BS: Burn Baby Burn

Subject: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:41 PM

A man set himself afire Monday just outside a White House gate and repeatedly yelled "Allah Allah"

Which one of you Anti-war Protesters wants to be next?

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:07 PM

Gee Burnie, you're a Classic Redneck at work, huh? What a second-rate un-American attitude. Lemme guess-- you think freedom of religion is only for those of the correct religion?

Go back to your dark rock.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:09 PM

So Anti-war protestation is a religion now? Figures.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: darkriver
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:12 PM

Burnie,

so you're saying that anyone who doesn't support a war ought to die?
No need to think about it, no need to have a thought, just shut up and fight, or otherwise kill yourself?

I'm fighting a war against stupidity, Burnie, and if you're not for it, go burn yourself.

doug

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:19 PM

Ain't that so clever; Burnie, talking about burning; get it? hahahahaha. Stupidist thing I've seen on the 'cat yet, and that's saying a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:20 PM

No point getting upset over stupid logic.

1) Man sets self afire for unknown reason.
2) He shouts "Allah. Allah."
3) Guest says "Which one of you Anti-war Protesters wants to be next?"

DOH!

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:21 PM

Pardon me for sayin', Guest Burnie, but you are one dumb fuck! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:23 PM

Brucie, what you just said was an insult to a good fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:24 PM

Brucie:

Keep your matches dry because that is the only way you are going to impress anybody.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:25 PM

Kiss kiss, Burnie.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: jacqui.c
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:33 PM

Burnie - Brucie has been impressing a lot of folk around here for a long time. He doesn't need your advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:33 PM

Hey, Burnie, I'm not tryin' to impress you or anyone else. Just that your logic made NO sense. I am sorry for calling you a dumb fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:34 PM

"Kiss kiss"? Brucie, are yu some kinda faggot? If so, yu better set fire to yerself, for the proteckshun of the americun instituchun of marrege.!

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:35 PM

It's just that the truth hurts Brucie..... he can't take it.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:35 PM

yeh, racist, flamer, dumb, but not..

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:40 PM

Personally, i don't see what's so impressive about setting oneself on fire. Neither do i see what's so impressive about making some tenuous link between someone setting themselves on fire and anti-war protestors, and then proceeding to flaunt that faulty logic...




Gee, i must be really hard to impress.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:19 PM

Gee, I seem to remember that the Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in Saigon toppled the Diem regime. Could it be that this dude -- who I suspect has a mental problem -- knows history and Burnie doesn't?

Also, the phrase "Burn, Baby, Burn" comes from the riots of the mid-60s. To use it in this way I find vaguely and, in some undefined manner, insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:28 PM

Burnie's first, last, and hopefully only thread on Mudcat. We can only hope.

I agree with Rapaire. "Burn, Baby, Burn" is not appropriate here.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 01:23 AM

Some right wing nutcase wants to burn my church with me in it, because he doesn't like what the Presbyterian church U.S.A. is doing. Last Sunday, the pastor read off a list of the nonperishable foods the Sunday school kids are collecting for needy families, then pointed out the best ways to exit the church in case of a fire. If someone DID burn the church, of course, those kids would burn too. But something tells me the bastard who made that threat doesn't care.
Was it you Burnie?

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:25 AM

My beef is with the people that want to protect the terrorists that want to kill any American they can regardless of age, race or sex.

I want them to get the anti-war protestors first.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:30 AM

No one here wants to protect terrorists, IMO.

I was, am and will be again an anti-war protest participant. I would have no qualms taking a clear shot at a terrorist. In your hatred, you have confused two things. I retract my apology. You are not a dumb fuck, but you ARE a stupid individual. Mommy should take you off the computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Mooh
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:46 AM

I've never been clear on how igniting oneself protests anything. It's at least maiming and at most suicidal, but doesn't relate to a cause that I can fathom. What good does a dead person serve if they could achieve more by being alive? And if they couldn't do more alive than dead, what makes them think that the white house cares what they do? (There is the argument also, that the white house is happy to see them burn.)

I am sorry for the individual who is misguided enough to sacrifice self for no effect, and I am sorry for their reasons, all of which will be forgotten in the big picture. Living protest works better.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:08 AM

Brucie:

Feel better now? You are so conflicted you need to blow off steam or you might explode.

You want terrorists shot but you don't want to wage war on them like they are waging on us.

Why don't they just have peaceful protests against Americans instead of war?

The reason is protests are held by idiots and get no results.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:14 AM

Burnie:

I think you are over-generalizing your impression of the enemy.

Let me remind you that Iraqis were not involved in killing Americans prior to the Buish invasion.

If your mindset is of the kind that calls them all ragheads, or some such, you need to go back to school, buddy.

There are enemies out there but you need to get clear where and who they are.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: pdq
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

"Burn Baby, Burn" and "Keep the Faith, Baby" are both catch phrases from Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. He was a US congressman from Harlem in the 50s thru 1972. Anybody who is offended by their use does not remember what a joke (=jerk) congressman Powell was.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

Such suicides have historical antecedents, and they have worked.

Within Celtic countries, and perhaps within the entire Indo-European spectrum of culture, fasting against a more powerful person was the ultimate in protest. Quite simply, you sat outside their dwelling and starved yourself until either you died or they rectified what you saw as an injustice against done to you. It was a form of cursing, and often the only such form of protest available to the weaker person. This being done by widows was thought to be particularily powerful.

I have noted the Buddhist monks in Saigon earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: sledge
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:17 AM

Burnie,

protests, peaceful ones at that effectively sank the Vietnam war, they also caused the collapse of most of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

Before you make any more fatuous statements go read some books, and not ones that you have to color in.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:20 AM

Would you have preferred it if he had blown himself up and taken a few civilians with him? I think he showed amazing restraint. Especially when you consider the fact that what the "terrorists" want is not to destroy this country (or any of the people in it), but just to get the US government and military the hell out of their countries. And this has always been the only thing they have wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: The Beast of Farlington
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:27 AM

Burnie

America is very fond of lecturing the world on how democratic she is, how she respects freedom of speech and human rights and how more of the world should share her values.

And then people like you go and undermine all that with your hate-fuelled intolerance of other views.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:40 PM

"You want terrorists shot but you don't want to wage war on them like they are waging on us."

You mentioned that I am conflicted. Bad English, but I understand what you are attempting to say. However, I seem not to be as conflicetd as you. You seem to have no name. How conflicted is THAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:05 PM

If your mindset is of the kind that calls them all ragheads

My mindset is that anybody that is beheading hostages or shooting at the Coalition and Iraqi forces NOW are terrorists.

It's not that difficult to figure out.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:12 PM

The view of just who is spreading terror depends on which side of the fence you're standing, nicht wahr?

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:50 PM

Maybe they're just people fed up with an army of occupation. That happens, Burnie. Some of what you've said I can agree with, but your initial post made you sound like some right-wing idiot using shit for brains. No civilized individual takes delight in someone setting himself afire.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:58 PM

"anybody that is beheading hostages or shooting at the Coalition and Iraqi forces NOW are terrorists"

How many people in Iraq were terrorists (by your definition) BEFORE the Bushite invasion? Just asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:58 PM

Well, cool, man. You got yourself a nice cut-and-dried war with the sides nicely laid out. No telling how they got there. But hey, when you're in a war, all that fancy analysis goes by the board anyway. God can sort it out afterwards.

You have any idea if they are all shooting at US troops for the same reasons? Or different reasons? How many?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:03 PM

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A man who set himself on fire outside the White House on Monday was a Yemeni federal informant on terrorism upset over how the FBI (news - web sites) had managed his case, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

"Mohamed Alanssi, who had recently discussed his work as an informant in interviews with The Washington Post, told the newspaper by faxed letter and telephone on Monday he intended to "burn my body at unexpected place," the newspaper reported. "


Yep. He's a Democrat

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Burnie
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:10 PM

CC: I wish he had blown himself up and taken some anti-war protesters with him.

Everybody claims the people responsible for 9/11 were in Afghanistan. There was no American presence in Afghanistan at the time of that terrorist attack. In fact America was being berated for getting out of Afghanistan after enabeling them to end the Soviet occupation.

Burnie

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM

"There was no American presence in Afghanistan at the time of that terrorist attack"

Wha? Did Americans attack the WTC, Pentagon and Shenksville? I missed sumthin in your 10:10.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Once Famous
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:19 PM

I wish they wouldn't have put out the fire.

Let Allah have him.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:21 PM

As a first-responder, that wouldn't be my call to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 12:50 AM

Burnie, you actually wish death upon people for practicing free speach in what is supposed to be the most freedom-loving country in the world? I think maybe you'd be happier in a dictatorship where they do kill people for having dissenting opinions.

Now on the subject of the people who attacked the US on 9/11, they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, where the US military does have bases, and where the US does indeed support a fairly brutal dictatorship. In fact, the US military presence in Saudi Arabia was given by Osama himself as one of the reasons for attacking the US.

And on the subject of Afghanistan, yes, the US did drop the ball in that country. They (we) used the Afgans as our proxy fighters against the Soviet Union, and the country was fairly well destroyed in the process. Then when we didn't need them any more, we just left them to rot, and didn't provide them with any assistance at all in getting their country rebuilt. The Taliban arose in the power vacuum that was left after we abandoned the Afghan people, and they provided the Afghans with the only stability they had for a while there. And for a while, the US even supported the Taliban because of that.

What was needed in Afghanistan in order to prevent the rise to power of a group like the Taliban would have been monetary assistance for the purpose of rebuilding the Afghan infrastructure. But the US didn't really want an independent Afghanistan that could make its own decisions, because the US wanted to use Afghanistan for an important oil pipeline, so the US allowed Afghanistan to fall ever deeper into chaos until the Taliban arose, and Osama Bin Laden with it. Remember, Osama was trained by the CIA. The US created Osama Bin Laden as well as the Taliban through its direct actions as well as it's criminal neglect of its allies.

You are a very ignorant and hateful person, Burnie.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 01:01 AM

Burnie, I think you should get right over there to Iraq and fight them there so you won't have to fight them here, Do what you believe in. What's holding you up?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM

Now here's a twist!

NEW YORK (AP) -- A man who set himself on fire in front of the White House this week was a key witness against a sheik accused of funneling millions of dollars to al-Qaida and the Palestinian Islamic group Hamas, defense lawyers said Tuesday.

Defense attorneys said Mohamed Alanssi is a confidential informant central to the prosecution of Sheik Ali Hassan al-Moayad, a leading member of an Islamic-oriented political party in Yemen who is awaiting trial in federal court in New York. He and his assistant allegedly conspired to provide material support to Osama bin Laden and the Hamas.

Alanssi sent suicide notes Monday morning to his FBI handler and a Washington Post reporter, complaining about his treatment by the government and threatening that he would burn himself in an "unexpected place."

Federal prosecutors and the FBI declined to comment on the case. But attorneys for al-Moayad and his co-defendant, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, said Tuesday they believe the government case was seriously weakened by the incident and Alanssi's suicide notes. The newspaper published Alanssi's letters on its Web site.

Alanssi, a 52-year-old Virginia resident, wrote to FBI agent Robert Fuller in New York complaining that the agent had ignored Alanssi's request to visit his ailing wife and family in Yemen. He threatened not to testify against al-Moayad as a result. He wrote the Post that he was afraid the government might jail and torture him if he stopped cooperating.

I've edited the forgoing, snipping out whole paragraphs, but it's from the Associated Press and I'm certain that you can find the whole article yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 03:49 PM

pdq - I was not offended by the use of the phrase but by the ridicule implied of the man who burned himself to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: GUEST,US
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 10:46 PM

CC:

You know about the guy that recently walked into a lion's cage and got attacked? He deserved it.

The people that protest a war and get attacked by the enemy deserve it.

The enemy is here in America. What happens if we are attacked?

Do you think it will be because of the war? No. It will be because of the anti-war protesters that encourage more attacks.

Let the protesters bear the brunt of the attacks.


Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: LadyJean
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:09 PM

I attend a liberal church that pushes pacifism. We also feed and shelter the homeless, tutor poor children, help families in distress.
Now I don't know quite how to break this to you Burnie, but a person who wants to burn down a building with children, and old people, and idealists, who would be reluctant to fight even if they were attacked, IS a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:13 PM

You're right, GUEST US. Absolutely. Just one tiny little thing standing in the way, and that's easily disposed of. I mean, hell, what good is the Constitution anyway? Every president since FDR has ignored parts of it that are inconvenient for them, like Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. And that little thing about freedom of speech and all, we don't need that, unless, of course, it's our opinions being shut up. There's that thing about the right to peaceably assemble -- I mean, that's bullshit on the face of it, so gun 'em down like the Redcoats did that snowy day in Boston or the National Guard at Kent State.











Jaysus, what an idiot! I went to war to protect people like this?

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:21 PM

Uncle Sam, if the terrorists just do what they do because they hate freedom and democracy, why aren't they attacking countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Canada, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Norway?

The reason is because those countries aren't fucking over other people's countries the way the US does.

It's not anti-war protesters who cause terrorism. What causes terrorism is when strong and powerful countries like the US use their strength and power to cause a tremendous amount of pain and suffering for the people in weak and powerless countries. And using an iron fist on the people who respond to tyranny with violence not only does not stop the problem, it actually makes the problem worse. So it's people like you who cause terrorism, and who feed it.

But still, even with that in mind, I'll not wish for your death.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 11:36 PM

You know about the guy that recently walked into a lion's cage and got attacked? He deserved it.

So with this logic, you have just justified every "terrorist" act that has been committed against coalition members in Iraq. The US military and coalition forces have entered a lion's cage in Iraq, and now they are being attacked for it.   And you are saying they deserve to be attacked. Looks like you think terrorism is a good thing after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Burn Baby Burn
From: Peace
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 10:30 AM

Guest, US: Logic ain't yer long suit.