NEC Show

*Ding*

<RANT>

And anyway, the Yanks have by now managed to kill lots more civilians in
Iraq than died in the twin towers [1] on 9/11/2001 [2]



[1] http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[2](I really wish people would stop referring to it as 11/9 or 9/11 like
it's point zero in history which lives with us year in year out. FFS
the septics would *love* to get us all to accept the notion of a
permanent war in the middle east. "It'll be 9/11 evryday until the last
terrorist is locked up without trial on an island belonging to people we
maintain sanctions against in defiance of the UN" Sheesh.

</RANT>

 

I do it under protest not to offend others.

No. That's wrong.

The USA had it coming, the people didn't; if it's possible to have a
distinction between the state and people. Many of those affected
weren't US residents anyway.

I mean, if you were caught up in one of the IRA bombs in the past would
you have felt that you had it coming when you're against the occupation
of Ulster?


You did mean to set followups to reeky, didn't you?

 

" "

 

See other post. The state had it coming, the people didn't.

I don't agree with des's point that it wouldn't have happened under Gore
but since Bush is arguably not really elected...

I think that it was a bit of a turning point though. It was the point
at which the US (started to) realise that their actions had
consequences. It'll take time for this to work itself through though.

If you want to fuel the rant, watch "Bowling for Columbine" since that's
got a really nice section showing US interference in politics, propping
up unsavory regimes etc. through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. It's
quite alarming to see it all down in one place like that.

 

spouted the following in

Fair enough. I understood Champs phrase to mean that their number was
up, not that they as individuals deserved what happened to them.

Indeed

The recent documentary about WAco ws illuminating too.

 

Phil Launchbury wrote

Missionary work?

 

Even I know better than to attempt the impossible..

Phil

 

Phil Launchbury wrote

Oh right. A test of your faith then?

 

It wasn't very clear I'll try to rework it...

Des had claimed that the attrocity (probably) wouldn't have occurred [1]
had Bush not been 'elected'. I don't accept this.

I've stated that the people didn't deserve what happened to them but the
state did. It could be argued that the state and the people are one
since the people elected the state.

In this case I don't believe it's the case because Bush probably wasn't
elected.

Missed that, Bill Hicks had strong feelings about that one.

 

spouted the following in

ISWYM now.
Mebbe they should 'do a Georgia' then [1] and reclaim democracy for the
people.
<snip>

[1] thats Georgia southern Russia, not Georgia USA

 

Me too, actually. This year I was in a one to one meeting with a chap
at a standards org I deal with, and 11am came and went without us even
noticing, so engrossed were we in discussing XForms

I know, I was "doing a Hog". I expected to net more than you -
perhaps I should have left the bait in the water a bit longer.

 

I was interviewing when there was the two minute silence after 911.
Arsehole from HR insisted on stopping for two minutes. Thing is... he
wasn't wearing a watch and his phone was switched off. He had relied on
a bell to signal the start.

Mischeviously I wondered how long it would go before he said
something... he managed about 3 minutes IIRC.

Maybe. Thing is it was quite a good one for you to use since I could
believe that you believed that the US did deserve 911.

 

you should have started huming the tune from the Dambusters.

 

There was also the Spanish-American War of 1898. The US claimed falsely
that the USS Maine had been mined in Havana Harbour, started a war against
Spain and snatched the Philippines and Cuba. Truth was, there was no mine
and a powder magazine probably exploded. They did the same in the Gulf of
Tonkin incident of 1964, falsely stating that their ships had been attacked
by North Vietnamese gunboats, which gave them the excuse to go to war.
Total bollocks again. That time, of course, they got their arses kicked!

What price 'weapons of mas destruction'.

 

Des Coughlan wrote

Course it fucking would.

These things aren't dreamt up on the spur of the moment, they are
planned for **** knows how long in advance.

They, whoever they are, had it all sussed out and in place before the
candidates were even announced.

It may well be that Bush affected the timing but it was going to happen
regardless.

 

Champ said:

I do - but only because my father died on the 11th November. I do it
for him, not for people I didn't know, who died fighting for what they
were told was right.

 

"Logorrhea" <> spouted the following in

Ask Donald Rumsfeld, he used to do a good deal on nerve agents for a Good
Customer[1] he lost recently, so you'd prolly get 'em cheap.

[1]Saddam Hussein

 

and there we have it in a nutshell. He hasn't been prescribed the drugs,
poor sod.

 

I don't happen to believe this.

Not because I don't believe the US would 'sacrifice' lives to achieve
strategic aims but because I don't believe that they'd have taken the
risk with their international relationships *with every country that had
citizens involved* (they wouldn't want a full-scale trade war for
example).

It's on an internet site so it must be right?

Not my style at all Des. I don't think I've ever called you a sick
****.

 

That's well out of the envelope. The 'Merkin state cannot be called evil in
context of the history of international behaviour and global governmental
standards. You may be suggesting that you don't like human nature?