Re: OT: Physicians for a National Health Program

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmund Fitzgerald wrote:


> That's what makes this all the more remarkable.  You parrot her so
> accurately and so completely, but yet you claim no knowledge of her.  The
> two of you are two peas from the same pod.  Que the Twilight Zone theme.

Do-do-da-do...



>
> You don't have to have  pull with President Bush to claim he said something
> he didn't say.  Feel free to make stuff up.

Where did I "claim" that??  Now you're using "Bassisms" to "prove" your
argument.



> You seem to be the expert on all things Islamic here.

I've read the Quran.  I've read the Napco 9600 manual.  I guess that
makes me an "expert" on both.  :-)


> Plus you claim to
> have all those wonderful Muslim friends.

The people that I do know that profess the Muslim Faith *are*, indeed,
wonderful people.  There isn't a "Jihadist" among them.




>>> You claim to understand what you read so I suggest you reread what I
>>> wrote. No where did I write "war on terror".  What I wrote was that we
>>> are in a global war with Islamic Jidhadist. Terror is one of the tactics
>>> the Islamic Jidhadist use.  Do you understand the distinction Frank?

>> I understand that "Islamic Jihadists" don't wear a recognizable uniform.
>> Terrorists don't either.
>
>
> Unsure what point you are trying to make here.  If Islamic Jihadist use
> terrorism as a tactic, which seems to be the case much of the time,  then
> they would also be terrorists.

Which was precisely my "point".  Your "war on terror" has morphed into a
"war on Jihadists".  In order to actually *find* a terrorist/Jihadist
*before* they're able to perpetrate a criminal act however, means that
you'd have to know exactly who they are.  How do you propose we do this?
  What method should we use to distinguish a "good" Muslim from a "bad"
Muslim?  Or should we simply adapt another "catchy phrase" from our
"glorious" past:  "The only good Injun is a dead Injun."?


> It was an apt observation on your part that
> neither wear recognizable uniforms.

Heh...


>>>>> Islamic Jihadist, as you may have noticed, behead their captives,
>>>>> mutilate their bodies, and hang them up on public display.
>>>> Terrorists do that.  If you want to call them "Islamic Jihadists" then
>>>> by all means do so.
>>>
>>> They call people to join their Jihad.  Wouldn't it follow that they would
>>> be Jihadist?
>> OK...  What do we call people that support the killing of innocent Iraqi
>> citizens, then??
>
> Islamic Jihadist,  al-Qaeda, Iranian provocateurs and weapon suppliers,
> insurgents, etc., etc.
>
> Yeah I know you are thinking Americans, but that's another one of your
> Rosieisms.

I think more "Americans" have killed innocent Iraqi's than we know.



>>> Terrorist are those who attempt to use terrorism to accomplish their
>>> goals. Search and destroy is the basic remedy for terrorism. The vast
>>> majority of terrorist operations in the world today are Islamic Jihadist.
>> Uh... right...  Give every "redneck asshole" a gun and tell them to
>> "search and destroy"...  Let's eliminate the courts.  God fearing soldiers
>> will arrest, try, convict, and execute all terrorists.
>
>
>
> Are you calling American and British soldiers "red neck assholes"?

Are you kidding??  Have you seen some of the videos our "brave" troops
have uploaded to YouTube?  If the "shoe" fits.


>>> It doesn't take many Islamic Jihadist to kill thousands of people.
>>> Nineteen jihadist killed 3,000 +  on 9/11.   So what if they found our
>>> culture abhorrent?
>> And "nine" killed 150,000...  "Enola Gay"...  another ten killed
>> 225,000...  "Bock's Car"...  We can't call it "terrorism" though.  After
>> all it was a war against the "yellow terror", or was that the "yellow
>> peril"??  I can never remember which...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> You wanted Japan to win WW II?   Does your heart bleed for Hitler too?

Great.  Now you're "parroting" Bass' method of "argument".  Japan had
already lost.  We were bombing the heck out of their cities.  We'd
effectively stopped the flow of goods into the country.  They were "on
the mat" and "down for the count".  Truman's claim that dropping the
bombs "saved" countless American soldiers was pure hogwash.  They could
just as easily have convinced the Japanese to surrender by allowing them
to witness what happened at the Trinity test site (or some other remote
test site).  We wanted to "prove" the technology in a "battlefield"
environment.  If Hitler hadn't "done away" with himself, I have no doubt
what-so-ever that we would have dropped one on Berlin too.