BS: Book'em, Bush'o

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM

Checkin' my shoe,
Got nothin' to do,
Post 51,
Make the message thing blue!
Ooh, ooh.


I'm gettin' into rap. How am I doin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 03:20 PM

OK Peg, to put it in a simpler more direct way

1. Prior to 911 had there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks?

Yes there have been (WTC Bomb to name but one)

2. Subsequent to 911 have there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks?

No there has not. Have any been prevented? Yes - all well documented and reported.

3. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks of 911.

4. As far as has been reported NOBODY, be it individual or organisation, homegrown, or foreign, has claimed responsibility for the anthrax incidents. But, incidentally, one thing "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" did determine about those incidents was that they had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, and that they did report.

5. Measures taken to improve the level of security in the US? In addition to what has been discussed in this thread - Plenty.
- Tightening up of security worldwide, but with particular emphasis on airports and air travel.
- Increase in personal awareness through advice and those alert notices you so readily dismiss as "scare-mongering".
- Vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world.
- World-wide implementation of new IMO Code ISPS which checks cargoes, ports and shipping for all goods being shipped to US ports. For the vessels this code forms part of the ship's SOLAS certification, i.e. if it does not comply the ship is considered as unseaworthy.

6. As for, "if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous." What kind of fools logic is that? Believe me Peg, there will be further attempted terrorist attacks and inevitably some will be successful, but those carrying out those attacks will have had to work a damn sight harder in order to succeed because of the measures being put into place now. Following your apparent preferred course of action subsequent to 911 I can think of at least 15 aircraft that would have been shot down or blown up.

7. As for you not saying that the present conditions under which live being the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered. Please explain - Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM "I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort."

8. That you IYOP do not feel safer does not alter the reality that there are more measures, routines and practices in place, specifically geared for your protection from foreign attack than at anytime in the history of your country. They are not perfect, they are not ideal, they may very well be undesirable, but they are necessary, they are better than doing nothing and they are better than what was in place before - but most importantly they are not permanent.

9. Your economy is far from "tanking", at the moment it is one of the most vibrant on the world scene. As for the alert code system, well there is absolutely no way to win on that as if the general public are advised on changes in alert status the administration is guilty (in your eyes) of scare-mongering, and if they don't they are guilty of keeping the people in the dark and denying them a choice. I prefer that alert code changes are announced it allows people to make up their own minds and might just act as a deterrent.

10. Population of the USA, some 270-280 million people? How many, or what percentage of that number, have been arrested, detained and strip-searched without cause because of the application of additional powers under the banner of Homeland Security? How many suspects are pulled in by the police in the normal performance of their duty (i.e. no Homeland Security connection) and are subjected to the same sort of treatment? I believe that if compared the numbers would not have suddenly escalated dramatically. I believe that the numbers would have hardly altered at all.

11. The "fucking world" that I live in, to use your expression, is one that for the major part of the last thirty years has been subject to indiscriminate terrorist attacks funded and supported by the drunken plastic paddies, resident in your fair land, who all thought it was a bit of a joke - well they all know it's a bit different now. Welcome to the rest of the world.

12. Irrespective of how much you like to whine and bemoan your lot. The fact is that you are still fortunate enough to reside in a country that is a damn sight freer than a hell of a lot of places on this globe. If you doubt that then just compare your rights and freedoms (in a country under attack), to those of an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe (under Mugabe).

13. I "seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds." Where on earth do you get that idea from? Mind you it is a terrific example of a typical lefty-rant when all reason's lost - totally irrelevant and over dramatic.

14. Regarding those being held at Guantanamo. Their status is illegal combatants or something like that. Even had they been classified as POW's as required under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which they couldn't be, as the US did not declare war on Afghanistan, its Government, or its people. Those prisoners would not be subject, or entitled to any rights under the U.S. legal system; legal counsel; access to foreign embassies or consulates. They would be entitled to visits and access to the IRC/RC.

15. "All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty." That presumption applies to some codes relating to criminal law in some countries. As such, it has no bearing in this instance whatsoever. Those detained are part of an organisation who were indoctrinated and urged by their leaders to kill all Americans, irrespective of who, or what those Americans were. These detainees will be interrogated and examined until they have revealed all they know and released when considered no longer likely to be a threat. Current reports are that about 150, of the 660-odd are about to be released shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:47 PM

Peg, a suggestion: don't waste your time. This last one is real cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. Its tough to refute lunacy- "or something like that".

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peg
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 05:54 PM

Teribus, wishing to ask and answer all of his own questoons and thereby avoid having to consider the opinion of any other human being, wrote:

'OK Peg, to put it in a simpler more direct way

1. Prior to 911 had there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks?

Yes there have been (WTC Bomb to name but one)'
--that is NOT what I asked. I asked if there hadspecifically been any terroprist attacks in the *two and a quarter years prior* to 9-11. That is the same time period you asked me to abide by, and I did. Fair is fair.



"2. Subsequent to 911 have there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks?

No there has not. Have any been prevented? Yes - all well documented and reported."
--you continue to ignore the fine example I gave of the anthrax attacks.I maintain these are examples of terrorim. I don't know why you presume to try and twist my words to accomodate your rhetoric.


"3. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks of 911."
--yeah, and? When was this ever in question?


"4. As far as has been reported NOBODY, be it individual or organisation, homegrown, or foreign, has claimed responsibility for the anthrax incidents. But, incidentally, one thing "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" did determine about those incidents was that they had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, and that they did report."
--um, actually, PLENTY of people claimed responsibiity. So many, in fact, that it was impossible to sort out which confessions were erroneous ones.

You make me wish to laugh aloud when you say, first, no one has claimed responsibility for these attacks, and yet the gov'mint somehow still managed to PROVE there was no connection to Iraq or Hussein?

How can you say this without knowing who was responsible? how do you   know these attackes were not perpretarted by some person or persons living in the United States who claims sympathy with Hussein?
Answer: you don't.



"5. Measures taken to improve the level of security in the US? In addition to what has been discussed in this thread - Plenty.
- Tightening up of security worldwide, but with particular emphasis on airports and air travel."
--why do you feel the need to point this out/ it's painfully obvious.


"- Increase in personal awareness through advice and those alert notices you so readily dismiss as "scare-mongering".
--I still maintain these "alerts" are the very worst sort of fear-mongering; vague, objectless, hysterical and mysterious. "Just go about your routine but be aware the level of threat is very high." HUH???


"- Vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world."
--oh, yeah, I love the presence of a bunch of jack-booted thugs   armed with semi-automatic weapons in public places. I love knowing   that people can be detained randomly and indefinitely and with   no reason beig given or charge being brought against them. GOSH that makes me feel safe!


"- World-wide implementation of new IMO Code ISPS which checks cargoes, ports and shipping for all goods being shipped to US ports. For the vessels this code forms part of the ship's SOLAS certification, i.e. if it does not comply the ship is considered as unseaworthy."
--seems like a good idea. Why haven't they worked this hard to fight the dumbass and incompetent war on drugs which still allows tons of heroin and cocaine to slip undisturbed into this country's ports, year after year?



"6. As for, "if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous." What kind of fools logic is that?"
--you earlier made the point that the Homeland Security Office was SOLELY and DIRECTLY responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks on   U. S. soil (except for those people who died from the anthrax   terrorist acts) in the last two and a quarter years. So, you see, it's YOUR logic.


"Believe me Peg, there will be further attempted terrorist attacks and inevitably some will be successful, but those carrying out those attacks will have had to work a damn sight harder in order to succeed because of the measures being put into place now. Following your apparent preferred course of action subsequent to 911 I can think of at least 15 aircraft that would have been shot down or blown up."
--you do not state what my "preferred course of action" is, though; so what is it? I did not make any such statement, so it's shocking to me that you know what it is...
I do NOT agree it will be harder for these terrorists to attack; they will simply choose a different methodology: one that has not been thought through by the feds, one they have not prepared for.
An attempt to poison a municipal water supply, for example, would be laughably easy to carry out.
   

"7. As for you not saying that the present conditions under which live being the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered. Please explain - Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM "I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort."
--you will have to explain this better because you seem to have left out a necessary verb or pronoun or something.



"8. That you IYOP do not feel safer does not alter the reality that there are more measures, routines and practices in place, specifically geared for your protection from foreign attack than at anytime in the history of your country. They are not perfect, they are not ideal, they may very well be undesirable, but they are necessary, they are better than doing nothing and they are better than what was in place before - but most importantly they are not permanent."
--I do not agree. Simple as that. I do not believe them all   necessary, I find many of them highly undesirable, and I do NOT feel safer as a result.



"9. Your economy is far from "tanking", at the moment it is one of the most vibrant on the world scene."
--huh?
That is certainly news to me. I'd say we're vibrant compared to, say, Romania or Sierra Leone, but not compared to what we were several years ago. Before Bush.


"As for the alert code system, well there is absolutely no way to win on that as if the general public are advised on changes in alert status the administration is guilty (in your eyes) of scare-mongering, and if they don't they are guilty of keeping the people in the dark and denying them a choice. I prefer that alert code changes are announced it allows people to make up their own minds and might just act as a deterrent."
--ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?" NO ONE is listening to these warnings anymore. Except employeess who are ordered to comply with them.


"10. Population of the USA, some 270-280 million people? How many, or what percentage of that number, have been arrested, detained and strip-searched without cause because of the application of additional powers under the banner of Homeland Security?"
--somewhere in the hundreds to thousands. We don't know exactly because some of these people have not been allowed to contact their famiies or have access to lawyers. I have now pointed this out several times.
Just so ya know, I am NOT including those citizens detained during airport security checks for what later turned out to be erroneous reasons...or those whose privacy has been violated by inwarrananted prying into their electronic phone, financial or library records.


"How many suspects are pulled in by the police in the normal performance of their duty (i.e. no Homeland Security connection) and are subjected to the same sort of treatment? I believe that if compared the numbers would not have suddenly escalated dramatically. I believe that the numbers would have hardly altered at all."
--are you saying that the plain ole police have not been asked to be more vigilant in their "normal performance" since 9-11? Cuz if you are, you're ignorant, naive, or stupid, or you think I am.


"11. The "fucking world" that I live in, to use your expression, is one that for the major part of the last thirty years has been subject to indiscriminate terrorist attacks funded and supported by the drunken plastic paddies, resident in your fair land, who all thought it was a bit of a joke - well they all know it's a bit different now. Welcome to the rest of the world."
--huh?
I do not know what or who is referred by this term, "drunken plastic   paddies." Sounds like a derogatory slur against the Irish, which is not appreciated by anyone here, I can tell you that.


"12. Irrespective of how much you like to whine and bemoan your lot. The fact is that you are still fortunate enough to reside in a country that is a damn sight freer than a hell of a lot of places on this globe. If you doubt that then just compare your rights and freedoms (in a country under attack), to those of an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe (under Mugabe)"
--I am well aware of this comparison and have been for some time. I think it is hilarious the way militant types like you trot out this tired old chestnut. Why don't you just tell me "America: Love it or Leave it!"???
It is precisely BECAUSE I live in a country in which I am accustomed to such freedoms of expression and movement that I question and decry what my government is doing.
I'm surprised you haven't figured this one out.


"13. I "seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds." Where on earth do you get that idea from? Mind you it is a terrific example of a typical lefty-rant when all reason's lost - totally irrelevant and over dramatic."
--ah, yes, and your invoking life under Mugabe is NOT totally irrelevant and over (sic) dramatic? Give me a break.


"14. Regarding those being held at Guantanamo. Their status is illegal combatants or something like that."
--well, thanks so much for the exact description. I now see why you feel empowered to argue your points with such confidence.


"Even had they been classified as POW's as required under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which they couldn't be,
--why not? seems a bit too convenient, if you ask me.

"as the US did not declare war on Afghanistan, its Government, or its people."
--well, now, THAT's interestng. We sent troops there and bombed the living crap out of the place. That's not war??? It was a fucking invasion by a hostile nation towards a nation that had not only not made any hostile overture towards us, but a country that was at the time struggling to feed its own people. The fact that we did so without the legally-required participation of Congress does not mean it did not happen.


"Those prisoners would not be subject, or entitled to any rights under the U.S. legal system; legal counsel; access to foreign embassies or consulates. They would be entitled to visits and access to the IRC/RC."
--why not? If one sees the invasion of Afghanistan as an act of war, and I do, and so do millions of other Americans, these people are prisoners of war. And as such we are guilty of GROSS violation of several aricles of the Geneva Convention.


"15. "All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty." That presumption applies to some codes relating to criminal law in some countries. As such, it has no bearing in this instance whatsoever."
--I repeat: seems a tad too convenient to me. The horror that is war frequently relies upon arbitrary acts of inhuanity.


"Those detained are part of an organisation who were indoctrinated and urged by their leaders to kill all Americans, irrespective of who, or what those Americans were."
--oh, so NOW you're telling me you know for a FACT that ALL these people are members of Al Qaeda??? You are even more full of it than I thought.


"These detainees will be interrogated and examined until they have revealed all they know and released when considered no longer likely to be a threat. Current reports are that about 150, of the 660-odd are about to be released shortly."
--I maintain these people have been detained long enough without access to legal representation or contact with their families. I think it's OUTRAGEOUS that it has taken TWO YEARS for this first round of prisoners to be interrgated and released. This is not the America I am proud of. Not anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 06:31 PM

Teribus, you sound bitter and exude a typical patriarchal condescention. Still, if you'll get me an address I'd be happy to send you a Farmer's Almanac. Don't bother to dust it for prints, though...I'll wear gloves.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: mg
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 08:58 PM

I used to have real problems crossing into Canada..fit some profile...fuzzy haired old maid or something...

But I for one do not want to tell a planeload of people they can blow up in a ball of fire and pain so that I am not fingerprinted. Neither do I want to blow up so they don't have to be. And I would do every single person, not discriminate by country, age etc.   

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 09:37 PM

OK, OK, OK! I'm askin' a serious question here and no one is answering me. I will try AGAIN. What's more important? Bush, or an aspiring rap writer. Come on, where's the ol' pat on the back, the go get 'em "rap writer"?

Checkin' my shoe,
Got nothin' to do,
Post 51,
Make the message thing blue!
Ooh, ooh,
Woo, woo.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:03 PM

Great stuff, brucie...

I love ya but keep yer day job...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM

Thank you, Bobert. I owe ya.

Bruce M

PS When I make my first million from rap, I will cut you in for half.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 11:17 PM

Those of you who think that if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about should read this.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: LadyJean
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:52 AM

Many people lived in peace and contentment in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Many lived peacefully under Francisco Franco. That doesn't mean that hey were good men, or that what they did was right.
Hitler came to power because the Germans were afraid of Communists. When you consider Stalin's record you understand that their fears were well grounded. But the cure was as bad as the disease, in fact, it was no cure at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: sledge
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 02:00 AM

And how many more have been taken secretly in the same way as the man in the article highlighted, not something I would want to be done in my name. Some may try to say anything is justified, be careful, thats a two edged sword.

Peg, FYI, the "drunken plastic paddies." that Terribus was on about refer to the US citzens who knowingly donated money to the IRA in support of their campaign against the British. And as a Brit myself I know how he feels on that point, but I also now find myself quite resentful of the born again attitude comming from the US government that terrorism is now really bad, only it seems because the US suffered what has been the worst act of terrorism that I can think of.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 07:49 AM

"the worst act of terrorism that I can think of"

Worst? Where does the bombing of Cambodia fit in this hierarchy?

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: sledge
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 08:12 AM

I didn't realise I had to qualify my opinions against anyone else's.
If you wish why not start an atrocity list and we can vote on our personnal preferences, an obsenity top ten maybe.

Given the statement I made and the small amount of information contained in it, it seems obvious that I was referring to those small groups like the IRA, red army faction and Al Queda. But if you wish lets drag in any of our pet peeves.

Not happy with the plastic paddy reminder Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peg
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 10:26 AM

Thanks for the clarification sledge. But it's still a derogatory ethnic slur.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:11 PM

Your wriggling Peg

After the WTC bomb, your government of the time did not think fit to implement any special measures. After 911 your government did. The latter course was the more responsible course of action to take.

Your fine example of a terrorist attack, lacks credibility as a terrorist attack as no responsibility for it was announced which kind of defeats the object of making such an attack, i.e. to draw attention to a particular situation or grievance. All leads were investigated, and the possible involvement on the part of a foreign government was ruled out on available evidence by process of elimination. For arguements sake, should an individual do something out of sympathy for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, that does not implicate Iraq or Saddam Hussein in the incident. Your anthrax incident remains on the books as an unsolved criminal act - as a terrorist motive has not been established.

The changing of alert status, as someone else has pointed out directly affects those dealing hands on with security. Advising the general public about such changes, keeps them informed, allows them to exercise choice based on best information to hand, allows them to either cancel trips or makes them aware that, due to increased security checks they may have to turn up earlier than they otherwise would have done. I would call that responsible, not scare-mongering, not vague, not objectless and certainly not hysterical.

One result of the vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world was the prevention of the clandestine import to the USA of 30+ state of the art shoulder launched SAM's. Recommended use of same, from the supplier, was to mount a co-ordinated simultaneous attack against at least 15 civilian airliners at various locations in the US. Would you have felt safer if that supplier had not been caught?

Nice to hear you appreciate some of the steps your government has taken to combat the terrorist threat (IMO Code ISPS). It may well catch a few drug shipments - that would be a bonus a catch-crop. The reason it is part of SOLAS certification is because it affects safety of the ship. Method of implementation was through the IMO, the UN's watchdog for maritme concerns. The reason it could not have been done solely for drugs is because drugs carried onboard a ship do not affect that ships safety.

Going back to two of your earlier posts:

Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM

"I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort."

Then the following day

Peg 07 Jan 04 - 09:50 AM

"Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life."
--Hah! That's a larf.
I never said it was the worst example I knew of."

Please explain what is worse than worst?

On courses of action, I believe I actually said, "...your apparent preferred course of action" not, "...(your)preferred course of action" there is a difference. As you have done nothing bar complain about jackbooted nazi thugs, loss of your civil rights, etc, without putting forward one single proposal regarding a course of action subsequent to 911 (apart from discounting taking your class out for a drink, rejected because they happened to be under the age limit). Your APPARENT preferred course of action would appear to be to do nothing - Absolutely brilliant! the message sent to Al-Qaeda, "there you go boys, have a nice day, make sure y'all come back now, missin' you already".

You may well subjectively believe that things have not been made any harder for terrorists trying to attack targets in the USA. But objective analysis of the situation prior to 911 compared to the situation now would demonstrate that it is harder now than before because there are more safeguards in place. By the way, your example of a different methodology, "An attempt to poison a municipal water supply" a bit pointless, such an attempt would be detected almost instantly. Municipal water supplies are regarded as being essential and it has long been realised that they may be subject to accidental contamination. That being the case they are continuously sampled for any impurity.

Regarding the US economy, rate of growth four times higher than in any Euro-zone country and twice that of the major Far Eastern countries. At its highest level ever the Dow Jones stood at 11,700-odd points (1999), it is currently standing at 10,576. I'll stand by what I said regarding your statement about the US economy "tanking".

Numbers subjected to arrest, detention and strip-search are minute, there is no evidence that the powers given are being abused on any scale that could be cause for alarm. I say that realising that nothing in this world is perfect and that while mistakes, although regretable, may be inevitable, the over-riding consideration can only be founded on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. When I referred to police in the normal performance of their duty (no Homeland Security connection), I was specifically thinking about police work associated with drugs, theft, assault, burglary, etc, where I am sure that people brought in as suspects are subject to arrest, detention and strip-search who are completely innocent.

Sledge has correctly identified the group I refer to as drunken plastic paddies - "Irish Americans" who for years funded the terrorist activities of the IRA from the safety of bars in Boston, Chicago, etc, etc. If your sensitivities and those for whom you speak are offended by such a reference, then tough shit, that is what did happen, they did it for years knowing full well the damage they were causing, they suceeded in destroying the lives of thousands of innocent people, the majority of them real Irish men, women and children.

You brought up the subject of "police states". Your contention is that the current President and his administration, have subverted your democracy and assumed powers that rob you of your civil rights, turned the home of the free into a police state for their own ends in order to enrich themselves and their inner circle. I suggested that things are a long way off the state you describe. I also suggested President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as an example of exactly what you describe, so again I would suggest that you compare the conditions in the US for an opponent of the US government, to a member of the MDC in Zimbabwe then tell me who is better of ( or maybe that should be who's worst off, or worser than worst off).

The US did not declare war on Afghanistan, the US did not invade Afghanistan. The US did supply assistance (primarily air-power) to the Northern Alliance forces in their struggle against the Taleban. The Northern Alliance then suceeded in driving out the Taleban. No war, No invasion. In actual fact permission had to be sought from the Northern Alliance leaders to allow specialist troops in to secure the airport and make it safe for Hamid Karzai to return to the country.

On the Geneva Convention and the treatment of Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War need no recourse to any legal system or legal representation, because they will not be charged with anything, because they have committed no offence. What prisoners of war are entitled to is contact with the representatives of the International Red Cross or Red Crescent, who have access to prisoners of war in order to monitor the conditions under which the POW's are being treated and kept. As you say there was a war in Afghanistan, what army were these members part of? Where did Al-Qaeda fit into this army?

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 12:31 PM

So, like, uh, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peg
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 01:57 PM

Teribus,   you aren't worth the effort. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 03:56 PM

One goverment's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (General Washington & General Cornwallis, Stonewall Jackson & Sherman) just depends from whose shoes you're standing in at the moment or whose the victor & whose the loser. We're (the US) as guilty as any other nation for fighting against the freedoms of other people.


What pisses me off is that every one whose ever been sick or has treated the sick know that the best way to treat an illness it not to treat the symtoms

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM

Sorry, I hit the sumiy button by accident.

Anyway, the best way to treat an illness it not to treat the symtoms but to spend a little money, time & sweat to find out the root causes & treat those. I can't imagine that in all this no one in this administration bothers to investagate the why of it all (IMHO there's no one there that gives a shit as to the causes), & please don't spew the religious angle (as in Irland) or the extremist bull either.


We are no safer today than we were at the time of 9/11. As long as there exists a power that in subtle or definent ways oppresses or puts their thumb on the back of others there will be the threat of terror when they're on feet again & they feel like there back's against the wall. There's no way in hell we can win in Iraq/Viet Nam & absolutely no way we can wage a campain against terror. It would be easier tracking ghosts through heaven, hell & earth, the spirits
will just keep coming.


What might be our next great concern is home growing our own freedom fighters/terrorists. I would think that many of us can recall the milliant groups of the 60's. Some might of had legit reason & some might not have. The Black Panthers, the SDS, the Weathermen & a bunch more. Faar fetched, we seem to already be reliving part of that era. The Red Scare, the Cold War, J. Edgar Hoover's & the FBI's spy files on Americans, Joe MacCarthy's search for unamerican activities, instead of a civil rights issue (which has yet to be addressed) it's now human & constatutional rights issue. As in the 60's the issues are starting to get more exposure & are starting to pile up. It's beginning to look more & more like a powder keg waiting on a small spark.


Damn, I still haven't been able to find much on Bush's signing of the 2nd Patriot Act on Saturday (an unusual day for signing anything), the same day as Saddam was captured. Seems funny how finding Saddam rates complete coverage and an act that will effect every American is pushed to the back of the classified section. Next we'll find out what's being done to us by reading about it in the funnies. I guess this lends some ghostly truths to Bush's Shadow Government. Where's the debates these days or does every issue just get rammed down our throats & the throats of others around the world.


I find it incredable that the american public can't add beyond 1+1.
Is it that if a little bit of shit gets swallowed here & there & we're told that it's good for us & in our best interests that we can't tell by days end that we've been treated worst that the crapper
& that tomorrow we can gladly expect the whole crew to piss on us, have a good laugh for themselves & thank us all for being right there when we're needed.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Jan 04 - 11:54 PM

meanwhile, with all the focus on terrorism, war & security, the US economy is now in the red. see this article from the sydney morning herald today:

Global fears as US goes into the red; By Matt Wade; January 9, 2004; Sydney morning herald

The huge black hole in the US budget and the country's ballooning trade deficit are threatening to push up interest rates across the globe and destabilise the international economy, one of the world's most powerful financial institutions has warned. The budget deficit - which has swung from a healthy surplus in 2000 to a forecast blowout of more than $US400 billion ($521.2 billion) this year - was a "significant risk" for the rest of the world, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday.

"Sustained fiscal deficits lower national savings in the United States and will eventually raise real interest rates both in the United States and abroad," said Charles Collyns, deputy director of its western hemisphere department.

The fund said the US would soon have a foreign debt totalling 40 per cent of its gross domestic product - an "unprecedented level debt for a large industrialised country". This could trigger a "disorderly" plunge in the US dollar - and a corresponding jump in other currencies, including the Australian dollar - rocking the global financial system.

"The possible global risks of a disorderly exchange rate adjustment . . . cannot be ignored," the fund said. ..

The greenback has lost ground on global currency markets for 18 months, pushing the Australian dollar above US77 cents for the first time in 6 years this week. It finished yesterday just below its latest peak at US76.77 cents.

The IMF said the US Government must develop a credible five- to 10-year plan to balance its budget and warned this would mean spending cuts and tax rises. While US Government spending had provided valuable support to the weak global economy in recent years, the "large US fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world", it said.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 04 - 06:42 AM

Thanks for your last post of 08 Jan 04 - 01:57 PM, Peg:

"Teribus,   you aren't worth the effort. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge reality."

Your message, quoted above, coming as it does from a member of a coven, I take as a compliment. I had a great laugh from the last sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 01:37 AM

OK, everybody step away from the car!

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 06:17 AM

Paul O` Neill, a former Bush administrator, speaking on CBS gave a highly unflattering account of the President`s leadership.

O N`eill referred to Bush as, " like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" .

Who is this man Paul O`Neill, [Teribus and Sledge, he must be a plastic paddy] get him fingerprinted and sent off to that hell-hole, Bev and Gerry directed us to.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peg
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 08:37 AM

Oh, nice one, Teribus. Attacking someone's spiritual beliefs.
I take my spiritual practices very seriously. I am a professional writer and professor. Maybe I will corrupt all my students and the earth will be overrun with witches and then bigoted pathetic people like you will be running scared.

It's rabid Republican bullies like YOU that make ME laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 10:42 AM

Fine points, Barry.

No we are no safer now than just after 9/11 because like you say, we are treating symptoms.

Yes, the Bush asministration squandered an opportunity here. Rather than treat 9/11 as a serious crime, such as was done with the aielined that was blown up over Scotland by Lybians, this administartion forwarded a right wing foriegn policy option written in 1992.

Yeah, declaring a "War on Terrorism" was nothing more than a way of "framing" (PR) so that many right wing extremist policies could be pushed upon the world and American people under the guise of "War on Terrorism".

The poblem is that when Bush did that he was also forwarding this idea Of "Bring it on" to those criminals who have a beef with the US and it's allies. All this did was lengthen the recruiting lines for the bin Laden's of this world. Now we see these criminals have found Iraq to be a nice friendly little joint to mess with the US and they're doing a fine job of it. These folks wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for us.

And what really galls me is that Saddam was our guy and we could have had him jumping thru hoops if we had played him correctly. Embargos just strengthened his resolve to be a jerk.

Now lastly, back to the original thoughts on treating symptoms rather than causes. We, the US, *need* a Department of Peace and *need* to check the testesterone at the door. There are non-violent ways af bringing about change both domesticly and abroad. Until we start showing the world that we, the world's greatest military power, have the wisdom to know when to listen and solve problems without "shooting first" then the world will continue to be at war.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 08:44 PM

The War on Terrorism has the same problem as the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. How will we know when we've won (or lost)?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 09:39 PM

Bobert, yes indeed, we do still need that Dept. of Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 01:56 AM

What me - Republican!!!!

I'll have you know Peg, that I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, you can't get further from Republican than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Peg
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 11:37 AM

whatever; you're still an arrogant jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 03:29 PM

Well Peg there you have it, purely in your opinion, although having gone through our exchanges in this thread, I'd back my grip of reality way before yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 03:50 PM

Well, she's not completely alone, Teribus. I too am of the conviction that you tend to be a bit of a jerk at times. Well, so what? So do I, although on different occasions than you. I mean no real offense by it, and I mention it just in case you might want to review your approach.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM

Well thank God for that Amos - It would, after all, be down-right boring if we all agreed with each other all the time wouldn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 07:05 PM

I'm minded of a poem that goes something like this.

First, they arrested the Catholic (Hindu, Baptist etc.) and I did nothing because I am not Catholic.

Then they arrested the foreigner and I did nothing because I am not a foreigner.

Then they arrested the - American and still I did nothing because I am not a hyphenated American.

They are coming down my street and I note that there is no one left to stand for me.

My apologies to the poet who wrote this and to the poem. You get the gist of it though.


W.E.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 07:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 08:29 PM

Well, sniff, yeah... T is an arrogant jerk but, sniff, I likes him okay. Sure, he cheats in arguments by constantly shifting attention away from his boy, Bush, but hey, he's good at it... Kinda like a magician's slight of hand...

But, like I said, sniff, I likes T....

Sniff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 12:07 AM

If the far right who are manipulating your country and the rest of the world for their own personal gain had not acted the way they have over the decades there would be absolutely no need for these regulations. Your rulers have made their own bed so lie in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 10:57 AM

Aw Bobert I'm all choked up

Cheers pal.

Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 01:18 PM

Walking Eagle,

Then they came for me
is a thread about these lines, origins and variants, that have been started, not as poem, by Niemoeller. By now, these lines have a life of their own and get rewritten each year.

Wolfgang