Re: I was misled - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-03-2004, 04:25 PM

Andrew Muzi writes:

>>>> Torture = more heads cut off. That's happening right now.
>>>> Elsewhere in this thread J. Brandt talks of redressing grievances
>>>> as the only "cure" for terrorism. A point worth consideration;
>>>> what we are doing now doesn't seem to be working, does it?

>>> So let me get this straight... we take a position that we'll
>>> negotiate with any group that uses terrorism to overcome their
>>> lack of legitimate political power. Yeah, that'll work.

>> Who said anything about negotiating. The US has got to stop
>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>> existence as humans.

>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.

>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
> something less than condescension??

Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
interviews on NPR with such people.

> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
> by their own hands.

They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
listen to the interviews on NPR:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
here.

Jobst Brandt
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

07-05-2004, 10:17 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Andrew Muzi writes:
>
>>> Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

>>> The US has got to stop
>>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>>> existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

>>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.
>
>>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

>> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
>> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
>> something less than condescension??
>
>Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
>by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
>terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
>future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
>the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
>power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
>interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

>> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
>> by their own hands.
>
>They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
>large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
>subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
>listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a ****roach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

>The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
>That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
>July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
>what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
>here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-05-2004, 10:17 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Andrew Muzi writes:
>
>>> Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

>>> The US has got to stop
>>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>>> existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

>>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.
>
>>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

>> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
>> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
>> something less than condescension??
>
>Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
>by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
>terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
>future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
>the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
>power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
>interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

>> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
>> by their own hands.
>
>They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
>large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
>subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
>listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a ****roach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

>The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
>That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
>July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
>what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
>here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-05-2004, 10:17 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Andrew Muzi writes:
>
>>> Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

>>> The US has got to stop
>>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>>> existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

>>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.
>
>>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

>> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
>> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
>> something less than condescension??
>
>Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
>by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
>terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
>future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
>the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
>power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
>interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

>> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
>> by their own hands.
>
>They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
>large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
>subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
>listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a ****roach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

>The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
>That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
>July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
>what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
>here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-05-2004, 10:17 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Andrew Muzi writes:
>
>>> Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

>>> The US has got to stop
>>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>>> existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

>>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.
>
>>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

>> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
>> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
>> something less than condescension??
>
>Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
>by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
>terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
>future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
>the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
>power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
>interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

>> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
>> by their own hands.
>
>They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
>large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
>subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
>listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a ****roach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

>The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
>That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
>July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
>what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
>here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-05-2004, 10:17 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Andrew Muzi writes:
>
>>> Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

>>> The US has got to stop
>>> treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
>>> interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
>>> existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

>>>> Terrorist = ****roach. You don't negotiate with ****roaches.
>
>>> There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
>>> east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
>>> that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
>>> tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

>> You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
>> the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
>> something less than condescension??
>
>Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
>by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
>terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
>future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
>the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
>power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
>interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

>> They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
>> by their own hands.
>
>They are called ****roaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
>large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
>subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
>listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a ****roach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

>The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
>That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
>July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
>what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
>here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-05-2004, 03:03 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
> to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
> think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
> the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
> government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

07-05-2004, 03:03 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
> to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
> think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
> the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
> government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

07-05-2004, 03:03 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
> to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
> think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
> the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
> government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

07-05-2004, 03:03 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
> to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
> think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
> the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
> government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area