execute.
So, you're not happy to see the fall of the Taliban?
> Let's talk in ten months time.
I can see you're hoping for the worst for the people of
Afghanistan.
Also from the NY Times today:
======
Crawford, Tex., Nov. 17--
The Bush administration said today that it would apply
intense pressure on the Northern Alliance...not to create
a government on its own but to fulfill its promise to
let the United Nations put together a broad coalition
to rule the country.
======
Difficult, sure. May fail, yes. But not worth trying?
Would you prefer to send the Afghan people back to the Taliban?
Deny them the hope for peace and some sort of better country?
> BTW, how's Kosovo and Serbia nowadays? What about America's
> promised support to Romania after the bombings on Kosovo?
They're doing better than they were under the fascist Milosevic.
Even Serbs are beginning to agree that they're better
off without their genocidal maniac, who today is standing on the
block.
Oh the Rhythm of Fred F and the Lot: Always opposing the downfall of fascist terror regimes.
> So, we got the bombs. If America wants to tell the world it's a
> decent nation, we'll be looking forward to the care they provide
> after inflicting the wounds.
More humanitarian aid is getting into Afghanistan today than before
the bombing, which might save thousands from starving to death
this winter.
> I'll be looking forward.
What you're looking forward to is something horrible happening
to the Afghan people, to confirm the ideology you're invested
in. I hope world leaders learned from the past and will not
leave Afghanistan in chaos. And I hope people within Afghanistan
understand their responsibility in making a break from the
past. The rhetoric suggests they have. The eyes of the world
are upon them, which will hopefully make all involved act
properly.
Whatever happens, I cheer over the fall of the Taliban,
and the success of the first phase of the war, while
you oddly boo.
I'm American by chance of birth. Not sure what "true American"
means, but if it means I believe the Declaration of Independance
is the greatest document ever written, that all people
in this world deserve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
(an ideal Usama bin Laden adhors as "satanic"),
and that American policy is right when it is acting to encourage this end and wrong when it is not, then yes, I am a true American. Haven't
yet been able to figure out what the f*&k people like you are,
but whatever it is it's nothing I'd be proud of.
>Exactly what
> propaganda sheets have you been reading?
Just watching the news.
Everyone is influenced by propaganda to an extent, but I make
a sincere effort to have a balanced view. You, on the other
hand, make such purely propagandistic declarations as
"America is nothing more than a terror regime," and still have the
gall to talk of others being propagandists. Where's even the
attempt on your part to be balanced?
> I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one
> thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries
> freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that
> Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen
> by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how
> un-terrorlike he was?!
I was talking about current events. I've read the book "The
Trial of Henry Kissinger," and I know about the evils of
American leaders in Chile. You seem to have misinterpretted
my statement about "irrational and extremist" America bashing.
I have most certainly not suggested my country never does
stupid, bad, or evil things. But America has also done some
smart, good, and beautiful things, which people like you never
seem to notice. You really don't know anything about America
at all. It is you who takes the black and white view on things:
America, always wrong; America, always evil.
You, in the current events, are not happy about
the liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban,
which makes *you* the child of those on the
side of Pinochet in Chile, not me.
> And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much
> thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're
> going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.
Well, I didn't know it was their strategy for the Taliban
to take power (is it just possible that some ill in this
world occurs without American intent and design behind it?),
but they did stupidly, selfishly abandon the country in a state of chaos - after helping to remove foreign occupiers - and to the extent
that American policy had the awful consequence of helping
the Taliban rise, it makes America morally responsible to
help clean up the mess. America did not meet that
moral responsibility until after self-defense was added
to the mix, which is too bad, but makes me no less
exhilerated to see the Taliban go down.
In contrast, your view appears to be, the Taliban should be
left in power to go on murdering, persecuting, oppressing,
and planning to spread murder, persecution and oppression
throughout the region and the world. It is only when
American guns are turned on fascists that people like you
start taking an active concern about those countries...and
you shamefully choose the side of the fascists.
> If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you
> deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for
> USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have
> happened.
Whenever someone begins, "I'm not saying blah-blah-blah, BUT..."
you can bet blah-blah-blah is precisely what they're saying.
Individuals are morally responsible for their own actions.
I'm sorry about your lack of consideration for the 5000 murdered people in NYC, DC, and PENN, who were just trying to live their lives.
If you'd like some backround on the worldview of bin Laden
there's an extensive and fascinating article called
"The Revolt of ISlam" in the Nov. 19 issue of the New Yorker,
on newstands now. (Don't worry, it has critiques on
American policy.) I've already gone in depth about my
interpretations on the terrorists on this board, which
can be found with the search feature.
> By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern
> alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody
> history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.
We know you're hoping for the worst.
I don't know what's gonna happen, duh. I'm just happy phase one was a success and the Taliban will soon be history. The Afghan people
are happy for this as well, which means you're not on
their side.
I'm also happy that the terrorist network is in a state of disaray,
which will help prevent them from planning future, bigger mass
murders. I saw they found some plans for nuclear weapons
the other day. What a lovely world we'd have to look forward
to if the majority of the world agreed with you. Instead,
the good and decent people of the world
have proven they will rise up and defend what is worth defending
against an enemy it cannot co-exist with.
Sure, we also now know we can't count on *you* when we're in
a pinch, but ah well, so be it.
> USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.
I was curious if you'd express relief that you were wrong
about the bombing, and happiness that Afghan cities are
being liberated from the Taliban. But, no, not good
old Grim.....
> So have no innocent people been murdered? - you numbty.
5,000 innocent people were murdered in New York, D.C., and
PEnnsylvania. You never seem to have them in mind. When
the Taliban took power, they went down the streets randomly
shooting adults and children for the sport of it. They
then set up the most closed and oppressive "government"
in the world, and were so incompetant they have been
causing the starvation of one out of four children.
They emulate the nazis in making perscuted groups wear
markers, not to mention their ambitions. They treat women as lower than dogs. And they welcomed in a foreign terrorist network seeking to bring death and destruction to the entire world.
They committed the final provocation with their indiscriminate
bombings of innocent people, and were met with the most
discriminating bombings of guilty people and their infrastructure. Of course bombs sometimes go off target, causing tragedy.
The blame is on the regime who forced the bombs to fall upon them.
Meanwhile, the people in liberated cities celebrate, have hope,
are getting more humanitarian aid to prevent starvation, are no
longer beaten in the streets, no longer shot dead in their soccer stadium (they were playing *soccer* there the other day!), etc etc etc. Thousands of lives are being saved, and have a chance at a life more worth living. Doesn't mean all is
cheery for the future, but it's a helluva good start.
> I'm a him, as you well know but you still use childishness to
> try & 'prove' your point.
I was going to do the "her/him" thing, but I remembered
one of your comrades posted "you go girl!" to you in a previous
thread.
>We will not know the full extent
> of the coalition bombing of Afghanistan is for quite a while as
> you well know these things are kept out of the public domain,
> it's part of your brainwashing therapy. - numbty
You condemned the bombing before it began, on the assumption
that anything America does is by definition evil. You were
wrong.
I told you in the previous thread that it was clear America
had to act, that I'd judge the results, and that there was
every reason to believe the people of Afghanistan would
cheer in the streets (this was obvious if you had genuine empathy
for them).
And the people of Afghanistan did cheer the bombing of their
own regime. Looks like you were not on their side.
> I can only speak for myself in what I said, I was always &
> will always be on the side of the innocent. I see you are using
> those 'clever' words like "stupidity" again. - numbty
> (again)
Does anyone here think Grim O'Grady is not stupid? I ask
seriously.
> My silence as only been broken now because of you & your
> gung-ho clap-trappings. - you numbty.
> Were to start? I'm glad you are cheering for the innocent, well
> how about showing some remorse for the innocents who won't be
> cheering because your beloved coalition have murdered them.
>I'm
> no peacenik, has if you'd bother to read my original postings
> back in September you'd know that I'm not a pacifist.
Yawn.
>I'm not
> the owner of a gun (unlike yourself who owns several)
I love the way you care whether I own guns.
>but I'm
> quite capable of violence.
Oh yeah? Well, I'm non-violent, except in the fewest
of scenerios, such as self-defense.
I wouldn't want to be "quite" capable of harming
others.
>What 'decent' people are these that
> have killed innocent people? I think it is you young person who
> is going to get their nosed rubbed in it, unfortunately as more
> & more of the truth is established about the innocents that
> have died in your bloody war. The war is already lost to those
> innocents that have been murdered. - golden nugget numbty.
We've seen the credibility of the "truths" you offer. Anyone
can do a search of your messages on topic since Sept. 11
and see how Grim O'Grady ought to be declared the weather-vane of
Morrissey-Solo. Whatever Grim says is true you can count on
being false. A person unsure of what to think could simply
follow this strategy, taking the opposite view of Grim, and get along quite well.
> One day, possible when you are older (yes, I'm being
> patronising) you might just regret that statement. - sad numbty.
LOL! (Yes, I'm laughing at you.)
> Hopefully the coalition Taliban (for remember it was them that
> trained & armed them in the first place) will be just
> another sad memory gone forever, unfortunately who is the next
> regime the coalition are priming?
Well, if fascists take over Afghanistan again, they can count
on you to protest anyone who attacks them.
I'm aware this only sets the clock back ten years for
Afghanistan. But phase one worked like a charm.
Give war a chance!
Or, keep crying over the destruction of the Taliban....
Just quit using "innocent kids" in Afghanistan
as propaganda tools. They are better off today
than two months ago, as the whole world can see.
I remain convinced that you want tragedies to happen to
innocent Afghanis so you can hold them up and condemn
America. You just ain't convincing in your compassion.
You've invested yourself in the worst happening, so
you feel no joy when something good happens.
> I'd love an explaination of "the terrorist network is
> next." Who are they?
Duh!
We blew up on of their leaders already. Happy day. YOu know,
it's really doing the terrorists a favor. They say they wanna be martyred. Ok, then, we'll help them meet Allah. Strange, though, that as much as they claim to want this, they run and hide in
caves.
The rest of your message is just too idiotic to even deal with.
You really ought to go back to holding your tongue.
>You think the coalition are the
> 'worlds police force' but once again you are wrong, they
> couldn't keep the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, even
> though they'd asked them not to. So where's the next big push on
> terrorism going to be? Are they going to start off in their own
> back yards? In the U.S. are they going to bomb the organisations
> that give to the I.R.A. in Ireland? Who was that fascist nutter
> who bombed that building in your country (can't remember the
> name) McVie or something like that, are you going to bomb the
> mob he belonged to? Over here are you going to bomb plaid cymru
> for their terrorist burning of buildings? Nah, are you fcuk! You
> are just so full of it, as always. What's your opinion on the ku
> klux klan? b.n.p./combat 18 here in England? Are they going to
> receive the bombing treatment, nah once again. Because you don't
> mind living with fascists in your midst, much easier to bomb
> those in foreign parts.
> Your problem is you think you talk a good fight, just is that
> you don't, you are weak & hide behind your govt brainwashing
> you, you don't think for yourself. Whether you believe me or
> not, it is no matter to me, I know when fascism has raised it's
> ugly head I've been there to smash it, so don't ever use the
> word 'pacifist' to me.
> sleep well oh mighty ignorant numbty one.
> peace off
> Grim O'Grady
> I don't know what parts of history classes you skipped, but one
> thing USA is known NOT to fight for is other countries
> freedom... It was for example with help from the mighty US that
> Pinochet managed to owerthrow Chile's Salvador Allende (chosen
> by the people!). And I presume it hasn't slipped your mind how
> un-terrorlike he was?!
What does this have to do with Afghanistan and what does this have to do with every administartions handling of foreign matters? I cannot debate the comment above for I do not know the history of it in full detail, and I'm quite confident you don't either.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be about the degree of America's philanhropic good, it has to do with what is effective in fighting an enemy.
> And I'm sure you know that the talibans came to power much
> thanks to the US? A very intelligent stratey ideed? "You're
> going to reap just what you sow" as Lou Reed put it.
Whether the U.S. would have been involved with Pakistan's intelligence service or not, the Taliban would have taken over Afghanistan because they were bolstered by the Pakistani government and were desired by the people.
This constant implication of every little involvement the U.S. has had with foreign governemnts, in terms of degrees is rather desperate. I mean, I could implicate great Bitain and all of human history in a simliar fashion.
In fact, I could just as easily claim that we are in this mess beacuse of the British Empire, and even beyond that, the Soviet Union.
You also fail to mention the Soviet Union and Argentina in your equation and it was the Soviet Union that did more for the chaos now seen in Afghanistan than the United States.
Whether you disagree with how the U.S. handled the aftermath of the Soviet invasion or not, America's interest in keeping the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan helped free the country from a Communist take over, something that the country had every right to desire.
International affairs are genrally about self-interest and getting something out of it. Ask Osama Bin Laden. An action doesn't have to be comepletely philanthropic for there to be any good to come out of it.
Thinking in such a manner is being wishful and denying the reality of human psychology. The world is not an unconditional place. Intimate relationships are not unconditional and neither are foreign affairs.
> If course I'm not saying that you americans got what you
> deserved (nobody deserves terrorism!), but if it wasn't for
> USA's extremely clumsy foreign politics, none of this would have
> happened.
Yes, we saved Kuwait form invasion, Kosovo from bloody opression, helped keep Afghanistan from Soviet rule, and are currently helping oust the Taliban. Is it all for philanthrpic good? No, but it doesn't matter.
The U.S. is not perfect, but to place the blame of Bin Laden's desires and his own philsophy on the United States is absurd. I assume if we went back in history and reversed every decuision that somehow trickled down to someone having a grievance with us, the there would be no Islamic extremists, no violent regimes and the world would be at peace correct?
What an unbelievable extrapolation and a complete denial in asking for the responsibilty of anyone else involved.
The Soviet Union led Afghansitan through a decade of bloody war and the United States single handedly created the problem in Afghanistan? Islamic extremeism and the opression of Islamic people by their own religious doctrine has created an atmosphere of archaic hatred for outside influence, yet, the United States as always is at fault.
This is the reality of modern times. No one is willing to place blame on anyone else for their actions because they are all eventually deemed justify when it comes to attacking the United States.
However the providing of aid and the protecting of European oil resources in the Gulf get swept under the rug.
Still no acknowledgement of the atmosphere that is bred in Islamic culture that allows the proliferation of extremist views to dominate and be hardly refuted.
No, this is just about Israel, and somehow Nicaragua, Cambodia and a slew of other grievances devised by partisan politics.
It's funny, for if an extremist Christian group attempted the same antics in the West, there would be no devised grievances set out by far left academics over the idea of opression or the ignorance of cultural and ideological relativism. No, the ones comitting the violent acts would be deemed silly, dangerous, primitve and fascist.
You see none of that being said about Islamic extremists because saying so interferes with partisan politcs. islamic extreemists are figthing the same hated enemy as far left academics and politcal heads.
> By the way, what will happen to Afghanistan now? The northern
> alliance is not that lovely either... They've got a bloody
> history of rapes, mutilations and terror too.
We've endorsed a broad based governemnt made up of tribal factions. No one has endoresed the N.A. as the expected government of Afghanistan. That is something that the Afghani coalition will have to determin. That's not the U.S.' decision. The N.A. alliance was there before Sept. 11 and were the only major army figthing the Taliban. We have no choice, whether we could have achieved this through a diplomatic effort alone, to involve the N.A. in the discussion over Afghanistan's future.
That's all we can do. Certainly you don't abandon the idea of defeating the Taliban because the N.A. alliance might do bad things as well. You have to act wisely, diplomatically and refrain from endorsing any one group in particular.
But I'm certain if the Afghani coalition makes a bad decision, then the U.S. will be blamed for not having waved a magic wand and creating a swift utopia.
>>USA is just another terror regime, and you better face it.
Re: BOMB THE TALIBAN, BOMB THE TALIBAN, BOMB THE TALIBAN!
How about the TAKE A NICE DUMPY DUMP ON STICKLER fund? that'd go over pretty well I think. We can get a group together? sure,we can get people to donate and see just how much it's going to cost me to dump all over your face. Where do I sign up??
> I was curious if you'd express relief that you were wrong
> about the bombing, and happiness that Afghan cities are
> being liberated from the Taliban. But, no, not good
> old Grim.....
If no innocent people have been murdered then I am wrong about the bombing BUT as you well know innocent people have been murdered.
Of course I'm happy for the liberated ones just sad for the murdered ones kind of doesn't make me feel like running & jumping for joy, like your goodself.
> 5,000 innocent people were murdered in New York, D.C., and
> PEnnsylvania. You never seem to have them in mind.
Why do you tell lies, people only need to put in a search of my past posts in September to see that I did have them very much in mind, but if people did start re-reading your replies they'd see your made up lies also, so you wouldn't want that would you?
When
> the Taliban took power, they went down the streets randomly
> shooting adults and children for the sport of it.
Whilst the coalition have randomly bombed cities murdering innocent adults & children but neither make it right.
They
> then set up the most closed and oppressive
> "government"
> in the world, and were so incompetant they have been
> causing the starvation of one out of four children.
> They emulate the nazis in making perscuted groups wear
> markers, not to mention their ambitions. They treat women as
> lower than dogs. And they welcomed in a foreign terrorist
> network seeking to bring death and destruction to the entire
> world.
Have I ever stated that I'm mister taliban supporter or number 1 fan? No, never but if you'd bother to read my previous posts you'd understand that.
> They committed the final provocation with their indiscriminate
> bombings of innocent people, and were met with the most
> discriminating bombings of guilty people and their
> infrastructure. Of course bombs sometimes go off target, causing
> tragedy.
> The blame is on the regime who forced the bombs to fall upon
> them.
Finally you admit it to be a tragedy, that's the first time you've admitted any feelings towards the innocent people being murdered.
Still no remorse for them or their families I see but I guess your having to much of a party for that.
> Meanwhile, the people in liberated cities celebrate, have hope,
> are getting more humanitarian aid to prevent starvation, are no
> longer beaten in the streets, no longer shot dead in their
> soccer stadium (they were playing *soccer* there the other
> day!), etc etc etc. Thousands of lives are being saved, and have
> a chance at a life more worth living. Doesn't mean all is
> cheery for the future, but it's a helluva good start.
Bravo.
> I was going to do the "her/him" thing, but I
> remembered
> one of your comrades posted "you go girl!" to you in a
> previous
> thread.
I don't actually know the person you are refferring to, so lose the 'comrade' please. As I've explained that I'm married to an American woman I think that's more than enough information for even you to work out my sex. Obviously I gave you to much credit.
> You condemned the bombing before it began, on the assumption
> that anything America does is by definition evil. You were
> wrong.
There you go again you & your paranoia, at least you got one part right, yes I was opposed (& still am) to the C O A L I T I O N bombing. Never have I used the words "anything America". Please read my original posts for proof.
> I told you in the previous thread that it was clear America
> had to act, that I'd judge the results, and that there was
> every reason to believe the people of Afghanistan would
> cheer in the streets (this was obvious if you had genuine
> empathy
> for them).
Not everyone is cheering in the streets, not everyone survived, life in Afghanistan is easy for you to overlook, why's that?
> And the people of Afghanistan did cheer the bombing of their
> own regime. Looks like you were not on their side.
Not the dead ones or the families of the dead ones, silly boy.
> Does anyone here think Grim O'Grady is not stupid? I ask
> seriously.
Reasoned & sensible arguement there, anything else you'd like to call me whilst you are at it, it doesn't hurt me unlike the bombs on the innocent people of Afghanistan.
> Yawn.
Stay awake one day you may just learn something.
> I love the way you care whether I own guns.
No I just think it helps explain your blood lust mentality.
> Oh yeah? Well, I'm non-violent, except in the fewest
> of scenerios, such as self-defense.
> I wouldn't want to be "quite" capable of harming
> others.
Whilst you own numerous guns you are very capable of hurting yourself & others. Actually remember that daft analogy you gave me about what I'd do if I saw someone being raped? I know you answered it for me (wrongly as you do to most things) I said I would go to their aid & do whatever I could but whilst on my way I wouldn't just punch whoever was in the vacinity. Whereas you following on would go shoot up the neighbourhood, if what you believe of the coalition bombing is true.
> We've seen the credibility of the "truths" you offer.
> Anyone
> can do a search of your messages on topic since Sept. 11
> and see how Grim O'Grady ought to be declared the weather-vane
> of
> Morrissey-Solo. Whatever Grim says is true you can count on
> being false. A person unsure of what to think could simply
> follow this strategy, taking the opposite view of Grim, and get
> along quite well.
I cannot understand your audacity or stupidity that you could post that, were I've been wrong I've admitted it, can't recall your honesty anywhere though. If people could be arsed to read your posts then they would see your make believe lies about what I suposedly said.
> LOL! (Yes, I'm laughing at you.)
Well I just feel sorry for you.
> Well, if fascists take over Afghanistan again, they can count
> on you to protest anyone who attacks them.
If only you could understand my posts previously you'd understand how foolish you have just made yourself look.
> I'm aware this only sets the clock back ten years for
> Afghanistan. But phase one worked like a charm.
> Give war a chance!
Gung-ho!
> Or, keep crying over the destruction of the Taliban....
If only you could understand my posts previously you'd understand how foolish you have just made yourself look.
> Just quit using "innocent kids" in Afghanistan
> as propaganda tools. They are better off today
> than two months ago, as the whole world can see.
I'll stop using them as "propaganda tools" when you get your coalition to stop murdering them ok.
> I remain convinced that you want tragedies to happen to
> innocent Afghanis so you can hold them up and condemn
> America. You just ain't convincing in your compassion.
> You've invested yourself in the worst happening, so
> you feel no joy when something good happens.
Oh look paging mr paranoia once again. How can you feel so good about death?
> Duh!
?
> We blew up on of their leaders already. Happy day. YOu know,
> it's really doing the terrorists a favor. They say they wanna be
> martyred. Ok, then, we'll help them meet Allah. Strange, though,
> that as much as they claim to want this, they run and hide in
> caves.
osama bin laden is still out there or have you forgotten that? & I told you in the beginning before the slaughter began that they would be hiding in caves but no just keep on bombing the cities where innocent people are going to get murdered.
> The rest of your message is just too idiotic to even deal with.
> You really ought to go back to holding your tongue.
I'll go back to holding my tongue when numbties like you have stopped posting your filth in here.
Tali-BAM!
