THE PEACE MOVEMENT OF THE 1930'S MADE THE HOLOCAUST INEVITABLE --- by accident; the peace movement of today wants no more accidents: Just the death of Jews.

Our grandparents' anti-war allies enabled the Holocaust --- by accident. Your present day anti-war allies wish quite deliberately to destroy "Jewish interests" --- and the lives of many, many Jews in the process. And this is not an unintentional byproduct of good intentions --- but for many leaders of the peace movement, a precious goal.

It was not quite thus in the 1930s. Like today, the very nicest people, the most thoughtful people, the most progressive people, the people with the highest degree of social and moral conscience, people, in short, like you and me - all aligned themselves with Hitler's interests and brought about the totally unnecessary second World War - which was very nearly lost, even after the death of 50 million people. Even though it was won in the end, it was not won soon enough to prevent making the unthinkable - the Holocaust - inevitable.(Full text here (http://jewishworldreview.com/sam/schulman.html))

Moderator edit - reduce lengh of quoted text

Who ever would have thought such an ill-devised propaganda piece might come from a journal representing partisan interests?

It is only desperate war-frothing that leads one to classify pacifism as something which intentionally seeks harm. Outlets like the Jewish World Review make it much easier for anti-Semites to fail to distinguish between an Israeli and a Jew.

Look, I don't have much of a problem with paranoid Jews. But there's nothing about the laws of nature that says I have to believe 'em. Thank you for such a thought-provoking article; I must think long at how low journalistic standards have sunk, and furthermore at how low the integrity of my neighbors in this country has fallen.Under the peace program we see today, Ba'athism, the murderous direct offspring of Nazism, has been given vital breathing space, and would, if the peace marchers had their way, continue to grow in strength until it can safely strike out at Israel"Under the peace program today ...." Yes, it was the "peace program" which armed Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. It was the "peace program" which sponsored his invasion of Iran.

Just lke the "peace program" wholeheartedly advocates Jewish-sponsored atrocities against humanity, the murder of women and children by the gun and by starvation for rabid, nationalistic, post-Nazi theocracy.

Of course, this would be the first time that a Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney would be called the "peace program", but there's always a first time for everything.

After all, until I read this article, I never would have believed the absurdity of Jewish hatred of the world. I never really would have realized how stupid Jews are to think that the Iraqi Bush War is about them. Sure, Jews are a necessary tool of the Bush Klan, but you see by any survey of the news how problematic Jews are for Americans. As necessary evils go, I think Bush would like to be rid of Israel and the Jews. With them out of the way, there's no countervalent interest to prevent our armies from marching through the Middle East for all the oil.

Why else do you think the Bush administration is doing everything it can to corner Saddam Hussein? Bush knows there are Weapons of Mass Destruction involved here and will prove it even if the only way to do it is to drop a bunch of MOAB's until Hussein loses his temper and gasses Israel.

That way Bush kills two birds, if you'll pardon the expression, with one stone. He gets his war in Iraq, and suddenly he no longer has to answer for Jewish atrocities against dissenters.

Heaven knows I've never heard any source make such a compelling argument for the elimination of Judaism as that petulant rag you present us in the topic post. No wonder Bush is trying to bypass the Israeli problem until it goes away on its own.

But sh:eek:t, man, if every war has to be about the Jews, aren't they just asking for bad attention?

Normally, I give Jews a "free pass", one of those mutual agreements of non-harassment. I'm even sympathetic to Judaism in theological terms when examining the Abramic catastrophe. But if this is how Judaism wishes to be represented, then I won't be surprised when legions of Israelis lie dead in the streets and in shelters because insane people are that pissed off.

Why not tack a sign onto a Jew's forehead? "Incinerate me! Really!" Talk about a neon-pink target sign ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I'd have to say that I agree with the title here--that the Peace Movement and a combination of appeasement helped put Hitler into power, as well as many other factors. However, to compare it to the current situation with Iraq is ludicrous. I think a greater majority than 50% of US citizens were against war before WW2, whereas that is not the case now. The US is seemingly engaged in at least a small conflict every few years, and I don't think that the conservatives are getting tired of it.

It's an example, back then, of things being too liberal. You need an army, and you need to take down the bad guys, and you need to fight for what is good, in your opinion. Humans fight. That's the truth. When a war is inevitable, as it is definitely not now (well, technically speaking...there is going to be a war, but we don't need one). The problem is that sometimes people fight for illogical reasons and lie to do so for their own ends, at least nowadays, even though I have no doubt that this process has been going on since civilization began. Sometimes wars matter, sometimes they don't--you have to choose which ones you believe in.

i understand about the appeasement shit. give me info about the protest/peace movement back then. who were the players. was it significant?
i could have sworn this protest shit started in the 60's!

Chamberlin peace in our time he said,as he brought home a peace of paper that Hitler put his name to!
He was the British Prime minster at the time!

Chamberlain was such a nice man that I decided to give him my autograph.
-Hitler

You could compare the governments of France and Germany to England back then, with the appeasement. It seems like they don't even want to remove Saddam from power. I guess its just because of their oil deals with him. :rolleyes:

again i ask what peace movement of the 30's?

Peace movements weren't legal back then, but you can be sure that many of the people in France and England were very reluctant to fight Germany.

If there were peace movements, we would have lost World War 2. The good thing was that it wasn't legal to speak out against the war.

Plenty of them, Spookz. The American Student Union springs to mind, and another mob in England which displayed a white poppy (I don't remember who they were). Look at the appeasement policies of the time regarding Germany - The governments of Europe were bending over backwards to avoid a war.

Perhaps if they'd all worn beads and flowers, come up with their own versions of Janis Joplin and advocated free love they would have been more notable historical figures, huh? ;)

War is B-cuz of peaceniks. OK. :bugeye: A brilliant new rallying-cry for the last of the warmonger cro-magnon.

Seems to me this article was describing ways in which the peace movement (or peace politics) may have contributed to WW2 being fought so late and so hard, Hypewaders. I don't see anywhere he said "Peace movements cause war". He's advocating a theory that WW2 need not have been the holocaust it was, if Hitler was stopped early enough. I've heard the same theory before from numerous sources - it's not original, and it has some merit if we look at the situation in hindsight. I remember being taught about the appeasement policy in the lead up to WW2 in high school, and even teachers back then regarded the debate as to it's effectiveness or possible consequences as being very important.

It is basically propaganda in the way in which it's written though. Tiassa labels it as such, while posting similar articles written from a differing viewpoint as proof of his own opinions elsewhere. I don't see that it's any more full of shite than most articles posted by the peaceniks here. An elephant's shite is heaven to a dungbeetle. Perspective, laddie. Perspective.

The seeds of WWII were sewn in WWI. If the peace movement against the first world war had been sucessful there would have been no world wars.

Quite possibly, but then if Man hadn't figured out that his club was just as effective on the hairy mother who just dragged his current squeeze off by the hair as it was on the mammoths, there might not have been any world war either. Relevance?

Relevance: When the hairy club-wielding superstition-motivated ape-men currently riding the vulnerable political veneer of humanity are finally outsmarted by their more "pacifist" but craftier kinsmen, they will join their Neanderthal forebears in their imaginary Valhallas (oblivion). Evolution is about to accelerate as never before (hang on)... and note that it has not been the brawniest who have been most successful on this world. Although this generation will have a few scares and even cataclysms, his trend will continue, and those who adapt fastest will endure (if a little irradiated). :D

Yes, yes... "we...shall... we shall over.. come!".

Heard it all before, and yes, I know, I'm first up against the wall when the revolution comes...

don't get sidetracked, Hype.

It was not a "peace movement" that led Hitler to power. It was the fact that he presented a better way for humanity to go, and was a truly inspiring man who was the picture of honor and virility.

It was because he was a great man, not because of screwups in the system that led Hitler to power.

He was a convincing man, yes. We're not talking about how he got to power, YKJ. We're talking about how soon he could have been removed from it, had "The System" not gone all soft. Go plant your landmines elsewhere ;)

They weren't in the practice of starting a war because the people in a country were being subjugate dback then. The war only started after germany started conquering other countries that france and britain had treaties with. Regardless of the peace movement, the war would have began at the same time. But if you mean the united states getting involved earlier, then you may have a point.

I just love the degree of concentration that comes when people resort to blaming pacifists for warfare.

The pacifists "support" Saddam Hussein?

What about the war-hawk mentality automatically disqualifies the bloodlusting from recognizing that pacifisim opposes all wars? I mean, flat out: Are the war pigs really that stupid?

It was not pacifists who chose to arm the Taliban. It was not pacifists who chose to arm Saddam Hussein. It was not pacifists who sold Iraq its anthrax stocks. It was not pacifists who shuffled vital information that could have prevented 9/11 under the table in favor of the drug war.

The war pigs have dug out this mire, have wetted the soil with their salacious dreamings--

Does the recoil remind you of sex? Old man what the hell you gonna kill next?

--and it's their mess to clean up. Only, they have to find a better way or else we go through it all over again. I don't understand how it comes down to going to war for no good reason or else letting the former court jester run the world. It is the war pigs own admission, then, that if they don't get to kill a bunch of stuff, the situation just ain't worth worrying about.

And that's the most offensive thing of all. Just because the war pigs blew a hole in the ship you're going to let them patch the leak with explosives?

Look, just because peace isn't important enough to people unless they get to go through a war first doesn't make it right. Reliance on warfare is a little like the alcoholic who constantly apologizes for his conduct: We understand how it seems necessary, but get some help, please.

Think about it: On one side is an incoherent president bumbling toward war, while on the other, diplomats, military minds, and peaceniks all look upon the coming Bush War with a measure of revulsion. How is it that the old brass and the peaceniks fall on the same side of the fence this time out? As our allies step away from us, it seems like this war is a revue of Police songs ...

- France and Germany: "Don't Stand So Close to Me"
- Tony Blair: "Wrapped Around Your Finger"
- Dick Cheney: "Walking on the Moon"
- American soldiers: "Canary in a Coal Mine"
- Iraqi people: "Message in a Bottle"
- George W. Bush: "De-Do-Do-Do, De-Da-Da-Da"

(Meanwhile, Bill Clinton warms up for his new television gig by belting "Roxanne" on the sax a few times. Anything for a few hot licks ....)

So I ask the war pigs to attempt to wrap their brain-bacon around a few considerations. Namely, there are reasons that opposition to this war is so uniquely diverse. Furthermore, ignoring those reasons will not make them go away. Beyond that, ridiculing those reasons does not constitute resolving them.

But of all the diverse reasons, from the establishment of new foreign policy paradigms to the sentiments of individuals, perhaps the slimmest minority of them all are those who oppose this war because they would wish to extend Hussein's power and glory.

The "peace program" is about finding a better way. We have the minds. We have the means. There is no excuse for wallowing in the bloodthirsty ways of yesteryear.

There are democratic elements alive in the Muslim world (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=18667); can you imagine if we spent a tenth the effort on this that we do knocking over dictators? Just as our best and brightest work day and night to make sure you can be buried with a boner, so do our best and brightest work toward warfare. What if we set their sights on a revolution of peace?

And what about that idea is so damned unacceptable that the war pigs must demonize the peace movement and blame it for all that warfare and warring minds and souls have brought?

- Dogs of War (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pink-floyd/10035.htm)The dogs of war don't negotiate
The dogs of war won't capitulate,
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door,
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.- Disposable Heroes (http://www.solid-american.com/axel/lyrics/lyr-mop5.html)Soldier boy, made of clay
now an empty shell
twenty one, only son
but he served us well
Bred to kill, not to care
just do as we say
finished here, Greeting Death
he's yours to take away- Army (Dream Song) (http://www.e-tabs.org/tab/boiled_in_lead/army)I went to see the first lieutenant
He said "God, they're going to bomb us, from their vicious flying llamas!"
I dove into the llama shelter
I became Charlotte Cordet, and the battle fell away:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The "Peace movement" doesn't want to leave sadam in power though.
It seeks to disarm him without throwing the world into WWIII at the cost of innocenct lives.
To say we by seeking peace will be responsable for deaths of millions is the old trick of the war party accusing us of what they are about to do.
As for the "Holocaust", when the USA attacks Iraq and the Palastein/Isreal conflict ends in the Ethnic cleansing of the country for the "Jewish Superstate", and i wouldnt be suprised here if the the disbelief of the world GWB then turns round and attacks them for this "Act of terror" and "Crime against humanity" *sighs*.
We are trying to stop the next Hitler not appease him.
Unfortunatly it seems only time will tell us whos right.

Chamberlain could hardly be described as a peacemonger

His motives were more that of a Bussinessman , trying to save the British colonial empire, calculating that it would be cheaper to sell out sudetenland to the germans than to make a war.

The British knew they couldn't get rid of Hitler easily, so they entertained the idea of striking a deal with him: you can have the mainland and keep those damn commies busy. We look the other way if you don't interfere with our overseas colonial empire.

It is just that he underestimated Hitlers ambitions....

Chamberlain does however remind a bit of Chirac,
His motives are highy que$tionable. The Germans protest however seems sincerely coming from the heart.

war pigs - see that? tiassa is pissed off!

Heard it all before, and yes, I know, I'm first up against the wall when the revolution comes... - we have very special plans for your ass!

:D

Originally posted by spookz
again i ask what peace movement of the 30's?

Probably more of an isolationist movement than a peace movement, spookz. While there was a pacifist movement, it mainly swept across American university campuses. One poll at the time, conducting on university campuses, showed that 72% of students opposed military service in wartime. Much of this was because of soe books that had been written blaming companies like Dupont for making huge profits during WWI. A special Senate Committee did a two year investigation and the Nye Committee, headed by Sen. Gerald Nye, had accused bankers and munitions makers for being responsible for US entry into WWI. But the isolationists were probably a lot bigger movement. Part of it was because of the Depression, and part because WWI was fresh in people's memories. Washington had warned everyone back in 1796 to avoid "entangling alliances in Europe, and many Americans felt that failure to heed that warning had gotten us dragged into WWI. It would be members of the Isolationists that would accuse the FDR administration for a conspiracy behind the Pearl Harbor attack, believing that it was allowed to happen to give the US an excuse to enter the war. Not really true, but still there was enough there to bring accusations.

man coldrake! thank you! info on the euro side would be handy too

Originally posted by The Marquis
He was a convincing man, yes. We're not talking about how he got to power, YKJ. We're talking about how soon he could have been removed from it, had "The System" not gone all soft. Go plant your landmines elsewhere ;)

Why would you want to remove Hitler from power? He was obviously doing a great job improving German life as well as reclaiming land stolen from Germany after WWII. They could have continued their prosperity had the bastards not declared war on them.

The Women's Co-operative Guild was formed in 1883. It supported women's suffrage and argued that women should have full equal rights with men. The Guild also played an important role in the campaign for the Maternity Insurance Benefit. Many leading women trade unionists such as Margaret Bondfield and Mary Macarthur were active in the organisation

The white poppy campaign was started in Britain in 1933 by the Women's Co-operative Guild. They chose an alternate symbol - the white poppy - as a 'definite pledge to peace that war must not happen again' to be worn alone or along with the red poppy

thanks marquis old chum

as i thought it appears that the masses mobilizing, making opinions felt was hardly developed at that time. so that leaves us with appeasement which was govt policy. i cannot confidently state that this policy was due to popular opinion.

Originally posted by biblthmp Our grandparents' anti-war allies enabled the Holocaust --- by accident. Your present day anti-war allies wish quite deliberately to destroy "Jewish interests" --- and the lives of many, many Jews in the process. [/B]

TAC: Sob-sob-sob, don't cry for me Argentina! The demise of czarist Russia was attributable to the Jew's of that time. The German people's anger for the Jew was precipitated by Jewish abuses and usurous ways against the German people.

Interesting huh? No one ever discusses why the Jew has been unable to live in "any" society in peace and tranquility for any length of time. If your feel your "Jewishness" makes your life miserable--seek another religion--"become a Jehovah's Witness!"

Call it the Jews "Chutzpah" ( outrageousness ) or call it their arrogance--call it what you will--the Jew is a trouble maker in every society he lives in--even in Israel!

And when you put the Jews together--is there peace annd tranquility? Nope! They're at each others throats--clawing and trying to scratch each others eyes out over who is the "legitimate" Jew.

The Ultra's fight with the reform, orthodox and reform Jews fight the orthodox Jews and on and on they go--the Israeli Ultra's call the immigrated black Jews from Ethiopia, "Falasha's" ( the Jewish word for "nigger." ). Recently, a bunch of Ultra-orthodox Jews had some DNA testing on their brother Falasha's and decided that indeed they "are not real Jews!" Thus the Falasha's live in Ethiopian-like proverty and unemployed, shunned by most Jews in Israel.

In America the AIPAC/ZOA Jews manipulate, threaten and bribe US Congressional people into doing their will. Jews like the Liebermans ( US embassy to Jerusalem now! ), Feinsteins ( more buck$ for "little" Israel ), Boxers ( Help fight Palestinian terrorism send more F-16's and Apache helicopter gunships to Israel! ), Levins ( Please help "little" Israel fight terrorism ), Lantos ( The Jew is the "eternal" a victim--give Israel more, more, much more money!" ).

These Jews represent Israel's 5th column in the US Congress and they p!ss & moan until Israel gets all the welfare/warfare money it wants! ( and billions in loans--"Forgiven!" ). :(

Note: "Why has Israel 'never' defaulted in a loan from the US? because the US writes it off--and it never has to be paid back!

Senator's like Senator Charles Percy-Mich. in the 1970's rejected Jewish influence in US politics--and especially US taxpayer dollars going to build Holocaust memorials in an America thousands of miles from where the Holocaust occurred--he was never reelected! :(

To be continued........................

TheAZCowBoy,

Originally posted by spookz
that leaves us with appeasement which was govt policy. i cannot confidently state that this policy was due to popular opinion.

Hmm. I would think that "popular opinion" has not always needed the protest movements we see today. Remember, in 1933 when Hitler came to power, it had only been 15 years since the last war. Not long, and most who fought in that war would still be alive and remember it well. I would say that pacifism would have been the norm at the time, rather than a "movement". Most of Europe was reasonably prosperous and did not feel the resentment the Germans did. The Germans desired a restoration of pride, the British and French merely peace. They were also worried about another spectre on the horizon... Russia. At the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 Chamberlain actually worried that conflict with Germany carried the possibility of being driven into alliance with Russia, rather prophetic as things turned out. He wanted to avoid such a conflict, and such an alliance, at all costs.

I'd day the appeasement policy was not a result of a peace movement, but more of fresh memories of the last war, seen as something to be avoided at all costs. There was no real need for a peace movement when most of the countries involved and their governments wanted the same thing.

As far as the "masses mobilising and making their opinions felt" goes, don't forget they did exactly that in 1917 in Russia. Mobs were quite well developed, just not yet aimed specifically at peace. Probably as uninformed about the possible consequences of getting what they want as todays movements, as well.

I was wondering if anybody had noticed. It's not often that I stoop to anti-Semitism, so obviously I'm disappointed when it falls flat without twitching.

Oh, well ...

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa I was wondering if anybody had noticed. It's not often that I stoop to anti-Semitism, so obviously I'm disappointed when it falls flat without twitching.

Oh, well ...

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

TAC: Yep, you're right, them Z/rats don't take criticisim very well, huh Tiassa?

Was it "Stoop" or is it "Stupid?" :D

TAC, :eek:

Actually it's a little disturbing that I can paint the Jews that broadly and negatively without anyone calling me out on it. Surprise, surprise. I'm not sure what to think.:confused:

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

At the risk of having Goofy remove this to the ethics board, I'll wax ethical for a moment. I think that this is an extremely important aspect of politics that must be confronted much more squarely, much more often.

I have racist instincts, and I believe that this remains a considerable shared evolutionary legacy effecting every one of us. If I become too socially insecure to repudiate my racism over and over again throughout my experiences, it will take me over. I can remember times in denial which made recognizing my own racist behavior nearly impossible.

The urge to senselessly destroy something in a fit of anger recurs- but is mostly suppressed in adjusted individuals. Our legacy instincts, and other survival traits obviously do not always fit in the modern context. The ancient clan instinct to associate foriegn-ness with "evil" make it a scapegoat, then attack it, is no longer rational or advantageous in the present context. This is where this subject translates not into ethics, but successful group behavior including "international" relations (I believe "international" will lose much meaning as populations integrate).

I have violent and hateful demons clouding my reason at all times of stress. But I make a choice in calmer moments, and decide how I will allow myself to be defined. I think this conscious choosing is the only way humanity will avoid cataclysm.

Blind hate has to be acknowledged, like any offensive, dangerous condition. Behaviors of lashing out have to be isolated in interpersonal, intercultural, and international behaviors. This is why the concept of reacting to "terrorism" with large military responses is so dangerous.

Until we stop institutionalising hatred and violence, we will continue to suffer and lose all we hold dear. America is about to learn a hard lesson in this respect. When the "bad" guys are brought in as criminals, and institutional violence is focused into a surgical pinprick, conflicts can be resolved. Leaders are afraid of a future when they are personally, physically vulnerable if they should attempt to revive the discarded war culture. But that future is coming. The act of calling up hordes of participants in violence, human or robot, will bring personal death to a leader if necessary, once society builds in the same controls as individuals are developing.

Just as with individual rage, tribes/countries must in quieter moments decide to suppress irrationality that brings self-destruction, decide how they will define themselves. America has been long in denial about her arrogance, is reacting improperly in the modern context, and she and her lackeys are going to suffer for the failure to control her most obsolete national instincts.

There remain harsh Macchiavelian voices, but the truth is becoming clearer in this integrating world: Live by the sword, die by it. Those sold on the false glory will resist, but large-scale war is getting harder to justify, and easier to snuff out before it starts. The costs of military domination are immense in comparison with persuasion, compromise, and in the "hostile" sense, marketing/purchasing power.

The little war pigs continue to snort and still gather cannon-fodder today- but every new war, it is getting to be a much harder sell. I know this is disorienting to those clinging to old ways, and they'll fire back in pitiful defense, but the anti-war trend is unstoppable.

As an individual, or as a nation, when I hate- who do I really hurt the most? - myself.

Originally posted by The Marquis
I'd day the appeasement policy was not a result of a peace movement, but more of fresh memories of the last war, seen as something to be avoided at all costs. There was no real need for a peace movement when most of the countries involved and their governments wanted the same thing.

*my italics

well put marquis. this seems to be an accurate assessment

[i]
I have racist instincts/I have the urge to senselessly destroy something in a fit of anger/ I have violent and hateful demons clouding my reason at all times of stress.... [/B]

TAC: Hey hypewaders--This is SciForums--not True Confessions!

TheAZCowBoy, :D

I have racist instincts, and I believe that this remains a considerable shared evolutionary legacy effecting every one of us.

count me out. instincts are for animals. prejudice is for the weak and fearful. i suggest intense meditation!

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
It was not a "peace movement" that led Hitler to power. It was the fact that he presented a better way for humanity to go, and was a truly inspiring man who was the picture of honor and virility.

It was because he was a great man, not because of screwups in the system that led Hitler to power.

"better way for humanity to go" - like the death of 50 million people, amongst them millions of proud white people, with which you obviously identify?

"...count me out. instincts are for animals"
That sounds a little knee-jerk, coming from a clever biped.

hype
you can take my statement at face value or you can put a spin to it. it all depends on the individual. will you settle for what nature has given you and accept it as inevitable or do you see yourself as an incomplete project with room for improvement.

The latter.

Originally posted by spookz
hype
you can take my statement at face value or you can put a spin to it. it all depends on the individual. will you settle for what nature has given you and accept it as inevitable or do you see yourself as an incomplete project with room for improvement.

I think that was made perfectly clear in what he said before:

Hypewaders said:
"The urge to senselessly destroy something in a fit of anger recurs- but is mostly suppressed in adjusted individuals. Our legacy instincts, and other survival traits obviously do not always fit in the modern context. The ancient clan instinct to associate foriegn-ness with "evil" make it a scapegoat, then attack it, is no longer rational or advantageous in the present context. This is where this subject translates not into ethics, but successful group behavior including "international" relations (I believe "international" will lose much meaning as populations integrate).

I have violent and hateful demons clouding my reason at all times of stress. But I make a choice in calmer moments, and decide how I will allow myself to be defined. I think this conscious choosing is the only way humanity will avoid cataclysm.

Blind hate has to be acknowledged, like any offensive, dangerous condition. Behaviors of lashing out have to be isolated in interpersonal, intercultural, and international behaviors. This is why the concept of reacting to "terrorism" with large military responses is so dangerous."

ds said: sorry to quote but I hate to see such well-structured thoughts dismissed or overlooked.

people who want peace don't cause war. people who want to fulfill their own self-interests and lack compassion for other humans want war. it's as simple as that.

ds
thanks. i did overlook. i did not dismiss cos i had not read. if i did read i would have not repeated what hype had already said.

apologies to hype

Ok, you got me,

I am really not a peacemonger, but just a warmonger in disguise, trying to stall and buy enough time for my friend saddam to get his nukes in place.

I got this wonderfull feeling he is gonna use them as well, the whole israeli-palestinian issue will be "resolved" instantantly under a mushroom cloud and I can go back to my daily routine without this tribal quarrel influencing my stocks and options in a negative way....

I am really not a peacemonger, but just a warmonger in disguise, trying to stall and buy enough time for my friend saddam to get his nukes in place. Sounds like Monster Magnet (http://www.lyricsdownload.com/cgi-bin/frames.cgi?[url=http://www.lyricsdownload.com/data/m/magnet_monster/magnet_monster_all_friends_and_kingdom_come.php4): 'Cause I can fry you with my eyes
I can blow you to kingdom come
I can take all your friends away
I've got mushroom clouds in my hands
And a place in my head for you
Better come to the throne today:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Iraq? No... Phobia.

If Cowboys didn't cry, an ethics didn't matter in politics, I don't reckon we'd have Cowboy Poets around.

Jeez, aren't we all getting chuffed with ourselves. Cowboy poets?

Well, you know Hype, that was a nice little speech, and no doubt those who are swayed by a little emotional goo are all off sobbing in their blankets right now. Sorta like the President's last speech in Independance Day... hell, if you want to rile up people appeal to what they like most about themselves, right?
Pity that the only people it's really going to affect are those who mostly agree with you anyway. Complete waste of effort on anyone else.

Hypewaders, your speech was largely just one big ole' Ad Hominem attack on the Jewish author. Personally, I feel, Racist Jew that he is, that his assessment of the appeasement policy of WW2 has merit. It may have had a huge effect on world history had Hitler been militarily stopped long before he got out of control. Whether or not this argument applies today, we don't know yet, but the possible consequence of the (so far) 10 years of failed resolutions and Iraqi defiance and the lack of anyone with enough backbone to sort it out still remains to be seen. I'm still wondering what the Iraqi casualty count of your precious peace has already been over the last ten years, not to mention the Kurds. But we'll save the moral arguments for someone who cares, huh? What we're dealing with here is an ideal... the Peace" ideal, written in large capital letters.

You, with a large (and emotional) sweep of your hand, declare "This author is Jewish, he is racist, and we will not listen to him". Nice work. Looks like you even got to a few members here who are less inclined to actual thought than some. You know, sometimes I catch myself hoping that there is indeed a terrible consequence of all of this procrastination - hearing you people saying "We did not know... we did not know..." like the German people after WW2 would be almost gratifying.

thou art truly the prophet of peace
i hail thee and stand humbled before thy wisdom

Marquis, you should know by now, that if I were President I would offer 1/10 of the cost of this invasion/occupation, and have Saddam's head on a platter in the Oval office within in 12 hours. i would also have Ariel Sharon pulling out settlements the same evening.

Realizing sometimes war is a mistake, and addressing some glaring mistakes of the recent past, doesn't mean you're a pu$$y, or a procrastinator. It means you are earning your living as a responsible leader. I am not a political type to lead, but I know that ideas are powerful prions, reacting in the new global growth-medium of information.

Surely you don't think people involved in wars are not emotional. My most emotional moments have been while being shot at, closely followed by the experience of afterwards confronting the insignificance of my life up to that point.

I didn't mean the AZCowboy stuff "chuffily". I think he is a talented racist poet, and I enjoy his work- I think that the world is ready to, and must grapple with the strong emotions that post-colonialism is putting us all through. America is in for the roughest ride of all, perhaps not in physical suffering as Palestinians, Israelis, Yugoslavians, Iraqis have/are experiencing. The American roller-coaster ride is unique, and is beginning now, as the majority reckognizes the free world resource ride is coming to an end.

So we Yanks will go marching home again, and get to work again on earning a living honestly, as in every golden age. After we mind our own business again for a little while, and if the Union survives, the world will even like us as a whole again. And we will be sufficiently experienced as a nation to know that all the ages of military empires are in the past, and know that trying that methood anymore is unworkable. the world got too smart on us- they won't accept less than their fair share anymore.

Saddam was not going to spoil our parade. He and some fundamentalists with parallel objectives are herding us into a dangerous political pen, where our military superiority will not protect us from human and economic attrition that we can neither stomach nor retaliate on in kind.

That's the sad, soft, emotional story. I'm looking with optimism to the better part of the millenium ahead, after America learns her place, and shares the wealth while world accelerates into a new age we can scarcely imagine.

It's an awesome time to be alive- and we should all stay that way for the fun that's ahead. Even random Baghdadis.

OK spookz:rolleyes:

Originally posted by hypewaders
I am not a political type to lead, but I know that ideas are powerful prions, reacting in the new global growth-medium of information.
They certainly are, and to give you credit you use them well. However, when we get right down to brass tacks, ideas are only that... ideas. Some are for some, others are for others and none are for all.

Surely you don't think people involved in wars are not emotional.
I don't think that at all.

I didn't mean the AZCowboy stuff "chuffily". I think he is a talented racist poet, and I enjoy his work
It's always interesting to me how an idea often gains support more in the way it is presented than on it's own merit. I see political writing (in this context) as being similar to a job interview in this regard.

An employer has three women applying for a position, and all have similar qualifications. Which woman will he pay more attention to, and want to hire? The pretty one, of course. I'm not saying here that she will be hired based on her looks. she will be hired because her looks provoked a sympathetic reaction, and more attention to, her qualifications. This works both ways. Your jewish author, earlier, immediately provoked a negative reaction in most. Why? Because his words were pure garbage? No. Because he was a Racist Jew. And, evidently, not as entertaining as our cowboy. Shiny things.

So we Yanks will go marching home again...

Prior to WW2, did America's isolationist policy benefit them overly much? I'm a little cloudy on this one historically. I know they were woefully underprepared to actually enter the war, even before the loss of the Pearl Harbour naval assets. Militarily, they had gotten a little soft, and when they were jolted out of apathy it came as a complete surprise, conspiracy theories and naysayers aside.

You yanks aren't going to "go marching home" when we're talking economics. Too many fingers in too many pies. You can pull back all your forces, not interfere in anything, and let the third world go about its business... and then one day wake up to discover they've all got big guns too now, and still don't like you because your rock music is the work of the devil. What are you going to do then? When you discover that your vision of world peace and the image of everyone being just like you underneath isn't true at all? That they still want to kill you, only this time they have the means as well as the rhetoric?

It's an awesome time to be alive- and we should all stay that way for the fun that's ahead. Even random Baghdadis.

Your Bagdadis aren't staying alive to share in this golden age, Hype, unless they say yassir nossir rightawaysir and manage a single perfect tear when gazing on a portrait of Sta... er, Hussain.

You mean to say, Americans and the western world will stay alive and enjoy the fun. As I've said, all this moral guano doesn't impress me much. But if we're going to talk peace, love and good times for all, then you should perhaps consider that your view of non-intervention is nice for some, but not for those who aren't part of it.

"Marquis, you should know by now, that if I were President I would offer 1/10 of the cost of this invasion/occupation, and have Saddam's head on a platter in the Oval office within in 12 hours. i would also have Ariel Sharon pulling out settlements the same evening."

Big guns are not as valuable any more- now, it's about big brains. Someone's going to fire up a shockingly smart brain soon, and we'll have a new race, no race wars, and no wars. Mobilize for war, and zap! Hail (hell, heil) 2 the (defenestrated) Chief.

Want to dominate the world?

Think fast.

Yes Hype, and you being in office might, under those circumstances, save a lot of lives in the short term. But do you think that solution will solve anything, or make any real difference? There will still be those, and just as many as before, who resent your interference. They will not see that you rid them of a dictator, they will only see that you rid them of a dictator. For them, an excuse doesn't need to be solid. It can be as flimsy as hell, and still be a justification to blow something of yours up in retaliation. You can go in there and assassinate Hussain (presumably this is what you meant, I can't see any other way of achieveing Saddam's removal short of force) and not expect the next cockroach taking his place. Do you really think there's a Jefferson, a Lee Kuan Yew or a Bismarck in Baghdad, just waiting for his chance to remake the country if only he could get rid of the current regime? I don't. I havent seen much evidence that they breed men like that over there.

The way the middle east is now, the only thing I can see making any real difference is a ground up rebuild. Blow the place to hell, rebuild it, give them Playstations and McDonalds and decent clothes, give them computers and televisions and free press, give them good food, hospitals and a decent water supply, and see what happens.

Isn't assassination illegal under international law? I mean, not like it matters or anything... you know how those UN regulations are. After all, didn't Saddam try to assassinate Bush Sr.?

Osh!teMebrainsxplodn

Mass Murder.... Ass-Ass

AS-As-aSS

Assassination.

MassAssAssAssAssiN

NationAssinNation

Ass

MurderNation

MassMass
Mass Ass
Ass Mass
MurderMurder


Ass
Murder

Assassination.:m:

It's the Answer. I MUST hack into that teleprompter.;)

That made as much sense as some of the stuff I post after half a flagon of port.

arrrrrh. Guinness good. (*) :o

Originally posted by hypewaders
I didn't mean the AZCowboy stuff "chuffily". I think he is a talented racist poet, and I enjoy his work.

TAC replies: Me a "racist" Poet?! :(

Back handed compliments are what starts wars hypewaders." :(

I'll give you 24 hours to post an apology ( Fishboy, he has been warned! ). Meanwhile, I will be "gassing up the Tomahawks" and loading their computers with the KH-1 spy satellites data regarding Hypes coordinates and longitudes to your home and employers address.

No, don't bother ( with the duct tape and plastic sheeting ) because after I finish with you--the Hellfire/TOW missile attacks the Z/rats visit on the Paly's will seem like child's pay! :D

TheAZCowBoy,

"There's "nada" like a p!ssed off CowBoy, folks!"

:eek: Tally -Fights on, Hard left / Full AB, (ungh) scissors- sh!t Cowboy's (ungh) tryin to get a(ungh) lock!

bah, no worries- I knew 104 drivers couldn't dogfight- Justa missile with a Cowboy in it.:D

I think certain countries including America still have a policy of political hits even outside their own borders.
Ill look it up.

Originally posted by The Marquis
You yanks aren't going to "go marching home" when we're talking economics. Too many fingers in too many pies. You can pull back all your forces, not interfere in anything, and let the third world go about its business... and then one day wake up to discover they've all got big guns too now, and still don't like you because your rock music is the work of the devil. What are you going to do then? When you discover that your vision of world peace and the image of everyone being just like you underneath isn't true at all? That they still want to kill you, only this time they have the means as well as the rhetoric?

Your Bagdadis aren't staying alive to share in this golden age, Hype, unless they say yassir nossir rightawaysir and manage a single perfect tear when gazing on a portrait of Sta... er, Hussain.

you believe there is a de facto state of war b/w the developed world and the third world? they are biding their time until they have big guns to launch an assault? all this merely because they do not like the culture? when did this state of affairs come about? how about if i say "de facto war b/w the white and dark races? would you agree? do you think there are others that share the same paranoid outlook as you? sizable numbers? calling into question their very existence in the face of hostile barbarian hordes?

conventional wisdom states that the current antipathy fundamentals have towards the west is due to western interference in their affairs (colonization, israel, etc). you however; "You can pull back all your forces, not interfere in anything, and let the third world go about its business..." think that is not the case. explain please

are you aware that nearly all the authoritarian (islamic) govts in the region more or less supports the west's push for war. sorry! thats unfair! i meant the anglo west's push for war. and that the one democratic govt, turkey, opposes them?

Do you really think there's a Jefferson, a Lee Kuan Yew or a Bismarck in Baghdad, just waiting for his chance to remake the country if only he could get rid of the current regime? I don't. I havent seen much evidence that they breed men like that over there.

do you read? history? do you believe what is now, was in the past and will be in the future? use your imagination marquis. of course there is no doubt that it is easier to be a simple knee jerk reactionist. you seem concerned about iraq being remade and shit. yet the few iraqis that make it on to your reef are given very short shrift. if that aint the height of hypocrisy.........

what happened to you dog? moslem boys beat yer ass? daddy objected to you seeing his arab daughter?

:D :D :D

Gift of the word? i thought it was just good weed

Originally posted by spookz
conventional wisdom states that the current antipathy fundamentals have towards the west is due to western interference in their affairs (colonization, israel, etc). you however; "You can pull back all your forces, not interfere in anything, and let the third world go about its business..." think that is not the case. explain please

I never have had much faith in conventional wisdom. I mean seriously, do you really think that if the West just "backed off" the Middle East would be all peace and harmony? Keep dreaming. The only way you're going to get peace and harmony in this world is to put MDMA in the water supplies. The simple fact is that the US is top dog at the moment, and all the little dogs are yapping about it. If the US wasn't top dog, someone else would be and they'd all be nipping at his heels instead. Humans are like that.

are you aware that nearly all the authoritarian (islamic) govts in the region more or less supports the west's push for war. sorry! thats unfair! i meant the anglo west's push for war. and that the one democratic govt, turkey, opposes them?

And? Don't see your point. I posted some articles about Turkey's economic stake in this thing, it's in their best interest not to let it happen. Oh, they'll wax lyrical about how they're morally opposed and all the rest of it, but that's not the reason. The other Arab states? Haven't checked it out. I'll bet though, if one were to do some serious research, they're all lining up to get something out of this. To be quite honest, I do believe that anyone holding up the likes of France, Turkey and whoever else as champions of moral fortitude are distorting the picture to make themselves look "correct". It's not that simple. Very little of this has anything to do with morals. That's all just sugarcoating for the masses. Go ahead and believe it if you like though.

do you read? history? do you believe what is now, was in the past and will be in the future? use your imagination marquis. of course there is no doubt that it is easier to be a simple knee jerk reactionist. you seem concerned about iraq being remade and shit. yet the few iraqis that make it on to your reef are given very short shrift. if that aint the height of hypocrisy.........

Knee jerk reactionist. Hmm. Ok, so according to you, if I don't agree with what you're saying then I obviously havent read much history and don't have a considered opinion? Yes, I do read history. No, I'm not concerned about Iraq being remade, but I am interesting in seeing what would happen if it were. Curiosity, is all. What hypocrisy? I've already said to you that the media's portrayal of the poor widdle refugees in Australia is not entirely true, but you seem to ignore all that in favour of your own mental image of them. Fine by me, but using it as an argument when you know how I feel about the situation isn't going to wash.

I'm not concerned about Iraq at all. If the Americans go in and blow the place to hell, I won't lose any sleep over it. I won't lose any sleep if the Americans get their asses kicked either, but in that case I'll be a little more concerned about the future because the terror boys will be all pumped and waiting for the next big game. I am interested in seeing how things turn out, however.

what happened to you dog? moslem boys beat yer ass? daddy objected to you seeing his arab daughter?

Phht. Slave morality at it's best... if I don't think the same way you do, then something must have "happened to me" *shrugs*.
Well, Spookz, if it'll make you feel all comfortable and all, just pretend I've had a really hard life or something and it's affected my brain. Whatever gets you through the night ;)

ta
it is always fun to speculate
as for slave morality, the days of fascism are long gone. all you masterly types can only dream and indulge in fanciful thinking of past glories. step out of line and a new and improved guillotine will be presented for your use

You don't understand master morality.

uhh you get to decide what is relevant for me? you define what is my right and wrong? how is that different from fascism? or feudalism for that matter?

(i am reading nietzsche for the first time and i do not thank you for leading me to this garbage)

Then read more closely. I would not lead you in any direction at all.

*edit.. actually, if you need someone to explain it for you, I won't do. I'm not a follower of the man really, but I have mentioned slave morality once or twice because it's a concept I agree with. You're better off asking someone else.

What I will say is that I've not said at any stage that I am a master moralist. I have said that I detest slave morality. The idea of the masses taking power, with their fear, their distrust and their power only made possible by dint of numbers, rather than in any strength of their own, makes me rather sick. You said you read Ayn Rand... what exactly did you read and what did you like about it? The two are not completely dissimilar.

jeez marquis
we do not live in an era with peasants and their pitchforks. the masses nowadays tend to be solid middle class citizens living in a democracy that has elections
as for rand, i briefly perused thru some excerpts of her writing and her views on objective reality and morality happens to coincide with mine (to a certain extent). the rest of her stuff does not interest me.

niet's classism is old and washed out. i piss on him!



;)

*shakes head* Piss away, then. If you'd bothered to read any further you probably would have noted that he expects that the slave moralist will triumph over the master moralist, and that the master moralist is not his idea of the Ubermensch. Neither slave nor master moralist is what is "good" in man.

So in other words, you read a few pages, interpreted it in your own fashion rather than looking for what was really written, didn't like what you saw and didn't bother understanding the rest. Not unusual, and about what I'd expect... from a slave moralist ;)

what is my fashion? what interpretation?

are you aware that nearly all the authoritarian (islamic) govts in the region more or less supports the west's push for war. sorry! thats unfair! i meant the anglo west's push for war. and that the one democratic govt, turkey, opposes them?(spook)

And? Don't see your point.

merely pointing out the irony in the situation. promoting regime change (democracy) is not in america's best interest. it is quite possible a fundie type govt could come into power.

I'm bored with this now, and I'm feeling a bit ill today anyway. I've changed my mind on something though. I would be sorry to see the yanks get kicked back out of Iraq, because in general I like America. Heh. On such things does an opinion truly rest.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spookz [B]you believe there is a de facto state of war b/w the developed world and the third world? they are biding their time until they have big guns to launch an assault? all this merely because they do not like the culture? when did this state of affairs come about? how about if i say "de facto war b/w the white and dark races? would you agree? do you think there are others that share the same paranoid outlook as you? sizable numbers? calling into question their very existence in the face of hostile barbarian hordes?

TAC rolls up his sleeves and pulls out his curved ( made in Turkey ), castrating knife ( hadn't used it since I castrated three ZioNazi settler's that were fooled by my Rabbi garb and allowed me to circumcise them--OUCH! :D

Spookz continues.....

Conventional wisdom states that the current antipathy fundamentals have towards the west is due to western interference in their affairs (colonization, israel, etc). you however; "You can pull back all your forces, not interfere in anything, and let the third world go about its business..."think that is not the case. explain please."

TAC: Since when has the world's business not been the business of the imperialistic whore's in Washington ( El Che, Allende, Noriega, et al. ). I think you missed the whole point with the Islamic world's dislike ( hate? ) for the moral corruption of the west.

Spookz: are you aware that nearly all the authoritarian (Islamic) govts in the region more or less supports the west's push for war.

TAC: Yeah, and your father supported your mother's wishes to do a "partial birth abortion when she got past the 2nd trimester--and realized what a "pain-in-the-arse" you were going to be someday, huh? But, alas, your Dad said "NO" and the rest is history, GASP! :)

Spookz: Sorry! thats unfair! i meant the anglo west's push for war. and that the one democratic govt, turkey, opposes them?

TAC: I suppose if you have to live in that neighborhood--and not the US that soon leaves after it does its excesses ( Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, et. al. )--you have to give "real" thought to siding with imperialistic America and its' "gang-of-two; the old toothless English lion ( lapdog Toadie Blair ) and the "has been" Spanish harlots ( soon to be ) on US foodstamps, huh? :p

Do you really think there's a Jefferson, a Lee Kuan Yew or a Bismarck in Baghdad, just waiting for his chance to remake the country if only he could get rid of the current regime?

TAC: Remake the Arab regime(s)? Hey, Spookz, the Arabs had a thriving advanced civilization when the European barbarians were just beginning to crawl out of the sea and starting to "morf" their fins into appendages--oh, your grandma never told you that "bible story," huh? :)

Jefferson? You mean that signer of the US Constitution and itinerent slave owner who made all those zebra stripped babies of black & white while his ole lady was out shooting pool with Georgie Porggie---who was putting his pud in __you fill in the blank___, da? :)

Spookz: "I don't. I havent seen much evidence that they breed men like that over there."

TAC: Breed? Isn't that something animal's do Spookz" How primative of you! Huh Fishman?

Spookz: "History? Do you believe what is now, was in the past and will be in the future? use your imagination marquis. of course there is no doubt that it is easier to be a simple knee jerk reactionist. you seem concerned about Iraq being remade and shit. yet the few iraqis that make it on to your reef are given very short shrift. if that ain't the height of hypocrisy........." :p

TAC: Iraq needs remaking? Seems to me that an upstart society that finances the Z/rats brand of STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM, APARTHEID, RACISM, BIGOTRY, EXTRA-JUDICIAL ASSASSINATIONS ( i. e. MURDER ) and even HUMAN BONDAGE, has a lot to learn from the decendents of the great Saladin. ( Ever struggle through your algebra classes--well, guess who invented Algebra? ). :p

Spookz: what happened to you dog? Moslem boys beat yer ass? "Daddy objected to you seeing his Arab daughter?"

TAC: Hum, this is an American racist talking from the heart? ( Vomit! ). :D

TheAZCowBoy,

Read, learn and grow wise, from reading the TheAZCowboy's words of wisdom---or die stupid!

I think... TAC is just a wee bit confused.

Originally posted by TheAZCowBoy
[QUOTETAC rolls up his sleeves and pulls out his curved ( made in Turkey ), castrating knife ( hadn't used it since I castrated three ZioNazi settler's that were fooled by my Rabbi garb and allowed me to circumcise them--OUCH! :D

well?

TAC: Since when has the world's business not been the business of the imperialistic whore's in Washington ( El Che, Allende, Noriega, et al. ).

where did i say it wasnt?

I think you missed the whole point with the Islamic world's dislike ( hate? ) for the moral corruption of the west.

what point is that and who made it? i notice you use "dislike" fairly mild term yes? then you wonder if it's "hate". do you think you are missing the point, whatever it maybe? after all the repercussions of the two emotions are quite different

TAC: Yeah, and your father supported your mother's wishes to do a "partial birth abortion when she got past the 2nd trimester--and realized what a "pain-in-the-arse" you were going to be someday, huh? But, alas, your Dad said "NO" and the rest is history, GASP! :)

hey for once you are making sense (we all get lucky sometime)


TAC: I suppose if you have to live in that neighborhood--and not the US that soon leaves after it does its excesses ( Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, et. al. )--you have to give "real" thought to siding with imperialistic America and its' "gang-of-two; the old toothless English lion ( lapdog Toadie Blair ) and the "has been" Spanish harlots ( soon to be ) on US foodstamps, huh? :p

lost but i'll go with "why yes!"

TAC: Remake the Arab regime(s)? Hey, Spookz, the Arabs had a thriving advanced civilization when the European barbarians were just beginning to crawl out of the sea and starting to "morf" their fins into appendages--oh, your grandma never told you that "bible story," huh? :)

Jefferson? You mean that signer of the US Constitution and itinerent slave owner who made all those zebra stripped babies of black & white while his ole lady was out shooting pool with Georgie Porggie---who was putting his pud in __you fill in the blank___, da? :)

TAC: Breed? Isn't that something animal's do Spookz" How primative of you! Huh Fishman?

focus freak

TAC: Iraq needs remaking?

focus some more

Seems to me that an upstart society that finances the Z/rats brand of STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM, APARTHEID, RACISM, BIGOTRY, EXTRA-JUDICIAL ASSASSINATIONS ( i. e. MURDER ) and even HUMAN BONDAGE, has a lot to learn from the decendents of the great Saladin. ( Ever struggle through your algebra classes--well, guess who invented Algebra? ). :p

go ahead answer your question. here is the rope

TAC: Hum, this is an American racist talking from the heart? ( Vomit! ). :D

share your thought processes. i wanna see how you got to this conclusion

Read, learn and grow wise, from reading the TheAZCowboy's words of wisdom---or die stupid!


hmm ok but first i wish to bend you over and make you squeal like a pig. deal?

Let's make it short----

Israel will be nuked within the next decade--and the US president ( 2008 ), Hillary "Thunder Thighs" Clinton--by now a divorcee--will have to send the survivors to Florida and recall ex-president George W. Bush from his presidential library ( built on confiscated Palestinian land ) in Jerusalem--their king!

"3,000 years and 150 nations and the Zionist Jew never finds room at the inn," and now they want to blame the Palestinians--and even TheAZCowBoy--for their eternal misery!

I just wonder who's going to pay for the Holocaust II memorials. Certainly the US taxpayer has had his fill of the killer Z/rats of Israel and the US Congressional AIPAC/ZOA "hotwired" harlots and poster boys will not be able to fool their constituents "all of the time," anymore!

TheAZCowBoy, :D

PS: We have a meeting with our local "Israel terrorism" supporters; Senator John McCain-R (AZ) and Jon Kyle-R (AZ) this next week. We are going to ask about Senator John McCain's $1,000,000.00 AIPAC sponsored weekend fund raiser in Phoenix, AZ. in February, 2003.

Jon Kyle, has been harder to corner: He "slithers" faster than an Arizona diamond Back snake, on a hot tin roof, making a bee-line, for his rodent lunch--and keeps "two"sets of books like Bill Cheney's old company, but we'll get the "Cabron," you just wait and see!

i feel despondant. all that formating for nothing? respond please.
save the prophecies for later

Originally posted by spookz
i feel despondant. all that formating for nothing? respond please.

Save the prophecies for later

It's 12:14 AM Folks.....( Do you know where your children are?" ).

TAC: Here's a blank sheet Spookz... you have 30 minutes, to, to , to, to, ZzZ-ZzZ-ZzZ-ZzZ-ZzZ-ZzZ-ZzZ, (((snore))) (((snore))) (((Burp))) (((fart))) ((( Oppps)))







[ post no nonsense]









Hasta la vista Baby!

TheAZCowBoy,

"Give me my boots and my saddle." (((strum))) (((strum))), whooppee! :eek: