Discussion:
: EFFECTS OF WARS AND THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM ON IRAQ
(too old to reply)
g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
2004-08-16 18:46:47 UTC
Permalink
http://traprockpeace.org/
http://www.traprockpeace.org/jawad_al-ali_iraq.pdf
http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=577
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/
http://www.chimerafilms.co.uk/children.html#morizumi
During the last 50 years, Iraq passed through many wars. The more
destructive one is the 1991 war (gulf war 2). In this war the
infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed completely. The war targeted
the military as well as the civilian targets. The factories, government
buildings, bridges, and hospitals were destroyed. During this war and
for the first time in the history the allied forces used Depleted
uranium containing weapons extensively at the west parts of Basrah City
(more than 300 tons were delivered at that area). The estimated delivery
of depleted uranium all over Iraq was 800 tons. This Depleted uranium
led to the increased levels of radiation in the battlefield and the
nearby cities and countries. The levels of radiation in the area,
measured by the department of environmental engineering (college of
engineering, university of Baghdad ) reached hundreds to thousands times
the normal background levels in the Iraqi soil which is 70 Bq/kg of
soil. This radiation and other factors like chemicals and poor nutrition
caused many diseases (cancers, congenital malformation in children,
kidney diseases and infections?etc.), then the economic sanction is
added to increase the suffering of the Iraqis.
We were lacking food and medicines. The death rate among children is
increased because of poor nutrition and infections (more than 5 millions
of children died within the last 12 years). Although the Iraqi
government accepted the memorandum of understanding (oil for food and
medicines), the committee 661 of the Security Council has crippled this
memorandum in many ways. The committee delayed contracts, partially
accepting contracts and sometimes delaying payments to the companies
with which the contracts are signed.
The Iraqi people were deprived from the recent advances in different
sciences and technology. The newly issued journals and published books
were not allowed to enter and to reach the Iraqi universities. We were
pushed backward years behind the fast development of technology and we
are now suffering the great lag of that period.
The damaged factories, hospitals and bridges were reconstructed by the
Iraqi people but still unable to provide our requirements. The
electricity, the water supply, and the industries are not sufficient.
In addition, our own government (Saddam regime) assaulted our people by
low payments at work, which led to the low income of the families and
poor financial capabilities specially for those who have simple jobs.
This low financial income (2-5 dollars/month) led to the appearance and
the increase in the low social classes of population and low educational
levels. Children left their schools to work in order to increase their
families' income and to maintain their lives. We could say all aspects
of life have been affected by that war and it could be described as the
most destructive war against Iraq. It was dirty war because of the use
of weapons containing depleted uranium against military as well as
civilian targets.
The recent war (gulf war 3) in 2003 was a violation of the international
law and against the will of the international community, which opposed
this war. The reasons were unbelievable (the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction which till now have no evidence).
During this war, again the depleted uranium was used extensively around
the city of Baghdad, city of Babylon, city of Karbala, city of Najef and
in the city of Basrah, which is still suffering the effects of the
depleted uranium of the gulf war 2 (1991). According to a report from
the Guardian newspaper 1000-2000 tons were delivered on 51 local areas
in different Iraqi cities. I witnessed the A-10 planes for three days
delivering the depleted uranium rounds against the tanks and armor
vehicles near Basrah airport and at the southern parts of Basrah city.
The estimated amount of this weapon of mass destruction is exceeding the
amount used in gulf war 2 (1991).
Again the infrastructure of our country is destroyed to greater extent.
More buildings were destroyed, libraries and other government buildings
were burned, the banks were robbed, and the occupation forces did not
take any action to protect these buildings, the schools and hospitals
from damage. Unknown people had stolen the Iraqi museum. All the Iraqi
army forces were released and no more army to protect the Iraqi cities.
In my opinion the aim of this war is the destruction of the Iraqi
structure, its history and its role in the civilization of the world.
Also to secure the oil of Iraq and Gulf States and to control all the
energy sources of the world and not merely the weapons of mass
destruction, which are not detected till this moment.
The rate of crime is increased to a dangerous level. Many people were
killed in the streets, at their homes and in their cars. Children and
girls were kidnapped from their schools. Doctors were killed at their
clinics. In spite of all these crimes the occupation forces did nothing
to stop it. Till now we have no elected government, and we have weak
police offices and no army to protect the people and their properties.
The electricity is not available and no healthy drinking water supply.
No security but we hope this situation will improve in the near future.
The resistance against the occupation forces is increasing and stills
active even after the capture of Saddam Hussein. This is mainly at the
middle and northern parts of Iraq, while at the south the resistance is
slight and nearly negligible. This is because the middle and northern
parts are more loyal to Saddam regime than the southern regions. The
aggressive behavior of the American soldiers worsens the situation in
their occupied areas. The more calm British soldiers made the resistance
less in the south. As revenge the Americans destroyed the houses and
killed many Iraqi people blindly without differentiation between
innocent people, terrorists and resistance militias. Thousands of people
were captured and put in prisons. In my opinion the Iraqi people dislike
occupation and will continue to fight until they extract their
sovereignty and to have their own elected government, which represents
all the parties and the different slices of community.
The health consequences of these wars affected mainly the people in the
south of Iraq. The rate of cancers is increased more than ten times
(that is 12 years after the gulf war 2) the rate in 1988. The death rate
from cancers increased 19 times the rate of death in 1988. The
congenital malformations in newly had borne babies increased 7 time the
rate in 1990. New and strange phenomenon of cancers appeared like
clustering of cancer in families, the double and triple cancers in one
person. The death rate among children is increased as a result of
malnutrition and infections. Lack of medicines and medical equipment
worsens the health situation.
The causes of all these health problems are multifactorial. The most
important factors are the radiation, the chemical, nutritional and
infection.
The victims are mainly the children who were affected by cancers,
malnutrition and congenital malformations.
The following pictures are the evidences of the effects of the wars and
the use of depleted uranium in the gulf war 2(1991).
We have many reasons to blame the radiation as a cause for all the
* Significant increase in cancer rates after 1991.
* Significant increase in death rate from cancers after 1991.
* Increased rate of congenital malformations in children borne after
1991.
* Cancer clustering in families is noticed only after 1991.
* Double and triple cancers are seen only after 1991.
* The only cancer-producing factor that is added to our environment
after 1991 is the radiation factor.
We need to confirm the cause (the radiation) by testing the soil for
levels of radiation, confirming the uranium particles in the tissues and
urine of patients, chromosomal analysis and cytogenetic studies of the
affected people and patients. In that case we could confidently prove
the causal relationship between the cancers, congenital malformations,
other diseases and radiation due to depleted uranium. We are lacking the
equipment for investigations and no body is allowed to find evidences
and to prove that there was great crime committed by those who are
supposed to protect the world.
At the end of my talk I hope that every nation will fight for freedom
and sovereignty, to strengthen the solidarity with other nations for the
sake of peace and freedom. This conference is one of the means by which
we build the good and solid relations between the different nations.
I hope that the Iraqi people and other people elsewhere will live
peacefully in a world free of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction. No for occupation by strangers and yes for sovereignty and
self-ruling of nations.
Thank you
Dr. Jawad Kadhim Al-Ali Basrah, Iraq
Hanoi Jane Fonda
2004-08-16 19:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Liberals HATE Blacks!! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!!!!!


Oh, they love blacks as long as they stay in their place which is on
the liberal welfare plantation and kissing the asses of their white
liberal masters. The moment they become successful and don't need
those self-righteous white liberals or, God forbid they dare think for
themselves then they are politically lynched. Ask Clarence Thomas, JC
Watts or Ward Connerly. Ask Armstrong Williams and now, ask Bill
Cosby! There are a million blacks who don't tow the line of the
freedom-hating fascist left-wing but they dare not speak up for fear
for their livelihood and fear for their reputations.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.

Liberals HATE America!
Gandalf Grey
2004-08-16 20:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
Liberals HATE Blacks!!
That must be why Liberals get almost 100% of the Black vote.

You're a moron. Did you know that?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
Yang Phd (n.a.)
2004-08-16 23:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Liberals can't be everywhere at all times!!! Liberals Hate
America!!!!!


Rape of small children, rape of teenage girls, rape of teenage boys,
rape of fellow prisoners, raping teens in the schools they are asked
to teach at, extorting sex from fellow prisoners for drugs, killing
the mentally impaired, killing their spouses, killing their own
children, DUIs, smuggling contraband, possessing illegal weapons,
possessing illegal drugs, tax evasion, voter fraud, harassing judges,
stalking, reporting fake crimes, stealing, blackmailing, exposing
themselves, drug distribution, homicidal beatings, armed robberies,
shooting each other, burglaries, running brothels, drunken brawls,
operating bootleg DVD rings,
stolen jewel rings, gambling rings, welfare fraud, cyberstalking, etc.
Gandalf Grey
2004-08-17 00:35:45 UTC
Permalink
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehy13aug13,1,571727.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11
By Gail Sheehy

August 13, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over
purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11
commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great
disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on the
day the nation was under catastrophic attack.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's
leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped
create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed
to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise
praiseworthy accounting.

Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning - "out of the loop" by his own
admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield,
told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially
leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld.

For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became
aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern
men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not
show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to
"gain situational awareness," he told the commission. He didn't speak to the
vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was
more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to
be an admission of dereliction of duty.

Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. Asked
point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the
nation - or even the Pentagon - during the "summer of threat" preceding the
attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue." That
obfuscation - was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with
shoulder-launched missiles? - has been accepted at face value by the
commission and media.

Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific mission of protecting
the United States and Canada by responding to any form of air attack. The
official chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for the
president to empower the secretary of Defense to send up a military escort
and, if necessary, give shoot-down orders.

Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld for the first time
that morning shortly after 10 a.m. - 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit
and moments before the last plane went down. It was, says the report, "a
brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed."

As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark about what their
mission was. When fighters were told to scramble from Langley, Va., they
were sent not to cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and
identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was already boiling the first
Trade Center tower to the ground.

Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of civilians already
knew? After the Pentagon was attacked, why did he run outside to play medic
instead of moving to the command center and taking charge? The 9/11 report
records the fatal confusion in which command center personnel were left:
Three minutes after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in an
update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of Washington, D.C., the command
center said, "Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?"

FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know."

Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make
probably in the next 10 minutes."

But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by
heroic civilians.

How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able to communicate with
their loved ones, grasp a totally new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to
defend the nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication problems"
on Air Force One and the nation's defense chief didn't know what was going
on until the horror was all over?

The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system; they were human
failures. Yet, so far, no one has been fired, which leaves the 9/11
families - and all of us - in a conundrum.

The inaction of both the president and the Defense chief under the ultimate
test offer little reassurance to a nervous nation under the shadow of new
terror warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire security system,
shouldn't our government look first at why the people in charge failed to
communicate or coordinate a response to the catastrophe?
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004

"For us to get bogged down in the quagmire
of an Iraqi civil war would be the height of foolishness."
---Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 1991
Michael Marxist Moore
2004-08-17 04:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Planet Hollywood CEO Robert Earl, says he'd invite both Moore and
Ronstadt to appear at the hotel! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!!


Can you say 'potential' but not 'imminent', "boycott"? I new you could

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/23/entertainment/main631397.shtml


---------
Liberals Hate America!
Robert Miller
2004-08-17 19:03:34 UTC
Permalink
"Gandalf Grey" <***@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:412151f9$0$2421$***@news.newshosting.com...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehy13aug13,1,571727.
story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Post by Gandalf Grey
Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11
By Gail Sheehy
August 13, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over
purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11
commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great
disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on the
day the nation was under catastrophic attack.
One could also ask what did Clinton do in the years leading up to the same
terrorist attack. Other than limiting the scope and effectiveness of our
intelligence agencies he didn't do much of anything!
Post by Gandalf Grey
"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's
leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped
create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed
to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise
praiseworthy accounting.
Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning - "out of the loop" by his own
admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield,
told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially
leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld.
For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became
aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern
men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not
show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to
"gain situational awareness," he told the commission. He didn't speak to the
vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was
more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to
be an admission of dereliction of duty.
Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. Asked
point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the
nation - or even the Pentagon - during the "summer of threat" preceding the
attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue." That
obfuscation - was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with
shoulder-launched missiles? - has been accepted at face value by the
commission and media.
Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific mission of protecting
the United States and Canada by responding to any form of air attack. The
official chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for the
president to empower the secretary of Defense to send up a military escort
and, if necessary, give shoot-down orders.
Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld for the first time
that morning shortly after 10 a.m. - 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit
and moments before the last plane went down. It was, says the report, "a
brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed."
As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark about what their
mission was. When fighters were told to scramble from Langley, Va., they
were sent not to cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and
identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was already boiling the first
Trade Center tower to the ground.
Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of civilians already
knew? After the Pentagon was attacked, why did he run outside to play medic
instead of moving to the command center and taking charge? The 9/11 report
Three minutes after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in an
update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of Washington, D.C., the command
center said, "Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?"
FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know."
Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make
probably in the next 10 minutes."
But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by
heroic civilians.
How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able to communicate with
their loved ones, grasp a totally new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to
defend the nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication problems"
on Air Force One and the nation's defense chief didn't know what was going
on until the horror was all over?
The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system; they were human
failures. Yet, so far, no one has been fired, which leaves the 9/11
families - and all of us - in a conundrum.
The inaction of both the president and the Defense chief under the ultimate
test offer little reassurance to a nervous nation under the shadow of new
terror warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire security system,
shouldn't our government look first at why the people in charge failed to
communicate or coordinate a response to the catastrophe?
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004
"For us to get bogged down in the quagmire
of an Iraqi civil war would be the height of foolishness."
---Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 1991
I don't see Clinton getting any credit for the attack when the operation was
being
set up under his watch by a group that had attacked in the past. Almost as
if the
former President was more conserned about what was going on in the Oval
office
than outside.
There is plenty of Blame to go around, and nobody likes to point fingers at
their
own leaders, even if they need to be pointed out.

Robert Miller
The Ameican people always get the President we deserve!
Gandalf Grey
2004-08-18 16:54:50 UTC
Permalink
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehy13aug13,1,571727.
Post by Gandalf Grey
story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Post by Gandalf Grey
Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11
By Gail Sheehy
August 13, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over
purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11
commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great
disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on
the
Post by Gandalf Grey
day the nation was under catastrophic attack.
One could also ask what did Clinton do in the years leading up to the same
terrorist attack. Other than limiting the scope and effectiveness of our
intelligence agencies he didn't do much of anything!
Oh goody, the old 'Clinton did nothing lie'

Here ya go, bozo.

1. 1993 WTC bombing: The perpetrators were hunted down, captured, put
on trial and summarily sentenced. Here's the news link to prove it -
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html - Too bad ditto-monkeys
are so blinded by hatred for Clinton they can't take the time to do a
little bit of fact finding.

2. 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia: They're referring to Riyadh. There
were arrests in this case and eventually it turned out that these
perpetrators were aligned with the same people who committed the Khobar
bombing a year later. Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/28/saudi.probe.pm/ - Once again a little
fact finding reveals the lie behind the ditto-monkey charge that Clinton
did nothing.


3. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing: The investigation which started in the
Clinton administration ended up in indictments in June of this year.
Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/ - And the silly
ditto-monkeys will try to give all the credit to Dumbya Bush I'm sure.

4. African embassy bombings: Two arrests in July of 1999.
Investigation shows links to Bin Laden. Here's the news link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/eafricabombing.htm
-

5. USS Cole bombing: An investigation (started by Clinton) resulted
in the arrest of 5 in Yemen including 2 Egyptians in January of this
year. Same investigation details links to Bin Laden and his group.
Here's the (yawn) news link -
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen_usscole010111.html
Michael Marxist Moore
2004-08-18 23:37:56 UTC
Permalink
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL

It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A liberal male homosexual walked by, attracting the attention of
another liberal male homosexual. The one liberal male homosexual
stepped forward and smacked the other liberal homosexual over the head
with his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious other liberal
homosexual into his cave for several hours of anal, and oral sex. Next
thing you know, AIDS is invented!

One day there were two liberals standing in front of a cave trying to
figure out how to steal their neighbors pig when a female walked by.
The first liberal raised his arm to club the female. The female
communicated to him that he was a dirty and smelly liberal that needed
to take a bath. The female made it very clear that she did not want
any liberal to touch any part of her body. WHACK! WHACK! One of the
dirty smelly liberals hit the woman over the head with his club. And
then both liberals proceeded to gang rape her.

Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent of
projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the liberal corner
drug dealer, where the big strong liberal brute, strung out on PCP,
was laid flat by the small liberal crack dealer who shoots him with a
stolen 357 magnum. Once liberal brute strength was no longer the
controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas slowly started
to fester in human culture, and civilization began to deteriorate.

Throughout human history, the price for advocating conservative
tolerance and progressive change has been paid for in threats,
beatings, excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder,
assassination, and execution. Countless liberals have caused
civilization to pay the ultimate price, for their inhumanity. John F.
Kennedy, and Bill Clinton are two of the more famous of liberals in
high places that have been found out to have committed sex crimes
while serving as president.

Today there are many liberals - individuals, groups, and nations - who
use threats and violence to silence the voices of conservative reason,
tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in liberal racists
and homosexuals, Black Panthers and gays who spread AIDS just for the
fun of it, for money and out of anger generated by interactive cause,
and because of religious or racial intolerance and liberal bigotry.

Alan Berg, on talk radio, was a liberal that loved to stir up trouble
any way possible. Then Alan Berg was found dead outside of the
building he lived in. Obviously the result of a drug deal gone bad.
Liberals are well known for shooting each other during drug deals.

David Rice is a liberal on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they had money
that he wanted to buy drugs with.

At Ruby Ridge, a liberal controlled FBI shot a woman, holding a baby,
in the back of the head.

In 1993, in Waco, Texas, liberal Janet Reno sent liberal controlled
federal troops into a compound to set fires and kill hundreds of women
and children.

The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 terrorist
attacks upon America. Thousands of innocent civilians were murdered.
The perpetrator, the liberal Osama Bin Laden and the liberal al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the left-wing mentality of causing
death and destruction everywhere possible. Liberals are still trying
to defend Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists by protesting our
military people who are trying to get rid of the terrorist threat to
America.

Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by liberals is utter nonsense. All we
have to do is to look back at all of the liberal atrocities throughout
history as seen below:

Who nailed who to a cross?
Roman Soldiers nailed Conservative Christ to a cross.

Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
The liberal colonists of what is now the United States of America. The
Conservatives took up guns, and then chased the British out of America
with those guns while the liberals were all crying for more gun
control laws.

Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Abraham Lincoln, a conservative Republican, came to the aid of the
slaves. The southern liberals wanted to keep black people as slaves.
But it was a northern conservative Republican who freed them.

Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their sovereignty
over their own bodies in the freedom to choose abortion?
Liberals love to kill everything, including unborn babies. Liberals
are very sick people.

Who fought against child labor statutes?
Liberals are all for labor unions that would have everyone paying dues
to an organization that is rife with crime and corruption, just like
the Clinton family.

Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Liberals want everyone else to pay for everything that they do.
Liberals feel that they should not have to work for anything at all
when they can make someone else pay for it.

Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Liberals do not want anyone to vote for anyone who is not a liberal.

Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Conservative Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

Who fought against workers organizing?
Liberals feel that workers should organize in order to try to extort
more money out of employers.

Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
The same liberal idiot ( Ralph Nader ) that nobody pays attention to
forty years later. The Chevrolet Corvair is not much different than
any modern car. The Chevrolet Corvair was way ahead of its time. But a
stupid liberal, of that time, wanted everyone to drive huge hulking
cars that weighed in at about 2 tons each. Now liberals want all of us
to drive electric cars that are not practical either.

Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist
attacks?
William Jefferson Clinton! Because Billy Clinton had a perfect chance
to get Osama bin Laden and decided to forget about it, because he felt
that getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky was more important.

Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
European liberals decided that Adolph Hitler was not a problem during
the late thirties. So liberals just decided to looked the other way
when he decided to start gassing the Jewish people.

Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
The liberals still believe in the Jim Crow laws because all liberals
believe that all black people belong on welfare. Liberals believe that
black people are not capable of taking of taking care of themselves.

Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
The liberals believe that everything should be controlled by one huge
government where the people have nothing to say about anything.

Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
The liberals believe that we should all drive electric cars, but are
too stupid to think about where to get the energy from ( Coal?
Nuclear? Water Dam? ) that would be used to charge the batteries with.
And if it’s hydrogen, then where to get it from in a manor that does
not destroy the planet.

Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle minorities?
Liberals believe that it is normal for a man to insert his penis into
another mans rectum for the purpose of sex. Bill Clinton believes that
it is normal, for him, to insert a cigar into a girl’s vagina in order
to have sex. Liberals believe that it is normal for grownups to have
sex with children. The ACLU has come to the defense of NAMBLA for
proof of this one.

Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, terminally
ill patients soon to die anyway?
The same people that oppose the killing of babies.

Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
The same liberals that believe that the Second Amendment should be
removed from the United States Constitution.

Who are the hypocrites forcing their inhibitions and prohibitions on
ALL Americans via legislation and draconian, police-state enforcement
practices?
The same liberals that believe that the government should assume
people are guilty of something before they buy a gun. So the liberals
want the government to do background checks on law abiding people
before they buy a gun. But liberal criminal’s never bother with
background checks.

Who always puts personal gain above the common good?
Liberals always put personal gain above all else. That is why liberals
believe that everyone else should pay into taxes to foot their welfare
checks.

CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?

The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE OF
THE LIBERAL MORON!

Liberals have distorted and demonized the world. The true conservative
is favoring progressive change, humanistic values, and opposition to
authoritarianism. Conservatives can see liberal governmental waste and
tolerance of criminality. Liberals are guilty of abuses such as
massive welfare programs for lazy people and taxing companies until
they are out of business. Liberals believe in fraud against the public
that pays for their welfare checks, and other crimes. Conservatives
are all for change for the better and progress. Liberals only believe
in the motto: "what's in it for me?"

At the core of liberalism is the Clinton family - the despotic
practitioners of "sexual perversion makes me feel right," craving
wealth and corrupt power, and willing to use any and all means to get
them. Liberalism is the philosophy of William Jefferson Clinton
wearing no pants, and playing with his erect penis.

AND THE CLINTON FAMILY HAS TRIED TO DESTROY OUR EARTH!
Sordo ™
2004-08-19 00:17:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:37:56 -0400, Michael Marxist Moore
<***@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote:

My God man, you've stumbled on the truth, spread the word
far and wide.
Post by Michael Marxist Moore
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A liberal male homosexual walked by, attracting the attention of
another liberal male homosexual. The one liberal male homosexual
stepped forward and smacked the other liberal homosexual over the head
with his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious other liberal
homosexual into his cave for several hours of anal, and oral sex. Next
thing you know, AIDS is invented!
One day there were two liberals standing in front of a cave trying to
figure out how to steal their neighbors pig when a female walked by.
The first liberal raised his arm to club the female. The female
communicated to him that he was a dirty and smelly liberal that needed
to take a bath. The female made it very clear that she did not want
any liberal to touch any part of her body. WHACK! WHACK! One of the
dirty smelly liberals hit the woman over the head with his club. And
then both liberals proceeded to gang rape her.
Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent of
projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the liberal corner
drug dealer, where the big strong liberal brute, strung out on PCP,
was laid flat by the small liberal crack dealer who shoots him with a
stolen 357 magnum. Once liberal brute strength was no longer the
controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas slowly started
to fester in human culture, and civilization began to deteriorate.
Throughout human history, the price for advocating conservative
tolerance and progressive change has been paid for in threats,
beatings, excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder,
assassination, and execution. Countless liberals have caused
civilization to pay the ultimate price, for their inhumanity. John F.
Kennedy, and Bill Clinton are two of the more famous of liberals in
high places that have been found out to have committed sex crimes
while serving as president.
Today there are many liberals - individuals, groups, and nations - who
use threats and violence to silence the voices of conservative reason,
tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in liberal racists
and homosexuals, Black Panthers and gays who spread AIDS just for the
fun of it, for money and out of anger generated by interactive cause,
and because of religious or racial intolerance and liberal bigotry.
Alan Berg, on talk radio, was a liberal that loved to stir up trouble
any way possible. Then Alan Berg was found dead outside of the
building he lived in. Obviously the result of a drug deal gone bad.
Liberals are well known for shooting each other during drug deals.
David Rice is a liberal on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they had money
that he wanted to buy drugs with.
At Ruby Ridge, a liberal controlled FBI shot a woman, holding a baby,
in the back of the head.
In 1993, in Waco, Texas, liberal Janet Reno sent liberal controlled
federal troops into a compound to set fires and kill hundreds of women
and children.
The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 terrorist
attacks upon America. Thousands of innocent civilians were murdered.
The perpetrator, the liberal Osama Bin Laden and the liberal al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the left-wing mentality of causing
death and destruction everywhere possible. Liberals are still trying
to defend Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists by protesting our
military people who are trying to get rid of the terrorist threat to
America.
Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by liberals is utter nonsense. All we
have to do is to look back at all of the liberal atrocities throughout
Who nailed who to a cross?
Roman Soldiers nailed Conservative Christ to a cross.
Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
The liberal colonists of what is now the United States of America. The
Conservatives took up guns, and then chased the British out of America
with those guns while the liberals were all crying for more gun
control laws.
Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Abraham Lincoln, a conservative Republican, came to the aid of the
slaves. The southern liberals wanted to keep black people as slaves.
But it was a northern conservative Republican who freed them.
Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their sovereignty
over their own bodies in the freedom to choose abortion?
Liberals love to kill everything, including unborn babies. Liberals
are very sick people.
Who fought against child labor statutes?
Liberals are all for labor unions that would have everyone paying dues
to an organization that is rife with crime and corruption, just like
the Clinton family.
Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Liberals want everyone else to pay for everything that they do.
Liberals feel that they should not have to work for anything at all
when they can make someone else pay for it.
Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Liberals do not want anyone to vote for anyone who is not a liberal.
Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Conservative Republican Teddy Roosevelt.
Who fought against workers organizing?
Liberals feel that workers should organize in order to try to extort
more money out of employers.
Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
The same liberal idiot ( Ralph Nader ) that nobody pays attention to
forty years later. The Chevrolet Corvair is not much different than
any modern car. The Chevrolet Corvair was way ahead of its time. But a
stupid liberal, of that time, wanted everyone to drive huge hulking
cars that weighed in at about 2 tons each. Now liberals want all of us
to drive electric cars that are not practical either.
Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist
attacks?
William Jefferson Clinton! Because Billy Clinton had a perfect chance
to get Osama bin Laden and decided to forget about it, because he felt
that getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky was more important.
Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
European liberals decided that Adolph Hitler was not a problem during
the late thirties. So liberals just decided to looked the other way
when he decided to start gassing the Jewish people.
Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
The liberals still believe in the Jim Crow laws because all liberals
believe that all black people belong on welfare. Liberals believe that
black people are not capable of taking of taking care of themselves.
Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
The liberals believe that everything should be controlled by one huge
government where the people have nothing to say about anything.
Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
The liberals believe that we should all drive electric cars, but are
too stupid to think about where to get the energy from ( Coal?
Nuclear? Water Dam? ) that would be used to charge the batteries with.
And if it’s hydrogen, then where to get it from in a manor that does
not destroy the planet.
Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle minorities?
Liberals believe that it is normal for a man to insert his penis into
another mans rectum for the purpose of sex. Bill Clinton believes that
it is normal, for him, to insert a cigar into a girl’s vagina in order
to have sex. Liberals believe that it is normal for grownups to have
sex with children. The ACLU has come to the defense of NAMBLA for
proof of this one.
Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, terminally
ill patients soon to die anyway?
The same people that oppose the killing of babies.
Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
The same liberals that believe that the Second Amendment should be
removed from the United States Constitution.
Who are the hypocrites forcing their inhibitions and prohibitions on
ALL Americans via legislation and draconian, police-state enforcement
practices?
The same liberals that believe that the government should assume
people are guilty of something before they buy a gun. So the liberals
want the government to do background checks on law abiding people
before they buy a gun. But liberal criminal’s never bother with
background checks.
Who always puts personal gain above the common good?
Liberals always put personal gain above all else. That is why liberals
believe that everyone else should pay into taxes to foot their welfare
checks.
CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?
The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE OF
THE LIBERAL MORON!
Liberals have distorted and demonized the world. The true conservative
is favoring progressive change, humanistic values, and opposition to
authoritarianism. Conservatives can see liberal governmental waste and
tolerance of criminality. Liberals are guilty of abuses such as
massive welfare programs for lazy people and taxing companies until
they are out of business. Liberals believe in fraud against the public
that pays for their welfare checks, and other crimes. Conservatives
are all for change for the better and progress. Liberals only believe
in the motto: "what's in it for me?"
At the core of liberalism is the Clinton family - the despotic
practitioners of "sexual perversion makes me feel right," craving
wealth and corrupt power, and willing to use any and all means to get
them. Liberalism is the philosophy of William Jefferson Clinton
wearing no pants, and playing with his erect penis.
AND THE CLINTON FAMILY HAS TRIED TO DESTROY OUR EARTH!
uncleward
2004-08-20 03:00:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:37:56 -0400, Michael Marxist Moore
Post by Michael Marxist Moore
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
Alan Berg, on talk radio, was a liberal that loved to stir up trouble
any way possible. Then Alan Berg was found dead outside of the
building he lived in. Obviously the result of a drug deal gone bad.
Liberals are well known for shooting each other during drug deals.
Alan Berg was murdered by neo-nazis.


http://www.historychannel.com/classroom/admin/study_guide/archives/thc_guide.0603.html

get a life!

ward

--------------------------------
"A free society is a place where
it's safe to be unpopular."
- Adlai Stevenson
----------------------------

Yang Phd (n.a.)
2004-08-16 19:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Michael Moore is the great hero to terrorists around the world.
Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



the biggest fans of fahrenheit 911 will be radical muslims when the
movie screens all over the arab world. the lunatics will feel
vindicated by the fact that even some americans agree that america is
a murderous imperialist superpower out to kill innocent people all
over the world just to make a buck and for the bloody fun of
it(moore's take on kosovo war in bowling for columbine). fahrenheit
911 will send a message to the arab world that radical muslim's hatred
of america is hardly extreme; america is NOT a democracy; bush is a
murderous dictator who expends lives just to make a buck; americans
are simply out to steal oil and everything else from the arabs; what
americans are doing in iraq is no different than what whites did to
blacks with slavery or to indians by westward expansion. michael moore
the antiamerican thug has given radical muslims all the justification
they need to attack america and kill americans. If america is indeed
this evil, why shouldn't america be attacked and killed? wasn't it
justifiable to attack nazi germany? for moore,
bush is up there with tojo and hitler; american global presence is
nothing but imperialist robbery and thuggishness. though moore doesn't
say it out right, his argument only justifies the rationale behind
9-11. we deserved it, says radical muslims and moore. we've been
stealing and robbing and killing arabs for too long. the only
difference between moore and alqaeda is the latter has the guts to
risk their lives. moore uses his extreme hatred to make movies and
rake in millions, live like a commissar with his dachas, priveleges,
world travels, and alot of food that keeps his ugly smelly ass fat.

according to moore, bush is no better or even worse than osama. We
were appalled that osama carelessly expended the lives of his
followers in the 9-11 attacks. we wondered how a man can tell his
followers to willfully sacrifice their lives. moore says bush is just
the same. for private interests--for money--bush sent americans to
die. of course, this means bush is worse than osama. at least osama
had a political motive. moore says bush had americans and iraqis
killed just to make a buck. this sicko degenerate moore is now being
embraced even by liberals. alot of 'liberals' have been exposed as
deranged, extreme, anti-american scum subconsciously believe that we
deserved 9-11. we've been imperialists, we've kicked people around
for too long in the middle east and chicken came home to roost.

in the poster for fahrenheit 911, we see a picture of bush with
moore. the poster should have moore holding hands with osama bin
laden. i do not exaggerate. moore is as much a deranged hater as osama
bin laden. both of them play the folksy regular guys. moore is a
megamillionaire but dons a baseball cap, wears baggy ruffled clothes,
and consciously maintains a stubby unshaven chin. that's his schtick.
the idea is he may be superrich but he's still just a regular guy.
same with osama who came from a rich priveleged family but decided to
go into radical politics. he wears raggy nomadic clothes, maintaining
this image of the islamic average joe. this is their carefully
orchestrated schtick and why not? schtick
sells. bruce springsteen still acts the working class guy barely
making mortgage payments on a bungalow in new jersey. if brucie
dressed and talked like a millionaire, he'd lose his fandom though it
saddens one
to see what had once been genuine has now degenerated into
self-conscious publicity stunt. but, that's entertainment, and
entertainment is about make believe. in politics, this kind of put-on
folksiness is dangerous and deceiving. when western intellectuals and
journalists journeyed to yenan to observe chinese communists they were
all highly impressed by mao's folksy manner, his earthy vulgarity, his
uncouth ordinariness. unlike your average arrogant leftwing
intellectual, he looked like a man of the people. and when he gained
power, mao consciously maintained this image, sometimes appearing in
public with mended socks, wearing ruffled pants and creased clothes.
many american liberal who met with mao thought he was a moderate
democrat and not a crazy radical. people like edgar snow bought into
this schtick and praised mao as never having lost his contact with his
people; he grew up in a peasant family, farts in front of guests,
cracks vulgur jokes, wakes up late, is easy to laugh... how can he NOT
be one of the ordinary joes? moore relies on the same calculated
schtick. it's just a stunt to persuade us that he, moore, is not a
paranoid leftwing anti-american but just an average american, that his
voice is our voice; how antiamerican or radical can a baseball cap
wearing beer swilling big mac eating slob be? and, of course, there
are people dumb enough to fall for this. but, there are also leftists
who see it for what it is, but play along, because they believe
americans are too dumb for sophisticated analysis and therefore are
best persuaded thru demagoguery; these leftists who privately don't
approve of moore's tactics value the impact of moore's demagoguery on
all the easy suckers who can't be reached thru essays by chomsky and
The Nation.

anyway, fahrenheit 911 is not simply a movie that has gone too far but
one that is criminal, rabid, murderous, and deranged. though moore
doesn't call for the trial and execution of george w. bush, such is
implied by the movie's wild stunning accusations; moore doesn't even
present his argument as allegations but objective accusations. he says
they are true and there's no two ways about it. the accusation is
that george bush had innocent iraqis and US soldiers killed just to
put a chunk of change into his pocket. this isn't political debate, it
is a declaration of war from the left. moore's view of bush is hardly
different than those of osama bin laden, radical islamists, and saddam
hussein: that bush and american government are neo-imperialist, their
objective is to enslave arabs and steal their oil. using moore's
argument, bush is no better than hitler. if what moore says is true,
than it's no worse to assassinate bush than it would have been to
assassinate hitler? if indeed we have a president who stole the
election by a coup d'tat, is an oppressor who defacto kills US
soldiers and innocent arab women and children just stuff his pocket
with cash, then indeed such a man is a murderous, heinous criminal. It
shouldn't merely be a matter of throwing him out by a free election
but calling on the UN to try him for atrocities and even possibly
genocide. this is moore's contention. this is what the scum leftists
are laughing and cheering about as they watch this vile hateful movie.
these accusations are so serious that they must be supported by hard
evidence. moore has none. he just connects the dots in a political
equivalent of a coloring book and says it's true and that's that.
leftists and some liberals murderously agree with moore.

this is hardly surprising from a guy who gave us bowling from
columbine where he presents US involvment in kosovo as just a deranged
rabid american fixation on playing the triggerhappy cowboy. moore's
view of american foreign policy is, again, not different from that of
osama bin laden. americans are just triggerhappy global murderers and
imperialists who go around killing just for pleasure and to make a
buck. this was moore's take on kosovo, on the actions of the
president of the democratic party. if moore thinks clinton is a war
criminal and mass murderer, you can well guess what moore thinks of
bush. fahrenheit 911 reeks with vile, murderous, contemptuous hatred
so putrid one wonders what the amreican left stands for? do they
really really think bush--and even clinton--are mass murderers, mere
puppets of corporations that trigger wars all over the globe just to
make money? this is the standard leftist line? nothing has changed
since the days of lenin and trotsky when the provisional
government--fragile democracy in russia--was slandered as a mere tool
of bourgeois pigs, where the bolsheviks went so far as to undermine
the war effort and even make deals with the germans simply to gain and
maintain power.

i believe one can conscientiously oppose war, any war. and, it is
true that in all wars, there is more than one determining factor, more
than one player, more than one agenda. all wars--except ones
orchestrated by absolute tyrants--are the products of diverse
forces--political, ideological, economic, social, historical,
cultural. wars are almost never waged for a single reason,
humanitarian or pragmatic, political or economic. there are national
interests, economic interests, countless other factors. one can, for
example, argue that part of the french and german opposition to the
war was economic, as french and german companies had vested interests
with hussein. but to take those elements and say chirac opposed the
war because he's just a puppet of french corporations would be an
outrage. it's one thing to criticize those associated with bush and
profit from the spoils of war. this is fair and necessary criticism.
but, to say bush in effect has american soldiers and iraq people
killed for personal and family gain is criminal. bush will certainly
not take moore to court since it wont' seem presidential but once bush
leaves office, he should hunt that sumfabitch down and bring him to
justice texas style. but, moore has similar feelings about US as a
whole. with his average joe schtick, moore will have you believe that
he's not anti-american, just anti-rich-american. yet, don't be fooled
by moore. his take on american history, politics, and civilization is
no different than that of lenin and trotsky, mao zedong, and osama bin
laden. all one need do is watch bowling for columbine where moore
gives us his take on US history. now, we all know that all
civilizations have failures and committed grave crimes, american
included. but, when viewed in the context of human history and world
affairs, who can deny-except leftists and the likes of osama bin
laden--that US has always been
ahead of other nations in freedom and human rights? US got rid of
slavery in 1865. arab nations got rid of slavery in the 20th century
from pressure of west. during the 19th century when much of europe
was still ruled by the aristocracy, US was a fast evolving democracy.
american values and politics were light yrs ahead of anything in
spanish dominated americas, tribal africa, feudal asia. in the 20th
century, communist nations practiced virtual slavery until the total
discrediting and fall of communism. would any black-american in the
20th century trade places with a russian in soviet union or a chinese
in mao's china in the 20th century. stalin killed 30 million, 5
million less than the total black population today. russians of all
color were denied all political freedoms under a dictatorship
dominated by a totalitarian one party system. and we know about mao
and his murder of 55 million and total and complete political,
economic, and cultural oppression of the masses. these and countless
other injusticed and brutalities outside the US do not excuse american
injustices, its history of oppression. yet, who can deny there were
great things about america, its political and economic system? Moore
won't have any of it. in bowling for columbine, US history is
presented as a case of nothing of evil whites coming and killing
innocent nature loving indians, enslaving and murderously oppressing
noble saintly blacks. moore doesn't just attack rich white americans
but all white americans. all white americans are bigoted, paranoid,
murderous, triggerhappy, genocidal lunatics who only want to steal
from people of color. according to moore, the entire US economy has
been nothing but stealing land from the indians and labor from blacks.
that's it. businessmen and corporations had nothing to do with the
building of cities, developing technologies, creating wealth,
advancing medical science, etc. etc; no, US business has been nothing
but a case of evil murderous rich ripping off the poor; capitalism had
nothing to do with why US grew into the most powerful, productive,
plentiful, and free nation in the world. even lenin and trotsky
wouldn't have gone that far in their condemnation of US history and
economy. even lenin and trotsky admitted to the productive and even
progressive forces of bourgeois capitalism. but, moore won't even
give america that much credit. americans--mainly, white of course,
worse if republican white--are just a bunch of delusional, insane,
guntoting, ravenous, and greedy louts and lunatics. his view of the
average american is hardly different than an antisemites view of jews:
ravenous bloodsucking leeches. moore's contentions are not
criticism. they amount to a marxist declaration of war. moore's view
of america is hardly different from osama bin laden's view of america.
if osama were given a camera to make a movie about america, could it
be any more offensive, delirious, hateful, and insane than moore's?
if what moore says is true, why would it be
wrong for anyone to orchestrate attacks such as 9-11 bombings? if as
moore says, american capitalism is simply international imperialism,
that we really want to steal oil and resources from other people, that
indeed the story of american history is nothing but capitalist pigs
using political sockpuppets to conquer the world and kill innocents,
then who can argue osama bin laden was wrong in what he did? would it
be any different than bombing imperial japan and nazi germany? If
moore and leftists really believe that america is a corporate fascist
state and americans are nothing but guntoting deranged paranoid
imperialist lunatics, then they must secretly agree with osama bin
laden deeds in the name of the oppressed 'people of color'. indeed,
what is the difference between the left and osama in their view of
america? the only difference is osama probably doesn't like rap
music.

still, is it going overboard to say fahrenheit 911 is criminal? no, I
believe it IS criminal. now, in rap and punk music, america has been
shat on by the heirs of the black panthers and maoists. take a look
at a clash album--give em enough rope--lionizing the mass murderer mao
zedong, and you know where the sympathies of these scumbags lie. Much
of rap and punk is simply hate music but since the leftists monopolize
cultural criticism and since leftists deem it okay to virulently hate
capitalists and conservative whites, it's called 'progressive' music.
still, rap and punk fall under the category of 'art'. under the rubric
of art, everything should be possible, whether it's rambo or reds. Art
is fiction and isn't obligated to factual or truthful. but,
fahrenheit 911 is not jfk, stone's political fiction. moore's
accusations are real, he's defacto calling for the blood of our
president. he's calling our president a murderer of american soliders,
of iraqi women and children for the purpose of enriching himself.
moore isn't theorizing but making slanderous accusations. in the
director's cut of stone's jfk, there's a scene where lyndon b. johnson
is shown saying 'get me in the white house and i'll get you this war'.
stone is theorizing that lyndon b. johnson--!!!!--was involved in the
plot to kill kennedy. outrageous stuff but jfk is still fiction, or as
stone called it, a counter-myth. however, if stone had a made a
documentary where he made such accusations, it would be slander.
shitbag ought to be dragged into court and sued for everything he's
got. moore isn't theorizing. he really means that bush had people
killed mainly to make his rich daddy richer. people think of moore as
a folksy ordinary guy but this guy is truly deranged, a paranoid
looney fuc*er who really believes in the third rate political pigslop
he serves up.



-------------
Liberals Hate America!
Gandalf Grey
2004-08-16 20:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yang Phd (n.a.)
Michael Moore is the great hero to terrorists around the world.
No he's not.

But George Bush is.

Getting scared, aren't you Rightie?
Yang Phd (n.a.)
2004-08-17 00:00:27 UTC
Permalink
AN APOLOGY!!!!!!! BECAUSE LIBERALS HATE AMERICA SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Author unknown - sentiment shared.)

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue.
On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of
the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control
and fashion this minor event into some modern day Mai Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs and Muslims are asking for an apology. I humbly
offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and
sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims
(Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc..)

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came
after 9/11. I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic
Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under
savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their
wealth. I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in
their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and
highjacked the Palestinian "cause." I am sorry that no other Arab
country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial
help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial
supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs
blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite, our media, and our own
brainwashed (from elements of our society like radical professors, CNN
and the NY TIMES) masses do not understand any of this. I am sorry
the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food
for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide
bombers upon their death. I am sorry that those same bombers are
brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies,
children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are a
legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape
rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own
making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any
other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control
of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we don't drop
a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy
Site." I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the
World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas
Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole,
the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and
Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized
village in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those
responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry
for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we
are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab
countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news,
we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few
prisoners.

Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until
captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're
supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our
compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people
killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating
Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long
wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

If you are "sorry" also, pass it on!
Gandalf Grey
2004-08-17 00:36:24 UTC
Permalink
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehy13aug13,1,571727.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11
By Gail Sheehy

August 13, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over
purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11
commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great
disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on the
day the nation was under catastrophic attack.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's
leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped
create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed
to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise
praiseworthy accounting.

Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning - "out of the loop" by his own
admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield,
told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially
leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld.

For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became
aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern
men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not
show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to
"gain situational awareness," he told the commission. He didn't speak to the
vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was
more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to
be an admission of dereliction of duty.

Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. Asked
point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the
nation - or even the Pentagon - during the "summer of threat" preceding the
attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue." That
obfuscation - was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with
shoulder-launched missiles? - has been accepted at face value by the
commission and media.

Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific mission of protecting
the United States and Canada by responding to any form of air attack. The
official chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for the
president to empower the secretary of Defense to send up a military escort
and, if necessary, give shoot-down orders.

Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld for the first time
that morning shortly after 10 a.m. - 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit
and moments before the last plane went down. It was, says the report, "a
brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed."

As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark about what their
mission was. When fighters were told to scramble from Langley, Va., they
were sent not to cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and
identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was already boiling the first
Trade Center tower to the ground.

Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of civilians already
knew? After the Pentagon was attacked, why did he run outside to play medic
instead of moving to the command center and taking charge? The 9/11 report
records the fatal confusion in which command center personnel were left:
Three minutes after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in an
update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of Washington, D.C., the command
center said, "Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?"

FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know."

Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make
probably in the next 10 minutes."

But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by
heroic civilians.

How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able to communicate with
their loved ones, grasp a totally new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to
defend the nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication problems"
on Air Force One and the nation's defense chief didn't know what was going
on until the horror was all over?

The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system; they were human
failures. Yet, so far, no one has been fired, which leaves the 9/11
families - and all of us - in a conundrum.

The inaction of both the president and the Defense chief under the ultimate
test offer little reassurance to a nervous nation under the shadow of new
terror warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire security system,
shouldn't our government look first at why the people in charge failed to
communicate or coordinate a response to the catastrophe?
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004

"For us to get bogged down in the quagmire
of an Iraqi civil war would be the height of foolishness."
---Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 1991
VincentJames
2004-08-17 02:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Hey GG, this Yang fellow is obviously a deranged lunatic. Why waste your
time even TRYING to respond? His head is too far up his ass to comprehend
anything not fed to him by some right wing propaganda machine.
Michael Marxist Moore
2004-08-17 04:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Aladdin expels Ronstadt after stupid liberal political remarks.
Another liberal bites the dust! Liberals Hate America!!!!!!!!!


AP/Las Vegas Sun 7-19-04 Jerry Fink

Aladdin President Bill Timmins ordered security guards to escort pop
diva Linda Ronstadt off the property following a concert Saturday
night during which she expressed support for controversial documentary
filmmaker Michael Moore.

Timmins, who was among the almost 5,000 fans in the audience at the
Aladdin Theatre for the Performing Arts, had Ronstadt escorted to her
tour bus and her belongings from her hotel room sent to her. Timmins
also sent word to Ronstadt that she was no longer welcome at the
property for future performances, according Aladdin spokeswoman Tyri
Squyres.

How much weight that carries is debatable, since the bankrupt Aladdin
is in the process of being sold to a group headed by Planet Hollywood
International Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Earl.

Near the close of her performance, Ronstadt dedicated the Eagles hit
"Desperado" to Moore, producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," and the room
erupted into equal parts boos and cheers.

She said Moore "is someone who cares about this country deeply and is
trying to help."

Ronstadt has been making the dedication at each of her engagements
since she began a national tour earlier this summer, but it has never
sparked such a reaction.

Hundreds of angry fans streamed from the theater as Ronstadt sang.
Some of them reportedly defaced posters of her in the lobby, writing
comments and tossing drinks on her pictures.

Timmins told Las Vegas Sun gossip columnist Timothy McDarrah: "We live
in a city where people come from all over the world to be entertained.
We hired Ms. Ronstadt as an entertainer, not as a political activist.

"Whether you are politically on the left or on the right is not the
point. She went up in front of the stage and just let it out. This was
not the correct forum for that."

Timmins said she was wrong to bring her politics to the stage.

"Our first and only priority is the enjoyment of our customers," he
said. "I made the decision to ask Miss Ronstadt to leave the hotel. A
situation like that can easily turn ugly and I didn't want anything
more to come out of it. There were a lot of angry people there after
she started talking.

"If she wants to talk about her views to a newspaper or in a magazine
article, she is free to do so. But in a stage in front of four and a
half thousand people is not the place for it."

Squyres said half the audience walked out, an estimate that might have
been high. But the number was substantial, nevertheless.

"The hotel's policy is that we hired her to entertain guests, not to
express her political views," Squyres said.

According to Squyres, the 58-year-old singer did not create a scene as
she was escorted out of the hotel and to her tour bus.

"She wasn't happy, but she was cooperative," Squyres said.

Attempts to reach Ronstadt and her manager were unsuccessful Sunday
and this morning.

Squyres said a number of ticket holders had asked for their money back
after an article appeared in a local newspaper last week quoting her
making disparaging remarks about Las Vegas.

"She said Vegas isn't the best place to perform anyway," Squyres said.

Other fans asked for their money back shortly after the Saturday night
show got underway, when Ronstadt informed the audience that ads
publicizing the concert were incorrect. The advertisements called it
her "Greatest Hits Tour."

Ronstadt started the evening with her 1983 hit "What's New?" and then
set her fans straight about what they might expect during the concert.

"In case you are wondering what I'm going to do," she said, "Driving
into town I saw this big billboard up there with my picture on it
saying 'The Greatest Hits Tour.'

"That was news to us. We didn't know it was 'The Greatest Hits Tour.'"

Squyres said Ronstadt was wrong.

"Her management gave us the information and approved the ad," she
said.

According to Squyres, Ronstadt lopped off about 20 minutes from the
show, walking away from an encore portion of the concert, which I
attended as the reviewer for the Sun.

The incident capped a generally lackluster, unenthusiastic performance
by one of the top singers of the '70s and '80s.

The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra opened the concert. The highlight of
the 30-minute segment was a rendition of George Gershwin's "Rhapsody
in Blue," featuring pianist Terrance Wilson.

Ronstadt began with several songs from the 1920s, '30s and '40s she
and arranger Nelson Riddle recorded, among them "Bewitched, Bothered
and Bewildered," "Someone to Watch Over Me" and "Straighten Up and Fly
Right."

She performed Cole Porter's "Get Out of Town," Frank Loesser's "Never
Will I Marry" and jazz great Billy Strayhorn's "Lush Life."

And then she gave fans some of what they came for, several of her hits
from the '70s and '80s, including "Just One Look" (1979), "Ooh Baby,
Baby" (1978) and "Somewhere Out There" (1987).

Although she still has that powerful, distinctive voice, Ronstadt was
merely going through the motions.

The only song she had trouble with was "Blue Bayou." She stumbled over
the lyrics, seemed to gasp for breath at one point and ended the song
in Spanish, screaming the words rather than singing them.

Her performance was uninspired and generally flat. She lacked stage
presence, doing little more than sleepwalk from song to song.

The fiasco at the end was the most exciting part of the show.




----------
Al Gore-role model for mental patients
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...