blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:45:51 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > SCP wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:43:43 -0500, "Pete C." > wrote:
> >>
> >> -->
> >> -->SCP wrote:
> >> -->>
> >> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:08:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >> -->>
> >> -->> -->In article >,
> >> -->> --> SCP > wrote:
> >> -->> -->
> >> -->> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:43:57 -0400, blake murphy
> >> -->> >
> >> -->> -->> wrote:
> >> -->> -->
> >> -->> -->> -->you say, for what they choose to cover and not cover - but the
> >> idea
> >> -->> that
> >> -->> -->> -->the government, or some other 'they' can suppress coverage is
> >> beyond
> >> -->> -->> -->stupid.
> >> -->> -->
> >> -->> -->> Do you know the cost of the war in Iraq as of last week?
> >> -->> -->
> >> -->> -->To Iraq or to Canada?
> >> -->>
> >> -->> I suppose I should of been specific for you Dan
> >> -->>
> >> -->> Anyone know what the cost of the US / Iraq war has cost up to today?
> >> -->
> >> -->Who is at war with the US / Iraq? I guess just al-queda, and I don't
> >> -->think they publish their budgetary information...
> >>
> >> No but it's cost the USA $600 Billion since 2001.
> >
> > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
> > before they can even get close to the US. Sounds like money well spent
> > to me, and certainly less than most folks spend on far more frivolous
> > stuff like cable TV.
>
> frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
>
> blake

Frankly, you should be worried about both as there are real threats
posed by both, however the domestic threat is less likely to target the
general civilian population.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:45:51 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > SCP wrote:

> >> No but it's cost the USA $600 Billion since 2001.
> >
> > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
> > before they can even get close to the US. Sounds like money well spent
> > to me, and certainly less than most folks spend on far more frivolous
> > stuff like cable TV.

I don't like your logic at all. I think there's pretty much an infinite
supply. And for every one you kill, there are 37 relatives who are
infuriated at the foreign infidels to the extent that they want revenge.
And we have pretty much an infinite supply of targets. And they are
terrorists. They aren't trying to weaken our military, destroy our
economy or decimate our population. They just need to scare us into
leaving them alone. I'm sure each of us could think up a hundred
terrorist targets in the US in an hour. How about a single kindergarden
class? If they can hit one, they can hit any of them. The Golden Gate
Bridge. Grand Coulee Dam. The Empire State Building. One major
freeway overpass in every major city, simultaneously. Exactly 100
simultaneous forest fires, in the height of fire season, at least one in
each state.

> frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'

Oklahoma City was pretty bad.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:52 -0500, SCP > wrote:

-->On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:47:09 -0500, Michel Boucher >
-->wrote:
-->
-->-->SCP > wrote in
:
-->-->
-->-->> Then please tell me how we have boots on the ground then? Yes we have
-->-->> troops there, you may not be aware of this but it's a fact, nephews
-->-->> there right now on third tour. As well our JTF2 units are split
-->-->> between both Afganistan and Iraq.
-->-->
-->-->There are Canadian soldiers which are on secondment to US units (and an
-->-->equal number of US soldiers in Canada) and if that US unit goes to Iraq,
-->-->they also go. About 1000 were in the initial deployment. It was
mentioned
-->-->at the time. But they are not there at the direction of the Canadian
-->-->government. If Canadian units are being deployed to Iraq, someone is
going
-->-->against the explicit will of Parliament. Of course with piano boy,
-->-->anything is possible but I'll just assume he's not THAT stupid.
-->
-->don't assume anything
-->
-->-->
-->-->JTF2 "does not exist", and if it did, they certainly would never tell
-->-->anyone they went to Iraq, unless someone is in breach of the Official
-->-->Secrets Act which carries with it a jail sentence of up to five years.
-->
-->You know shit... don't embarrass yourself further.
-->
-->Here's their website, compliments of DND...
--> http://www.jtf2.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp


btw... further to your education ...
http://www.jtf2.forces.gc.ca/ct/index-eng.asp
read the bottom paragraph

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>

> > > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts

> > frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
>
> Oklahoma City was pretty bad.

But at least they didn't "target the
general civilian population".

I have inside knowledge about what those kids in that day care center
were *really* plotting to do.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:45:51 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > > SCP wrote:
>
> > >> No but it's cost the USA $600 Billion since 2001.
> > >
> > > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
> > > before they can even get close to the US. Sounds like money well spent
> > > to me, and certainly less than most folks spend on far more frivolous
> > > stuff like cable TV.
>
> I don't like your logic at all. I think there's pretty much an infinite
> supply. And for every one you kill, there are 37 relatives who are
> infuriated at the foreign infidels to the extent that they want revenge.

I'm all for pushing the borderline cases over the edge and killing them
too. Ultimately, only the ones who realize that their relatives were
killed expressly because of *their* actions will be left. These are also
the ones who will reform the dysfunctional violent tribal culture into a
civilized one, once the threat of these same radical wingnuts is removed
and they are able to express themselves without being killed. You have
to remember that it is the violent radical minority that is both
attacking us, and also attacking and suppressing the voices of reason in
the arab / muslim world.

> And we have pretty much an infinite supply of targets. And they are
> terrorists. They aren't trying to weaken our military, destroy our
> economy or decimate our population. They just need to scare us into
> leaving them alone.

Wow, you need to pull your head out of the sand. These radical
terrorists are most certainly trying to destroy our economy, they've
stated this goal. It's not a question of leaving them alone, morally,
ethically (and nothing to do with religion), we can not just sit idle
and watch this violent radical minority oppress, torture, and kill the
people in "their" countries.

> I'm sure each of us could think up a hundred
> terrorist targets in the US in an hour. How about a single kindergarden
> class? If they can hit one, they can hit any of them. The Golden Gate
> Bridge. Grand Coulee Dam. The Empire State Building. One major
> freeway overpass in every major city, simultaneously. Exactly 100
> simultaneous forest fires, in the height of fire season, at least one in
> each state.

There is no shortage of "soft" targets, which is why it is so essential
to bring the fight to the terrorists, not wait for them to bring it here
*again*.

>
> > frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
>
> Oklahoma City was pretty bad.

Yes, it was, however as I noted in another post, these domestic threats
are less likely to target the general civilian population. OKC *was* a
government target, not a civilian market like the foreign terrorists are
so fond of targeting.

I'm rather disgusted that the media can't seem to get their terminology
straight with regard to true terrorist attacks such as car bombings of a
civilian market, and what is more properly termed a "guerilla" attack on
a valid government / military target such as a US military base or
warship. This may seem trivial to some, but it leads to a real issue of
understanding which enemies have some prospect of reformation vs. those
which must be destroyed.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
>
> > > > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
>
> > > frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
> >
> > Oklahoma City was pretty bad.
>
> But at least they didn't "target the
> general civilian population".

No, they didn't. Attacking a shopping mall would have been a general
civilian population target.

>
> I have inside knowledge about what those kids in that day care center
> were *really* plotting to do.

Co-mingling of civilians in with a government installation is the same
problem we face in targeting the terrorists who hide and attack from
civilian areas.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:54:10 -0500, SCP wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:01 -0400, blake murphy >
> wrote:
>
> -->On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:50:25 -0500, SCP wrote:
> -->
> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:43:57 -0400, blake murphy
> >
> -->> wrote:
> -->>
> -->> -->On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:29:56 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
> -->> -->
> -->> -->> In article >,
> -->> -->> SCP > wrote:
> -->> -->>
> -->> -->>> They say the second wave of this flu will be hitting soon, while
> they
> -->> were
> -->> -->>> announcing this they mentioned briefly that a number of children
> have
> -->> died
> -->> -->>> already. There hasn't been any mention of this , except for this few
> -->> second
> -->> -->>> blurb. I'm wondering if they are deliberatley controlling what gets
> out
> -->> to
> -->> -->>> the
> -->> -->>> media?
> -->> -->>
> -->> -->> I'm sure "they" are. "They" forced the media to provide extensive
> -->> -->> coverage of a helium balloon with no kid in it. "They" did that,
> rather
> -->> -->> than inform us about H1N1.
> -->> -->>
> -->> -->> You should contact President Obama right now, and tell him that
> Canadian
> -->> -->> citizens have a right to know what is happening with H1N1 at the
> Minnie
> -->> -->> Soda State Fair.
> -->> -->
> -->> -->it's completely absurd. i hold no brief for the news media - mostly,
> as
> -->> -->you say, for what they choose to cover and not cover - but the idea
> that
> -->> -->the government, or some other 'they' can suppress coverage is beyond
> -->> -->stupid.
> -->> -->
> -->> -->your pal,
> -->> -->blake
> -->>
> -->> Do you know the cost of the war in Iraq as of last week?
> -->
> -->it might not be on the nightly news, but that doesn't mean the information
> -->is suppressed.
> -->
> -->blake
>
> So you don't know

the question was whether 'they' suppress the news, not the cost of the war.

blake

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:54:44 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:45:51 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> SCP wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:43:43 -0500, "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -->
>>>> -->SCP wrote:
>>>> -->>
>>>> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:08:50 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>> -->>
>>>> -->> -->In article >,
>>>> -->> --> SCP > wrote:
>>>> -->> -->
>>>> -->> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:43:57 -0400, blake murphy
>>>> -->> >
>>>> -->> -->> wrote:
>>>> -->> -->
>>>> -->> -->> -->you say, for what they choose to cover and not cover - but the
>>>> idea
>>>> -->> that
>>>> -->> -->> -->the government, or some other 'they' can suppress coverage is
>>>> beyond
>>>> -->> -->> -->stupid.
>>>> -->> -->
>>>> -->> -->> Do you know the cost of the war in Iraq as of last week?
>>>> -->> -->
>>>> -->> -->To Iraq or to Canada?
>>>> -->>
>>>> -->> I suppose I should of been specific for you Dan
>>>> -->>
>>>> -->> Anyone know what the cost of the US / Iraq war has cost up to today?
>>>> -->
>>>> -->Who is at war with the US / Iraq? I guess just al-queda, and I don't
>>>> -->think they publish their budgetary information...
>>>>
>>>> No but it's cost the USA $600 Billion since 2001.
>>>
>>> So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
>>> before they can even get close to the US. Sounds like money well spent
>>> to me, and certainly less than most folks spend on far more frivolous
>>> stuff like cable TV.
>>
>> frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
>>
>> blake
>
> Frankly, you should be worried about both as there are real threats
> posed by both, however the domestic threat is less likely to target the
> general civilian population.

just doctors, museum guards, and unitarians.

blake

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:08:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> > > So it's cost me like $25/mo or so to kill a bunch of dangerous wing nuts
>>
>>> > frankly, i'm more worried about domestic 'wing nuts.'
>>>
>>> Oklahoma City was pretty bad.
>>
>> But at least they didn't "target the
>> general civilian population".
>
> No, they didn't. Attacking a shopping mall would have been a general
> civilian population target.
>
>>
>> I have inside knowledge about what those kids in that day care center
>> were *really* plotting to do.
>
> Co-mingling of civilians in with a government installation is the same
> problem we face in targeting the terrorists who hide and attack from
> civilian areas.

government employees aren't civilians and deserve to die? **** you.

blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:08:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> > Co-mingling of civilians in with a government installation is the same
> > problem we face in targeting the terrorists who hide and attack from
> > civilian areas.
>
> government employees aren't civilians and deserve to die? **** you.

Yeah. A *Federal* building? By military definition, those are
civilians. I would be surprised if 1% of those people are military. I
used to work for Army recruiting. No sense doing recruiting on a
military installation, so the recruiting stations need to be where the
civilians are. Those aren't exactly military targets. Perhaps some of
these are in Federal buildings.

About once a year, I go shopping at a military installation. There's a
big supermarket, plus other stores. We drive by a school and a church
to get to the store. All these are physically on the base.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:25:46 -0400, blake murphy >
wrote:

-->On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:54:10 -0500, SCP wrote:
-->
-->> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:01 -0400, blake murphy
>
-->> wrote:
-->>
-->> -->On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:50:25 -0500, SCP wrote:
-->> -->
-->> -->> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:43:57 -0400, blake murphy
-->> >
-->> -->> wrote:
-->> -->>
-->> -->> -->On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:29:56 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->> In article >,
-->> -->> -->> SCP > wrote:
-->> -->> -->>
-->> -->> -->>> They say the second wave of this flu will be hitting soon,
while
-->> they
-->> -->> were
-->> -->> -->>> announcing this they mentioned briefly that a number of
children
-->> have
-->> -->> died
-->> -->> -->>> already. There hasn't been any mention of this , except for
this few
-->> -->> second
-->> -->> -->>> blurb. I'm wondering if they are deliberatley controlling what
gets
-->> out
-->> -->> to
-->> -->> -->>> the
-->> -->> -->>> media?
-->> -->> -->>
-->> -->> -->> I'm sure "they" are. "They" forced the media to provide
extensive
-->> -->> -->> coverage of a helium balloon with no kid in it. "They" did
that,
-->> rather
-->> -->> -->> than inform us about H1N1.
-->> -->> -->>
-->> -->> -->> You should contact President Obama right now, and tell him that
-->> Canadian
-->> -->> -->> citizens have a right to know what is happening with H1N1 at the
-->> Minnie
-->> -->> -->> Soda State Fair.
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->it's completely absurd. i hold no brief for the news media -
mostly,
-->> as
-->> -->> -->you say, for what they choose to cover and not cover - but the
idea
-->> that
-->> -->> -->the government, or some other 'they' can suppress coverage is
beyond
-->> -->> -->stupid.
-->> -->> -->
-->> -->> -->your pal,
-->> -->> -->blake
-->> -->>
-->> -->> Do you know the cost of the war in Iraq as of last week?
-->> -->
-->> -->it might not be on the nightly news, but that doesn't mean the
information
-->> -->is suppressed.
-->> -->
-->> -->blake
-->>
-->> So you don't know
-->
-->the question was whether 'they' suppress the news, not the cost of the war.
-->
-->blake


one in the same isn't it?

btw picked up 1.92KG ...four tenderloins in the package for $15.95 at Costco
this AM

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:27:43 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:08:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
>>> Co-mingling of civilians in with a government installation is the same
>>> problem we face in targeting the terrorists who hide and attack from
>>> civilian areas.
>>
>> government employees aren't civilians and deserve to die? **** you.
>
> Yeah. A *Federal* building? By military definition, those are
> civilians. I would be surprised if 1% of those people are military. I
> used to work for Army recruiting. No sense doing recruiting on a
> military installation, so the recruiting stations need to be where the
> civilians are. Those aren't exactly military targets. Perhaps some of
> these are in Federal buildings.
>
> About once a year, I go shopping at a military installation. There's a
> big supermarket, plus other stores. We drive by a school and a church
> to get to the store. All these are physically on the base.

not to mention that as i recall there was a daycare center in the murrah
building. all the kids certainly deserved to die.

your pal,
blake

Omelet > wrote in
news
> In article >,
> PeterL > wrote:
>
>> Omelet > wrote in
>> newsmpomelet-25993B.17583519102009 @news-wc.giganews.com:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> > Not food related.
>> >
>> > Who cares oh paranoid one???
>> >
>> > It's not killing any more people than the normal seasonal flu'!
>> > Please don't give in to media sensationalism. H1N1 is no big f-ing
>> > deal!
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know about no big deal or not, but it seems serious enough for
>> the Australian Govt to purchase 22million vaccinations and give them to
>> everyone in Oz for free.
>>
>> I haven't had mine yet, but then again, I don't hang around with people
>> who kiss pigs ;-P
>
> When the vaccine becomes available here, I'm NOT getting it!
> I don't take the seasonal flu' vaccine either.
>
> I've not had a case of the flu' since I was in High School.
> The two times I've taken the seasonal flu' vaccine, it made me sick both
> times.
>
> I''d not touch the H1N1 vaccine with a 10 ft. pole.
>



I still haven't had the jab. No need. I don't get sick.

I just get smashed up, shot, stabbed........ ;-P



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-932768.19212319102009@c-61-68-
245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
>
>> When the vaccine becomes available here, I'm NOT getting it!
>> I don't take the seasonal flu' vaccine either.
>
> I've never had a flu shot, that I remember. I'm planning on getting one
> this week.
>
>> I''d not touch the H1N1 vaccine with a 10 ft. pole.
>
> I'm planning on getting that one also, once it's available for my
> priority class.
>


How'd you go with the shot? Any side effects?



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?