USA vs Iraq...solutions?

[Matra et Alpine]

No they live in their own paranoid comfortable little wonderland and expell anyone who questions their warped sense of reality.

yep, in checking up on the status of "pond-hopper" I came across a beaut at
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ulti.../t/003425.html

They get all het up about the Democrats and PR.
And yet the article is about a MAGAZINE commissioning 3 PR companies for how to "sell" the Democrat party. It has NOTHING to do with Democrats but that dsoens't stop the narro-minded posting abotu it. At least MY news items were abotu acts people did or did not do

They all get fired up lambasting the Democrats as if THEY came up with the ideas.

"Liberty" prefixes it with ".....they are more concerned about image instead of ideas."


I see now why Fleet posts links that actually don't' support claims, you've learned from some bad examples.

[crisis]

yep, in checking up on the status of "pond-hopper" I came across a beaut at
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ulti.../t/003425.html

They get all het up about the Democrats and PR.
And yet the article is about a MAGAZINE commissioning 3 PR companies for how to "sell" the Democrat party. It has NOTHING to do with Democrats but that dsoens't stop the narro-minded posting abotu it. At least MY news items were abotu acts people did or did not do

They all get fired up lambasting the Democrats as if THEY came up with the ideas.

"Liberty" prefixes it with ".....they are more concerned about image instead of ideas."


I see now why Fleet posts links that actually don't' support claims, you've learned from some bad examples.

Im not going to read through that because I could do a perfect impersonation of everything they would say. I love that laughing dog thing they use to respond to everything they cant figure out how string together a sentence to comment on.
A few of the syncophants over there chimed in with that one everytime they thought there masters amde a good point. You know, something like "liberal".

[Fleet 500]

No they live in their own paranoid comfortable little wonderland and expell anyone who questions their warped sense of reality.

Is that why you couldn't provide a link like they asked (about the military "lying")?

And you're wrong... the member "Curious" is a liberal and disagrees with most of what they say, yet he is still an active member. He must be doing something right.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Don't click links to RonaldReagan.com, they lead you to a site about Computer Crime with the FBI.

Talk about sore losers.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Is that why you couldn't provide a link like they asked (about the military "lying")?

And you're wrong... the member "Curious" is a liberal and disagrees with most of what they say, yet he is still an active member. He must be doing something right.

Curious obviously tows the line on some of the issues that RR.com believe in, their more tolerant of someone who at least agrees with Some of the crap they spout.

[Matra et Alpine]

Don't click links to RonaldReagan.com, they lead you to a site about Computer Crime with the FBI.

Talk about sore losers.

It's OK, it might start hurting for them real soon.

By threatening federal action AND linking to the FBI site they've just "wasted" the FBIs time

It will be interesting to see what follows.
Dont' panic guys the "big bully threat" is vacuous as the law they are trygin to use as scare tactics is ONLY for cross state border use. They can't even grasp the laws they try to (ab)use.

Anyway, as an honest citizen of the world I have asked the FBI to explain the referral technique rr.com has used. I have asked them if they have guidelines for usign it and are rr.com applying them correctly. I've pointed out they claim failure to met their TOSs but they dont' provide them once you're banned. I've asked what action they nroamlly undertake in the US for mis-representation of enforcement agency actions ( you cant' in the UK claim the Police will do something on your behalf ). I've asked them to contact me and them with a response.

I wonder if the FBI will contact the site owner and maybe even the ISP ?
I'll keep everyeon informed of any communications as I'm sure some of you may be "concerned" about the possibel next outcomes.....

[Matra et Alpine]

Is that why you couldn't provide a link like they asked (about the military "lying")?

Not having been able to see most of this
So link to WHAT ?
If it's the Tillman affair, then look it up in WashingtonPost !
If it's over the reasons and legality of the war, then look up the British Attorney General or Tony Blair memo, a google for thos terms twill find it.

If it's over somethgin else -- DAAAAAAMN, I missed some god stuff coz of the ban ???? shit

[spi-ti-tout]

Yeah, imagine that!
All one member did was threaten to shoot Hane in the foot!

Ah. I Imagine you didn't get the joke then. [It was expected(*SIGH*)]

Ok, heres another funny.
The first strike is from an absolutely fantastic guy who gives his famous reason as:
Reason sent by Moderator:
For being a waste of Bandwith

Because apparently he didn't want any english lessons from me(aren't I a good teacher? )
Funny? Some more

Your great sweet goddess of a moderator PM's me for a reason of which she is entirely ignorant of herself. And then bans me for my retaliation to another moderator who sprouted a bit of rubbish on the personal level

Laughing? This one ought to crack you up

But of course, since I'm banned, she decides to take advantage and sends me another PM. Of course, I can't reply

And heres the killer

When I go back to the PM's, I'm restricted from seeing them!
(Only the 1st strike and the 'personal' PM, the 2nd Strike was so generously left alone )

Don't worry though, I have a copy of all the letters. If you want to read, just ask.

Fleet, try as you might I cannot possibly see how you could Justify their actions. It doesn't make sense neither does it benefit anyone. If you feel you can reason, try me.

[crisis]

Is that why you couldn't provide a link like they asked (about the military "lying")?

I supplied an answer.

And you're wrong... the member "Curious" is a liberal and disagrees with most of what they say, yet he is still an active member. He must be doing something right.

He is an impressive individual who has restraint beyond the capacity of most of us. He absorbs personal insults and idiotic dismissive comments without being drawn to respond in kind. He is a credit to himself and survives only becaus he hasnt called anyone there the same things they have called im. (he knows the game ). But personally I dont need to debate with idiots like that.

[crisis]

Not having been able to see most of this
So link to WHAT ?
If it's the Tillman affair, then look it up in WashingtonPost !
If it's over the reasons and legality of the war, then look up the British Attorney General or Tony Blair memo, a google for thos terms twill find it.

If it's over somethgin else -- DAAAAAAMN, I missed some god stuff coz of the ban ???? shit

They, mainly Hane , asked me to provide a link to the quote from the military source in the Posts article. To be honest I dont really know where to look. I doubt the military allow the public to access all transcripts of their statements but in any case I never made an accusation the military lied. I posted the claims that were on different websites about how the clothes were burnt and how soldiers who were with him at the time made statements totally contrary to the official militarys initial claims. I then psoted the information from the military that said the findings were not going to be published. All Hane could do is say "liar" and "post the link." Ignoramus. It was about this time that I gave up on them and a few more posts and I was banned. Some ape come along and threatened anyone who made derisive comments (which I presume meant even asking why the official statments differed from the statements of the soldiers) would be dealt with in some redneck hollywood style manner.
Among the litany of points they missed or would not give me a comment about was who did they believe? The official Army statement or the testimony of the soldier who were there risking their lives for them After all what is the US Army if not the soldiers. So these simpletons are happy to have the Army call its soldiers liars? No they didnt touch that because there is no way of answering without having one side look bad. They also didnt comment on Tillmans parents comments saying the Army lied either.

[Matra et Alpine]

ah, right, cheers Crisis.

It's like I'm still waiting for anyone to answer the questino if infromation is known and not given and the assumption allowed to form is tha a lie or not ?
The best example I coudl give for exterem-right-wingers to grasp is the Clinton "no sexual relatiosn" , which tp a point is true, e di NOT perform THE sexual act. But I realise that the concept of applying the same rules in both directiosn is aliem to such fascists.

so for example
"Spc. Patrick D. Tillman, 27, of Chandler, Ariz., died April 22, in Afghanistan when his patrol vehicle came under attack"
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...0423-0648.html

the OFFICIAL DoD release AFTER it was known he'd taken friendly fire.
AS I sad, under the eyes of the law saying nothing is up there with lying !!!

Compare the Tillman report with http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/..._bt256-03.html or http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/..._bt247-03.html

Two further terrible losses as is any death of someone willing to put their life on the line for others. It's BECAUSE fo that willingness that EVERY nation has a duty to be TOTALLY HONEST.

[kigango123]

the best solution of america is the fast but careful retreat from iraq, sorry to say it but the more they stay the more losses political and financial they incur and the more iraqi and us. lives are destroyed