|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > August 2006 > Microsoft Israeli War Crimes Simulator
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Microsoft Israeli War Crimes Simulator
|
|
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| Play the part of a good, wholesome Jewish boy, as you deliver very live
ordnance onto the innocent civilians of Lebanon, from the comfort of
your F-16, in the hope that you might kill a terrorist.
Score extra points for killing whole families.
Accuse all those who criticise your actions of being anti-Semitic.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> Accuse all those who criticise your actions of being anti-Semitic.
Or save us the trouble by equating "Jew" and "Pro-Zionist Israeli"
without qualification.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Or save us the trouble by equating "Jew" and "Pro-Zionist Israeli"
> without qualification.
>
Oh dear, I'm gonna be in trouble when the neo-cons in this group wake up!
I'm sooo scared...no really...I am!
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
>
> Oh dear, I'm gonna be in trouble when the neo-cons in this group wake up!
>
> I'm sooo scared...no really...I am!
I can just see that you're the kind of guy who trembles a lot. That's
why you find it so easy to conjure up all sorts of imaginary monsters -
Jews who just go to war against arabs merely because Jews are
genocidal, against neo-cons, against jews and basically against
anything that you can't bring yourself to deal with. Those jews must
be pretty happy to know that you're not on their side.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B top-posted:
quote:
> The disproportionate response by the Israelis = war crimes.
Seeming that you put little value on Jewish or Israeli life, what would
you consider a proportionate response?
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B top-posted:
>
>
>
> Seeming that you put little value on Jewish or Israeli life, what would
> you consider a proportionate response?
>
Don't put words in my mouth. A proportionate response wouldn't be what's
going on at the moment.
Now they kill UN observers! Another war crime.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
Actually, words aren't really what you use - you're more of a
sound-bite type of guy.
quote:
> A proportionate response wouldn't be what's going on at the moment.
You mean one country going to defend itself against an enemy with no
compunction against using human shields while attacking the citizens of
that first country? You still haven't described what would be a
proportionate response, assuming that there's any virtue in one.
Ofcourse that sort of thinking eludes you - all you need is a soundbite
that doesn't tax your intelligence. But again, since you continue to
duck an issue you created by willfully refusing to describe what would
be a proportionate response, you deserve to have words put in your
mouth.
quote:
>
> Now they kill UN observers!
Ooooh, exclamation point. A bit premature isn't that? Right now, Who
just observe and rubberstamp the continued flow of arms by failing to
control it.
quote:
> Another war crime.
Hardly.
Putting aside the possibility that Israel had enough on its plate to
willfully direct some of its resources against a negligible contingent
of utterly useless UN obersvers, Isn't the UN under...ummm...accusation
of having on its payroll members of Hamas, an organization that is
openly at war with Israel. Sounds like the UN has some crimes of its
own to answer for. At this point, it's atleast a possibility that
Israel's strike against the UN was accidental.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, words aren't really what you use - you're more of a
> sound-bite type of guy.
>
>
>
>
> You mean one country going to defend itself against an enemy with no
> compunction against using human shields while attacking the citizens of
> that first country? You still haven't described what would be a
> proportionate response, assuming that there's any virtue in one.
> Ofcourse that sort of thinking eludes you - all you need is a soundbite
> that doesn't tax your intelligence. But again, since you continue to
> duck an issue you created by willfully refusing to describe what would
> be a proportionate response, you deserve to have words put in your
> mouth.
Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid groups have said the Israelis
are using too much force.
quote:
>
>
>
> Ooooh, exclamation point. A bit premature isn't that? Right now, Who
> just observe and rubberstamp the continued flow of arms by failing to
> control it.
No, not premature, as they have admitted it was their fire that did it.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> Hardly.
That's a bit premature isn't it?
quote:
>
> Putting aside the possibility that Israel had enough on its plate to
> willfully direct some of its resources against a negligible contingent
> of utterly useless UN obersvers, Isn't the UN under...ummm...accusation
> of having on its payroll members of Hamas, an organization that is
> openly at war with Israel. Sounds like the UN has some crimes of its
> own to answer for. At this point, it's atleast a possibility that
> Israel's strike against the UN was accidental.
And that it was deliberate.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| BTW, are you a Southern Baptist?
FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, words aren't really what you use - you're more of a
> sound-bite type of guy.
>
>
>
>
> You mean one country going to defend itself against an enemy with no
> compunction against using human shields while attacking the citizens of
> that first country? You still haven't described what would be a
> proportionate response, assuming that there's any virtue in one.
> Ofcourse that sort of thinking eludes you - all you need is a soundbite
> that doesn't tax your intelligence. But again, since you continue to
> duck an issue you created by willfully refusing to describe what would
> be a proportionate response, you deserve to have words put in your
> mouth.
>
>
>
> Ooooh, exclamation point. A bit premature isn't that? Right now, Who
> just observe and rubberstamp the continued flow of arms by failing to
> control it.
>
>
>
>
> Hardly.
>
> Putting aside the possibility that Israel had enough on its plate to
> willfully direct some of its resources against a negligible contingent
> of utterly useless UN obersvers, Isn't the UN under...ummm...accusation
> of having on its payroll members of Hamas, an organization that is
> openly at war with Israel. Sounds like the UN has some crimes of its
> own to answer for. At this point, it's atleast a possibility that
> Israel's strike against the UN was accidental.
>
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid groups have said the Israelis
> are using too much force.
Borrowed thoughts, borrowed ideas, and not well substantiated either.
So the question remains - what would be a satisfactory proportionate
response?
quote:
>
> No, not premature, as they have admitted it was their fire that did it.
But not that it was intentional. Or can we now indict the UN for all
those years in which their peacekeepers just happened to miss all the
weapons flooding into Lebanon? Or are those only imaginary rockets
being lobbed by Jez?
quote:
>
> That's a bit premature isn't it?
>
> And that it was deliberate.
So now you're definately blaming the Israelis for something that could
have happened rather than something that really did? You're accusing
the Israelis of committing war crimes when there's only an even chance
that they may have committed acts that constitute war crimes, is itself
an example of disproportionate justice.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B, grabbing for straws pondered and then top-posted:
quote:
> BTW, are you a Southern Baptist?
AAAAAH
Sorry, Trev B, but I'm nowhere near Dixieland and I haven't been Saved,
so I'm afraid you won't be going onto Final Jeopardy. Does it matter
who or what I am? Probably not in the least, which means that you'll
probably try and evade my previous responses to your posts and simply
look for other suspect classifications to identify me with.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| Ten times in six hours the UN observers told the Israelis that their
bombs were landing too close. In the end a precision guided bomb hit the
compound and destroyed it. BTW, the compound was marked 'UN' on all four
sides and flew the UN flag.
Maybe it was bloody revenge by Israel? If it was, it was a war crime.
FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Borrowed thoughts, borrowed ideas, and not well substantiated either.
> So the question remains - what would be a satisfactory proportionate
> response?
>
>
>
> But not that it was intentional. Or can we now indict the UN for all
> those years in which their peacekeepers just happened to miss all the
> weapons flooding into Lebanon? Or are those only imaginary rockets
> being lobbed by Jez?
>
>
>
> So now you're definately blaming the Israelis for something that could
> have happened rather than something that really did? You're accusing
> the Israelis of committing war crimes when there's only an even chance
> that they may have committed acts that constitute war crimes, is itself
> an example of disproportionate justice.
>
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B top-posted (again):
quote:
> Ten times in six hours the UN observers told the Israelis that their
> bombs were landing too close.
Of course, they dialed the Israeli help desk. Too bad it was probably
located in Bangalore. That's globalization for you.
More likely, the call was actually directed exact to the right person
at the right time. Unfortunately, given the past record of the UN, the
substance of a call claiming to be from UN Observers actually observing
weapons in Lebanon, the Israelis must have thought it was a prank.
Imagine that - UN Observers actually finding weapons in Lebanon.
quote:
> In the end a precision guided bomb hit the compound and destroyed it.
....after the Israelis claim to have misidentified it as a Hezbollah
outpost, given that even UN personnel had seen Hezbollah in the area,
and given that Hezbollah is above neither shielding themselves behind
non-combatants, nor masquerading as them. Again, your case for
intentional targeting is weak.
quote:
> BTW, the compound was marked 'UN' on all four
> sides and flew the UN flag.
....while the Hezbollah wear large triangular hats and redcoats, march
in straight line and can be trusted to charge in slow-moving columns
while shouting "God save King George!!!"
quote:
>
> Maybe it was bloody revenge by Israel?
As opposed to merely snotty revenge, or slightly less-than-melodrmatic
revenge.
quote:
> If it was, it was a war crime.
Umm, no. You see, revenge usually requires that the vindicator feel
himself wronged - there has to be something to make
the...uhh.rengeneator want to take revenge. You can't really have
revenge without a motive - and you haven't provided one. Much of your
unreasoned diatribe displays gaps like that - excessive use of the word
"if" coupled with laughably trite language suggesting that there is no
"if", merely an actuality you somply can't even establish. Oh that's
okay, I never thought you could - or you'd have by now demonstrated (in
your own words) what would be a proprotionate response by the IDF.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B top-posted (again):
>
>
>
> Of course, they dialed the Israeli help desk. Too bad it was probably
> located in Bangalore. That's globalization for you.
>
> More likely, the call was actually directed exact to the right person
> at the right time. Unfortunately, given the past record of the UN, the
> substance of a call claiming to be from UN Observers actually observing
> weapons in Lebanon, the Israelis must have thought it was a prank.
> Imagine that - UN Observers actually finding weapons in Lebanon.
You have no way of validating those remarks. "More likely" "must have
thought" you really are laughable.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> ...after the Israelis claim to have misidentified it as a Hezbollah
> outpost, given that even UN personnel had seen Hezbollah in the area,
> and given that Hezbollah is above neither shielding themselves behind
> non-combatants, nor masquerading as them. Again, your case for
> intentional targeting is weak.
It was flying a UN flag.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> ...while the Hezbollah wear large triangular hats and redcoats, march
> in straight line and can be trusted to charge in slow-moving columns
> while shouting "God save King George!!!"
Would explain why the UN have had trouble tracking them.
quote:
>
>
>
> As opposed to merely snotty revenge, or slightly less-than-melodrmatic
> revenge.
Yes, because blood was involved.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> Umm, no. You see, revenge usually requires that the vindicator feel
> himself wronged - there has to be something to make
> the...uhh.rengeneator want to take revenge. You can't really have
> revenge without a motive - and you haven't provided one. Much of your
> unreasoned diatribe displays gaps like that - excessive use of the word
> "if" coupled with laughably trite language suggesting that there is no
> "if", merely an actuality you somply can't even establish. Oh that's
> okay, I never thought you could - or you'd have by now demonstrated (in
> your own words) what would be a proprotionate response by the IDF.
You provided the motive:
"Or can we now indict the UN for all
those years in which their peacekeepers just happened to miss all the
weapons flooding into Lebanon? Or are those only imaginary rockets
being lobbed by Jez?"
quote:
>
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> You have no way of validating those remarks.
Quite true - these are all unsupported remarks hinting at
possibilities, pretty much what you've been dishing out here. Since
you kicked off this thread on a lame joke, you've ranted on about
holding Israel responsible for crimes that you're not even willing to
say that Israel has committed, all on remarks that not only have you
failed to validate, failed to show that they could be validated, but
have failed to show any interest in even trying to validate them.
quote:
> "More likely" "must have thought" you really are laughable.
Thanks, I'm here all week, don't forget to tip the busboy.
quote:
>
> It was flying a UN flag.
Unlike the Hezbollah flag which is black and has a skull and
cross-bones on it. Islamic militants are known to either hide behind
innocents, masquerade as civilians or surrendering soldiers or not show
themselves at all. We discussed this, or more likely, I offered this
and it just went right over your head.
quote:
>
> Would explain why the UN have had trouble tracking them.
As I recall, the UN had no trouble tracking them while the Israelis
were shooting at them. For the past 6 years, as long as their own
lives weren't at risk, Hezbollah was invisible as a military force.
Arms smuggling? Could be, maybe, I don't know, sounds like a good bet,
it's not in the cards.
Now the Israelis swarm into Lebanon and suddenly every UN observer has
the 50 mile stare.
quote:
>
> Yes, because blood was involved.
WTF?? You still haven't provided the motive. You can't have revenge
without a motive.
quote:
>
> You provided the motive:
>
> "Or can we now indict the UN for all
> those years in which their peacekeepers just happened to miss all the
> weapons flooding into Lebanon? Or are those only imaginary rockets
> being lobbed by Jez?"
Excep that while this is motivation for revenge, it's also a legitimate
basis for defense - by monopolizing the role of peacekeeper in the
region and then botching it to the advantage of Hezbollah, there's an
argument to be made that UN peacekeepers are essentially allied to
them. Ask any criminal lawyer to define and explain the term "Acting
in concert". You don't have to commit the overt act to be criminally
liable - merely act with the requsite mental state on behalf of
somebody who does. Think about the guys who act as look-outs on street
robberies or drive the getaway car or scout for cops during narcotics
sales on the street. See Trev, once you've got a legitimate motive,
there's no reason for limiting it as a motive for an unlawful
response. If you're willing to accept the UN as basically acting in
concert with Hezbollah against Israel, then the Israeli leadership has
in effect failed in its duty to safeguard its people by allowing them
to continue their protective actions on behalf of Hezbollah.
Unless you're willing to provide a motive for Israel that doesn't also
implicate their right to legitimate defense, I'd say the matter is
closed.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Quite true - these are all unsupported remarks hinting at
> possibilities, pretty much what you've been dishing out here. Since
> you kicked off this thread on a lame joke, you've ranted on about
> holding Israel responsible for crimes that you're not even willing to
> say that Israel has committed, all on remarks that not only have you
> failed to validate, failed to show that they could be validated, but
> have failed to show any interest in even trying to validate them.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, I'm here all week, don't forget to tip the busboy.
>
>
>
> Unlike the Hezbollah flag which is black and has a skull and
> cross-bones on it. Islamic militants are known to either hide behind
> innocents, masquerade as civilians or surrendering soldiers or not show
> themselves at all. We discussed this, or more likely, I offered this
> and it just went right over your head.
>
>
>
> As I recall, the UN had no trouble tracking them while the Israelis
> were shooting at them. For the past 6 years, as long as their own
> lives weren't at risk, Hezbollah was invisible as a military force.
> Arms smuggling? Could be, maybe, I don't know, sounds like a good bet,
> it's not in the cards.
>
> Now the Israelis swarm into Lebanon and suddenly every UN observer has
> the 50 mile stare.
>
>
>
> WTF?? You still haven't provided the motive. You can't have revenge
> without a motive.
>
>
>
> Excep that while this is motivation for revenge, it's also a legitimate
> basis for defense - by monopolizing the role of peacekeeper in the
> region and then botching it to the advantage of Hezbollah, there's an
> argument to be made that UN peacekeepers are essentially allied to
> them. Ask any criminal lawyer to define and explain the term "Acting
> in concert". You don't have to commit the overt act to be criminally
> liable - merely act with the requsite mental state on behalf of
> somebody who does. Think about the guys who act as look-outs on street
> robberies or drive the getaway car or scout for cops during narcotics
> sales on the street. See Trev, once you've got a legitimate motive,
> there's no reason for limiting it as a motive for an unlawful
> response. If you're willing to accept the UN as basically acting in
> concert with Hezbollah against Israel, then the Israeli leadership has
> in effect failed in its duty to safeguard its people by allowing them
> to continue their protective actions on behalf of Hezbollah.
>
> Unless you're willing to provide a motive for Israel that doesn't also
> implicate their right to legitimate defense, I'd say the matter is
> closed.
>
Closed like the coffins of the innocent children killed by Israeli
bombs. The Israelis will probably end up occupying southern Lebanon and
having to deal with an influx of insurgence. Hardly seem worth it for a
couple of careless soldiers.
| |
|
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
quote:
>
> Unlike the Hezbollah flag which is black and has a skull and
> cross-bones on it. Islamic militants are known to either hide behind
> innocents, masquerade as civilians or surrendering soldiers or not show
> themselves at all. We discussed this, or more likely, I offered this
> and it just went right over your head.
</kibitz on>
USS Liberty. Colors flying LOUD and PROUD, and there is no denying the
facts.
Thank God the butcher Sharon is no longer in charge but, what about
those he trained?
</kibitz off>
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
> Closed like the coffins of the innocent children killed by Israeli
> bombs.
LOL - do you write for soap operas by any chance?
quote:
> The Israelis will probably end up occupying southern Lebanon and
> having to deal with an influx of insurgence.
As opposed to a hail of missiles? I'd say it was worth it.
quote:
> Hardly seem worth it for a couple of careless soldiers.
I'd say it sweetens the deal for the Israelis. Speaking of an influx
of insurgence, have you any plans to travel to Israel and convey your
assessment of the worth of the "careless soldiers" to their families
and fellow countrymen? I was wondering if I had similar cavalier
feelings for the Lebanese caught in the crossfire and just so you know
- I do. The thing is, though, I had similar feelings before - I don't
believe that the Lebanese people themselves are any less victims of
this onslaught than those careless soldiers or those Israelis who were
too thoughtless to keep out of the way of those descending Katuysha
rockets. The problem is, I'm not sure how much the Lebanese care about
the Lebanese - here they are living in a country that just happens to
host Hezbollah a huge military/industrial society with ties to two
bellicose regional powers, and how do they handle that? It doesn't
appear that they've done anything - not even offer to mediate between
Israel and Hezbollah, to say nothing of even leaning on Hezbollah to at
least give up its rockets. As soon as the Lebanese start to care as
much about themselves as your trite, B-Movie sentiments aspire to, the
sooner they can rein in Hezbollah and finally bring an end to this war.
| |
|
| Class! Can you drop nuclear munitions to be sure you are wiping out entire
cities instead of just the odd family or two? Does this sim support dual
core, whereby one core looks after the flight stuff, but the other core
could be used to power an RTS, where you can build new cities on the site of
razed terrorist dens? The sooner those raghead gangsters are wiped out, the
better. Nuke 'em all I say- no loss. A-RAB MOFOS! If only the USA would
start pioneering hydrogen powered vehicles these tribal throwbacks in the
middle east would have no hold over the civilised western world. XXXX sake,
the damn muslims cant agree to disagree, their different sects slaughter
each other when there are no westerners to kill. These people are living
hundreds of years in the past. The laws of evolution should be helped along
here- evolve or become extinct. USA can help this become a reality! Is it in
the Koran that you should run about the place killing people because they
don't agree with your viewpoint?
| |
|
| re: A proportionate response wouldn't be what's
going on at the moment.
Are you a general with years of warfare experience? If not, STFU! A
proportionate response would be for Israel to call up all it's reserves and
launch a massive ground offensive. It isn't nice seeing pictures of the
Lebanese in the hospital with wounds, but when they get interviewed for the
TV they all sing the praises of hamas and hezbollah (sp?). The locals in the
Leb are as bad as sinn fein in northern ireland!
| |
|
| re: Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid groups have said the Israelis
are using too much force.
Yeah, and I'll wager that not one of those politicians can understand the
arab mindset- lying and murdering! The only thing them cunts understand is
brute forcee.
| |
|
| RE: Ten times in six hours the UN observers told the Israelis that their
bombs were landing too close.
Christ Almighty man! You have no clue of human nature or a battlefield!
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| me@theworld.universe (Carl) wrote:
quote:
> The only thing them cunts understand is brute forcee.
The same justification has been used for oppressing anyone we don't like
the look of for millennia. Congratulations on perpetuating the myth that
some people are different to you, and congratulations on doing your bit
to make sure the 21st century is probably even more bloody than the
worst in human history so far: the 20th.
There is scum floating in every human pond across the globe, as you so
eloquently prove. But we're all the same, no matter what Fox News might
say. All that changes is the throw of the cosmic dice which lands us in
one place or another.
Andrew McP
PS It's *those* cunts, not them. I hate sloppy racism.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Carl wrote:
quote:
> RE: Ten times in six hours the UN observers told the Israelis that their
> bombs were landing too close.
They also admitted that Hezbollah were in the area - presumably not
standing still, in the open, where UN observers could spot them for
Israeli artillery.
quote:
>
> Christ Almighty man! You have no clue of human nature or a battlefield!
I guess you must be that southern baptist that Trev B has been looking
for. Your answer is as much a faith-based initiative as this thread
has been forced to endure.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Carl wrote:
quote:
> re: Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid groups have said the Israelis
> are using too much force.
And your definition of a humanitarian group? Hezbollah can pretty much
fall into that category in that they also run numerous non-military
initiatives. The problem isn't that they're only facially a
humanitarian organization, only that they're a genuine humanitarian
organization with arbitrary guidelines as to when and to whom they will
become "in-humanitarian". As for more arguably humanitarian
organizations - if they had a way to bring an end to Hezbollah's
attacks against Israel and free the soldiers based on a disposition
that won't virtually urge Hezbollah to try again, I;d love to hear it,
and I'm sure the Israelis would to. I don't think anything needs to be
said about the genuine sincerity, objectivity or accuracy of "plenty of
politicians" (few of whom have been on the receiving end of a
Katyusha), so I can discard that entirely.
Onto this issue of "too much force", which I'm taking as a synonym for
"disproportionate force" - the questions are still unanswered, namely,
what would be proportionate force, and is there any genuine virtue
(military, political, legal or even humane) to the notion of
proportionate force at all?
As to the second question, I think the answer is pretty clear -
limiting one side to a response that is proportionate to the initial
action of the other side of a conflict is unwise militarily because it
arbitrarily allows the initial aggressor to monopolize the initiative
of the battle - allowing them to call the shots as it were, and it runs
counter to core values of battle which are to bring an end to it in the
shortest amount of time; it is politically problematic because it
limits the consequences the initial agressor must face to those that
can be anticipated as being proportionate to the initial action -
meaning that the initial agressor has no reason not to repeat the same
action again once it can assure itself that the goals at least match
the consequences that are proportionate to the initial action.
Politics, like war, work best when they are a means to an end, and not
when they hand one side a blank check to keep doing more of the same;
While there are laws against war that amounts to atrocity, I have yet
to see "too much force" as a criteria. Israel has, AFAIK, entered this
war making crystal clear what they wanted and what they would do until
those demands were met. Because those demands have not been met, nor
is there hint that Hezbollah would comply with any demands regardless
of the force used, there's a real case to be made for whether the force
is really all that disproprotionate - simply being force of a different
kind isn't enough to make the case for disproportionate force, or we'd
have to write off round-the-clock bombing of German and axis-backed
cities in WWII.
Lastly, for its immediate human costs, the Isreali onslaught is
arguably preferable - acquiescing to Hezbollah, as they did a few years
back, only encourages repeat performance and further conflicts. This
means we have the choice of a single war now with finite human costs,
or smaller and less devestating conflicts in a series of cycles that
may have no end (unless you factor in the availability of more
devestating weapons in future conflicts).
quote:
>
> Yeah, and I'll wager that not one of those politicians can understand the
> arab mindset- lying and murdering! The only thing them cunts understand is
> brute forcee.
Is that a slap at politicians, arabs or women?
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
Carl wrote:
quote:
> re: A proportionate response wouldn't be what's
> going on at the moment.
That's incredible, Carl - you're answer is useless, open ended,
cravenly evasive - and it's almost word-for-word the same thing that
TrevB said a few days ago, including that last part about "at the
moment", and the phrase "Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid
groups have said the Israelis are using too much force" which appear in
posts by the two of you. Ofcourse it matters little since you have
different names and different IP addresses, you and TrevB are obviously
two different people who need other people to tell them what to say,
and still can't do more than simply decry what other people are doing.
quote:
>
> Are you a general with years of warfare experience? If not, STFU!
Big mistake Trev...er...Carl. You ofcourse are a decorated vet with
years of experience in (to keep things proportionate) getting hammered
by Israeli bombs and/or Arab rockets, so the true answer should be "I
was there forceeeeing those cunts when you were playing Command &
Conquer". Simply crying "STFU" [sic] is simply uncivilized. Ofcourse
it's a well established rule of internet uncivil procedure that if
you're going to claim the moral high-ground based on your own
life-experiences, you better be prepared to demonstrate that you have
walked in the footsteps of those you're assailing - which means that
you and TrevB can get a room in Haifa (I'm sure rates must be
reeeeeally low by now) to get that warfare experience. As a side
point, Tre...Carl, there are probably many in this conflict on either
side who 1) have not yet been directly impacted by the war and 2) lack
that same experience - should they also shut...er...STFU?
Aand as for you Carl, what are your years of experience, I'm just
hankerin' to know.
quote:
> A proportionate response would be for Israel to call up all it's reserves and
> launch a massive ground offensive.
And the moral advantage of that is what? If you're the voice of
military expertise, the past century of warfare - with its myriad of
folly - suddenly becomes exceedingly logical.
quote:
> It isn't nice seeing pictures of the Lebanese in the hospital with wounds,
I'm sorry Carl, but my manifest inhumanity requires that I ignore
national origin or ethnic background when being downhearted by the site
of the wounded in hospitals.
quote:
> but when they get interviewed for the
> TV they all sing the praises of hamas and hezbollah (sp?).
Singing the praises of Britney Spears might be morally and politically
problematic and needlessly ironic, wouldn't you say?
Well, what would TrevB say?
quote:
> The locals in the Leb are as bad as sinn fein in northern ireland!
You mean a poltical organization that embraces armed struggle as a
means to end is on par with Hezbollah which embraces armed struggle for
its own sake? I think not. Many things are in dispute over Sinn Fein,
but they're a long ways off from Hezbollah.
| |
| Robert 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
"Trev B" <Trev@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2Nsxg.46672$1g.40247@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
quote:
> Play the part of a good, wholesome Jewish boy, as you deliver very live
> ordnance onto the innocent civilians of Lebanon, from the comfort of
> your F-16, in the hope that you might kill a terrorist.
>
> Score extra points for killing whole families.
>
> Accuse all those who criticise your actions of being anti-Semitic.
How many points do you get for shooting down one of the hundreds of
terrorist rockets flying into Israel?
Robert
| |
|
|
"Robert" <sabu77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cKdnX2sbN_kO1PZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Trev B" <Trev@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2Nsxg.46672$1g.40247@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> How many points do you get for shooting down one of the hundreds of
> terrorist rockets flying into Israel?
>
> Robert
>
This would be one of the rockets that "somehow" managed to be imported
into Hez's hands over the last six years, even though the UN was supposed to
be on the ground to prevent this......
XXXXing useless organization.
| |
|
| JP wrote:
quote:
>
>
> This would be one of the rockets that "somehow" managed to be imported
> into Hez's hands over the last six years, even though the UN was supposed to
> be on the ground to prevent this......
>
> XXXXing useless organization.
>
>
What I dont understand is the un being in Lebanon for
over thirty years. Just exactly what are they doing there
besides watch hezbollah attack Israel ?
What else I dont understand is how anti-semantic the
europeans are. I guess in a way I can understand it,
they were the one's that brought us the holocaust in the
first place.................
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
AM wrote:
quote:
> JP wrote:
>
> What I dont understand is the un being in Lebanon for
> over thirty years. Just exactly what are they doing there
> besides watch hezbollah attack Israel ?
While they're not doing any favors for anybody in the region, when it
comes to taking an active role, no force there can be stronger in
their resolve than the surrounding nations - including Israel, Syria &
nearby Iran. It may simply be impossible for them to even to
effectively monitor the flow of weapons into the area. OTOH I doubt
you can totally write off an organization that puts its own in harm's
way. If there were no observers at risk in the region, it would be
easy for the local population to dismiss UN platitudes. With its own
people on the ground, the UN has a more concrete stake in the stability
of the region - a sentiment it has squandered for other reasons.
quote:
>
> What else I dont understand is how anti-semantic the
> europeans are. I guess in a way I can understand it,
> they were the one's that brought us the holocaust in the
> first place.................
I don't really see this as a definate case of simple anti-semitism (if
that's what you meant). The Europeans didn't bring us the Holocaust,
and I'd be careful even expressing that sentiment since the Holocaust
made victims of many in the region, and who's to say that that doesn't
include some of today's policymakers? The issue is thorny, the
rhetoric seems incredibly tolerant of Israel (at least from the ruling
level) although that may have more to do with the fact that things are
going pretty badly for Israel. I think the implication is that Hez is
going to survive this, and as a result come out of this with a huge
moral, political and military victory.
| |
|
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1154447119.491922.163370@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> AM wrote:
imported[vbcol=seagreen]
supposed to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> While they're not doing any favors for anybody in the region, when it
> comes to taking an active role, no force there can be stronger in
> their resolve than the surrounding nations - including Israel, Syria &
> nearby Iran. It may simply be impossible for them to even to
> effectively monitor the flow of weapons into the area. OTOH I doubt
> you can totally write off an organization that puts its own in harm's
> way. If there were no observers at risk in the region, it would be
> easy for the local population to dismiss UN platitudes. With its own
> people on the ground, the UN has a more concrete stake in the stability
> of the region - a sentiment it has squandered for other reasons.
Hell, the UN shoulders a large part of the blame for the mess that the
MidEast is. For that matter, many hotspots in the world (i.e., North
Korea, etc.). They're entrenched policy of not solving *anything*, but just
getting all parties in a dispute to agree to a ceasefire just insures the
same flame will erupt x years down the road.
No country takes them, nor their oft repeated threats of <shudder>
sanctions seriously, (and in reality, why should they) whether they have
observers, etc. in a region or not.
| |
| Rockstar 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| JP wrote:
quote:
> This would be one of the rockets that "somehow" managed to be imported
> into Hez's hands over the last six years, even though the UN was supposed to
> be on the ground to prevent this......
>
> XXXXing useless organization.
So get off your high horse, get over and clear this mess up.
| |
| Rockstar 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| JP wrote:
quote:
> Hell, the UN shoulders a large part of the blame for the mess that the
> MidEast is.
This mess was there long before the UN came into being. So admit it, you
don't believe that the UN should exist and this situation conveniently
plays into your argument, because you missed "a large part of the blame"
for the root cause by a mile.
For that matter, many hotspots in the world (i.e., North
quote:
> Korea, etc.). They're entrenched policy of not solving *anything*, but just
> getting all parties in a dispute to agree to a ceasefire just insures the
> same flame will erupt x years down the road.
>
> No country takes them, nor their oft repeated threats of <shudder>
> sanctions seriously, (and in reality, why should they) whether they have
> observers, etc. in a region or not.
If you feel that strongly about it, go on over there and show 'em how
it's done JP.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
JP wrote:
quote:
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1154447119.491922.163370@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> imported
> supposed to
>
>
> Hell, the UN shoulders a large part of the blame for the mess that the
> MidEast is. For that matter, many hotspots in the world (i.e., North
> Korea, etc.). They're entrenched policy of not solving *anything*, but just
> getting all parties in a dispute to agree to a ceasefire just insures the
> same flame will erupt x years down the road.
You would suggest them simply taking over and imposing peace? Forcing
anybody to do something they don't want to do, though possible for
interim purposes, solves nothing and ensures that the underlying
hatreds will continue. We learnt that after the cold war. Who'd
thought that Serbs and Croats still hated each other? The only
solution - short of killing everybody - is one that the locals will
want to keep going.
quote:
>
> No country takes them, nor their oft repeated threats of <shudder>
> sanctions seriously,
Have you learned that from the inhabitants themselves?
| |
|
|
"Rockstar" <wwjd@heaven.net> wrote in message
news:lrOzg.5818$l7.2204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
quote:
> JP wrote:
>
>
> This mess was there long before the UN came into being. So admit it, you
> don't believe that the UN should exist and this situation conveniently
> plays into your argument, because you missed "a large part of the blame"
> for the root cause by a mile.
>
Of course it was. However, not nearly to the extent as it was once the UN
became involved, from immediately after WW2 to the present. So yes, once
again, they are responsible for "a large part of the blame". Note the word
"large" and how it differs from "all".
As to admitting I don't believe the UN should exist, lol, isn't it obvious
I feel that way ? Whew....
quote:
> For that matter, many hotspots in the world (i.e., North
just[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> If you feel that strongly about it, go on over there and show 'em how
> it's done JP.
Exactly whom would you like me to show exactly what to ?
| |
|
|
"Rockstar" <wwjd@heaven.net> wrote in message
news:OINzg.30839$Nt.25731@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
quote:
> JP wrote:
>
supposed to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So get off your high horse, get over and clear this mess up.
Oh, I think Israel will do that just fine, thanks. That is, assuming the
UN doesn't get involved again <wink>
| |
|
|
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1154467312.834722.186160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> JP wrote:
stability[vbcol=seagreen]
just[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You would suggest them simply taking over and imposing peace? Forcing
> anybody to do something they don't want to do, though possible for
> interim purposes, solves nothing and ensures that the underlying
> hatreds will continue. We learnt that after the cold war. Who'd
> thought that Serbs and Croats still hated each other? The only
> solution - short of killing everybody - is one that the locals will
> want to keep going.
No, actually, that's the problem; that's exactly what they've always done.
Force a peace settlement, as I said, that just smolders only to return
later. Usually in a more forceful manner.
Serbs/Croats still hating each other was hardly a secret. Only Tito's
rule kept it in check. As to the Balkans, anyone who believes that is over
for good, I gotta bridge to sell ya  Or the Hutus, etc.
quote:
>
> Have you learned that from the inhabitants themselves?
No, I've learned it from the lack of results. <wink> Facts speak loud and
clear. I.e, most recent example, Iran. Yeah, they're *really* worried
about the UN's actions/threats. <laughter>.
| |
| Rockstar 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| JP wrote:
quote:
> "Rockstar" <wwjd@heaven.net> wrote in message
> news:lrOzg.5818$l7.2204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Of course it was. However, not nearly to the extent as it was once the UN
> became involved, from immediately after WW2 to the present. So yes, once
> again, they are responsible for "a large part of the blame". Note the word
> "large" and how it differs from "all".
>
> As to admitting I don't believe the UN should exist, lol, isn't it obvious
> I feel that way ? Whew....
Personal feelings aside, history has a nasty way of repeating itself.
For example the League of Nations. Admittedly a different institution
but not far from the UN. Formed for all the right reasons which
ultimately failed. Now play that out with this situation and...well are
there any robotic oil refineries on line yet?
quote:
>
>
> just
> the
>
> Exactly whom would you like me to show exactly what to ?
Never mind...
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
|
JP wrote:
quote:
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1154467312.834722.186160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> stability
> just
> the
>
> No, actually, that's the problem; that's exactly what they've always done.
> Force a peace settlement, as I said, that just smolders only to return
> later. Usually in a more forceful manner.
I thought the problem was that they don't force a settlement - only a
ceasefire, and don't do much of anything else. The two things is
diffrent.
quote:
>
> Serbs/Croats still hating each other was hardly a secret. Only Tito's
> rule kept it in check.
The rule of force, which is not what the UN does. I just thought that
that was what you were advocating. I can see that that might be a
stretch - but what alternative are you proposing.
quote:
> As to the Balkans, anyone who believes that is over
> for good, I gotta bridge to sell ya Or the Hutus, etc.
Which nobody is suggesting. You said the UN does nothing - what should
they do and how could they pull it off?
quote:
>
>
>
> No, I've learned it from the lack of results. <wink> Facts speak loud and
> clear. I.e, most recent example, Iran. Yeah, they're *really* worried
> about the UN's actions/threats. <laughter>.
They're certainly not shaking in their boots that anybody's going to
take seriously our suggestion of WMD - not any more.
| |
|
| <snip>
quote:
> JP wrote:
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
North[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
insures[vbcol=seagreen]
done.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I thought the problem was that they don't force a settlement - only a
> ceasefire, and don't do much of anything else. The two things is
> diffrent.
Yep, they are different. And they have no business trying to do either.
quote:
>
> The rule of force, which is not what the UN does. I just thought that
> that was what you were advocating. I can see that that might be a
> stretch - but what alternative are you proposing.
Like it or not, any conflict needs a clear victor, and a clear loser. If
not, then said conflict will continue to erupt at various times, with the
end result, most likely being worse, in terms of lives lost, etc.
quote:
>
>
> Which nobody is suggesting. You said the UN does nothing - what should
> they do and how could they pull it off?
Simple. Go back (if they have to exist at all) to what their mandate
called for, and stay out of trying to dictate political/military/strategic
policy. Especially since history has shown time and again, that they are
unable and/or unwilling to enforce them, and end up making things usually
worse, instead of better.
quote:
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> They're certainly not shaking in their boots that anybody's going to
> take seriously our suggestion of WMD - not any more.
It's hardly *our* suggestion.
| |
|
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> If there were no observers at risk in the region, it would be
> easy for the local population to dismiss UN platitudes.
But they do this already. And it is known that hezbollah
sets up right next to un compounds, knowing/hoping that they
wont get attacked. (besides using women and children as shields)
But make no mistake, none of the *rouge* states in
the world listen to the un, much less bother to honor any
peace accords, and or resolutions.
quote:
> I think the implication is that Hez is
> going to survive this, and as a result come out of this with a huge
> moral, political and military victory.
>
When a terrorist organization can throw rockets into the
cities of a democratically elected country, and the world just
sits by and does nothing, it's over already........
Western europe should be ashamed of themselves !
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
| |
| PAPADOC 2006-08-03, 3:49 am |
| hehe...Yea well Rocket boy we are all waiting to see how well you react to
Rockets coming down indiscriminately in your neighborhood.
Can't wait to hear about your response. Btw it is strange that we never hear any
wailing from your side of the moat about Israeli citizens who are killed by
indiscriminate rocket attacks.
Sandmonkey who is against the war being waged by Israel nevertheless had an
illuminating post regarding this. This blogger is in Egypt and has a "unique"
view of things.
PAPADOC
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/08/0...able-questions/
Some slightly uncomfortable questions
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a co-worker, on the concept of
the disporportinate Israeli attacks on Lebanon compared to Hezbollah attacks. He
pointed to me his dismay at Hezbollah's rockets ineffeciency at hitting targets.
He said "If you noticed, they bomb each other almost equally in amounts of
missiles shot, but 90% of Hezbollah's rockets miss or hit nothing, while all of
Israel's rockets hit something. If Hezbollah had better rockets, the civillian
death toll on the Israeli side would be huge, and they would be really hurting
by now."
Impressed by this point of view that I haven't considerd before, I asked him
what he would've thought, if a Hezbollah rocket had attacked a building in
Israel, killing 55 civillians, of which 30 were children. He responded
immeidtely "I would've thought it was great! A7san!".
So I repeated the same question to 8 other co-workers, and the responses so far
have been as follows: 7 said they would celebrate, and 2 said that such an
attack would've been bad, but justified! Yeah! Not a single person said that the
death of any civllian, on either side, is an equal tragedy. Civillians dead on
our side is tragic, civillian deaths on their side cause for celebration. And if
you think I am being unfair or demonizing arabs or whatever, do me a favor and
try it at your work place and/or with members of your family. Conduct this
little social experiment and see for yourself. The results are very
interesting.
This begs another question: If we were the ones who had the superior military
machine, would we have shown them any mercy, or any regard to their civillian
casualties? Would we have hesitated to wipe them all out? Armed forces,
civillians, whatever? Would any of us have felt bad about it at all? Or would we
be filled with the feelings of Pride, honor and dignity that we keep talking
about day and night?
I am just wondering!
What do you think?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The disproportionate response by the Israelis = war crimes.
>
>FatKat wrote:
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
| |
| Surfer 2006-08-04, 7:42 pm |
| Describing that International Toastmasters Club as useless is giving it
WAY too much credit.
Useless infers no effect...I find the U.N. damaging to world affairs.
It offers a false sense of reality and has zero substance...just a smoke
screen.
It's time to for it to go.
-Surfer
In article <OINzg.30839$Nt.25731@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
wwjd@heaven.net says...
quote:
> JP wrote:
>
>
> So get off your high horse, get over and clear this mess up.
>
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2006-08-05, 7:38 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> Play the part of a good, wholesome Jewish boy, as you deliver very live
> ordnance onto the innocent civilians of Lebanon, from the comfort of
> your F-16, in the hope that you might kill a terrorist.
Gee, could this really be a flight sim? Or do I have a slight suspision
that a Really anti-semite is raising his ugly KKK head here?
A proven technique is to caste blame acusing another side of what they
did first= people who are capable of logical thought can easily see
thru and figure out what the truth is for themselves.
quote:
> Score extra points for killing whole families.
Bonus points for killing all terrorists in a SIX DAY WAR. Oh, that has
already been done.
quote:
> Accuse all those who criticise your actions of being anti-Semitic.
Since all people of the region are SEMETIC people that may not
accurately apply. Being anti semetic never bothered Nazis. Also a bsic
foundation for KKK, neo Nazis, skin heads, etc.
How about the winner of this "game" wins world peace for the nice
Jewish boys flying their very safe F16s- we here all know how safe they
really are.
How abut a nice game of playing GOD? You play it by saying ALL SHIT
ARAB .TERRORISTS ARE GONE AND GO DIRECTLY TO HELL. All those who
simpoathise with terrorists are turned to salt.
The "smart" bombs are so smart they only kill the bad guys and don't
harm ionocent civilians.
If I woke up and found myselft in the middle of a war zone my first
thought would be "feet, GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE !!!!"
We live in a stupid world with murderers and a silent majority who
allows them to do it.
Plenty of room left in HELL and there is a continual need for mor salt.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-06, 7:39 pm |
|
Stockman91790@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
> Gee, could this really be a flight sim? Or do I have a slight suspision
> that a Really anti-semite is raising his ugly KKK head here?
It's more like a rent-a-Klansman. There's probably a lot that could be
said against the Israeli response to Hezbollah, but our n00b OP wasn't
up to the job. I doubt he was up to the job of getting out of
middle-school, but that didn't stop him from kicking off the thread
with a lame joke.
To add insult to bad humor, the moron - now realizing that nobody
thinks he's as funny or as enlightened as he thought he was - decides
to get some support on usenet...by simply posting in under another
name. It's a strategy that wouldn't have aroused much suspicion had
the XXXXtard not posted a message essentially identical with his first
(down to similar choice of words). So, TrevB became Carl, and those
evil Zionists can go back to a life about as complicated as possible
under barrage of missiles.
quote:
> A proven technique is to caste blame acusing another side of what they
> did first= people who are capable of logical thought can easily see
> thru and figure out what the truth is for themselves.
Oh, I wouldn;t give that XXXXXXX credit. All he's proven is his own
ignorance.
quote:
>
>
> Bonus points for killing all terrorists in a SIX DAY WAR. Oh, that has
> already been done.
Well, to give the arabs credit, the 6 Day War was still one of
conventional forces facing each other. Ahhh, the good old days when
the arabs had the will and means to think they could win in a fair
fight.
| |
| Hawkeye 2006-08-06, 7:39 pm |
|
quote:
>Well, to give the arabs credit, the 6 Day War was still one of
>conventional forces facing each other. Ahhh, the good old days when
>the arabs had the will and means to think they could win in a fair
>fight.
How about 1948 when the arabs were licking their chops at the thought
of destroying Israel, and yet with all their might they got licked.
Then they tried it again in '67 and '72, hoping to wipe out the
stinking jews but losing both land and face instead. Now they cry
foul because the ones they tried to wipe off the face of the map won't
give back the land the arabs lost trying to wipe the Israeli's out!
It's laughable except that so many ignorants believe it's the arabs
that have been wronged. Oy Vey!
Hawkeye
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-06, 7:39 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Carl wrote:
>
>
>
> That's incredible, Carl - you're answer is useless, open ended,
> cravenly evasive - and it's almost word-for-word the same thing that
> TrevB said a few days ago, including that last part about "at the
> moment", and the phrase "Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid
> groups have said the Israelis are using too much force" which appear in
> posts by the two of you. Ofcourse it matters little since you have
> different names and different IP addresses, you and TrevB are obviously
> two different people who need other people to tell them what to say,
> and still can't do more than simply decry what other people are doing.
>
Actually, I Carl is posting in reference to what I'd typed. Ok, he
missed out using quotation marks, but it's not that difficult to follow
the thread.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-06, 11:40 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> I'll just stop you the and say i did not 'become Carl'. Have a little
> read of the headers (if you know how) then come back and eat your words.
Hi Trev...er..Carl who is not Trev. Hey is it me, or does that sound
like some native american tag - Carl who is not TrevB, or TrevB who
doth not be Carl. Really mystic.
Did somebody say headers? Ooooh, I almost took you seriously TrevB.
Hey, waitaminit - TrevB, weren't you one of the Spice Girls back in
1996? Yeah, TrevB, also known as Shit-for-brains-Spice. Getting back
to your query, TrevB, checking headers was one of the first ideas that
occurred to me after reading your...er...Carl's post. Which means that
it must have been the fifth thing to occur to you, but that doesn't
mean that it occurred to you before you posted. How hard can it be to
create a new tag, or borrow one from a friend - one of those buddies of
yours. I figure that if some greedy nigerians can come up with a
host intenet identities to cheat the rest of the world out of what they
earned, then why can;t an utter XXXXXXX like you and TreVB (whoops -
Carl!!) do the same? It makes sense since you both think alike and
talk alike - which is to say "not much" and "not worth shit"
respectively. In that vein, it's entirely possible that you and...the
other guy really are two guys who just happen to think identically
because neither of you are capable of individual reason.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-07, 2:38 am |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Trev...er..Carl who is not Trev. Hey is it me, or does that sound
> like some native american tag - Carl who is not TrevB, or TrevB who
> doth not be Carl. Really mystic.
>
> Did somebody say headers? Ooooh, I almost took you seriously TrevB.
> Hey, waitaminit - TrevB, weren't you one of the Spice Girls back in
> 1996? Yeah, TrevB, also known as Shit-for-brains-Spice. Getting back
> to your query, TrevB, checking headers was one of the first ideas that
> occurred to me after reading your...er...Carl's post. Which means that
> it must have been the fifth thing to occur to you, but that doesn't
> mean that it occurred to you before you posted. How hard can it be to
> create a new tag, or borrow one from a friend - one of those buddies of
> yours. I figure that if some greedy nigerians can come up with a
> host intenet identities to cheat the rest of the world out of what they
> earned, then why can;t an utter XXXXXXX like you and TreVB (whoops -
> Carl!!) do the same? It makes sense since you both think alike and
> talk alike - which is to say "not much" and "not worth shit"
> respectively. In that vein, it's entirely possible that you and...the
> other guy really are two guys who just happen to think identically
> because neither of you are capable of individual reason.
>
Why would I invent someone to disagree with me? You got confused and now
you have to reinvent the world as we know it to TRY and hide that fact.
Go back and READ Carl's posts, then come back and eat your words, you twat.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> Why would I invent someone to disagree with me?
Bevause he didn't disagree with you, you utter cretin. He echoed you
almost exactly. Apparentlly the only voices you could find in support
of you existed in your own head.
quote:
> You got confused and now
> you have to reinvent the world as we know it to TRY and hide that fact.
> Go back and READ Carl's posts, then come back and eat your words, you twat.
I leave eatying twat to you TrevB AKA Carl. As for your hollow
threats...well, what can we really say about hollow threats? You're a
gutless moron TrevB, borrowing ideas that are above you, alone
enraptured by your lowbrow wit. Why don't you track me down and make
me eat my words. Until then, we can keep this thread between the two
of us where you will remain my XXXXX until you can explain what
response ny Israel would be proportionate - the same question you have
gutlessly ducked since you kicked off this thread since late last month.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> Why would I invent someone to disagree with me? You got confused and now
> you have to reinvent the world as we know it to TRY and hide that fact.
> Go back and READ Carl's posts, then come back and eat your words, you twat.
Sorry, TrevB, I leave eating twat to the twat-eating mastyer who kicked
off this thread about two weeks ago with a stupid joke only he thought
was funny, about a mythical flight simulator invented by a guy with a
sense of the mideast that was een more mythic. You're a stupid cunt,
TrevB - you still haven't explained how Israel's response is
disproportionate or why that's wrong. Keep your threats to yourself -
or better yet, bring them to NYC, and you can lodge them to my face,
you worm.
| |
| Mitch_A 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
| Honestly he isnt worth any replies Fatkat. Filter the troll and be done.
At least until he decides to once again change is id as is par for his
course.
Mitch
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
| |
| Mitch_A 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
| She will never do that. Then we will all know she's a twelve yr old girl.
Mitch
"FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message > or better yet, bring them to
NYC, and you can lodge them to my face,
quote:
> you worm.
>
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Bevause he didn't disagree with you, you utter cretin. He echoed you
> almost exactly. Apparentlly the only voices you could find in support
> of you existed in your own head.
>
>
>
>
> I leave eatying twat to you TrevB AKA Carl. As for your hollow
> threats...well, what can we really say about hollow threats? You're a
> gutless moron TrevB, borrowing ideas that are above you, alone
> enraptured by your lowbrow wit. Why don't you track me down and make
> me eat my words. Until then, we can keep this thread between the two
> of us where you will remain my XXXXX until you can explain what
> response ny Israel would be proportionate - the same question you have
> gutlessly ducked since you kicked off this thread since late last month.
>
Where did Carl agree with me, do please quote, you XXXXwit!
In fact allow me to quote him:
In reply to TrevB, Carl wrote on the 07/28/2006 at 10:33:
"Christ Almighty man! You have no clue of human nature or a battlefield!"
07/28/2006 10:26, Carl wrote in reply to TrevB:
Are you a general with years of warfare experience? If not, STFU! A
proportionate response would be for Israel to call up all it's reserves
and launch a massive ground offensive. It isn't nice seeing pictures of
the Lebanese in the hospital with wounds, but when they get interviewed
for the TV they all sing the praises of hamas and hezbollah (sp?). The
locals in the Leb are as bad as sinn fein in northern ireland!
Later Carl wrote:
"Yeah, and I'll wager that not one of those politicians can understand
the arab mindset- lying and murdering! The only thing them cunts
understand is brute forcee"
So, FatCunt, where did Carl echo me almost exactly?
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry, TrevB, I leave eating twat to the twat-eating mastyer who kicked
> off this thread about two weeks ago with a stupid joke only he thought
> was funny, about a mythical flight simulator invented by a guy with a
> sense of the mideast that was een more mythic. You're a stupid cunt,
> TrevB - you still haven't explained how Israel's response is
> disproportionate or why that's wrong. Keep your threats to yourself -
> or better yet, bring them to NYC, and you can lodge them to my face,
> you worm.
>
I hope your kids die of cancer, you cock sucker!
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-07, 7:41 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Carl wrote:
>
>
>
> That's incredible, Carl - you're answer is useless, open ended,
> cravenly evasive - and it's almost word-for-word the same thing that
> TrevB said a few days ago, including that last part about "at the
> moment", and the phrase "Plenty of politicians and humanitarian aid
> groups have said the Israelis are using too much force" which appear in
> posts by the two of you. Ofcourse it matters little since you have
> different names and different IP addresses, you and TrevB are obviously
> two different people who need other people to tell them what to say,
> and still can't do more than simply decry what other people are doing.
__________________________________________________________________________
It's not 'almost word-for-word', it is word for word, because he is
trying to quote me, you cunt!
_________________________________________________________________________
quote:
>
>
> Big mistake Trev...er...Carl. You ofcourse are a decorated vet with
> years of experience in (to keep things proportionate) getting hammered
> by Israeli bombs and/or Arab rockets, so the true answer should be "I
> was there forceeeeing those cunts when you were playing Command &
> Conquer". Simply crying "STFU" [sic] is simply uncivilized. Ofcourse
> it's a well established rule of internet uncivil procedure that if
> you're going to claim the moral high-ground based on your own
> life-experiences, you better be prepared to demonstrate that you have
> walked in the footsteps of those you're assailing - which means that
> you and TrevB can get a room in Haifa (I'm sure rates must be
> reeeeeally low by now) to get that warfare experience. As a side
> point, Tre...Carl, there are probably many in this conflict on either
> side who 1) have not yet been directly impacted by the war and 2) lack
> that same experience - should they also shut...er...STFU?
__________________________________________________________________________
Carl is actually agreeing with you, FatKunt! If only you could XXXXing read!
__________________________________________________________________________
quote:
> Aand as for you Carl, what are your years of experience, I'm just
> hankerin' to know.
>
>
>
>
> And the moral advantage of that is what? If you're the voice of
> military expertise, the past century of warfare - with its myriad of
> folly - suddenly becomes exceedingly logical.
__________________________________________________________________
Now your back on track, FatKunt, as carl actually wrote this himself. as
you rightly point out he is talking bollox.
__________________________________________________________________
quote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm sorry Carl, but my manifest inhumanity requires that I ignore
> national origin or ethnic background when being downhearted by the site
> of the wounded in hospitals.
____________________________________________________________
There you go, FatKunt, we agree on something.
___________________________________________________________________
quote:
>
>
>
>
> Singing the praises of Britney Spears might be morally and politically
> problematic and needlessly ironic, wouldn't you say?
>
> Well, what would TrevB say?
__________________________________________________________________
I say Carl's a twat, just like you!
___________________________________________________________________
quote:
>
>
>
>
> You mean a poltical organization that embraces armed struggle as a
> means to end is on par with Hezbollah which embraces armed struggle for
> its own sake? I think not. Many things are in dispute over Sinn Fein,
> but they're a long ways off from Hezbollah.
________________________________________________________________________
They prolly are to an NYC Mick like you. Rinky dinky dink, we know where
you live!
| |
| R.D.S. 2006-08-08, 2:42 am |
| In article <2Nsxg.46672$1g.40247@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Trev@msn.com
says...
quote:
> Play the part of a good, wholesome Jewish boy, as you deliver very live
> ordnance onto the innocent civilians of Lebanon, from the comfort of
> your F-16, in the hope that you might kill a terrorist.
>
> Score extra points for killing whole families.
>
> Accuse all those who criticise your actions of being anti-Semitic.
>
Sounds like fun, is it out yet?................................
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-08, 2:42 am |
| R.D.S. wrote:
quote:
> In article <2Nsxg.46672$1g.40247@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Trev@msn.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
> Sounds like fun, is it out yet?................................
KatKnut's just reviewing V1.0.
| |
| Hawkeye 2006-08-10, 2:41 am |
|
quote:
>I hope your kids die of cancer, you cock sucker!
My, such wit! Ranks right up there with Mark Twain and Will Rogers!
You must be proud!
Haukeye
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-10, 7:47 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> I hope your kids die of cancer, you cock sucker!
Why thank you TrevB, for showing us all just what those Israelis are up
against. I'm so glad that a sadistic, spoiled XXXXing brat who wishes
cancer on children is the humane face of Hezbollah. So much for a
proprotionate response you yellow XXXXing pussy.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-10, 7:47 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> R.D.S. wrote:
>
> KatKnut's just reviewing V1.0.
Yes, and on review, I must say that your titties have gone pretty flat.
Are you not getting enough to eat these days?
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-10, 7:47 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Why thank you TrevB, for showing us all just what those Israelis are up
> against. I'm so glad that a sadistic, spoiled XXXXing brat who wishes
> cancer on children is the humane face of Hezbollah. So much for a
> proprotionate response you yellow XXXXing pussy.
>
It wasn't your children i had in mind, just the baby sheep you so
obviously abuse.
BTw, I'm still waiting for you to get your head around who Carl is.
When/if you can achieve that, we'll move on to what I think Israel
should have done.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-10, 7:47 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
TrevB, having ranted:[vbcol=seagreen]
Happily clarified thusly[vbcol=seagreen]
> It wasn't your children i had in mind, just the baby sheep you so
> obviously abuse.
My apologies, TrevB, I forgot that the words of a stupid candyass like
you have to be taken with a grain of salt.
quote:
>
> BTw, I'm still waiting for you to get your head around who Carl is.
BTW, TrevB, I'm still waiting for you to get around to explaining what
you mean by disproportionate force - and a cursory review of the thread
you kicked off shows which question is really older.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-16, 7:46 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Bevause he didn't disagree with you, you utter cretin. He echoed you
> almost exactly. Apparentlly the only voices you could find in support
> of you existed in your own head.
>
>
>
>
> I leave eatying twat to you TrevB AKA Carl. As for your hollow
> threats...well, what can we really say about hollow threats? You're a
> gutless moron TrevB, borrowing ideas that are above you, alone
> enraptured by your lowbrow wit. Why don't you track me down and make
> me eat my words. Until then, we can keep this thread between the two
> of us where you will remain my XXXXX until you can explain what
> response ny Israel would be proportionate - the same question you have
> gutlessly ducked since you kicked off this thread since late last month.
>
Carl isn't me, so eat your XXXXing words, boy!
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-17, 7:48 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
> Carl isn't me, so eat your XXXXing words, boy!
Slow on the uptake, aren't you TrevBunny - nobody but you have whined
about Carl for some time. But speed has never been your strongsuit.
Actually, any kind of strength seems pretty much anathema to you, or
for you, or...well.
Anyway, TrevvyBuns, getting back to what really matters, and you should
know since you kicked off this thread - just if Israel's response was
disproportionate, then what would a proportionate response have been?
Sound familiar? That's the question you have been ignoring for weeks,
TrevvyGirl. All that Carl-shit - what a XXXXX you've been, and how
convenient it's become for you to run all girly-like from the question
you raised. Well, Trev, you wanted to wake up some NeoCons, and maybe
I'm one of them, but you're still the XXXXX until you can answer you're
own question.
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-17, 7:48 pm |
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> Trev B wrote:
>
>
>
> Slow on the uptake, aren't you TrevBunny - nobody but you have whined
> about Carl for some time. But speed has never been your strongsuit.
> Actually, any kind of strength seems pretty much anathema to you, or
> for you, or...well.
>
> Anyway, TrevvyBuns, getting back to what really matters, and you should
> know since you kicked off this thread - just if Israel's response was
> disproportionate, then what would a proportionate response have been?
> Sound familiar? That's the question you have been ignoring for weeks,
> TrevvyGirl. All that Carl-shit - what a XXXXX you've been, and how
> convenient it's become for you to run all girly-like from the question
> you raised. Well, Trev, you wanted to wake up some NeoCons, and maybe
> I'm one of them, but you're still the XXXXX until you can answer you're
> own question.
>
The Iser's response did exactly stop the rockets from raining in did it,
boy? It DID act as a great recruiting sergeant, though.
| |
| FatKat 2006-08-17, 7:48 pm |
|
Trev B wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
> The Iser's response did exactly stop the rockets from raining in did it,
> boy?
"Isers"? What is that some new wannabe-intelligent backhanded slur?
Whoops, I forgot who...what I was dealing with. BTW candyass, while I
don't mind it, many others might take umbrage to your use of the word
"boy" to punch up your otherwise flaccid delivery, especially at the
end of a sentence.
Now to your question - again a rhetorical question because you haven't
the guts to take even a coherent position - it's possible to take
either side. On the one hand, the rocket-fire, while severe, remained
largely confined to the north. We have yet to see Hezbollah make good
on their threat to hit Tel Aviv. Also, putting aside what a XXXXwit
you really are, your new question pretty much confirms that your
original one was all bullshit. You started out yelling
"DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE!!! DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE!!!" which means
that Israel was going too far. Ironically, you now aknowledge the
possibility that they hadn't gone far enough. I know that thinking
isn't quite your strong suit, but even that inconsistency seems unusual
for you. I know that we're all only supposed to be using about %4 of
our brain, though it helps if (unlike you) the other 96% wasn't focused
on sucking Hezbollah cock.
So, to make it as easy as possible for a total retard like you or the
guy you'll need to have explain it all to you, there can be no answer
to your question until the overall missile-firing capacity of Hezbollah
has been established. If Hezbollah could have fired off more rockets,
then the Isreali's...whoops...Isers did a good job putting a dent in
that capacity. If we saw the total capacity of Hezbollah, then
obviously there's a stronger case for saying that Israel failed in that
respect. Until you establish what that capacity is instead of jumping
to conclusions, then that's probably all that can be said. I know how
difficult that must be since jumping, or in your case - bouncing and
groaning - is 2nd nature to you.
quote:
> It DID act as a great recruiting sergeant, though.
What's a recruiting sergeant? And how does a response "act"?
| |
|
| FatKat wrote:
quote:
> getting back to what really matters
"Huck Finn, do you mean to tell me you don't know what a crusade is?"
"No," says I, "I don't.
"A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."
"Which Holy Land?"
"Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."
"What do we want of it?"
"Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's
our duty to take it away from them."
"How did we come to let them git hold of it?"
"We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."
"Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"
"Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"
I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way.
I says:
"It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and
another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"
"Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn.
It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They
own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was
our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they
haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought
not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it
away from them."
"Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now,
if I had a farm and another person --"
"Don't I tell you it hasn't got anything to do with farming? Farming is
business, just common low-down business: that's all it is, it's all you
can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally
different."
"Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?"
"Certainly; it's always been considered so."
| |
| Trev B 2006-08-20, 7:43 pm |
| Huck wrote:
quote:
> FatKat wrote:
>
>
>
> "Huck Finn, do you mean to tell me you don't know what a crusade is?"
> "No," says I, "I don't.
> "A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."
> "Which Holy Land?"
> "Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."
> "What do we want of it?"
> "Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's
> our duty to take it away from them."
> "How did we come to let them git hold of it?"
> "We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."
> "Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"
> "Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"
> I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way.
> I says:
> "It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and
> another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"
> "Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn.
> It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They
> own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was
> our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they
> haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought
> not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it
> away from them."
> "Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now,
> if I had a farm and another person --"
> "Don't I tell you it hasn't got anything to do with farming? Farming is
> business, just common low-down business: that's all it is, it's all you
> can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally
> different."
> "Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?"
> "Certainly; it's always been considered so."
Exactly! XXXXing Isers should give it back!
|
| |
|
|