Re: [TSCM-L] {2817} Re: Definition of Honor
Gerard P. Keenan
16 E. Beech St.
Central Islip, NY 11722
(631) 582-1262 (ph)
(516) 768-9602 (mobile)
secu..._at_optonline.net
gke..._at_suffolk.lib.ny.us
www.ic-humint.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <..._at_geer.org>
To: <TSC..._at_googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:52 PM
Subject: [TSCM-L] {2812} Re: Definition of Honor
>
>
> > Dude, with all due respect o the military personnel because they are
> > just d=
> > oing their job, "serve and protect"? Serve who and protect
who from
> > whom? I=
> > m a little confused.
no doubt you are totally confused. That much is very evident from your
ramblings.
Do you mind clarifying? Protect the American public fr=
> > om the Iraqi public? Incase you failed grade 10 Geography, Iraq is
> > pretty f=
> > ar away from the US and lacks the resources to conduct any sort of
war
> > agai=
> > nst the US.
They do? And I suppose Iran also lacks the resources? As a state sponsor of
terrorism, they don't need to "launch an attack". they merely
have to send
their ignorant, religiously indoctrinated boneheads out to kill themselves
for 72 virgins (hell, I only found one virgin here on planet earth in my
entire life!!!) and take as many of the infidels (that's us, incase you
don't know anything about world religions - which your really unintelligent
ramblings prove) with them as possible.
Islam is an ideology - not a religion. It's a fascist idedology. Read Mein
Kampf and the Koran, as I have done, as well as the Hadiths of Mohammed.
then tell me Islamic countries are not a threat to this or any other western
nation - our way of life, our culture, our very values, religions and
beliefs.
And incase you're unintelligent, let me lay it out in simple te=
> > rms; You go to war when your country is threatened. No one is
attacking
> > you=
> > . So why is America at war?
No one is attacking us? Hmmmm...I guess the World Trade Center is just a
cartoon creation, then. If no one is attacking us, then who launched the
first attack on the WTC in 1993? Who bombed our embassies in East Africa in
1998? Who attacked the USS Cole in Aden in 2000? Who attacked the WTC in
2001 and the Pentagon? I suppose you believe we weren't attacked at Pearl
Harbor, too. What a brainiac.
Your President has ruined your economy just so =
> > he could fill his pockets with oil in the name of 'Weapons of
Mass
> > Destruct=
> > ion' - which I hope you already know was a LIE. A blatant,
baseless,
> > white =
> > LIE.
I will agree with one thing - Bush has brought the economy down. And I've
never been one of his biggest fans. But if this is a lie, then maybe you can
tell me where the Iraqi weapons grade nuclear materials came from that were
recently delivered to Canada for disposal? That was only last month. It was
shipped to Canada by the US military and Canada had agreed to dispose of
it - tons of it. The same type of shipments have been admitted received by
Syria as well. Explain that, Mr. Brainiac.
You really think a War based on a false pretense could have been in an=
> > y way in good faith? And is it really that hard to believe the
> > Government w=
> > as behind 9/11?
The government behind 9/11. Jesus - I'll bet you believe in the Easter
Bunny
and Santa Claus, too. I'm Irish, but even I don't believe in the little
people. They're myths, just like your conspiracy theory. Next you'l be
telling me that Pearl Harbor was also a USG cover up - that we did it
ourselves and somehow had a Janpanese two-man mini-sub that we sank with two
Japanese sailors aboard the day before the attack! Man, are lyou
delussional. What do you smoke, anyway? I gotta get me some of that. Must be
dynamite shit.
Wake up dude. Serve and protect who? No ones docking battle=
> > ships off the coast of Miami my unintelligent American friend.=20
You're quite right, no one is docking battleships off Miami, my
unitilligent
dumbo freind. One reason is because the world's last battle ship was
decommissioned in 1979. And prior to that, only the US had any battle ships
at all - all other countries decommissioned their battleships within a few
years of the end of WWII. Maybe it's you who ought to look up a; bit of
history and get your stories straight. Oh, and that last battleship was the
USS New Jersey - a friend of mine was serving on it at the time. But we do
know that Russian, Chinese and now even Iranian nuke subs are currently
patrolling off ALL the US coastline - east, west, and Gulf. Read something
other than the NY Times or the Dailly Mirror and you might actually learn a
few things.
I'm also a 20 year USN vet - and served on all six of the carriers that
took
part in Desert Storm, plus one cruiser. I also spent some time as a civilian
with Naval Intel after retiring. I know a bit more about what I'm talking
about than you do. But then again you obviously get your information from
the blatantly anti-American media whose reporters, if all put in one bowl
and mixed together - wouldn't be able to produce a single working brain
capable of the normal human ability to reason. They all buy into the liberal
BS which you have also obviously done. One of my sons lives in Britain, but
served in the US Navy. Two nephews served in the RAF in Iraq. A cousin
recently retired from the USAF. Another nephew served in the US Army. My two
daughters - one was dating an MP who served at Abu Ghraib, the other is
currently dating a Marine whose unit is leaving for Afghan next month.
My wife is also a 21 year retired Navy vet. I think I know a little more
than you about this stuff. did you lose anyone on 9/11? I'm only a few
miles
from there - andmy wife and I lost alot of friends - so don't talk to me
about something you don't have any clue about. You certainly don't have
any
idea what you're talking about. You're aimless ramblings here have
shown me
that. You bought into the liberal rhetoric - I'll bet you even would vote
for Osama Obama. I recently accepted a volunteer status with the McCain
campaign. At least he'san American.
>
>
>
> It is about here that I remind you all that the
> US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and
> thus ask you if you have lately demanded that history
> books be rewrit so as to tell the truth, or, if
> symbology is what matters to you, if the stars
> and bars ought not be restored to the flags of
> several of these united-by-force states?
Again, what a dummy. No, thecivil War didn't have anything to do with
slavery. Tell me what it was all about then? Can't remember? It was about
State's rights. Why did it become a war against slavery? Why not ask the
British Goverment? It became a war against slavery when Britain let it be
known she was going to invade the North from Canada (and already had troops
deployed there for this purpose) because they, and the rest of Europe,
needed the southern cotton so badly. Then Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation making it a war against slavery - an institution Britain
herself had outlawed decades earlier. what Lincoln did was to emasculate
theBritish intent and was then able to win the civil War.
United by force states? boy, you really are a typical uneducated liberal. If
that's so, then why didn't Britain take over the fledgling US in the
War of
1812? After all - weren't we also breakaway states of the Empire? Or is
that
little bit of fact, like all historical fact, not suited to liberal agendas?
>
> If you're not kidding about standing on principle,
> then you may be assured that neither am I.
yeah - principle. You know what they say - a little knowledge can be a
dangerous thing. and you've proven it. You don't have any clue at all
what
you're talking about, or the facts behind any of the garbage you're
spouting.
>
> --dan
>
> ==========
>
> The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is,
> further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of
> slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally,
> even if justice is on the side of the North, does it not remain a
> vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by
> force!
Jees, more liberal garbage. It wasNOT a tariff war - you seem to confuse the
Civil War with the Revolutions - ever hear of "No taxation without
representation"? That was a slogan that began the rounds in the 1760s -
between the French and Indian Wars and the Revolution. The CivilWar, once
again my uneducated friend, was about state's rights in the beginning. The
right of states to be, for practical purposes, independenbt countries unto
themselves. And so what's the big deal about the north subjugating 8mil
Anglo-Saxons by forces? Hell, wasn't the north itself completely
Anglo-Saxon? Or did I miss something - being born and raised in New Jersey
andall that and having studied the Civil War for nearly 40 years.
Would not separation of the South release the North from
> all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty
> million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto
> scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North
> welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule
> it by a bloody and futile civil war?
Boy, ignorance persoified. What you just said is that you approve of
slavery. Futile war? It's only futile when you're fighting for a losing
cause - and you lose. If memory serves - we didn't lose.
> -- Karl Marx, Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861
>
> The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous
> oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few
> poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached
> it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is
> poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.
Oh, here it comes - logic from a liberal. Well, who knows? Stranger things
have happend.
Think of the argument in it.
> Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply
> this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed
> their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government
> of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish
> from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.
> The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-
> determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right
> of their people to govern themselves.
That is true - I will admit that. But then again - what are your thoughts
about the IRA campaign for a United Ireland that's been going on nearly 800
years? Hmmmm? the Brits have no business being there - never did. They
conquered a fractured country. An Cromwell massac red the entire poplulation
of Drogheda in order to put down rebellion. It was he who ordered the murder
of children - with the words still famous today - nits breed lice. Wasn't
Ireland simply fighting for its right to exist and for the right to govern
themselves? After all, they were Irish - not British. And aren't they still
trying for that? Yeah, I know something about that, too - I was brought up
more Irish than Italian (my other half). But I also lived in Derry in
Northern Ireland for 5 years and have 3 kids there, another one buried
there, and two teenage grand children there. so I've got just a little bit
of knowledge about that situation, too. And yes, unlike Obama, I'm in
constant touch with my foreign family. All six of them (including my
son-in-law) were here for a visit last summer. And I have personal friends,
many of them retired American, who live in Derry to this day. And I'm still
in touch with them.
But again, if the Confederates were fighting for their right for
self-determinatioin, then why did they fight as one nation? And not the
individual states and the individual state's rights that they proclaimed
they were fighting for? Are you that simple that you really believe that,
had the south won, those states would really have had their "state's
rights?" They would have been the Confederate States of American and would
have been one nation - just like they are now - but under a different
government. Your education is seriously lacking. Like most liberals, you've
proven you can't think beyond what you're told to think.
> -- H.L. Mencken, Note on the Gettysburg Address
>
>
> >
>
>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>
--0-655613754-1218690315=:9351--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:16 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Sat Mar 02 2024 - 01:11:43 CST