New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Phat Bytestard on 31 Jul 2006 23:06 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:10:09 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >Eeyore wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> > Eeyore wrote: >> > > >> > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> > > >> > > > Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > > > > Hezbollah is a militia too of course too. You Americans should *support* it ! >> > > > > >> > > > > Graham >> > > > >> > > > More proof that you are insane. :( >> > > >> > > More proof that you're two-faced. >> > > >> > > If a well-regulated militia is good for America why shouldn't it be good elsewhere ? >> > > >> > > Graham >> > >> > You are insane. Period. No nation has to support the militia of any >> > other nation, or is that so complex that you can't understand it? >> >> America believes in the *principle* of an armed civil militia. What's so wrong with applying >> that principle elsewhere ? >> >> Graham > > > > Now you are changing the subject. Support implies providing arms, >food, fuel and other weapons. Yes. Our "civil militias" arm themselves with legal firearms, not military hardware. We also get no backing from other nations. (the mob doesn't count). Our militias are for protecting us from our own government. The ''militia" you speak of is not "civil", and IS 100% a terrorist, state sponsored organization. That does not even qualify as a "civil militia". That would be a structured, supported, fed, and armed militia with a political agenda not matching that of the body of people the militia resides in proximity to.
From: John Larkin on 31 Jul 2006 23:10 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:05:14 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> You really are 100% clueless about armaments.It isn't a race. It is >> a protector. A defensive tool. > >What's defensive about bombing civilians ? Maybe American news isn't brave >enough to show the truth ? >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5232434.stm > >A human rights group says the Israeli air strike on Qana that killed 54 >civilians is a "war crime". > You can find "a human rights group" that will say anything you want to hear. Hamas uses civilians, schools, and UN posts as cover for rocket launchers, so that directed Israeli counterattacks cause civilian casualties. On the other hand, 100% of the essentially unguided Hamas rocket attacks are directed at Israeli civilians; 100% are terror attacks. Are the Hamas rockets war crimes? All Lebanon has to do is stop the rocket attacks and hand over the two soldiers. That's all. But Hamas/Iran cares less for the Lebanese civilian population than Israel does; after all, Iranians are Persians, and the Lebanese are merely Arabs. Israel officially regrets civilian casualties; Hamas regrets nothing. Hamas has about 10,000 Iranian rockets in southern Lebanon. If they are fired into Israeli cities at the current rate of about 100 a day, and Israel takes out unfired missiles at about the same rate, it will all be over in about 50 days. John
From: Phat Bytestard on 31 Jul 2006 23:08 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:19:51 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >You mean the USA would happily kill them otherwise ( making America troops war criminals >btw ) ? It is legal to execute war criminals, you retard.
From: Eeyore on 31 Jul 2006 23:08 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:52:54 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Human Rights Watch > > > >Graham > > Aha! A leftist weenie organization The way you dismiss the views of anyone not sharing your bigotry is telling. Graham
From: Eeyore on 31 Jul 2006 23:10
Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:55:34 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >There's more to being a man than testosterone and Rambo. > > > >Graham > > Well act like it, then! You could learn a lot from that priciple *yourself* ! Graham |