Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. The man in question is fucked up in the head.

I doubt it. "Kerry was erratic.  He hardly ever did what he was supposed to do.  His command decisions put is in more peril than he should have.  But mostly he just ran.  When John Kerry look out the bow of the boat and he saw tracer fire coming after him, he’d turn and run.  that isn’t what he was supposed to do.  His job was to face into the fire, to quarter the boat so we could apply our twin .50-caliber machine guns on the enemy.  That was out job in the canal, to stand our ground and suppress the enemy fire.  All Kerry wanted to do was turn and ‘get out of dodge’ at the first sign of trouble. When he should have been fighting, calling in air support, he was hightaling it.  That’s always been my bone of contention with Kerry — his decision-making capabilities, that’s what takes him out of contention as far as I am concerned."  [Steve Gardner, Kerry's .50 gunner, "Unfit For Command," pp 72-73]

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. The man in question is fucked up in the head. I doubt it. "Kerry was erratic.  He hardly ever did what he was supposed to do.  His command decisions put is in more peril than he should have.  But mostly he just ran.  When John Kerry look out the bow of the boat and he saw tracer fire coming after him, he’d turn and run.  that isn’t what he was supposed to do.  His job was to face into the fire, to quarter the boat so we could apply our twin .50-caliber machine guns on the enemy.  That was out job in the canal, to stand our ground and suppress the enemy fire.  All Kerry wanted to do was turn and ‘get out of dodge’ at the first sign of trouble. When he should have been fighting, calling in air support, he was hightaling it.  That’s always been my bone of contention with Kerry — his decision-making capabilities, that’s what takes him out of contention as far as I am concerned."  [Steve Gardner, Kerry's .50 gunner, "Unfit For Command," pp 72-73]

The above excerpt from ‘Unfit For Command’ is contradicted by eyewitness William Rood. Read the following article for proof. peace brian –William Rood | I know Kerry critics’ story untrue Commentary: Here’s what I saw happen that disputed day in Vietnam WILLIAM B. ROOD Chicago Tribune There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969. One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other. For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of Swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn’t deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions. Many of us wanted to put it all behind us — the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry’s service — even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work. But Kerry’s critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they’re not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It’s gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there. Even though Kerry’s own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking us to go public. But what matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it. I was part of the operation that led to Kerry’s Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star. But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three Swift boats — including Kerry’s PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz’s PCF-43 — that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep. The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret. Ambushes were a virtual certainty and that day was no exception. The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did. We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats’ twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crew. The Viet Cong had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, the attackers were long gone. The first time we took fire Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half-dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes. Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz’s boat at the first site. Another ambush. Again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn’t fired as two men jumped up from spider holes. We called Droz’s boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a thatched hut, maybe 15 yards inland. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat’s leading petty officer with whom I’ve checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ. Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby. Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation. John O’Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry’s Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore. The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O’Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank. It was not the work of one attacker. Our initial reports of the day’s action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay. Then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three Swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers." Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry’s and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry’s inclination to be impulsive to a fault. Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers. It was also well within the aggressive tradition embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months earlier, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source at the mouth of the river a VC tax collector was operating upstream. Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several. Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other Swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into rivers. The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann’s congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique’s were encouraged. What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders. Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us. My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard." There’s at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It’s a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There’s no final authority on something that happened so long ago — not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there. But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they’re saying impugns others who are not … read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. The man in question is fucked up in the head. I doubt it. "Kerry was erratic.  He hardly ever did what he was supposed to do.  His command decisions put is in more peril than he should have.  But mostly he just ran.  When John Kerry look out the bow of the boat and he saw tracer fire coming after him, he’d turn and run.  that isn’t what he was supposed to do.  His job was to face into the fire, to quarter the boat so we could apply our twin .50-caliber machine guns on the enemy.  That was out job in the canal, to stand our ground and suppress the enemy fire.  All Kerry wanted to do was turn and ‘get out of dodge’ at the first sign of trouble. When he should have been fighting, calling in air support, he was hightaling it.  That’s always been my bone of contention with Kerry — his decision-making capabilities, that’s what takes him out of contention as far as I am concerned."  [Steve Gardner, Kerry's .50 gunner, "Unfit For Command," pp 72-73] The above excerpt from ‘Unfit For Command’ is contradicted by eyewitness William Rood. Read the following article for proof.

Wrong, stupid.

Response:

                   Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears. You have to wonder, though. Why is it that "conservativism" has somehow become synonymous with pro-military beliefs? Didn’t use to be that way.

Why is a guy who claimed to be "anti-war" and guilty of committing atrocities in 1971 now pretending to be a war hero in 2004?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river. Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. I’m more inclined to believe the person who responds to a lie by making his own statement and putting it in print to be scrutinized by others, than the one who feels compelled to use the courts to censor his detractors…

You misspelled ‘…his defamers.’  Hope this helps. — Don’t believe anything unless you have thought it through for yourself.                      (Anna Pell Wheeler, 1883-1966)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The man in question is fucked up in the head. "Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events." This should convince anybody with an ounce of common sense that the information that created the military records that the Washington Post unearthed came from Thurlow, not Kerry: "For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow’s boat" If you have ever heard Thurlow (as I have now on several occasions), his charges against Kerry are speculation, and fueled by great hostility.  Last night on "Hardball" was the best example of this to date.  If this was in a  court of law and Thurlow was on the stand, everything that he has to say about Kerry would be tossed out as speculative.  In case you hadn’t heard him, Thurlow has admitted his anger toward Kerry is about Kerry’s antiwar activism. The wounds of Viet Nam go very deep, and this attack on Kerry is a continuation of the conservatives’ frustration that has been festering since the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam.  Conservatives did not want the U.S. leaving Viet Nam, and once the war was over, liberals went about their lives.  Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears.

The funny thing is, that this "whistle blower" says his own medals are fraudulent, and it took him 30+ years to bring it to light. If he accepted a medal that he didn’t deserve, then that was dishonest at the time. so when is he lying, then or now? And if he was lying then, what credibility does he have now?

Response:

I don’t mind having the military go in to put down those who are engaged in massive crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing.

I mind. Who appointed us cop for the world? This job’s not paid very well, I might add. C//

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river. Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story.

I’m more inclined to believe the person who responds to a lie by making his own statement and putting it in print to be scrutinized by others, than the one who feels compelled to use the courts to censor his detractors…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. The man in question is fucked up in the head. "Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events." This should convince anybody with an ounce of common sense that the information that created the military records that the Washington Post unearthed came from Thurlow, not Kerry: "For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow’s boat" If you have ever heard Thurlow (as I have now on several occasions), his charges against Kerry are speculation, and fueled by great hostility.  Last night on "Hardball" was the best example of this to date.  If this was in a  court of law and Thurlow was on the stand, everything that he has to say about Kerry would be tossed out as speculative.  In case you hadn’t heard him, Thurlow has admitted his anger toward Kerry is about Kerry’s antiwar activism. The wounds of Viet Nam go very deep, and this attack on Kerry is a continuation of the conservatives’ frustration that has been festering since the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam.  Conservatives did not want the U.S. leaving Viet Nam, and once the war was over, liberals went about their lives.  Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears.

Response:

I don’t mind having the military go in to put down those who are engaged in massive crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing. I mind. Who appointed us cop for the world? This job’s not paid very well, I might add.

With great power comes great responsibilities. Who would you suggest handle such things? Or would you let them go unhandled?

Response:

This job’s not paid very well, I might add. With great power comes great responsibilities.

A sound bite is not a "good reason". Who would you suggest handle such things? Or would you let them go unhandled?

In the Eurpean venue, the EU. They’ve got the money now, and it’s well past time they’ve started keeping their own back yard clean. C//

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. I’m more inclined to believe the person who responds to a lie by making his own statement and putting it in print to be scrutinized by others, than the one who feels compelled to use the courts to censor his detractors… Unless it someone on your side, and then you’d call it libel like it is. It’s only "libel" if it’s false, bozo.

The statements presented so far are full of holes, inconsistencies,   and outright contradictions.  Is that what passes for ‘truth’ in your can’t-see-past-my-animus little world? BTW, do you think Kerry lied when he said that he committed war crimes?

You mean his saying that he and the other Swiftboat teams fired 50 cal rounds, that he found out later was technically in violation of the Geneova Convention?  Those war crimes? — Don’t believe anything unless you have thought it through for yourself.                      (Anna Pell Wheeler, 1883-1966)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. I’m more inclined to believe the person who responds to a lie by making his own statement and putting it in print to be scrutinized by others, than the one who feels compelled to use the courts to censor his detractors… Unless it someone on your side, and then you’d call it libel like it is.

It’s only "libel" if it’s false, bozo. BTW, do you think Kerry lied when he said that he committed war crimes?

Response:

I’d want to toss out some of the dishonesty and corruption of the party first as well, before I sign up.

*shrug* I view both the large parties as corrupt. C//

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star  was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described  the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and  automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river. Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. I’m more inclined to believe the person who responds to a lie by making his own statement and putting it in print to be scrutinized by others, than the one who feels compelled to use the courts to censor his detractors…

I’d be more inclined to believe the reports of the time than the memories of 35 years later. Memories change. Reports generally don’t.

Response:

                  Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears. You have to wonder, though. Why is it that "conservativism" has somehow become synonymous with pro-military beliefs? Didn’t use to be that way. I’m a small-government anti-interventionist, myself. If it weren’t for issues of religion and the military, I would otherwise likely be a republican.

I’d want to toss out some of the dishonesty and corruption of the party first as well, before I sign up.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The man in question is fucked up in the head. "Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events." This should convince anybody with an ounce of common sense that the information that created the military records that the Washington Post unearthed came from Thurlow, not Kerry: "For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow’s boat" If you have ever heard Thurlow (as I have now on several occasions), his charges against Kerry are speculation, and fueled by great hostility.  Last night on "Hardball" was the best example of this to date.  If this was in a  court of law and Thurlow was on the stand, everything that he has to say about Kerry would be tossed out as speculative.  In case you hadn’t heard him, Thurlow has admitted his anger toward Kerry is about Kerry’s antiwar activism. The wounds of Viet Nam go very deep, and this attack on Kerry is a continuation of the conservatives’ frustration that has been festering since the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam.  Conservatives did not want the U.S. leaving Viet Nam, and once the war was over, liberals went about their lives.  Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears. The funny thing is, that this "whistle blower" says his own medals are fraudulent, and it took him 30+ years to bring it to light. If he accepted a medal that he didn’t deserve, then that was dishonest at the time. so when is he lying, then or now? And if he was lying then, what credibility does he have now?

In one account (the Post article), Thurlow says that he lost the actual citation 20 years ago. In a second recent account, he sys the citation is in the possession of his ex-wife, to whom he longer speaks. Even _if_ the citation is no longer in his possession, didn’t he look at it when he initially received it?

Response:

Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004

Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river. To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day. I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day. It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day. I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew. After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry’s boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry’s boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry’s boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up. Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident-the latest one being that Kerry’s boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire. And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry’s boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention. These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. peace brian

Response:

Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question.

The man in question is fucked up in the head. "Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events." This should convince anybody with an ounce of common sense that the information that created the military records that the Washington Post unearthed came from Thurlow, not Kerry: "For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow’s boat" If you have ever heard Thurlow (as I have now on several occasions), his charges against Kerry are speculation, and fueled by great hostility.  Last night on "Hardball" was the best example of this to date.  If this was in a  court of law and Thurlow was on the stand, everything that he has to say about Kerry would be tossed out as speculative.  In case you hadn’t heard him, Thurlow has admitted his anger toward Kerry is about Kerry’s antiwar activism. The wounds of Viet Nam go very deep, and this attack on Kerry is a continuation of the conservatives’ frustration that has been festering since the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam.  Conservatives did not want the U.S. leaving Viet Nam, and once the war was over, liberals went about their lives.  Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                   Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears. You have to wonder, though. Why is it that "conservativism" has somehow become synonymous with pro-military beliefs? Didn’t use to be that way. I’m a small-government anti-interventionist, myself. If it weren’t for issues of religion and the military, I would otherwise likely be a republican. Me too! Well, I’m not exactly a "small-government anti-interventionist", I’m more of a appropriate-sized-government limited-interventionist.  I think government should be as small as it can be while discharging its duties. I don’t mind having the military go in to put down those who are engaged in massive crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing.  I certainly don’t mind a open exchange between equals.

   Here here!    I second that vote!   "That government is best, which governs the least,    because its people discipline themselves."     — Thomas Jefferson    "I contend that the strongest of all     governments is that which is most free."    – (September 27, 1829) President Harrison   "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." —(January 17, 1961) President Eisenhower.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 Contradicted byh the man in question. For Immediate Release August 19, 2004 Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry’s report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

   Dance, little gopher, dance.   "You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out,    you put your right foot in, and you shake it all all about…"    The GOP , the party of liars, and those that like being lied to.     "I am convinced the -my- report….taken from John….language..    which -falsely- describes.."    Uh… if it was -false-, why did -he- plagiarize it!      LOL!     "That’s how we do the Hokie Pokie!"    :D – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unless he can prove without a doubt that the language was taken from something Kerry himself wrote, which he can’t, one has to assume he’s lying to cover his own ass. End of story. peace brian

Response:

                   Conservatives have been positioning themselves, strangle-holding American foreign policy, seeing bogeymen everywhere, and CREATING their worst fears. You have to wonder, though. Why is it that "conservativism" has somehow become synonymous with pro-military beliefs? Didn’t use to be that way. I’m a small-government anti-interventionist, myself. If it weren’t for issues of religion and the military, I would otherwise likely be a republican.

Me too! Well, I’m not exactly a "small-government anti-interventionist", I’m more of a appropriate-sized-government limited-interventionist.  I think government should be as small as it can be while discharging its duties. I don’t mind having the military go in to put down those who are engaged in massive crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing.  I certainly don’t mind a open exchange between equals.

Response:

Military records counter a Kerry critic Fellow skipper’s citation refers to enemy fire By Michael Dobbs Updated: 11:12 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004 WASHINGTON – Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry’s most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events. In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that the Massachusetts Democrat’s boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day. But Thurlow’s military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While most would find this a form of bigotry, it is also a form of protection.  Historically when ever blood libels, persecutions, pogroms and slaughters of Jews were brought against Jews, wine and kosher foods where used as evidence of such. Lies where introduced that Jews would use the blood of Gentile babies for making there bread and wine sweeter.  Naive and ignorant people would believe the leaders of this rhetoric and it would in turn produce horrible results. While this particular law is not Torah or God Given, it is a good on.  We Jews who choose to live an Orthodox life, build fences so that we do not accidentally break one of God’s laws. It is in no way meant to belittle a non-Jew.  My Mother, Father, brother and others in my Family are non-Jews…I would do the same around them. It is nothing more. If God told you to do something would you do it.  How far would you go to make sure you did it right. Think about it.

In areas where Anti-Semitism was rampant, it was some protection from being poisoned by bigots, too. Jews were killed in pogroms, so there was reason to be very careful.

Response:

While most would find this a form of bigotry, it is also a form of protection.  Historically when ever blood libels, persecutions, pogroms and slaughters of Jews were brought against Jews, wine and kosher foods where used as evidence of such. Can’t accept the fact that Jews are bigots heh? Can’t accept the fact that your claims have been refuted once again, heh?

How did the person refute what I posted? He gave his opinion which in no way refuted the bigotry of Jewish teachings! <snip tavish garbage

Can’t refute the bigotry of those teachings can you? (Boiling Semen & Excrement)  S_0127       –Jewish Tradition will NEVER teach Non-Jews as being equals– Century Pharisees  V2.1b  S_0127 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b6beevshh8dcr43hk33rafn23fvo2… a "Brother" in Their Eyes!  V2.0 R_0827 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5f13i0bfp46nh… Lubavitch Cyberspace Website http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eaade4a.64590087%40tavish-ce… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eca1e34.54088216%40tavish-ce… Pre-Earthly Existence? R_0520 Concerning non-Jews (In Their Own Words Series)  V2.0  S_0114 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=6q6a00l6th5th925jsoker2al5ukl… (Classic Repost) New Links Added!  S_0114 Reside In! V3.0b  S_0110 LIVE WITH IT!! JEWS ARE RACISTS AND BIGOTS AS A WHOLE!!                                                                 Tavish         How First Century Christianity Was Treated by Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m1p5nv4es86j78p5dr5pe41l8pi3v… Research) V2.5  R_0925 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av6qpr9882esa9… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2jgq8d7orrpfh…      The first "Holocaust" was not Gentiles (Nazis) Against Jews        BUT was Jews (Communists) Against Christian Kulaks!!!            How Later Christianity was/is treated by Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa8sfa0qfboa6u… is NOT a Valid Comparison V2.5 R_0821    Jewish Led Bolsheviks Scalped & Crucified Christians by Philippa Fletcher http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=34c17d0f.1410012285%40news.sm… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=u626vv814v0dt9raqv17ede0h4536… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ncu5gvoc1nga0k933sgt0sbtglrv1… Holocausts Jews have waged against non-Jews and Jewish denial of their Holocausts against Christians/non-Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm0… Addition to Their anti-Christic Christ Denial anti-Christism -pk

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

While most would find this a form of bigotry, it is also a form of protection.  Historically when ever blood libels, persecutions, pogroms and slaughters of Jews were brought against Jews, wine and kosher foods where used as evidence of such. Can’t accept the fact that Jews are bigots heh?

Can’t accept the fact that your claims have been refuted once again, heh? <snip tavish garbage -pk

Response:

While most would find this a form of bigotry, it is also a form of protection.  Historically when ever blood libels, persecutions, pogroms and slaughters of Jews were brought against Jews, wine and kosher foods where used as evidence of such.

Can’t accept the fact that Jews are bigots heh? This is what they teach and in their own words from their own web sites etc.! (Boiling Semen & Excrement)  S_0127       –Jewish Tradition will NEVER teach Non-Jews as being equals– Century Pharisees  V2.1b  S_0127 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b6beevshh8dcr43hk33rafn23fvo2… a "Brother" in Their Eyes!  V2.0 R_0827 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ejoodv8ba5n1ja6k5f13i0bfp46nh… Lubavitch Cyberspace Website http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eaade4a.64590087%40tavish-ce… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3eca1e34.54088216%40tavish-ce… Pre-Earthly Existence? R_0520 Concerning non-Jews (In Their Own Words Series)  V2.0  S_0114 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=6q6a00l6th5th925jsoker2al5ukl… (Classic Repost) New Links Added!  S_0114 Reside In! V3.0b  S_0110 LIVE WITH IT!! JEWS ARE RACISTS AND BIGOTS AS A WHOLE!!                                                                 Tavish         How First Century Christianity Was Treated by Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m1p5nv4es86j78p5dr5pe41l8pi3v… Research) V2.5  R_0925 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av6qpr9882esa9… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2jgq8d7orrpfh…      The first "Holocaust" was not Gentiles (Nazis) Against Jews        BUT was Jews (Communists) Against Christian Kulaks!!!            How Later Christianity was/is treated by Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa8sfa0qfboa6u… is NOT a Valid Comparison V2.5 R_0821    Jewish Led Bolsheviks Scalped & Crucified Christians by Philippa Fletcher http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=34c17d0f.1410012285%40news.sm… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=u626vv814v0dt9raqv17ede0h4536… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ncu5gvoc1nga0k933sgt0sbtglrv1… Holocausts Jews have waged against non-Jews and Jewish denial of their Holocausts against Christians/non-Jews: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm0… Addition to Their anti-Christic Christ Denial anti-Christism Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

While most would find this a form of bigotry, it is also a form of protection.  Historically when ever blood libels, persecutions, pogroms and slaughters of Jews were brought against Jews, wine and kosher foods where used as evidence of such. Lies where introduced that Jews would use the blood of Gentile babies for making there bread and wine sweeter.  Naive and ignorant people would believe the leaders of this rhetoric and it would in turn produce horrible results. While this particular law is not Torah or God Given, it is a good on.  We Jews who choose to live an Orthodox life, build fences so that we do not accidentally break one of God’s laws. It is in no way meant to belittle a non-Jew.  My Mother, Father, brother and others in my Family are non-Jews…I would do the same around them. It is nothing more. If God told you to do something would you do it.  How far would you go to make sure you did it right. Think about it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Classic repost from 2001. Not all links may be active today but the info is timeless. All links currently active for verification– 02/10/2001 Special Note February 6, 2004: An attempt was made to get new working links for links which are now dead. If anyone thinks I am making a stretch accusing Jewish teachings of being bigoted then just use this simple test: substitute Jew or Jewish with white and non-Jew with non-white. We don’t want two standards do we? <<<In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Sec. 107. – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use [The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. [I]n any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include – (1) whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.. ((this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. – FAIR USE INTENDED)) Excerpts: http://www.homestore.com/food_recipes/beverages/wine/kosherwine.asp (Link no longer active) "A wine that has been produced under the strictest imaginable kosher conditions can become un-kosher simply by being poured by a non-Jew." This mirrors the "spirit" of the above bigotry: http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/torat/treif.asp (Link active February 6, 2004. Archived locally as: ahavatTreif) "…Yayin Akum – wine touched by a non-Jew: Rabbis prohibited (even to derive benefit from) the wine of a Jew if it was touched and moved (or even if it may have been touched) by a non-Jew…" From the same link above (archived as: ahavatTreif) these examples of bigotry toward non-Jews also viewable: <start/quote Foods prohibited by Rabbinic law independent of any direct Biblical basis Bishul Akum – non-Jewish cooking: One may not eat food cooked by a non-Jew. Rabbis feared that this may precipitate an inappropriately close personal relationship between Jew and non-Jew. Pas Akum – non-Jewish bread: Similarly, Rabbis prohibited eating bread baked by a non-Jew. Stam Yoinom – non-Jewish wine: One may not drink wine of a non-Jew, even if the wine was not poured to avodah zarah. This prohibition is also based on the concern that drinking his wine may cause a personal relationship between Jew and non-Jew. <end/quote The above is what is taught about ALL non-Jews behind closed doors YET Gentile Christendom misleads their flocks with the false teaching a "Judeo-Christian Alliance" exists! Jews have been anti-Christ and against ALL non-Jews since the founding of Christianity (and before then as well) and they have been consistent YET adherents to Christendom are ignorant of the bigotry being taught against them! http://www.shemayisrael.com/rabbiforsythe/interpersonal/sensitive.htm (Link active February 6, 2004. Archived locally as:

shemayisrael_sensitive) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "…When you have money that you could earn interest on (e.g. lend on interest to a non-Jew or make an interest-bearing investment), and a Jew needs a loan, you are obligated to lend to the money to the Jew for no interest… [I]f your shul rents space for simchas or gatherings, can you legislate an amplification limit for those who rent your facilities; do you know any rosh yeshivos or teachers who can teach their students about how loudness is a serious danger to people and violation of many areas of Torah [e.g. damages, imitating non-Jewish culture…" Does not the above show bigotry toward non-Jews? YES or No? http://www.okkosher.com/Content.asp?ID=143 (Link active February 6, 2004. Archived locally as: okkosher143) 1. Nowadays the ordinary wine of a non-Jew, or Jewish wine that has been touched by a non-Jew, is, according to the opinion of some authorities, forbidden only for drinking purposes, but not forbidden to derive any benefit from it. Therefore, we are permitted to take non-Jewish wine in payment of a debt due us, for it is equivalent to saving it from a loss. The same law applies to a case, when we have violated the law and have purchased wine from them. But it is forbidden in the first instance to buy wine from them in order to make a profit by it. Other authorities are lenient even as regards the latter case, but it is best to follow the stricter opinion. 2. It is permissible to make a bath out of non-Jewish wine for a sick person although he is not critically ill. 3. If kosher wine that has been boiled until its quantity was reduced by evaporation, it touched by a non-Jew, it may be used even for the purpose of drinking it. Wine, into which spices have been put, as long as it still retains the name wine and has not been boiled, becomes forbidden when touched by a non-Jew. 4. Victuals mixed with wine, the presence of which is not discernable, even if the victuals have not yet been brought to a boiling point, do not become unfit for use if they have been touched by a non-Jew. 5. If wine is adulterated with six parts of water, the wine becomes nullified and does not become forbidden by the touch of a non-Jew. However, raisin wine, that is, when water is poured upon the raisins, is considered as true wine. 6. If water is poured upon the kernels of pressed grapes, or upon the lees of wine, as long as it is improved for the purpose of drinking by doing so, it becomes forbidden when touched by a non-Jew. 7. If some wine has been extracted from the grapes pressed in a tank, be it even only a small quantity, or if some wine has been taken out of it into a vessel, the entire contents of the tank is legally called wine, and it becomes forbidden by the touch of a non-Jew even if only the kernels or the husks have been touched. It is, therefore, forbidden to make use of the tanks of grapes found in the house of a non-Jew, for it is likely that the non-Jew has already extracted some wine from it. It is forbidden to let a non-Jew press grapes in a tank, even if such a tank is provided with a stopper. 8. We must also be careful not to let a non-Jew remove the kernels and the husks from the wine-press, even after we have already extracted the first and second wine from it, as they might still be moist with wine. 9. If a non-Jew has poured water into wine with the intention of diluting it, we are not allowed to drink from it. But if he had not intended to dilute it, or even it if is only doubtful whether he has intended to do so, its use is permissible. 10. If vinegar is made out of kosher wine, and it is so strong that it seethes when poured upon the ground, it no longer becomes forbidden by the touch of a non-Jew. But if vinegar is made out of non-Jewish wine, it always remains forbidden. 11. Brandy that is made out of non-Jewish wine, or of kernels and husks or of lees, is considered like the wine itself. But brandy made out of kosher wine, is no longer rendered unfit for use by the touch of a non-Jew. 12. It has become a prevailing custom to permit the use of Tartaric acid, since it is not tasteful. 13. If a non-Jew touches wine by means of something else (not a part of his body), or if it is touched through his power, a rabbi should be consulted as to the fitness of the wine. 14. When we send wine through a non-Jew, we must take the precaution of doubly sealing the mouth or the faucet of the vessel. 15. There are many diverse laws regarding the wine that a Jew makes for a non-Jew, for the purpose of selling it to Jewish consumers. In certain instances, even double seals and a lock are of no avail. It is necessary to consult an ordained rabbi as to what procedure to follow in such a case. The scrupulous should avoid the use of such wine. 16. Regarding the vessels that have contained non-Jewish wine, if they are of the kind that one ordinarily used for keeping wine, but temporarily, nor have they contained the wine for twenty-four hours, whether the vessels are of leather skins, wood, glass, stone, or metal, as long as they are not lined with pitch, they should be rinsed well with water three times, and then they may be used…. <END Do you adherents of Christendom still think the "Observant Jew" views you as his equal "spiritual brother" as the false teaching of a "Judeo-Christian Alliance" tries to perpetuate? All of the examples I give in this current posting are current teachings being taught by rabbis in each and every synagogue and they

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Classic repost from 2001. Not all links may be active today but the info is timeless. All links currently active for verification– 02/10/2001 Special Note February 6, 2004: An attempt was made to get new working links for links which are now dead. … Bishul Akum – non-Jewish cooking: One may not eat food cooked by a non-Jew. Rabbis feared that this may precipitate an inappropriately close personal relationship between Jew and non-Jew. … **  Judaism is in deep trouble since over half of nice Jewish boys are coming to their senses and marrying shiksas instead of Jewish-American Princesses.  Sam, a Jewish friend/neighbor of mine, broke off his engagement to a Jewish-American Princess when he realized she was a virtual carbon-copy of her authority-freak mother.  Sam eventually married a non-Jew named Doris.  She was nice. That goes to show not all Jews can stomach those Jewish Witches.

**  Bona fide princesses are hellishly worse than witches, at least when it comes to needless shopping and money spent on cosmetic surgery.                                                   …

–

January 28, 2004, 8:58 a.m. Kate

Did you write the following at the DU site the other day, Marcy? This come straight off the DU (since deleted by their board but documented widely around the blogosphere): ===== I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won’t be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I’m fighting something bigger. I’m a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn’t the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs…….yawn, yawn–just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over. I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot. The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly–i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary’s Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts. ===== Your bedfellows Marcy. steve

Response:

Home | Forums | Articles | Links Directory | Store | Donate SEARCH DU Powered by FreeFind       THE DU T-SHIRT OF THE WEEK: Sweatshirts, mugs, and mousepads also available! DONATE TO DU! We rely on donations from our readers to run this website. If you think we’re worth it, give us your money! SUBMIT ARTICLES Authors – we publish a wide variety of new material six days a week. If you would like us to consider your article for publication, click here. BOOK REVIEWS Find out what other Evil DUers are reading. And buy through our Amazon Affiliate Program. LINKS DIRECTORY We have over 1,000 progressive websites listed in our Links Directory.

tnx Anth [snip]

Response:

Role of fluoride on corrodability of dental amalgams. Naguib EA, Abd-el-Rahman HA, Salih SA. Egypt Dent J. 1994 Oct;40(4):909-18 Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt. The role of fluoride ions on the corrosion behavior of some commercial dental amalgam in artificial saliva solution at pH level 7.1 was studied by using impedance and potentiodynamic polarization techniques. It was found that, the presence of F- ions in an artificial saliva solution at pH 7.1 increases the corrodability of different types of dental amalgam. Sever pitting corrosion occurred at level of 100 mM F- ions. The formulation of amalgam alloys greatly affect the resistance to pitting corrosion; the resistance of the amalgam to pitting follows the order: Dispersalloy Phasealloy Oralloy Tytin Valiant-pH.D. It is recommended to avoid oral treatment involving high F- ions concentration in the presence of amalgam restorations.

Response:

Jan got any info on canals? (I mean where amalgams have been removed and replaced with composite?) Anth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Role of fluoride on corrodability of dental amalgams. Naguib EA, Abd-el-Rahman HA, Salih SA. Egypt Dent J. 1994 Oct;40(4):909-18 Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt. The role of fluoride ions on the corrosion behavior of some commercial dental amalgam in artificial saliva solution at pH level 7.1 was studied by using impedance and potentiodynamic polarization techniques. It was found that, the presence of F- ions in an artificial saliva solution at pH 7.1 increases the corrodability of different types of dental amalgam. Sever pitting corrosion occurred at level of 100 mM F- ions. The formulation of amalgam alloys greatly affect the resistance to pitting corrosion; the resistance of the amalgam to pitting follows the order: Dispersalloy Phasealloy Oralloy Tytin Valiant-pH.D. It is recommended to avoid oral treatment involving high F- ions concentration in the presence of amalgam restorations.

Response:

Jan got any info on canals? (I mean where amalgams have been removed and replaced with composite?) Anth

Canals?? Just root canals. http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/RCTframeset.htm http://www.ericdavisdental.com/root_canals.htm http://www.whale.to/d/root2.html http://www.drshankland.com/rootcanal.html http://webpages.charter.net/kyarbrough/rootcanals.htm http://www.dentistry-toothtruth.com/faq.htm http://www.cfsn.com/maz/ http://cnorman.best.vwh.net/blazing/dental.html http://rheumatic.org/teeth.htm http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/root_therapies.htm http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html http://www.toothwisdom.net/ http://www.dentistryholistic.com/education.html http://www.hugnet.com/Root_Canals.html http://www.karlloren.com/ultrasound/p25.htm http://www.hallvtox.dircon.co.uk/hallvt.html Root Canals. A tooth has miles of tiny canals running through the root. A dead or root filled tooth will have bacteria in these canals. There is no way of removing the bacteria once they are in there. http://www.toothwisdom.net/ Toxicity from Root Canals The next subject to be discussed are root canals and their possible source of toxicity. Approximately twenty five million Americans undergo root canal therapy every year in an effort to prevent the loss of teeth that have abscessed. The root canal is the left portion of the tooth which houses the vital organs such as the nerve and blood vessels. The dentist endeavors to clean and sterilize this canal and fill it with a sterile, non toxic inert material. This usually renders this tooth serviceable and non painful; however, the entire inner hard core of the tooth is made of dentin which has several million dentinal tubules. These tubules allow the circulation of lymphatic type fluid to circulate from the vital organs of the root canal to the outside of the tooth. This is a viable circulatory phenomenon which has a purpose. It services the periodontal ligament as well as the sensory aspect of the nerve and blood centers in the root canal. If the body chemistry is healthy, the flow of lymphatic fluid is from the root canal to the outside of the tooth. This creates an irrigation for the tooth and usually prevents the accumulation of plaque to form. When the body chemistry is not healthy, then the circulation is from the outside of the tooth to the inner root canal. This allows for no irrigation, but rather an accumulation of plaque to form. There are many more reasons for maintaining the integrity of the circulation in the dentinal tubules. Root canal therapy completely destroys this integrity, and what happens to the non-circulating fluid in these tubules? This fluid as it ages becomes stagnant and becomes a toxic substance. This porous structure now becomes a septic mass emanating poisons into the body. Is this what you want? Mercury amalgams are said to be the caskets of the body. Root canals are said to be the cadavers of the body. I do not recommend root canals for anyone. Each individual has a right to their decisions. Many people simply do not wish to lose a member of their body. I respect this, and I always discuss the consequences. The next area of discussion is whether the root canal filling actually sterilizes the apical end of the tooth. There are so many lateral canals at the root end of the tooth where bacteria can harbor that it is unlikely that a complete aseptic condition exists. This, however, is a debateable subject. Again, the complete acceptance of root canal therapy as a viable substitution for extraction is completely and whole heartedly supported by organized dentistry. You are in violation of the code of ethics if you speak out against root canal therapy. When I was a practicing dentist, I always let the patient make that decision after explaining all pros and cons. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in Dentistry. (San Francisco, CA) – For the first time anywhere, dentists will be required to post a warning about the dangers of mercury in their dental fillings.  A California Superior court judge finalized the language for the warning to be posted in dentists’ offices here today. The warning will read as follows: Notice to Patients, Proposition 65: Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and approved for use all dental restorative materials. Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for your treatment. The exact language of the warning was argued and then finalized before Superior Court Judge James A. Robertson II between the California Dental Association, the largest constituent organization of the American Dental Association and Attorney Shawn Khorrami (Cor-ahm-mee). The agreement requires its member dentists to warn patients about the toxic dangers of mercury dental fillings and root canals. The agreement also allows non-CDA dentists to opt in to the agreement and post the warning. The warning is the result of a lawsuit filed by The Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami on behalf of As You Sow, a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to advocacy and activism in the public interest. "This is the first admission by organized dentistry that amalgams pose a potential health risk," says Shawn Khorrami, lead attorney. "The only problem is that it’s about 100 years too late." This California consent judgment follows on the heels of recent lawsuits filed in Georgia, Texas, Ohio and Los Angeles, California charging that mercury fillings placed in a woman’s mouth contributed to the autism of her child, as well as lawsuits in Maryland, California, and New York charging the American Dental Association with misrepresenting amalgam dental fillings as "silver."  The lawsuits basically allege that such fillings actually contain approximately 50% mercury by weight. They cause continuous, daily exposure to mercury and, thereby pose substantial health risks to certain users. Mercury, a highly toxic substance, is the most widely used substance in dental fillings today. The use of mercury-based thimerosal in vaccines also has been the source of the recent controversy in the Homeland Security legislation. Khorrami filed the lawsuit against Roger Fieldman D.D.S., Inc., the Citadel Dental Group, Inc.  dental offices, dental laboratories and private dental schools and training programs with more than nine employees. The suit won the enforcement of Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act [Health & Safety Code

Yep I’ll buy some of that. I design websites and it’ll all in the preparation charges! Ship

REPLY: Electrons are costly, at least according to the bandwith conservationists! <<kidding – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Its said that a restaurant GIVES you the food but charges you for preparation of same. Same for medicine and dentistry. The cost of the pill/medicine/filling ain’t nuttin’ Its the expertise, the art of the craft that makes the difference! Joel M. Eichen DDS Actually that’s a fair point. Until that is the dumb patient, egged on by even dumber medics start demanding their money back on account of the fact that there is (*practically*) nothing in their pills!! Ship Ummmm,  Wouldn’t that INCREASE their profits a trillion fold?   Dilute the chemical a trillion times, but charge the same amount for each dose. — Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan  USA Why would you think a homeopathic chemical diluted to the point of not being measureable would reduce your bruising????  That stuff is basically distilled water. I have done quite a lot of research into homeopathy. There are top quality (double blind, randomised controlled etc) medical trials that prove homeopathy REPLY: Besides, its cheap. Rather than eating a whole aspirin, you toss the aspirin in a swimming pool. dilute it and have enough for 1,000,000,000,000 headaches! Now exactly *which* pharmaceutical company is going to support research that might dilute their profits a trillion fold?!  ;) I know, it prove nothing either way… but it does make you think! Ship

Response:

Actually that’s a fair point. Until that is the dumb patient, egged on by even dumber medics start demanding their money back on account of the fact that there is (*practically*) nothing in their pills!! Ship

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ummmm,  Wouldn’t that INCREASE their profits a trillion fold?   Dilute the chemical a trillion times, but charge the same amount for each dose. — Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan  USA Why would you think a homeopathic chemical diluted to the point of not being measureable would reduce your bruising????  That stuff is basically distilled water. I have done quite a lot of research into homeopathy. There are top quality (double blind, randomised controlled etc) medical trials that prove homeopathy REPLY: Besides, its cheap. Rather than eating a whole aspirin, you toss the aspirin in a swimming pool. dilute it and have enough for 1,000,000,000,000 headaches! Now exactly *which* pharmaceutical company is going to support research that might dilute their profits a trillion fold?!  ;) I know, it prove nothing either way… but it does make you think! Ship

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Get to an holistic dentist ASAP!!!!! Do some research, this could ruin your health!!! There is now a law is Califronia,  that dentists posts all risks of amalgams and root canal, as they can cause cancer. See at bottom. Please dont confuse the issue by talking about amalgams. I’ve had them all removed years ago. I am talking about a *root canal* treatment.

So am I. I can’t believe that the chemicals in *all* root-canal treatment options cause cancer. Frankly, this is sounding hysterical.

Your chose of what you want to believe. Surely some options for root-canal treatment are better than others… Any views?

I  repeat: Get to an holistic dentist ASAP!!!!! Do some research, this could ruin your health!!! There is now a law is Califronia,  that dentists posts all risks of amalgams and root canal, as they can cause cancer. See at bottom. http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/RCTframeset.htm http://www.ericdavisdental.com/root_canals.htm http://www.whale.to/d/root2.html http://www.drshankland.com/rootcanal.html http://webpages.charter.net/kyarbrough/rootcanals.htm http://www.dentistry-toothtruth.com/faq.htm http://www.cfsn.com/maz/ http://cnorman.best.vwh.net/blazing/dental.html http://rheumatic.org/teeth.htm http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/root_therapies.htm http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html http://www.toothwisdom.net/ http://www.dentistryholistic.com/education.html http://www.drkulacz.com/html/root_canals_and_cancer.html http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lteeth.htm http://www.toothwisdom.net/r.root_canals.html http://www.aznetnews.com/story.php?storyid=375 http://www.cancer-therapy.net/causes%20of%20cancer%20revised.htm FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in Dentistry. (San Francisco, CA) – For the first time anywhere, dentists will be required to post a warning about the dangers of mercury in their dental fillings.  A California Superior court judge finalized the language for the warning to be posted in dentists’ offices here today. The warning will read as follows: Notice to Patients, Proposition 65: Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and approved for use all dental restorative materials. Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for your treatment. The exact language of the warning was argued and then finalized before Superior Court Judge James A. Robertson II between the California Dental Association, the largest constituent organization of the American Dental Association and Attorney Shawn Khorrami (Cor-ahm-mee). The agreement requires its member dentists to warn patients about the toxic dangers of mercury dental fillings and root canals. The agreement also allows non-CDA dentists to opt in to the agreement and post the warning. The warning is the result of a lawsuit filed by The Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami on behalf of As You Sow, a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to advocacy and activism in the public interest. "This is the first admission by organized dentistry that amalgams pose a potential health risk," says Shawn Khorrami, lead attorney. "The only problem is that it’s about 100 years too late." This California consent judgment follows on the heels of recent lawsuits filed in Georgia, Texas, Ohio and Los Angeles, California charging that mercury fillings placed in a woman’s mouth contributed to the autism of her child, as well as lawsuits in Maryland, California, and New York charging the American Dental Association with misrepresenting amalgam dental fillings as "silver."  The lawsuits basically allege that such fillings actually contain approximately 50% mercury by weight. They cause continuous, daily exposure to mercury and, thereby pose substantial health risks to certain users. Mercury, a highly toxic substance, is the most widely used substance in dental fillings today. The use of mercury-based thimerosal in vaccines also has been the source of the recent controversy in the Homeland Security legislation. Khorrami filed the lawsuit against Roger Fieldman D.D.S., Inc., the Citadel Dental Group, Inc.  dental offices, dental laboratories and private dental schools and training programs with more than nine employees. The suit won the enforcement of Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act [Health & Safety Code

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? We had some reasons at the time. 52 of them as I recall. Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? Saddam had only been in power a couple years — his coup was early 1979. Unfortunately we didn’t know what a right bastard he was compared to the other Arab leaders of the day.

Ah yeah, another fuckin’ little mistake. He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. No, we didn’t love him, but we thought we could use him.

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? You would use him in all the dastardly deeds, pumping him up to think that he was invincible and could do no wrong. Just as you did in Afghanistan and countless other arenas. Someone else then has to pay for your costly little mistakes with their blood and tears. Your cynicism does you no credit. As did the French. As did the Russians. Remember them? Strange, you haven’t mentioned them at all.

They didn’t invade Iraq. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. That’s your liquid lunch  :-)

Your snide comments about drink wash right over me Stevie dear, because I rarely imbibe more than an occasional glass or two of good wine. You however, might be rather more concerned about your own intake, judging by your constant sip sip sip and what I imagine is your ‘dropped chest’. <eg Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled. No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.  Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome. Ginzo, thanks for explaining that. I have a good friend, cardiologist, who was born in Havana and whose parents put him on an airplane in ‘61, all by himself (they were able to get out themselves later). I’ve heard some stories from him that make me ill. Hope your family is safe.   I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against the government. This woman has high blood pressure and is being denied medical treatment. Fortunately she’s in a workers’ paradise (just ask Castro), with the hemisphere’s highest literacy rate (just ask the Cuban Information Minister) and the best health care (Americans line up to be treated there).

Yeah – they’ve done rather well *in spite of*  the vicious sanctions imposed by the US. Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - Don

Response:

Fortunately she’s in a workers’ paradise (just ask Castro), with the hemisphere’s highest literacy rate (just ask the Cuban Information Minister) and the best health care (Americans line up to be treated there). Yeah – they’ve done rather well *in spite of*  the vicious sanctions imposed by the US.

If by "done rather well" you mean run the country into the ground. And if we’re so evil, why would Castro WANT to do business with us? steve

Response:

In article No doubt when Fidel isn’t daydreaming about me he’s reading alt.adoption.

No doubt  :-) steve

Response:

have oilmen running our government.  But that being said, why can’t we rejoice in that some good will come out of this?  Why can’t you have at least a shred of integrity and admit that no matter what the real reasons are for invading Iraq that at the very least a people are being liberated? How can you liberate someone by killing his family?

You don’t.  You have a point or are you just babbling again? You and Don said you had *conquered* Iraq. Conquering and liberating are opposites.

Where did I say that? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In this world nothing occurs in a vacuum. Think of those ‘regime changes’ that eventually came about through mostly non-violent methods – apartheid in South Africa,  Marcos in the Philippines, Ceausescu in Romania.  There are countless examples of the futility of the bomb and the bullet, and the success of radical non-violent methods. Sayagraha, Gandhi called it. I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled.  No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people. Would you give YOUR life? Would you offer YOUR family as collateral?

As a matter of fact, members of my family have given their lives.  Some gave it for the revolution, some for its liberation (Bay of Pigs).  Others have been involved in activism here and in Cuba.  Given the opportunity I would risk my life to free the island of tyranny.  Many in my family would also – both here and on teh island.   Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists. <snort Created murder and mayhem, you mean. Everywhere they went in search of ‘communists’ they have bolstered corrupt regimes or funded ultra-right-wing coups.

Huh?  Do you know any El Salvadorians?  Nicaraguans?  Columbians?  Are you serious?  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome. Well now, that’s some helluva a claim.

And its every bit true. Does this mean that people didn’t profit from these conflicts?  Of course, not.  But sometimes one has to look at both the good and the bad in every world conflict.  The United States isn’t always right, but Lord Almight, when the chips are down they always call the Yanks. It’s nice to *wait* until you are called.

It is also sopmetimes impossibl;e to be called.  Do you realize that Iraq was a tyranny?  As a matter of fact the Iraqis in exiule have been calling for American involvment for several years.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against the government. Your *maid*? Oh WOW. Do you have a point, Helen dear? This woman has high blood pressure and is being denied medical treatment. And you have done her a BIG favour by broadcasting her name on the internet. Again, what is your point?

No doubt when Fidel isn’t daydreaming about me he’s reading alt.adoption. Marley – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

  I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against the government. Your *maid*? Oh WOW.

Do you have a point, Helen dear? This woman has high blood pressure and is being denied medical treatment. And you have done her a BIG favour by broadcasting her name on the

internet. Again, what is your point?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Helen, I don’t think that the United States is some sort of altruistic organization seeking only to help the downtrodden and the helpless.  I understand that there are political, economic and other forces at work here. I am certain that much of what is going on in Iraq at the moment has to do with oil.  It is no coincidence that we are fighting Arabs at a time when we have oilmen running our government.  But that being said, why can’t we rejoice in that some good will come out of this?  Why can’t you have at least a shred of integrity and admit that no matter what the real reasons are for invading Iraq that at the very least a people are being liberated? Our success means Helen is wrong, and she hates that more than anything.

I would love to have been proved wrong. She would have preferred that hundreds of thousands of body bags be filled so that she could gloat on alt.adoption.

You are a triumphalist, vainglorious, pseudo *conqueror*. Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - Don

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen Helen, I don’t think that the United States is some sort of altruistic organization seeking only to help the downtrodden and the helpless.  I understand that there are political, economic and other forces at work here. I am certain that much of what is going on in Iraq at the moment has to do with oil.  It is no coincidence that we are fighting Arabs at a time when we have oilmen running our government.  But that being said, why can’t we rejoice in that some good will come out of this?  Why can’t you have at least a shred of integrity and admit that no matter what the real reasons are for invading Iraq that at the very least a people are being liberated?

How can you liberate someone by killing his family? You and Don said you had *conquered* Iraq. Conquering and liberating are opposites. In this world nothing occurs in a vacuum.

It didn’t occur in a vacuum. It was a pre-planned and well organised pre-emptive war on a country that had already been disarmed. A country that was effectively told "unless you disarm we will come in and kill you". When they did, when they were in the process of disarming to the satisfaction of the UNSC, they were invaded anyway.  Dishonourable, illegal and immoral, no matter what spin you put on it.  Unfortunately, great change rarely occurs without some undesirable events occurring along the way as well.  The American Civil war was not just about slavery, nor was the American Revolution only about taxation.  Abraham Lincoln used the slavery issue in order to win a bloody war against the southern states.  If we had allowed the United States to splinter we would not have had this great nation we have now (by ‘great’ I don’t mean ‘good’, btw.  I mean a rich, powerful nation).  The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest conflicts this world had ever seen in one nation, but the deaths were neccessary.

Think of those ‘regime changes’ that eventually came about through mostly non-violent methods – apartheid in South Africa,  Marcos in the Philippines, Ceausescu in Romania.  There are countless examples of the futility of the bomb and the bullet, and the success of radical non-violent methods. Sayagraha, Gandhi called it. I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled.  No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.

Would you give YOUR life? Would you offer YOUR family as collateral?   Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.

<snort Created murder and mayhem, you mean. Everywhere they went in search of ‘communists’ they have bolstered corrupt regimes or funded ultra-right-wing coups.  The CIA’s attempts fortunately failed in Venezuela for example. And killing Allende – a far better and more honourable leader than ever that murdering creep Pinochet was – resulted in the deaths of countless thousands of innocent people.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome.

Well now, that’s some helluva a claim. Does this mean that people didn’t profit from these conflicts?  Of course, not.  But sometimes one has to look at both the good and the bad in every world conflict.  The United States isn’t always right, but Lord Almight, when the chips are down they always call the Yanks.

It’s nice to *wait* until you are called. Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled. No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.  Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome. Ginzo, thanks for explaining that. I have a good friend, cardiologist, who was born in Havana and whose parents put him on an airplane in ‘61, all by himself (they were able to get out themselves later). I’ve heard some stories from him that make me ill. Hope your family is safe.   I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against the government.

Your *maid*? Oh WOW. This woman has high blood pressure and is being denied medical treatment.

And you have done her a BIG favour by broadcasting her name on the internet. Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Liberalism is satanic. Marley

Yeah well life’s a bitch and then we die. Kathy 1

Response:

Liberalism is satanic. Marley Yeah well life’s a bitch and then we die. Kathy 1

If you’re a liberal you believe everybody goes to heaven.  Can’t we all get along? Marley – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Well we can’t all spend our days mired in doom and gloom.  Some of us come up for air once in awhile I’ve known Marley for quite a while now, and I can assure you that she’s a very happy person. She’s just in denial about it. – Don

And I know that you’re really morose and in denial.  BTW, Don really IS a happy person. Marley

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Liberalism is satanic. Marley Yeah well life’s a bitch and then we die. Kathy 1 If you’re a liberal you believe everybody goes to heaven.  Can’t we all get along? Marley

Well that doesn’t seem like you Marley to tell people what it is they believe.  Too much time spent with people like the Morriseys perhaps? Kathy 1

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Liberalism is satanic. Marley Yeah well life’s a bitch and then we die. Kathy 1 If you’re a liberal you believe everybody goes to heaven.  Can’t we all get along? Marley Well that doesn’t seem like you Marley to tell people what it is they believe.  Too much time spent with people like the Morriseys perhaps? Kathy 1

No doubt.  It happens to the best of us.   I think I’ll run for the Republican Central Committee or something.  I already belong to the Christian Coalition, which I bet is more than most people would do for "the cause." Marley – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Liberalism is satanic. Marley

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well we can’t all spend our days mired in doom and gloom.  Some of us come up for air once in awhile Kathy 1 You are ALL a bunch of looney liberal idealists. OUT!! Marley Top Post:  You are one broken record.  Is that the best you can do? Kathy 1 Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&page wanted=print&position=top April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN TLANTA < Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard < awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan’s monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman’s rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy

Response:

You are ALL a bunch of looney liberal idealists. OUT!! Marley

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Top Post:  You are one broken record.  Is that the best you can do? Kathy 1 Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&page wanted=print&position=top April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN TLANTA < Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard < awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan’s monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman’s rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy

Response:

Well we can’t all spend our days mired in doom and gloom.  Some of us come up for air once in awhile Kathy 1

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are ALL a bunch of looney liberal idealists. OUT!! Marley Top Post:  You are one broken record.  Is that the best you can do? Kathy 1 Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen New York Times

<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&page – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wanted=print&position=top April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN TLANTA < Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard < awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan’s monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman’s rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled. No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.  Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome. Ginzo, thanks for explaining that. I have a good friend, cardiologist, who was born in Havana and whose parents put him on an airplane in ‘61, all by himself (they were able to get out themselves later). I’ve heard some stories from him that make me ill. Hope your family is safe.

  I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against the government. This woman has high blood pressure and is being denied medical treatment.

Response:

I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled.   No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.  Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome.

Ginzo, thanks for explaining that. I have a good friend, cardiologist, who was born in Havana and whose parents put him on an airplane in ‘61, all by himself (they were able to get out themselves later). I’ve heard some stories from him that make me ill. Hope your family is safe. steve

Response:

Ginzo, thanks for explaining that. I have a good friend, cardiologist, who was born in Havana and whose parents put him on an airplane in ‘61, all by himself (they were able to get out themselves later). I’ve heard some stories from him that make me ill. Hope your family is safe.   I just got word that my maid’s sister, Maria Beatrice Roque, has   just been sentenced in Cuba for 20 years for speaking out against   the government. This woman has high blood pressure and is being   denied medical treatment.

Grrr. My prayers are with Maria. steve

Response:

Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran?

We had some reasons at the time. 52 of them as I recall. Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them?

Saddam had only been in power a couple years — his coup was early 1979. Unfortunately we didn’t know what a right bastard he was compared to the other Arab leaders of the day. He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong.

No, we didn’t love him, but we thought we could use him. As did the French. As did the Russians. Remember them? Strange, you haven’t mentioned them at all. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke.

That’s your liquid lunch  :-) steve

Response:

Top Post:  You are one broken record.  Is that the best you can do? Kathy 1

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen New York Times

<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&page – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wanted=print&position=top April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN TLANTA < Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard < awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan’s monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman’s rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen

Helen, I don’t think that the United States is some sort of altruistic organization seeking only to help the downtrodden and the helpless.  I understand that there are political, economic and other forces at work here. I am certain that much of what is going on in Iraq at the moment has to do with oil.  It is no coincidence that we are fighting Arabs at a time when we have oilmen running our government.  But that being said, why can’t we rejoice in that some good will come out of this?  Why can’t you have at least a shred of integrity and admit that no matter what the real reasons are for invading Iraq that at the very least a people are being liberated? In this world nothing occurs in a vacuum.  Unfortunately, great change rarely occurs without some undesirable events occurring along the way as well.  The American Civil war was not just about slavery, nor was the American Revolution only about taxation.  Abraham Lincoln used the slavery issue in order to win a bloody war against the southern states.  If we had allowed the United States to splinter we would not have had this great nation we have now (by ‘great’ I don’t mean ‘good’, btw.  I mean a rich, powerful nation).  The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest conflicts this world had ever seen in one nation, but the deaths were neccessary. I happen to be a Cuban exile and would love to see Castro toppled.  No, I would rather not see bombs dropping on my family in Cuba.  I would prefer a peaceful solution to the tyranny on the island.  But if the deaths of several thousand Cubans means an end to tyranny then I believe the deaths to be the price we pay for the liberation of 11 million people.  Today there are millions of people in Central America that thank the United States for ridding their countries of the communists.  Because of United States’ involvement in Vietnam and Korea we ended the Cold War and brought down a monstrous empire in Russia.  You’re welcome. Does this mean that people didn’t profit from these conflicts?  Of course, not.  But sometimes one has to look at both the good and the bad in every world conflict.  The United States isn’t always right, but Lord Almight, when the chips are down they always call the Yanks.

Response:

Top posting: Yes Don, and there will be many more stories such as these, I’m sorry to say. Tell me why, therefore, did your government of the time treat with this beast? Why were they buddies with the regime, doing sneaky, snidey things with him, encouraging him to wage war on Iran? Please tell me that it was an aberration, a mistake, and that they didn’t know what he was capable of? Or perhaps is it more likely that they knew damn bloody *well*, and were just delighted that he was doing the dirty work for them? He was bolstered up, and being given the confidence to think that he could do any fucking thing that he wanted to do, *to anyone*, because – after all – he had the United States in his pocket – they LOVED him. He could do no wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of it all makes me puke. Helen

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&page wanted=print&position=top April 11, 2003 The News We Kept to Ourselves By EASON JORDAN TLANTA < Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard < awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan’s monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman’s rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed. I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us. Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad. Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home. I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely. Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! There is a right to free speech and peaceful assembly. You don’t have to like it but the right is there for all. As soon as the right is removed for one it is easy to remove for other ‘undesirables’. Were they ALL vegan? Andy At what point does throwing newspaper vending boxes into the street to block traffic and blocking traffic to the bridge count as "peaceful assembly?"

That’s not even half of it.  The "free speech" and "peaceful assembly" that the moronic idiot named "Andy" supports, includes assault, arson, looting, and property damage.

Response:

Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops!        Protect the troops. Bring them home. Gwier, nobody (except for ignorant Marxists like Hope) is buying your phoney peace activism.  You’re a neo-nazi, holocaust- revisionist. The farthest thing from your small mind is "peace".  Go sell your wares to some skinheads.

        And as there are sixteen confirmed American deaths and as I say no Iraqi is worth one American death I say bring them home. All of Iraq is not worth one American life.         You, however, do not care how many Americans die. — 2003 March 10: Israel murders four Palestinians.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2563

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon? Protect them from the threat that Saddam poses to the US. Oh, wait a minute… rotfl.  Usually-reliable sources say they found him on one side of the room and his balls on the other.

        Good propaganda must excite prurient interests. — Iraq: The first war fought over a plagerized, twelve year old graduate thesis.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2569

Response:

Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon?

        Sixteen confirmed dead as of yesterday. Is any Iraqi worth one American life? As an American I say no. — Why is it all holocaust stories sound like soap operas instead of recountings of actual events?         — The Iron Webmaster, 2559

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon? Protect them from the threat that Saddam poses to the US. Oh, wait a minute… Do you think that the SCUDS were the only things that Saddam lied about?

        He has ICBMs and nuke warheads? We are doomed! — The US fought WWII because Germany declared war on the US. France just happened to be on the road to Germany.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2567

Response:

Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon?

They’re safer in Iraq than they would be in San Francisco, with the violent thugs and career criminals pretending to be "peace" protesters mobbing and attacking…… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon?

Protect them from falling Saddam posters! Alan — http://www.mythusmage.com Writing Practice at: http://www.gamingoutpost.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Hehehe… Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon? Quite.  The Iraqi’s support our troops more than the small, vocal minority of ignorant "peace activists"

There have been reports of Iraqi units volunteering to aid U.S. forces in an active combat role. Alan — http://www.mythusmage.com Writing Practice at: http://www.gamingoutpost.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon? Protect them from the threat that Saddam poses to the US. Oh, wait a minute… Do you think that the SCUDS were the only things that Saddam lied about?

Nope. I think he lies as a matter of routine, much like our own illustrious leader. But I don’t think he poses any kind of real threat to us. According to the Washington Post, ( http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2BC155E3 ), analysts estimate that he has 20 SCUDs, other some nations have given estimates ranging from 12 to 25. These missles can only reach his closest neighbors, and they cannot reach any European country. He’s also supposed to have 50 al-Samoud missles, a successor to the SCUD, having scrapped about 70 since the inspectors went back in last fall. These missles also have a range limit which precludes them from hitting anything outside of the middle east. You can paint quite the visual imagery with the label of "mass destruction" for these weapons, but they do not seem a real concern. There’s still no sign of any chemical or biological weapons, but if we do eventually find some, again simply judging their threat level from the label "chemical" applied to them is quite foolish. The real question is, what is the potential for these weapons to do damage? It’s not the fact that these weapons are chemical weapons, but it’s the specifics of how they can be used, how easy they are to transport, and their effective range that’s should determine whether or not they are a weapon of mass destruction. To those who think that any chemical weapon is automatically a WOMD let me point out that lead is a chemical, and bullets are made of lead. Simply being a chemical weapon does not make a WOMD, nor does it mean a weapon that causes your skin to melt off your body or anything more gruesome than happier weapons do, such as put holes in people or blow pieces of them up. Now that I’ve explained why I don’t see Iraq as a threat, perhaps you can explain how one might logically reconcile attacking Iraq because of the threat they pose to the world yet also believing that the threat they pose to our troops in their territory is so miniscule as to be laughable? Rich Soyack

– Hombre – Millions of families, children, men, unborn babies, and women have become casualties of feminists beloved gender war. It’s time to take their weapons away. These weapons include intolerance, censorship, financing and political intimidation.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! Protect the troops. Bring them home. Protect them from stampeding hordes of surrendering Iraqi soldiers? Protect them from the Iraqi Welcome Wagon? Protect them from the threat that Saddam poses to the US. Oh, wait a minute… Do you think that the SCUDS were the only things that Saddam lied about? Nope. I think he lies as a matter of routine, much like our own illustrious leader. But I don’t think he poses any kind of real threat to us. According to the Washington Post, ( http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2BC155E3 ), analysts estimate that he has 20 SCUDs, other some nations have given estimates ranging from 12 to 25. These missles can only reach his closest neighbors, and they cannot reach any European country. He’s also supposed to have 50 al-Samoud missles, a successor to the SCUD, having scrapped about 70 since the inspectors went back in last fall. These missles also have a range limit which precludes them from hitting anything outside of the middle east. You can paint quite the visual imagery with the label of "mass destruction" for these weapons, but they do not seem a real concern. There’s still no sign of any chemical or biological weapons, but if we do eventually find some, again simply judging their threat level from the label "chemical" applied to them is quite foolish. The real question is, what is the potential for these weapons to do damage? It’s not the fact that these weapons are chemical weapons, but it’s the specifics of how they can be used, how easy they are to transport, and their effective range that’s should determine whether or not they are a weapon of mass destruction. To those who think that any chemical weapon is automatically a WOMD let me point out that lead is a chemical, and bullets are made of lead. Simply being a chemical weapon does not make a WOMD, nor does it mean a weapon that causes your skin to melt off your body or anything more gruesome than happier weapons do, such as put holes in people or blow pieces of them up. Now that I’ve explained why I don’t see Iraq as a threat, perhaps you can explain how one might logically reconcile attacking Iraq because of the threat they pose to the world yet also believing that the threat they pose to our troops in their territory is so miniscule as to be laughable?

Perhaps after the war is over I’ll have the inclination to engage in your pointless debate. Rich Soyack

Response:

wow, are ALL harvard students vegan? if so, then there must be something good about being vegan! har har.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Send them all to Iraq as human shields to protect our troops! — US Anti-War Protests Flare, More Than 1,000 Arrests Reuters Thursday, March 20, 2003; 8:32 PM By Adam Tanner SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Police arrested more than 1,000 people in San Francisco on Thursday — the most demonstrators taken into custody on a single day in the city in 22 years — as tens of thousands protested across America against the U.S. war in Iraq. "If this was happening in every city, there would either be martial law or an end to war," said one Berkeley student who chained himself to 16 others on a major San Francisco street. Protests took place in other cities across the United States as well as in European capitals. During morning rush hour in the Washington D.C., more than 100 demonstrators temporarily shut down the Key Bridge, a major route from Virginia into Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood and three were arrested. About 100 protesters later gathered in pouring rain on the streets near the White House, and about 350 demonstrators blocked evening rush hour traffic on a main Washington thoroughfare. In New York, which took the brunt of the September 11, 2001 attack that President Bush has repeatedly cited as an example of the threat to America, "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows" condemned what they called an illegal and immoral U.S. war. Anti-war demonstrators overflowed police barriers during rush hour in Times Square, completely shutting New York’s Broadway for two blocks below 42nd Street. "A year and a half ago you were heroes," one onlooker shouted as police forcibly led away one demonstrator. "Don’t become our enemies." SUPPORT FOR TROOPS Under sunny skies and temperatures in the mid-60s F, San Francisco protesters started early and continued strongly through the evening in actions aimed at choking off traffic across the city. Police in riot gear made at least 1,000 arrests, and the numbers continued to rise into the evening, a spokeswoman said, adding it was the highest total in San Francisco in 22 years. Some were kept in temporary pens erected on the street. Many towns in America displayed support for the troops, albeit in a quieter way. Towns like Waxahachie, south of Dallas, put up yellow ribbons in support of U.S. troops. Some yelled in other cities at the protesters. "They are nothing but traitors. This does nothing but give aid and support to the enemy," said Debbie Petee in San Francisco, a Bush supporter. Protesters across that nation said opposing war was not at odds with being an American patriot. "It’s not like we’re burning flags," said Danielle Geroux, a student at an anti-war rally at Florida’s capital, Tallahassee. "We just don’t want people to die." Vietnam veteran Mike Ward, 56, who participated in protest marches in the 1960s, wore his combat ribbons in San Francisco so that no one would question his patriotism. HISSES AT HARVARD Students gathered at campuses across the nation, including at Harvard University, where hundreds walked out of classes at noon and at least 1,500 people gathered at a rally. Students at California’s Berkeley campus, a hotbed of dissent against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s, occupied the main administration building for several hours before at least 120 were arrested, Police in Pittsburgh fought with some protesters and arrested dozens. At San Francisco’s Federal Courthouse, at least two protesters took medicine that induced them to vomit. Some in the crowd flew Iraqi, Palestinian and French flags. In some areas, police charged protesters to carry them off. Sparks flew as officials sawed through chains linking protesters. Some of the city’s fabled cable cars were halted. In Madison, Wisconsin, a traditional hotbed of protest, police investigated vandalism at the state Republican party headquarters on Wednesday night in which a half-dozen windows were broken and paint bombs were tossed around. The war also clouded the upcoming Academy Awards. California’s governor on Thursday assigned a National Guard unit to protect the Oscars, but at least one prominent star withdrew from the ceremonies, saying now was not the time to celebrate. Will Smith pulled out of Sunday’s ceremony and other stars including Dustin Hoffman said they will wear peace sign pins, doves and even duct tape to protest the war in Iraq. More than 100,000 protested in Germany. In London, thousands of British anti-war campaigners blocked roads and scuffled with police. More than 10,000 people, mostly students, surged through Paris chanting anti-war slogans and some burned the U.S. flag.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – neither can you post ONE single study for the safety of amalgams. Jan You asked.  Here are three abstracts.  They were the first three that Pubmed retrieved that were not published by organizations that you have designated as liars. The ones that you did designate as liars came to opposing conclusions. Jan That pretty well sums it up doesn’t it folks. carabelli

REPLY: Yes, so funny .. .that stuck me as strictly "JAN."

Response:

  Yes, so funny .. .that stuck me as strictly "JAN." I would love to see her officiate a basketball game.  The score would be 2 – 0 because 99% of the baskets don’t count. carabelli

Response:

Jan you are Dr. Death of SMD! Perfect description. ;O) Regards, Aribert Deckers

Of the liars club. It’s gonna take someone far bigger than you Airhead to stop me from posting. I suggest  you note WHO wrote the websites. I have lied about nothing, and you are out of line in saying I am driving people into death. Get a grip! Jan http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/RCTframeset.htm http://www.ericdavisdental.com/root_canals.htm http://www.whale.to/d/root2.html http://www.drshankland.com/rootcanal.html http://webpages.charter.net/kyarbrough/rootcanals.htm http://www.dentistry-toothtruth.com/faq.htm http://www.cfsn.com/maz/ http://www.tldp.com/issue/1578-/157rootc.htm http://cnorman.best.vwh.net/blazing/dental.html http://rheumatic.org/teeth.htm http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/root_therapies.htm http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html http://www.toothwisdom.net/ Get informed. http://wwwtoxicteeth.net/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in Dentistry. (San Francisco, CA) – For the first time anywhere, dentists will be required to post a warning about the dangers of mercury in their dental fillings.  A California Superior court judge finalized the language for the warning to be posted in dentists’ offices here today. The warning will read as follows: Notice to Patients, Proposition 65: Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. ****Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.***** The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and approved for use all dental restorative materials. Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for your treatment. The exact language of the warning was argued and then finalized before Superior Court Judge James A. Robertson II between the California Dental Association, the largest constituent organization of the American Dental Association and Attorney Shawn Khorrami (Cor-ahm-mee). The agreement requires its member dentists to warn patients about the toxic dangers of mercury dental fillings and root canals. The agreement also allows non-CDA dentists to opt in to the agreement and post the warning. The warning is the result of a lawsuit filed by The Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami on behalf of As You Sow, a not-for-profit foundation dedicated to advocacy and activism in the public interest. "This is the first admission by organized dentistry that amalgams pose a potential health risk," says Shawn Khorrami, lead attorney. "The only problem is that it’s about 100 years too late." This California consent judgment follows on the heels of recent lawsuits filed in Georgia, Texas, Ohio and Los Angeles, California charging that mercury fillings placed in a woman’s mouth contributed to the autism of her child, as well as lawsuits in Maryland, California, and New York charging the American Dental Association with misrepresenting amalgam dental fillings as "silver."  The lawsuits basically allege that such fillings actually contain approximately 50% mercury by weight. They cause continuous, daily exposure to mercury and, thereby pose substantial health risks to certain users. Mercury, a highly toxic substance, is the most widely used substance in dental fillings today. The use of mercury-based thimerosal in vaccines also has been the source of the recent controversy in the Homeland Security legislation. Khorrami filed the lawsuit against Roger Fieldman D.D.S., Inc., the Citadel Dental Group, Inc.  dental offices, dental laboratories and private dental schools and training programs with more than nine employees. The suit won the enforcement of Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act [Health & Safety Code

www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers). -Tabby

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years.

I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers). -Tabby

Response:

1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  

Flat out impossible for airports to be secured. Not possible. For example, convicts get or make weapons while in high security prisons, you think you can keep everyone unarmed on an aircraft or at an airport? Millions of people and all that luggage moving in and out every day? What are you going to do? Have every one strip naked and wear manacles? Passengers climb into iron boxes at the curbside and no one else not working in the air port or on a plane even get in? You do know that the Israeli airlines (El Al, Al El, whatever) that everyone brags about being so safe has a lot of armed people on board? 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls.

I would leave it to the pilots to decide and to deal with. Heck, arm the stews! 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he?

You are trying to dictate tactics for professionals in an area you have NO expertise in? Pilots are not experts? Train them. No certification unless they meet gun handling standards. HEY!!! "UNDER SOME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES" something *could* happen? And because of a POSIBILITY that you do not even know the probability of, you wish to forbid a course of action? Under some sets of circumstances, the airplane could run into Santa Clause! 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers).

First of all, this is not an "aviation safety" problem, but a problem that can also happen while aviating and is analogous to concealed carry on the street. Uniformity is necessary in those things that directly effect the plane’s function. This does not. Second, if the pilots are required to be armed and do not want to carry, they get FIRED. Where’s the problem? Third, why should the others on board know who is carrying or who is not? What is the problem here? It’s not like they are in a hospital where you have to know who to call for specific problems. Airplanes and hospitals are NOT comparable. Fourth, pilots are in uniform, so the sky marshal can certainly tell who he is. The pilot can be told who the marshal is, no sweat. Where’s the overwhelming danger? Off duty cops get shot by on duty cops "all to often"? Gimme some numbers. I agree that once is too many, but one more airplane crashing into a building is also one too many, and likely to kill a hell of a lot more people. Give me a reason to think there is a big problem here.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. I also enjoy Ray’s posts – thoughtful and well considered.  But I do not agree with Ray on arming pilots, for the reasons cited by Kzin, and for other reasons: 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma.

It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway. You are ultimately responsible for your security. 2.  Ever see the size and bulky configuration of the pilot’s seat and the surrounding instrumentation panels?  How well could a pilot aim while seated in the confines of the cockpit?  Hell – it’s almost impossible to turn around without getting up and leaving the controls.

Some cockpits have more room than others. There are at least two and sometimes three, in the cockpit. Don’t have to "aim" in 3 -5 feet of space. The passengers that so desire should be armed. That is the only thing that will deter criminals. 3.  "Packing a piece" would engender a sense of security among other crew members, and under some set of circumstances "invite" the cabin crew to "herd" the bad guys into the cockpit proper: after all, the pilots armed.  Isn’t he?

Why aren’t passengers armed? Why "herd" perps to the cockpit? 4.  The keystone to aviation safety is uniform regulation that is uniformly understood, and uniformly enforced.  Not every pilot would want to be armed – so how could other crew-members really be certain the pilot on this flight is – or isn’t – armed on any given day?  Or any given flight?  How would the sky marshal know?  The pilot and/or the sky marshal could land up shooting each other (sadly, this happens all too often to off-duty police officers).

Uniform regulation is not security. Those passengers that want to be armed should be also. The only people shooting in a plane would be those that could see the perp. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tabby

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns.

Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it.

What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place?

Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

You really do not have a clue, do you? The real world is not kind to the naive, but maybe you will get lucky.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

Again, blow it out your ass.

A sign of frustration at losing an arguement. It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

You only want the terrorists armed, don’t you ? Why do you want to disarm citizens ?

Response:

Autopilot works quite well without the pilot’s attention.  Also on the big airliners, there are always two pilots in the cockpit.  Well, a pilot and a co-pilot that can fly just as well.  I don’t think arming the pilots is THE answer, but it is definitely a better alternative to letting hijackers take over the plane. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years. www.gunowners.org Dec 2001 Official Petition Asking Transportation Secretary to Implement the New Law Allowing Guns in Cockpits — Ask your Representative to sign the Hostettler-Young Petition Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 (Monday, December 3, 2001) — Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) and Don Young (R-AK) need your help. They are petitioning Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to begin implementing the new law which President Bush signed on November 19 allowing pilots to possess firearms for the protection of passengers and crew. As GOA mentioned in its alert last month, there are certain guidelines which the Secretary (and a still-to-be-named Under Secretary of Transportation) must implement before commercial pilots can begin the important task of protecting their planes. Representatives Hostettler and Young are now getting other legislators to cosign a letter addressed to Secretary Mineta. "Both houses of Congress, as well as the Airline Pilots Association, have demonstrated overwhelming support for providing pilots the privilege of protecting their passengers and crew from dangerous threats by responsible means, including the use of firearms," their letter says. "Accordingly, we hope that you and the new Under Secretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act], in order that these indispensable provisions can be carried out seamlessly and without delay." ACTION: Representatives Hostettler and Young are trying to get as many Congressional signatures as possible before they send their letter to Secretary Mineta. Please ask your Congressman to sign onto the Hostettler-Young letter petitioning the Secretary for immediate action in this important endeavor. Their deadline is next Wednesday. And those of you who live in Hostettler’s and Young’s districts, be sure to thank them for their diligent efforts to get guns back into airplane cockpits. You can reach the Congress at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. —– Pre-written message —– Dear Representative: As you know, President Bush recently signed legislation establishing guidelines for arming pilots in the cockpits. Representatives John Hostettler and Don Young are petitioning Secretary Norman Mineta to put these procedures into place immediately so that passengers can travel the skies safely once again. Please call Hostettler’s office before the end of Wednesday, December 12 and ask them to add your name to this very important letter. Thank you. Sincerely, —- — Ray Keller http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/ "You don’t expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don’t, those who aren’t shot will be hanged."                          -Michael Shirley Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a  woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound I would prefer to live in a free society than a drug free society – even if the latter could actually be achieved.

Response:

An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms.

What do "Core competencies" have to do with the question at hand? I’m a farmer.  A farmer’s "core competencies" don’t include the use of firearms either, but I sure do know how to use them.  Would you suggest that I not be allowed the use of firearms merely because I’m a farmer and not a highly trained marksman?  The same quiestion fits the armed pilot matter. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation!

The "balance of power" applies to all situations in which power might be used.  It doesn’t apply only to the affairs of states. If a home invader chooses my house to attack, the balance of power between him and me is the overriding consideration.  If a would-be hijacker attempts to take over an airliner’s cockpit, the balance of power in that situation is also the overriding consideration. And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC?

You’ll have to do some editing on the above paragraph if you expect a response. If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

Sometimes they do.  They did on September 11th, or didn’t you notice?  If determined hijackers happen to be on board the flight you are hoping to take from "A" to "B," and you get your way and prevent the aircrew from being armed, and if you don’t happen to be on one of the selected flights with "sky marshals" on board, you and your fellow passengers will end up either defending the airplane yourself with whatever weapon you can improvise from your laptop computers, shoes, etc., or else you’ll have to trust in the good intentions of the hijackers. Perhaps you’re one of those people that believe bad things won’t happen, if only you pretend they won’t happen.  I would have thought such illusions had been burst lately, even in the most childlike minds. — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen.

Tell it to those who remember the passengers and crews of FOUR planes, each downed on 9/11 because there was not ONE weapon on any of them And some 20 or so other hijacked planes over the years that blew up or crashed. Tell it to the those who remember the 4,000,000 killed in the Nazi holocaust because there were insufficient weapons to fend off the attackers. Tell it to the 30,000,000 Russians killed by Stalin because they had insufficient weaponry to defend themselves. The more guns the merrier. An armed society is a polite society. Rules, spoken and unspoken, develop amongst the armed, which makes sure that mistakes are minimized. It is no accident that the relative freedom today occurred just after the inventions of repeating arms. Dictators doesn’t like the citizenry to have guns. Too bad. It’s called "balance of power". You prefer an imbalance which makes you a weak player. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tabby

Response:

I have enjoyed reading your posts, but I do not agree with arming pilots. I firmly believe that we should do what we are trained to do, and what we are good at. Pilots fly aircraft, they are not trained security personnel. I would not want to be on a flight where a airline pilot was having to fire a weapon in a pressurized cabin. The sky marshall program should satisfy the need for extreme force. These are the trained people I want with the gun if the situation required gunfire. My only regret is that I missed the age window for applying to the program by two years.

<Snip of Ray’s post for brevity Oh Gawd! Not the "pressurized cabin" myth again!  ’Fess up now, you don’t know a damn thing about what you’re talking about, do you?  You are aware that a 747 can maintain cabin pressure with 5 windows out, aren’t you?  You do know that "pressurized" typically means a 5-8 lbs./sq. in. difference between cabin and outside pressure, don’t you?  A .45 caliber hole in an airliner’s fuselage would be one more small hole among many, much larger holes. James Bond movies are *not* an accurate guide to the basic workings of aircraft. No regards for the willfully ignorant, Jack Brooks 10 year USAF Security Police veteran, aircraft security and recapture was part of my job. Just don’t shoot toward the pilot, please.

Response:

Another libloon PLONK

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An extremely high percentage of the pilots involved in commercial aviation are military trained. As such they can be trusted with guns. Yes, most first officers and pilots in commercial aviation have a military background.  They are highly trained, highly capable at: flying aircraft.  Some may even, from time to time, fire missles or 30,000 feet and shoot at bad guys way, way down on the ground with a Glock!  It’s not a matter of trust – at all (and in so suggesting, you really have blown your toes off): it about flying the plane!  Core competencies for piloting do not include firearms. We DO NOT NOW HAVE SKY MARSHALLS ON ALL FLIGHTS. We will not have for some time to come. If you fly right now you are generally on a plane where everyone is disarmed, except the terrorists of course. Arming the air crew puts the balance of power in the hands of the people best qualified to handle it. What the hell are you talking about – "the balance of power"?  This isn’t about going nuclear toe-to-toe with the Russians, this is about civil aviation! And I suppose this chuckle-headed plan would also restore that "balance of power" on international flights.  As in many Eqgypt Air, and Would you feel safer flying internationally as well, with, say, Gamil al-Batouty, PIC? If you don’t feel you can trust the pilot and co-pilot to behave responsibility, why in hell are you flying on a plane in the first place? Again, blow it out your ass.  It’s not trust.  I fly on commercial aircraft to get to point "A" to "B", and airlines don’t need a bloody armory on board to make this happen. -Tabby

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places. And more, and more, and more…

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response:

Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places.

And more, and more, and more…

Response:

Uniform regulation is not security.

Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places.

Response:

Another libloon PLONK

snip My thoughts, exactly, Ray.  As I read Tabby’s ridiculous posts in _this_thread_, my immediate inclination was to add her to my filter, not because I don’t like her or have anything against her, or even because I don’t like her point of view — but rather because my impression was that she is so naive and illogical that I will probably never learn anything useful from her; I often use my filters as a way to eliminate worthless junk and noise.  However, since I’ve just come back to the group recently, and consequently don’t know many folks including Tabby, I decided to resist the urge in the hope that she just _might_ have some valuable thoughts in _other_ areas, and that I ought to take a wait and see attitude.  So, rather than ‘plonk’ her, I decided to filter all posts by her on the subject of guns, in particular, but not otherwise. Just a thought, for what it’s worth. I don’t know why, but this caused me to think of a funny event that happened last week.  I noticed that the coffee that this girl had made was extremely weak looking, and so I asked her if she had forgotten to change the filter — thinking that the water was merely dripping through the old grounds.  She said ‘No’, so I pulled the filter out and was shocked to find that she had put whole coffee beans in there, without grinding them.  We have a coffeemate grinder sitting there, so I showed her what she was supposed to do.  ;-)  She is a coffee drinker, so I’d have thought that she would have had some idea that coffee is ground, even if she has never made freshly ground coffee before. Cheers. Bill Velek

Response:

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

<innocent earnest mode on Obviously, we need a special police force of properly certified specialist police to deal with that. <innocent earnest mode off

Response:

1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished.

There may be some truth in your statement.  But it has nothing to do with arming pilots.  Or passengers. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security.

It most certainly does have the lead role in aviation security and safety.  It sets policy ("why" and "how" to do (or not do) certain set of things); it enforces these security regulations (inspects, audits) that directly relate to airport access, processes, and minimum performance levels.  THAT’S done via regulations.  So when you see in the news that this silly feel-good scheme ain’t gonna make law, you’ll understand the power of being a regulatory entity like FAA. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway.

Ummn, what’s that big ugly building in Virginia – got five sides?  The Pentagon! As in the military.  Sorry – that’s the ultimate federal role in security, and seems to work OK to a whole nation of grateful people… You are ultimately responsible for your security.

Not by toting a gun on a plance, my friend.  Let me touch on this – safety, cause you seen awful scared about flying.  And you can validate these figures: o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean? How many people died in commerical aviation in 1997?  One.  One person. I’ll take those odds any day.  So please, when you next fly – sit back, relax, AND KEEP YOUR GUN AT HOME.  I don’t want to be one of the 4,000 dead! – Tabby

Response:

You may be right about the pressurized aircraft, I have never been on one that has suffered a rapid decompression, only seen the pictures of the after effects. As a 10 year USAF Security Police veteran you did not fly the plane, which is case in point. leave the security work to the professionals. Oh Gawd! Not the "pressurized cabin" myth again!  ’Fess up now, you don’t know a damn thing about what you’re talking about, do you?  You are aware that a 747 can maintain cabin pressure with 5 windows out, aren’t you?  You do know that "pressurized" typically means a 5-8 lbs./sq. in. difference between cabin and outside pressure, don’t you?  A .45 caliber hole in an airliner’s fuselage would be one more small hole among many, much larger holes. James Bond movies are *not* an accurate guide to the basic workings of aircraft. No regards for the willfully ignorant,

Or for the intentional smart ass Jack Brooks 10 year USAF Security Police veteran, aircraft security and recapture was part of my job. Just don’t shoot toward the pilot, please.

Best advice you gave

Response:

o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean?

Sigh..Tabby..post your cites. We might as well get this over with once and for all. Just to make sure your ignorance does have bounds. Gunner "Time, heat and pressure.    The same things that make a diamond also make a waffle."                                              ~Scott Meyer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  The collective "feet" (all 110,000 feet of ‘em) of FAA/USDOT must be held to the fire, and must be held accountable for securing the national airspace and airports.  Arming pilots would be perfect cover for FAA to return to its pre-11 Sept coma. It’ll never happen. You’ll never see government employees or agents punished. There may be some truth in your statement.  But it has nothing to do with arming pilots.  Or passengers. The FAA is a regulatory agency  not security. It most certainly does have the lead role in aviation security and safety.  It sets policy ("why" and "how" to do (or not do) certain set of things); it enforces these security regulations (inspects, audits) that directly relate to airport access, processes, and minimum performance levels.  THAT’S done via regulations.  So when you see in the news that this silly feel-good scheme ain’t gonna make law, you’ll understand the power of being a regulatory entity like FAA. The government is not good at security and there is only so much to do anyway. Ummn, what’s that big ugly building in Virginia – got five sides?  The Pentagon! As in the military.  Sorry – that’s the ultimate federal role in security, and seems to work OK to a whole nation of grateful people… You are ultimately responsible for your security. Not by toting a gun on a plance, my friend.  Let me touch on this – safety, cause you seen awful scared about flying.  And you can validate these figures: o  36,000 (approx) people in the U.S. died from guns in 1997.  Of this number, o  Of this carnage – these 36,00 dead by guns, 4,000 died by wounds incurred by ACCIDENT.  I DO NOT want to fly with some boozed-up, pistol-packing Bubba with a Rambo complex – know what I mean? How many people died in commerical aviation in 1997?  One.  One person. I’ll take those odds any day.  So please, when you next fly – sit back, relax, AND KEEP YOUR GUN AT HOME.  I don’t want to be one of the 4,000 dead! – Tabby

National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 47, # 19 1997 Firearm fatalities    32,406 Suicide by firearm         54.2% Homicide by Firearm        41.7% All other Firearm fatalities (including accidental)                             4.1 % (roughly 1329 total) Commercial Aviation Fatalities, 1997 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) Total                           93 Major Air Hub Carriers           8 Local Service Air Carriers      46 On Demand Air Taxis             39 Be careful about throwing around numbers on this group, you will be taken to task. David Hughes

Response:

We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? <innocent earnest mode on Obviously, we need a special police force of properly certified specialist police to deal with that. <innocent earnest mode off

Yes, an elite, special, super-duper police. Especially trained to deal with troublesome people. And a special place to put these miscreants.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Uniform regulation is not security. Uniform regulation would tell the bad guys what to expect. The bad guys could then make plans to circumvent the countermeasures, leaving passengers even more vulnerable. But, of course, Tabby would then suggest that the laws should then be tightened even more and more Police added to more places. And more, and more, and more… We’ll be safe when we have enough police.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Not the guards, that’s for sure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Robert Sturgeon http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

Response: