From: Giftzwerg on
In article <eaadnR3yUI3IxDTXnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, weg9
@comcast.net says...

> >> Don't you know that the pilots who flew those planes into the twin towers
> >> went to flying school here in the US? - There was much talk at the time
> >> about how they never learned how to land the planes, but just studied how
> >> to
> >> take them off and/or fly them once in the air.....And why didn't the
> >> instructors inform the FBI of this.....
> >
> > Because the Clinton Justice Department would have promptly investigated
> > the instructors for violating the rights of Peaceful Muslims(TM)?
> >
> > Is this a trick question?
> >
> I am amazed that you didn't know about the pilot training the terrorists got
> here in the US. I will Google it for you when I get the chance, as long as
> you refuse to do it yourself......

Don't bother. It's irrelevant. This wasn't a case of the US government
having a hand in training *terrorists*, but an American flight school
doing exactly what it is that they do; accepting students paying for
flight training.

There's no shadowy conspiracy here, and no one - not the flight school
and certainly not the US government - had any idea that these were
"OBL's boys."

Even today, if a, say, Egyptian wants to come to Stanford and study,
say, microbiology ... do we turn him away on the assumption that he's a
budding practitioner of biological warfare?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Preventative care does save lives, but it costs more money, not less.
Nothing costs less than a dead patient. Don’t forget that. Ever."
- Stephen Greene
From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-10 12:33:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:200909100220406853-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-09-10 01:45:12 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>> <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

The
>>
>>> shah was not a, "ruthless dictator". My brother-in law knew him
>>> personally. He was a good leader, and would have been very beneficial
>>> to Iran had he not become sick.
>>
>> Apparently your brother-in-law never had the experience of having a
>> meaningful discussion with the Shah's Gestapo, the SAVAK. That secret
>> police group tortured and killed its way through all Iranian opposition
>> until the Iranian revolution started their own, following the example
>> of its predecessors.
>> Many of the Iranian refugees who were given sanctuary in the USA after
>> the revolution were former members of SAVAK and their families.
>>
>> Perhaps your brother-in-law should consider writing a play in the mold
>> of The Producers' "Springtime for Hitler" with particular regard to
>> that sweet caring soul, The Shah.
>> Ask him what he knows of SAVAK and the Shah.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>>
> Alas.....It is not to be. My Brother in law died over ten years ago. My
> sister also knew the Shah, however, and she is still alive, living in a
> retirement home in Phoenix. She was a civilian employee of the US Army,
> and her husband was a Colonel attached to Army intelligence. When
> Eisenhower became president, he escorted his son back home to
> Washington, DC. When the Shah of Iran became sick, he was with him when
> he came to the US. They liked the Shah.....I never knew him, so what
> else can I say?

I am sorry to hear that, and certainly I have no doubt The Shah was a
charming and likable individual when in the company of a representative
of the government which brought him to power. However I have heard the
said thing said about two men, The Shah and Tito, "He is an SOB, but he
is our SOB." His history in Iran belies his charm behind the throne,
and many were tortured, died and disappeared during his reign, during
which he maintained a strong Western friendly state in the Gulf.

As for Tito, none of those nationalist and religious factions dared
step out of line when he was in power. Without him Yugoslavia proved an
impossibility, and we reverted to the re-Balkanization of the Balkans.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message
news:h8ao030vcr(a)news1.newsguy.com...
> Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7grehtF2q9936U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Too bad we can't go back in time and refuse to help you fight Adolf
>>>>> in the 40's......
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that for you the fight is against Adolf and not
>>>> Nazism...
>>>>
>>>> Since you haven't a clue what "liberal" and "socialist" actually
>>>> mean and make up your own definitions all the time, I'll make up my
>>>> own definition of Nazi:
>>>> "Hate-filled, murderous, ideologically driven, nationalistic,
>>>> right-wing lunatics who believe they are racially and culturally
>>>> superior to other peoples and that the end justifies the means".
>>>>
>>>> That definition, Bill Graham, fits you perfectly.
>>>
>>> Why were the Nazi's "right wing"? And, since they were racists, they
>>> have absolutely no connection with me. I am not, nor have I ever
>>> been a racist, in any sense of the word. I have always pointed out
>>> that my government, the US government is a racist government, and
>>> treats people differently depending on their race. They have been
>>> doing this all of my life, and they are still doing it.
>>
>>
>> Uh-huh.... And all your comments on Middle-Easterners and "Ragheads"?
>
> Hey, Islam is a choice . . .

That's right, and if they choose to kill me, why should I sympathize with
them? I do not believe that I will get into heaven by killing them.....I
don't believe there is any heaven at all. So their belief is totally
incompatible with my existence here on earth, but I could live next door to
them forever without any conflict were it not for their crazy beliefs. IOW,
the fault for the conflict is all theirs, and my hands are clean.

From: Bill Graham on

<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:h8b0h6$79d$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
I suggest everybody read the book

"LIBERAL FASCISM The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to
the Politics of Meaning.
By Jonah Goldberg."

I quote from a review in, of all places, the New York Times:

"�Liberal Fascism� is less an expos� of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to
exact political
revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from
the Sean Hannitys and
Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as
insults � no mean feat in the
nasty world of the culture wars."

The words "Liberal Fascism" in the title are, while in some extent
accurate, not reall what the book is about. It is about
the book's subtitle. And it really **is** "an expos� of left-wing hypocrisy"
and a good history of the word "fascism" and its relation to the
left.

It's also devastating, positively annihilating, to the far left.

Doug McDonal

My problem with books like this, is I don't need them. I am already
convinced. The ones who really need them are the liberals, and they refuse
to read them.

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-10 12:44:48 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009091002354847408-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-09-10 01:57:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:q6as4DLVbKqKFA0F(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <jsmdnaA0bb_FxDXXnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
>>>> <weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:GqSn8JV7V9pKFAYl@p
>>>>> haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> On the other hand.... who asked permission of the victims and families
>>>>>> of those in the pictures taken by US Military when they were torturing
>>>>>> Iraqi civilians.....
>>>>>
>>>>> What nonsense! Saddam Hussein was the one who, "tortured Iraqi
>>>>> civilians" and for thirty years, too.
>>>>
>>>> So all those pictures taken by and of US military torturing Iraqi
>>>> Civilians were fakes as was the trial of Sgt. English?
>>>>
>>> Oh....I get it......Ha!! You really call that, "torture" give me a
>>> break......Do you know where that term comes from? It is the same root
>>> as "torch"....You know, a stick with a burning flame at the end. When
>>> applied to the skin, it causes severe pain and burns.......Sometimes
>>> you guys are really funny......
>>
>> I thought you studied English in college.
>> Torture is derived from the French , torture and the Latin torquere
>> meaning "to twist." This was description of what the victim's body
>> would do, twist in agony.
>>
> Or "put to the torch",
Still wrong, just because you believe the spelling is similar does not
mean that is the origin of "torture!" You can't make up your own
definitions, check your dictionary.

"torture:
noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a
punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure
of the person inflicting the pain.
• great physical or mental suffering or anxiety : "the torture I've
gone through because of loving you so."
• a cause of such suffering or anxiety : "dances were absolute torture
because I was so small."
verb [ trans. ]
inflict severe pain on : "most of the victims had been brutally tortured."
• cause great mental suffering or anxiety to : "he was tortured by grief."
DERIVATIVES
torturer noun
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [distortion, twisting,] or a
physical disorder characterized by this): via French from late Latin
tortura 'twisting, torment,' from Latin torquere 'to twist.' "


> but no matter.....When did any American do that to any terrorist?

Well the Abu Ghraib stuff was sophomoric stupidity and could hardly be
called torture. However what was done in Guantanamo Bay and by proxy
with "extraordinary rendition" where prisoners were moved to countries
such as Uzbekistan for "interrogation by duress" was without doubt
torture as you would well understand it.

> That's the point......You like to get bogged down in meaningless
> details, don't you? I suppose it is your substitute for logic.

Not at all, I relish the details, the entire truth lies in the details,
I learned that during a long career as an investigator, particularly
when dealing with the prosecution of some unbelievably violent crimes.
My logic is based in reality. Though some of the things I have
witnessed defy logic.
You were a math major, mine was physics, with a whole bunch of
chemistry, anatomy and physiology thrown in. Law enforcement was not my
intended profession, but things led me that way and I found it
surprisingly satisfying expanding my knowledge base into subjects such
as Criminal Law, Court procedures and Forensics.
You question my logic because we reach different conclusions, and go
about using different sets of evidence to reach those conclusions ( I
do my best to interpret evidence clinically). We are also quite
different individuals and obviously have a different set of values, but
my logic is as sound as the next man's.


--
Regards,

Savageduck