Who's next?
50 posts by 15 authors
 |
 |
I don't like to be macabre, but after the Madrid bombings one cannot
help but wonder who's next? At first I thought Oz, because they are
large, have numerous entry points and are a pretty soft target, but
then I thought, why go so far when the Bali bombing hit Oz pretty
hard? This is a full list of the Coalition of the Willing:
Tarla
****
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
help but wonder who's next? At first I thought Oz, because they are
large, have numerous entry points and are a pretty soft target, but
then I thought, why go so far when the Bali bombing hit Oz pretty
hard? This is a full list of the Coalition of the Willing:
Afghanistan,Albania,Angola,
Costa Rica,Czech Republic,Denmark,Dominican Republic,El Salvador
Eritrea,Estonia,Ethiopia,
Kuwait,Latvia,Lithuania,
Netherlands,Nicaragua,Palau,
Rwanda,Singapore,Slovakia,
Turkey,Uganda,Ukraine,United Kingdom,United States,Uzbekistan
Costa Rica,Czech Republic,Denmark,Dominican Republic,El Salvador
Eritrea,Estonia,Ethiopia,
Kuwait,Latvia,Lithuania,
Netherlands,Nicaragua,Palau,
Rwanda,Singapore,Slovakia,
Turkey,Uganda,Ukraine,United Kingdom,United States,Uzbekistan
Turkey, Spain and Italy have been hit. Most of the Eastern Block
countries have only lent support in name, but a couple of countries
stand out as not so obvious targets:
countries have only lent support in name, but a couple of countries
stand out as not so obvious targets:
Poland not only sent a couple of hundred troops, but recently
reiterated their support for Bush & Co.
reiterated their support for Bush & Co.
The Netherlands; many access points and the source of all evil if you
read the Koran. They also have sent troops to Iraq.
read the Koran. They also have sent troops to Iraq.
Since there are probably terrorists in place all over Europe, it seems
more likely to me now that the next attack will take place on the
Continent.
more likely to me now that the next attack will take place on the
Continent.
Just a thought.
Tarla
****
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
--James Madison
Click here to Reply
|
You may be right. But remember that AQ has hit non participating countries,
i.e. France, Turkey and Morocco. My guess is that AQ will go for whatever
more or less white country that they consider the easiest game. Holland,
Denmark, Belgium. Perhaps the last because there the police are the most
incompetent, there are plenty of potential terrorists across the border in
Holland and the border is as permeable as a sieve.
more or less white country that they consider the easiest game. Holland,
Denmark, Belgium. Perhaps the last because there the police are the most
incompetent, there are plenty of potential terrorists across the border in
Holland and the border is as permeable as a sieve.
R
|
I also thought about Denmark since they too, sent troops, but they're
not as morally offensive to extremist Muslims as Holland. Right now,
I'm leaning more toward Poland as the next target. Call it a hunch.
I read a lot of newpapers online during the day and so I get a general
feeling for what's being reported. I just have this feeling about
Poland.
I'm leaning more toward Poland as the next target. Call it a hunch.
I read a lot of newpapers online during the day and so I get a general
feeling for what's being reported. I just have this feeling about
Poland.
|
Best hope you're not right, or the SIS could be arresting you for
terrorist connections :)
Bruce
------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:23:42 +1300, Tarla wrote:
The problem with predicting is that Al Qaeda is not a singly directed
unit. There are a lot of loosely connected organisations and cells around
the world. Several cells will be planning attacks independently. In most
cases they will attack close targets.
unit. There are a lot of loosely connected organisations and cells around
the world. Several cells will be planning attacks independently. In most
cases they will attack close targets.
Indonesians bombed Bali, Turks bombed Turkey, Saudis bombed Riyadh,
Moroccans bombed Morocco and (presumably) Spain. Probably the culpability
of the target (in islamist terms) is less important than the ease of
carrying out the attack.
Moroccans bombed Morocco and (presumably) Spain. Probably the culpability
of the target (in islamist terms) is less important than the ease of
carrying out the attack.
It is much harder to make attacks far from home so America is much more at
risk from non al Qaeda groups. The 9/11 attacks were an extreme effort
and unlikely to be repeated quickly.
risk from non al Qaeda groups. The 9/11 attacks were an extreme effort
and unlikely to be repeated quickly.
Most attacks will take place near where there are concentrations of
militants. Attacks in Britain/ Australia can't be ruled out, but the
extra difficulties make them an unlikely target for Al Qaeda.
militants. Attacks in Britain/ Australia can't be ruled out, but the
extra difficulties make them an unlikely target for Al Qaeda.
|
I actually thought about that when I was writing the post, but decided
not to be paranoid. Who knows, if I'm right many more times, I might
get a government job as an analyst.
not to be paranoid. Who knows, if I'm right many more times, I might
get a government job as an analyst.
|
:) Not in the CIA you won't ... they don't want right :) :)
|
My pick would be Spain (again). If I was AQ that's who'd I'd go for.
Afterall, they've shown they're a bunch of appeasers.
|
They aren't appeasers at all - now.
They stopped appeasing Bush on Sunday.
|
France ,Britain or Poland.The French have already received a bomb threat
because of their new 'hijab' laws.
because of their new 'hijab' laws.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news
:... This is a full list of the Coalition of the Willing:
Errrrr... that should read: Coalition of the Killing.
Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
Albania. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! U.S. aid promises, anyone?
Angola. Snort!
Australia. Oh yes! A principled stand, that one! Blood for trade,
anyone?
Azerbaijan. Shouldn't they be INVADING this country?
Bulgaria. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Colombia. Oh Good LORD!
Costa Rica,..... W-w-w-w-w-whaaaaaT?!!??!?!?
Czech Republic,
Denmark, Viking race memories of invasion?
Dominican Republic,...Oh my GAWD!
El Salvador... Ironic name. Since they're in the Coalition of the
Killing, shouldn't they change their name to El Invader?
> Eritrea,..... ?????!!!?!?!?!?
Estonia,.... They hate Russia, we realize that, but to support the
USA like this as a act of spite seems immature.
Ethiopia,.... WW-W-WHAAAAT?!?!?!?????!!!?!?
Georgia,.... We know they HATE Russia, but this is ridiculous.
Honduras,.... W-W-W-W-whaaaaat?!???!?!?!?
Hungary.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha!
Iceland.... ?!?!?!?!? This IS a joke. Right?
Italy,.... Fascist tendencies die hard. That fellow even looks like
Mussolini.
Japan.... The Japanese people are massively opposed to Koizumi's
unilateral decision to joint the Coalition of the Killing. Watch how
Japan reacts after the first Japanese soldiers get killed....
Kuwait....?!???!?!?!???
Latvia,... See comment for Estonia.
Lithuania.... ditto.
Macedonia,.... ditto.
Marshall Islands,.... Oh, SPLENDID! How many killers have THEY sent
to Iraq?
Micronesia... Ditto.
Mongolia.... see comment for Denmark, adjust words accordingly.
Netherlands,.... You'd expect a former victim of the Nazis to show a
little more moral courage and leadership.
Nicaragua,.... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Palau,.... See comment for Marshall Islands
Panama,.... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Philippines,..... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Poland,..... See comment for the Netherlands
Portugal,..... ??!!?!?!?!?
Romania..... We know they HATE Russia, but this is ridiculous.
Rwanda,.... Will they be ttaking their machetes, and can they use them
on women and children at checkpoints? or will their U.S. masters
insist on them killing civilians with machine-guns - the civilized
way.
Singapore,.... Is this a joke?
Slovakia,... see comment for the Netherlands.
Solomon Islands.... Oh, PRICELESS!
South Korea.... Moral blackmail, anyone?
Spain.... REMOVE THIS NAME,
Tonga....
[Breen wipes tears from eyes, splutters uncontrollably for several
minutes, rolls on floor, laughing asssss off.]
Turkey,.... Hey! Aren't they on America's shit list for refusing
access to Iraq through their soil? Why, yes they are! Massive U.S.
arm twisting, anyone?
Uganda,.... How many Iraqi citizens have Ugandan troops killed?
Ukraine,..... Look, they hate Russia, we know that. But why kill
IRAQIS to prove that?
United Kingdom,.... How much longer, we wonder?
United States..... acting on behalf of Israel.
Uzbekistan..... Look, you hate Russia. Fair enough. But why kill
Iraqis to prove this?
favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
Albania. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! U.S. aid promises, anyone?
Angola. Snort!
Australia. Oh yes! A principled stand, that one! Blood for trade,
anyone?
Azerbaijan. Shouldn't they be INVADING this country?
Bulgaria. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Colombia. Oh Good LORD!
Costa Rica,..... W-w-w-w-w-whaaaaaT?!!??!?!?
Czech Republic,
Denmark, Viking race memories of invasion?
Dominican Republic,...Oh my GAWD!
El Salvador... Ironic name. Since they're in the Coalition of the
Killing, shouldn't they change their name to El Invader?
> Eritrea,..... ?????!!!?!?!?!?
Estonia,.... They hate Russia, we realize that, but to support the
USA like this as a act of spite seems immature.
Ethiopia,.... WW-W-WHAAAAT?!?!?!?????!!!?!?
Georgia,.... We know they HATE Russia, but this is ridiculous.
Honduras,.... W-W-W-W-whaaaaat?!???!?!?!?
Hungary.... Buwahahahahahahahahaha!
Iceland.... ?!?!?!?!? This IS a joke. Right?
Italy,.... Fascist tendencies die hard. That fellow even looks like
Mussolini.
Japan.... The Japanese people are massively opposed to Koizumi's
unilateral decision to joint the Coalition of the Killing. Watch how
Japan reacts after the first Japanese soldiers get killed....
Kuwait....?!???!?!?!???
Latvia,... See comment for Estonia.
Lithuania.... ditto.
Macedonia,.... ditto.
Marshall Islands,.... Oh, SPLENDID! How many killers have THEY sent
to Iraq?
Micronesia... Ditto.
Mongolia.... see comment for Denmark, adjust words accordingly.
Netherlands,.... You'd expect a former victim of the Nazis to show a
little more moral courage and leadership.
Nicaragua,.... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Palau,.... See comment for Marshall Islands
Panama,.... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Philippines,..... U.S. pressure, anyone?
Poland,..... See comment for the Netherlands
Portugal,..... ??!!?!?!?!?
Romania..... We know they HATE Russia, but this is ridiculous.
Rwanda,.... Will they be ttaking their machetes, and can they use them
on women and children at checkpoints? or will their U.S. masters
insist on them killing civilians with machine-guns - the civilized
way.
Singapore,.... Is this a joke?
Slovakia,... see comment for the Netherlands.
Solomon Islands.... Oh, PRICELESS!
South Korea.... Moral blackmail, anyone?
Spain.... REMOVE THIS NAME,
Tonga....
[Breen wipes tears from eyes, splutters uncontrollably for several
minutes, rolls on floor, laughing asssss off.]
Turkey,.... Hey! Aren't they on America's shit list for refusing
access to Iraq through their soil? Why, yes they are! Massive U.S.
arm twisting, anyone?
Uganda,.... How many Iraqi citizens have Ugandan troops killed?
Ukraine,..... Look, they hate Russia, we know that. But why kill
IRAQIS to prove that?
United Kingdom,.... How much longer, we wonder?
United States..... acting on behalf of Israel.
Uzbekistan..... Look, you hate Russia. Fair enough. But why kill
Iraqis to prove this?
THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
how come Israel is not listed here?
how come Israel is not listed here?
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
In article <fb3a0456.04031...@
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
> favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
> favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
retardation, methinks.
rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
retardation, methinks.
> Estonia,.... They hate Russia, we realize that, but to support the
> USA like this as a act
> USA like this as a act
[sic!]
> Rwanda,.... Will they be ttaking
[sic!]
> THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
> how come Israel is not listed here?
> how come Israel is not listed here?
So it's not about oil? If it were truly about Israel, then
Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Costa Rica,..... W-w-w-w-w-whaaaaaT?!!??!?!?
As I understand it (please correct me if I am in error), Costa
Rica does not have any armed forces. They can afford to be
allied with whoever they want.
Rica does not have any armed forces. They can afford to be
allied with whoever they want.
> Kuwait....?!???!?!?!???
Perfectly understandable.
> Marshall Islands,.... Oh, SPLENDID! How many killers have THEY sent
> to Iraq?
> Micronesia... Ditto.
> to Iraq?
> Micronesia... Ditto.
> Palau,.... See comment for Marshall Islands
These three are about as independent as the Eastern Bloc was
during the Cold War. You may as well include Puerto Rico.
during the Cold War. You may as well include Puerto Rico.
> Netherlands,.... You'd expect a former victim of the Nazis to show a
> little more moral courage and leadership.
> little more moral courage and leadership.
Why? The Israelis never have.
> Singapore,.... Is this a joke?
Singapore is, yes. Is there any truth in the rumour that chewing
gum is forbidden in Singapore because their lords and masters
are collectively unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
gum is forbidden in Singapore because their lords and masters
are collectively unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
> Tonga....
By the time they said "no", it was too late...
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:06 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>> Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
>> favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>
>Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
>rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>retardation, methinks.
>
>> Estonia,.... They hate Russia, we realize that, but to support the
>> USA like this as a act
>
>[sic!]
>
>> Rwanda,.... Will they be ttaking
>
>[sic!]
>
>> THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
>> how come Israel is not listed here?
>
>So it's not about oil? If it were truly about Israel, then
>Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
>> favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>
>Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
>rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>retardation, methinks.
>
>> Estonia,.... They hate Russia, we realize that, but to support the
>> USA like this as a act
>
>[sic!]
>
>> Rwanda,.... Will they be ttaking
>
>[sic!]
>
>> THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
>> how come Israel is not listed here?
>
>So it's not about oil? If it were truly about Israel, then
>Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
This must be a different Moroonsey than the one who wrote this, just a
few days ago...
few days ago...
|So how DO you explain it? Is there something lacking in the West
|Coast educational system? Why would anyone put an apostrophe so
|hideously out of place? Perhaps "Mr Scebe" just trying to draw
|attention to himself.
|
|Ideas, anyone?...
|Coast educational system? Why would anyone put an apostrophe so
|hideously out of place? Perhaps "Mr Scebe" just trying to draw
|attention to himself.
|
|Ideas, anyone?...
But, I do find it strangely coincidental that both "Breen" and Withers
are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers... I prefer her/"Breen's" clumsy
spelling and grammar to Steve's digital spittle and ranting about
other posters.
are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers... I prefer her/"Breen's" clumsy
spelling and grammar to Steve's digital spittle and ranting about
other posters.
David
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message news:<MPG.
> In article <fb3a0456.04031...@
> morriss...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
> > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>
> Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
> retardation, methinks.
> In article <fb3a0456.04031...@
> morriss...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
> > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>
> Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
> retardation, methinks.
Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place? Who
hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
remember correctly....
hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
remember correctly....
Why are U.S. soldiers still in a state of siege in Afghanistan? Are
you seriously suggesting they are not reviled by the Afghani people?
you seriously suggesting they are not reviled by the Afghani people?
>
> > THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
> > how come Israel is not listed here?
>
> So it's not about oil?
> > THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
> > how come Israel is not listed here?
>
> So it's not about oil?
Of course it's about oil. And about having a stable and reliable
middle east friend. So what if that relationship comes at the expense
of the people of Palestine? And Iraq.
middle east friend. So what if that relationship comes at the expense
of the people of Palestine? And Iraq.
>
> If it were truly about Israel, then
> Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
> If it were truly about Israel, then
> Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
Don't you follow the news? Who has been the target of consistent
Israeli assassination attempts over the last few years?
Israeli assassination attempts over the last few years?
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> tries unsuccessfully to
have a go at moi in message
news:<1pki509rdn4dh76l3o5ktdu0
have a go at moi in message
news:<1pki509rdn4dh76l3o5ktdu0
>
> But, I do find it strangely coincidental that both "Breen" and Withers
> are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
> that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers...
> But, I do find it strangely coincidental that both "Breen" and Withers
> are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
> that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers...
Ha ha ha. Good on ya, Pears. Ha ha ha.
>
> I prefer her/"Breen's" clumsy spelling and grammar
> I prefer her/"Breen's" clumsy spelling and grammar
My spelling is virtually perfect. Certainly, I'll slip through typing
too fast and not always previewing my messages, but that's just
carelessness. And I would have thought even you wouldn't be so dumb
as to call my grammar clumsy.
too fast and not always previewing my messages, but that's just
carelessness. And I would have thought even you wouldn't be so dumb
as to call my grammar clumsy.
But you're getting desperate, I guess. I note that neither you nor
Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>
> to Steve's digital spittle and ranting about other posters.
> to Steve's digital spittle and ranting about other posters.
Ooooohhhhh, methinks someone's still a tad bitter about Steve's
pinning down his nonsense about "weapons of mass destruction" last
year.
pinning down his nonsense about "weapons of mass destruction" last
year.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
"Dave Joll" <davejoll@es.co.zn> wrote in message news:<c3bbsm$aid$1...@lust.ihug.
>
> Singapore is, yes. Is there any truth in the rumour that chewing
> gum is forbidden in Singapore because their lords and masters
> are collectively unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
>
> > Tonga....
>
> By the time they said "no", it was too late...
> Singapore is, yes. Is there any truth in the rumour that chewing
> gum is forbidden in Singapore because their lords and masters
> are collectively unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
>
> > Tonga....
>
> By the time they said "no", it was too late...
This grim joke of a "Coalition" is not exactly the Warsaw Pact or
NATO, is it? I suggest a new alliance, comprised of some of the
super-powers the inspirational
Bush administration has persuaded to join in the occupation of Iraq.
In honour of those freedom-loving states Micronesia, Tonga - what a
perfect example of a democratic state! - and the Marshall Islands, I
suggest a new military grouping for the 21st century.
NATO, is it? I suggest a new alliance, comprised of some of the
super-powers the inspirational
Bush administration has persuaded to join in the occupation of Iraq.
In honour of those freedom-loving states Micronesia, Tonga - what a
perfect example of a democratic state! - and the Marshall Islands, I
suggest a new military grouping for the 21st century.
Possible names please....
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
On 18 Mar 2004 04:55:04 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>> Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
>> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>> retardation, methinks.
>
>Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place? Who
>hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
>called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
>remember correctly....
>> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>> retardation, methinks.
>
>Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place? Who
>hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
>called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
>remember correctly....
You can tell him once.
You can tell him twice.
You can tell him a dozen times.
But you just cant make Maroonsey understand that the Taliban weren't
even around in the 1980s.
even around in the 1980s.
I don't know if I have ever seen a poster as willfully and unashamedly
thick.
thick.
David
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
On 18 Mar 2004 05:06:09 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>> But, I do find it strangely coincidental that both "Breen" and Withers
>> are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
>> that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers...
>
>Ha ha ha. Good on ya, Pears. Ha ha ha.
>> are posting under the influence at the same time. I've said before
>> that "Breen" is likely Mrs Withers...
>
>Ha ha ha. Good on ya, Pears. Ha ha ha.
It's the sycophantic devotion that gives you away. Who else would
automatically rush in to defend someone, no matter how bizarre they
were being? Withers even hurried to defend you after you posted the
dullest most dated bit of "humour" ever seen on a newsgroup, just the
other day. That's true love... even if somewhat misguided.
automatically rush in to defend someone, no matter how bizarre they
were being? Withers even hurried to defend you after you posted the
dullest most dated bit of "humour" ever seen on a newsgroup, just the
other day. That's true love... even if somewhat misguided.
>> I prefer her/"Breen's" clumsy spelling and grammar
>
>My spelling is virtually perfect. Certainly, I'll slip through typing
>too fast and not always previewing my messages, but that's just
>carelessness. And I would have thought even you wouldn't be so dumb
>as to call my grammar clumsy.
>
>My spelling is virtually perfect. Certainly, I'll slip through typing
>too fast and not always previewing my messages, but that's just
>carelessness. And I would have thought even you wouldn't be so dumb
>as to call my grammar clumsy.
I don't usually comment about spelling and grammar. But the irony of
someone who doesn't know to use "an" rather than "a" when the
following word starts with a vowel criticising Scebe for a stray
apostrophe... it was just too hard to ignore.
someone who doesn't know to use "an" rather than "a" when the
following word starts with a vowel criticising Scebe for a stray
apostrophe... it was just too hard to ignore.
>But you're getting desperate, I guess. I note that neither you nor
>Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
>Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
>occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
>to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
>Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
>occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
>to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
Refute it? I haven't been bothered to read it.
>> to Steve's digital spittle and ranting about other posters.
>
>Ooooohhhhh, methinks someone's still a tad bitter about Steve's
>pinning down his nonsense about "weapons of mass destruction" last
>year.
>
>Ooooohhhhh, methinks someone's still a tad bitter about Steve's
>pinning down his nonsense about "weapons of mass destruction" last
>year.
The only bitter person here has just posted about 40 rants about other
posters in the last 24 hours. We're all dishonest. Some of us are like
evil fictional characters. Others of us are like war criminals. We're
all dishonest, greedy, intolerant, racist, and ignorant. None of us
realise that the opinions of Withers are facts, while the opinions of
others are lies. We refuse to learn the facts that he teaches us. It'd
all be quite sad, if the image of him angrily banging away at the
keyboard wasn't so funny.
posters in the last 24 hours. We're all dishonest. Some of us are like
evil fictional characters. Others of us are like war criminals. We're
all dishonest, greedy, intolerant, racist, and ignorant. None of us
realise that the opinions of Withers are facts, while the opinions of
others are lies. We refuse to learn the facts that he teaches us. It'd
all be quite sad, if the image of him angrily banging away at the
keyboard wasn't so funny.
David
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote
> > morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> > > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
> > > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
> > Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
> > rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
> > retardation, methinks.
> > > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
> > > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
> > Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
> > rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
> > retardation, methinks.
> Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place?
The Taleban did.
> Who
> hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
> called Ronnie.
> hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
> called Ronnie.
Free clue for the historically challenged Moronissey: It was impossible
for Ronnie to hail the Taleban in the 1980s because they didn't exist
then. Moreover most of the opponents of the Taleban were also the same
people hailed by Ronnie in the 1980s.
for Ronnie to hail the Taleban in the 1980s because they didn't exist
then. Moreover most of the opponents of the Taleban were also the same
people hailed by Ronnie in the 1980s.
> Why are U.S. soldiers still in a state of siege in Afghanistan?
As opposed to the Germans and other troops?
> Are
> you seriously suggesting they are not reviled by the Afghani people?
> you seriously suggesting they are not reviled by the Afghani people?
Do you have an opinion poll?
> > > THE BREEN QUESTION: Since this whole fiasco is on behalf of Israel,
> > > how come Israel is not listed here?
> > So it's not about oil?
> Of course it's about oil.
> > > how come Israel is not listed here?
> > So it's not about oil?
> Of course it's about oil.
So why did you contradict yourself?
> And about having a stable and reliable
> middle east friend.
> middle east friend.
If it were truely about oil, the US would have dumped Israel
back in the 70s. They already had other stable and reliable
friends. But Morewussy is too dim to understand this.
back in the 70s. They already had other stable and reliable
friends. But Morewussy is too dim to understand this.
> > If it were truly about Israel, then
> > Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
> Don't you follow the news?
> > Yassir would have been higher on the list than Saddam.
> Don't you follow the news?
I do. You don't.
> Who has been the target of consistent
> Israeli assassination attempts over the last few years?
> Israeli assassination attempts over the last few years?
A number of people but not Yassir.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Dave Joll" <davejoll@es.co.zn> wrote in message
news:<c3bbsm$aid$1...@lust.ihug.
news:<c3bbsm$aid$1...@lust.ihug.
in reply to:
> > > Tonga....
> > By the time they said "no", it was too late...
> This grim joke of a "Coalition" is not exactly the Warsaw Pact or
> NATO, is it? I suggest a new alliance, comprised of some of the
> super-powers the inspirational
> Bush administration has persuaded to join in the occupation of Iraq.
> In honour of those freedom-loving states Micronesia, Tonga - what a
> perfect example of a democratic state! - and the Marshall Islands, I
> suggest a new military grouping for the 21st century.
> NATO, is it? I suggest a new alliance, comprised of some of the
> super-powers the inspirational
> Bush administration has persuaded to join in the occupation of Iraq.
> In honour of those freedom-loving states Micronesia, Tonga - what a
> perfect example of a democratic state! - and the Marshall Islands, I
> suggest a new military grouping for the 21st century.
Whoosh
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
On 18 Mar 2004 04:55:04 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message news:<MPG.
>> In article <fb3a0456.04031...@
>> morriss...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
>> > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>>
>> Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
>> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>> retardation, methinks.
>
>Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place? Who
>hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
>called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
>remember correctly....
>> In article <fb3a0456.04031...@
>> morriss...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> > Afghanistan (?!!??!?!?!!? Says WHO? That's like POLAND being in
>> > favour of the "liberation" of Poland in September 1939!
>>
>> Mowissey thinks that Afghanistan was better off under the
>> rule of the Taleban? A fair indication of his moral
>> retardation, methinks.
>
>Errrrr...who installed the freaking Taleban in the first place? Who
>hailed them as "freedom fighters" throughout the 1980s? It was a guy
>called Ronnie. He had a weaselish deputy called George, if I
>remember correctly....
The Taliban is widely acknowledged to be a creation of Pakistan and
its external intelligence agency, the Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI). This factor goes a long way in explaining the swift military
successes of the Taliban against the non-Pushtun Afghan forces in
campaigns in which both Pakistani Army officers and men (serving as
well as retired) were involved. The Taliban’s military campaign in
Afghanistan commenced after an announcement by Pakistan that it would
open a trade route through Afghanistan to Central Asia (former Soviet
Central Asian Republics: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan).
Pakistan ascertained that the Tajik-dominated government in Kabul
posed a threat to Pakistan by keeping the Pashtuns, uncontrolled by
any state, in a condition of agitation. However, the stakes for both
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were much more than trade routes
potentially lucrative oil and gas pipelines were involved.
its external intelligence agency, the Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI). This factor goes a long way in explaining the swift military
successes of the Taliban against the non-Pushtun Afghan forces in
campaigns in which both Pakistani Army officers and men (serving as
well as retired) were involved. The Taliban’s military campaign in
Afghanistan commenced after an announcement by Pakistan that it would
open a trade route through Afghanistan to Central Asia (former Soviet
Central Asian Republics: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan).
Pakistan ascertained that the Tajik-dominated government in Kabul
posed a threat to Pakistan by keeping the Pashtuns, uncontrolled by
any state, in a condition of agitation. However, the stakes for both
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were much more than trade routes
potentially lucrative oil and gas pipelines were involved.
more details on the origins of the Taliban at:
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/
Tarla
****
Life loves to be taken by the lapel and told,
I am with you kid Let's go!'
--Maya Angelou
****
Life loves to be taken by the lapel and told,
I am with you kid Let's go!'
--Maya Angelou
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<r6bj50dlqpceg3kao5fk4hvr
>
> Withers even hurried to defend you after you posted the
> dullest most dated bit of "humour" ever seen on a newsgroup, just the
> other day. That's true love... even if somewhat misguided.
> Withers even hurried to defend you after you posted the
> dullest most dated bit of "humour" ever seen on a newsgroup, just the
> other day. That's true love... even if somewhat misguided.
You're being a bit obscure, my friend. To which dated bit of humour
of mine are you referring? *
of mine are you referring? *
>
> I don't usually comment about spelling and grammar. But the irony of
> someone who doesn't know to use "an" rather than "a" when the
> following word starts with a vowel criticising Scebe for a stray
> apostrophe... it was just too hard to ignore.
> I don't usually comment about spelling and grammar. But the irony of
> someone who doesn't know to use "an" rather than "a" when the
> following word starts with a vowel criticising Scebe for a stray
> apostrophe... it was just too hard to ignore.
Foolish quibble on your part. Sure, I made a mistake, but not even my
most implacable enemy would suggest it was due to anything other than
carelessness. Mr Scebe's risible insertion of an apostrophe into a
pluralised word suggests that he did so merely because the word ended
in an "s". Now, there are many of us - unkind souls, perhaps - who
would suggest that such an error was an indication of fundamental
stupidity and illiteracy. The difference between my carelessness and
Scebe's seeming stupidity is immense.
most implacable enemy would suggest it was due to anything other than
carelessness. Mr Scebe's risible insertion of an apostrophe into a
pluralised word suggests that he did so merely because the word ended
in an "s". Now, there are many of us - unkind souls, perhaps - who
would suggest that such an error was an indication of fundamental
stupidity and illiteracy. The difference between my carelessness and
Scebe's seeming stupidity is immense.
>
> >But you're getting desperate, I guess. I note that neither you nor
> >Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
> >Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
> >occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
> >to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>
> Refute it? I haven't been bothered to read it.
> >But you're getting desperate, I guess. I note that neither you nor
> >Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
> >Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
> >occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
> >to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>
> Refute it? I haven't been bothered to read it.
Ha! Sure you didn't. Love moi or loathe moi, one thing you can't
deny is that my posts are highly readable, even compelling. You read
it, all right. As I said, you can't refute it.
deny is that my posts are highly readable, even compelling. You read
it, all right. As I said, you can't refute it.
>
> The only bitter person here has just posted about 40 rants about other
> posters in the last 24 hours.
> The only bitter person here has just posted about 40 rants about other
> posters in the last 24 hours.
Who's that? Moi? Why all this freaking ellipsis?
>
> We're all dishonest. Some of us are like
> evil fictional characters. Others of us are like war criminals. We're
> all dishonest, greedy, intolerant, racist, and ignorant.
> We're all dishonest. Some of us are like
> evil fictional characters. Others of us are like war criminals. We're
> all dishonest, greedy, intolerant, racist, and ignorant.
You speak only for the likes of yourself and Metcalfe.
>
> None of us realise that the opinions of Withers are facts, while the opinions of
> others are lies.
> None of us realise that the opinions of Withers are facts, while the opinions of
> others are lies.
He's bitter about Steve, all right!
* Note the felicitous, grammatically perfect phrasing of that
question.
question.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
On 19 Mar 2004 02:18:12 -0800, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>> >But you're getting desperate, I guess. I note that neither you nor
>> >Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
>> >Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
>> >occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
>> >to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>>
>> Refute it? I haven't been bothered to read it.
>
>Ha! Sure you didn't. Love moi or loathe moi, one thing you can't
>deny is that my posts are highly readable, even compelling. You read
>it, all right. As I said, you can't refute it.
>> >Metcalfe is able to refute my summary of this ridiculous, unravelling
>> >Coalition of the Bullied. But hell - you just carry on attacking my
>> >occasional careless lapses; there's more mileage in that than trying
>> >to defend the Bush administration, anyway.
>>
>> Refute it? I haven't been bothered to read it.
>
>Ha! Sure you didn't. Love moi or loathe moi, one thing you can't
>deny is that my posts are highly readable, even compelling. You read
>it, all right. As I said, you can't refute it.
So you're vain as well as pretentious?
I only looked at this thread since I saw Peter M replying to you. I
take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity. Otherwise
I would have skipped it.
take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity. Otherwise
I would have skipped it.
As I suspect others do. You'll notice plenty of other threads are full
of lively debate. Whereas your threads and contributions to threads
tend to just die, unless someone like Peter decides to be charitable
and dish out some public humiliation. You take this as a sign that no
one can refute anything you say. But, actually, no one reads any of
it.
of lively debate. Whereas your threads and contributions to threads
tend to just die, unless someone like Peter decides to be charitable
and dish out some public humiliation. You take this as a sign that no
one can refute anything you say. But, actually, no one reads any of
it.
David
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<qmum5017kv4qb7lfgp8fdmq8
>
> So you're vain as well as pretentious?
> So you're vain as well as pretentious?
Pretentious? MOI?
>
> I only looked at this thread since I saw Peter M replying to you.
> I only looked at this thread since I saw Peter M replying to you.
Sure you did. I guess we can be sure that someone reading this thread
will believe you...
will believe you...
>
> I take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity.
> I take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity.
I'd like to see a reference for that! I recall Mr Metcalfe being
tiresomely pedantic on many occasions, but I cannot recall him
pointing out my or anyone else's "enormous stupidity". I think you'll
find that he is more concerned with defending and putting a positive
spin on enormous stupidity, and enormous hypocrisy.
tiresomely pedantic on many occasions, but I cannot recall him
pointing out my or anyone else's "enormous stupidity". I think you'll
find that he is more concerned with defending and putting a positive
spin on enormous stupidity, and enormous hypocrisy.
>
> Otherwise I would have skipped it.
> Otherwise I would have skipped it.
Sure you would have. This was just a ..... a lapse. Why would we
question your word?
question your word?
>
> As I suspect others do. You'll notice plenty of other threads are full
> of lively debate. Whereas your threads and contributions to threads
> tend to just die,....> As I suspect others do. You'll notice plenty of other threads are full
> of lively debate. Whereas your threads and contributions to threads
Now, you can pretty much get away with routinely telling lies here, as
long as it's about Iraq, American politics, that sort of thing.
Occasionally, as we've seen, someone will challenge you and, like
Steve Withers did, comprehensively humiliate you. But on balance,
you're probably going to get away unscathed, no matter what nonsense
you might spout. In a world beseiged, bullied and dominated by
conscienceless liars, the likes of yourself are going to prosper.
long as it's about Iraq, American politics, that sort of thing.
Occasionally, as we've seen, someone will challenge you and, like
Steve Withers did, comprehensively humiliate you. But on balance,
you're probably going to get away unscathed, no matter what nonsense
you might spout. In a world beseiged, bullied and dominated by
conscienceless liars, the likes of yourself are going to prosper.
Except, that is, when you get personal with your lies. Most people
reading this will of course know immediately that you are talking
nonsense when you say my threads "just tend to die". A quick click on
my name will soon disabuse anyone of that. That's not to say, of
course, that lots of my threads just sit there, alone, with no replies
at all. But in nearly every case, that's for reposts I've made of
articles, usually about politics. They're not really Breen posts; I
simply provide a medium to archive them on Usenet. Even posts of
articles by Noam Chomsky will attract no reply. As you are well
aware.
reading this will of course know immediately that you are talking
nonsense when you say my threads "just tend to die". A quick click on
my name will soon disabuse anyone of that. That's not to say, of
course, that lots of my threads just sit there, alone, with no replies
at all. But in nearly every case, that's for reposts I've made of
articles, usually about politics. They're not really Breen posts; I
simply provide a medium to archive them on Usenet. Even posts of
articles by Noam Chomsky will attract no reply. As you are well
aware.
Anyway, I went over this same stuff with Mr Scebe a couple of months
ago. The points I made there apply the same now. See here for my
comprehensive putdown of Mr Scebe's lame attempt to get moi. By
extension, of course, it also serves as a kick in the pants for the
ethically challenged Pears....
http://tinyurl.com/2xwtf
ago. The points I made there apply the same now. See here for my
comprehensive putdown of Mr Scebe's lame attempt to get moi. By
extension, of course, it also serves as a kick in the pants for the
ethically challenged Pears....
http://tinyurl.com/2xwtf
>
> unless someone like Peter decides to be charitable
> and dish out some public humiliation.
> unless someone like Peter decides to be charitable
> and dish out some public humiliation.
Ha! When did that happen again?
>
> You take this as a sign that no one can refute anything you say.
> You take this as a sign that no one can refute anything you say.
Not at all. I merely pointed out that YOU could not refute my
assessment of the Coalition of the Killing. Your bilious reply
underlines my point.
assessment of the Coalition of the Killing. Your bilious reply
underlines my point.
>
> But, actually, no one reads any of it.
> But, actually, no one reads any of it.
Ha! If only, huh?
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
In article <fb3a0456.04032...@
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> > I take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity.
> I'd like to see a reference for that!
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> > I take joy in watching him point out your enormous stupidity.
> I'd like to see a reference for that!
Perhaps he was thinking of your recent claim that Ronald
Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
existence during his presidency?
Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
existence during his presidency?
Or your oft repeated claim that the US State Department
covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
the slightest shred of evidence?
covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
the slightest shred of evidence?
Then there is of course your repeated spelling and grammar
flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
I am being charitable in not considering the flaws that the
folks at rec.sport.reguby.union have repeatedly attributed
to you. The lurid allegation that you jerk off over
pictures of beefy french rugby players, for example, is
not a sign of enormous stupidity.
folks at rec.sport.reguby.union have repeatedly attributed
to you. The lurid allegation that you jerk off over
pictures of beefy french rugby players, for example, is
not a sign of enormous stupidity.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> attempts, unwisely, to
attack this writer (moi) in message
news:<MPG.
attack this writer (moi) in message
news:<MPG.
>
> Perhaps he was thinking of your recent claim that Ronald
> Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
> existence during his presidency?
> Perhaps he was thinking of your recent claim that Ronald
> Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
> existence during his presidency?
Your quibbling remind me of a story John Cleese tells about an
accountant who, explaining to Cleese why he found a Monty Python
sketch making fun of accountants as funny instead of being offended,
explained: "Ah, but you see, I am a CHARTERED accountant." So it is
with your attempting to fog up this argument by claiming the Taleban
did not exist.
accountant who, explaining to Cleese why he found a Monty Python
sketch making fun of accountants as funny instead of being offended,
explained: "Ah, but you see, I am a CHARTERED accountant." So it is
with your attempting to fog up this argument by claiming the Taleban
did not exist.
Okay, we'll concede that they became the "Taleban" after Reagan left
office. Doesn't change the fact that his administration called them
"freedom fighters" and armed them to the teeth. That's how Osama Bin
laden became such an ally of the USA. You know, ansd everyone else
knows, I am correct. Pedantry will not save you.
office. Doesn't change the fact that his administration called them
"freedom fighters" and armed them to the teeth. That's how Osama Bin
laden became such an ally of the USA. You know, ansd everyone else
knows, I am correct. Pedantry will not save you.
>
> Or your oft repeated claim that the US State Department
> covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
> the slightest shred of evidence?
> Or your oft repeated claim that the US State Department
> covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
> the slightest shred of evidence?
Ha! The murder of more than 30,000 Kurds and the ensuing (botched)
cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
It's not merely an "oft repeated claim", it's an exhaustively
documented, scandalous fact. It's one of the main reasons why Iraqis
will never trust an American government. Readers who instinctively
distrust Mr Metcalfe's implication that there is not "the slightest
shred of evidence" for the Halabja cover-up should click HERE....
http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
It's not merely an "oft repeated claim", it's an exhaustively
documented, scandalous fact. It's one of the main reasons why Iraqis
will never trust an American government. Readers who instinctively
distrust Mr Metcalfe's implication that there is not "the slightest
shred of evidence" for the Halabja cover-up should click HERE....
http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
This one is particularly clear and well-written.....
http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
And this one, which examines the ghastly visit of Colin Powell to
Halabja, and wonders why he failed to mention certain embarrassing and
uncomfortable things....
http://www.counterpunch.org/
"... none of this means diddly to the average American, who knows
nothing about how Reagan and Bush's daddy armed Saddam to the teeth.
After all, millions of Americans think Saddam is Osama, Saddam is
responsible for the horrific events of 9/11, and the US found tons of
chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell, standing before
the headstones of Halabja, can easily perpetuate the outlandish myths
and brazen lies that drive the Bush Doctrine of Total War forward in
the Middle East, as the Likudite neocons deem necessary."
- Kurt Nimmo. Counterpunch
Halabja, and wonders why he failed to mention certain embarrassing and
uncomfortable things....
http://www.counterpunch.org/
"... none of this means diddly to the average American, who knows
nothing about how Reagan and Bush's daddy armed Saddam to the teeth.
After all, millions of Americans think Saddam is Osama, Saddam is
responsible for the horrific events of 9/11, and the US found tons of
chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell, standing before
the headstones of Halabja, can easily perpetuate the outlandish myths
and brazen lies that drive the Bush Doctrine of Total War forward in
the Middle East, as the Likudite neocons deem necessary."
- Kurt Nimmo. Counterpunch
>
> Then there is of course your repeated spelling and grammar
> flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
> the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
> Then there is of course your repeated spelling and grammar
> flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
> the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
Ha! So find a grammatical (or any other type of) mistake by moi in
THIS post!
THIS post!
>
> I am being charitable in not considering the flaws that the
> folks at rec.sport.reguby.union
> I am being charitable in not considering the flaws that the
> folks at rec.sport.reguby.union
[sic!]
>
> have repeatedly attributed to you.
> have repeatedly attributed to you.
This writer has enemies. Who doesn't?
>
> The lurid allegation that you jerk off over
> pictures of beefy french rugby players, for example, is
> not a sign of enormous stupidity.
> The lurid allegation that you jerk off over
> pictures of beefy french rugby players, for example, is
> not a sign of enormous stupidity.
More like enormous cupidity, perhaps?
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> attempts, unwisely, to
> attack this writer (moi) in message
> news:<MPG.
> > Perhaps he was thinking of your recent claim that Ronald
> > Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
> > existence during his presidency?
> [...]> attack this writer (moi) in message
> news:<MPG.
> > Perhaps he was thinking of your recent claim that Ronald
> > Reagan praised the Taleban despite them not being in
> > existence during his presidency?
> Okay, we'll
You have multiple personalities?
> concede that they became the "Taleban" after Reagan left
> office.
> office.
Wrong. The Mujahadeen continued to oppose the Kabul government
of President Najabullah and finally took Kabul (after General
Dostrum switched sides). Thereupon the Alliance formed
a new government was formed including Masoud and Dostrum.
Their rule was not accepted by Ismail Khan who lorded it
over Herat nor by Hekmatyar who continued to bombard Kabul.
of President Najabullah and finally took Kabul (after General
Dostrum switched sides). Thereupon the Alliance formed
a new government was formed including Masoud and Dostrum.
Their rule was not accepted by Ismail Khan who lorded it
over Herat nor by Hekmatyar who continued to bombard Kabul.
As a result of this continued strife, Mullah Omar formed
the Taleban with the aid of some Pashtun Mujahadeen (and
he never attracted much support among the non-Pashtos).
the Taleban with the aid of some Pashtun Mujahadeen (and
he never attracted much support among the non-Pashtos).
So while it is correct to say the Mullah Omar and many
other Taleban were Mujahadeen, it is a gross
misrepresentation to say that the Mujadeen later became
the Taleban.
other Taleban were Mujahadeen, it is a gross
misrepresentation to say that the Mujadeen later became
the Taleban.
> Doesn't change the fact that his administration called them
> "freedom fighters" and armed them to the teeth.
> "freedom fighters" and armed them to the teeth.
And this was wrong because?
> That's how Osama Bin
> laden became such an ally of the USA.
> laden became such an ally of the USA.
Wrong. The Saudis matched dollar for dollar the amount of
military aid that the Americans gave to the Mujahadeen.
While the americans sent over guns and the like, the Saudis
also financed many Arabs to fight against the Soviets.
That was how Osama came to be in Afghanistan, through the
agency of the Saudis, not the Americans.
military aid that the Americans gave to the Mujahadeen.
While the americans sent over guns and the like, the Saudis
also financed many Arabs to fight against the Soviets.
That was how Osama came to be in Afghanistan, through the
agency of the Saudis, not the Americans.
> You know, ansd
[sic!]
> everyone else knows, I am correct.
You are wrong as usual.
> > Or your oft repeated claim that the US State Department
> > covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
> > the slightest shred of evidence?
> Ha! The murder of more than 30,000 Kurds and the ensuing (botched)
> cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
> > covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
> > the slightest shred of evidence?
> Ha! The murder of more than 30,000 Kurds and the ensuing (botched)
> cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
Then provide the evidence for the cover-up then.
> It's not merely an "oft repeated claim", it's an exhaustively
> documented, scandalous fact.
> documented, scandalous fact.
Then provide the evidence for the cover-up then, fuckwit.
> It's one of the main reasons why Iraqis
> will never trust an American government.
> will never trust an American government.
How odd. The people most affected by it were the Kurds and
they are one of the most americanophile segments of the Iraqi
population.
they are one of the most americanophile segments of the Iraqi
population.
> Readers who instinctively
> distrust Mr Metcalfe's implication that there is not "the slightest
> shred of evidence" for the Halabja cover-up should click HERE....
> http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
> distrust Mr Metcalfe's implication that there is not "the slightest
> shred of evidence" for the Halabja cover-up should click HERE....
> http://tinyurl.com/2zl5w
Which turns out to be a Brendan trick of a google search
for Halabja and cover-up. The first page returned is
one that alleges that Saddam didn't commit the atrocity
at Halabja. The second is an index which contains an
article criticizing Colin Powell for exploiting the
dead at Halabja and an article about the cover-up of
the US Liberty attack. The third page is a BBC report
about Tehran covering up its nuclear program and Halabja
is nowhere mentioned. So Mowissey strikes out.
for Halabja and cover-up. The first page returned is
one that alleges that Saddam didn't commit the atrocity
at Halabja. The second is an index which contains an
article criticizing Colin Powell for exploiting the
dead at Halabja and an article about the cover-up of
the US Liberty attack. The third page is a BBC report
about Tehran covering up its nuclear program and Halabja
is nowhere mentioned. So Mowissey strikes out.
> This one is particularly clear and well-written.....
> http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
> http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
A blog which cannot be reached at the momebet. Given
the veracity of Mowissey's other sources which do not
mention any state department cover-ups, I'm sketpical
that it will amount to anything much.
the veracity of Mowissey's other sources which do not
mention any state department cover-ups, I'm sketpical
that it will amount to anything much.
> And this one, which examines the ghastly visit of Colin Powell to
> Halabja, and wonders why he failed to mention certain embarrassing and
> uncomfortable things....
> http://www.counterpunch.org/
> "... none of this means diddly to the average American, who knows
> nothing about how Reagan and Bush's daddy armed Saddam to the teeth.
> After all, millions of Americans think Saddam is Osama, Saddam is
> responsible for the horrific events of 9/11, and the US found tons of
> chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell, standing before
> the headstones of Halabja, can easily perpetuate the outlandish myths
> and brazen lies that drive the Bush Doctrine of Total War forward in
> the Middle East, as the Likudite neocons deem necessary."
> - Kurt Nimmo. Counterpunch
> nothing about how Reagan and Bush's daddy armed Saddam to the teeth.
> After all, millions of Americans think Saddam is Osama, Saddam is
> responsible for the horrific events of 9/11, and the US found tons of
> chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell, standing before
> the headstones of Halabja, can easily perpetuate the outlandish myths
> and brazen lies that drive the Bush Doctrine of Total War forward in
> the Middle East, as the Likudite neocons deem necessary."
> - Kurt Nimmo. Counterpunch
Nothing about a cover-up there as far as I can see.
> > Then there is of course your repeated spelling and grammar
> > flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
> > the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
> Ha! So find a grammatical (or any other type of) mistake by moi in
> THIS post!
> THIS post!
I have already done so. c.f. your "ansd" above.
--Peter Metcalfe
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
In article <MPG.1ac790ffe...@
metc...@quicksilver.net.nz says...
> > http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
> A blog which cannot be reached at the momebet. Given
> the veracity of Mowissey's other sources which do not
> mention any state department cover-ups, I'm sketpical
> that it will amount to anything much.
metc...@quicksilver.net.nz says...
> > This one is particularly clear and well-written.....
> > http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
> A blog which cannot be reached at the momebet. Given
> the veracity of Mowissey's other sources which do not
> mention any state department cover-ups, I'm sketpical
> that it will amount to anything much.
Morwussy appears not to have read the blog in question.
The actual statement about the cover-up is "On Monday,
Secretary of State Colin Powell extended the cover-up
of U.S. involvement in the destruction of the country."
There is nothing in the blog entry which states that the
State Department covered up (or attempted to cover up)
Iraq's responsibility in the Halabja massacre that
Moronsey repeatedly claims.
The actual statement about the cover-up is "On Monday,
Secretary of State Colin Powell extended the cover-up
of U.S. involvement in the destruction of the country."
There is nothing in the blog entry which states that the
State Department covered up (or attempted to cover up)
Iraq's responsibility in the Halabja massacre that
Moronsey repeatedly claims.
Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Peter Metcalfe says
>
> Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
>
>
> Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
>
Yes, and pigs will command the next mission to Mars.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle,
anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness." Robert A.
Heinlein
anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness." Robert A.
Heinlein
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote in message news:<405cfb22$1...@news.orcon.
> Peter Metcalfe says
>
> >
> > Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
> >
>
> Yes, and pigs will command the next mission to Mars.
> Peter Metcalfe says
>
> >
> > Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
> >
>
> Yes, and pigs will command the next mission to Mars.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
> Redbaiter <do...@email.me> wrote in message news:
> > Peter Metcalfe says
> > > Hopefully Mowissey can stop lying now.
> > Yes, and pigs will command the next mission to Mars.
> Click HERE...
> http://www.blister.jp/shop/
> Click HERE...
> http://www.blister.jp/shop/
You've nothing to say about being shown to be a lying
sack of shit?
sack of shit?
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> attempts, unwisely, to
> attack this writer (moi) in message
> news:<MPG.
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> attempts, unwisely, to
> attack this writer (moi) in message
> news:<MPG.
>>Or your oft repeated claim that the US State Department
>>covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
>>the slightest shred of evidence?
>
> Ha! The murder of more than 30,000 Kurds and the ensuing (botched)
> cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
>>covered up Halabja for which you have yet to provide
>>the slightest shred of evidence?
>
> Ha! The murder of more than 30,000 Kurds and the ensuing (botched)
> cover-up attempt by the U.S. State Department is a matter of record.
Stephen C. Pelletiere's commentary in the January 31, 2003 New
York Times, about frequent statements that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000
Kurds at
Halabja in 1988:
"...as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq
during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College
from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that
flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In
addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would
fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the
report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
York Times, about frequent statements that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000
Kurds at
Halabja in 1988:
"...as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq
during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College
from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that
flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In
addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would
fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the
report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used
chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which
is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish
civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange.
But they were not Iraq's main target.
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used
chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which
is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish
civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange.
But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community
on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas
that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community
on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas
that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however,
indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a
cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are
thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have
possessed blood agents at the time.
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however,
indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a
cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are
thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have
possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as
often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that
it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its
war against Iran.
often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that
it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its
war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has
much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him
of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not
correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the
cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/
much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him
of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not
correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the
cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/
Facts don't amount to a cover up breen, despite your fervent wishes.
<---snip--->
<---snip--->
>>Then there is of course your repeated spelling and grammar
>>flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
>>the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
>
> Ha! So find a grammatical (or any other type of) mistake by moi in
> THIS post!
>>flames in an attempt to be clever when your own posts show
>>the same types of mistakes you attribute to others.
>
> Ha! So find a grammatical (or any other type of) mistake by moi in
> THIS post!
"ansd"
>>I am being charitable in not considering the flaws that the
>>folks at rec.sport.reguby.union
>
> [sic!]
>
>>have repeatedly attributed to you.
>
> This writer has enemies. Who doesn't?
>>folks at rec.sport.reguby.union
>
> [sic!]
>
>>have repeatedly attributed to you.
>
> This writer has enemies. Who doesn't?
Not enemies breen, yet again you fantasise too much. Most of the posters
in rsru either pity, loathe or despise you, probably a mixture.
Actually, that is giving you too much credit, I really just don't care.
in rsru either pity, loathe or despise you, probably a mixture.
Actually, that is giving you too much credit, I really just don't care.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
After making a fool of himself by quoting from a discredited apologist
for U.S. ally Saddam Hssein's "accidental gassing" of over 30,000
Kurds in 1988, our slightly sad friend JD <_Dean O'Pa...@ubique.com>
blithered - some might say grizzled - in message
news:<ZDv7c.119328$Wa.3...@
of the posters in rsru either pity, loathe or despise you, probably a
mixture. Actually, that is giving you too much credit, I really just
don't care.
BREEN: Oh.... So you "just don't care"! Hmmmmm.... let's see how
true that is. [Pulls out laptop, taps in a Google search] Oooooohhh,
methinks your assertion that you "just don't care" is looking a bit
dodgy! Look here - a quick Advanced Search finds FIVE instances, for
starters, where you seem to care very much indeed! Look here, old
chap, it's the epic RSRU thread entitled "Choke on that!". Remember
that? You replied, in a state of high dudgeon, to one of my posts,
and I charitably transformed our little contretemps into a dramatic
work, where we interact on an Auckland street. Here, I'll list them
for you....
http://tinyurl.com/xbqd .... "Choke on that!" thread. Breen
encounters JD on Auckland street.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqp ..... Poor old, embittered, possibly
unbalanced JD gets asssssss kicked by shock jock Arch Tambakis -
remember him? - later in same thread.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqm .... An absolutely livid Dean O'Panti rings
up Breen in middle of night.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqs .... Mr O'Panti calls this writer (moi) a
"fucking clown".
http://tinyurl.com/38are .... Mr Dean ("I just don't care") O'Panti
on the angry pills again.
for U.S. ally Saddam Hssein's "accidental gassing" of over 30,000
Kurds in 1988, our slightly sad friend JD <_Dean O'Pa...@ubique.com>
blithered - some might say grizzled - in message
news:<ZDv7c.119328$Wa.3...@
>
> Facts don't amount to a cover up breen, despite your fervent wishes.
> <---snip--->
> Facts don't amount to a cover up breen, despite your fervent wishes.
> <---snip--->
The facts amount exactly to that. But feel free to go on defending
Saddam Hussein's mass murders if you like. After all, you're in some
powerful (for now, anyway) company.
Saddam Hussein's mass murders if you like. After all, you're in some
powerful (for now, anyway) company.
Next, fresh from his brilliant defence of Saddam Hussein and his U.S.
supporters and apologists of the 1980s, the gimlet eye of this giant
of the internet debating chamber spots a major mistake by one M.
Breen. This provides the opportunity for a full-on offensive
operation....
supporters and apologists of the 1980s, the gimlet eye of this giant
of the internet debating chamber spots a major mistake by one M.
Breen. This provides the opportunity for a full-on offensive
operation....
BREEN: Ha! So find a grammatical (or any other type of) mistake by
moi in THIS post!
O'PANTI: [drily] "ansd"
BREEN: [assumes silly Captain Mainwaring voice] Ah, I was WAITING to
see who'd spot that. Well done, Corporal O'Panti!
PETER METCALFE: I am being charitable in not considering the flaws
that the folks at rec.sport.reguby. [sic!] union have repeatedly
attributed to you.
BREEN: This writer has enemies. Who doesn't?
O'PANTI: Not enemies breen, yet again you fantasise too much. Most
moi in THIS post!
O'PANTI: [drily] "ansd"
BREEN: [assumes silly Captain Mainwaring voice] Ah, I was WAITING to
see who'd spot that. Well done, Corporal O'Panti!
PETER METCALFE: I am being charitable in not considering the flaws
that the folks at rec.sport.reguby. [sic!] union have repeatedly
attributed to you.
BREEN: This writer has enemies. Who doesn't?
O'PANTI: Not enemies breen, yet again you fantasise too much. Most
of the posters in rsru either pity, loathe or despise you, probably a
mixture. Actually, that is giving you too much credit, I really just
don't care.
true that is. [Pulls out laptop, taps in a Google search] Oooooohhh,
methinks your assertion that you "just don't care" is looking a bit
dodgy! Look here - a quick Advanced Search finds FIVE instances, for
starters, where you seem to care very much indeed! Look here, old
chap, it's the epic RSRU thread entitled "Choke on that!". Remember
that? You replied, in a state of high dudgeon, to one of my posts,
and I charitably transformed our little contretemps into a dramatic
work, where we interact on an Auckland street. Here, I'll list them
for you....
http://tinyurl.com/xbqd .... "Choke on that!" thread. Breen
encounters JD on Auckland street.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqp ..... Poor old, embittered, possibly
unbalanced JD gets asssssss kicked by shock jock Arch Tambakis -
remember him? - later in same thread.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqm .... An absolutely livid Dean O'Panti rings
up Breen in middle of night.
http://tinyurl.com/xbqs .... Mr O'Panti calls this writer (moi) a
"fucking clown".
http://tinyurl.com/38are .... Mr Dean ("I just don't care") O'Panti
on the angry pills again.
And then of course, there is this very thread, where Mr O'Panti, who
insists, remember, that he "just doesn't care", is paradoxically moved
to declare heatedly that this writer (i.e., moi) is a "lying sack of
shit".
insists, remember, that he "just doesn't care", is paradoxically moved
to declare heatedly that this writer (i.e., moi) is a "lying sack of
shit".
All of the above links demonstrate, I believe, that Mr O'Panti (also
known as "JD") is not to be trusted when he states that he "just
doesn't care" about this writer (i.e. moi). The evidence points to
precisely the opposite.
known as "JD") is not to be trusted when he states that he "just
doesn't care" about this writer (i.e. moi). The evidence points to
precisely the opposite.
But then again, as indicated by his incredible defence of Saddam
Hussein and his American supporters, evidence is not something that
poses any significant obstacle to our embittered friend.
Hussein and his American supporters, evidence is not something that
poses any significant obstacle to our embittered friend.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message news:<MPG.
- show quoted text -
You're the one who is denying atrocities. I have no interest in
defending either the Americans or the Iraqi tyrant who they supported.
You do, obviously.
defending either the Americans or the Iraqi tyrant who they supported.
You do, obviously.
It's interesting to see how you lose your surface equanimity when
you're angry. You should take a lesson from that arch liar Paul
Wolfowitz, who I saw telling lies in an extended interview on PBS
Newsnight last Thursday. He's an impressive liar, who doesn't blink,
or even twitch a muscle as he speaks.
you're angry. You should take a lesson from that arch liar Paul
Wolfowitz, who I saw telling lies in an extended interview on PBS
Newsnight last Thursday. He's an impressive liar, who doesn't blink,
or even twitch a muscle as he speaks.
It's hard to imagine Mr Wolfowitz being so rattled as to call anyone a
"lying sack of shit". He's still a liar, of course, but maintaining
his composure like that at least gives him the appearance of
authority. Which is, of course, precisely the effect he is aiming at.
"lying sack of shit". He's still a liar, of course, but maintaining
his composure like that at least gives him the appearance of
authority. Which is, of course, precisely the effect he is aiming at.
You're much more impressive when you're simply stonewalling, denying
everything, no matter what. Losing your temper is a bad, bad move.
For a liar.
everything, no matter what. Losing your temper is a bad, bad move.
For a liar.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
In article <fb3a0456.0403...@
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> > You've nothing to say about being shown to be a lying
> > sack of shit?
> > sack of shit?
> You're the one who is denying atrocities.
Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for
the US state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre.
You have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that this
has occured and your most recent references had nothing about
a state department cover-up.
the US state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre.
You have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that this
has occured and your most recent references had nothing about
a state department cover-up.
Therefore you are a liar which makes your railings against
Bush and Blair even more surprising.
Bush and Blair even more surprising.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0403220700.
> After making a fool of himself by quoting from a discredited apologist
> for U.S. ally Saddam Hssein's "accidental gassing" of over 30,000
> Kurds in 1988, our slightly sad friend JD <_Dean O'Pa...@ubique.com>
> blithered - some might say grizzled - in message
> news:<ZDv7c.119328$Wa.3...@
> After making a fool of himself by quoting from a discredited apologist
> for U.S. ally Saddam Hssein's "accidental gassing" of over 30,000
> Kurds in 1988, our slightly sad friend JD <_Dean O'Pa...@ubique.com>
> blithered - some might say grizzled - in message
> news:<ZDv7c.119328$Wa.3...@
Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
been discredited as an apologist?
been discredited as an apologist?
> > Facts don't amount to a cover up breen, despite your fervent wishes.
> > <---snip--->
>
> The facts amount exactly to that.
> > <---snip--->
>
> The facts amount exactly to that.
Which facts would those be breen?
<---snip disturbing fantasy of breen's--->
<---snip disturbing fantasy of breen's--->
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
_antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the
intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted
that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
>
> Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
> been discredited as an apologist?
> Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
> been discredited as an apologist?
The evidence against his claims is exhaustive, and irrefutable.
From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
Dear friends and colleagues,
I am sending you note in response to R s forwarding of Stephen
Pelletiere s op-ed piece in the New YorkTimes of a couple of days ago.
I doubt that any of you would be interested sufficiently in the topic
to want to read through the entire set of commentaries on Pelletiere s
piece. But if you did, you would realize the piece itself is part of a
very complicated "disinformation" attempt by certain elements within
the intelligence community to divert attention away from the role of
certain high officials of the first Bush administration in arming the
Saddam s regime in the 1980s. For the record, you should know that the
following comments come from individuals within the U.S. intelligence
who were more knowledgeable than Pelletiere and in some cases his
superiors. The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam
Hussein s regime, supported by the USA, was directly responsible for
the use of poison gas on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
I am sending you note in response to R s forwarding of Stephen
Pelletiere s op-ed piece in the New YorkTimes of a couple of days ago.
I doubt that any of you would be interested sufficiently in the topic
to want to read through the entire set of commentaries on Pelletiere s
piece. But if you did, you would realize the piece itself is part of a
very complicated "disinformation" attempt by certain elements within
the intelligence community to divert attention away from the role of
certain high officials of the first Bush administration in arming the
Saddam s regime in the 1980s. For the record, you should know that the
following comments come from individuals within the U.S. intelligence
who were more knowledgeable than Pelletiere and in some cases his
superiors. The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam
Hussein s regime, supported by the USA, was directly responsible for
the use of poison gas on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
Best,
Ali
Ali
So here are the pertinent commentaries (only a few voices from a
chorus of voices against Pelletier s attempt to rewrite history):
=============================
Stephen Pelletiere has been the leading proponent of this completely
mendacious thesis since 1988, when he was publishing under the
imprimatur of the Army War College. The Iraqi government documents
that Human Rights Watch examined after they became available in
1991-92 refer to the Iraqi chemical attack on Halabja, and make no
mention oaf any Iranian use of CW there.Halabja, moreover, was no
isolated incident, but one of at least 39 separate Iraqi chemical
attacks on Kurdish civilians, begining in the Balisan Valley (nowhere
near the Iranian border) in April 1987.
Pelletiere is just as mistaken in asserting that Iraqi chemical
attacks against Iranian forces were not war crimes. It hardly inspires
confidence that this is the view of a former professor at the War
College.
chorus of voices against Pelletier s attempt to rewrite history):
=============================
Stephen Pelletiere has been the leading proponent of this completely
mendacious thesis since 1988, when he was publishing under the
imprimatur of the Army War College. The Iraqi government documents
that Human Rights Watch examined after they became available in
1991-92 refer to the Iraqi chemical attack on Halabja, and make no
mention oaf any Iranian use of CW there.Halabja, moreover, was no
isolated incident, but one of at least 39 separate Iraqi chemical
attacks on Kurdish civilians, begining in the Balisan Valley (nowhere
near the Iranian border) in April 1987.
Pelletiere is just as mistaken in asserting that Iraqi chemical
attacks against Iranian forces were not war crimes. It hardly inspires
confidence that this is the view of a former professor at the War
College.
Joe Stork
[Head of the Middle East Section of Human Rights Watch]
[Head of the Middle East Section of Human Rights Watch]
..............................
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:38:46 -1000
From: Farideh Farhi <ffa...@hawaii.rr.com>
From: Farideh Farhi <ffa...@hawaii.rr.com>
In response to Nikki Keddie query, without getting into Stephen
Pelletiere motives for writing such a piece, he is indeed correct at
least on one count: that the "Defense Intelligence Agency investigated
Pelletiere motives for writing such a piece, he is indeed correct at
least on one count: that the "Defense Intelligence Agency investigated
and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the
intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted
that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
Despite looking very hard for evidence, I have yet to find independent
confirmation of the Iranian use of poison gas. What most independent
analysts agree, however, is well put in Joost Hiltermann's recent
piece in IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/
confirmation of the Iranian use of poison gas. What most independent
analysts agree, however, is well put in Joost Hiltermann's recent
piece in IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/
"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and
declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with
scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S.
intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on
Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq,
accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly
responsible Halabja for the attack.
The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was
partly to blame..... Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed
Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they
filmed were presented on prime time television a few days later. ....
In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The
story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals
show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that
U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S.
allies, and to decline to discuss the details."
declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with
scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S.
intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on
Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq,
accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly
responsible Halabja for the attack.
The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was
partly to blame..... Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed
Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they
filmed were presented on prime time television a few days later. ....
In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The
story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals
show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that
U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S.
allies, and to decline to discuss the details."
Needless to say that some of those who engineered the tilt today are
back in power in the Bush administration and yet to account for their
actions then.
back in power in the Bush administration and yet to account for their
actions then.
Farideh Farhi
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
..............................
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
..............................
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 05:25:26 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ibrahim Marashi <ibrahim...@st-antonys.
From: Ibrahim Marashi <ibrahim...@st-antonys.
From: Ibrahim Al-Marashi <ibrahim...@sant.ox.ac.uk
While I have never had access to CIA files as Pelletiere did, I have
examined thousands of captured Iraqi files from the north of Iraq and
Kuwait. As Joe Stork, said the documents captured from the north of
Iraq provide evidence of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the
Halabja attack. After reading numerous Iraqi intelligence and security
documents captured from the north of Iraq, I have never seen a single
reference to an Iranian offensive use of chemical weapons. If the
Iranians had deployed these weapons in Halabja, there would be records
of the Iraqis taking defensive measures against the use of such CW
munitions. No such records have been found among the documents I have
examined.
Additionally, I have never found an Iraqi istikhbarat (military
intelligence) report indicating the Iranians had an offensive chemical
weapon capability during the events that surrounded Halabja.
examined thousands of captured Iraqi files from the north of Iraq and
Kuwait. As Joe Stork, said the documents captured from the north of
Iraq provide evidence of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the
Halabja attack. After reading numerous Iraqi intelligence and security
documents captured from the north of Iraq, I have never seen a single
reference to an Iranian offensive use of chemical weapons. If the
Iranians had deployed these weapons in Halabja, there would be records
of the Iraqis taking defensive measures against the use of such CW
munitions. No such records have been found among the documents I have
examined.
Additionally, I have never found an Iraqi istikhbarat (military
intelligence) report indicating the Iranians had an offensive chemical
weapon capability during the events that surrounded Halabja.
On the other hand, the Iraqis were convinced that during the invasion
of Kuwait, the US had the capability and intention of deploying
chemicals weapons against Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Among 300,000
captured Kuwait documents, I estimate 5 per cent of the papers
specifically deal with preparing against an American chemical weapons
attack. These include chemical attack drills, lectures on preparing
for a chemical attack, as well as code words to be used during such an
attack. If the Iranians did use chemical weapons during Halabja, there
is a glaring absence of documentation of Iraqi defenses and
preparations against such an attacks.
of Kuwait, the US had the capability and intention of deploying
chemicals weapons against Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Among 300,000
captured Kuwait documents, I estimate 5 per cent of the papers
specifically deal with preparing against an American chemical weapons
attack. These include chemical attack drills, lectures on preparing
for a chemical attack, as well as code words to be used during such an
attack. If the Iranians did use chemical weapons during Halabja, there
is a glaring absence of documentation of Iraqi defenses and
preparations against such an attacks.
Ibrahim al-Marashi
..............................
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 08:04:21 -0500
From: Mut...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 08:04:21 -0500
From: Mut...@aol.com
I would like to second Mr. Marashi's good comments about the lack of
documentation by the Iraqis of an Iranian CW capability or intention /
inclination to employ such munitions.
documentation by the Iraqis of an Iranian CW capability or intention /
inclination to employ such munitions.
I also screened many Iraqi documents retrieved by US military units
from the DESERT STORM theater (4.5 million pages) and from NW Iraq
(supplied to the USG by Iraqi Kurdish sources that found the documents
in abandoned offices of the Baath Party, military headquarters, and
national security organizations (al-Mukhabaraat al-Askarriyat, al-Amin
al-3am, etc.).
from the DESERT STORM theater (4.5 million pages) and from NW Iraq
(supplied to the USG by Iraqi Kurdish sources that found the documents
in abandoned offices of the Baath Party, military headquarters, and
national security organizations (al-Mukhabaraat al-Askarriyat, al-Amin
al-3am, etc.).
While those documents revealed considerable details about the Iraqi
military's decrepit CW capability and hodge-podge of equipment to
conduct or defend against CW attacks, there were no mentions or
implications of any Iraqi awareness of any similar or matching Iranian
interest or capability.
military's decrepit CW capability and hodge-podge of equipment to
conduct or defend against CW attacks, there were no mentions or
implications of any Iraqi awareness of any similar or matching Iranian
interest or capability.
FYI, during their visit to the battlefield around Fao Peninsula, a
Jordanian military observer asked a senior Iraqi Army officer about
what psychological operations the Iraqi Army used against the
almost-daily charging masses of Iranians. The Iraqi officer's answer
was, "The only psychological operations the Iranians understand is
mustard gas and cluster bombs, and we use plenty of both of them."
Jordanian military observer asked a senior Iraqi Army officer about
what psychological operations the Iraqi Army used against the
almost-daily charging masses of Iranians. The Iraqi officer's answer
was, "The only psychological operations the Iranians understand is
mustard gas and cluster bombs, and we use plenty of both of them."
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
Los Angeles
(Briefly in Hohenfels, Germany)
..............................
February 1, 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:44:06 -0500
From: Josh Pollack <joshua....@verizon.net>
Los Angeles
(Briefly in Hohenfels, Germany)
..............................
February 1, 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:44:06 -0500
From: Josh Pollack <joshua....@verizon.net>
Stephen Pelletiere and his colleague Douglas Johnson have been putting
this point of view forward for some time. You might want to see their
exchange with Edward Mortimer in the Nov. 22, 1990 NY Review of Books,
here:
http://www.nybooks.com/
this point of view forward for some time. You might want to see their
exchange with Edward Mortimer in the Nov. 22, 1990 NY Review of Books,
here:
http://www.nybooks.com/
This concerned Mortimer's review of their book, Iraqi Power and U.S.
Security in the Middle East.
Security in the Middle East.
The more generally accepted view is presented in the 1993 Human Rights
Watch volume, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds,
available here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/
Watch volume, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds,
available here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/
Documentary support for the Human Rights Watch report can be viewed at
the Iraq Research and Documentation Project:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~
the Iraq Research and Documentation Project:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~
Robert Rabil, using the IRDP sources, has written about Iraq's Kurdish
policies during the Iran-Iraq War ("Operation 'Termination of
Traitors': The Iraqi Regime Through Its Documents," MERIA Journal
6:3).....
http://meria.idc.ac.il/
policies during the Iran-Iraq War ("Operation 'Termination of
Traitors': The Iraqi Regime Through Its Documents," MERIA Journal
6:3).....
http://meria.idc.ac.il/
I hope that's helpful.
Josh Pollack
Washington, DC
..............................
From: Judith Yaphe, National Defense University and former senior
analyst on Iraq at the CIA:
Washington, DC
..............................
From: Judith Yaphe, National Defense University and former senior
analyst on Iraq at the CIA:
Joe Stork has it absolutely correct. Pelletierre was never the senior
analyst on Iraq in the CIA or anywhere else. He was one of several
analysts working this important issue and his work would have been
checked for authenticity before it was published. He has many
interesting theories about Kurds, oil, and other issues that are
equally unsubstantiated and troubling.
analyst on Iraq in the CIA or anywhere else. He was one of several
analysts working this important issue and his work would have been
checked for authenticity before it was published. He has many
interesting theories about Kurds, oil, and other issues that are
equally unsubstantiated and troubling.
He has been spreading his absurd thesis on Iranian responsibility or
years, but I find it very troubling that he is now saying "I know
something you don't know; trust me." It is true that the Iranian
military had been through the area and Baghdad believed the Kurds were
sheltering and aiding the Iranians. The point of Halabjah, however,
was to punish the Kurds--clearly, directly, publicly--for their lack
of loyalty to Saddam and Iraq, an object lesson in what happens to
those who dare to be less than loyal. The many acts of terror that
come under the anfal campaign--Halabjah was only one in a series of
attacks that spread over several months--were approved by Saddam and
implemented by his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known thereafter as
Chemical Ali. The massive records kept by the Iraqis and seized by the
Kurds in 1991 prove this.
years, but I find it very troubling that he is now saying "I know
something you don't know; trust me." It is true that the Iranian
military had been through the area and Baghdad believed the Kurds were
sheltering and aiding the Iranians. The point of Halabjah, however,
was to punish the Kurds--clearly, directly, publicly--for their lack
of loyalty to Saddam and Iraq, an object lesson in what happens to
those who dare to be less than loyal. The many acts of terror that
come under the anfal campaign--Halabjah was only one in a series of
attacks that spread over several months--were approved by Saddam and
implemented by his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known thereafter as
Chemical Ali. The massive records kept by the Iraqis and seized by the
Kurds in 1991 prove this.
I have written on this in "Iraq: Human Rights in the Republic of
Fear," in The Middle East and North Africa: Governance,
Democratization, Human Rights, ed. Paul J. Magnarella (London: Ashgate
Press,1999), pp. 37-66.
Fear," in The Middle East and North Africa: Governance,
Democratization, Human Rights, ed. Paul J. Magnarella (London: Ashgate
Press,1999), pp. 37-66.
[Yaphe s comment is particularly pertinent since I believe she was the
chief analyst for Iraq within the CIA during the period in question).
..............................
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:57:54 +0300
From: Ghanim Alnajjar <gha...@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw>
chief analyst for Iraq within the CIA during the period in question).
..............................
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:57:54 +0300
From: Ghanim Alnajjar <gha...@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw>
During the Iran-Iraq war which I covered part of it as a journalist
for a Kuwaiti daily and I witnessed number of Iranian soldiers with
their faces covered with cottons. When we asked about it we were told
that it was the effect of mustard gas. I saw at the same time some
Iraqi soldiers with the same situation, we were told in confidence by
an Iraqi officer that this was caused by the change of wind that
turned against the Iraqi soldiers who were not prepared at that time,
he said , that since then they took protective measures. I reported
that at the time to Amnesty International and the ICRC and other
international organizations. This incident took place near the Fao
peninsula.
for a Kuwaiti daily and I witnessed number of Iranian soldiers with
their faces covered with cottons. When we asked about it we were told
that it was the effect of mustard gas. I saw at the same time some
Iraqi soldiers with the same situation, we were told in confidence by
an Iraqi officer that this was caused by the change of wind that
turned against the Iraqi soldiers who were not prepared at that time,
he said , that since then they took protective measures. I reported
that at the time to Amnesty International and the ICRC and other
international organizations. This incident took place near the Fao
peninsula.
So far we went through two ugly wars in this region within the range
of twenty years, and we are living under the sounds of loud drums of
yet another war coming our way, if this war takes place it will be the
third one making the area with the highest per capita in the world,
major wars, that is, wars which succeed in keeping the world busy. A
very sad story indeed.
of twenty years, and we are living under the sounds of loud drums of
yet another war coming our way, if this war takes place it will be the
third one making the area with the highest per capita in the world,
major wars, that is, wars which succeed in keeping the world busy. A
very sad story indeed.
Ghanim Alnajjar
Kuwait University
..............................
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 18:40:29 -0000
From: Colin Rowat <c.r...@espero.org.uk>
Kuwait University
..............................
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 18:40:29 -0000
From: Colin Rowat <c.r...@espero.org.uk>
Pelletiere has some unlikely opposition:
"Tariq Aziz: We bombed Halabja with chemical weapons" (13 Dec. 2002),
Bryar Mariwani, KurdishMedia.com: "For the first time since the
chemical attack on Halabja in 1988, the Iraqi government admitted that
they have used chemical to bomb Halabja, the Kurdish town in south
Kurdistan (Iraqi Kurdistan)."
chemical attack on Halabja in 1988, the Iraqi government admitted that
they have used chemical to bomb Halabja, the Kurdish town in south
Kurdistan (Iraqi Kurdistan)."
While the KurdishMedia story claims that this was the first admission,
my understanding was that there had been one some years earlier.
my understanding was that there had been one some years earlier.
Colin Rowat
[End quote]
..............................
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
>
>>Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
>>been discredited as an apologist?
>
> The evidence against his claims is exhaustive, and irrefutable.
>
> From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
>
>>Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
>>been discredited as an apologist?
>
> The evidence against his claims is exhaustive, and irrefutable.
>
> From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
JD <_antip...@ubique.com> wrote in message news:<DzV7c.121262$Wa.5...@
- show quoted text -
I cut and paste it. The only changes I made were to paragraph it
tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
on that as "lying".
tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
on that as "lying".
Now deal with the opinions of all those academics and experts,
including Pelletiere's boss, every single one of them deriding his
ridiculous attempt to shift the blame for the Halabja gas atrocities
from the troops of the American ally Saddam Hussein.
including Pelletiere's boss, every single one of them deriding his
ridiculous attempt to shift the blame for the Halabja gas atrocities
from the troops of the American ally Saddam Hussein.
By the way, calling moi a "liar" won't cut it. Even calling moi a
"lying sack of shit", as an obviously frustrated Peter Metcalfe did,
won't help your case a bit.
"lying sack of shit", as an obviously frustrated Peter Metcalfe did,
won't help your case a bit.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0403230911.
> JD <_antip...@ubique.com> wrote in message news:<DzV7c.121262$Wa.5...@
> > Morrissey Breen wrote:
> > > _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> > > news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
> > >
> > >>Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
> > >>been discredited as an apologist?
> > >
> > > The evidence against his claims is exhaustive, and irrefutable.
> > >
> > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> >
> > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
>
> I cut and paste it.
> JD <_antip...@ubique.com> wrote in message news:<DzV7c.121262$Wa.5...@
> > Morrissey Breen wrote:
> > > _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> > > news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
> > >
> > >>Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
> > >>been discredited as an apologist?
> > >
> > > The evidence against his claims is exhaustive, and irrefutable.
> > >
> > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> >
> > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
>
> I cut and paste it.
I *know* you did. You admit it after I pointed it out rather than
attributing it.
attributing it.
> The only changes I made were to paragraph it
> tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> on that as "lying".
> tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> on that as "lying".
You misrepresented it by saying "From an e-mail I got in February
2003" mendaciously purporting that *you* received the email, which you
did not. Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling, but
anyone can see through your pathetic smoke screen. You are a liar
breen, the proof is there for all to see.
2003" mendaciously purporting that *you* received the email, which you
did not. Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling, but
anyone can see through your pathetic smoke screen. You are a liar
breen, the proof is there for all to see.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0403230150.
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
>
> From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
> I am sending you note in response to R s forwarding of Stephen
> Pelletiere s op-ed piece in the New YorkTimes of a couple of days ago.
> I doubt that any of you would be interested sufficiently in the topic
> to want to read through the entire set of commentaries on Pelletiere s
> piece. But if you did, you would realize the piece itself is part of a
> very complicated "disinformation" attempt by certain elements within
> the intelligence community to divert attention away from the role of
> certain high officials of the first Bush administration in arming the
> Saddam s regime in the 1980s. For the record, you should know that the
> following comments come from individuals within the U.S. intelligence
> who were more knowledgeable than Pelletiere and in some cases his
> superiors. The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam
> Hussein s regime, supported by the USA, was directly responsible for
> the use of poison gas on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of
a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to
try to kill Iranians who had seized the town".
>
> Joe Stork
> [Head of the Middle East Section of Human Rights Watch]
> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 05:25:26 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ibrahim Marashi <ibrahim...@st-antonys.
>
> From: Ibrahim Al-Marashi <ibrahim...@sant.ox.ac.uk
>
> While I have never had access to CIA files as Pelletiere did, I have
> examined thousands of captured Iraqi files from the north of Iraq and
> Kuwait.
> From: Judith Yaphe, National Defense University and former senior
> analyst on Iraq at the CIA:
>
> Joe Stork has it absolutely correct. Pelletierre was never the senior
> analyst on Iraq in the CIA or anywhere else. He was one of several
> analysts working this important issue and his work would have been
> checked for authenticity before it was published.
> He has been spreading his absurd thesis on Iranian responsibility or
> years,
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) asked in message
> news:<6189a6f9.0403221852.
In response to Morrissey Breen's whining in message
news:<fb3a0456.0403230911.
his mendacious character being exposed again, I have responded to his
ridiculous "evidence" in rebuttal of Stephen C. Pelletiere that Breen
claims is "exhaustive, and irrefutable". It is nothing of the sort.
news:<fb3a0456.0403230911.
his mendacious character being exposed again, I have responded to his
ridiculous "evidence" in rebuttal of Stephen C. Pelletiere that Breen
claims is "exhaustive, and irrefutable". It is nothing of the sort.
> > Any evidence to back up your assertion that Stephen C. Pelletiere has
> > been discredited as an apologist?
>
> The evidence against his claims is . > > been discredited as an apologist?
>
>
> From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
> I am sending you note in response to R s forwarding of Stephen
> Pelletiere s op-ed piece in the New YorkTimes of a couple of days ago.
> I doubt that any of you would be interested sufficiently in the topic
> to want to read through the entire set of commentaries on Pelletiere s
> piece. But if you did, you would realize the piece itself is part of a
> very complicated "disinformation" attempt by certain elements within
> the intelligence community to divert attention away from the role of
> certain high officials of the first Bush administration in arming the
> Saddam s regime in the 1980s. For the record, you should know that the
> following comments come from individuals within the U.S. intelligence
> who were more knowledgeable than Pelletiere and in some cases his
> superiors. The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam
> Hussein s regime, supported by the USA, was directly responsible for
> the use of poison gas on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
Pelletiere doesn't say anything different: "This much about the
gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of
a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to
<---snip--->
>
> Joe Stork
> [Head of the Middle East Section of Human Rights Watch]
According to the Human Rights Watch, "the war between Iran and Iraq
was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped
poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops
and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/
was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped
poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops
and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:38:46 -1000
> From: Farideh Farhi <ffa...@hawaii.rr.com>
> From: Farideh Farhi <ffa...@hawaii.rr.com>
Thats an academic who is up early. A response to an email that early
after reading the NYTimes. Good on Farideh!
after reading the NYTimes. Good on Farideh!
So much for his quoted source - an op-ed in the Tribune, listing zero
checkable sources. Rather poor work for an academic, but about the
standard we've come to expect from Breen.
<---snip--->
checkable sources. Rather poor work for an academic, but about the
standard we've come to expect from Breen.
<---snip--->
> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 05:25:26 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ibrahim Marashi <ibrahim...@st-antonys.
>
> From: Ibrahim Al-Marashi <ibrahim...@sant.ox.ac.uk
>
> While I have never had access to CIA files as Pelletiere did, I have
> examined thousands of captured Iraqi files from the north of Iraq and
> Kuwait.
This "Ali" person seems to know a lot of people who have access to
wonderful documents. Pity none of them are referenced.
wonderful documents. Pity none of them are referenced.
> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 08:04:21 -0500
> From: Mut...@aol.com
>
> I would like to second Mr. Marashi's good comments about the lack of
> documentation by the Iraqis of an Iranian CW capability or intention /
> inclination to employ such munitions.
>
> I also screened many Iraqi documents retrieved by US military units
> from the DESERT STORM theater
> From: Mut...@aol.com
>
> I would like to second Mr. Marashi's good comments about the lack of
> documentation by the Iraqis of an Iranian CW capability or intention /
> inclination to employ such munitions.
>
> I also screened many Iraqi documents retrieved by US military units
> from the DESERT STORM theater
Yet another person with access to mysterious documents. I do wonder
why Mutarjm feels the need to sign off on his/her email with the name
of Stephen H. Franke?
<---snip--->
why Mutarjm feels the need to sign off on his/her email with the name
of Stephen H. Franke?
<---snip--->
> FYI, during their visit to the battlefield around Fao Peninsula, a
> Jordanian military observer asked a senior Iraqi Army officer about
> what psychological operations the Iraqi Army used against the
> almost-daily charging masses of Iranians. The Iraqi officer's answer
> was, "The only psychological operations the Iranians understand is
> mustard gas and cluster bombs, and we use plenty of both of them."
> Jordanian military observer asked a senior Iraqi Army officer about
> what psychological operations the Iraqi Army used against the
> almost-daily charging masses of Iranians. The Iraqi officer's answer
> was, "The only psychological operations the Iranians understand is
> mustard gas and cluster bombs, and we use plenty of both of them."
So? War is hell.
> Regards,
>
> Stephen H. Franke
> Los Angeles
>
> Stephen H. Franke
> Los Angeles
<---snip--->
> February 1, 2003
>
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:44:06 -0500
> From: Josh Pollack <joshua....@verizon.net>
>
> Stephen Pelletiere and his colleague Douglas Johnson have been putting
> this point of view forward for some time. You might want to see their
> exchange with Edward Mortimer in the Nov. 22, 1990 NY Review of Books,
> here:
> http://www.nybooks.com/
>
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:44:06 -0500
> From: Josh Pollack <joshua....@verizon.net>
>
> Stephen Pelletiere and his colleague Douglas Johnson have been putting
> this point of view forward for some time. You might want to see their
> exchange with Edward Mortimer in the Nov. 22, 1990 NY Review of Books,
> here:
> http://www.nybooks.com/
To which Edward Mortimer responded "I accept that in the specific case
of Halabja the possibility that the chemical attack came from Iran
(which might not have realized that Iraqi troops had already evacuated
the town), or indeed from both sides consecutively, cannot be ruled
out."
of Halabja the possibility that the chemical attack came from Iran
(which might not have realized that Iraqi troops had already evacuated
the town), or indeed from both sides consecutively, cannot be ruled
out."
<---snip--->
> I hope that's helpful.
More than you realise Josh.
> Josh Pollack
> Washington, DC
> Josh Pollack
> Washington, DC
<---snip--->
> From: Judith Yaphe, National Defense University and former senior
> analyst on Iraq at the CIA:
>
> Joe Stork has it absolutely correct. Pelletierre was never the senior
> analyst on Iraq in the CIA or anywhere else. He was one of several
> analysts working this important issue and his work would have been
> checked for authenticity before it was published.
Contrast that with the sentence below:
> He has been spreading his absurd thesis on Iranian responsibility or
> years,
Hmm?
Again, no checkable source apart from a plug for a book, but then
again, standard practice for an academic, especially one Breen relies
on...
again, standard practice for an academic, especially one Breen relies
on...
As the Senior Intelligence Officer, Office of Near Eastern and South
Asian Analysis, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA, 1975-1995
(obviously not the Senior Intelligence Officer for all of that time),
did she spot the Kuwait Invasion?
<---snip--->
Asian Analysis, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA, 1975-1995
(obviously not the Senior Intelligence Officer for all of that time),
did she spot the Kuwait Invasion?
<---snip--->
> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:57:54 +0300
> From: Ghanim Alnajjar <gha...@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw>
>
> During the Iran-Iraq war which I covered part of it as a journalist
> for a Kuwaiti daily and I witnessed number of Iranian soldiers with
> their faces covered with cottons. When we asked about it we were told
> that it was the effect of mustard gas. I saw at the same time some
> Iraqi soldiers with the same situation, we were told in confidence by
> an Iraqi officer that this was caused by the change of wind that
> turned against the Iraqi soldiers who were not prepared at that time,
> he said , that since then they took protective measures. I reported
> that at the time to Amnesty International and the ICRC and other
> international organizations. This incident took place near the Fao
> peninsula.
> From: Ghanim Alnajjar <gha...@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw>
>
> During the Iran-Iraq war which I covered part of it as a journalist
> for a Kuwaiti daily and I witnessed number of Iranian soldiers with
> their faces covered with cottons. When we asked about it we were told
> that it was the effect of mustard gas. I saw at the same time some
> Iraqi soldiers with the same situation, we were told in confidence by
> an Iraqi officer that this was caused by the change of wind that
> turned against the Iraqi soldiers who were not prepared at that time,
> he said , that since then they took protective measures. I reported
> that at the time to Amnesty International and the ICRC and other
> international organizations. This incident took place near the Fao
> peninsula.
How does this rebut Pelletiere's theory? Answer; it doesn't.
<---snip--->
<---snip--->
> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 18:40:29 -0000
> From: Colin Rowat <c.r...@espero.org.uk>
>
> Pelletiere has some unlikely opposition:
>
> "Tariq Aziz: We bombed Halabja with chemical weapons" (13 Dec. 2002),
>
> Bryar Mariwani, KurdishMedia.com: "For the first time since the
> chemical attack on Halabja in 1988, the Iraqi government admitted that
> they have used chemical to bomb Halabja, the Kurdish town in south
> Kurdistan (Iraqi Kurdistan)."
> From: Colin Rowat <c.r...@espero.org.uk>
>
> Pelletiere has some unlikely opposition:
>
> "Tariq Aziz: We bombed Halabja with chemical weapons" (13 Dec. 2002),
>
> Bryar Mariwani, KurdishMedia.com: "For the first time since the
> chemical attack on Halabja in 1988, the Iraqi government admitted that
> they have used chemical to bomb Halabja, the Kurdish town in south
> Kurdistan (Iraqi Kurdistan)."
No verifiable source, apart from some mention of a Swedish television
channel. The remainder of the article quotes this: "Tariq Aziz, the
Iraqi deputy Prime Minister, stated that Iraq used chemical weapons
against the Iranians and the Kurds. Aziz claimed that Iraq had to use
chemical weapons in Halabja because they simply did not have another
choice to combat them." That doesn't contradict what Pelletiere
stated.
channel. The remainder of the article quotes this: "Tariq Aziz, the
Iraqi deputy Prime Minister, stated that Iraq used chemical weapons
against the Iranians and the Kurds. Aziz claimed that Iraq had to use
chemical weapons in Halabja because they simply did not have another
choice to combat them." That doesn't contradict what Pelletiere
stated.
Try again Breen.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
_antip...@bigpond.com (JD) comes on like a pathetic version of Lord
Hutton in message news:<6189a6f9.0403231438.
Hutton in message news:<6189a6f9.0403231438.
> > > >
> > > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> > >
> > > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
> >
> > I cut and paste it.
>
> I *know* you did. You admit it after I pointed it out rather than attributing it.
> > > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> > >
> > > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
> >
> > I cut and paste it.
>
> I *know* you did. You admit it after I pointed it out rather than attributing it.
Ha! As you requested, I quoted a whole list of impeccable authorities
casting doubt and scorn on Pelletiere's obscene fantasy, and your only
response is to try and turn my cutting and pasting into the issue. Of
course, you have not addressed the issue, which is Pelletiere's lack
of credibility and integrity.
casting doubt and scorn on Pelletiere's obscene fantasy, and your only
response is to try and turn my cutting and pasting into the issue. Of
course, you have not addressed the issue, which is Pelletiere's lack
of credibility and integrity.
>
> > The only changes I made were to paragraph it
> > tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> > on that as "lying".
>
> You misrepresented it by saying "From an e-mail I got in February 2003" mendaciously
> purporting that *you* received the email, which you did not.
> > The only changes I made were to paragraph it
> > tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> > on that as "lying".
>
> You misrepresented it by saying "From an e-mail I got in February 2003" mendaciously
> purporting that *you* received the email, which you did not.
You're desperate. I cut and paste an article, and tightened up the
paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
>
> Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
> Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
[sic!]
>
> but anyone can see through your pathetic smoke screen. You are a liar
> breen, the proof is there for all to see.
> but anyone can see through your pathetic smoke screen. You are a liar
> breen, the proof is there for all to see.
You are bereft of any counter to what I posted. The proof (absurdly
manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0403240837.
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) comes on like a pathetic version of Lord
> Hutton in message news:<6189a6f9.0403231438.
> > > > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> > > >
> > > > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > > > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
> > >
> > > I cut and paste it.
> >
> > I *know* you did. You admit it after I pointed it out rather than
> > attributing it.
>
> Ha! As you requested, I quoted a whole list of impeccable authorities
> casting doubt and scorn on Pelletiere's obscene fantasy, and your only
> response is to try and turn my cutting and pasting into the issue. Of
> course, you have not addressed the issue, which is Pelletiere's lack
> of credibility and integrity.
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) comes on like a pathetic version of Lord
> Hutton in message news:<6189a6f9.0403231438.
> > > > > From an e-mail I got in February 2003....
> > > >
> > > > Really? Looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/2nftp even down to the "an e-mail I received in Feb".
> > > > You wouldn't be lying again would you breen?
> > >
> > > I cut and paste it.
> >
> > I *know* you did. You admit it after I pointed it out rather than
> > attributing it.
>
> Ha! As you requested, I quoted a whole list of impeccable authorities
> casting doubt and scorn on Pelletiere's obscene fantasy, and your only
> response is to try and turn my cutting and pasting into the issue. Of
> course, you have not addressed the issue, which is Pelletiere's lack
> of credibility and integrity.
> > > The only changes I made were to paragraph it
> > > tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> > > on that as "lying".
> >
> > You misrepresented it by saying "From an e-mail I got in February 2003"
> > mendaciously purporting that *you* received the email, which you did not.
>
> You're desperate. I cut and paste an article, and tightened up the
> paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
> from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
> ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
> > > tidily. I tidied it up, in other words. How typical you should jump
> > > on that as "lying".
> >
> > You misrepresented it by saying "From an e-mail I got in February 2003"
> > mendaciously purporting that *you* received the email, which you did not.
>
> You're desperate. I cut and paste an article, and tightened up the
> paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
> from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
> ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
What you did was present someone else's work as your own. That is mendacious.
> > Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
>
> [sic!]
>
> [sic!]
Learn the correct usage you ignorant twat.
> > but anyone can see through your pathetic smoke screen. You are a liar
> > breen, the proof is there for all to see.
>
> You are bereft of any counter to what I posted.
> > breen, the proof is there for all to see.
>
> You are bereft of any counter to what I posted.
More lies from Breen. news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
> The proof (absurdly
> manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
> manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
You have no integrity.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Poor old _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) embarrasses himself even more
in message news:<6189a6f9.0403241529.
in message news:<6189a6f9.0403241529.
> >
> > You're desperate. I cut and paste an article, and tightened up the
> > paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
> > from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
> > ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
>
> What you did was present someone else's work as your own. That is mendacious.
>
> > > Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
> >
> > [sic!]
>
> Learn the correct usage you ignorant twat.
> > You're desperate. I cut and paste an article, and tightened up the
> > paragraphing, and connected up some letters that had been separated
> > from the body of some words. "Mendacious" is trying to blame your
> > ally's atrocities on Iran; what I did was editing. Capisci?
>
> What you did was present someone else's work as your own. That is mendacious.
>
> > > Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
> >
> > [sic!]
>
> Learn the correct usage you ignorant twat.
We use it to highlight the typos of the heedless, the careless, the
illiterate. Other than being shown up by it, your problem with its
usage is what, exactly?
illiterate. Other than being shown up by it, your problem with its
usage is what, exactly?
....<SNIP>....
>
> More lies from Breen. news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
> More lies from Breen. news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
Are you fantasising? What lies have I told? YOU are the one who is
(incredibly) defending the cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
(incredibly) defending the cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
>
> > The proof (absurdly
> > manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
>
> You have no integrity.
> > The proof (absurdly
> > manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
>
> You have no integrity.
Ha! Considering that (unsupported) assertion comes from someone who's
just spent considerable time and effort denying Saddam Hussein's
responsibility for one of the worst atrocities of the 1980s, most
readers will have smiled when they read that.
just spent considerable time and effort denying Saddam Hussein's
responsibility for one of the worst atrocities of the 1980s, most
readers will have smiled when they read that.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0403260222.
> Poor old _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) embarrasses himself even more
> in message news:<6189a6f9.0403241529.
>
"Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
> Poor old _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) embarrasses himself even more
> in message news:<6189a6f9.0403241529.
>
> > > > Now that you've been caught on that, you're backpeddling,
> > >
> > > [sic!]
> >
> > Learn the correct usage you ignorant twat.
>
> We use it to highlight the typos of the heedless, the careless, the
> illiterate.
> > >
> > > [sic!]
> >
> > Learn the correct usage you ignorant twat.
>
> We use it to highlight the typos of the heedless, the careless, the
> illiterate.
We? MPD another of your problems?
> Other than being shown up by it, your problem with its
> usage is what, exactly?
> usage is what, exactly?
"Don't use sic to show off with gotchas. Too many writers sic sics on
the authors they quote just to show they spotted a trivial error."
http://tinyurl.com/2nssw
the authors they quote just to show they spotted a trivial error."
http://tinyurl.com/2nssw
"This use of sic may be defensive, but its overuse is offensive (nor
does a following exclamation point help matters)".
http://tinyurl.com/364t7
does a following exclamation point help matters)".
http://tinyurl.com/364t7
It is used "to aid readers who might be confused about whether the
quoter or the quoted writer is responsible for the spelling or
grammatical anomaly" (http://tinyurl.com/2n6a8). In the case of
usenet, this is really unnecessary for obvious reasons.
quoter or the quoted writer is responsible for the spelling or
grammatical anomaly" (http://tinyurl.com/2n6a8). In the case of
usenet, this is really unnecessary for obvious reasons.
> ....<SNIP>....
>
> > More lies from Breen.
> > news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
>
> Are you fantasising? What lies have I told?
>
> > More lies from Breen.
> > news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
>
> Are you fantasising? What lies have I told?
Lie: "You are bereft of any counter to what I posted."
> YOU are the one who is
> (incredibly) defending the cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
> (incredibly) defending the cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
To which your rebuttal is noticeably absent. Instead you waste
electrons with your pathetic smokescreen.
electrons with your pathetic smokescreen.
> > > The proof (absurdly
> > > manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
> >
> > You have no integrity.
>
> Ha! Considering that (unsupported) assertion comes from someone who's
> just spent considerable time and effort denying Saddam Hussein's
> responsibility for one of the worst atrocities of the 1980s,
> > > manufacturing an attack on my integrity) is there for all to see.
> >
> > You have no integrity.
>
> Ha! Considering that (unsupported) assertion comes from someone who's
> just spent considerable time and effort denying Saddam Hussein's
> responsibility for one of the worst atrocities of the 1980s,
Peter Metcalfe's reply in
news:MPG.
nicely:
news:MPG.
nicely:
"Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Re: Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
>
> Instead you waste
> electrons with your pathetic smokescreen.
He took several weeks to come up with THIS?
_antip...@bigpond.com (JD) wrote in message news:<6189a6f9.0404041735.
_antip...@bigpond.com (JD) wrote in message news:<6189a6f9.0404041735.
....<Snip earnest telling off of Breen for malicious over-use of
[sic!] convention>
[sic!] convention>
>
> Lie: "You are bereft of any counter to what I posted."
>
> > YOU are the one who is (incredibly) defending the
> > cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
>
> To which your rebuttal is noticeably absent.
> Lie: "You are bereft of any counter to what I posted."
>
> > YOU are the one who is (incredibly) defending the
> > cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
>
> To which your rebuttal is noticeably absent.
Ha! Have you not been keeping up with the news over the weekend?
Even the Secretary of freaking State is now admitting that he lied.
Which kind of renders any rebuttal by this writer (moi) spectacularly
redundant, wouldn't you agree? Why are you STILL playing these silly
games?
Even the Secretary of freaking State is now admitting that he lied.
Which kind of renders any rebuttal by this writer (moi) spectacularly
redundant, wouldn't you agree? Why are you STILL playing these silly
games?
"About those weapons of mass destruction - did you check Baghdad
Mini-Storage?"
-David Letterman: Top Ten Questions You Were too afraid to ask
Condoleezza Rice 30/3/2004
Mini-Storage?"
-David Letterman: Top Ten Questions You Were too afraid to ask
Condoleezza Rice 30/3/2004
>
> Instead you waste
> electrons with your pathetic smokescreen.
Ha! Hilariously inadequate reply!
>
> Peter Metcalfe's reply in
> news:MPG.
> nicely:
> "Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
> state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
> failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
> references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
> Peter Metcalfe's reply in
> news:MPG.
> nicely:
> "Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
> state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
> failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
> references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
As both you and Metcalfe know, I and thousands of others have provided
evidence of that shameful, cynical attempted cover-up of Saddam's
atrocities by his staunch ally, the U.S. (They were staunch allies
until he stepped out of line, that is.) Here, read this....
http://news.independent.co.uk/
evidence of that shameful, cynical attempted cover-up of Saddam's
atrocities by his staunch ally, the U.S. (They were staunch allies
until he stepped out of line, that is.) Here, read this....
http://news.independent.co.uk/
And this...
http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
We look forward to your blithe denial of everything...
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0404050407.
> Re: Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
>
> He took several weeks to come up with THIS?
> Which kind of renders any rebuttal by this writer (moi) spectacularly
> redundant, wouldn't you agree? Why are you STILL playing these silly
> games?
> Re: Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
>
> He took several weeks to come up with THIS?
You obviously think that my life would revolve around posting on
usenet as yours seems to.
usenet as yours seems to.
> _antip...@bigpond.com (JD) wrote in message news:<6189a6f9.0404041735.
>
> ....<Snip earnest telling off of Breen for malicious over-use of
> [sic!] convention>
>
> ....<Snip earnest telling off of Breen for malicious over-use of
> [sic!] convention>
Still getting it wrong.
> > Lie: "You are bereft of any counter to what I posted."
> >
> > > YOU are the one who is (incredibly) defending the
> > > cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
> >
> > To which your rebuttal is noticeably absent.
>
> Ha! Have you not been keeping up with the news over the weekend?
> Even the Secretary of freaking State is now admitting that he lied.
> >
> > > YOU are the one who is (incredibly) defending the
> > > cynical lies of the U.S. State Department.
> >
> > To which your rebuttal is noticeably absent.
>
> Ha! Have you not been keeping up with the news over the weekend?
> Even the Secretary of freaking State is now admitting that he lied.
He is doing no such thing. He has admitted that the "facts" that he
presented to the UN may not have been and probably were not correct.
presented to the UN may not have been and probably were not correct.
> Which kind of renders any rebuttal by this writer (moi) spectacularly
> redundant, wouldn't you agree? Why are you STILL playing these silly
> games?
Why don't you answer the rebuttal of your plagiarised crap in
news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
<---snip--->
> > Peter Metcalfe's reply in
> > news:MPG.
> > nicely:
> > "Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
> > state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
> > failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
> > references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
>
> As both you and Metcalfe know, I and thousands of others have provided
> evidence of that shameful, cynical attempted cover-up of Saddam's
> atrocities by his staunch ally, the U.S. (They were staunch allies
> until he stepped out of line, that is.) Here, read this....
> http://news.independent.co.uk/
>
> And this...
> http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
>
> And this...
> http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
>
> We look forward to your blithe denial of everything...
> > news:MPG.
> > nicely:
> > "Lying again, I see. The particular topic was evidence for the US
> > state department cover-up of the Halabja massacre. You have repeatedly
> > failed to provide evidence that this has occured and your most recent
> > references had nothing about a state department cover-up."
>
> As both you and Metcalfe know, I and thousands of others have provided
> evidence of that shameful, cynical attempted cover-up of Saddam's
> atrocities by his staunch ally, the U.S. (They were staunch allies
> until he stepped out of line, that is.) Here, read this....
> http://news.independent.co.uk/
>
> And this...
> http://deep_blade.tripod.com/
>
> And this...
> http://tinyurl.com/29ptg
>
> We look forward to your blithe denial of everything...
No facts there to deny.
How about you try to answer the rebuttal of your plagiarised crap in
news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
news:<6189a6f9.0403231643.
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
JD wrote:
> He is doing no such thing. He has admitted that the "facts" that he
> presented to the UN may not have been and probably were not correct.
> presented to the UN may not have been and probably were not correct.
That certainly is getting close to admitting to lieing, about as close
as you'll ever get from someone like that.
as you'll ever get from someone like that.
Gib
|
Coalition of the Intimidated and Bewildered
Gib Bogle <bo...@too.much.spam.ihug.co.
- show quoted text -
I certainly agree, but to state that he definitely knew them to be
false when he said them is specious supposition.
false when he said them is specious supposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment