The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/michael.david/2001/michael.0110


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:07 EDT 2001
Article: 973065 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.flame.niggers,alt.revisionism
References: <42ccd31a761364f4ab8fcacf50b4320d@cypherpunks.to>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:35:17 +0100
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.77
Message-ID: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Oct 2001 15:29:54 GMT, 213.78.41.77
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!newsfeed.completel.de!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.77
Xref: hub.org alt.conspiracy:609041 alt.flame.niggers:508446 alt.revisionism:973065

The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without exception,
having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens. Since the days of
Nixon it has been steadily opening up relations with the Americans and has
now abandoned whatever revolutionary idealism it might once have had to
become merely another American-backed dictatorship.

Those who oppose the NWO should work for the demise of the Communist
dictatorship there and work for a regime that is resolutely anti-communist
and anti-American.

"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" 
wrote in message news:42ccd31a761364f4ab8fcacf50b4320d@cypherpunks.to...
>
> Of the many analyses that have followed the WTC bombing, many have come to
two conclusions.
> These are (1) That the current military action is aimed at the enemies of
Israel, and (2) that the WTC bombing is being used as an excuse to railroad
through a whole raft of oppressive new measures.
>
> These are undoubtedly correct, but there may be more.
>
> Multiracialism is the weapon with which the NWO elite intends to destroy
and control the peoples and nations of the world.
>
> Those behind the NWO do not fear the whites. Nor do they fear the blacks.
It is however becoming obvious that there is one country that they do fear.
That country is vast. Its population is enormous. It has immense natural
resources. It has acquired nuclear weapons and is industrialising fast. It
is racially pure and its people are racially conscious. Furthermore, their
mindset is every bit as devious and as callous as those behind the NWO.
>
> That country is China.
>
> A recent US report predicted that there would be war between the US and
China within 20 years. That war would certainly go nuclear. It concluded
that America would probably lose.
>
> Are those behind the NWO preparing for the big one ?
>
> The action in Afghanistan will probably result in the imposition of a
puppet government and the introduction of US troops. Nuclear missiles -
Cuban style - could be put there as well. A destabilisation campaign - like
the ones we've seen in Yugoslavia and Macedonia - will probably follow.
Drugs, arms and propaganda will be pushed over the border into China.
Minorities will be armed and inflamed etc.
>
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:07 EDT 2001
Article: 973204 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:12:21 +0100
Lines: 102
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.112
Message-ID: <3bc4c693@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Oct 2001 23:07:15 GMT, 213.78.41.112
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news2.euro.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.112
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973204


"Ootha2831"  wrote in message
news:20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 09/10/01 10:37 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >
>
> >
> >On the contrary -- I condemn terrorism.
> >
> >I condemn the Allied terrorism on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that killed
around
> >270,000 people. Do you?
>
>  Did you know Truman and his strategists calculated many more times that
figure
> of American troops would have died if they tried to tale Japan by
invasion?

Ah, the false dichotomy gambit.

And how many would have died if they had said: 'we are not prepared to
sacrifice hundreds of thousands of troops or hundreds of thousands of
civilian lives for a political principle -- we will seek a negotiated
peace'?

The sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives for a
political principle is PRECISELY the sort of logic that got people death
sentences in the Nuremberg Trials, and is PRECISELY the sort of logic that
has led to Mr Milosevic's presence in the Hague.

Funny how that same logic never seems to get Americans, Brits, or Israelis
into trouble with international law.

> >
> >I condemn the terror attacks on Iraq that have slaughtered over 200,000
> >innocent civilians. Do you?
>
> War is the atrocity. Who started that war?

War *per se* is not an atrocity under international law. War could be a
highly moral act on occasion. However, if warfare is pursued with a
disregard for civilian lives, then it can violate international law.

And do you really want to argue that atrocities allegedly committed by Iraq
justify the far greater atrocities committed by America?

> >I condemn the Israeli terror attacks on Palestinian men, women and
children.
> >Do you?
>
> Killing Pizzaria patrons is the atrocity. What did you expect the Israelis
do
> in response to these attacks? Sit on their hands?

I expect them to respond in their usual manner: slaughter innocent third
parties and destroy their property. In other words, do precisely the things
that Bin Laden and the Taleban are vilified for (allegedly) doing.

> >
> >I condemn the slaughter of innocent Afghans that is taken place even now
as
> >I write these words. Do you?
>
>  What do you want the coalition to do? Nothing? Let the terrorists have a
field
> day? If I remeber correctly, you yourself dont support that option. (Tom
Moran
> allowing the anti-revisionists to have a 'field day')

What is happening in Afghanistan now is nothing more than a murderous
publicity stunt. It will not stop terrorism. Even if Afghanistan and Bin
Laden are crushed, there are others who will take their place. Bush has to
satisfy American opinion, incensed by CNN 'reporting'. He has to be seen to
be 'doing something', even if it is murderous and ineffectual.

> You consistantly characterise western self defence strategies as
'murderous
> assaults'. Yet you fail to dissect why those retaliatory strikes happened
in
> the first place.

I do not accept that they are self-defence strategies. Israel's macho
policies have not enhanced its security position -- they have led to an
ongoing loss of life in the territory.

And would you call the use of the concentration camps in World War II by the
Germans a 'self-defence' strategy? After all, as Himmler pointed out, they
were intended to prevent the Jews from acting as a potent third column
behind German lines in the war!

I do not believe that a barbarous act is always the best response to a
barbarous act. It may be on occasion, but in the cases you have cited I
think that there were far better options.

> Jason James

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:08 EDT 2001
Article: 973560 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com> <3bc4c693@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC4F61C.7090108@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:53:23 +0100
Lines: 61
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.29
Message-ID: <3bc57931@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 11 Oct 2001 11:49:21 GMT, 213.78.42.29
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.29
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973560


"Gord McFee"  wrote in message
news:3BC4F61C.7090108@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Ootha2831"  wrote in message
> > news:20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >>>From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >>>Date: 09/10/01 10:37 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >>>
> >>>On the contrary -- I condemn terrorism.
> >>>
> >>>I condemn the Allied terrorism on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that killed
> >>>
> > around
> >
> >>>270,000 people. Do you?
> >>>
> >> Did you know Truman and his strategists calculated many more times that
> >>
> > figure
> >
> >>of American troops would have died if they tried to tale Japan by
> >>
> > invasion?
> >
> > Ah, the false dichotomy gambit.
>
>
> Then stop doing it.
>
>
> > And how many would have died if they had said: 'we are not prepared to
> > sacrifice hundreds of thousands of troops or hundreds of thousands of
> > civilian lives for a political principle -- we will seek a negotiated
> > peace'?
>
>
> If you knew your ass from your elbow, you would know that Japan refused
> *every* offer of peace until after the second atomic bomb had been
> dropped on Nagasaki.

And as you know well, Gord, this is completely dishonest. All the Japanese
wanted was to be allowed to retain their emperor -- something that was
eventually allowed anyway! If the Americans had allowed them that, they
would have sued for peace. See:

http://burn.ucsd.edu/caq53.htm

Yes -- go on, ignore it. You're an unpleasant, dishonest little man making
propaganda for an unpleasant, dishonest little cause. And the sad thing is,
I think you know it.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:08 EDT 2001
Article: 973828 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com> <3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:10:48 +0100
Lines: 78
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.115
Message-ID: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 00:05:26 GMT, 213.78.43.115
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.algonet.se!algonet!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.115
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973828


"Waldo"  wrote in message
news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
>
> Philip Mathews  wrote in message
> news:20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com...
> > In >Message-id: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >
> > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk  wrote:
> >
> > >The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without exception,
> > >having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens.
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Really!  What's your evidence for this?
> >
> > --
> > Philip Mathews
>
> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a murderous lot,
but
> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a strong
contender
> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of their own
> citizens.
>
> Can China top that?
>
> Waldo
>
> Observer at Large

Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records, under the
greatest mass murders section.

Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the Soviet Union
than for China

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_prc.html

but he adds an important qualification:


These totals do not include the 27,000,000 people who starved to death due
to Mao's mismanagement of Chinese agriculture in the early 1960s. This was
the worst famine in human history, and it was caused entirely, though not
deliberately, by politicians.

Additionally, there is the difficult question of involuntary abortion, of
children desired by the parents, at the behest of the state or its agents.
Whether the killing of a foetus is murder, and if not, whether it becomes
murder when done against the mother's will, is the problem. It is not clear
if these abortions should be included in the democide totals.

But one may consider that Chinese abortions are often administered by
allowing the mother to go through labor, then crushing the child's skull
with forceps as it is being born. This seems quite a bit like murder.
Additionally, there have been numerous reports of infants being murdered
following birth. Infanticide is not the official policy of Communist China.
It is, however, the actual policy, official denials not withstanding.

The number of deaths resulting from coerced abortions and infanticide since
1971 is estimated at over 110 million, making this perhaps the greatest
crime in all of history.


As I pointed out in a post in May last year, Rummel tends to give low
estimates because of his restrictive definition of democide. For instance,
his estimate of the Soviet total is slightly lower than that given by Ivan
Kurganov and quoted by Solzhenitsyn in his Warning to the Western World.

Otto Pohl also had some interesting views on all this if I recall. Don't
know if he's still around in here.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:08 EDT 2001
Article: 973866 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:38:03 +0100
Lines: 70
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.10
Message-ID: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 01:32:42 GMT, 213.78.40.10
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.10
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973866


"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
news:20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com...
> In >Message-id: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
>
> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> >"Waldo"  wrote in message
> >news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
> >>
> >> Philip Mathews  wrote in message
> >> news:20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >> > In >Message-id: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >> >
> >> > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without
exception,
> >> > >having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens.
> >> >
> >> > (snip)
> >> >
> >> > Really!  What's your evidence for this?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Philip Mathews
> >>
> >> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a murderous lot,
> >but
> >> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a strong
> >contender
> >> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of their own
> >> citizens.
> >>
> >> Can China top that?
> >>
> >> Waldo
> >>
> >> Observer at Large
> >
> >Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records, under
the
> >greatest mass murders section.
>
> Ah, so your evidence is the Guiness Book of Records!
>
> >Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the Soviet
Union
> >than for China
>
> Yes but what's the evidence?
>
> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killing took place?
>
> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
>
> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
>
> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90 million?
How
> were the numbers arrived at?
>
> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these people?
>
> --
> Philip Mathews

Your point, Philip?




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:09 EDT 2001
Article: 973928 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com> <3bc4c693@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC4F61C.7090108@sympatico.ca> <3bc57931@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC64B53.6060003@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:19:07 +0100
Lines: 134
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.10
Message-ID: <3bc651ec@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 03:14:04 GMT, 213.78.40.10
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.10
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973928


"Gord McFee"  wrote in message
news:3BC64B53.6060003@sympatico.ca...
>
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Gord McFee"  wrote in message
> > news:3BC4F61C.7090108@sympatico.ca...
> >>
> >>david_michael wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ootha2831"  wrote in message
> >>>news:20011010162131.10376.00001103@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >>>
> >>>>>Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >>>>>From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >>>>>Date: 09/10/01 10:37 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >>>>>Message-id: <3bc24572@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On the contrary -- I condemn terrorism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I condemn the Allied terrorism on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that killed
> >>>>>
> >>>around
> >>>
> >>>>>270,000 people. Do you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>Did you know Truman and his strategists calculated many more times
that
> >>>>
> >>>figure
> >>>
> >>>>of American troops would have died if they tried to tale Japan by
> >>>>
> >>>invasion?
> >>>
> >>>Ah, the false dichotomy gambit.
> >>
> >>Then stop doing it.
> >>
> >>>And how many would have died if they had said: 'we are not prepared to
> >>>sacrifice hundreds of thousands of troops or hundreds of thousands of
> >>>civilian lives for a political principle -- we will seek a negotiated
> >>>peace'?
> >>
> >>If you knew your ass from your elbow, you would know that Japan refused
> >>*every* offer of peace until after the second atomic bomb had been
> >>dropped on Nagasaki.
> >
> > And as you know well, Gord, this is completely dishonest.
>
>
> As I well know, it is completely accurate.  What Japan refused was the
> Potsdam Declaration that called for unconditional surrender.  Among the
> points of contention was the Emperor.  I didn't say anything different
> than that.
>
> > All the Japanese
> > wanted was to be allowed to retain their emperor -- something that was
> > eventually allowed anyway! If the Americans had allowed them that, they
> > would have sued for peace. See:
> >
> > http://burn.ucsd.edu/caq53.htm
> >
> > Yes -- go on, ignore it. You're an unpleasant, dishonest little man
making
> > propaganda for an unpleasant, dishonest little cause. And the sad thing
is,
> > I think you know it.
>
>
> I know that I do not care about the opinion of me held by a person who
> supports or applauds murdering terrorists like you do.
>
>
> (1) David Michael states his position on the terrorist murder of over
> 6000 people on September 11, 2001 in the attacks in New York, Washington
> and Pennsylvania.
>
> 
>
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
> truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
> turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
> eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the
> powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that are
> oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
>
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
>
> Death to American capitalism!
>
> Death to international finance!
>
> David Michael
>
> Message-ID: <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
>
> 
>
> (2) When challenged with: "You applaud the terror and killing of
> thousands of innocent people perpetrated by the terrorists who attacked
> the Pentagon and attacked and  destroyed the World Trade Center, calling
> their actions "a wonderful thing," the day the attacks occurred a
> "glorious day," and finishing by fervently wishing for "many more" such
> days.", his response is:
>
> "I do indeed."
>
> Message-ID: <3bae8aab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:26:45 +0100
>
> --
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time


And yet you support the murder of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima!

What a hypocrite!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:09 EDT 2001
Article: 973929 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:22:26 +0100
Lines: 113
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.10
Message-ID: <3bc652ab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 03:17:15 GMT, 213.78.40.10
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.10
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973929


"sw"  wrote in message news:9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > "Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> > news:20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com...
> > > In >Message-id: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> > >
> > > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Waldo"  wrote in message
> > > >news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> Philip Mathews  wrote in message
> > > >> news:20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com...
> > > >> > In >Message-id: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk  wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without
> > exception,
> > > >> > >having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > (snip)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Really!  What's your evidence for this?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Philip Mathews
> > > >>
> > > >> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a murderous
> lot,
> > > >but
> > > >> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a strong
> > > >contender
> > > >> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of their
> own
> > > >> citizens.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can China top that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Waldo
> > > >>
> > > >> Observer at Large
> > > >
> > > >Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records,
> under
> > the
> > > >greatest mass murders section.
> > >
> > > Ah, so your evidence is the Guiness Book of Records!
> > >
> > > >Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the Soviet
> > Union
> > > >than for China
> > >
> > > Yes but what's the evidence?
> > >
> > > What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killing took place?
> > >
> > > Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> > >
> > > Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> > >
> > > You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
> million?
> > How
> > > were the numbers arrived at?
> > >
> > > What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
> people?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philip Mathews
> >
> > Your point, Philip?
>
>
> The point is that you are the sociopathic thug who said:
>
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
truly
> wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have turned
around
> and have shown that they do not have to be nature's eternal victims. They
> have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless can strike
back
> at the very heart of the dark forces that are oppressing them. This time
it
> was not Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came from the
> skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who sustain
> the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those very military men
> who mastermind the attacks on the women and children of Iraq. They thought
> they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from their
> comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in
> the World Trade Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose that they
> will never forget.
>
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
>
> Death to American capitalism!
>
> Death to international finance!


>From which we may assume that Wolk is once again both splattered and
incapable of providing a coherent answer.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:09 EDT 2001
Article: 973930 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011221902.16649.00006396@mb-cg.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:26:29 +0100
Lines: 115
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 04:21:13 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973930


"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
news:20011011221902.16649.00006396@mb-cg.aol.com...
> In >Message-id: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
>
> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> >news:20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >> In >Message-id: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >>
> >> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Waldo"  wrote in message
> >> >news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> Philip Mathews  wrote in message
> >> >> news:20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >> >> > In >Message-id: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without
> >exception,
> >> >> > >having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (snip)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Really!  What's your evidence for this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Philip Mathews
> >> >>
> >> >> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a murderous
lot,
> >> >but
> >> >> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a strong
> >> >contender
> >> >> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of their
own
> >> >> citizens.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can China top that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Waldo
> >> >>
> >> >> Observer at Large
> >> >
> >> >Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records,
under
> >the
> >> >greatest mass murders section.
> >>
> >> Ah, so your evidence is the Guiness Book of Records!
> >>
> >> >Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the Soviet
> >Union
> >> >than for China
> >>
> >> Yes but what's the evidence?
> >>
> >> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killing took place?
> >>
> >> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> >>
> >> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> >>
> >> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
million?
> >How
> >> were the numbers arrived at?
> >>
> >> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
people?
>
> >Your point, Philip?
>
> I would have thought it pretty obvious.

Well it seems to be that you do not trust either the Guinness Book of
Records or Rummel and wish to examine their primary sources. Feel free to do
so!

> You claim the Soviets murdered tens of millions of its citizens.

Actually, I claim that Rummel, Kurganov and the Guinness Book of Records
made that claim. I wasn't there at the time.

> But what's the evidence which supports your claim?

Rummel, Kurganov (cited in Solzhenitsyn's *Warning to the Western World*)
and the Guinness Book of Records.

> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killings took place?

> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
>
> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
>
> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90 million?
How
>  were the numbers arrived at?

> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these people?

Fascinating questions, Philip. I regret that I don't have the answers to
hand.

> --
> Philip Mathews

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:09 EDT 2001
Article: 973931 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:28:06 +0100
Lines: 38
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc6620a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 04:22:50 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973931


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2zo6x4ufj.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> kokopelli@mindspring.com (K. A. Pezzano) writes:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:38:03 +0100, "david_michael"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > >Your point, Philip?
> > >
> >
> > Come on, now.  You may be a mass-murder-supporting thug, but I have no
> > doubt that you know EXACTLY what his point was.
>
>
>   That's DEM's technique, to act stupid when he's asked good
>   questions.
>
>   Oh, and to be a terrorist supporter and moral cretin.
>
> whd
> --
> In 3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk: David E. Michael expressed his
> support for the bombers of Washington and New York, who in the course
> of their terrorist acts caused the downing of at least 4 commercial
> airliners and the destruction of two buildings with a greater loss of
> life than occurred at Pearl Harbor, most of it civilian, said:
>
>   "I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment."

And you're a fine one to criticize -- I seem to recall you waxing lyrical in
support of the civilian bloodfest that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Another mass-murder supporting hypocrite.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:10 EDT 2001
Article: 973969 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:26:45 +0100
Lines: 182
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 05:21:29 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.eu-x.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973969


"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
news:20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com...
> In >Message-id: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> >david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> >news:20011011221902.16649.00006396@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >> In >Message-id: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >>
> >> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> >> >news:20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >> >> In >Message-id: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >> >>
> >> >> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Waldo"  wrote in message
> >> >> >news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Philip Mathews  wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:20011010223700.17361.00000515@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >> >> >> > In >Message-id: <3bc45b62@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk  wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >The Chinese regime is the most murderous in history without
> >> >exception,
> >> >> >> > >having slaughtered tens of millions of its own citizens.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > (snip)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Really!  What's your evidence for this?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Philip Mathews
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a
murderous
> >lot,
> >> >> >but
> >> >> >> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a strong
> >> >> >contender
> >> >> >> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of
their
> >own
> >> >> >> citizens.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can China top that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Waldo
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Observer at Large
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records,
> >under
> >> >the
> >> >> >greatest mass murders section.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, so your evidence is the Guiness Book of Records!
> >> >>
> >> >> >Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the
Soviet
> >> >Union
> >> >> >than for China
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes but what's the evidence?
> >> >>
> >> >> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killing took
place?
> >> >>
> >> >> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> >> >>
> >> >> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
> >million?
> >> >How
> >> >> were the numbers arrived at?
> >> >>
> >> >> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
> >people?
> >>
> >> >Your point, Philip?
> >>
> >> I would have thought it pretty obvious.
> >
> >Well it seems to be that you do not trust either the Guinness Book of
> >Records or Rummel and wish to examine their primary sources. Feel free to
do
> >so!
> >
> >> You claim the Soviets murdered tens of millions of its citizens.
> >
> >Actually, I claim that Rummel, Kurganov and the Guinness Book of Records
> >made that claim. I wasn't there at the time.
> >
> >> But what's the evidence which supports your claim?
> >
> >Rummel, Kurganov (cited in Solzhenitsyn's *Warning to the Western World*)
> >and the Guinness Book of Records.
>
> The Guinness Book of Records is not evidence. Neither is Rummel.

What about Kurganov?

> Where is the
> evidence?

OK -- lesson in methodology. When someone cites a secondary source and you
want to find the primary source, go to the secondary source cited and see if
it gives primary sources (or at least other secondary sources that might
lead you to the primary source). Have you looked at the Guinness Book of
Records? Or Rummel? Or the Kurganov? No? Then I suggest that might be a good
next move -- I'm sure as hell not going to do it for ya!

> >> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killings took place?
> >
> >> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> >>
> >> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> >>
> >> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
million?
> >How
> >>  were the numbers arrived at?
> >
> >> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
people?
>
> >Fascinating questions, Philip. I regret that I don't have the answers to
> >hand.
>
> But you accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of millions.

No -- I accept that historians accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of
millions. Whether they are correct or not is another matter entirely! BUT .
. . I don't really see any convincing reason for them to lie.

> Furthermore, you not
> only don't have the evidence at hand, you have no idea what constitutes
the
> evidence.

Yes -- my comments make the assumption that Rummel and the Guinness Book of
Records have done their research correctly.

> Telling isn't it.

The implicit charge is one of double standards. I've refuted it at length
before now.

Much of the evidence for German mass murder was produced after the war by
the victors who had every motive to falsify it. We know that attempts WERE
made to falsify history (viz. Katyn), there IS some evidence that torture
was used to extract confessions and testimonies (viz. Hoess), that witnesses
HAVE given false testimony (viz. the Demjanjuk affair), that photographs
HAVE been used in a questionable manner (see Walendy's work), that false
numbers WERE placed on plaques outside Auschwitz (subsequently replaced),
that fake gas chambers HAVE BEEN shown to the general public.

In the case of the Soviet Union and China there was less motive for finders
of documents to lie. Primary source material, as far as I am aware, is
largely demographic and has NOT been 'captured' by the victors after a long
and bloody war. The situation calls for a lesser order of scepticism.

> Philip Mathews
>
> "Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
> knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant
> than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."      Samuel Johnson

David





From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:10 EDT 2001
Article: 973970 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com>  <3bc6620a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:28:28 +0100
Lines: 54
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc6702e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 05:23:10 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973970


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2vghl4q8n.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2zo6x4ufj.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > kokopelli@mindspring.com (K. A. Pezzano) writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:38:03 +0100, "david_michael"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Your point, Philip?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Come on, now.  You may be a mass-murder-supporting thug, but I have
no
> > > > doubt that you know EXACTLY what his point was.
> > >
> > >
> > >   That's DEM's technique, to act stupid when he's asked good
> > >   questions.
> > >
> > >   Oh, and to be a terrorist supporter and moral cretin.
> > >
> > > whd
> > > --
> > > In 3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk: David E. Michael expressed his
> > > support for the bombers of Washington and New York, who in the course
> > > of their terrorist acts caused the downing of at least 4 commercial
> > > airliners and the destruction of two buildings with a greater loss of
> > > life than occurred at Pearl Harbor, most of it civilian, said:
> > >
> > >   "I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment."
> >
> > And you're a fine one to criticize -- I seem to recall you waxing
lyrical in
> > support of the civilian bloodfest that took place in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
> >
>
>   Only in your lying, solipsistic, morally cretinous universe could
>   you 'recall' any such thing, terrorist.
>
> whd

So do you unreservedly condemn the terror bombings of Tokyo, Nagasaki,
Hiroshima, Hamburg and Dresden, Mr Daffer?

Yes or no?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:10 EDT 2001
Article: 973971 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <3bc652ab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:29:34 +0100
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc67071@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 05:24:17 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973971


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2r8s94q6l.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
> [snip]
>
> > > The point is that you are the sociopathic thug who said:
> > >
> > > Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
> > truly
> > > wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have turned
> > around
> > > and have shown that they do not have to be nature's eternal victims.
They
> > > have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless can
strike
> > back
> > > at the very heart of the dark forces that are oppressing them. This
time
> > it
> > > was not Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came from
the
> > > skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who
sustain
> > > the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those very military
men
> > > who mastermind the attacks on the women and children of Iraq. They
thought
> > > they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from their
> > > comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals
in
> > > the World Trade Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose that
they
> > > will never forget.
> > >
> > > Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
> > >
> > > Death to American capitalism!
> > >
> > > Death to international finance!
> >
> >
> > From which we may assume that Wolk is once again both splattered and
> > incapable of providing a coherent answer.
>
>   Quoting your own words is 'incoherent?'
>
> whd

Failing to answer the point raised does suggest the absence of a coherent
answer, William.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:11 EDT 2001
Article: 973974 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:30:41 +0100
Lines: 18
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 05:25:27 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!213.204.128.162!news000.worldonline.se!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973974


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2n12x4q3w.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "LITTLE FLUFFY BOT"  writes:
>
> > Is it possible for America to
> >                                       say sorry?
>
>   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
> whd

But you do support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians, right?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:11 EDT 2001
Article: 973979 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:34:28 +0100
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.214
Message-ID: <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 05:29:14 GMT, 213.78.43.214
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.214
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:973979


"K. A. Pezzano"  wrote in message
news:3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:38:03 +0100, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> >Your point, Philip?
> >
>
> Come on, now.  You may be a mass-murder-supporting thug, but I have no
> doubt that you know EXACTLY what his point was.
>
> Kevin

Who are you?

Oh, don't bother -- you obviously don't have anything intelligent to say so
we can just killfile you!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:12 EDT 2001
Article: 974082 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <3bc652ab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc67071@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:03:31 +0100
Lines: 89
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.119
Message-ID: <3bc6f6ee@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 14:58:06 GMT, 213.78.43.119
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!skynet.be!skynet.be!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.119
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974082


"SW"  wrote in message
news:E8vx7.16751$sj.2345299@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> david_michael  wrote in message
> news:3bc67071@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2r8s94q6l.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > The point is that you are the sociopathic thug who said:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This
afternoon
> a
> > > > truly
> > > > > wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
turned
> > > > around
> > > > > and have shown that they do not have to be nature's eternal
victims.
> > They
> > > > > have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless can
> > strike
> > > > back
> > > > > at the very heart of the dark forces that are oppressing them.
This
> > time
> > > > it
> > > > > was not Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came
from
> > the
> > > > > skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who
> > sustain
> > > > > the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those very
> military
> > men
> > > > > who mastermind the attacks on the women and children of Iraq. They
> > thought
> > > > > they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from their
> > > > > comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty
> deals
> > in
> > > > > the World Trade Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose
that
> > they
> > > > > will never forget.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Death to American capitalism!
> > > > >
> > > > > Death to international finance!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From which we may assume that Wolk is once again both splattered and
> > > > incapable of providing a coherent answer.
> > >
> > >   Quoting your own words is 'incoherent?'
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > Failing to answer the point raised does suggest the absence of a
coherent
> > answer, William.
> >
> > David
>
>
> In fact, it suggests that sociopathic thugs are not deserving of answers
of
> any kind.  It makes my skin crawl just to be reminded of the fact that you
> gloated about 5000 dead Americans.  You are not fit company for man nor
> beast.
>
> sw

Your admonition would sound more convincing were it not for your own support
of the unnecessary bloodfest in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

As it is, it sounds like an excuse for chickening out of a discussion with
someone who regularly runs rings around you -- and a rather pathetic attempt
at censorship of debate.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:12 EDT 2001
Article: 974085 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011221902.16649.00006396@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC671EE.C626FCED@reptiles.org>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:15:12 +0100
Lines: 154
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.119
Message-ID: <3bc6f9fb@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 15:11:07 GMT, 213.78.43.119
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.119
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974085


"The Mad Revisionist"  wrote in message
news:3BC671EE.C626FCED@reptiles.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> > news:20011011221902.16649.00006396@mb-cg.aol.com...
> > > In >Message-id: <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> > >
> > > >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> > > >news:20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com...
> > > >> In >Message-id: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> > > >>
> > > >> >"david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >"Waldo"  wrote in message
> > > >> >news:3bc5c69b$0$195@news.impulse.net...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Good point, Philthy. The Chinese communists are indeed a
murderous
> > > >> >> lot, but
> > > >> >> the country that was spawned by the Jewish Bolsheviks is a
strong
> > > >> >contender
> > > >> >> for that title, having murdered somewhere near 60 million of
their
> > > >> >> own citizens.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Can China top that?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Waldo
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Observer at Large
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Yes, my source was an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records,
> > > >> >under the greatest mass murders section.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ah, so your evidence is the Guiness Book of Records!
> > > >>
> > > >> >Rummel concurs with you in giving a far higher figure for the
Soviet
> > > >> >Union than for China
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes but what's the evidence?
> > > >>
> > > >> What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killing took
place?
> > > >>
> > > >> Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> > > >>
> > > >> Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> > > >>
> > > >> You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
> > > >> million?  How were the numbers arrived at?
> > > >>
> > > >> What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
> > people?
> > >
> > > >Your point, Philip?
> > >
> > > I would have thought it pretty obvious.
> >
> > Well it seems to be that you do not trust either the Guinness Book of
> > Records or Rummel and wish to examine their primary sources. Feel free
to do
> > so!
>
> Typical of the establishment propagandists to try and shift the burden of
> evidence onto revisionist questioners when they run out of arguments.
>
> Sorry, Dr. Michael.  You're the one claiming that these mass murders
occured.
> YOU have to provide US with sources.  Its not up to us to do your homework
for
> you.

Prove it.

> > > You claim the Soviets murdered tens of millions of its citizens.
> >
> > Actually, I claim that Rummel, Kurganov and the Guinness Book of Records
> > made that claim. I wasn't there at the time.
>
> So you have no first hand evidence.  Why don't you just admit it?

I have no first hand evidence. As I stated, I was merely quoting Rummel,
Solzhenitsyn and the Guinness Book of Records, which are secondary sources.
If you want the primary sources you'll have to get them from the secondary
sources mentioned.

> > > But what's the evidence which supports your claim?
> >
> > Rummel, Kurganov (cited in Solzhenitsyn's *Warning to the Western
World*)
>
> I see.  So third-hand eyewitness testimony, of the sort that would never
even be
> admitted to a court of law.  Sorry, try again.

As far as I am aware, the Chinese leadership have never been brought to book
for their mass murders. They have been feasted by the Queen of England,
given most favoured nation status by the freedom-loving American government,
and awarded the Olympic Games, but, as far as I am aware, they have never
been brought to justice.

> > and the Guinness Book of Records.
>
> Which is not evidence.  Merely establishment propaganda.  Try again.

Why is it Establishment propaganda? Could it be that you are attempting to
debase the accusation that the Establishment produces propaganda?

And what would be your motive in wishing to do that?

> > > What documents, what forensic evidence proves the killings took place?
> >
> > > Where is the physical evidence? The bodies?
> > >
> > > Are we relying on dubious Soviet testimony here?
> > >
> > > You claimed tens of millions in your post. Is it 20 million or 90
million?
> > > How were the numbers arrived at?
> >
> > > What is the evidence of the governmental intention to murder these
people?
> >
> > Fascinating questions, Philip. I regret that I don't have the answers to
> > hand.
>
> In that case, stop making inflammatory, libelous, and hateful accusations
that
> you can't support against the Soviet and Chinese people.

I have no quarrel with the Soviet and Chinese people -- only with those who
have murdered them in their millions.

It is interesting that you people, while campaigning so ferociously to
perpetuate the memory of those allegedly murdered by the Nazis, should feel
free to make fun of the deaths of the victims of communism.

Interesting, and sickening.

> --
> THE MAD REVISIONIST
> We do not recruit, we convince
> Truth has no need for coercion
> http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
>
David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:12 EDT 2001
Article: 974149 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
References: 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:35:52 +0100
Lines: 185
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.208
Message-ID: <3bc736c6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 19:30:30 GMT, 213.78.41.208
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.208
Xref: hub.org alt.politics.nationalism.white:535238 alt.politics.white-power:543889 alt.revisionism:974149

On that point, Mr C, you are 100% correct.

David


"Harold Covington"  wrote in message
news:qtGx7.101658$3d2.2917407@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tony Blair: The Mad Bomber of Kabul
> by "Emmamuel Goldstein"
>
> Tony Blair has finally lost the plot
>
> Author's note. Literally as I finished the spellchecker on this I heard
> that the bombing of Kabul had started. The immediate relevance of this
> piece may have diminished, but let's remember that the insanity of the
> leader America's "foremost ally" is a crucial point here. Let's pray that
> this will soon be over and that only the terrorists suffer.
>
> ================================
>
>  It wasn't the outright lies that did it for me when Tony Blair addressed
> the faithful at the Labour Party conference. Tony Blair is such a
> prodigious liar, even by the competitive standards set by politicians,
that
> a lie disproved again and again like 60% of our trade being with the EU
> struck me as boring rather than outrageous. It wasn't the half-truths,
such
> as the Taliban having the worlds largest drugs horde - even if it is
> because they have not been letting the stuff on the market at America's
> insistence. It is the sheer terror realising that someone who is quite
> simply insane wants to run the world.
>
>  Just think about what he is saying. He's not talking about anything
> limited like topping Bin Laden, destroying al-Qaeda or even toppling the
> Taliban. That would be too easy. It is to "re-order the world around us".
> That's right. This military action is not an act of vengeance, and not an
> act to make the West safe from any threat. We are to re-make the world.
>
>  Before looking at the mad, mad ways in which he intends to endanger us,
> let us look at just the mental colossus with which we are dealing. Here is
> his take on American history:
>
>  "But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery."
>
>  Oh dear, obviously he skipped the bit about the American Revolution, or
> perhaps he thinks that King George was the President of the Confederacy.
It
> may be easy to sneer at the simplistic suggestions that follow, but just
> remember that we are dealing with, in intellectual rather than political
> terms, an imbecile.
>
>  Let's have a look at some of the fun new ideas that he is putting
forward:
>
>  "A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing world
> based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we find
the
> will."
>
>  On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with
> good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN
> blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to
our
> markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching.
But
> it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for
> dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from
> the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's
> henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial systems.
>
>  "The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide
> troops to police them."
>
>  There is a word for this, its Empire. Most people think that the latest
> unpleasantness will end with the dismemberment of an Islamic terrorist
> network. Instead, it will extend to Africa. Why? Because this is something
> he's been thinking about a long time, and wouldn't it be so easy to
provide
> just a few troops and just a bit of foreign aid and some investment (only
> slightly subsidised).
>
>  Of course, the presence of our troops will be minimal, only policing
flash
> points and to provide training and some advice. Quite how many flash
points
> there will be and quite how far the training and advice will extend is not
> mentioned. Nevertheless, "all" Africa will be required to provide is to
> allow the structure of their government to be decided in the West. Tony
> Blair may think that this is different to late Victorian colonialism,
> although (and this is the terrifying part) it assumes that he even
bothered
> to think about it at all.
>
>  To take a slightly more concrete example:
>
>  "It [the international community] could, with our help, sort out the
> blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
> Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in the
> last decade."
>
>  That's right, sort it out. The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Does he
> have any idea of what he is saying? As anyone who has spent more than five
> minutes studying this conflict could tell you it has been "sorted out" by
> the international community so thoroughly that 3 million have died there.
> Angola and Zimbabwe on one side, Uganda and Rwanda on the other. Of
course,
> we could go back a bit further and look at the last time the international
> community "sorted it out". King Leopold was given the Congo as a personal
> estate - anything else would have given this to a big power - if he hasn't
> read history, he won't have read the Heart of Darkness. If anyone wants a
> more concrete example of how arrogance trumps experience, you'd be hard
> pressed to find it.
>
>  However, rebuilding Africa is not enough for a man divorced from the
> trifling constraints of reality. There is also a millennium old religious
> divide to heal:
>
>  "And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle East
Peace
> Process and we must. The state of Israel must be given recognition by all;
> freed from terror; know that it is accepted as part of the future of the
> Middle East not its very existence under threat. The Palestinians must
have
> justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal partners
> with Israel in that future."
>
>  Now call me a pedant; but when the conclusions are pre-stated then there
> is not much of a process. Moreover, if one of the two parties can't be
> persuaded or bribed into supporting all the conclusions (as it may fairly
> be pointed out they haven't so far), how do we enforce it? Yes we, as in
> Britain. Of course, if it was someone else I would just dismiss it as
> bluster - but remember this is the man who seriously suggests that we put
> in a "Partnership for Africa" and has sent troops to Sierra Leone.
>
>  However, we really know about his sense of proportion and ability to see
> things in the whole when we read this about Kosovo:
>
>  "The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make
> Milosevic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went home,
> the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great
> dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century."
>
>  Ethnic cleansing was reversed? Not for the Serbs, gypsies or Jews - who
> under the noses of the world's most powerful military alliance were
> cleansed from their homes. Or the tinpot Milosevic who was one of the
> century's greatest dictators, up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin and
> Pol Pot? Now if he had any sense of history I would say that that is just
> stupid. Instead it is a mixture of laziness and craziness. Of course, we
> will pass over the fact that Milosevic was stronger thanks to our
> intervention, and was actually toppled from within by forces that would
> have moved earlier if we had not attacked their nation.
>
>  And let's look at the latter day Isaiah's latest quite frightening take
on
> Rwanda:
>
>  "And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993, when a
> million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty
> to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group of
> gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and people."
>
>  So what about China's one child policy, Tony? Do we have a moral duty
> there as well?
>
>  To finish off, there is this gem:
>
>  "We will take action at every level, national and international, in the
> UN, in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the world, to
> strike at international terrorism wherever it exists."
>
>  Like bombing Serb civilians at 15,000 feet?
>
>  The truly frightening thing about Blair is not what he stands for. It is
> not even his total lust for power. What is frightening about him is that
he
> is insane. And he's in charge of the asylum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:12 EDT 2001
Article: 974215 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:08:03 +0100
Lines: 268
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.72
Message-ID: <3bc75a74@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 12 Oct 2001 22:02:44 GMT, 213.78.40.72
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.72
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974215


"John Morris"  wrote in message
news:jvgestg265lq21usqp5lga3jg066mota3e@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 12
> Oct 2001 05:26:45 +0100, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > "Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> > news:20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > But you accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of millions.
>
> > No -- I accept that historians accept the Soviet mass murder of
> > tens of millions. Whether they are correct or not is another matter
> > entirely! BUT . . . I don't really see any convincing reason for
> > them to lie.
>
> A standard which completely fails you when assessing the work of
> historians of the Holocaust.

Examples?

> > > Furthermore, you not
> > > only don't have the evidence at hand, you have no idea what
> > > constitutes the evidence.
>
> > Yes -- my comments make the assumption that Rummel and the Guinness
> > Book of Records have done their research correctly.
>
> But that historians of the Holocaust have not.

Examples?

> > > Telling isn't it.
>
> > The implicit charge is one of double standards. I've refuted it at
> > length before now.
>
> Bullshit.  Your double standard is legendary.

And yet you provide no examples. How strange.

> > Much of the evidence for German mass murder was produced after the
> > war by the victors who had every motive to falsify it.
>
> Motives which you have never proved.

How can one 'prove' a motive?

Remember this quote:

'Sir,

I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to
turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public,
must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia
itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister
himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in
Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia
only recently.

We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly
behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the
obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain
on public opinion in this country.

We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them - and
ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the
past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only
alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole
subject.

Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda
directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so
susceptible as in the days of "Corpse Factory." the Mutilated Belgian
Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."

Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention
>from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various
charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put
into circulation by the Ministry.

Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

I am, sir, Your obedient servant
(signed)
H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary'

[Postscript]

'The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to
the communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.'

(Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John
Wiley and Sons, NY, page 209-10)

Seems that someone, at least, had a motive to cover things up.

> > We know that attempts WERE
> > made to falsify history (viz. Katyn),
>
> A pretty poor attempt considered that the charge was rebutted at
> Nuremberg.

Only AFTER it became obvious that it was so full of holes that, if allowed
through, it would utterly discredit the whole vile procedure.

> > there IS some evidence that torture
> > was used to extract confessions and testimonies (viz. Hoess),
>
> So?  Were any of these confessions used in legal proceedings?  No.

That's not how it works. Read some of Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of how
Stalin's henchmen did it. Victim is not co-operative. Victim is tortured.
Victim is put on trial. Victim co-operates. Simple. Hell, torture them well
enough and they might even write a REALLY credible set of memoirs for you,
saying all the right things!

> Does anyone actually deny that Hoess (or others) were beaten?  No.

Incorrect. Gord McFee in

Date: 1998/06/06
Message-ID: <3588ab31.18719427@news3.ibm.net>

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3588ab31.18719427%40news3.ibm.net&outpu
t=gplain

wrote:

'Hoess was not tortured.  No amount of bluster and bullshit can change
that.'

Jeffrey G Brown, in

Date: 1998/05/09
Message-ID:
#1/1

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jeff_brown-0905981421300001%40ip37.cinc
innati8.oh.pub-ip.psi.net&output=gplain

wrote

'Why is Liar Philllips ignoring the well-documented fact that Hoess
was not tortured to produce testimony regarding events at Auschwitz, and
was, in fact, called as a witness for the defense?'


Scott Murphy in

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:28:24 -0600
Message-ID: <3A9F0548.3F98E4F5@pop.mindspring.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A9F0548.3F98E4F5%40pop.mindspring.com&
output=gplain

wrote:

'You want me to provide documentation that Hoess was NOT tortured? Okay: in
his
own memoirs, he says he was not tortured into writing them out. "Death
Dealer,"
page 186. Now, what have you got to counter that?'

I think that's enough to make the point that you don't know what you're
talking about.

> Are all of the facts accessible to historians?  Yes.  Do historian
> take these facts into account?  Yes.

So I assume you regard your co-posters, Gord McFee Jeffrey G Brown and Scott
Murphy as not historians. Good.

> > that witnesses
> > HAVE given false testimony (viz. the Demjanjuk affair),
>
> Yeah.  Some very old people fifty years after the fact identified the
> wrong guy.  The wrong guy who was acquitted, by the way.

Only after he was thrown out of his country, hounded for years as a very old
man, and damn near killed as a result of the lies that were told about him.

> > that photographs
> > HAVE been used in a questionable manner (see Walendy's work),
>
> Walendy's "work" is nearly as big a joke as your feeble
> contributions.

For what reason, precisely?

> Go ahead: make us believe you really are astonished to find out that
> journalists sometimes misattribute, miscaption, or even misuse,
> archival photographs.

Ah, so Walendy's work is perhaps not a joke after all.

> > that false
> > numbers WERE placed on plaques outside Auschwitz (subsequently
> > replaced),
>
> And no one knew that they were false (except, of course, Western
> historians, who have published accurate figures right from the
> get-go).
> Starting with the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust by
> Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 . . .

The point, surely, is that the false plaque shows that there are SOME people
out there -- even if only the Soviets -- who wanted to mislead people about
the Holocaust.

> > that fake gas chambers HAVE BEEN shown to the general public.
>
> Yawn.

No answer, I see.

> Well, I've see you mastered the Revisionist patter.  Too bad you
> haven't a clue what you're talking about.

It's you, Mr Morris, who has made the false claim than nobody believes that
Hoess wasn't tortured.

> > In the case of the Soviet Union and China there was less motive for
> > finders of documents to lie. Primary source material, as far as I
> > am aware, is largely demographic and has NOT been 'captured' by the
> > victors after a long and bloody war.
>
> Yes, your standard red herring.

To which you have no answer, it appears.

> > The situation calls for a lesser order of scepticism.
>
> I would say a greater skepticism is required, since the demographic
> figures were collected and published by the Communists themselves.

If the Communists' own figures show a decline in the population of several
million people (i.e. provide evidence of mass annihilations) I'd say that's
fairly good evidence. If they were going to lie, surely they'd cover this
up. Evidently they didn't think of it.

> These would be the same Communists whom, you complain, tried to pass
> off false evidence about Katyn.
>
> But, of course, such subtleties are beyond dumbfuck ideologues like
> you.

Not one of your best posts, Morris.

> - --
>  John Morris                                
>  at University of Alberta  

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:13 EDT 2001
Article: 974334 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011010030505.20596.00002596@mb-cn.aol.com>  <=cHEOwWo34+zyLdg4yNwTRz9pi7o@4ax.com>    
Subject: Re: Raising Cain
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:10:59 +0100
Lines: 40
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.97
Message-ID: <3bc7936b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 02:05:47 GMT, 213.78.40.97
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.97
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974334


 wrote in message
news:EljGOxgELNizpvtq=lPLKK4cxWsp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:14:41 -0400, Orac  wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> > kmspencer@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:51:36 GMT, Orac  wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <=cHEOwWo34+zyLdg4yNwTRz9pi7o@4ax.com>,
> >> > kmspencer@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> >> >> How could anyone leave Dr. Windbags Lomenzo off the list?
> >> >
> >> >Well, actually, when I first started posting to a.r., I used to use my
> >> >titles on the newsgroup, but soon I realized that doing so made people
> >> >think I was putting on airs. Eventually I stopped.
> >>
> >> But did you insist on being addressed as Dr.?  Or regard it as a
> >> putdown if someone called you Mr.?
> >
> >Well, I didn't *insist* on it, but I did put my titles in my .sig file,
> >and I did foolishly get annoyed a couple of times when I was called
> >"Mr." intentionally. Silly of me, really. But that was a good three
> >years ago or more.
>
> Since you've clearly mended your ways, you can be forgiven.  Sometimes
> academic credentials *are* meaningful.  Dr. David E. Michael's load of
> bollocks in psychology isn't, nor is Dr. Windbag's DEd (?).   If it's
> real.  And Ewe's undoctorate in classical soil science simply isn't.

If you haven't actually read the aforementioned load of bollocks you are
hardly in a position to know whether it is meaningful or not.

A PhD is evidence of a mis-spent youth and a poor careers adviser.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:13 EDT 2001
Article: 974335 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:15:26 +0100
Lines: 34
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.97
Message-ID: <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 02:10:11 GMT, 213.78.40.97
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!grolier!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.97
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974335


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2het4bk8s.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2n12x4q3w.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "LITTLE FLUFFY BOT"  writes:
> > >
> > > > Is it possible for America to
> > > >                                       say sorry?
> > >
> > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > supporters.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > But you do support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians,
right?
>
>   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
>   supporters.
>
> whd

Oh come on, William, don't be shy.

You're a terrorist supporter yourself, aren't ya?

You DO support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians, right?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:13 EDT 2001
Article: 974336 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com>  <3bc6620a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc6702e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:16:22 +0100
Lines: 28
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.97
Message-ID: <3bc794af@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 02:11:11 GMT, 213.78.40.97
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.97
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974336


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2d73sbk5k.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > >   Only in your lying, solipsistic, morally cretinous universe could
> > >   you 'recall' any such thing, terrorist.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > So do you unreservedly condemn the terror bombings of Tokyo, Nagasaki,
> > Hiroshima, Hamburg and Dresden, Mr Daffer?
>
>   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
> whd

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no', Mr Daffer?

Or are you too shy to tell us?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:14 EDT 2001
Article: 974337 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66ac9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC7ADC6.8010509@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Asking why
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:11:56 +0100
Lines: 64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.18
Message-ID: <3bc7afc2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 04:06:42 GMT, 213.78.39.18
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.18
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974337

Bit late with these, aren't you Gord?

Tsk, tsk.

Slacking!


"Gord McFee"  wrote in message
news:3BC7ADC6.8010509@sympatico.ca...
> LITTLE FLUFFY BOT wrote:
>
> (1) David Michael states his position on the terrorist murder of over
> 6000 people on September 11, 2001 in the attacks in New York, Washington
> and Pennsylvania.
>
> 
>
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
> truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
> turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
> eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the
> powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that are
> oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
>
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
>
> Death to American capitalism!
>
> Death to international finance!
>
> David Michael
>
> Message-ID: <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
>
> 
>
> (2) When challenged with: "You applaud the terror and killing of
> thousands of innocent people perpetrated by the terrorists who attacked
> the Pentagon and attacked and  destroyed the World Trade Center, calling
> their actions "a wonderful thing," the day the attacks occurred a
> "glorious day," and finishing by fervently wishing for "many more" such
> days.", his response is:
>
> "I do indeed."
>
> Message-ID: <3bae8aab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:26:45 +0100
>
> --
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:14 EDT 2001
Article: 974350 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc796bb.3770735@nntp.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100
Lines: 76
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.18
Message-ID: <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 04:52:44 GMT, 213.78.39.18
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.18
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974350




> >> >Your point, Philip?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Come on, now.  You may be a mass-murder-supporting thug, but I have no
> >> doubt that you know EXACTLY what his point was.
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >
> >Who are you?
> >
>
> Uh...you DO see my name printed right above your inquiry there, don't
> you?  Come on (again), Doctor Michael.  You're a neo-Nazi, but you ARE
> smarter than this.

So glad I couldn't be bothered to killfile you. Indeed, I am smarter than
that. Just a little lazy at times. Yes, I know who you are now. Kevin
Anthony Ramsay Pezzano. Your location is Plymouth Township, PA. Montgomery
County. You work for the Plymouth Fire Company at  Colwell Lane, Conshohocken PA, 19428 Montgomery
County PA. Your e-mail address is Plymouthfireco@hotmail.com. You have
another e-mail address, which is Kevin.Pezzano@verizon.net. You appear to be
the boyfriend of Elizabeth (Lizzie) Leigh Manning (who was born July 18,
1981 and is a biology major at Birmingham-Southern College). Your favourite
shop appears to be Comic Shops of 2806-A South Memorial Parkway Huntsville,
AL 35801, Tel. (205) 533-5858. You and Lizzie have already come up with
names for your future children. All this is public domain information,
published on the Internet by yourself and the good Lizzie, so I am not
breaking any law or invading your privacy by publishing it here in response
to your comments.

I see you have a website at

http://www.mindspring.com/~kokopelli/

with a photo of yourself on it. You appear to have a perversion that entails
looking at cartoon (!) images of scantily clad Japanese females (but Lizzie
apparently knows and approves). From your photo you appear to be a typical,
psychotic looking example of what happens when someone attempts to mate with
a skunk and succeeds.

> >Oh, don't bother -- you obviously don't have anything intelligent to say
so
> >we can just killfile you!
> >
> Gee, I pay a guy a compliment (telling him he's smart enough to easily
> figure out the blatantly obvious point of another poster), and he
> responds by accusing me of saying nothing of value or interest.

Your tactic here is simply to hurl abuse. Basically, another version of
Jeffrey G Brown -- not really worth downloading.

> I hope your work for the BNP doesn't involve PR.  They're in enough
> trouble as it is.

I hope that your work for the Plymouth Fire Company doesn't involve foaming
at the mouth and calling people names. It doesn't make much of an impression
on the general public.

And no, I'm not a neo-Nazi. I am a very independent, free-thinking
individual who would never fit in with any sort of Nazi group. I regard
Hitler as a twit of the first order. Not much different from you actually,
Kevin. As I think you might be realizing right now.

> Kevin

Cheers

Oh . . . and 

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:15 EDT 2001
Article: 974351 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:02:35 +0100
Lines: 70
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.18
Message-ID: <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 04:57:17 GMT, 213.78.39.18
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.18
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974351


"Sara"  wrote in message
news:catamont-773E33.21444512102001@news.concentric.net...
> In article <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2het4bk8s.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m2n12x4q3w.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > "LITTLE FLUFFY BOT"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is it possible for America to
> > > > > >                                       say sorry?
> > > > >
> > > > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > > > supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > whd
> > > >
> > > > But you do support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan
civilians,
> > right?
> > >
> > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > >   supporters.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > Oh come on, William, don't be shy.
> >
> > You're a terrorist supporter yourself, aren't ya?
> >
> > You DO support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians, right?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
> So says the Monster who celebrated the "glorious day" when more than
> 5,000 innocent people were slaughtered.
>
> Just because you revel in the deaths of innocents doesn't mean that Mr.
> Daffer supports it. Very few would willingly climb into that sewer you
> inhabit, mr. michael.
>
> Sara

I have now asked Mr Daffer twice whether he supports the bombing of innocent
Afghan civilians.

He has not been able to reply.

I think that this tells us all we know about those who get all holy and
moral with me about bombing.

However, Ms Salzman, perhaps you might have the guts to tell us where YOU
stand, as I did. Do YOU support the bombing of innocent Afghan civilians? Do
YOU agree with the decision of America to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima,
killing around 270,000 civilians?

Please do enlighten us.

Yes or no?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:15 EDT 2001
Article: 974365 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <3bc652ab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc67071@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:47:07 +0100
Lines: 40
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7c60f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 05:41:51 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974365


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m28zegbaub.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]

Snip noted. (Question reinstated below.)

> > Failing to answer the point raised does suggest the absence of a
coherent
> > answer, William.
>
>   The only point that needs to be made about you, terrorist, is the
>   fact that you dance on the graves of thousands of people, hundreds
>   of which are you countrymen.
>
> whd
> --
> In 3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk: David E. Michael expressed his
> support for the bombers of Washington and New York, who in the course
> of their terrorist acts caused the downing of at least 4 commercial
> airliners and the destruction of two buildings with a greater loss of
> life than occurred at Pearl Harbor, most of it civilian, said:
>
>   "I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment."

I know that you are embarrassed by my question and that you find it
difficult to answer. However, snipping it will not make it go away.

You criticize me for supporting bombing under certain circumstances. Fine.

Now for the third time, Mr Daffer, do YOU support the bombing of civilians
in Afghanistan?

Yes or no?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:15 EDT 2001
Article: 974366 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9q5ed5$qu0$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <3bc652ab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc67071@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc6f6ee@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:48:06 +0100
Lines: 30
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7c64b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 05:42:51 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974366


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m24rp4bass.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > As it is, it sounds like an excuse for chickening out of a discussion
with
> > someone who regularly runs rings around you -- and a rather pathetic
attempt
> > at censorship of debate.
>
>   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
> whd

Here is the question that William Daffer cannot answer.

Do you support the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan?

Yes or no, William?

David







From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:16 EDT 2001
Article: 974367 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com>  <3bc6620a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc6702e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc794af@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:51:02 +0100
Lines: 59
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7c6fc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 05:45:48 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!oleane.net!oleane!wanadoo.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974367


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2zo6w9w6x.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2d73sbk5k.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > > >   Only in your lying, solipsistic, morally cretinous universe
could
> > > > >   you 'recall' any such thing, terrorist.
> > > > >
> > > > > whd
> > > >
> > > > So do you unreservedly condemn the terror bombings of Tokyo,
Nagasaki,
> > > > Hiroshima, Hamburg and Dresden, Mr Daffer?
> > >
> > >   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > supporters.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > Is that a 'yes' or a 'no', Mr Daffer?
> >
>
>   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
>   Are you too stupid to understand that? Or is it the fact that you are a
moral cretin?
>
> whd

No, I am just demonstrating your hypocrisy for all the world to see.

Here you moaning and groaning about my support for bombing America under
certain circumstances.

Yet, when challenged to condemn the bombing BY America of civilians in
Afghanistan, you are unable to do so.

When challenged to condemn the bombing BY America of civilians in Nagasaki
and Hiroshima you are unable to do so.

Are you able to condemn the slaughter by American forces of 200,000
civilians in Iraq, Mr Daffer?

Yes or no?



David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:16 EDT 2001
Article: 974388 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC7CC38.42FA6C01@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:21:29 +0100
Lines: 106
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7dc2f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 07:16:15 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974388


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BC7CC38.42FA6C01@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Sara"  wrote in message
> > news:catamont-773E33.21444512102001@news.concentric.net...
> > > In article <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m2het4bk8s.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > > > news:m2n12x4q3w.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > > > "LITTLE FLUFFY BOT"  writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it possible for America to
> > > > > > > >                                       say sorry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally
cretinous
> > > > > > supporters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > whd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But you do support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan
> > > > > > civilians, right?
> > > > >
> > > > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > > > >   supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > whd
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on, William, don't be shy.
> > > >
> > > > You're a terrorist supporter yourself, aren't ya?
> > > >
> > > > You DO support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians,
right?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > > So says the Monster who celebrated the "glorious day" when more than
> > > 5,000 innocent people were slaughtered.
> > >
> > > Just because you revel in the deaths of innocents doesn't mean that
Mr.
> > > Daffer supports it. Very few would willingly climb into that sewer you
> > > inhabit, mr. michael.
> > >
> > > Sara
> >
> > I have now asked Mr Daffer twice whether he supports the bombing of
innocent
> > Afghan civilians.
> >
> > He has not been able to reply.
> >
> > I think that this tells us all we know about those who get all holy and
> > moral with me about bombing.
>
> No, it tells us all we need to know about people who gloat over mass
> murders,

Good -- so you, unlike Mr Daffer, should be able to answer a simple
question.

Do you or do you not unreservedly condemn the bombing of civilians in
Afghanistan by the United States, Mr Mock?

Yes or no?

>while trying to score rhetorical points against those who are
> appalled by such behaviour

Nothing rhetorical about it. Daffer is attacking me because he thinks I
support the bombing of civilians.

I'm just asking him whether HE supports the bombing of civilians in
Afghanistan by the United States' government.

He can't answer.

>by means of dishonest and misleading
> questions that invite spurrious and false moral equivalencies.

So are you saying that it is IMMORAL to kill American civilians but MORAL to
kill Afghan civilians?

> I have more respect for Mr. Daffer for his refusal to allow you to drag
> him to that level.

I don't want to drag Daffer anywhere. I just want to show him up for the
bloody hypocrite that he is. And I have to tell you that I seem to be
succeeding on that score!

> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:16 EDT 2001
Article: 974390 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc796bb.3770735@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:22:49 +0100
Lines: 12
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 07:17:35 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!nntp.flash.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974390


"Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
news:cuffststgr3gfl07eb0up9qkk3lb8q203b@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> [snip exercise in cyberthuggery]

[snip exercise in smearing]




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:17 EDT 2001
Article: 974398 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc75a74@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC7A8CC.8060809@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:40:41 +0100
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.170
Message-ID: <3bc7e0b2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 07:35:30 GMT, 213.78.42.170
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.170
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974398


"Gord McFee"  wrote in message
news:3BC7A8CC.8060809@sympatico.ca...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> Very good, David.

Thank you Gordon.

 > You have begun your slither away from your support of
> terrorists

I most certainly do NOT support the terrorists, such as Messrs Bush and
Powell, who are bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Gordon.

Do you?

> and a few people have begun to exchange with you.

They always do, Gord. You people cannot STAND it when a reasonably
articulate revisionist posts to this group because it completely buggers up
your campaign to depict us all as neanderthals. Accordingly, you people try
every trick in the book to make us go away. We've had attempts at
intimidation (John Morris/Steve Wolk), we've had complaints to our ISPs
(Sara), we've had lawsuits (the luckless Yale Edeiken), we've had cancel
bots (Nazihunter), we've had abuse, mailbombs, defamation, and, of course,
we've had the 'don't talk to them' lobby. The latter have included, at
various times, Ken 'Killfile them All' McVay, Michael Ragland, William
Daffer, and currently yourself. The problem with the 'don't talk to them'
strategy is that someone invariably DOES talk to us, and those who DON'T
very quickly end up looking as if they're dodging difficult questions. And
even if NOBODY talks to us, we can just pump out large volumes of material
that then never gets challenged, apart from with some rather pathetic
spamming.

>  With any
> luck, they will get distracted and you can have another round of silly
> buggers.  With the exception of one point below, I don't consider you
> worthy of wasting my time on.  You destroyed any claim you ever had to
> even pseudo-credibility about a month ago.

Gord, you never 'exchange with' anyone around here. I must have been here
for about four years now and I have never once seen you enter into serious
dialogue with anyone. You are TERRIFIED of discussing ideas -- that's why
your website specifically bans debate! Your function, for which I strongly
suspect you are paid, is simply to post nonsense in order to 'dilute' the
revisionist message. And, night after night, your nonsense gets faithfully
posted.

And ignored.

David





From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:17 EDT 2001
Article: 974467 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc796bb.3770735@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:53:22 +0100
Lines: 32
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.9
Message-ID: <3bc84610@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 14:48:00 GMT, 213.78.43.9
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!newspeer2.clara.net!news.clara.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.9
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974467


"Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
news:kdpfstoklskav908sfj2mc9cd4ubmrah1m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:22:49 +0100, in
> <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
> >news:cuffststgr3gfl07eb0up9qkk3lb8q203b@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> >> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip exercise in cyberthuggery]
> >
> >[snip exercise in smearing]
> >
>
> Exercise in smearing?  Let's take a look:
>
> 
>
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> [snip exercise in cyberthuggery]

[snip exercise in smearing]




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:17 EDT 2001
Article: 974491 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc75a74@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:28:41 +0100
Lines: 625
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.180
Message-ID: <3bc85c6c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 16:23:24 GMT, 213.78.41.180
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.180
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974491


"John Morris"  wrote in message
news:t14gstkvvm5artpskgbn8rmg6ko96mm97g@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3bc75a74@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 12
> Oct 2001 22:08:03 +0100, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > "John Morris"  wrote in message
> > news:jvgestg265lq21usqp5lga3jg066mota3e@4ax.com...
>
> > > In <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Fri,
> > > 12 Oct 2001 05:26:45 +0100, "david_michael"
> > >  wrote:
>
> > > > "Philip Mathews"  wrote in message
> > > > news:20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com...
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > > But you accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of millions.
>
> > > > No -- I accept that historians accept the Soviet mass murder of
> > > > tens of millions. Whether they are correct or not is another
> > > > matter entirely! BUT . . . I don't really see any convincing
> > > > reason for them to lie.
>
> > > A standard which completely fails you when assessing the work of
> > > historians of the Holocaust.
>
> > Examples?
>
> That you do see convincing reasons for historians of the Holocaust to
> lie when those same reasons are not at all convincing when applied to
> historians of Soviet mass murder.

Two points to be made there.

First, I don't necessarily think that the problem is primarily that of
historians lying (although there are some spectacular examples of that --
not least in the works of Deborah Lipstadt) but rather that they are not
sufficiently critical of their primary material. Keren is a case in point --
we get the same old primary documents reposted time and time again, yet when
challenged 'how do you know the document is genuine?' or 'how do you know
that the dead people in the pictures weren't the ones who were killed by
typhus?' he just responds with smears and accusations of anti-Semitism.

Second, many of the factors casting doubt on Nazi atrocity material are
absent in the Soviet materials. Nazi primary documents were 'captured' by
invading armies (including the Red Army) with strong motives to falsify
history (as seen by the falsified numbers on the original Auschwitz plaque
and by the Katyn allegations at Nuremberg) or at least cover it up (as seen
by the Hewit letter cited in my previous post and reposted below). Soviet
primary documents merely survived a peaceful transition from an ailing
Andropov to a more liberal Gorbachev and thence to the basically
non-communist Yeltsin. That isn't to say that we should regard them
uncritically -- merely that we have, as yet, no reason to suspect that
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were engaging in the same jiggery pokery with 'the
truth' that Stalin and Churchill were engaging in. As we know, much of the
data on Stalin's and Lenin's massacres comes from the communists' own
figures (we might add that their own newspaper reports and speeches --
notably Stalin's 'On the Liquidation of the Kulaks'). Why should they lie?
Unlike Nazis such as Hoess and Eichmann, they were not captured by the
enemy. Certainly, uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from anti-communists
would suffer from the same problems as uncorroborated eyewitness testimony
>from concentration camp inmates. Blood-curdling speeches from the likes of
Stalin, Ehrenberg, Mao, etc. also suffer from the same criticisms that we
can level at speeches made -- or allegedly made -- by the likes of Himmler:
they might just have been rhetoric designed to inflame passions rather than
serious statements of an intent to kill.

> For instance, you make _ad hominem_ appeals to motive when discussing
> the Holocaust, yet never question the motives of anti-Communist
> historians writing in the Cold War era about the crimes of the
> Communists.

I think you need to keep a wary eye out for 'motives' whenever *anyone*
writes history! As I've said, I think that the main problem with historians
of the Nazi era is a tendency to be uncritical of source material. We could
certainly level the same criticism of some who write accounts of the Soviet
era -- Solzhenitsyn, for instance, relies heavily, but not entirely, on
hearsay.

> > > > > Furthermore, you not
> > > > > only don't have the evidence at hand, you have no idea what
> > > > > constitutes the evidence.
>
> > > > Yes -- my comments make the assumption that Rummel and the
> > > > Guinness Book of Records have done their research correctly.
>
> > > But that historians of the Holocaust have not.
>
> > Examples?
>
> When you point to the Auschwitz plaques and act as if this were ever
> the only information available on the death toll at Auschwitz.

Excuse me but I did no such thing. I acted as if it were evidence that SOME
people -- even if only the Soviets -- were trying to falsify the history of
the 'Holocaust'. At no time did I imply that it was the only information
available on the death toll at Auschwitz. Why are you inventing things?

> > > > > Telling isn't it.
>
> > > > The implicit charge is one of double standards. I've refuted it
> > > > at length before now.
>
> > > Bullshit.  Your double standard is legendary.
>
> > And yet you provide no examples. How strange.
>
> I've been doing so.  It is not at all strange that you've failed to
> notice.

Go on -- just one example!

> > > > Much of the evidence for German mass murder was produced after
> > > > the war by the victors who had every motive to falsify it.
>
> > > Motives which you have never proved.
>
> > How can one 'prove' a motive?
>
> An even better question: how does the assumption of a motive prove
> wrongdoing?

If the assumption is compelling it can tip the scales of justice to 'beyond
reasonable doubt'.

> Let's have a look:
>
> > Remember this quote:
>
> > 'Sir,
>
> > I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular
> > letter:
>
> > It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious
> > Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those
> > associated with us.
>
> > But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in
> > public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.
>
> > We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in
> > Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the
> > Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how
> > the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia,
> > Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.
>
> > We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will
> > certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless
> > precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will
> > result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this
> > country.
>
> > We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them
> > - and ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The
> > disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere
> > denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract
> > public attention from the whole subject.
>
> > Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity
> > propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is
> > no longer so susceptible as in the days of "Corpse Factory." the
> > Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."
>
> > Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public
> > attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted
> > support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which
> > have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.
>
> > Your expression of belief in such may convince others.
>
> > I am, sir, Your obedient servant
> > (signed)
> > H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary'
>
> > [Postscript]
>
> > 'The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with
> > regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to
> > responsible persons.'
>
> > (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland,
> > John Wiley and Sons, NY, page 209-10)
>
> > Seems that someone, at least, had a motive to cover things up.
>
> But what things?  What are you attempting to prove with this?
>
> It seems to me that certain segments, at least, of the British
> government were willing to cover up Soviet crimes in order to
> maintain public support of the Alliance until the Nazis were
> defeated.

And to play up German crimes. Which was the point.

Playing up German crimes was doubtless behind the Auschwitz plaque and the
Katyn allegations too.

So we had two of the Allied governments trying to play up German crimes.

> That is a rather limited goal compared to the more extensive goals
> which you have variously wished to prove with this piece of evidence.
>  While it is clearly evidence of a desire to falsify the record of
> Soviet crimes (by foregrounding Nazi crimes), it is not evidence at
> all of a desire to falsify Nazi crimes.

No, but it is evidence of a desire to play them up.

And I put it to you that, once justice becomes partial, playing up some
crimes and playing down others, then it is not very far away from
fabrication.

> > > > We know that attempts WERE
> > > > made to falsify history (viz. Katyn),
>
> > > A pretty poor attempt considered that the charge was rebutted at
> > > Nuremberg.

> > Only AFTER it became obvious that it was so full of holes that, if
> > allowed through, it would utterly discredit the whole vile
> > procedure.
>
> But it was "allowed through" despite the best efforts of the American
> and British prosecutors to dissuade the Soviets.

> Your utter ignorance never ceases to amaze me especially considering
> how many times I have pointed out to you that the Soviets were
> allowed to enter the charge, that the Soviets were allowed to read
> part of their bogus report into evidence, that the defence was
> allowed to call witnesses to rebut the charge.
>
> The Soviets were thoroughly spanked.  I suppose you imagine the
> Nuremberg proceedings as some sort of secret trial where the world's
> press had to wait outside the door for scraps official releases on
> the proceedings inside.  But the world's press was in the courtroom
> and heard every word of it.  What conclusion do you think they drew
> when only one of two parties could have committed the crime of Katyn
> and the Nazi defendants proved conclusively that they didn't do it?

Looks to me like a case of the West allowing Stalin to make a fool of
himself in public.

> I suppose, too, that you will fall back on some rhetoric about the
> subservient media in the liberal democracies.  Please don't embarrass
> yourself on my account.
>
> > > > there IS some evidence that torture
> > > > was used to extract confessions and testimonies (viz. Hoess),
>
> > > So?  Were any of these confessions used in legal proceedings?
> > > No.
>
> > That's not how it works. Read some of Solzhenitsyn's descriptions
> > of how Stalin's henchmen did it. Victim is not co-operative. Victim
> > is tortured. Victim is put on trial. Victim co-operates. Simple.
> > Hell, torture them well enough and they might even write a REALLY
> > credible set of memoirs for you, saying all the right things!
>
> That's some mighty fine rhetoric, David.

Do you disagree with it? If so where?

>  Now explain how this
> terrible fear of torture carried through to the defendants in the
> domestic German trials in the 1960s and 1970s where the evidence of
> Nazi crimes was thoroughly corroborated.

Corroborated, if I remember rightly, by more 'captured' documents and
dubious 'confessions'.

> One would think that a reasonable person would draw the conclusion
> that whatever mistreatment was suffered by Nazi defendants and
> witnesses, it had no bearing on the truth of their statements.

Anyone who would draw the conclusion that 'WHATEVER' (to use your word)
mistreatment was suffered by a witness would not have a bearing on the truth
of that witness's statement would hardly be reasonable.

That you should make such a spectacularly daft observation speaks volumes of
your own motives!

>  One
> is therefore reasonably certain that you will not reach such a
> conclusion.
>
> > > Does anyone actually deny that Hoess (or others) were beaten?
> > > No.
>
> > Incorrect. Gord McFee in
>
> > Date: 1998/06/06
> > Message-ID: <3588ab31.18719427@news3.ibm.net>
>
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3588ab31.18719427%40news3.ibm.n
> > et&outpu t=gplain
>
> > wrote:
>
> > 'Hoess was not tortured.  No amount of bluster and bullshit can
> > change that.'
>
> I have found that few people indeed agree with my very broad
> definition of what constitutes torture.
>
> Now would you be so kind as to provide an example where Gord McFee
> denies that Hoess was beaten?

So beating someone isn't torturing them! How foolish of me not to notice!




> > Jeffrey G Brown, in
>
> > Date: 1998/05/09
> > Message-ID:
> > #1/1
>
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jeff_brown-0905981421300001%40i
> > p37.cinc innati8.oh.pub-ip.psi.net&output=gplain
>
> > wrote
>
> > 'Why is Liar Philllips ignoring the well-documented fact that Hoess
> > was not tortured to produce testimony regarding events at
> > Auschwitz, and was, in fact, called as a witness for the defense?'
>
> You see, I use the Amnesty International definition of torture where
> any kind of physical distress may be construed as torture.  Others
> don't follow that definition, and I can accept that.
>
> Now would you be so kind as to provide an example where Jeffrey Brown
> denies that Hoess was beaten?

So beating a witness isn't torturing him. How silly of me. I didn't realize.

> > Scott Murphy in
>
> > Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:28:24 -0600
> > Message-ID: <3A9F0548.3F98E4F5@pop.mindspring.com>
>
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A9F0548.3F98E4F5%40pop.mindspr
> > ing.com& output=gplain
>
> > wrote:
>
> > 'You want me to provide documentation that Hoess was NOT tortured?
> > Okay: in his own memoirs, he says he was not tortured into writing
> > them out. "Death Dealer," page 186. Now, what have you got to
> > counter that?'
>
> Several people have made the point that in order to qualify as
> torture, the physical duress must be extreme and must be designed to
> arrive at a preconceived "truth."

That would be a rather silly point. We have often heard about the astounding
agonies produced by such devices as dripping water on the victim (Chinese
water torture). Heck, lock a man of a certain psychological disposition up
in a completely yellow room for long enough and he'll soon be screaming at
you to let him confess!

>  Yet Revisionists have been
> conspicuously unable to do other than make the circular argument that
> Hoess must have been forced to confess to falsehoods because the
> events he described never happened.

I haven't seen any examples of this argument. Care to provide some quotes?

Thought not.

> I would further note that Murphy cited Hoess's memoir.  Murphy knows
> as well as anyone that in his memoir Hoess describes have been
> beaten, sleep-deprived, and drugged while briefly in the custody of
> the British and that he cannot remember what he confessed to during
> that time.

And yet Murphy maintains that he was NOT tortured. Doesn't say much for
Murphy's honesty, does it?

> That is pretty good evidence that Hoess was beaten, and we both know
> that Murphy accepts that evidence.
>
> So again, would you be so kind as to provide an example where Scot
> Murphy denies that Hoess was beaten?

No -- I accept your point entirely: the fact that Hoess was beaten, drugged,
sleep-deprived and mistreated to the point that the IMT had to intervene is
not evidence of TORTURE (!).

> > I think that's enough to make the point that you don't know what
> > you're talking about.
>
> I think you've rather made the point that you answered a question
> that I didn't ask.
>
> > > Are all of the facts accessible to historians?  Yes.  Do
> > > historian take these facts into account?  Yes.
>
> > So I assume you regard your co-posters, Gord McFee Jeffrey G Brown
> > and Scott Murphy as not historians. Good.
>
> I believe Gord has some graduate training as an historian.  Brown and
> Murphy appear to me to be honest amateurs.  Which is fine.  I like to
> hear from people who interested in a subject in which they have no
> professional training.
>
> But it seems to me that you didn't really have a point to make.  Now
> you're just making sulking remarks.
>
> > > > that witnesses
> > > > HAVE given false testimony (viz. the Demjanjuk affair),
>
> > > Yeah.  Some very old people fifty years after the fact identified
> > > the wrong guy.  The wrong guy who was acquitted, by the way.
>
> > Only after he was thrown out of his country, hounded for years as a
> > very old man, and damn near killed as a result of the lies that
> > were told about him.
>
> Is your point that we should feel sorry for him?

No, my point is that witnesses have given false testimony with very damaging
effects -- which could have been fatal.

Ergo, witness testimony should be regarded with GREAT suspicion.

> > > > that photographs
> > > > HAVE been used in a questionable manner (see Walendy's work),
>
> > > Walendy's "work" is nearly as big a joke as your feeble
> > > contributions.
>
> > For what reason, precisely?
>
> Here:
>
> > > Go ahead: make us believe you really are astonished to find out
> > > that journalists sometimes misattribute, miscaption, or even
> > > misuse, archival photographs.
>
> > Ah, so Walendy's work is perhaps not a joke after all.
>
> It is a joke in the same sense that your petulant excuses for
> historical debate are a joke.

So you have no specific criticisms of Walendy's work on the questionable use
of photographic evidence of Nazi 'atrocities'.

Good.

> > > > that false
> > > > numbers WERE placed on plaques outside Auschwitz (subsequently
> > > > replaced),
>
> > > And no one knew that they were false (except, of course, Western
> > > historians, who have published accurate figures right from the
> > > get-go).
>
> > > Starting with the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust by
> > > Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 . . .
>
> > The point, surely, is that the false plaque shows that there are
> > SOME people out there -- even if only the Soviets -- who wanted to
> > mislead people about the Holocaust.
>
> So?

So there is one damn good reason for scepticism about at least SOME
assertions regarding the 'Holocaust', right?

> > > > that fake gas chambers HAVE BEEN shown to the general public.
>
> > > Yawn.
>
> > No answer, I see.
>
> Answer to what?  You didn't make a point.  I guessed that you were
> repeating the same tedious nonsense about the reconstruction at
> Auschwitz Main Camp.
>
> Millions of people have visited museums and come away believing that
> they have seen the fossilized remains of dinosaurs reconstructed into
> reasonably accurate skeletons.  Yet such fossilized remains are far
> too heavy and would simply collapse under their own weight if
> reconstructed like that.  What people have seen are plaster casts of
> dinosaur fossils (though museums may be using plastic casts now).
> When they find out this amazing fact of historical falsification,
> most people seem to respond, "Oh?  Okay."
>
> Unfortunately boneheads like you attach the wrong significance to the
> historical falsification inherent in reconstructions.  What is
> significant about the Auschwitz Museum is the ham-handed way in which
> they were forced to carry out historical research owing largely to
> Communist indifference and ideological inertia and underfunding.

Well we seem to agree that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was a fake. The
difference is whether misleading the public about it is as acceptable as
misleading the public about the anatomy of dinosaurs.

> > > Well, I've see you mastered the Revisionist patter.  Too bad you
> > > haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>
> > It's you, Mr Morris, who has made the false claim than nobody
> > believes that Hoess wasn't tortured.
>
> I didn't make that claim.
>
> Let me quote myself: "Does anyone actually deny that Hoess (or
> others) were beaten?  No."
>
> The question of whether that beating amounted to torture is a
> definitional question.

Ah. Right.

> > > > In the case of the Soviet Union and China there was less motive
> > > > for finders of documents to lie. Primary source material, as
> > > > far as I am aware, is largely demographic and has NOT been
> > > > 'captured' by the victors after a long and bloody war.
>
> > > Yes, your standard red herring.
>
> > To which you have no answer, it appears.
>
> What's to answer?  I have many times pointed out that capturing
> documents is not the same as forging or falsifying them.  You have
> yet to explain how your red herring is anything other than lurid
> innuendo.

When a document supposedly proving a murderous act is produced out of the
blue by an army that has just emerged victorious from a bloody war against
the alleged perpetrator of the act in question, and when the governments
responsible for that army are on record as having either falsified evidence
or attempted to play evidence up or down, and when they have a powerful
political motive for discrediting the alleged perpetrator in question, then
I put it to you that it is not entirely unreasonable to regard the document
concerned with at least a little suspicion.

You seem to be saying that we should just accept these documents as
authentic and not feel suspicious at all, right?

> And yet you wonder why I think so little of your abilities.

I dare say you have your own agenda.

> > > > The situation calls for a lesser order of scepticism.
>
> > > I would say a greater skepticism is required, since the
> > > demographic figures were collected and published by the
> > > Communists themselves.
>
> > If the Communists' own figures show a decline in the population of
> > several million people (i.e. provide evidence of mass
> > annihilations)
>
> Land tenure data from the 1350s shows a serious decline in the
> English rural population.  Do they "provide evidence of mass
> annihilations" in the sense you mean it here?

We know that the plague was rife during that time and this accounts for
those statistics.

The plague was not rife under Stalin or Mao.

As you well know.

> > I'd say that's
> > fairly good evidence. If they were going to lie, surely they'd
> > cover this up. Evidently they didn't think of it.
>
> But Soviet demographic data don't have categories like, "numbers of
> kulaks submitted to genocidal measures," or "number of people we
> killed at Lubyanka because we didn't like what they had to say."

Why should such categories be necessary? We have a drastic drop in the
population and, as far as I can see, no alternative explanation of where
these people went!

In the case of the Jews in Nazi Germany we DO have alternative explanations
of where they might have gone.

> So when you rely upon historians "doing their job properly," you are
> relying upon their making reasonable inferences about cause of death
> and the responsibility of the state in bringing about those deaths.

Agreed.

> What you don't do is indulge in lurid innuendo about how deaths from
> mass murder in the Soviet Union are known only from inferences about
> data made by anti-Communist intellectuals during the Cold War.

Why should one do that? What we know about the communists, as far as I'm
aware, comes from their own demographic data.

> > > These would be the same Communists whom, you complain, tried to
> > > pass off false evidence about Katyn.
>
> > > But, of course, such subtleties are beyond dumbfuck ideologues
> > > like you.
>
> > Not one of your best posts, Morris.
>
> You don't like my best posts, since you end up being a smelly little
> smear on the pavement.  Metaphorically, of course.

I'd say you've succeeded in squashing me about two or three times in four
years.

I, on the other hand, regularly make mincemeat out of you, which seems to be
why, with the exception of the current thread, you've moved away from
argument and generally now just resort to Gordism.

> - --
>  John Morris                                
>  at University of Alberta  

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:18 EDT 2001
Article: 974493 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:33:02 +0100
Lines: 108
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.180
Message-ID: <3bc85d6d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 16:27:41 GMT, 213.78.41.180
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.stealth.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.180
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974493


"Sara"  wrote in message
news:catamont-CF609D.09085913102001@news.concentric.net...
> In article <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > "Sara"  wrote in message
> > news:catamont-773E33.21444512102001@news.concentric.net...
> > > In article <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m2het4bk8s.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > > > news:m2n12x4q3w.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > > > "LITTLE FLUFFY BOT"  writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it possible for America to
> > > > > > > >                                       say sorry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally
> > > > > > >   cretinous
> > > > > > supporters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > whd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But you do support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan
> > civilians,
> > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > >   We don't negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > > > >   supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > whd
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on, William, don't be shy.
> > > >
> > > > You're a terrorist supporter yourself, aren't ya?
> > > >
> > > > You DO support bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians,
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So says the Monster who celebrated the "glorious day" when more than
> > > 5,000 innocent people were slaughtered.
> > >
> > > Just because you revel in the deaths of innocents doesn't mean that
Mr.
> > > Daffer supports it. Very few would willingly climb into that sewer you
> > > inhabit, mr. michael.
> > >
> > > Sara
> >
> > I have now asked Mr Daffer twice whether he supports the bombing of
> > innocent
> > Afghan civilians.
> >
> > He has not been able to reply.
> >
> > I think that this tells us all we know about those who get all holy and
> > moral with me about bombing.
> >
> > However, Ms Salzman, perhaps you might have the guts to tell us where
YOU
> > stand, as I did. Do YOU support the bombing of innocent Afghan
civilians?
> > Do
> > YOU agree with the decision of America to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima,
> > killing around 270,000 civilians?
> >
> > Please do enlighten us.
> >
> > Yes or no?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
> I have plenty of guts, thank you. Mostly, I have the guts not to succumb
> to your attempts to bully others.
>
> You're a monster who revels in the deaths of thousands.
>
> And just so I don't have to respond to you yet again, No. And No.
>
> You have your answers. Now tell us why you were so thrilled with the
> deaths of thousands of innocent victims of hijackers.
>
> Sara

For years America has been slaughtering and maiming innocent victims --
either directly or by proxy, as in Israel. The bombing of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, with 270,000 dead was one example. The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqi
civilians was another. Their victims now number millions. Perhaps if
American civilians start dying in large enough numbers, then America will
think twice about exporting murder and death throughout the world. And that
will, in the end, create a safer place for ALL civilians.

David






From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:18 EDT 2001
Article: 974528 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011013120735.12248.00001830@mb-mn.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:11:33 +0100
Lines: 291
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.229
Message-ID: <3bc875f0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 18:12:16 GMT, 213.78.40.229
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.229
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974528


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011013120735.12248.00001830@mb-mn.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 13/10/01 2:02 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >
>
> >
> >I think that this tells us all we know about those who get all holy and
> >moral with me about bombing.
> >
>
>  You know the US coalition is not deliberately bombing Afghani civilians.
If
> out of a moment of madness the US did, they'd expose themselves to the
full
> force, of Moslem and non Moslem coalition members, not to mention the UN
and
> just about everyone else in the world.
> The equivalency you are trying to demonstrate now is as false as the
examples
> you have cited in the past:  Japan and Dresden.
>
>
>    Japan:
>
>  Some main points from article below:
>
> " MacArthur's chief surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a
120-day
> campaign to invade and occupy_ only_ the island of Kyushu would result in
> 395,000 casualties. "

(a) NOT civilian casualties.

(b) The other option -- a negotiated peace, which might well have involved
as little as allowing the Japanese to keep their emperor (a concession that
was made anyway eventually) -- would have involved zero casualties.

(c) There were other options -- not least dropping the bombs over open
country rather than over cities full of innocent civilians.

That you ignore or downplay these options speaks volumes regarding your own
personal morality.

> " The use of nuclear weapons to end World War II quickly and decisively
averted
> the death or maiming of hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors,
> marines and airmen. It also saved the lives of some 400,000 Allied
prisoners of
> war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands, all of whom were to be
executed
> in the event of an American invasion of Japan."

But it was not the only alternative.

And it cost the lives of 270,000 Japanese civilians.

And it also deprived the Allied governments of the ability to criticize the
Nazis of barbarity against civilians (including Jewish civilians) without
looking like stinking hypocrites.

>
> Why Truman Bombed Hiroshima
>
> By Bruce Lee
> excerpts from the Wall Street Journal
>
> The Magic summaries and the Ultra intercepts of German communications)
were one
> of the key reasons that the Allies were able to foil the Axis plans of
world
> domination. Only six Americans were authorized to read these intercepts.
Of
> these six men, only one was elected. That was President Franklin D.
Roosevelt,
> and he did not see, nor did he read, everything. The other policy-making
> recipients of Magic were: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of
State
> Cordell Hull, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, the chief of naval
operations
> (the last being Adm. E.J. King) and Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief
of
> staff. The most important of these decision makers was Gen. Marshall.
>
> ...
>
> Marshall also knew prior to the February 1945 Yalta Conference that Russia
> would break its nonaggression pact with Japan and attack Manchuria about
90
> days after the surrender of Germany (V-E Day). The Magic Summaries
documented
> the shift of Soviet troops by rail from Europe to the Far East for this
> purpose. Because of a major intelligence failure, Marshall also believed
that
> the Japanese had maintained their troop strength In Manchuria and were
capable
> to resisting a Soviet Attack. But Tokyo had secretly brought back many of
its
> troops from Manchuria to defend the home islands of Japan from an American
> invasion, leaving Manchuria and Korea easy prey for the Russians.
>
> Marshall also knew from the Magic decrypts that the Japanese home islands
were
> to be defended from invasion and occupation by 2.3 million troops, another
four
> million Army and Navy employees and a newly created armed militia
numbering 25
> million. These defenders were sworn to fight to the death, which so many
> Japanese troops had done in battles throughout the Pacific.
>
> To effectively invade and occupy Japan, American strategists foresaw two
> invasions, scheduled for November 1945 and March 1946. The first invasion,
on
> the island of Kyushu. would employ some 770,000 American troops. The
follow-up
> invasion on the plains of Tokyo, leading to the forced occupation of
Japan,
> called for two million American troops.
>
> This brings us to the heart of the Enola Gay argument made by revisionist
> historians who claim
>
> (1) that President Truman either invented after the fact high invasion
casualty
> estimates to provide moral and political justification for the use of
atomic
> weapons; or
> (2) that Truman was never told about potentially high invasion casualties;
or
> (3) that archival documentation for pre-invasion casualty estimates does
not
> exist; or
> (4) that the pre-invasion estimates were minuscule.
> But according to documents I have uncovered, a conference to discuss
> pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18, 1945,
between
> President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen.
Douglas
> MacArthur submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused Adm.
> William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take charge of the
session.
> Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in
an
> invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded
> during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said. The
> president remarked that the invasion would create another Okinawa from one
end
> of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.
>
> Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of Japanese
forces and
> fortifications by Magic intelligence, MacArthur medical staff revised its
> pre-invasion needs for hospital beds upwards by 300%. MacArthur's chief
> surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade
and
> occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.
>
> Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam
> Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations
> between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a
> Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian
> ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two
countries.
> Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic
> Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador:
> "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together
with
> the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic
> Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's
> militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never
surrender
> unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
>
> On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb against
Japan.
> On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was
successfully
> tested. A way had been found to end the war quickly and decisively. This
was
> the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and China issued the
Potsdam
> Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said
the
> declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."
>
> On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese
press
> that the Potsdam declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, the Magic
Summaries
> revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from
> Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia
between
> Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S.
and
> Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
>
> This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen.
> Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted
by
> an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender
nor to
> negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the
war
> quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.
>
> Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria. On August 10,
Emperor
> Hirohito overruled his militarist advisors and accepted the Potsdam
> declaration. Japan surrendered.
>
>
> Propaganda Campaign
> But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
immediately; the
> Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu,
had
> begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the Americans as war
criminals
> for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals included keeping Emperor Hirohito
from
> being tried for instigating a war of aggression, and diverting Western
> attention away from the many Japanese atrocities committed since the start
of
> the Sino-Japanese war in 1937. "Since the Americans have recently been
raising
> an uproar about the question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],''
> Shigemitsu instructed his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary,
"I
> think we should make every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in
our
> propaganda. That propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the
> revisionist account of the bombing of Japan.
> Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end World
War
> II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of hundreds of
thousands
> American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It also saved the lives of
some
> 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands,
all
> of whom were to be executed in the event of an American invasion of Japan.
> Above all, it saved untold hundreds of thousands more Japanese-perhaps
> millions-from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing and shelling,
> followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.
>
>  Dresden:
>
> Are We Beasts?
> Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing"
>
> by Christopher C. Harmon
> (Published in Finest Hour 76)
>
> This monograph is the first of the "Newport Papers," a series instituted
by the
> Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College. The title is
from
> Churchill's reaction to film footage of the June 1943 bombing campaign
> against the populous industrial centers of the Ruhr. At the conclusion of
the
> film, the British leader sat bolt upright and exclaimed: "Are we beasts?
Are we
> taking this too far?" The answer to the first question, as Dr. Harmon
> convincingly demonstrates, is that they were not beasts, but leaders of an
> alliance desperately attempting to preserve their world from a "bestial
> hegemon."
>
>
>
>
> Jason James

The main fallacy in this counter-argument is that it assumes that there were
only two options: the brutal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians
using atomic weapons or bloody warfare.

This was not the case, as I have argued above.

That the Americans and their British lackeys were prepared to slaughter
hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily for a political goal -- and
have been prepared to do so on several occasions -- makes a complete sham of
their feigned and false indignation over the military action against the
World Trade Center.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:18 EDT 2001
Article: 974529 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc796bb.3770735@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc84610@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:19:57 +0100
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.229
Message-ID: <3bc87686@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 18:14:46 GMT, 213.78.40.229
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.229
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974529


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m24rp3ac5g.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
> > news:kdpfstoklskav908sfj2mc9cd4ubmrah1m@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:22:49 +0100, in
> > > <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
> > > >news:cuffststgr3gfl07eb0up9qkk3lb8q203b@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> > > >> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > > >>  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> [snip exercise in cyberthuggery]
> > > >
> > > >[snip exercise in smearing]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exercise in smearing?  Let's take a look:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> > > <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip exercise in cyberthuggery]
> >
> > [snip exercise in smearing]
>
>   mr. michael calls quoting his own words back to him 'smearing.'
>
>   Is he not telling us something?
>
>   Yes, he's not telling us that he understands that his opinions are
>   repugnant.
>
>   Even to him.

Mr Daffer, it's YOU who's not telling us something.

You're not telling us the answer to my simple question.

Do you agree with the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan?

Yes or no?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:19 EDT 2001
Article: 974530 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc85d6d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:21:39 +0100
Lines: 47
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.229
Message-ID: <3bc876e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 18:16:19 GMT, 213.78.40.229
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.229
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974530


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m28zefacat.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For years America has been slaughtering and maiming innocent victims --
> > either directly or by proxy, as in Israel. The bombing of Nagasaki and
> > Hiroshima, with 270,000 dead was one example. The slaughter of 200,000
Iraqi
> > civilians was another. Their victims now number millions. Perhaps if
> > American civilians start dying in large enough numbers, then America
will
> > think twice about exporting murder and death throughout the world. And
that
> > will, in the end, create a safer place for ALL civilians.
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in message
> <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, David E. Michael expressed support
> for the craven cowards who hijacked four airliners, flying two into
> the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and simply crashing the fourth,
> with an attendant loss of life estimated in the thousands, with the
> words:
>
>   "This afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened . . . Today was
>   a glorious day. May there be many others like it."
>
> For the complete post of this terrorist sympathizer, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk
> --
> Thus speaks a moral cretin, in a sick attempt to justify his
> exultation at the deaths of thousands. One wonders, had these deaths
> not occured, what rhetorical slieghts of hand mr. michael would use to
> justify his gloating. Truly, he uses the tragedy of other deaths to
> justify his own bloodlust. What a sick little man he is.

You have repeatedly refused to condemn the American bombing of civilians in
Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or Afghanistan when challenged to do so by myself.

I put it to you, Mr Daffer, that you are one of the more spectacular
examples of rampant hypocrisy.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:19 EDT 2001
Article: 974590 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc625b6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011193314.25478.00003195@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc63a2a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc6451c.2486275@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc6719a@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3bc796bb.3770735@nntp.mindspring.com> <3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc84610@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <3BC89910.6010708@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:09:32 +0100
Lines: 41
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.131
Message-ID: <3bc89e45@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 21:04:21 GMT, 213.78.42.131
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.131
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974590


"Gord McFee"  wrote in message
news:3BC89910.6010708@sympatico.ca...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
> > news:kdpfstoklskav908sfj2mc9cd4ubmrah1m@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:22:49 +0100, in
> >><3bc7dc7f@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Hilary Ostrov"  wrote in message
> >>>news:cuffststgr3gfl07eb0up9qkk3lb8q203b@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> >>>><3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>[snip exercise in cyberthuggery]
> >>>>
> >>>[snip exercise in smearing]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Exercise in smearing?  Let's take a look:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:57:56 +0100, in
> >><3bc7ba8c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip exercise in cyberthuggery]
> >>
> >
> > [snip exercise in smearing]

[snip exercise in spamming]




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:20 EDT 2001
Article: 974592 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc66b02@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc670b7@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc79473@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc7bb9d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc85d6d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:13:48 +0100
Lines: 36
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.131
Message-ID: <3bc89f48@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 21:08:40 GMT, 213.78.42.131
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.131
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974592


"John Morris"  wrote in message
news:ql4hst49fl31v7s1fsa9agbjdfotkqf939@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3bc85d6d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 13
> Oct 2001 16:33:02 +0100, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For years America has been slaughtering and maiming innocent
> > victims -- either directly or by proxy, as in Israel. The bombing
> > of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, with 270,000 dead was one example. The
> > slaughter of 200,000 Iraqi civilians was another. Their victims now
> > number millions. Perhaps if American civilians start dying in large
> > enough numbers, then America will think twice about exporting
> > murder and death throughout the world. And that will, in the end,
> > create a safer place for ALL civilians.
>
> Given America's historical response to attacks, both you and bin
> Laden seem to be engaging in wishful thinking about how America might
> respond in the future.
>
> - --
>  John Morris                                
>  at University of Alberta  

It's news to me that America has suffered such attacks in the past. They've
had Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center. What other attacks do you have
in mind?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:20 EDT 2001
Article: 974615 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc661a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011011234525.16649.00006449@mb-cg.aol.com> <3bc66fc9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc75a74@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bc85c6c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <4npgst4b0732m5otf6r4jiria434baodrv@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Say NWO?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 22:36:27 +0100
Lines: 962
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.131
Message-ID: <3bc8b2a6@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 22:31:18 GMT, 213.78.42.131
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.131
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974615

A long one, Mr Morris, so I'll have to do a bit of snippery to get to the
point




> > > > > > > But you accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of
> > > > > > > millions.
>
> > > > > > No -- I accept that historians accept the Soviet mass
> > > > > > murder of tens of millions. Whether they are correct or not
> > > > > > is another matter entirely! BUT . . . I don't really see
> > > > > > any convincing reason for them to lie.
>
> > > > > A standard which completely fails you when assessing the work
> > > > > of historians of the Holocaust.
>
> > > > Examples?
>
> > > That you do see convincing reasons for historians of the
> > > Holocaust to lie when those same reasons are not at all
> > > convincing when applied to historians of Soviet mass murder.
>
> > Two points to be made there.
>
> > First, I don't necessarily think that the problem is primarily that
> > of historians lying
>
> Then why did you introduce lying as a remote problem for historians
> of Soviet crimes?  To wit,

>   Whether [historians] are correct or not is another matter entirely!
>   BUT . . . I don't really see any convincing reason for them to lie.

Hmmm. I said I don't see any reason for historians to lie about the Soviets.
I then said that I don't think that the problem is primarily one of
historians lying about the Nazis but rather one of them being insufficently
critical of their sources.

Now you see a 'remote problem' here?

> > (although there are some spectacular examples of that --
> > not least in the works of Deborah Lipstadt)
>
> You mean when Lipstadt correctly identified David Irving as falsifier
> of history?  Or did you have another example in mind?

Her accusation was that he was a 'Holocaust denier'. He didn't 'deny' the
'Holocaust'. On the contrary -- he asserts that it did happen. Judge Gray
rescued her on the grounds that by her very Newspeaky definition of
'denier', anyone who seriously challenges any central aspect of it is a
'denier', and Irving challenges the gas chamber material. Nevertheless, if
we have recourse to ordinary language, Irving certainly does not 'deny' the
'Holocaust' and her use of the phrase 'Holocaust denier' is, in my view,
intended to mislead.

> > but rather that they are not
> > sufficiently critical of their primary material.
>
> You were talking about historians lying,

I said that I didn't see any reason for them to lie (about the Soviets). I
then said that I didn't think that the problem was primarily one of them
lying about the Germans but rather of being insufficiently critical of
primary sources.

> but if you want to talk
> about "insufficiently critical," we can talk about "insufficiently
> critical."
>
> Now, it strikes me as odd that you give blanket acceptance to
> historians of Soviet crimes

That is false. Nowhere have I said or implied that. On the contrary, I said:

No -- I accept that historians accept the Soviet mass murder of tens of
millions. Whether they are correct or not is another matter entirely! BUT .
. . I don't really see any convincing reason for them to lie.

> on the grounds that you trust they have
> done their jobs properly which, one assumes, includes being
> sufficiently critical about their sources.

Didn't say that either.

>  Yet on the basis of an
> almost total ignorance of the historical sources of either the
> Holocaust or Soviet crimes, you assume that Holocaust historians, are
> "insufficiently critical."

No. Having been in this newsgroup for around four years and having visited
the Nizkor site, and having experienced what are presumably the 'best
arguments' you folks have to advance (when you're not hurling abuse or
spamming or flooding) I have reached the conclusion that being
insufficiently critical of primary sources is a chronic problem among the
defenders of the orthodox view of World War II.

> > Keren is a case in point --
> > we get the same old primary documents reposted time and time again,
> > yet when challenged 'how do you know the document is genuine?' or
> > 'how do you know that the dead people in the pictures weren't the
> > ones who were killed by typhus?' he just responds with smears and
> > accusations of anti-Semitism.
>
> And you thereby commit the fundamental category error that Danny
> Keren represents Holocaust historians.

I have no idea of his background -- I believe he's some kind of computer
specialist -- but he certainly posts a great deal of what appears to be
'primary' material.

> Yet, on the other hand, when I describe the practical methods of
> source criticism, you disappear in a haze postmodernist froth.

I don't really understand that criticism. Need more details.

> > Second, many of the factors casting doubt on Nazi atrocity material
> > are absent in the Soviet materials. Nazi primary documents were
> > 'captured'
>
> So "captured" to you means "falsified?"  Why are you so uncritical
> that you make such a silly assumption?

Captured by an enemy with the motive and means to falsify history -- and a
track record of so doing.

> > by
> > invading armies (including the Red Army) with strong motives to
> > falsify history (as seen by the falsified numbers on the original
> > Auschwitz plaque
>
> False numbers, yes.  But you still haven't proved intentions behind
> posting those numbers in the first place.

You've lost me there.

> > and by the Katyn allegations at Nuremberg) or at least cover it up
> > (as seen by the Hewit letter cited in my previous post and reposted
> > below).
>
> You are very good at repeating yourself, but below you scarcely deal
> at all with the objections I raised to your take on these issues.
>
> > Soviet
> > primary documents merely survived a peaceful transition from an
> > ailing Andropov to a more liberal Gorbachev and thence to the
> > basically
> > non-communist Yeltsin.
>
> Pretty much the same situation as the Germans corroborating what was
> learned in the immediate postwar period when they put their own
> citizens on trial for lesser roles in the same crimes.

Far from it. They were using documents that had been 'captured'. They were
using dodgy witnesses. We've been through all that before.

> > That isn't to say that we should regard them
> > uncritically -- merely that we have, as yet, no reason to suspect
> > that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were engaging in the same jiggery pokery
> > with 'the truth' that Stalin and Churchill were engaging in.
>
> Oooof!  Talk about question begging and circular logic!

You dispute that Stalin was engaging in jiggery pokery with the truth?

> > As we know, much of the
> > data on Stalin's and Lenin's massacres comes from the communists'
> > own figures (we might add that their own newspaper reports and
> > speeches -- notably Stalin's 'On the Liquidation of the Kulaks').
> > Why should they lie?
>
> And why should the Germans lie in the 1960s and 1970s?

Which Germans specifically?

> Why, for that matter, would Goebbels lie about the massacre at
> Lidice?

I don't think he necessarily was lying about that. As I understand it, the
Germans conducted action there against terrorists -- and got innocent
civilians in the process. As it happens, I have just read a news report on
Yahoo! that the Americans, in conducting an action in Kabul against alleged
terrorists, also bombed a residential district of that city, getting
innocent civilians in the process.

No difference between the Nazis in Lidice and the Americans in Kabul, as far
as I can see. But correct me if I'm wrong.

> > Unlike Nazis such as Hoess and Eichmann, they were not captured by
> > the enemy.
>
> And being captured is equivalent to falsifying, yes?

It certainly adds one helluva lot of scope for influencing whatever the
person captured subsequently says.

> > Certainly, uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from anti-communists
> > would suffer from the same problems as uncorroborated eyewitness
> > testimony from concentration camp inmates.
>
> You mean like that they had axes to grind and so on?

Certainly.

> > Blood-curdling speeches from the likes of
> > Stalin, Ehrenberg, Mao, etc. also suffer from the same criticisms
> > that we can level at speeches made -- or allegedly made -- by the
> > likes of Himmler: they might just have been rhetoric designed to
> > inflame passions rather than serious statements of an intent to
> > kill.
>
> Yet we know that Stalin and Mao were true to their words and did kill
> after expressing the intent.

It doesn't follow that all inflamatory speeches are followed by the speaker
thereof sanctioning killing, does it?

Viz. Winnie Mandela and her 'matches' speech.

> > > For instance, you make _ad hominem_ appeals to motive when
> > > discussing the Holocaust, yet never question the motives of
> > > anti-Communist historians writing in the Cold War era about the
> > > crimes of the Communists.
>
> > I think you need to keep a wary eye out for 'motives' whenever
> > *anyone* writes history!
>
> How first-year undergraduate of you to pay lip service to that
> concept.  But one waits in vain for an example of your wariness when
> it comes to Soviet crimes.

Oh, I thought I'd mentioned Solzhenitsyn's reliance on hearsay.

> > As I've said, I think that the main problem with historians
> > of the Nazi era is a tendency to be uncritical of source material.
>
> Yes, you have said that.  And now you are repeating yourself.
>
> > We could
> > certainly level the same criticism of some who write accounts of
> > the Soviet era -- Solzhenitsyn, for instance, relies heavily, but
> > not entirely, on hearsay.
>
> But, Mr. Critical, you previously cited him as a reliable source for
> material on Stalinist mass murder.

If you'd actually read what I said, I cited him quoting Kurganov on Soviet
mass murder. Kurganov is not hearsay.

> But I am glad to see that you have finally found something o be
> skeptical about when it comes to Soviet crimes.

Why?

> > > > > > > Furthermore, you not
> > > > > > > only don't have the evidence at hand, you have no idea
> > > > > > > what constitutes the evidence.
>
> > > > > > Yes -- my comments make the assumption that Rummel and the
> > > > > > Guinness Book of Records have done their research
> > > > > > correctly.
>
> > > > > But that historians of the Holocaust have not.
>
> > > > Examples?
>
> > > When you point to the Auschwitz plaques and act as if this were
> > > ever the only information available on the death toll at
> > > Auschwitz.
>
> > Excuse me but I did no such thing. I acted as if it were evidence
> > that SOME people -- even if only the Soviets -- were trying to
> > falsify the history of the 'Holocaust'. At no time did I imply that
> > it was the only information available on the death toll at
> > Auschwitz. Why are you inventing things?
>
> Why don't you stick to the point?

When you misrepresent what I said, I think it is legitimate for me to
correct your misrepresentations.

> > > > > > > Telling isn't it.
>
> > > > > > The implicit charge is one of double standards. I've
> > > > > > refuted it at length before now.
>
> > > > > Bullshit.  Your double standard is legendary.
>
> > > > And yet you provide no examples. How strange.
>
> > > I've been doing so.  It is not at all strange that you've failed
> > > to notice.
>
> > Go on -- just one example!
>
> Do you really think people are convinced when you stonewall and
> pretend ignorance

Oh go on. Be a devil. Just one example!

?  We have been discussing your double standard from
> the moment I entered the thread.  We are still discussing it.
>
> For heaven's sake, David, you are the one who has insisted that you
> merely trust Rummel _et al_. to have done their homework.  You
> exhibit no such trust towards Holocaust historians but instead insist
> that they are "insufficiently critical."

For heaven's sake man -- Rummel actually relies on those 'Holocaust
historians' for his German material! It goes without saying that one needs
to be wary of his material. Having said that, I don't see evidence of the
same sort of primary source problems with his Soviet and Chinese figures
that I see with the German stuff.

> So go ahead an play stupid.  Eventually, you will convince someone
> besides me that are stupid.

Just look at that sentence! And you're a postgraduate English student?

> > > > > > Much of the evidence for German mass murder was produced
> > > > > > after the war by the victors who had every motive to
> > > > > > falsify it.
>
> > > > > Motives which you have never proved.
>
> > > > How can one 'prove' a motive?
>
> > > An even better question: how does the assumption of a motive
> > > prove wrongdoing?
>
> > If the assumption is compelling it can tip the scales of justice to
> > 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
>
> So have you proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt?  I don't see
> that you've made even a dubious case that the Allies falsified the
> history of the Holocaust *except* by relying on appeals to motive.

 There are numerous examples of attempted falsification -- photographs
(Walendy), the whole Katyn saga, the Auschwitz plaque, then later on the
Hitler diaries, the Demjanjuk witnesses. No, this doesn't prove that the
whole thing was falsified, but the other evidence that they provide largely
leaves a lot of scope for doubt.

> > > Let's have a look:
>
> > > > Remember this quote:
>
> > > > 'Sir,
>
> > > > I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following
> > > > circular letter:
>
> > > > It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious
> > > > Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those
> > > > associated with us.
>
> > > > But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied
> > > > in public, must be taken into account when action by us is
> > > > called for.
>
> > > > We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator
> > > > in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of
> > > > the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We
> > > > know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland,
> > > > Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.
>
> > > > We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will
> > > > certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless
> > > > precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which
> > > > will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in
> > > > this country.
>
> > > > We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save
> > > > them - and ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The
> > > > disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere
> > > > denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to
> > > > distract public attention from the whole subject.
>
> > > > Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity
> > > > propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public
> > > > is no longer so susceptible as in the days of "Corpse Factory."
> > > > the Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."
>
> > > > Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract
> > > > public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your
> > > > wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and
> > > > Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by
> > > > the Ministry.
>
> > > > Your expression of belief in such may convince others.
>
> > > > I am, sir, Your obedient servant
> > > > (signed)
> > > > H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary'
>
> > > > [Postscript]
>
> > > > 'The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with
> > > > regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to
> > > > responsible persons.'
>
> > > > (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in
> > > > Poland, John Wiley and Sons, NY, page 209-10)
>
> > > > Seems that someone, at least, had a motive to cover things up.
>
> > > But what things?  What are you attempting to prove with this?
>
> > > It seems to me that certain segments, at least, of the British
> > > government were willing to cover up Soviet crimes in order to
> > > maintain public support of the Alliance until the Nazis were
> > > defeated.
>
> > And to play up German crimes. Which was the point.
>
> The point of what?

Duh -- that was what I was trying to prove with the quote.

>  You seem to want to argue that highlighting the
> crimes of your enemies is the same as fabricating them.

Not at all. But a government that is dishonest enough to make plans to cover
up the crimes of its allies by playing up the crimes of its enemies can
hardly be trusted to be a fair source of information about those enemies.

> > Playing up German crimes was doubtless behind the Auschwitz plaque
> > and the Katyn allegations too.
>
> > So we had two of the Allied governments trying to play up German
> > crimes.
>
> And does that prove that Hewet and the British were putting false
> stories into circulation?

It proves that they were corrupt as hell, old son.

But I see where we're heading and we've been there before.

I provide evidence to suggest that the Allies cannot simply be trusted on
the subject of the 'Holocaust'.

You point out that this, per se, is not evidence that they falsified the
'Holocaust'.

I agree with you. However, all that I am seeking to establish is that the
Allies cannot simply be trusted on the subject of the 'Holocaust'. That is
sufficient, I submit, for the revisionist case to succeed.

Do we have to go around that tree again?

> > > That is a rather limited goal compared to the more extensive
> > > goals which you have variously wished to prove with this piece of
> > > evidence.
> > >  While it is clearly evidence of a desire to falsify the record
> > > of Soviet crimes (by foregrounding Nazi crimes), it is not
> > > evidence at all of a desire to falsify Nazi crimes.
>
> > No, but it is evidence of a desire to play them up.
>
> That's kind of obvious.  But I don't agree that "playing up" stories
> is equivalent to fabricating stories.

And I agree with you.

But it is evidence that you can't trust the Allies because they were as
corrupt as hell.

> > And I put it to you that, once justice becomes partial, playing up
> > some crimes and playing down others, then it is not very far away
> > from
> > fabrication.
>
> But Hewet wasn't engaged in promoting justice.

Correct. He was engaged in promoting injustice -- making plans to cover up
hideous crimes.

>  He had specific and
> limited ends related to maintaining public support for the alliance
> with the Soviets.  Was he wrong to falsify reports of Soviet crimes
> by downplaying them and by playing up reports of Nazi crimes?  Why,
> yes.
>
> But is that the same Hewit sitting around forging documents and
> torturing prisoners to implicate the Nazis in the Holocaust?

Not at all. However, it is evidence that the Allies were totally corrupt.

> And again, look at the practical purposes he was trying to achieve
> before ascribing a motive to falsify the history of the Holocaust.

See above.

> > > > > > We know that attempts WERE
> > > > > > made to falsify history (viz. Katyn),
>
> > > > > A pretty poor attempt considered that the charge was rebutted
> > > > > at Nuremberg.
>
> > > > Only AFTER it became obvious that it was so full of holes that,
> > > > if allowed through, it would utterly discredit the whole vile
> > > > procedure.
>
> > > But it was "allowed through" despite the best efforts of the
> > > American and British prosecutors to dissuade the Soviets.
>
> > > Your utter ignorance never ceases to amaze me especially
> > > considering how many times I have pointed out to you that the
> > > Soviets were allowed to enter the charge, that the Soviets were
> > > allowed to read part of their bogus report into evidence, that
> > > the defence was allowed to call witnesses to rebut the charge.
>
> > > The Soviets were thoroughly spanked.  I suppose you imagine the
> > > Nuremberg proceedings as some sort of secret trial where the
> > > world's press had to wait outside the door for scraps official
> > > releases on the proceedings inside.  But the world's press was in
> > > the courtroom and heard every word of it.  What conclusion do you
> > > think they drew when only one of two parties could have committed
> > > the crime of Katyn and the Nazi defendants proved conclusively
> > > that they didn't do it?
>
> > Looks to me like a case of the West allowing Stalin to make a fool
> > of himself in public.
>
> And this wisecrack is in aid of what?

I don't understand that comment.

> The Western Allies tried to dissuade the Soviets from making false
> charges.  They failed.  It then fell to the court to consider the
> charges.

I don't believe that they seriously attempted to dissuade the Soviets from
making false charges. I suspect that they wanted to see them make fools of
themselves.

> All your babbling about show trials and miscarriages of justice
> appears to be without historical foundation.

You are the man who disappeared from a thread shortly after announcing that
there were, in Germany, no German criminal courts competent to try murder
immediately after the war. This was patently false as the Allies only
abolished selected laws and institutions and such courts were not among
them. So you are hardly in a position to know what has or does not have
historical foundation.

> > > I suppose, too, that you will fall back on some rhetoric about
> > > the subservient media in the liberal democracies.  Please don't
> > > embarrass yourself on my account.
>
> It appears the wiser course was taken.
>
> > > > > > there IS some evidence that torture
> > > > > > was used to extract confessions and testimonies (viz.
> > > > > > Hoess),
>
> > > > > So?  Were any of these confessions used in legal proceedings?
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > That's not how it works. Read some of Solzhenitsyn's
> > > > descriptions of how Stalin's henchmen did it. Victim is not
> > > > co-operative. Victim is tortured. Victim is put on trial.
> > > > Victim co-operates. Simple. Hell, torture them well enough and
> > > > they might even write a REALLY credible set of memoirs for you,
> > > > saying all the right things!
>
> > > That's some mighty fine rhetoric, David.
>
> > Do you disagree with it? If so where?
>
> Here:
>
> > >  Now explain how this
> > > terrible fear of torture carried through to the defendants in the
> > > domestic German trials in the 1960s and 1970s where the evidence
> > > of Nazi crimes was thoroughly corroborated.
>
> > Corroborated, if I remember rightly, by more 'captured' documents
> > and dubious 'confessions'.
>
> Ah.  I see.  The Germans captured documents from themselves, did
> they?   Do have any evidence that the Germans extorted confessions
> from the defendants under duress?

How would I obtain such evidence?

> It looks to me like your argument is well and truly fucked by this
> point by applying the same baseless accusations to the Germans
> rhemeslves that you apply so unskeptically to the Allies.

I really don't know what you're babbling on about here.

> > > One would think that a reasonable person would draw the
> > > conclusion that whatever mistreatment was suffered by Nazi
> > > defendants and witnesses, it had no bearing on the truth of their
> > > statements.
>
> > Anyone who would draw the conclusion that 'WHATEVER' (to use your
> > word) mistreatment was suffered by a witness would not have a
> > bearing on the truth of that witness's statement would hardly be
> > reasonable.
>
> I take it from your word salad that you mean it is unreasonable to
> suppose that Hoess's statements could be corroborated by statements
> made later by other individuals who were not not under duress or
> torture.

Please wheel out the evidence if you wish me to comment on it.

> > That you should make such a spectacularly daft observation speaks
> > volumes of your own motives!
>
> What part was daft that did not depend on your stupid misreading?



> But where does he say that Hoess was not beaten?  You and I are both
> agreed that a beating constitutes torture in the broadest sense.
> Apparently, others do not agree with us.  However reasonable or
> unreasonable their definitions might be, where do they say that Hoess
> was not beaten?
>
> > > That is pretty good evidence that Hoess was beaten, and we both
> > > know that Murphy accepts that evidence.
>
> > > So again, would you be so kind as to provide an example where
> > > Scot Murphy denies that Hoess was beaten?
>
> > No -- I accept your point entirely: the fact that Hoess was beaten,
> > drugged, sleep-deprived and mistreated to the point that the IMT
> > had to intervene is not evidence of TORTURE (!).
>
> And when exactly did the IMT intervene?  This is just more ignorant,
> ahistorical babble.
>
> Hoess came to Nuremberg when Kaltenbrunner's counsel asked for him as
> a witness for the defence.  The IMT didn't take any steps to "save"
> him.

See:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/

(which is an anti-revisionist article by Zimmerman). Note the following:


            Höss was turned over to the International Military Tribunal
to testify because
            the defense attorney for accused war criminal Ernst
Kaltenbrunner, the former
            head of Reich Main Security, wanted him as a witness. Höss
writes (180) that
            compared to where he had been before, "imprisonment with the
IMT was like
            staying in a health spa." He was then handed over to the
Poles to stand trial in
            Cracow, Poland. He describes (181) his first weeks in prison
as "quite
            tolerable." However, the attitudes of the guards changed for
the worse. Both he
            and Polish prisoners were mistreated. The prosecutor's
office intervened and
            things changed. "I have to openly confess that I never would
have expected to
            be treated so decently and so kindly in a Polish prison as I
have been since the
            intervention of the prosecutor's office."


Splattered, Morris?




> > > > > > that witnesses
> > > > > > HAVE given false testimony (viz. the Demjanjuk affair),
>
> > > > > Yeah.  Some very old people fifty years after the fact
> > > > > identified the wrong guy.  The wrong guy who was acquitted,
> > > > > by the way.
>
> > > > Only after he was thrown out of his country, hounded for years
> > > > as a very old man, and damn near killed as a result of the lies
> > > > that were told about him.
>
> > > Is your point that we should feel sorry for him?
>
> > No, my point is that witnesses have given false testimony with very
> > damaging effects -- which could have been fatal.
>
> > Ergo, witness testimony should be regarded with GREAT suspicion.
>
> Whatever you say.  But do you think that it should be greeted with
> equal suspicion when events are fresh in people's minds as compared
> to when the events are fifty years old?

I think that there are many factors to be taken into account when assessing
testimony. Age is certainly one, but not the only one.

> > > > > > that photographs
> > > > > > HAVE been used in a questionable manner (see Walendy's
> > > > > > work),
>
> > > > > Walendy's "work" is nearly as big a joke as your feeble
> > > > > contributions.
>
> > > > For what reason, precisely?
>
> > > Here:
>
> > > > > Go ahead: make us believe you really are astonished to find
> > > > > out that journalists sometimes misattribute, miscaption, or
> > > > > even misuse, archival photographs.
>
> > > > Ah, so Walendy's work is perhaps not a joke after all.
>
> > > It is a joke in the same sense that your petulant excuses for
> > > historical debate are a joke.
>
> > So you have no specific criticisms of Walendy's work on the
> > questionable use of photographic evidence of Nazi 'atrocities'.
>
> > Good.
>
> You really are a hopeless ass.  Walendy specializes in finding
> examples of miscaptioned, misattributed, and even misused archival
> photographs.
>
> That means that Walendy is preying on some mistake made by some
> careless jouranlist and using that mistake to misrepresent the entire
> subset of the historical profession that specializes in the history
> of the Holocaust.
>
> And you fell for it.

Seem to be a lot of these 'mistakes', Mr Morris.

> > > > > > that false
> > > > > > numbers WERE placed on plaques outside Auschwitz
> > > > > > (subsequently replaced),
>
> > > > > And no one knew that they were false (except, of course,
> > > > > Western historians, who have published accurate figures right
> > > > > from the get-go).
>
> > > > > Starting with the first comprehensive history of the
> > > > > Holocaust by Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 . . .
>
> > > > The point, surely, is that the false plaque shows that there
> > > > are SOME people out there -- even if only the Soviets -- who
> > > > wanted to mislead people about the Holocaust.
>
> > > So?
>
> > So there is one damn good reason for scepticism about at least SOME
> > assertions regarding the 'Holocaust', right?
>
> Yes.  And remarkably, we are even able to identify patently false
> claims.

Agreed.

> But do wake me up when you have another one of these profound
> revelations.  I wouldn't want to miss it.

It's important because it suggests that there's a legitimate historical
endeavour in sorting out the true claims from the false claims. In other
words, it suggests that historical revisionism is a useful historical
endeavour.

> > > > > > that fake gas chambers HAVE BEEN shown to the general
> > > > > > public.
>
> > > > > Yawn.
>
> > > > No answer, I see.
>
> > > Answer to what?  You didn't make a point.  I guessed that you
> > > were repeating the same tedious nonsense about the reconstruction
> > > at Auschwitz Main Camp.
>
> > > Millions of people have visited museums and come away believing
> > > that they have seen the fossilized remains of dinosaurs
> > > reconstructed into reasonably accurate skeletons.  Yet such
> > > fossilized remains are far too heavy and would simply collapse
> > > under their own weight if
> > > reconstructed like that.  What people have seen are plaster casts
> > > of dinosaur fossils (though museums may be using plastic casts
> > > now). When they find out this amazing fact of historical
> > > falsification, most people seem to respond, "Oh?  Okay."
>
> > > Unfortunately boneheads like you attach the wrong significance to
> > > the historical falsification inherent in reconstructions.  What
> > > is significant about the Auschwitz Museum is the ham-handed way
> > > in which they were forced to carry out historical research owing
> > > largely to Communist indifference and ideological inertia and
> > > underfunding.
>
> > Well we seem to agree that the gas chamber at Auschwitz was a fake.
>
> Are we agreed that dinosaurs are fakes?

I am willing to take your word on that.

> > The
> > difference is whether misleading the public about it is as
> > acceptable as misleading the public about the anatomy of dinosaurs.
>
> You suddenly think it is acceptable to mislead people!?!?

Well misleading people about the anatomy of dinosaurs may be bad, but it is
in a slightly different order of badness from misleading them about
allegations of mass murder!

>  This
> cannot be the same David E. Michael who got into such a high moral
> dudgeon when William Daffer suggested that petty lies in one area
> might not translate into serious lies about an important topic of
> discussion.

> The thing about the analogy, you stunned fuck, is that nobody is
> being misled about the anatomy of dinosaurs.  The only thing that is
> misleading is if they believe that they are seeing the actual
> fossilized bones of dinosaurs.  The anatomy is still as accurate as
> the paleontologists can make it.
>
> Gawd, leave it to you to miss the point.  You've turned missing the
> point into an art form.

Ah, so the visitors to Auschwitz were clearly told that the reconstruction
was a reconstruction?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was not the case and hence that
they were misled.

> > > > > Well, I've see you mastered the Revisionist patter.  Too bad
> > > > > you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
> >
> > > > It's you, Mr Morris, who has made the false claim than nobody
> > > > believes that Hoess wasn't tortured.
>
> > > I didn't make that claim.
>
> > > Let me quote myself: "Does anyone actually deny that Hoess (or
> > > others) were beaten?  No."

And I quoted you three people who did deny that he was 'tortured'. To beat a
man is to torture him, despite your hilarious attempts to get around that
one.

> > > The question of whether that beating amounted to torture is a
> > > definitional question.
>



> All I was questioning was the apparent equivalence "decline in
> population _id est_ evidence of mass murder."

Nobody has argued that.

> > > > I'd say that's
> > > > fairly good evidence. If they were going to lie, surely they'd
> > > > cover this up. Evidently they didn't think of it.
>
> > > But Soviet demographic data don't have categories like, "numbers
> > > of kulaks submitted to genocidal measures," or "number of people
> > > we killed at Lubyanka because we didn't like what they had to
> > > say."
>
> > Why should such categories be necessary? We have a drastic drop in
> > the population and, as far as I can see, no alternative explanation
> > of where these people went!
>
> > In the case of the Jews in Nazi Germany we DO have alternative
> > explanations of where they might have gone.
>
> No.  In fact, we don't.  They did not flee to the Soviet Union,
> because approximately how many did.

That sentence does not make sense. How the hell do you know where they fled
to?

>  They did not emigrate to the
> United States or Palestine, since we know somewhat more exactly how
> many did.

That sentence does not make sense either.

> What a critical assessment of the evidence would give you is the
> knowledge that upwards of five millions were murdered as the result
> of a policy of ruthless extermination.

Only if you make the manifestly illogical leap of supposing that the ones
you can't account for were murdered by the Germans rather than:

(a) integrating into German or Polish society, or going into hiding, and
avoiding getting identified as Jewish in the first place (and I was reading
an account of the Warsaw ghetto recently that said that such things did
happen);
(b) doing the same in the chaos that ensued as the Germans started losing
the war;
(c) getting killed by the Allies, notably Uncle Joe, who had a morbid hatred
of people behind his lines who had 'seen the West';
(d) high-tailing it across the borders into surrounding countries;
(e) dying of typhus or starvation.

> > > So when you rely upon historians "doing their job properly," you
> > > are relying upon their making reasonable inferences about cause
> > > of death and the responsibility of the state in bringing about
> > > those deaths.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> Except when it comes to Nazi crimes.

Why do you say that?

> > > What you don't do is indulge in lurid innuendo about how deaths
> > > from mass murder in the Soviet Union are known only from
> > > inferences about data made by anti-Communist intellectuals during
> > > the Cold War.
>
> > Why should one do that?
>
> Why indeed?  And should one do that with respect to the Holocaust?

It isn't 'lurid innuendo' -- it's pointing out that there was the
opportunity and motive for falsification of the primary sources.

> > What we know about the communists, as far as I'm
> > aware, comes from their own demographic data.
>
> What we know about the overall death toll in the Holocaust comes from
> largely from demographic data.  What we get from captured documents
> is Nazi intentions and an inkling of the scale of the slaughter.

Yes but you have to make the assumption that the ones you can't account for
were murdered by the Nazis. As outlined above, there are other
possibilities.



> - --
>  John Morris                                
>  at University of Alberta  
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use 
>
> iQA/AwUBO8iSi5QgvG272fn9EQLjDgCfXe1Aza3rdmQPTkBJdWHuZPPNRjIAnR/P
> R1CPMxOZP+Gh7Usa9maqRvGt
> =pEji
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:20 EDT 2001
Article: 974623 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc875f0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011013162231.06780.00003284@mb-cq.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 22:45:52 +0100
Lines: 102
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.131
Message-ID: <3bc8b4d0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 22:40:32 GMT, 213.78.42.131
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.icl.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.131
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974623


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011013162231.06780.00003284@mb-cq.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 14/10/01 3:11 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc875f0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >
>
> >
> >That you ignore or downplay these options speaks volumes regarding your
own
> >personal morality.
>
>  I kow this will be cast aside with a wave of your hand, but, from
Truman's
> Diaries:
>
> Note Truman's declaration that military targets will be used against
Japan.
>
> Note the last passage. Here he expresses misgivings over the rusultant
loss of
> Civilian life, an amount he was unaware was inevitable.

Sounds a bit like those alleged Goebbel's diary entries where he expresses
glimmers of sympathy for hard time being had by the Jews!

> As to my own morality, to the extent all human life is equal in value,

Really? So if someone were pointing a gun at the head of your wife or
girlfriend or close relative, and you knew he was the type to pull the
trigger, and you could only stop him by killing him, you'd refrain from
doing so on the grounds that his life was equal to that of his proposed
victim?

> there is
> a case neverthe less that I subscribe to, that military lives are equal to
> more, much more, as ultimately they including those from allies have saved
> millions of citizens from the misery of occupation.

That, however, is not the position under the Hague Conventions -- military
lives are fair game under international law, whereas civilian lives are
afforded nominal protection.

> "Anyway we 'think' we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the
atom.
> An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly.
> Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a
steel
> tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in
diameter,
> knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards
> away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40
> miles and more.
>
> "The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I
have
> told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives
and
> soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if
the
> Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the
> world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old
capital
> or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].
>
> "He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military
one and
> we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation]
asking
> the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but
we
> will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the
world
> that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It
seems to
> be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most
> useful."
>
> [Privately, Truman later expressed misgivings about the mass killing of
> civilians in Hiroshima; see the "Didn't the Japanese Deserve It?" section
in
> Random Ramblings on Hiroshima.]
>
>
> Jason James

Yes, I don't doubt he had a guilty conscience. Mass murderers, it seems,
sometimes do.

However, he did not take his own life, which would have been the honourable
course of action under those circumstances, nor did he even offer any form
of apology to the Japanese people or publicly renounce his actions.
Accordingly, he remains, in my humble view, one of the great scumbags of
history.

David






From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:21 EDT 2001
Article: 974651 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8b4d0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011013181442.28892.00003962@mb-cl.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:33:14 +0100
Lines: 41
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.71
Message-ID: <3bc8bfea@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 13 Oct 2001 23:27:54 GMT, 213.78.39.71
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.71
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974651


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011013181442.28892.00003962@mb-cl.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 14/10/01 7:45 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc8b4d0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> >
> >> As to my own morality, to the extent all human life is equal in value,
> >
> >Really? So if someone were pointing a gun at the head of your wife or
> >girlfriend or close relative, and you knew he was the type to pull the
> >trigger, and you could only stop him by killing him, you'd refrain from
> >doing so on the grounds that his life was equal to that of his proposed
> >victim?
> >
>
>  Ahhh,....David, there are things called 'Over riding Principles. Plus, in
the
> event you presented, killing the killer would not be without emotional
damage,
> however small compared to the greater act of preserving innocent life.
>
> Now I guess you'll go into accusations of me qualifying and thus
invalidating
> my original statement, but such black and white categorising you'd demand
from
> me, is within the surrounds of a world of shades of grey idealistic at
best.
>
>
>
>
> Jason James

Sounds like a damn good argument for consequentialism to me!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:21 EDT 2001
Article: 974665 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8bfea@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011013185037.28892.00003965@mb-cl.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 00:33:02 +0100
Lines: 71
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.44
Message-ID: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 14 Oct 2001 00:27:58 GMT, 213.78.41.44
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.44
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974665


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011013185037.28892.00003965@mb-cl.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 14/10/01 8:33 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc8bfea@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >
>
> >
> >Sounds like a damn good argument for consequentialism to me!
> >
> >David
> >
>
>  Consequences and principles dont have to be mutually exclusive.

Absolutely. Indeed, consequentialism actually relies upon principles -- one
has to determine 'good' and 'bad' consequences.

> The US frames
> its actions (consequences for terrorists) around principles.

How touchingly naive! Bush knows that he has to 'do something' to satisfy US
public opinion that has been whipped up by the media out there -- even if
that 'something' involves slaughtering innocent Afghan civilians.

And make no mistake about it, when winter comes to Afghanistan, it will not
be terrorists who start dying in their millions as a result of Bush's
criminal antics.

> Principles I might
> add which have saved and helped saved yours and my families quality of
> existence.

My family's quality of existence would be one helluva lot better were it NOT
for the policies of the Establishment, I can tell you!

> You sweep aside all these annoying details.

Where?

> How *much* of history do
> you include in your assessments David?

That question doesn't make sense.

> What do you think the world would be
> like now if the US didnt enter the 2nd war?

I have no idea. Nor do you. What a strange question! If you are making the
point that life under the Nazis would be worse than life under the current
regime, my question is 'worse for whom?' Literally tens of millions of
people were slaughtered by communism after the war. Tens of millions more
succumbed to the wars and chaos in Africa and Asia resulting from botched
attempts at decolonialization by the old imperial powers and
recolonialization by the new imperial superpowers. As Ken Livingstone
pointed out, more people die each year throughout the world due to poverty
than died in the entire Second World War. That's the wonderful new world we
have. Whether Nazism would have taken a similar path of depravity or whether
it would have moderated into something more humane neither of us can know.
It's idle speculation. We do not need Nazism or American imperialism. What
we need now is to overthrow the existing world order and replace it with a
new world order where the imperialist superpowers are replaced by free and
independent nations living together in peace and prosperity.

> Jason James
>
David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:21 EDT 2001
Article: 974930 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011014130548.12257.00001909@mb-mn.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:34:44 +0100
Lines: 246
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.57
Message-ID: <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 14 Oct 2001 20:29:34 GMT, 213.78.42.57
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.57
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:974930

OK -- this has to be quick as I'm staggeringly busy now.

"Ootha2831"  wrote in message
news:20011014130548.12257.00001909@mb-mn.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 14/10/01 9:33 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
>  My other screen name is not working via my news-reader.
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like a damn good argument for consequentialism to me!
> >> >
> >> >David
>
> >>  Consequences and principles dont have to be mutually exclusive.
>
> >Absolutely. Indeed, consequentialism actually relies upon principles --
one
> >has to determine 'good' and 'bad' consequences.
>
>  OK.
>
>
> >> The US frames
> >> its actions (consequences for terrorists) around principles.
> >
> >How touchingly naive! Bush knows that he has to 'do something' to satisfy
US
> >public opinion that has been whipped up by the media out there -- even if
> >that 'something' involves slaughtering innocent Afghan civilians.
>
> This is where you depart from reality into a grim world of perception
based on
> total paranoia wrt US agenda and motives. Few statements, such as yours
above
> demonstrate such naivete of a black humoured vein.
>
> To fail to understand the US spent a month constructing a calculated,
effective
> (as in removing the terrorist threat) plan to prevent a repeat of the
same, is
> beyond me. I have no advice to correct your misconception, so deeply
rooted as
> it is in negativity and an almost fanatical suspicion of US initiatives
and
> motives.

The US 'plan' insofar as it can be discerned from the speeches of the
country's leaders (and the leaders of countries like the UK) appears to be
to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan in the hope that the Taliban will split
up and eventually part of it will hand over Osama.

Such a strategy is awe-inspiring in its stupidity.

First, it entails killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians
by direct bombing. We have seen this already recently as yet another
'precision' American bomb went flying into a residential section of Kabul.
(Remember the 'precision' bombing of Serbia? You recall where one of
America's 'precise' bombs was aimed at Belgrade in Yugoslavia and somehow
managed to end up hitting Sofia in Bulgaria?) It further entails killing
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Afghan civilians
indirectly by destroying the country's very basic infrastructure at
PRECISELY the time when winter is due to arrive and the country is on the
edge of famine. This act of inhumanity will endure in the memory of the Arab
world, and much of the world beyond, for eternity, and will guarantee the
murderer Bush a place in the hall of infamy alongside Mao, Pol Pot and
Stalin.

Second, the entire objective is aimed at obtaining one man -- Osama bin
Laden. But what will happen if they get him? Will it guarantee America's
security? Never! It will generate ten million martyrs to take his place.

Third, Bush, despite being sober at the time, has made precisely the same
decision that a drunken Brezhnev took a few decades ago -- to do battle in
Afghanistan in the belief of gaining a quick victory. There will be no
victory. These people are not spineless Americans or Brits, content to spend
their lives vegitating and willing to succumb to the slightest pressure.
They are deeply religious fighters who, time and time again, have fought
valiantly against impossible odds and have emerged victorious. They gave the
Soviet imperialists a bloody nose. They will give the American imperialists
a bloody nose. That Bush's advisors cannot see it coming displays precisely
the level of stupidity that we saw repeatedly from the American military
during the botched and bungled Kosova campaign. Already we are seeing the
usual blunders. Even before they started bombing, the first victory was
announced by the Taleban when they shot down an unmanned spy plane. Now
their 'precision' bombs have started going astray as usual.

No, Mr J. The American response is not an example of careful planning. It is
an example of an intellectually challenged president with uninspiring
advisors responding in an incredibly stupid manner to American public
opinion, whipped up by the likes of CNN and NBC.

 > >And make no mistake about it, when winter comes to Afghanistan, it will
not
> >be terrorists who start dying in their millions as a result of Bush's
> >criminal antics.
>
> If that happens, in spite of US humanitarian support,

Which, I note, aid agencies have described as having only 'propaganda
value'. I was watching a BBC News 24 report on this just the other night and
the aid agencies were overwhelmingly dissmissive of it.

> look to the Taleban
> monsters in the first instance, Yes those creeps who walk around with
sticks
> hitting Afghan women for letting their veils slip.

Well that's a very revealing comment, Mr James. It's the sort of comment we
see here very frequently from those who pass themselves as the good and the
virtuous in this newsgroup and it reveals a great deal about your own
personal morality.

You are saying here that it is acceptable to slaughter millions of innocent
civilians because they have an unelected government that has -- we are
told -- supported an act of terror in America.

Look, O World! Here we have American morality at its finest! Don't punish
the perpetrators! No -- punish the civilians, the women and the little
babies -- who surround them! This is the morality that we saw at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. This is the morality that we see daily in the murders
perpetrated against the Palestinian people. And these are the people who
denounce us as 'immoral'!

All I can say in response to your filthy remark is that I very much hope
that, if there is an anthrax attack on America, your loved ones fall victim
to it so that you get a dose of your own putrid medicine.

> >> Principles I might
> >> add which have saved and helped saved yours and my families quality of
> >> existence.
> >
> >My family's quality of existence would be one helluva lot better were it
NOT
> >for the policies of the Establishment, I can tell you!
>
>  So you think without US involvement in conflicts which involved our
countries,
> the outcome: AXIS domination would have provided a better existence? I
note you
> answer this question in more detail below>>>>>>>to that para,

I'm sorry but I don't understand that paragraph.

> >> How *much* of history do
> >> you include in your assessments David?
> >
> >That question doesn't make sense.
>
> Ohh yes it does. In effect I'm asking you do you include in your world
views,
> both actual, and theoretical ( remove US involvement in past) all
historical
> events complete with how they evolved, and might have evolved with key
elements
> removed.

Er . . . right.

 >> What do you think the world would be
> >> like now if the US didnt enter the 2nd war?
> >
> >I have no idea. Nor do you. What a strange question! If you are making
the
> >point that life under the Nazis would be worse than life under the
current
> >regime, my question is 'worse for whom?' Literally tens of millions of
> >people were slaughtered by communism after the war. Tens of millions more
> >succumbed to the wars and chaos in Africa and Asia resulting from botched
> >attempts at decolonialization by the old imperial powers and
> >recolonialization by the new imperial superpowers. As Ken Livingstone
> >pointed out, more people die each year throughout the world due to
poverty
> >than died in the entire Second World War. That's the wonderful new world
we
> >have. Whether Nazism would have taken a similar path of depravity or
whether
> >it would have moderated into something more humane neither of us can
know.
>
>  Well, lets consider the Japanese. They refered to to Australians as the
'white
> trash of Asia'. Didnt exactly bode well for any occupation of our country
that
> may have transpired.

Ah yes! How right you are! The Allies slaughtered hundreds of thousands in
bombing raids against civilians in Germany and Japan. They allowed Stalin to
spread his murder and repression across the globe. They paved the way for
the greatest monsters of all time -- Mao and his henchment -- for Pol Pot in
Cambodia, for Rwanda, for Yugoslavia. They allowed tens of millions to die
at the hands of the communists. They created a world order where more die of
poverty in the Third World each year than died in the entire Second World
War. But all of this pales into insignifance against that great crime
perpetrated by the Japanese: referring to the Australians as 'white trash'!

Here again we see the Establishment mentality at work. Let a hundred million
people die and do not blink an eyelid. But ONE 'racist' comment and that's a
crime of an altogether greater order.

> As to the Nazis, domination was AH's great dream, of a great German state
> stretching across the land. One hardly has to stretch ones imagination as
to
> what that would have been like.

The European Union?

> >It's idle speculation. We do not need Nazism or American imperialism.
>
> American imperialism? How so? So far, with the exception of Vietnam and
Korea,
> which even in those countries all she was doing was fighting Communism, I
> haven't seen any empire building, rather the opposite during the WW1-WW2
> interlude.

For a nationalist view, read A.K. Chesterton's *New Unhappy Lords*. For the
view of a Stalinist who quite independently reached the same conclusions,
read Enver Hoxha's *Imperialism and Revolution*.


>  What
> >we need now is to overthrow the existing world order and replace it with
a
> >new world order where the imperialist superpowers are replaced by free
and
> >independent nations living together in peace and prosperity.
>
> That is precisely the aims of the NATO and coalition forces in recent
times. I
> dont see any subsuming of nations into the US. Ido see many attempts at
> preventing gross human rights abuses.
>

Tell that to the Afghans.

> >David
>
>  Jason James
>

David
>
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:23 EDT 2001
Article: 975012 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011014175213.05152.00001736@mb-fs.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:21:23 +0100
Lines: 167
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.143
Message-ID: <3bca0ead@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 14 Oct 2001 23:16:13 GMT, 213.78.40.143
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!novia!novia!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.143
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975012


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011014175213.05152.00001736@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 15/10/01 5:34 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>


I see that you have snipped a large part of my response to your previous
material. Let me reinstate it in full, so that people can see what it is
that you do not wish them to see.


> >How touchingly naive! Bush knows that he has to 'do something' to satisfy
US
> >public opinion that has been whipped up by the media out there -- even if
> >that 'something' involves slaughtering innocent Afghan civilians.
>
> This is where you depart from reality into a grim world of perception
based on
> total paranoia wrt US agenda and motives. Few statements, such as yours
above
> demonstrate such naivete of a black humoured vein.
>
> To fail to understand the US spent a month constructing a calculated,
effective
> (as in removing the terrorist threat) plan to prevent a repeat of the
same, is
> beyond me. I have no advice to correct your misconception, so deeply
rooted as
> it is in negativity and an almost fanatical suspicion of US initiatives
and
> motives.

The US 'plan' insofar as it can be discerned from the speeches of the
country's leaders (and the leaders of countries like the UK) appears to be
to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan in the hope that the Taliban will split
up and eventually part of it will hand over Osama.

Such a strategy is awe-inspiring in its stupidity.

First, it entails killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians
by direct bombing. We have seen this already recently as yet another
'precision' American bomb went flying into a residential section of Kabul.
(Remember the 'precision' bombing of Serbia? You recall where one of
America's 'precise' bombs was aimed at Belgrade in Yugoslavia and somehow
managed to end up hitting Sofia in Bulgaria?) It further entails killing
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Afghan civilians
indirectly by destroying the country's very basic infrastructure at
PRECISELY the time when winter is due to arrive and the country is on the
edge of famine. This act of inhumanity will endure in the memory of the Arab
world, and much of the world beyond, for eternity, and will guarantee the
murderer Bush a place in the hall of infamy alongside Mao, Pol Pot and
Stalin.

Second, the entire objective is aimed at obtaining one man -- Osama bin
Laden. But what will happen if they get him? Will it guarantee America's
security? Never! It will generate ten million martyrs to take his place.

Third, Bush, despite being sober at the time, has made precisely the same
decision that a drunken Brezhnev took a few decades ago -- to do battle in
Afghanistan in the belief of gaining a quick victory. There will be no
victory. These people are not spineless Americans or Brits, content to spend
their lives vegitating and willing to succumb to the slightest pressure.
They are deeply religious fighters who, time and time again, have fought
valiantly against impossible odds and have emerged victorious. They gave the
Soviet imperialists a bloody nose. They will give the American imperialists
a bloody nose. That Bush's advisors cannot see it coming displays precisely
the level of stupidity that we saw repeatedly from the American military
during the botched and bungled Kosova campaign. Already we are seeing the
usual blunders. Even before they started bombing, the first victory was
announced by the Taleban when they shot down an unmanned spy plane. Now
their 'precision' bombs have started going astray as usual.

No, Mr J. The American response is not an example of careful planning. It is
an example of an intellectually challenged president with uninspiring
advisors responding in an incredibly stupid manner to American public
opinion, whipped up by the likes of CNN and NBC.

 > >And make no mistake about it, when winter comes to Afghanistan, it will
not
> >be terrorists who start dying in their millions as a result of Bush's
> >criminal antics.
>
> If that happens, in spite of US humanitarian support,

Which, I note, aid agencies have described as having only 'propaganda
value'. I was watching a BBC News 24 report on this just the other night and
the aid agencies were overwhelmingly dissmissive of it.

> look to the Taleban
> monsters in the first instance, Yes those creeps who walk around with
sticks
> hitting Afghan women for letting their veils slip.

Well that's a very revealing comment, Mr James. It's the sort of comment we
see here very frequently from those who pass themselves as the good and the
virtuous in this newsgroup and it reveals a great deal about your own
personal morality.

You are saying here that it is acceptable to slaughter millions of innocent
civilians because they have an unelected government that has -- we are
told -- supported an act of terror in America.

Look, O World! Here we have American morality at its finest! Don't punish
the perpetrators! No -- punish the civilians, the women and the little
babies -- who surround them! This is the morality that we saw at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. This is the morality that we see daily in the murders
perpetrated against the Palestinian people. And these are the people who
denounce us as 'immoral'!

All I can say in response to your filthy remark is that I very much hope
that, if there is an anthrax attack on America, your loved ones fall victim
to it so that you get a dose of your own putrid medicine.


> >All I can say in response to your filthy remark is that I very much hope
> >that, if there is an anthrax attack on America, your loved ones fall
victim
> >to it so that you get a dose of your own putrid medicine.
>
>  I earned this for calling Taleban "creeps" for walking around carrying
sticks
> which they used to hit Afghan women for letting there veils slip.
Although, DEM
> added an understood extrapolation (in his mind) ie

You snipped my material because you wanted to mislead readers into believing
that this was the case. By reinstating our exchange readers can see that my
remark was a response to your view that if millions of Afghans die as a
result of American bombing the infrastructure and the difficulties that this
will cause in winter in a country on the verge of famine then it can just be
blamed on the Taleban.

> "You are saying here that it is acceptable to slaughter millions of
innocent
> civilians because they have an unelected government that has -- we are
> told -- supported an act of terror in America"
>
> Mr Michael, you have a persistant habit of completing anothers statement
with
> an addition of your own, or in other words, you put words into others
mouths.
> No doubt your uncommonly high intellect and degree in psychologyhas some
> bearing on this habit,...you couldnt be more wrong in the application of
this
> 'facility' of yours in this case.

Excuse me but I was not making any mistake in noting your support for
America's murderous action against the civilian population of Afghanistan.

>  As to your personal wish wrt anthrax and my family,...well what can I
say? I
> think its more a commentary on your mental state than wilfulness.

If America and its allies are taught that they cannot export terror across
the world with impunity then this can only be a good thing for all of us.

> Peace, David.
>
>
> Jason James
>
David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:23 EDT 2001
Article: 975061 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com>  <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:47:42 +0100
Lines: 57
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.122
Message-ID: <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 15 Oct 2001 01:42:25 GMT, 213.78.42.122
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.122
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975061


"David Gehrig"  wrote in message
news:8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sw wrote:
>
> >
> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> > news:ix7y7.15488$7B1.1210610@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> Debunks wrote:
> >>
> >> > Another case of antrax has been reported, this time in NY, where a
> >> > woman
> >> > employed at NBC Rockefeller Center.  Looks like the terrorists
involved
> >> > are now
> >> > setting their sights on members of the newsmedia.  Why would they
want
> > to
> >> > do that?
> >>
> >> Gee, maybe, like, to maximize publicity?
> >>
> >> Or do you have another theory you'd like to say
> >> out loud, Joe-Joe?
> >>
> >> --
> >> @%<
> >
> >
> >
> > It's obviously the work of some wacko.  If terrorists wanted to use
> > anthrax as a weapon, they couldn't have picked a less efficient method
of
> > spreading it than the US Postal Service.
> >
> > sw
>
> Or a less efficient bug to spread.
>
> --
> @%<

I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100% efficiency (i.e. so
that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million people.

If the bug were so useless, why have governments from the time of Churchill,
including the Soviet Union and your own dear United States been developing
it?

The problem with anthrax has always been how to deliver it effectively. The
genius behind the current scare, however, is that every nutcase in the
Western world will now be stocking up on flour and other white powders to
scare his enemies to death with it.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:24 EDT 2001
Article: 975109 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 02:35:02 +0100
Lines: 74
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.122
Message-ID: <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 15 Oct 2001 02:29:43 GMT, 213.78.42.122
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.122
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975109


"David Gehrig"  wrote in message
news:cQqy7.1023$SU2.61380@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> >
> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> > news:8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> sw wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> >> > news:ix7y7.15488$7B1.1210610@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> >> Debunks wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Another case of antrax has been reported, this time in NY, where a
> >> >> > woman
> >> >> > employed at NBC Rockefeller Center.  Looks like the terrorists
> > involved
> >> >> > are now
> >> >> > setting their sights on members of the newsmedia.  Why would they
> > want
> >> > to
> >> >> > do that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Gee, maybe, like, to maximize publicity?
> >> >>
> >> >> Or do you have another theory you'd like to say
> >> >> out loud, Joe-Joe?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> @%<
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's obviously the work of some wacko.  If terrorists wanted to use
> >> > anthrax as a weapon, they couldn't have picked a less efficient
method
> > of
> >> > spreading it than the US Postal Service.
> >> >
> >> > sw
> >>
> >> Or a less efficient bug to spread.
> >>
> >> --
> >> @%<
> >
> > I recall reading somewhere that, << snip >>


I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100% efficiency (i.e. so
that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million people.

If the bug were so useless, why have governments from the time of Churchill,
including the Soviet Union and your own dear United States been developing
it?

The problem with anthrax has always been how to deliver it effectively. The
genius behind the current scare, however, is that every nutcase in the
Western world will now be stocking up on flour and other white powders to
scare his enemies to death with it.


> Speak of ineffectual bugs, and up pops the arachnid himself.
>
> --
> @%<

Merely trying to educate you, Mr Gehrig.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:24 EDT 2001
Article: 975150 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:16:07 +0100
Lines: 29
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.122
Message-ID: <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 15 Oct 2001 07:12:00 GMT, 213.78.42.122
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.122
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975150


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m21yk5vei7.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > I recall reading somewhere that, << snip >>
> >
> > 
> > I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100% efficiency (i.e.
so
> > that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million people.
> >
>
>   No doubt you would gloat at such an occurance. As you did about Sept 11.
>
>   Pity Bin Laden has now set his sights on Great Britain too. But that
>   probably doesn't bother a amoral worm like you.
>
> whd

Still lecturing other people about morality while refusing to condemn the
massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians by America, William old
fruit? Tsk tsk.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:25 EDT 2001
Article: 975162 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:19:33 +0100
Lines: 59
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.122
Message-ID: <3bca8cd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 15 Oct 2001 08:14:26 GMT, 213.78.42.122
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!opentransit.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.122
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975162


"SW"  wrote in message
news:bkvy7.16832$s9.2342415@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> david_michael  wrote in message
> news:3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m21yk5vei7.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > I recall reading somewhere that, << snip >>
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100% efficiency
> (i.e.
> > so
> > > > that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million
> people.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   No doubt you would gloat at such an occurance. As you did about Sept
> 11.
> > >
> > >   Pity Bin Laden has now set his sights on Great Britain too. But that
> > >   probably doesn't bother a amoral worm like you.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > Still lecturing other people about morality while refusing to condemn
the
> > massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians by America, William old
> > fruit? Tsk tsk.
> >
> > David
>
>
> He wasn't lecturing, mr. michael.  He was simply taking note of the fact
> that you are an amoral worm, a characterization of you that I find to be
> extremely generous.
>
> sw

I suppose I'd better go through the ritual of asking your opinion of the
American murder of 270,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Mr Wolk --
or would that be Dr Wolk? -- merely for the fun of watching you avoid
answering it. Your views, sir?

Oh yes, and while we're at it -- the general public can also delight in
watching you wiggle and squirm to avoid answering this: do you approve of
the American bombing of civilians in Afghanistan? Yes or no?



David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:25 EDT 2001
Article: 975208 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
References:  <4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:43:56 +0100
Lines: 224
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.11
Message-ID: <3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 15 Oct 2001 12:38:53 GMT, 213.78.40.11
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.11
Xref: hub.org alt.politics.nationalism.white:535436 alt.politics.white-power:544059 alt.revisionism:975208


"Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
news:4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com...
> "Harold Covington"  wrote in message
news:...
> > Tony Blair: The Mad Bomber of Kabul
> > by "Emmamuel Goldstein"
> >
> > Tony Blair has finally lost the plot
> >
> > Author's note. Literally as I finished the spellchecker on this I heard
> > that the bombing of Kabul had started. The immediate relevance of this
> > piece may have diminished, but let's remember that the insanity of the
> > leader America's "foremost ally" is a crucial point here. Let's pray
that
> > this will soon be over and that only the terrorists suffer.
> >
> > ================================
> >
> >  It wasn't the outright lies that did it for me when Tony Blair
addressed
> > the faithful at the Labour Party conference. Tony Blair is such a
> > prodigious liar, even by the competitive standards set by politicians,
that
> > a lie disproved again and again like 60% of our trade being with the EU
> > struck me as boring rather than outrageous. It wasn't the half-truths,
such
> > as the Taliban having the worlds largest drugs horde - even if it is
> > because they have not been letting the stuff on the market at America's
> > insistence. It is the sheer terror realising that someone who is quite
> > simply insane wants to run the world.
> >
> >  Just think about what he is saying. He's not talking about anything
> > limited like topping Bin Laden, destroying al-Qaeda or even toppling the
> > Taliban. That would be too easy. It is to "re-order the world around
us".
> > That's right. This military action is not an act of vengeance, and not
an
> > act to make the West safe from any threat. We are to re-make the world.
> >
> >  Before looking at the mad, mad ways in which he intends to endanger us,
> > let us look at just the mental colossus with which we are dealing. Here
is
> > his take on American history:
> >
> >  "But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of
slavery."
> >
> >  Oh dear, obviously he skipped the bit about the American Revolution, or
> > perhaps he thinks that King George was the President of the Confederacy.
It
> > may be easy to sneer at the simplistic suggestions that follow, but just
> > remember that we are dealing with, in intellectual rather than political
> > terms, an imbecile.
> >
> >  Let's have a look at some of the fun new ideas that he is putting
forward:
> >
> >  "A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing world
> > based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we find
the
> > will."
> >
> >  On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help
with
> > good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN
> > blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to
our
> > markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching.
But
> > it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for
> > dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance,
from
> > the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's
> > henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial systems.
> >
> >  "The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide
> > troops to police them."
> >
> >  There is a word for this, its Empire. Most people think that the latest
> > unpleasantness will end with the dismemberment of an Islamic terrorist
> > network. Instead, it will extend to Africa. Why? Because this is
something
> > he's been thinking about a long time, and wouldn't it be so easy to
provide
> > just a few troops and just a bit of foreign aid and some investment
(only
> > slightly subsidised).
> >
> >  Of course, the presence of our troops will be minimal, only policing
flash
> > points and to provide training and some advice. Quite how many flash
points
> > there will be and quite how far the training and advice will extend is
not
> > mentioned. Nevertheless, "all" Africa will be required to provide is to
> > allow the structure of their government to be decided in the West. Tony
> > Blair may think that this is different to late Victorian colonialism,
> > although (and this is the terrifying part) it assumes that he even
bothered
> > to think about it at all.
> >
> >  To take a slightly more concrete example:
> >
> >  "It [the international community] could, with our help, sort out the
> > blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
> > Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in the
> > last decade."
> >
> >  That's right, sort it out. The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Does
he
> > have any idea of what he is saying? As anyone who has spent more than
five
> > minutes studying this conflict could tell you it has been "sorted out"
by
> > the international community so thoroughly that 3 million have died
there.
> > Angola and Zimbabwe on one side, Uganda and Rwanda on the other. Of
course,
> > we could go back a bit further and look at the last time the
international
> > community "sorted it out". King Leopold was given the Congo as a
personal
> > estate - anything else would have given this to a big power - if he
hasn't
> > read history, he won't have read the Heart of Darkness. If anyone wants
a
> > more concrete example of how arrogance trumps experience, you'd be hard
> > pressed to find it.
> >
> >  However, rebuilding Africa is not enough for a man divorced from the
> > trifling constraints of reality. There is also a millennium old
religious
> > divide to heal:
> >
> >  "And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle East
Peace
> > Process and we must. The state of Israel must be given recognition by
all;
> > freed from terror; know that it is accepted as part of the future of the
> > Middle East not its very existence under threat. The Palestinians must
have
> > justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal partners
> > with Israel in that future."
> >
> >  Now call me a pedant; but when the conclusions are pre-stated then
there
> > is not much of a process. Moreover, if one of the two parties can't be
> > persuaded or bribed into supporting all the conclusions (as it may
fairly
> > be pointed out they haven't so far), how do we enforce it? Yes we, as in
> > Britain. Of course, if it was someone else I would just dismiss it as
> > bluster - but remember this is the man who seriously suggests that we
put
> > in a "Partnership for Africa" and has sent troops to Sierra Leone.
> >
> >  However, we really know about his sense of proportion and ability to
see
> > things in the whole when we read this about Kosovo:
> >
> >  "The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make
> > Milosevic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went
home,
> > the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great
> > dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century."
> >
> >  Ethnic cleansing was reversed? Not for the Serbs, gypsies or Jews - who
> > under the noses of the world's most powerful military alliance were
> > cleansed from their homes. Or the tinpot Milosevic who was one of the
> > century's greatest dictators, up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin
and
> > Pol Pot? Now if he had any sense of history I would say that that is
just
> > stupid. Instead it is a mixture of laziness and craziness. Of course, we
> > will pass over the fact that Milosevic was stronger thanks to our
> > intervention, and was actually toppled from within by forces that would
> > have moved earlier if we had not attacked their nation.
> >
> >  And let's look at the latter day Isaiah's latest quite frightening take
on
> > Rwanda:
> >
> >  "And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993, when
a
> > million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral
duty
> > to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group
of
> > gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and people."
> >
> >  So what about China's one child policy, Tony? Do we have a moral duty
> > there as well?
> >
> >  To finish off, there is this gem:
> >
> >  "We will take action at every level, national and international, in the
> > UN, in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the world,
to
> > strike at international terrorism wherever it exists."
> >
> >  Like bombing Serb civilians at 15,000 feet?
> >
> >  The truly frightening thing about Blair is not what he stands for. It
is
> > not even his total lust for power. What is frightening about him is that
he
> > is insane. And he's in charge of the asylum.
>
>
>
> That's your opinion, of course. As a Conservative, I don't agree with
> Tony's Liberal politics on domestic issues, but I do like most of his
> statements on world affairs-he has a talent for clarifying things and
> taking a bold position. I am a fervent Margaret Thatcher fan, but Tony
> is worth listening to.
>
>
> Joe Bruno

Well, let's face it Joe -- after George Bush ANYONE is worth listening to!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:25 EDT 2001
Article: 975476 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:03:14 +0100
Lines: 195
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbe8a9@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 08:58:33 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975476


"David Gehrig"  wrote in message
news:UgBy7.2127$cy.159650@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> >
> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> > news:cQqy7.1023$SU2.61380@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> david_michael wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> >> > news:8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> >> sw wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "David Gehrig"  wrote in message
> >> >> > news:ix7y7.15488$7B1.1210610@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >> Debunks wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Another case of antrax has been reported, this time in NY,
where
> >> >> >> > a woman
> >> >> >> > employed at NBC Rockefeller Center.  Looks like the terrorists
> >> > involved
> >> >> >> > are now
> >> >> >> > setting their sights on members of the newsmedia.  Why would
they
> >> > want
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > do that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Gee, maybe, like, to maximize publicity?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or do you have another theory you'd like to say
> >> >> >> out loud, Joe-Joe?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> @%<
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's obviously the work of some wacko.  If terrorists wanted to
use
> >> >> > anthrax as a weapon, they couldn't have picked a less efficient
> > method
> >> > of
> >> >> > spreading it than the US Postal Service.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > sw
> >> >>
> >> >> Or a less efficient bug to spread.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> @%<
> >> >
> >> > I recall reading somewhere that, << snip >>
> >
> > 
> > I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100% efficiency (i.e.
> > so that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million
> > people.
>
> If you can get a million people to line up, open a vein, and let you
> scoop a few spores apiece under their skin, then maybe you'd have
> a shot at being correct.

Ooof. Well that immediately tells us that you know very little about
anthrax! What one would need to do would be to get one million people to
*inhale* sufficient spores to cause illness. That is by no means easy.
However, the following article makes clear that the necessary
biotechnological means could be acquired by a wealthy individual:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n18/ffull/jst80027.html



Of the numerous biological agents that may be used as weapons, the Working
Group on Civilian Biodefense has identified a limited number of organisms
that could cause disease and deaths in sufficient numbers to cripple a city
or region. Anthrax is one of the most serious of these diseases.

High hopes were once vested in the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention,
which prohibited offensive biological weapons research or production and was
signed by most countries. However, Iraq and the former Soviet Union, both
signatories of the convention, have subsequently acknowledged having
offensive biowarfare programs; a number of other countries are believed to
have such programs, as have some autonomous terrorist groups. The
possibility of a terrorist attack using bioweapons would be especially
difficult to predict, detect, or prevent, and thus, it is among the most
feared terrorist scenarios.1

Biological agents have seldom been dispersed in aerosol form, the exposure
mode most likely to inflict widespread disease. Therefore, historical
experience provides little information about the potential impact of a
biological attack or the possible efficacy of postattack measures such as
vaccination, antibiotic therapy, or quarantine. Policies and strategies must
therefore rely on interpretation and extrapolation from an incomplete
knowledge base. The Working Group on Civilian Biodefense reviewed the
available literature and expertise and developed consensus recommendations
for medical and public health measures to be taken following such an attack.

. . .

Most experts concur that the manufacture of a lethal anthrax aerosol is
beyond the capacity of individuals or groups without access to advanced
biotechnology. However, autonomous groups with substantial funding and
contacts may be able to acquire the required materials for a successful
attack. One terrorist group, Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for the release of
sarin in a Tokyo, Japan, subway station in 1995,6 dispersed aerosols of
anthrax and botulism throughout Tokyo on at least 8 occasions. For unclear
reasons, the attacks failed to produce illness.7

The accidental aerosolized release of anthrax spores from a military
microbiology facility in Sverdlovsk in the former Soviet Union in 1979
resulted in at least 79 cases of anthrax infection and 68 deaths and
demonstrated the lethal potential of anthrax aerosols.8 An anthrax aerosol
would be odorless and invisible following release and would have the
potential to travel many kilometers before disseminating.9, 10 Evidence
suggests that following an outdoor aerosol release, persons indoors could be
exposed to a similar threat as those outdoors.11

In 1970, a World Health Organization (WHO) expert committee estimated that
casualties following the theoretical aircraft release of 50 kg of anthrax
over a developed urban population of 5 million would be 250,000, 100,000 of
whom would be expected to die without treatment.9 A 1993 report by the US
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimated that between 130,000
and 3 million deaths could follow the aerosolized release of 100 kg of
anthrax spores upwind of the Washington, DC, arealethality matching or
exceeding that of a hydrogen bomb.12 An economic model developed by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested a cost of $26.2
billion per 100,000 persons exposed.13


> But you aren't trying to be correct, you're
> trying to be frightening.  Needless to say, you're failing pretty badly.

Then I hope you will click on the link provided.

It could save your life.

> > If the bug were so useless, why have governments from the time of
> > Churchill, including the Soviet Union and your own dear United States
been
> > developing it?
>
> Pop quiz, Mr. Spider: Which US President ended research into diseases
> as biological weapons, when did he do it, and why?

Pop quiz, Mr Slug -- how do you know that such research has, in fact, ended?

Because the government told you so?

> > The problem with anthrax has always been how to deliver it effectively.
>
> The problem with anthrax is that it can't be delivered effectively on
> a mass scale.

No, the problem with anthrax is that it is DIFFICULT to be delivered
effectively on a mass scale. But, as experts everywhere acknowledge, it is
quite possible.

> > The genius behind the current scare, however, is that every nutcase in
the
> > Western world will now be stocking up on flour and other white powders
to
> > scare his enemies to death with it.
>
> A trick that should work for about a week.

We shall see.

> > 
> >
> >> Speak of ineffectual bugs, and up pops the arachnid himself.
> >>
> >> --
> >> @%<
> >
> > Merely trying to educate you, Mr Gehrig.
>
> Hint: if so, you might want to begin with facts, Mr. Spider.

Look at the link provided, Mr Slug. It gives you plenty of well-documented
facts on anthrax.



> --
> @%<

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:26 EDT 2001
Article: 975477 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
References:  <4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com> <3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <4bc3e2e1.0110151059.3188b48b@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:06:52 +0100
Lines: 319
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbe957@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:01:27 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.8.68.195.MISMATCH!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.politics.nationalism.white:535527 alt.politics.white-power:544120 alt.revisionism:975477


"Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
news:4bc3e2e1.0110151059.3188b48b@posting.google.com...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
news:<3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
> > "Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
> > news:4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com...
> > > "Harold Covington"  wrote in message
> >  news:...
> > > > Tony Blair: The Mad Bomber of Kabul
> > > > by "Emmamuel Goldstein"
> > > >
> > > > Tony Blair has finally lost the plot
> > > >
> > > > Author's note. Literally as I finished the spellchecker on this I
heard
> > > > that the bombing of Kabul had started. The immediate relevance of
this
> > > > piece may have diminished, but let's remember that the insanity of
the
> > > > leader America's "foremost ally" is a crucial point here. Let's pray
> >  that
> > > > this will soon be over and that only the terrorists suffer.
> > > >
> > > > ================================
> > > >
> > > >  It wasn't the outright lies that did it for me when Tony Blair
> >  addressed
> > > > the faithful at the Labour Party conference. Tony Blair is such a
> > > > prodigious liar, even by the competitive standards set by
politicians,
> >  that
> > > > a lie disproved again and again like 60% of our trade being with the
EU
> > > > struck me as boring rather than outrageous. It wasn't the
half-truths,
> >  such
> > > > as the Taliban having the worlds largest drugs horde - even if it is
> > > > because they have not been letting the stuff on the market at
America's
> > > > insistence. It is the sheer terror realising that someone who is
quite
> > > > simply insane wants to run the world.
> > > >
> > > >  Just think about what he is saying. He's not talking about anything
> > > > limited like topping Bin Laden, destroying al-Qaeda or even toppling
the
> > > > Taliban. That would be too easy. It is to "re-order the world around

> >  us".
> > > > That's right. This military action is not an act of vengeance, and
not
> >  an
> > > > act to make the West safe from any threat. We are to re-make the
world.
> > > >
> > > >  Before looking at the mad, mad ways in which he intends to endanger
us,
> > > > let us look at just the mental colossus with which we are dealing.
Here
> >  is
> > > > his take on American history:
> > > >
> > > >  "But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of
> >  slavery."
> > > >
> > > >  Oh dear, obviously he skipped the bit about the American
Revolution, or
> > > > perhaps he thinks that King George was the President of the
Confederacy.
> >  It
> > > > may be easy to sneer at the simplistic suggestions that follow, but
just
> > > > remember that we are dealing with, in intellectual rather than
political
> > > > terms, an imbecile.
> > > >
> > > >  Let's have a look at some of the fun new ideas that he is putting
> >  forward:
> > > >
> > > >  "A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing
world
> > > > based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we
find
> >  the
> > > > will."
> > > >
> > > >  On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt;
help
> >  with
> > > > good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with
UN
> > > > blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access
to
> >  our
> > > > markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of
preaching.
> >  But
> > > > it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses
for
> > > > dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad
governance,
> >  from
> > > > the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr.
Mugabe's
> > > > henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial
systems.
> > > >
> > > >  "The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and
provide
> > > > troops to police them."
> > > >
> > > >  There is a word for this, its Empire. Most people think that the
latest
> > > > unpleasantness will end with the dismemberment of an Islamic
terrorist
> > > > network. Instead, it will extend to Africa. Why? Because this is
> >  something
> > > > he's been thinking about a long time, and wouldn't it be so easy to
> >  provide
> > > > just a few troops and just a bit of foreign aid and some investment
> >  (only
> > > > slightly subsidised).
> > > >
> > > >  Of course, the presence of our troops will be minimal, only
policing
> >  flash
> > > > points and to provide training and some advice. Quite how many flash
> >  points
> > > > there will be and quite how far the training and advice will extend
is
> >  not
> > > > mentioned. Nevertheless, "all" Africa will be required to provide is
to
> > > > allow the structure of their government to be decided in the West.
Tony
> > > > Blair may think that this is different to late Victorian
colonialism,
> > > > although (and this is the terrifying part) it assumes that he even
> >  bothered
> > > > to think about it at all.
> > > >
> > > >  To take a slightly more concrete example:
> > > >
> > > >  "It [the international community] could, with our help, sort out
the
> > > > blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of
the
> > > > Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in
the
> > > > last decade."
> > > >
> > > >  That's right, sort it out. The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Does
> >  he
> > > > have any idea of what he is saying? As anyone who has spent more
than
> >  five
> > > > minutes studying this conflict could tell you it has been "sorted
out"
> >  by
> > > > the international community so thoroughly that 3 million have died
> >  there.
> > > > Angola and Zimbabwe on one side, Uganda and Rwanda on the other. Of
> >  course,
> > > > we could go back a bit further and look at the last time the
> >  international
> > > > community "sorted it out". King Leopold was given the Congo as a
> >  personal
> > > > estate - anything else would have given this to a big power - if he
> >  hasn't
> > > > read history, he won't have read the Heart of Darkness. If anyone
wants
> >  a
> > > > more concrete example of how arrogance trumps experience, you'd be
hard
> > > > pressed to find it.
> > > >
> > > >  However, rebuilding Africa is not enough for a man divorced from
the
> > > > trifling constraints of reality. There is also a millennium old
> >  religious
> > > > divide to heal:
> > > >
> > > >  "And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle
East
> >  Peace
> > > > Process and we must. The state of Israel must be given recognition
by
> >  all;
> > > > freed from terror; know that it is accepted as part of the future of
the
> > > > Middle East not its very existence under threat. The Palestinians
must
> >  have
> > > > justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal
partners
> > > > with Israel in that future."
> > > >
> > > >  Now call me a pedant; but when the conclusions are pre-stated then
> >  there
> > > > is not much of a process. Moreover, if one of the two parties can't
be
> > > > persuaded or bribed into supporting all the conclusions (as it may
> >  fairly
> > > > be pointed out they haven't so far), how do we enforce it? Yes we,
as in
> > > > Britain. Of course, if it was someone else I would just dismiss it
as
> > > > bluster - but remember this is the man who seriously suggests that
we
> >  put
> > > > in a "Partnership for Africa" and has sent troops to Sierra Leone.
> > > >
> > > >  However, we really know about his sense of proportion and ability
to
> >  see
> > > > things in the whole when we read this about Kosovo:
> > > >
> > > >  "The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd
make
> > > > Milosevic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went
> >  home,
> > > > the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great
> > > > dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century."
> > > >
> > > >  Ethnic cleansing was reversed? Not for the Serbs, gypsies or Jews -
who
> > > > under the noses of the world's most powerful military alliance were
> > > > cleansed from their homes. Or the tinpot Milosevic who was one of
the
> > > > century's greatest dictators, up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler,
Lenin
> >  and
> > > > Pol Pot? Now if he had any sense of history I would say that that is
> >  just
> > > > stupid. Instead it is a mixture of laziness and craziness. Of
course, we
> > > > will pass over the fact that Milosevic was stronger thanks to our
> > > > intervention, and was actually toppled from within by forces that
would
> > > > have moved earlier if we had not attacked their nation.
> > > >
> > > >  And let's look at the latter day Isaiah's latest quite frightening
take
> >  on
> > > > Rwanda:
> > > >
> > > >  "And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993,
when
> >  a
> > > > million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral
> >  duty
> > > > to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous
group
> >  of
> > > > gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and
people."
> > > >
> > > >  So what about China's one child policy, Tony? Do we have a moral
duty
> > > > there as well?
> > > >
> > > >  To finish off, there is this gem:
> > > >
> > > >  "We will take action at every level, national and international, in
the
> > > > UN, in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the
world,
> >  to
> > > > strike at international terrorism wherever it exists."
> > > >
> > > >  Like bombing Serb civilians at 15,000 feet?
> > > >
> > > >  The truly frightening thing about Blair is not what he stands for.
It
> >  is
> > > > not even his total lust for power. What is frightening about him is
that
> >  he
> > > > is insane. And he's in charge of the asylum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's your opinion, of course. As a Conservative, I don't agree with
> > > Tony's Liberal politics on domestic issues, but I do like most of his
> > > statements on world affairs-he has a talent for clarifying things and
> > > taking a bold position. I am a fervent Margaret Thatcher fan, but Tony
> > > is worth listening to.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Bruno
> >
> > Well, let's face it Joe -- after George Bush ANYONE is worth listening
to!
> >
> > David
>
>
> I don't know if you follow American politics or not.

I try to.

> Most of my family
> are Liberal Democrats and they are all telling me that they are
> changing the way they look at GW Bush because of the way he is
> handling this terrorist mess. I suspect if he continues to do things
> the Liberals like, he will get himself re-elected. He is not a dynamic
> speaker, but he does manage to say and do the right things when the
> time comes.
>
> Joe Bruno

I think he's pursuing a policy that will generate short-term popularity and
a lot of corpses -- many of them American and British.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:26 EDT 2001
Article: 975478 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca8cd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <7GIy7.21977$s9.2653126@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:07:53 +0100
Lines: 116
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbe992@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:02:26 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975478


"SW"  wrote in message
news:7GIy7.21977$s9.2653126@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> david_michael  wrote in message
> news:3bca8cd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > "SW"  wrote in message
> > news:bkvy7.16832$s9.2342415@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > >
> > > david_michael  wrote in message
> > > news:3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> > > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m21yk5vei7.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > I recall reading somewhere that, << snip >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100%
efficiency
> > > (i.e.
> > > > so
> > > > > > that none of it is wasted) then a teaspoonful can kill a million
> > > people.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   No doubt you would gloat at such an occurance. As you did about
> Sept
> > > 11.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Pity Bin Laden has now set his sights on Great Britain too. But
> that
> > > > >   probably doesn't bother a amoral worm like you.
> > > > >
> > > > > whd
> > > >
> > > > Still lecturing other people about morality while refusing to
condemn
> > the
> > > > massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians by America, William
old
> > > > fruit? Tsk tsk.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > He wasn't lecturing, mr. michael.  He was simply taking note of the
fact
> > > that you are an amoral worm, a characterization of you that I find to
be
> > > extremely generous.
> > >
> > > sw
> >
> > I suppose I'd better go through the ritual of asking your opinion of the
> > American murder of 270,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Mr
Wolk --
> > or would that be Dr Wolk? -- merely for the fun of watching you avoid
> > answering it. Your views, sir?
> >
> > Oh yes, and while we're at it -- the general public can also delight in
> > watching you wiggle and squirm to avoid answering this: do you approve
of
> > the American bombing of civilians in Afghanistan? Yes or no?
> >
> > 
> >
> > David
>
>
> And I suppose I'd better go through the ritual of answering you in the way
> others have done, since it is always a distinct pleasure to be able to
> identify, for the general public, sociopathic, lying, amoral,
hypocritical,
> antisemitic, Nazoid pusbuckets like mr. david michael:
>
> We do not negotiate with terrorists.  Especially terrorists like mr. david
> michael who wrote:
>
>
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
truly
> wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have turned
around
> and have shown that they do not have to be nature's eternal victims. They
> have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless can strike
back
> at the very heart of the dark forces that are oppressing them. This time
it
> was not Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came from the
> skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who sustain
> the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those very military men
> who mastermind the attacks on the women and children of Iraq. They thought
> they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from their
> comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in
> the World Trade Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose that they
> will never forget.
>
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
>
> Death to American capitalism!
>
> Death to international finance!

So you're not going to condemn the murder of 270,000 civilians by American
bombs?

Look, O World -- another hypocrite!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:26 EDT 2001
Article: 975480 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca8cd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:11:09 +0100
Lines: 32
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbea55@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:05:41 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!peernews.cix.co.uk!shale.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975480


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2r8s47c9b.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I suppose I'd better go through the ritual of asking your opinion of the
> > American murder of 270,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Mr
Wolk --
> > or would that be Dr Wolk? -- merely for the fun of watching you avoid
> > answering it. Your views, sir?
> >
>
>   How revealing that you would describe it as a 'ritual.' That's more
>   certainly what your questions are: a meaningless ritual, just so
>   much amoral mummery meant only to hide the embarrasment of your own
>   exultation over the deaths of thousands.
>
>
> whd
> --

But I note that, while pretending to be outraged by my support for warfare
against the American Establishment, you are not prepared to condemn
terrorism by America against other nations.

Which tells us rather a lot about you, William.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:26 EDT 2001
Article: 975481 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:12:21 +0100
Lines: 70
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbea9c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:06:52 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975481


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2lmic7c8l.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m21yk5vei7.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > I recall reading somewhere that, if delivered with 100%
> > > > efficiency (i.e. so that none of it is wasted) then a
> > > > teaspoonful can kill a million people.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   No doubt you would gloat at such an occurance. As you did about
> > >   Sept 11.
> > >
> > >   Pity Bin Laden has now set his sights on Great Britain too. But that
> > >   probably doesn't bother a amoral worm like you.
> > >
> > > whd
> >
> > Still lecturing other people about morality while refusing to condemn
the
> > massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians by America, William old
> > fruit? Tsk tsk.
>
>   Merely pointing out your raging amorality, cretin.
>
> whd
> --
> David E. Michael comments on the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, where
> Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airlines and crashed them, complete
> with crew and passengers, two into the two World Trade Center's and
> one into the Pentagon, the fourth crashing after the passengers,
> having been informed of their fate, decided to risk death to save
> innocent civilisans. These four attacks had a combined death toll of
> over 6000 civilians, several hundred of which were his contrymen.
>
> He writes, approvingly:
>
>
> "It was not a terrorist attack. It was an extremely well-targeted
> military operation in which there were unfortunate civilian
> casualties. And if that operation makes the American government think
> twice about sponsoring murder and oppression overseas then it may
> indeed save lives in the long run."
>
>
> David E. Michael's idea of a 'military operation.' With such
> casuistry, can anyone doubt the truth that he is a moral cretin.
>
>
> The full post is:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7%24-_-_-%24%24__%25_-%24%24%25%24%40ne
ws.noc.cabal.int&oe=ISO-8859-1


More lectures on morality from the man who refuses to condemn the slaughter
of 270,000 Japanese civilians by America or the American bombing of
Afghanistan.

What a hypocrite!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:27 EDT 2001
Article: 975483 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3BC7AA00.8AABC154@localnet.com>  <3BC85866.92585149@localnet.com>  <3BC89B4C.877C862E@localnet.com>       <3BC9E9E5.CAC16638@localnet.com>  <3BCA0D4A.5F99FAA9@localnet.com>  <3BCB04A4.9E80913E@localnet.com>  <3BCB7B89.4F8A215D@localnet.com>  <3BCB93ED.3B7624C8@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: Does Lomenzo lie like this in its professional life?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:17:30 +0100
Lines: 101
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbec25@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:13:25 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975483

Actually, what is happening in this thread is a little more sinister. The
'Brown' phenomenon is not as stupid as it looks. The idea is that whenever
anyone who seems to have a professional life posts pro-revisionist views in
alt.revisionism, the 'Brown' bot starts making accusations of lying. The
idea is that if ever the person concerned subsequently applies for a job or
position that requires security clearance and an Internet check is made,
questions will be raised about the personal integrity of the poster. It is
to dissuade professionals from posting pro-revisionist views to the
Internet, so that the anti-revisionists can portray the remainder as idiots
more convincingly.

Very dirty, but not idiotic.

And it tells us a lot about the depths people will sink to to preserve the
sacred orthodox views of World War II.

David

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"  wrote in message
news:3BCB93ED.3B7624C8@localnet.com...
>
>
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" wrote:
>
> > In article <3BCB7B89.4F8A215D@localnet.com>, "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > [...deletia: evasion...]
> >
> > Still can't actually deal with what's said, can you, lying coward?
> >
> > Still have to lie about what other people have said, don't you, lying
coward?
> >
> > Still think you're proving anything about others by lying about them,
don't you,
> > lying coward?
> >
> > Get off your pseudo-intellectual hobby horse and start talking TO people
instead
> > of lying ABOUT them, asshole.
> >
> > Do you lie to the people you work with, idiot?
> >
> > JGB
> >
> >
>
> Hmmmm. Try this one, Jeffrey. First the facts: I know you're stupid and I
honestly
> have reason to believe that 'you', deep down anyway, know you're stupid
and,
> certainly,  the entire newsgroup knows you're stupid. That's a
demonstrated given at
> the get-go, Jeffrey, and one in which you have excelled mightily.
>
> Now here's what you do. A therapy of sorts. The initial problem is one of
> psychological acceptance. So, after reading this post, go into your
bathroom or
> wherever there is a mirror and stare at yourself for a few minutes. Are
you with me
> so far? Good.
>
> Then, tell yourself forcefully five or six times in that same forceful
succession
> that you are stupid...and mean it so that, in effect, you admit it to
yourself and
> your inner psyche and thereby stop fighting it both internally and
externally that
> you are in fact an imbecile or, more plainly, 'stupid' at which time you
will
> experience a veritable catharsis and eventually, over time, come to accept
it and
> thereby believe it as others do. And continue to do.
>
> In this manner, when you are called an imbecile or stupid to your face you
will no
> longer rebel internally but rather accept it and indeed embrace same
knowing
> internally the reasons "WHY" people call you stupid! And that why is
'obvious',
> because you are a stupid individual! Once you accept that fact,  Jeffrey,
there will
> be far less turmoil both in your public drool and in your life. Try it,
Jeffrey!
> What could you possibly lose? I can perhaps contact Steve Wolk if you wish
to hold
> the mirror! Just say the word!
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
>
> > =====================================================================
> > Jeffrey G. Brown                                   jg_brown@my-deja.com
> > For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
> > to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
> > To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:27 EDT 2001
Article: 975484 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <4aenstgpk0lao7vbif0g06fc88sss5q5oj@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: AHHH...."DR" DAVE: TESTING? TESTING?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:28:12 +0100
Lines: 77
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.135
Message-ID: <3bcbeeec@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 09:25:16 GMT, 213.78.43.135
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.135
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975484

I learned of this little trick many moons ago when someone else tried the
same thing. It can be thwarted very simply. The material is being killed at
the main Onetel.net server without even reaching my killfile. (Sorry, Dr S.
Nice try, though.)

David

">Doc Tavish<"  wrote in message
news:4aenstgpk0lao7vbif0g06fc88sss5q5oj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:58:49 GMT,

> NAZIHUNTER@MARDUK.NET (NAZIHUNTER) wrote:
>
> >Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
> >Subject: AHHH...."DR" DAVE: TESTING? TESTING?
> >From: NAZIHUNTER@MARDUK.NET (NAZIHUNTER)
> >X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit)
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >Lines: 2
> >Message-ID: 
> >Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:58:49 GMT
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.4.117
> >X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
> >X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1003175929 64.230.4.117 (Mon, 15 Oct 2001
15:58:49 EDT)
> >NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:58:49 EDT
> >Organization: Bell Sympatico
> >
> >FILLS UP THE OLD MAILBOX, EH?
>
> I just checked  and now I have proof that Laurence B. Shiff aka
> NAZIHUNTER aka MARDUK is posting hundreds of forged test messages in
d=David
> Michael's name so that David gets deluged with hundreds if not thousands
of
> auto-replies! This is how KIKES act and notice that KIKE Shiff is a pal
and a
> supporter of Ken McVay and his Nizkor!
>
> Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!
> easynet-tele!easynet.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!
> cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!
> news-in.mts.net!news1.mts.net.POSTED!onetel.net.uk
> From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> Newsgroups: alt.test,news.test
> Subject: test
> Organization: these days, go disappear a machine
> Message-ID: <60388044884055388023@205.200.16.73>
> Lines: 50
> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2001 06:07:14 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.45.112.21
> X-Complaints-To: admin@mts.net
> X-Trace: news1.mts.net 1003172028 206.45.112.21
> (Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:53:48 CDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:53:48 CDT
> Xref: mindspring alt.test:1652223
>
> nazihunter says hi
> Endora defeats once, reboots freely, then engulfs within the
> iteration without the arena.  Let's start over the ..
>
> 
>
> You are a coward and a vermin Shiff and sooner or later YOU will get what
you
> deserve. Considering how many people you have criminally harassed and how
many
> times you have done so I won't be surprised one bit!
>
> I only hope that you die a long lingering painful death which takes months
to
> complete.
>
> Doc Tavish




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:27 EDT 2001
Article: 975659 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: 16 Oct 2001 14:37:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 364
Message-ID: 
References:  <4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com> <3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <4bc3e2e1.0110151059.3188b48b@posting.google.com> <3bcbe957@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <4bc3e2e1.0110160649.62b7e938@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.138
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003268239 14783 127.0.0.1 (16 Oct 2001 21:37:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2001 21:37:19 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.politics.nationalism.white:535566 alt.politics.white-power:544152 alt.revisionism:975659

joebruno@indystart.com (Joe Bruno) wrote in message news:<4bc3e2e1.0110160649.62b7e938@posting.google.com>...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message news:<3bcbe957@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
> > "Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
> > news:4bc3e2e1.0110151059.3188b48b@posting.google.com...
> > > "david_michael"  wrote in message
>  news:<3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
> > > > "Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
> > > > news:4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Harold Covington"  wrote in message
>  news:...
> > > > > > Tony Blair: The Mad Bomber of Kabul
> > > > > > by "Emmamuel Goldstein"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tony Blair has finally lost the plot
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Author's note. Literally as I finished the spellchecker on this I
>  heard
> > > > > > that the bombing of Kabul had started. The immediate relevance of
>  this
> > > > > > piece may have diminished, but let's remember that the insanity of
>  the
> > > > > > leader America's "foremost ally" is a crucial point here. Let's pray
>  that
> > > > > > this will soon be over and that only the terrorists suffer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  It wasn't the outright lies that did it for me when Tony Blair
>  addressed
> > > > > > the faithful at the Labour Party conference. Tony Blair is such a
> > > > > > prodigious liar, even by the competitive standards set by
> >  politicians,
> >  that
> > > > > > a lie disproved again and again like 60% of our trade being with the
>  EU
> > > > > > struck me as boring rather than outrageous. It wasn't the
> >  half-truths,
> >  such
> > > > > > as the Taliban having the worlds largest drugs horde - even if it is
> > > > > > because they have not been letting the stuff on the market at
>  America's
> > > > > > insistence. It is the sheer terror realising that someone who is
>  quite
> > > > > > simply insane wants to run the world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Just think about what he is saying. He's not talking about anything
> > > > > > limited like topping Bin Laden, destroying al-Qaeda or even toppling
>  the
> > > > > > Taliban. That would be too easy. It is to "re-order the world around
> >  
> >  us".
> > > > > > That's right. This military action is not an act of vengeance, and
> >  not
> >  an
> > > > > > act to make the West safe from any threat. We are to re-make the
>  world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Before looking at the mad, mad ways in which he intends to endanger
>  us,
> > > > > > let us look at just the mental colossus with which we are dealing.
> >  Here
> >  is
> > > > > > his take on American history:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of
>  slavery."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Oh dear, obviously he skipped the bit about the American
>  Revolution, or
> > > > > > perhaps he thinks that King George was the President of the
> >  Confederacy.
> >  It
> > > > > > may be easy to sneer at the simplistic suggestions that follow, but
>  just
> > > > > > remember that we are dealing with, in intellectual rather than
>  political
> > > > > > terms, an imbecile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Let's have a look at some of the fun new ideas that he is putting
>  forward:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing
>  world
> > > > > > based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we
> >  find
> >  the
> > > > > > will."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt;
> >  help
> >  with
> > > > > > good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with
>  UN
> > > > > > blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access
> >  to
> >  our
> > > > > > markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of
> >  preaching.
> >  But
> > > > > > it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses
>  for
> > > > > > dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad
> >  governance,
> >  from
> > > > > > the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr.
>  Mugabe's
> > > > > > henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial
>  systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and
>  provide
> > > > > > troops to police them."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  There is a word for this, its Empire. Most people think that the
>  latest
> > > > > > unpleasantness will end with the dismemberment of an Islamic
>  terrorist
> > > > > > network. Instead, it will extend to Africa. Why? Because this is
>  something
> > > > > > he's been thinking about a long time, and wouldn't it be so easy to
>  provide
> > > > > > just a few troops and just a bit of foreign aid and some investment
>  (only
> > > > > > slightly subsidised).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Of course, the presence of our troops will be minimal, only
> >  policing
> >  flash
> > > > > > points and to provide training and some advice. Quite how many flash
>  points
> > > > > > there will be and quite how far the training and advice will extend
> >  is
> >  not
> > > > > > mentioned. Nevertheless, "all" Africa will be required to provide is
>  to
> > > > > > allow the structure of their government to be decided in the West.
>  Tony
> > > > > > Blair may think that this is different to late Victorian
>  colonialism,
> > > > > > although (and this is the terrifying part) it assumes that he even
>  bothered
> > > > > > to think about it at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  To take a slightly more concrete example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "It [the international community] could, with our help, sort out
>  the
> > > > > > blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of
>  the
> > > > > > Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in
>  the
> > > > > > last decade."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  That's right, sort it out. The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
> >  Does
> >  he
> > > > > > have any idea of what he is saying? As anyone who has spent more
> >  than
> >  five
> > > > > > minutes studying this conflict could tell you it has been "sorted
> >  out"
> >  by
> > > > > > the international community so thoroughly that 3 million have died
>  there.
> > > > > > Angola and Zimbabwe on one side, Uganda and Rwanda on the other. Of
>  course,
> > > > > > we could go back a bit further and look at the last time the
>  international
> > > > > > community "sorted it out". King Leopold was given the Congo as a
>  personal
> > > > > > estate - anything else would have given this to a big power - if he
>  hasn't
> > > > > > read history, he won't have read the Heart of Darkness. If anyone
> >  wants
> >  a
> > > > > > more concrete example of how arrogance trumps experience, you'd be
>  hard
> > > > > > pressed to find it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  However, rebuilding Africa is not enough for a man divorced from
>  the
> > > > > > trifling constraints of reality. There is also a millennium old
>  religious
> > > > > > divide to heal:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle
> >  East
> >  Peace
> > > > > > Process and we must. The state of Israel must be given recognition
> >  by
> >  all;
> > > > > > freed from terror; know that it is accepted as part of the future of
>  the
> > > > > > Middle East not its very existence under threat. The Palestinians
> >  must
> >  have
> > > > > > justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal
>  partners
> > > > > > with Israel in that future."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Now call me a pedant; but when the conclusions are pre-stated then
>  there
> > > > > > is not much of a process. Moreover, if one of the two parties can't
>  be
> > > > > > persuaded or bribed into supporting all the conclusions (as it may
>  fairly
> > > > > > be pointed out they haven't so far), how do we enforce it? Yes we,
>  as in
> > > > > > Britain. Of course, if it was someone else I would just dismiss it
>  as
> > > > > > bluster - but remember this is the man who seriously suggests that
> >  we
> >  put
> > > > > > in a "Partnership for Africa" and has sent troops to Sierra Leone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  However, we really know about his sense of proportion and ability
> >  to
> >  see
> > > > > > things in the whole when we read this about Kosovo:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd
>  make
> > > > > > Milosevic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went
>  home,
> > > > > > the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great
> > > > > > dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Ethnic cleansing was reversed? Not for the Serbs, gypsies or Jews -
>  who
> > > > > > under the noses of the world's most powerful military alliance were
> > > > > > cleansed from their homes. Or the tinpot Milosevic who was one of
>  the
> > > > > > century's greatest dictators, up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler,
> >  Lenin
> >  and
> > > > > > Pol Pot? Now if he had any sense of history I would say that that is
>  just
> > > > > > stupid. Instead it is a mixture of laziness and craziness. Of
>  course, we
> > > > > > will pass over the fact that Milosevic was stronger thanks to our
> > > > > > intervention, and was actually toppled from within by forces that
>  would
> > > > > > have moved earlier if we had not attacked their nation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  And let's look at the latter day Isaiah's latest quite frightening
> >  take
> >  on
> > > > > > Rwanda:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993,
> >  when
> >  a
> > > > > > million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral
>  duty
> > > > > > to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous
> >  group
> >  of
> > > > > > gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and
>  people."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  So what about China's one child policy, Tony? Do we have a moral
>  duty
> > > > > > there as well?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  To finish off, there is this gem:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  "We will take action at every level, national and international, in
>  the
> > > > > > UN, in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the
> >  world,
> >  to
> > > > > > strike at international terrorism wherever it exists."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Like bombing Serb civilians at 15,000 feet?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  The truly frightening thing about Blair is not what he stands for.
> >  It
> >  is
> > > > > > not even his total lust for power. What is frightening about him is
> >  that
> >  he
> > > > > > is insane. And he's in charge of the asylum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's your opinion, of course. As a Conservative, I don't agree with
> > > > > Tony's Liberal politics on domestic issues, but I do like most of his
> > > > > statements on world affairs-he has a talent for clarifying things and
> > > > > taking a bold position. I am a fervent Margaret Thatcher fan, but Tony
> > > > > is worth listening to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe Bruno
> > > >
> > > > Well, let's face it Joe -- after George Bush ANYONE is worth listening
>  to!
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know if you follow American politics or not.
> > 
> > I try to.
> > 
> > > Most of my family
> > > are Liberal Democrats and they are all telling me that they are
> > > changing the way they look at GW Bush because of the way he is
> > > handling this terrorist mess. I suspect if he continues to do things
> > > the Liberals like, he will get himself re-elected. He is not a dynamic
> > > speaker, but he does manage to say and do the right things when the
> > > time comes.
> > >
> > > Joe Bruno
> > 
> > I think he's pursuing a policy that will generate short-term popularity and
> > a lot of corpses -- many of them American and British.
> > 
> > David
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. He is using air attacks as much as
> possible. When and if we do commit ground troops, the people we
> confront will be extremely weak and unable to do much damage to our
> people.

Well the Soviet experience has shown that the Afghans are no pushover.
And Brezhnev had few of the moral or political constraints that the
Americans will have to bear in mind. But I don't even think that
Afghanistan is the main theatre of war in this thing. If millions of
Afghans die as a result of America messing up their infrastructure
with winter coming on and the whole place on the verge of famine, this
will set the Arab world against America as never before. You'll get
bio-warfare, chemical warfare, every conceivable form of asymmetric
warfare. That's where the American corpses will pile up.

Moreover, there is a lesson that great powers have failed to learn
since the days of Napoleon. Hitler failed to learn it in Russia and
Brezhnev failed to learn it in Russia. The lesson is this: it is one
thing to take territory -- it is quite another thing to hold it. Let's
suppose the Americans take Kabul and install a Northern Alliance
government. Are the Americans going to stay there for ever? If not,
what's to stop the Taleban from doing exactly what they did before --
with their massively increased support from the fundamentalist
Islamists of the world, they could just walk in and take Afghanistan
right back after they've gone.

> I think he should have partnered with the Russians on this
> Afghanistan attack. It is, after all, on their front doorstep and
> their logistics would be easier than ours. In addition, their armed
> forces have experience in Afghanistan. Most of their elite special
> forces, called Spetsnatz,  trained in Afghanistan and saw much combat
> there. They know the territory. Think of how much cheaper it would be
> for the Russkies to do some of the fighting-it's in their front yard.
> They have serious terrorist problems, too-Aeroflot has a huge hijack
> problem.
> 
> 
> Joe Bruno

I somehow don't think the Russians are exactly bursting with
enthusiasm about the idea of going back into Afghanistan after their
last little trip down there, Joe.

David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Tue Oct 16 21:02:27 EDT 2001
Article: 975664 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: 16 Oct 2001 14:50:02 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References:  <4bc3e2e1.0110150326.36998787@posting.google.com> <3bcacacd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <4bc3e2e1.0110151059.3188b48b@posting.google.com> <3bcbe957@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9qhrgi$3ii$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.138
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003269003 15032 127.0.0.1 (16 Oct 2001 21:50:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2001 21:50:03 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.politics.nationalism.white:535570 alt.politics.white-power:544154 alt.revisionism:975664

"P2?" <0@0.com> wrote in message news:<9qhrgi$3ii$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com>...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:3bcbe957@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> 
> Just curious when I was living in England over a decade ago, there was an
> Alliance party lead by Dr. David Owen and Dr. David Steele.

They had a fight and went their separate ways and the Alliance split
into various factions.
 
> What happened to them?

Owen is now Lord Owen. He can be seen popping up from time to time in
places like Kosova and East Timor, where he spends his days giving
everyone the benefit of his 'wisdom' and 'experience', which, however,
has absolutely no effect on anyone or anything

Steele is now Lord Steele. He has now virtually disappeared from
public life. (Not that he was ever very much involved in it even in
his prime.)
 
> And what became of Arthur Scargill of the miners union?

He founded a tiny little organization called the Socialist Labour
Party, which was completely trounced everywhere it stood in the last
election. Not one of life's greatest successes.


> --PB

David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:47 EDT 2001
Article: 975917 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Anthrax in New York
Date: 17 Oct 2001 06:08:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 77
Message-ID: 
References: <20011012163205.25602.00003488@mb-fx.aol.com> <9qchch$c8b$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8Pny7.218$cy.18277@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3bca30f1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca3c07@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bca7e30@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3bcbea9c@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <0X7z7.33515$s9.3610443@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003324091 28752 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2001 13:08:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Oct 2001 13:08:11 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975917

William Daffer  wrote in message news:...
> "SW"  writes:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Your phony concern for Japanese and Afghans fools no one.  These are just
> > some of the ethnic groups you are striving to keep out of Britain because
> > their skin color is different from yours.  And you have the gall to call
> > others hypocrites, mr. david michael, you who are a slimy little lying worm,
> > an antisemitic, racist Nazoid sympathizer and apologizer, and sociopathic,
> > amoral pusbucket who wrote:
> > 
> > 
> 
>   I seem to recall David E. Michael speaking approvingly of the
>   bombing of Serbia by NATO forces during the Kosovo crisis. Can
>   anyone produce this post?

Not necessary. I am happy to confirm it. A clear threat of mass
bombing of Belgrade, followed through by action if necessary, would
have saved the lives and property of many innocent people.

> It would go a long way to debunking his
>   claim that he is uniformly against bombing

I have never made such a claim. My claim is that you are a hypocrite
for supporting the killing of civilians when YOUR side is doing it but
pretending to be rabidly against it when your opponents are doing it.

> when there's a risk of
>   civilian casualties.
> 
>   Also, let us note that, when speaking of the Sept 11th attacks, he
>   used the argument that longterm benefits of some number of civilian
>   casualties outweights other deontological moral considerations, yet
>   he has dismissed such considerations when they are applied to
>   Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  

They don't apply to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You present us with a
false dichotomy: either large numbers of civilians had to be
slaughtered or greater numbers of military personnel would die. I
don't accept this. There were other alternatives, not least a serious
dialogue to resolve the conflict peacefully. If nuclear weapons had to
be used, they could have initially been used over open country rather
than cities full of civilians. Why two bombs, rather than one?
 
>   A double standard? You betcha!

William, I think that deep down even you know that my position is
consistent and yours is deeply contradictory.
 
>   Also, I have yet to hear him speak of the London blitz. A remarkable
>   omission, considering his *fervor*. And the attacks by Hitler with
>   the V1 and V2 weapons? Nothing from him on that, either. 

As far as I'm aware, this was retaliation for Britain targeting German
civilians. You see , there's a pattern in all this. The Establishment
slaughters large numbers of civilians; this evokes a response
targeting civilians of Establishment-occupied countries; Establishment
lackeys like you condemn the response but support the initial
slaughter that provoked it.
 
>   Considering that the Blitz preceeded any U.S. or British response,
>   one wonders what his moral calculus makes of that?

It did not. As I have pointed out many times, the British started the
mass bombing of civilians. And don't give me any crap about Guernica
either.
 
>   Yet we hear  nothing.
> 
>   Well, we shouldn't be surprise, since it's clear his morality is a
>   slave to his political ideology.
 
At least I'm not a rampaging hypocrite, William.
  
David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:47 EDT 2001
Article: 975921 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: 17 Oct 2001 06:25:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 88
Message-ID: 
References:  <20011016183528.01669.00000231@mb-cp.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003325131 29095 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2001 13:25:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Oct 2001 13:25:31 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:975921

vellicet@aol.comzapspam (Vellicet) wrote in message news:<20011016183528.01669.00000231@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> >But I don't even think that
> >Afghanistan is the main theatre of war in this thing.
> 
> You've only just realised this?

No, I knew it from the outset but I've only just posted it here.
 
> 
> >If millions of
> >Afghans die as a result of America messing up their infrastructure
> >with winter coming on and the whole place on the verge of famine, this
> >will set the Arab world against America as never before
> 
> Wont happen. Even the dimmest among us can see the end-game for Afghanistan is
> not to be left to rot.

They're bombing infrastructure, Mr J. Just before winter. Aid agencies
are begging them to stop. Jack Straw, our Foreign Secretary, has
indicated that they will not stop -- they will continue for 'months'.
Work it out for yourself.

While your faith in the goodness of your lords and masters is
touching, the truth is that they are just as murderous now as they
were when they bombed the helpless civilians of Nagasaki, Hiroshima
and, indeed, Tokyo.

> Try reading some newspapers to inform yourself.

Of what, Mr J? Or are you merely descending to the usual Nizkor 'you
are stupid, you are ' style of debate?

> While
> the US has stated she is not into nation making, there are meetings and
> conferences ( Shah, retired pre-Taleban opposition leader etc)  taking place to
> ensure the vacuum left by Taleban will not be refilled by more fanatics.

Quite wrong. DESPITE various meetings, the opponents of the Taleban
remain deeply divided and utterly incapable of providing any kind of
enduring government in Afghanistan.
 
> >
> >what's to stop the Taleban from doing exactly what they did before --
> >with their massively increased support from the fundamentalist
> >Islamists of the world, they could just walk in and take Afghanistan
> >right back after they've gone.
> 
> Moderate Taleban will be the only type  allowed to participate in a democratic
> government.

Moderate Taleban, eh?

And who is going to do the 'allowing'? The last time foreigners tried
to dictate what politics they would 'allow' in Afghanistan, they were
forced to leave with their tails between their legs. Why should Bush
succeed where Brezhnev, who had fewer moral or political constraints,
spectacularly failed?

> As to the hordes of 'supporting fundamentalists', they'll do as
> they allways have done: yell and scream and burn strawmen in their own
> countries.

Your knowledge of Iraqi, Liyan, Iranian and indeed Afghan history is
evidently not great!

The Pakistan government is already looking shaky.

And Pakistan has nukes.
 
> A peacefull outcome will no doubt disappoint some.
 
I hope that there will be a peaceful outcome. Such an outcome is
possible.

1. America must stop all aggression against other countries.

2. It must compensate Afghanistan for the murder it has committed and
reconstruct its infrastructure urgently.

3. It must terminate support for the murderous Israeli regime of war
criminal Sharon.

Do that and there is indeed hope for peace in the world.
 
> 
> Jason James

David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:47 EDT 2001
Article: 976063 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: 17 Oct 2001 17:11:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 209
Message-ID: 
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003363860 9469 127.0.0.1 (18 Oct 2001 00:11:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Oct 2001 00:11:00 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976063

vellicet@aol.comzapspam (Vellicet) wrote in message news:<20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
> >From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk  (david_michael)
> >Date: 17/10/01 11:25 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >vellicet@aol.comzapspam (Vellicet) wrote in message
> >news:<20011016183528.01669.00000231@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> >> >But I don't even think that
> >> >Afghanistan is the main theatre of war in this thing.
>  
> >> You've only just realised this?
>  
> >No, I knew it from the outset but I've only just posted it here.
>  
> >> >If millions of
> >> >Afghans die as a result of America messing up their infrastructure
> >> >with winter coming on and the whole place on the verge of famine, this
> >> >will set the Arab world against America as never before
> >> 
> >> Wont happen. Even the dimmest among us can see the end-game for Afghanistan
>  is
> >> not to be left to rot.
> >
> >They're bombing infrastructure, Mr J. Just before winter.
> 
> NO, they are not sytematically bombing infrastructure. They are bombing
> infrastructure supporting Taleban enclaves. They are also neutralising Taleban
> military and communications facilities, the latter probably used by the
> populace as well.

That's what I said: they're bombing infrastructure.

I myself saw pictures on BBC News 24 of them bombing Kabul airput, Mr
J.

Are you telling me that the BBC are lying about this?
 
>  Aid agencies
> >are begging them to stop. Jack Straw, our Foreign Secretary, has
> >indicated that they will not stop -- they will continue for 'months'.
> >Work it out for yourself.
> 
> True, and that problem will be a matter of timing: whether the US has achieved
> its objectives in time. However, today aid agencies have complained Taleban are
> harrassing them and in some cases stopping their convoys.

They are also complaining that the US are bombing the s*** out of
them. When there's a war on, and famine on the way, the distribution
of food is not the easiest of tasks.

> >While your faith in the goodness of your lords and masters is
> >touching, the truth is that they are just as murderous now as they
> >were when they bombed the helpless civilians of Nagasaki, Hiroshima
> >and, indeed, Tokyo.
> 
> You are not moved by archival material detailing the alternatives to those
> events. You ignore the fact major cities such as Tokyo were deliberately
> avoided as targets. You ignore the fact Japan threatened to kill 400,000
> prisoners both military and civilian, if  there was any attempt at invasion. In
> short you base your dramatic accusations on a narrow set of references. 

Oh for heaven's sake read some history, man. Tokyo WAS bombed. It was
bombed SO heavily, using conventional weapons, that the death toll is
believed to be substantially higher than in the nuclear strikes!

As I have said, you are presenting us with a false dichotomy. It was
not a case of EITHER kill hundreds of thousands of civilians OR the
Japanese kill even more. There were other alternatives. One would have
been to start a dialogue for peace. I posted an article here recently
that indicated that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for
ages. The sticking point was the retention of the emperor. The
Americans agreed to this anyway after the Japanese surrendered. Why
the hell couldn't they have agreed to it BEFORE slaughtering hundreds
of thousands of civilians?
 
> >> Try reading some newspapers to inform yourself.
> >
> >Of what, Mr J? Or are you merely descending to the usual Nizkor 'you
> >are stupid, you are ' style of debate?
> >
> >> While
> >> the US has stated she is not into nation making, there are meetings and
> >> conferences ( Shah, retired pre-Taleban opposition leader etc)  taking
>  place to
> >> ensure the vacuum left by Taleban will not be refilled by more fanatics.
> >
> >Quite wrong. DESPITE various meetings, the opponents of the Taleban
> >remain deeply divided and utterly incapable of providing any kind of
> >enduring government in Afghanistan.
> 
> I agree the political scene in Afghanistan especially over the last 40 years
> has been nothing short of catastrophic, but *something* has to be done to bring
> stabilty and peace to that country. Bringing to gether the 5 main groups to
> start a new day, may have surprising results.

Good god! So America bombs the infrastructure of a country on the
verge of mass famine, and its only answer to the question of 'what are
you going to leave behind when you have killed all this hundreds of
thousands of civilians?' is 'well there may be surprising results'?

There is no credible alternative to the Taleban, Mr J. What
alternatives there are will collapse as soon as the US withdraws.
Either the US stays indefinitely and gets bogged down in precisely the
sort of thing that did for the Soviets (and the British Empire
earlier), or it pulls out and the Islamic fundamentalism that is rife
in the area just sweeps back.
 
> >> >
> >> >what's to stop the Taleban from doing exactly what they did before --
> >> >with their massively increased support from the fundamentalist
> >> >Islamists of the world, they could just walk in and take Afghanistan
> >> >right back after they've gone.
> >> 
> >> Moderate Taleban will be the only type  allowed to participate in a
>  democratic
> >> government.
> >
> >Moderate Taleban, eh?
> >
> >And who is going to do the 'allowing'?
> 
>   Their wont be any reconstitution of that regime due to a number of reasons:
> External ie present actions, and internal ie the will of the people.

The will of the people? People who have been bombed and starved by
America? Poor people who have nothing but their belief in an angry and
vengeful Allah?

Let me tell you something, Mr J. With every family your people murder
out there you will be creating not fewer enemies of America but more.
 
>  The last time foreigners tried
> >to dictate what politics they would 'allow' in Afghanistan, they were
> >forced to leave with their tails between their legs. Why should Bush
> >succeed where Brezhnev, who had fewer moral or political constraints,
> >spectacularly failed?
> 
> Not quite right in your examples. The Russians were trying to take control of
> the country, as a buffer against Iran's terrorism. The coalition is not. The US
> will leave very fast when their anti terrorist objectives are met.
 
And Islam will sweep back in, its hatred of America and the West
stronger than ever.

> >> As to the hordes of 'supporting fundamentalists', they'll do as
> >> they allways have done: yell and scream and burn strawmen in their own
> >> countries.
> >
> >Your knowledge of Iraqi, Liyan, Iranian and indeed Afghan history is
> >evidently not great!
> 
>  As I mentioned, Afghani political history has been checkered to say the least.
> 
> >The Pakistan government is already looking shaky.
> >
> >And Pakistan has nukes.
> 
>  Despite Musharref (sp) being a dictator, he has successfully established his
> bona fides with the US and Britain. He has stated democratic elections will be
> held in Pakistan. He has shown some guts in supporting the coalition. I dont
> see him as a nut case with his finger on the button.

I agree with you. The danger for America is that he will be swept
aside.
 
> >> A peacefull outcome will no doubt disappoint some.
> > 
> >I hope that there will be a peaceful outcome. Such an outcome is
> >possible.
> >
> >1. America must stop all aggression against other countries.
> 
>  The US occupies no country but its own. 

Like the Soviet, it has 'agreements' with nominally independent
countries. That's how imperialism is done nowadays.

>The US in the recent past has tried to
> calm conflicts where massive loss of human life has occured: Somalia and
> Kosovo. No strategic interests involved. Not a bad record. While ultimately the
> Gulf war was about oil as much as expelling the Iraqi occuopying forces, you
> would have noted, she adhered to the UN mandate, and DID NOT go and extract
> Saddam Hussain, as much as they wanted to.

No, because there was no alternative other than Islamic
fundamentalism.

And let it be noted that they slaughtered 200,000 civilians in THAT
little bloodfest.

> >2. It must compensate Afghanistan for the murder it has committed and
> >reconstruct its infrastructure urgently.
> >
> >3. It must terminate support for the murderous Israeli regime of war
> >criminal Sharon.
> >
> >Do that and there is indeed hope for peace in the world.
> > 
> >> 
> >> Jason James
> >
> >David
> 
> 
> 
> Jason James

David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:48 EDT 2001
Article: 976161 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>  
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:03:46 +0100
Lines: 16
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-41-102.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 02:58:24 GMT, 213-78-41-102.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-41-102.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976161


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m27kttlwj5.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
>
>   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
>
About William Daffer we need know nothing more than he condemns the killing
of civilians when his enemies do it and supports the killing of civilians
when his own side does it.

A hypocrite.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:48 EDT 2001
Article: 976253 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:20:43 +0100
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-40-141.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 12:15:13 GMT, 213-78-40-141.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.8.68.195.MISMATCH!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-40-141.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976253


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m24roxkawh.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m27kttlwj5.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> > >
> > >   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> > >
>
>   [snip pathetic attempt to resurrect moribund reputation]
>
>   As I said, about DEM one need know nothing more than . . .

As I said, all we need to know about William Daffer is that he condemns the
killing of civilians when his enemies do it but applauds it when his own
side does it.

In other words, a hypocrite.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:48 EDT 2001
Article: 976306 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:02:55 +0100
Lines: 70
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-43-77.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bceedd8@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 15:57:28 GMT, 213-78-43-77.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-43-77.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976306


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m24roxkawh.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m27kttlwj5.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> > > > >
> > >
> > >   [snip pathetic attempt to resurrect moribund reputation]
> > >
> > >   As I said, about DEM one need know nothing more than . . .
> >
> > As I said, all we need to know about William Daffer is that he condemns
the
> > killing of civilians when his enemies do it but applauds it when his own
> > side does it.
> >
> > In other words, a hypocrite.
> >
> > David
>
> It has had the distinction between intentionally targeting innocent
> civilians as an act of terror and the suffering that inevitably comes to
> civilians indirectly as a result of acts of war explained to it several
> times.  Yet it prefers to pretend that it doesn't understand, seeing as
> this distinction would get in the way of it's efforts to smear its
> opponants with spurrious and false moral equivalencies, and thus gloss
> over its own open and enthusiastic support for acts of wanton violence
> aimed at innocent people.
>
> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

OK, let's see if I've understood you correctly.

America drops bombs on civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima killing around
270,000. That's an 'act of war', so America is whiter than white and it's
just tough that the civilians were in the way.

Britain drops bombs on civilians in Hamburg and Dresden killing God alone
nows how many tens of thousands. That's also an 'act of war'.

Someone drives airplanes into the heart of America's military and financial
establishment killing some 5,000 people and that is wanton violence aimed at
innocent people.

America bombs the hell out of Afghanistan's infrastructure just before
winter, ensuring that tens of thousands, if not millions, risk death from
famine and that's an act of war and America is whiter than white.

Yes, Mr Mock.

I understand you perfectly now.

Quick -- everyone. Post SPAM in this thread QUICK so that nobody sees
it!!!!!

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:49 EDT 2001
Article: 976336 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:37:05 +0100
Lines: 77
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.248
Message-ID: <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 20:31:48 GMT, 213.78.43.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!novia!novia!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.43.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976336


"Joe Bruno"  wrote in message
news:4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com...
> Steven Mock  wrote in message
news:<3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org>...
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > news:m24roxkawh.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > > news:m27kttlwj5.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >   [snip pathetic attempt to resurrect moribund reputation]
> > > >
> > > >   As I said, about DEM one need know nothing more than . . .
> > >
> > > As I said, all we need to know about William Daffer is that he
condemns the
> > > killing of civilians when his enemies do it but applauds it when his
own
> > > side does it.
> > >
> > > In other words, a hypocrite.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > It has had the distinction between intentionally targeting innocent
> > civilians as an act of terror and the suffering that inevitably comes to
> > civilians indirectly as a result of acts of war explained to it several
> > times.  Yet it prefers to pretend that it doesn't understand, seeing as
> > this distinction would get in the way of it's efforts to smear its
> > opponants with spurrious and false moral equivalencies, and thus gloss
> > over its own open and enthusiastic support for acts of wanton violence
> > aimed at innocent people.
> >
> > Steven Mock
>
>
>  As one who has great admiration for Harry Truman and the good sense
> and courage he brought to the Presidency, I find David's rants about
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be totally bizarre. Because of their ancient
> Bushido code, the Japanese would not surrender-we had to conquer them.

They were trying to surrender. They may well have surrendered had they been
allowed to keep their emperor (a concession they eventually got anyway!).

> The choice Truman faced was between a land invasion of Japan, which
> would have killed hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and the
> same amount of Japanese and an A bomb drop which killed just over
> 100,000 Japanese.

No -- the choices facing Truman were:

(a) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and make a complete mockery of
the Nuremberg war crimes trials by nuking Japanese cities;
(b) a land invasion of Japan that 'could' have killed unknown numbers;
(c) a warning shot with the atom bombs, dropping them over open country
rather than a city full of civilians;
(d) a negotiated peace.

It is truly bizarre how those who regard the 'Holocaust' with such horror,
and who even now are foaming at the mouth with moral self-righteousness over
the World Trade Center business, fall over themselves to find excuses for
bestialities of horrific magnitude when they are perpetrated by their 'own
side'.

> Joe Bruno

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:49 EDT 2001
Article: 976338 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011014130548.12257.00001909@mb-mn.aol.com> <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <340ab0a3.0110181111.59a5e3ca@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:40:36 +0100
Lines: 37
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.248
Message-ID: <3bcf2ef2@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 20:35:14 GMT, 213.78.43.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.43.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976338


"Derek Bell"  wrote in message
news:340ab0a3.0110181111.59a5e3ca@posting.google.com...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
news:<3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
> > Look, O World! Here we have American morality at its finest! Don't
punish
> > the perpetrators! No -- punish the civilians, the women and the little
> > babies -- who surround them!
>
> Women and children died in the September 11th attacks, which David
> Michael described as "Today was a glorious day. May there be many
> others like it."
>
> His tears for Afghans strike me as most insincere, as his previous
> comments about those who didn't share his nationality gave the
> impression that his only interest was that there were too many of them
> living in the same country as David Michael.
>
> Derek

And is this self-righteous prig going to give us his views on the legitimacy
of:

(a) the British bombing of Hamburg;
(b) the American bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima;
(c) the American bombing of Afghanistan?

Or does he only condemn bombing when fat American military personnel and
stockbrokers are the victims?

A little girl was killed in Palestine today by Israeli tanks financed
ultimately by American cash. Care to condemn that, you stuck-up hypocrite?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:49 EDT 2001
Article: 976340 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <340ab0a3.0110181113.ca9c408@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:42:11 +0100
Lines: 42
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.248
Message-ID: <3bcf2f52@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 18 Oct 2001 20:36:50 GMT, 213.78.43.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.43.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976340


"Derek Bell"  wrote in message
news:340ab0a3.0110181113.ca9c408@posting.google.com...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
news:<3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135>...
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m24roxkawh.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m27kttlwj5.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > > > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> > > > >
> > >
> > >   [snip pathetic attempt to resurrect moribund reputation]
> > >
> > >   As I said, about DEM one need know nothing more than . . .
> >
> > As I said, all we need to know about William Daffer is that he condemns
the
> > killing of civilians when his enemies do it but applauds it when his own
> > side does it.
>
> No, spidey, that's *you* you're describing - *you* described the
> September 11th  as a "glorious day".
>
> > In other words, a hypocrite.
>
> You're still talking about your reflection, not William.
>
> Derek

Well, OK. It wasn't a *totally* glorious day.

You evidently weren't on the top floor of the WTC on 11 September. If you
had been, *then* it would have been a glorious day.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:50 EDT 2001
Article: 976384 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:24:12 +0100
Lines: 172
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bcf635b@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 00:18:51 GMT, 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976384


"Charles Don Hall"  wrote in message
news:Xns913EBA4F26662NukuNuku@207.126.101.100...
> "david_michael"  wrote in
> news:3bce3740@212.67.96.135:
>
> [lies deleted]
>
> > A hypocrite.
> >
> > David
>
>
> Here's a news story I found today. There are a few paragraphs criticizing
> American actions. Hypocrites are welcome to take those paragraphs out of
> context and use them in anti-American propaganda.
>
>
> Afghanistan: Attacks on Aid Increasing
>
> (New York, October 18, 2001) - Attacks on humanitarian relief agencies in
> Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan are increasing and must be
stopped,
> Human Rights Watch said today, in releasing details of several attacks.
>
> Human Rights Watch strongly urged all military forces in Afghanistan to
> ensure the safety of representatives and assets of humanitarian relief
> agencies.
>
> On October 16, Taliban soldiers reportedly seized food warehouses of the
> United Nations World Food Program (WFP) in Kabul and Kandahar, taking
> control of some 7,000 tons of food.
>
> "The Taliban and other armed elements are carrying out widespread attacks
on
> humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, and stealing their equipment,
supplies,
> and vehicles," said Sidney Jones, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.
> "These assaults directly affect the ability of humanitarian agencies to
> provide relief to a desperate civilian population."
>
> Human Rights Watch said it had received credible reports of such attacks
> from the Taliban-controlled cities of Kandahar, Kabul, Jalalabad, and
Mazar-
> i Sharif. While most of those responsible for the attacks appear to be
> Taliban fighters, non-Afghan fighters (known in Afghanistan as "foreign
> guests") and rogue armed elements have also been involved.
>
> Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about the bombardment by U.S.
> forces of two clearly-marked warehouses of the International Committee of
> the Red Cross in broad daylight on October 16.
>
> The attacks carried out by the Taliban and other armed elements against
> humanitarian aid agencies include the following:
>
>
> - On the morning of October 7, armed Taliban entered the compound of a
mine
> action NGO in Kabul. Staff members were beaten, and the Taliban broke some
> of the locks on vehicles, but did not take them.
>
> - On October 8, armed Taliban entered the compound of the U.N. Coordinator
> for Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in Mazar-i Sharif and looted
> communications equipment. The Taliban destroyed the windows of nine U.N.
> vehicles at the compound before leaving.
>
> - On October 8, armed Taliban entered the compound of a mine action NGO in
> Kandahar and demanded vehicles. Staff who resisted were beaten and ordered
> to leave the compound. The Taliban left with seven ambulances, seven
pick-up
> trucks and six cargo trucks from the compound.
>
> - Another demining agency working in Kandahar told Human Rights Watch that
> they had one vehicle confiscated by Taliban forces on September 26; three
> ambulances confiscated by Taliban on October 3; nine pick-up trucks
> confiscated by Taliban on October 11; and twenty-two additional vehicles
> taken by Taliban on October 15. The Taliban also looted the office of the
> demining agency, taking spare parts, generators, radios, and the personal
> assets of the demining workers. Staff who resisted the confiscations were
> reportedly beaten. None of the vehicles have been returned.
>
> - On October 13, a group of some twenty armed men entered the Kandahar
> offices of the Islamic Relief Organization, demanding vehicles at
gunpoint.
> Taliban security forces intervened, and a clash erupted. One vehicle was
> taken from the compound by the unidentified armed men.
>
> - On October 15, armed men entered the Mazar-i Sharif offices of a
demining
> agency. Officials of the agency told Human Rights Watch: "They beat our
> guards [and] after that they broke the locks of the doors and entered into
> the office. They looted all the office equipment and left nothing behind
in
> the office. The looted property includes three vehicles, computers,
> communication facilities, office equipment and utensils." The officials
said
> their offices in other cities had been threatened and told that if they
> don't hand over all the vehicles and communication systems, the Taliban
will
> take them by force.
>
> - On the night of October 15, armed men entered the compound of the
> International Organization for Migration (IOM), beating two guards and
> looting the office. The same forces returned to the IOM compound on the
> morning of October 16 and removed three vehicles from the compound.
>
> - The Kandahar and Mazar-i Sharif offices of Medecins sans Frontiers
> (Doctors Without Borders) were looted on October 15 by unidentified armed
> men.
>
> In addition to these cases, a number of humanitarian relief groups have
> reported incidents in which vehicles were seized at gunpoint by Taliban
> forces.
>
> Human Rights Watch today also called on the U.S.-led military alliance to
> take all feasible steps to minimize injury to civilians and civilian
objects
> as required by international humanitarian law in its air campaign over
> Afghanistan. International humanitarian law also obliges belligerents to
> respect the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.
>
> At about 1:00 p.m. on October 16, several U.S. bombs directly hit two
> warehouses of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) located
> two kilometers from the Kabul airport. One ICRC employee was wounded
during
> the incident, and one of the warehouses burned down completely while the
> other sustained serious damage. The ICRC buildings were clearly marked
with
> a red cross painted on a white background, visible from the air. The U.S.
> has acknowledged responsibility for the bombing of the ICRC warehouses,
> claiming that it had mistakenly believed that the buildings were military
> storehouses.
>
> Humanitarian relief agencies have been hit in air strikes on at least two
> other occasions, but there is no evidence that the agency facilities were
> the intended targets. At about 9 p.m. on October 8, the Kabul compound of
> the U.N.-affiliated demining agency Afghan Technical Consultants (ATC) was
> struck in the course of a U.S. air attack, completely destroying the
> compound and killing four ATC staff members guarding the building and
> wounding four other staff.
>
> On another occasion on October 15, shrapnel from U.S. bombs landing at the
> Kabul airport wounded an employee of the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) who
> was loading grain bags at a WFP warehouse located nearby. The incident
> halted what would have been the first OXFAM food delivery into the famine-
> stricken Hazarajat district of Afghanistan since September 11.
>
>
> http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/aid1018.htm
>
>
> --
> ======================================
> Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
> ======================================


I looked at the URL you provided. It has there, inter alia, the following
words:

'The Taliban and other armed elements are carrying out widespread attacks on
humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, and stealing their equipment, supplies,
and vehicles. These assaults directly affect the ability of humanitarian
agencies to provide relief to a desperate civilian population.'

'Other armed elements', Mr Hall?

Please do tell us the whole story . . .

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:50 EDT 2001
Article: 976386 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011014130548.12257.00001909@mb-mn.aol.com> <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <340ab0a3.0110181111.59a5e3ca@posting.google.com> <3bcf2ef2@212.67.96.135> <3BCF4A07.2C6B288E@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:28:11 +0100
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bcf6447@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 00:22:47 GMT, 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976386


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCF4A07.2C6B288E@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > A little girl was killed in Palestine today by Israeli tanks financed
> > ultimately by American cash. Care to condemn that, you stuck-up
hypocrite?
>
> Why should he condemn it, wormfood?

Ah, I see. I have evidently 'misunderstood' you again.

When Arabs, or so we are told, killed Jews and Americans on September 11,
that's morally obnoxious.

When Jews kill little Arab girls, you have to ask 'why should he condemn
it?'

>  He had nothing to do with it.

I, unfortunately, had nothing whatsoever to do with the World Trade Center
business.

>  He
> may not have even known about it until you told him.  Calling him a
> hypocrite because of something he hasn't said is patently dishonest.
>
> Here's something else he hasn't said.  He DIDN'T say: "A little girl was
> killed in Palestine today by Israeli tanks.  This is a glorious day.
> May there be many others like it."
>
> You said that about the thousands who were killed at the World Trade
> Centre on Sept.11.

I said that because after years of America exporting bloodshed, death and
misery across the world, at last it was getting a dose of its own medicine.
And if that makes it think again before exporting bloodshed, death and
misery, then it can only be a very good thing indeed.

> Live with it.  Or shoot yourself.  Whichever is easier.
>
> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:50 EDT 2001
Article: 976388 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:33:51 +0100
Lines: 75
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 00:28:29 GMT, 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976388


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > > The choice Truman faced was between a land invasion of Japan, which
> > > would have killed hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and the
> > > same amount of Japanese and an A bomb drop which killed just over
> > > 100,000 Japanese.
> >
> > No -- the choices facing Truman were:
> >
> > (a) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and make a complete mockery
of
> > the Nuremberg war crimes trials by nuking Japanese cities;
>
> Oh, but we're not phrasing the question in a self-serving manner that
> invites all sorts of spurrious assumptions...

I tell it as I see it, Mr Mock.

> > (b) a land invasion of Japan that 'could' have killed unknown numbers;
>
> ... oh no.  Certainly not us...

Well 'you' (in the plural) seem to be planning a land invasion of
Afghanistan that could kill unknown numbers!

> > (c) a warning shot with the atom bombs, dropping them over open country
> > rather than a city full of civilians;
> > (d) a negotiated peace.

No comment, Mr Mock? How interesting.

> > It is truly bizarre how those who regard the 'Holocaust' with such
horror,
> > and who even now are foaming at the mouth with moral self-righteousness
over
> > the World Trade Center business, fall over themselves to find excuses
for
> > bestialities of horrific magnitude when they are perpetrated by their
'own
> > side'.
>
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with "our side", you cockroach.  How
> many people have explained that to you how many times in the simplest of
> terms?
>
> You are the only one on this n.g. who has gloated over the targeted and
> unprovoked mass murder of civilians.

Rubbish. Every anti-revisionist poster who tries to make excuses for the
Allied horrors in Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or for the alliance
with Stalin, or for American actions in Palestine (by proxy), Iraq and
Afghanistan is gloating over the mass murders of civilians. You people are
such hypocrites that I honestly don't know how you sleep at nights.

>  Live with it.  Falsely attributing
> similarly reprehensive actions and beliefs to us doesn't suger-coat it.

Oh I don't share similar beliefs to your kind, Mr Mock. I want to rid the
world of your sort for ever -- I want to see an end to American imperialism
and the misery and mass murder that it brings. You, on the other hand, will
contine to oppose anyone who dares to speak out against your beloved
Establishment and its henchmen, like the mindless little puppet that you
are.

> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:51 EDT 2001
Article: 976389 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3BCB04A4.9E80913E@localnet.com>  <3BCB7B89.4F8A215D@localnet.com>  <3BCB93ED.3B7624C8@localnet.com> <3bcbec25@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>   <3BCC89F5.95DFE756@polarnet.ca>  <3BCCB366.57BD87CD@polarnet.ca>    <9qmjgo$9r4$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com> <9qnc6u$is7$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <9qnhf8$22m$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com> <9qnkbq$p99$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Does Lomenzo lie like this in its professional life?
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:35:22 +0100
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bcf65f7@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 00:29:59 GMT, 213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!HSNX.atgi.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-41-15.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976389


"sw"  wrote in message news:9qnkbq$p99$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "P2®" <0@0.com> wrote in message
> news:9qnhf8$22m$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com...
> > "sw"  wrote in message news:9qnc6u$is7$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> >
> > Actually little man, I made a typo.
> >
> > --PB
>
>
> LOL!  No, you didn't, Fakely.  The fact is you're too stupid and
uneducated
> to know where commas belong, as you have just demonstrated again.  Idiot.
>
> sw

Why did you put a comma after 'no'?

David





From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:51 EDT 2001
Article: 976412 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bcf635b@212.67.96.135> <9qnpin$kfm$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:22:41 +0100
Lines: 243
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.172
Message-ID: <3bcf7113@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 01:17:23 GMT, 213.78.39.172
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.172
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976412


"sw"  wrote in message news:9qnpin$kfm$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:3bcf635b@212.67.96.135...
> >
> > "Charles Don Hall"  wrote in
> message
> > news:Xns913EBA4F26662NukuNuku@207.126.101.100...
> > > "david_michael"  wrote in
> > > news:3bce3740@212.67.96.135:
> > >
> > > [lies deleted]
> > >
> > > > A hypocrite.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a news story I found today. There are a few paragraphs
> criticizing
> > > American actions. Hypocrites are welcome to take those paragraphs out
of
> > > context and use them in anti-American propaganda.
> > >
> > >
> > > Afghanistan: Attacks on Aid Increasing
> > >
> > > (New York, October 18, 2001) - Attacks on humanitarian relief agencies
> in
> > > Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan are increasing and must be
> > stopped,
> > > Human Rights Watch said today, in releasing details of several
attacks.
> > >
> > > Human Rights Watch strongly urged all military forces in Afghanistan
to
> > > ensure the safety of representatives and assets of humanitarian relief
> > > agencies.
> > >
> > > On October 16, Taliban soldiers reportedly seized food warehouses of
the
> > > United Nations World Food Program (WFP) in Kabul and Kandahar, taking
> > > control of some 7,000 tons of food.
> > >
> > > "The Taliban and other armed elements are carrying out widespread
> attacks
> > on
> > > humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, and stealing their equipment,
> > supplies,
> > > and vehicles," said Sidney Jones, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.
> > > "These assaults directly affect the ability of humanitarian agencies
to
> > > provide relief to a desperate civilian population."
> > >
> > > Human Rights Watch said it had received credible reports of such
attacks
> > > from the Taliban-controlled cities of Kandahar, Kabul, Jalalabad, and
> > Mazar-
> > > i Sharif. While most of those responsible for the attacks appear to be
> > > Taliban fighters, non-Afghan fighters (known in Afghanistan as
"foreign
> > > guests") and rogue armed elements have also been involved.
> > >
> > > Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about the bombardment by
U.S.
> > > forces of two clearly-marked warehouses of the International Committee
> of
> > > the Red Cross in broad daylight on October 16.
> > >
> > > The attacks carried out by the Taliban and other armed elements
against
> > > humanitarian aid agencies include the following:
> > >
> > >
> > > - On the morning of October 7, armed Taliban entered the compound of a
> > mine
> > > action NGO in Kabul. Staff members were beaten, and the Taliban broke
> some
> > > of the locks on vehicles, but did not take them.
> > >
> > > - On October 8, armed Taliban entered the compound of the U.N.
> Coordinator
> > > for Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in Mazar-i Sharif and looted
> > > communications equipment. The Taliban destroyed the windows of nine
U.N.
> > > vehicles at the compound before leaving.
> > >
> > > - On October 8, armed Taliban entered the compound of a mine action
NGO
> in
> > > Kandahar and demanded vehicles. Staff who resisted were beaten and
> ordered
> > > to leave the compound. The Taliban left with seven ambulances, seven
> > pick-up
> > > trucks and six cargo trucks from the compound.
> > >
> > > - Another demining agency working in Kandahar told Human Rights Watch
> that
> > > they had one vehicle confiscated by Taliban forces on September 26;
> three
> > > ambulances confiscated by Taliban on October 3; nine pick-up trucks
> > > confiscated by Taliban on October 11; and twenty-two additional
vehicles
> > > taken by Taliban on October 15. The Taliban also looted the office of
> the
> > > demining agency, taking spare parts, generators, radios, and the
> personal
> > > assets of the demining workers. Staff who resisted the confiscations
> were
> > > reportedly beaten. None of the vehicles have been returned.
> > >
> > > - On October 13, a group of some twenty armed men entered the Kandahar
> > > offices of the Islamic Relief Organization, demanding vehicles at
> > gunpoint.
> > > Taliban security forces intervened, and a clash erupted. One vehicle
was
> > > taken from the compound by the unidentified armed men.
> > >
> > > - On October 15, armed men entered the Mazar-i Sharif offices of a
> > demining
> > > agency. Officials of the agency told Human Rights Watch: "They beat
our
> > > guards [and] after that they broke the locks of the doors and entered
> into
> > > the office. They looted all the office equipment and left nothing
behind
> > in
> > > the office. The looted property includes three vehicles, computers,
> > > communication facilities, office equipment and utensils." The
officials
> > said
> > > their offices in other cities had been threatened and told that if
they
> > > don't hand over all the vehicles and communication systems, the
Taliban
> > will
> > > take them by force.
> > >
> > > - On the night of October 15, armed men entered the compound of the
> > > International Organization for Migration (IOM), beating two guards and
> > > looting the office. The same forces returned to the IOM compound on
the
> > > morning of October 16 and removed three vehicles from the compound.
> > >
> > > - The Kandahar and Mazar-i Sharif offices of Medecins sans Frontiers
> > > (Doctors Without Borders) were looted on October 15 by unidentified
> armed
> > > men.
> > >
> > > In addition to these cases, a number of humanitarian relief groups
have
> > > reported incidents in which vehicles were seized at gunpoint by
Taliban
> > > forces.
> > >
> > > Human Rights Watch today also called on the U.S.-led military alliance
> to
> > > take all feasible steps to minimize injury to civilians and civilian
> > objects
> > > as required by international humanitarian law in its air campaign over
> > > Afghanistan. International humanitarian law also obliges belligerents
to
> > > respect the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.
> > >
> > > At about 1:00 p.m. on October 16, several U.S. bombs directly hit two
> > > warehouses of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
> located
> > > two kilometers from the Kabul airport. One ICRC employee was wounded
> > during
> > > the incident, and one of the warehouses burned down completely while
the
> > > other sustained serious damage. The ICRC buildings were clearly marked
> > with
> > > a red cross painted on a white background, visible from the air. The
> U.S.
> > > has acknowledged responsibility for the bombing of the ICRC
warehouses,
> > > claiming that it had mistakenly believed that the buildings were
> military
> > > storehouses.
> > >
> > > Humanitarian relief agencies have been hit in air strikes on at least
> two
> > > other occasions, but there is no evidence that the agency facilities
> were
> > > the intended targets. At about 9 p.m. on October 8, the Kabul compound
> of
> > > the U.N.-affiliated demining agency Afghan Technical Consultants (ATC)
> was
> > > struck in the course of a U.S. air attack, completely destroying the
> > > compound and killing four ATC staff members guarding the building and
> > > wounding four other staff.
> > >
> > > On another occasion on October 15, shrapnel from U.S. bombs landing at
> the
> > > Kabul airport wounded an employee of the U.N. World Food Program (WFP)
> who
> > > was loading grain bags at a WFP warehouse located nearby. The incident
> > > halted what would have been the first OXFAM food delivery into the
> famine-
> > > stricken Hazarajat district of Afghanistan since September 11.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/aid1018.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ======================================
> > > Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
> > > ======================================
> >
> >
> > I looked at the URL you provided. It has there, inter alia, the
following
> > words:
> >
> > 'The Taliban and other armed elements are carrying out widespread
attacks
> on
> > humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, and stealing their equipment,
> supplies,
> > and vehicles. These assaults directly affect the ability of humanitarian
> > agencies to provide relief to a desperate civilian population.'
> >
> > 'Other armed elements', Mr Hall?
> >
> > Please do tell us the whole story . . .
> >
> > David
>
>
>
> In every country of the world, there are thugs, like you, who are not part
> of the power structure.  The criminal element, as it were.
>
> sw

Begad, you're not accusing Yale Edeiken of pinching the stuff are you?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:51 EDT 2001
Article: 976420 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3BCB04A4.9E80913E@localnet.com>  <3BCB7B89.4F8A215D@localnet.com>  <3BCB93ED.3B7624C8@localnet.com> <3bcbec25@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>   <3BCC89F5.95DFE756@polarnet.ca>  <3BCCB366.57BD87CD@polarnet.ca>    <9qmjgo$9r4$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com> <9qnc6u$is7$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <9qnhf8$22m$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com> <9qnkbq$p99$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <3bcf65f7@212.67.96.135> <9qnpr3$lpr$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Does Lomenzo lie like this in its professional life?
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:28:24 +0100
Lines: 40
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.172
Message-ID: <3bcf7265@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 01:23:01 GMT, 213.78.39.172
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.172
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976420


"sw"  wrote in message news:9qnpr3$lpr$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:3bcf65f7@212.67.96.135...
> >
> > "sw"  wrote in message news:9qnkbq$p99$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > "P2®" <0@0.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9qnhf8$22m$1@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com...
> > > > "sw"  wrote in message
news:9qnc6u$is7$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually little man, I made a typo.
> > > >
> > > > --PB
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL!  No, you didn't, Fakely.  The fact is you're too stupid and
> > uneducated
> > > to know where commas belong, as you have just demonstrated again.
> Idiot.
> > >
> > > sw
> >
> > Why did you put a comma after 'no'?
> >
> > David
>
>
> Because it belongs there, genius.
>
> sw

Why did you start a sentence with 'because'?

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:52 EDT 2001
Article: 976423 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bcf635b@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:30:12 +0100
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.172
Message-ID: <3bcf72d4@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 01:24:52 GMT, 213.78.39.172
Path: hub.org!hub.org!HSNX.atgi.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.172
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976423


"Charles Don Hall"  wrote in message
news:Xns913ECAE50DBD4NukuNuku@207.126.101.100...
> "david_michael"  wrote in
> news:3bcf635b@212.67.96.135:
> > "Charles Don Hall"  wrote in
> > message news:Xns913EBA4F26662NukuNuku@207.126.101.100...
>
> [...]
> >> Here's a news story I found today. There are a few paragraphs
criticizing
> >> American actions. Hypocrites are welcome to take those paragraphs out
of
> >> context and use them in anti-American propaganda.
>
> I forgot to say that really stupid hypocrites are welcome to take the
> *wrong* paragraphs out of context, and use them in *unconvincing* anti-
> American propaganda.
>
>
> >> http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/aid1018.htm
>
> > I looked at the URL you provided. It has there, inter alia, the
> > following words:
> >
> > 'The Taliban and other armed elements are carrying out widespread
> > attacks on humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, and stealing their
> > equipment, supplies, and vehicles. These assaults directly affect the
> > ability of humanitarian agencies to provide relief to a desperate
> > civilian population.'
> >
> > 'Other armed elements', Mr Hall?
> >
> > Please do tell us the whole story . . .
> >
> > David
>
> Nope. If I were a POW, I'd tell you my name, rank, and serial number. But
> right now you're in no position to ask for anything.

I'm in a position to ask whatever I wish.

And you are perfectly at liberty to avoid answering them.



David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:52 EDT 2001
Article: 976561 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bc8cdfe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20011014130548.12257.00001909@mb-mn.aol.com> <3bc9e79e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <340ab0a3.0110181111.59a5e3ca@posting.google.com> <3bcf2ef2@212.67.96.135> <3BCF4A07.2C6B288E@nizkor.org> <3bcf6447@212.67.96.135> <3BCF9DE3.C74B7BBF@nizkor.org> <3BCFA235.FD75D386@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Can America say sorry?
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:44:55 +0100
Lines: 29
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.198
Message-ID: <3bd01efc@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 13:39:24 GMT, 213.78.39.198
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.198
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976561


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCFA235.FD75D386@nizkor.org...
> Steven Mock wrote:
>
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven Mock"  wrote in message
> > > news:3BCF4A07.2C6B288E@nizkor.org...
> > > > david_michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A little girl was killed in Palestine today by Israeli tanks
financed
> > > > > ultimately by American cash. Care to condemn that, you stuck-up
> > > > > hypocrite?
> > > >
> > > > Why should he condemn it, wormfood?
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. I have evidently 'misunderstood' you again.
>
> Oh, and by the way, worm, you seem to have misspelled "misprepresented".

:-)



David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:53 EDT 2001
Article: 976562 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCFA0BC.925D98AC@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:12:14 +0100
Lines: 206
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.198
Message-ID: <3bd02569@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 14:06:49 GMT, 213.78.39.198
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!lon1-news.nildram.net!62.24.128.9.MISMATCH!news-1.opaltelecom.net!peer.news.opaltelecom.net!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.198
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976562


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCFA0BC.925D98AC@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > "Steven Mock"  wrote in message
> > news:3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org...
> > > david_michael wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The choice Truman faced was between a land invasion of Japan,
which
> > > > > would have killed hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and
the
> > > > > same amount of Japanese and an A bomb drop which killed just over
> > > > > 100,000 Japanese.
> > > >
> > > > No -- the choices facing Truman were:
> > > >
> > > > (a) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and make a complete
mockery
> > > > of the Nuremberg war crimes trials by nuking Japanese cities;
> > >
> > > Oh, but we're not phrasing the question in a self-serving manner that
> > > invites all sorts of spurrious assumptions...
> >
> > I tell it as I see it, Mr Mock.
> >
> > > > (b) a land invasion of Japan that 'could' have killed unknown
numbers;
> > >
> > > ... oh no.  Certainly not us...
> >
> > Well 'you' (in the plural) seem to be planning a land invasion of
> > Afghanistan that could kill unknown numbers!
> >
> > > > (c) a warning shot with the atom bombs, dropping them over open
country
> > > > rather than a city full of civilians;
> > > > (d) a negotiated peace.
> >
> > No comment, Mr Mock? How interesting.
>
> Did I ever claim to be an expert on the subject?  You're certainly not.
> You will attibute whatever nefarious motives to the actors involve that
> you wish.

This is interesting. You froth at the mouth and leap up and down with
indignation over the WTC bombing, but when it comes to answering difficult
questions about AMERICAN bombing all you can offer is: 'Did I ever claim to
be an expert on the subject?'

The truth, my little chummie, is that you get your indignation off the
peg -- as sold to you by the mass media.

> Do you really think that all they wanted to do was kill as many
> civilians as possible?

Well you evidently think that all Bin Laden wanted to do was kill as many
civilians as possible!

And I'm sure you have a similar view of the National Socialists.

Yet you cannot conceive of Truman thinking that way because he was ONE OF
YOURS, right? And your wonderful political system cannot produce evil
leaders, right?

>  That ending the war to their favour by the
> fastest and least costly (to all parties) means necessary wasn't their
> motive?

We're talking here of dropping nuclear bombs over two cities with 270,000
deaths.

We're talking of it being done when there was a clear alternative: to
negotiate for peace offering what was offered anyway in the end -- the
retention of the Emperor.

Where there was another alternative: drop the bombs on open ground.

That you should even ATTEMPT to excuse those bombings shows how utterly
insincere your condemnation of Bin Laden, Nazis, and all the other
fashionable demons of our age is.

The horrible truth, old fruit, is that you'd support ANY amount of barbarism
so long as it is done by YOUR side with the support of the Establishment and
the mass media.

And you have the gall to preach morality at others!

>  You can question whether this was the best way to go about it,
> but do you really think their intent was anything different?

I think that their intent was PRECISELY the same as the intent of Himmler in
his darkest moments. To destroy the enemy quickly and cheaply and to get on
with building a new world. You'll find that motive behind most of the
horriblest crimes in the world if you look for it.

> As for your "negotiated peace", yes I'm sure you think that the world
> would have been a better place if the Allies had just surrendered to
> Japan and Nazi Germany from the beginning.  I would disagree.

(a) Such terms would not have been necessary. The Japanese could have been
offered a peace that allowed them to keep their emperor -- as was offered
anyway AFTER the event!
(b) Once you start to justify the massacre of hundreds of thousands of
civilians in political terms ('the world would have been worse without it')
then you immediately lose the moral right to try ANYONE for war crimes
against civilians because that is PRECISELY how every wartime atrocity I've
ever heard of has been justified. You may well be correct in what you say --
but that you DO say it shows clearly your hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

> Indeed, one could play the pacifist and make a morally consistent
> argument that it is not merely the party that starts the war who is
> responsible for the inevitable suffering to civilians that the war
> causes, but that anyone who even FIGHTS a war bears equal
> responsibility.

This is the second time this week that I've heard this bit about 'the party
that starts the war' being morally responsible for the death of civilians.
Let's take a closer look.

(a) It implies that if government A starts a war, than government B may
quite legitimately perpetrate whatever horrors it wishes against the
civilians of party A's country. This position is not recognized in
international law -- see the Hague Conventions, for example.
(b) It means that the ordinary citizens of a country are held responsible
for the actions of their government, even if they are totally against it.
This institutionalizes 'collective punishment'.
(c) It rather glosses over the problematic nature of the start of wars. Who
started World War I? Who started the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Who started
the Irish problem? Indeed, who started the current round of hostilities in
Afghanistan?

I'm no pacifist. I accept that wars must happen. I accept that civilians
must die. Sometimes civilians must even be targeted 'pour decourager les
autres' and to save more lives in the long run, or to discourage others from
targeting civilians. My point is not that this is always wrong -- it depends
on circumstances. My point is simply that your condemnation of some cases of
bombing civilians is inconsistent with your support for -- even if it is
only tacit support for -- other cases of bombing civilians.

> Unfortunately, you lost your nomination for the Mahatma Gandhi prize
> when you said:
>
> 
>
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
> truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
> turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
> eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the
> powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that are
> oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
>
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
>
> Death to American capitalism!
>
> Death to international finance!
>
> David Michael
>
> Message-ID: <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
>
> Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
>
> 
>
> > Oh I don't share similar beliefs to your kind, Mr Mock. I want to rid
the
> > world of your sort for ever -- I want to see an end to American
imperialism
> > and the misery and mass murder that it brings. You, on the other hand,
will
> > contine to oppose anyone who dares to speak out against your beloved
> > Establishment and its henchmen, like the mindless little puppet that you
> > are.
>
> I take it then, that you have no intention of discussing or debating the
> arguments I've made explaining the moral distinctions you fail to
> grasp.  I expected as much.

I think that your moral distinctions are clear for all to see: you will
praise the murder of civilians up to the hilt when your side does it; you'll
whine and froth at the mouth about it when your side gets a hefty dose of
its own medicine.

> Here's a reading suggestion.  "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer.
> Come back when you have a clue.

It doesn't seem to have taught you much.

> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:53 EDT 2001
Article: 976563 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCF9E34.A0AE7EE4@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:13:29 +0100
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.198
Message-ID: <3bd025b1@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 14:08:01 GMT, 213.78.39.198
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!feeder.qis.net!btnet-peer!btnet!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.198
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976563


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BCF9E34.A0AE7EE4@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > > > (b) a land invasion of Japan that 'could' have killed unknown
numbers;
> > >
> > > ... oh no.  Certainly not us...
> >
> > Well 'you' (in the plural) seem to be planning a land invasion of
> > Afghanistan that could kill unknown numbers!
>
> War is hell, Dr. Michael.  Who started this one?
>
> Steven Mock

I can say without a shadow of a hesitation that the answer is 'America'.

But see what I've said about the 'who started it?' argument in the other
thread.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:53 EDT 2001
Article: 976564 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <3bceedd8@212.67.96.135> <3BCF32ED.3DA449AD@nizkor.org>  
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:33:12 +0100
Lines: 110
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.198
Message-ID: <3bd02a5b@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 14:27:55 GMT, 213.78.39.198
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.198
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976564


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2vghctvcw.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> Orac  writes:
>
> > In article <3BCF32ED.3DA449AD@nizkor.org>,
> >  Steven Mock  wrote:
> >
> > > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > > America drops bombs on civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima killing
around
> > > > 270,000. That's an 'act of war', so America is whiter than white and
it's
> > > > just tough that the civilians were in the way.
> > > >
> > > > Britain drops bombs on civilians in Hamburg and Dresden killing God
alone
> > > > nows how many tens of thousands. That's also an 'act of war'.
> > >
> > > All of these actions were undertaken in the context of an ongoing war.
> > > Yes, they were targeted at civilians, and to that effect, there were
> > > excessive acts of war, as I have already said many times, as you well
> > > know (though a good case could be made re: Hiroshima that it saved
more
> > > lives than it destroyed, as you also well know, which would mitigate
> > > that conclusion to some extent).
> >
> > An argument which David Michael should accept, given that he's made
> > exactly the same argument defending the targeting of the World Trade
> > Center by the terrorists.
> >
>
>   There is also a predictable fluidity when the question of
>   *intention* comes up. It's important when it tends to prove the
>   nefariousness of action of the U.S. now, or in the past as one of
>   the Allies in WWII (and in both instances he has to simultaneously
>   misrepresent those intentions, but that's another, very important
>   question) but it's completely unimportant when discussing, for
>   instance, the actions of the WTC bombers. Or, if not important,
>   their intent is misrepresented: it's not an 'act of terrorism' but
>   an 'act of war' or 'military action.'

The question of intention is relevant when you're evaluating a person. For
example, if you kill a million people through one act of negligence, perhaps
while under stress or ill or under the influence of drugs that have been
slipped in your drink, then although the consequences of the action might be
far worse than someone who deliberately murders one person out of sheer
malice the case can nevertheless be made that you're not such a 'bad' person
as that murderer. You may well pose less of a threat to society in future
than the murderer under these circumstances.

>   And many times we've seen him claim that he's a consequentialist,
>   which should make the question of intention *completely* irrelevant,

Not so, because, as I have shown above, terrible consequences might arise
accidentally whereas really nefarious motives might lead to mild
consequences.

Would Stalin have been a more virtuous man if he had never had the
opportunity to kill anyone?

I've never killed anyone in my life. So do you want to argue that I'm a
better man than George W Bush?

>   but that's just another in the long list of assertions DEM has made
>   which he then contradicts with his actions.
>
>   As you've pointed out, representing these acts as 'military actions'
>   requires him to use just the sort of consequentialist reasoning that
>   justifies other military actions,

Yes. If American citizens are targeted, then hopefully America will think
twice before targeting the citizens of other countries. It is called
deterrence and was widely practised by the US and the Soviet Union during
the Cold War.

>so now he has to deny that the
>   acts of a country involved in a declared war of one country against
>   another (U.S against Japan) are not military actions while those of
>   a clandestine terrorist group (the WTC bombers), which is *not* a
>   country, are such actions.

The Taleban repeatedly stated that they would hand Bin Laden over if they
were given evidence of his guilt. The Americans rejected the offer and
bombed the infrastructure of the country JUST before the onset of winter,
thereby risking the deaths of millions of people who patently did not have
anything to do with the WTC bombing.

Yet the American government claims moral superiority over the WTC bombers!
*That's* where the inconsistency arises!

>   A patent absurdity.
>
>   The surest sign that his morality is driven by the predetermined
>   conclusion, and not by any internalized morality, is the fact that
>   he won't let the fact of this absurdity deter him, but he will
>   continue to argue that his ethical position is consistent.

The only inconsistency I've seen is your condemnation of the bombing of
civilians when they're American civilians, but your support for it when
they're non-American citizens on the receiving end of American or Israeli
bombs!


David






From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:53 EDT 2001
Article: 976565 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:44:03 +0100
Lines: 62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.198
Message-ID: <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 14:38:36 GMT, 213.78.39.198
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.198
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976565


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2ofn4vbyf.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > They were trying to surrender. They may well have surrendered had they
been
> > allowed to keep their emperor (a concession they eventually got
anyway!).
> >
>
>
>   David E. Michael is an holocaust denier,

No I am not.

I have repeatedly stated that I regard the 'Holocaust' as being a term that
refers rather vaguely to a large number of events. Some of those events may
be true; others are questionable. The evidence for many of these events
appears to be very questionable.

Why are you lying about this?

> so we shouldn't be
>   surprised when he denies other historical facts because they are
>   inconvenient to his goal: to make us forget his gloating at the
>   deaths of thousands. And we all know that he must relentlessly
>   pursue the claim that the acts of the U.S. were not substantiatlly
>   different from the attack at the WTC so that the despicable
>   spectacle of his exultation in these murders will somehow be
>   mitigated.
>
>   But the facts simply don't support him: Japan had rejected the
>   ultimatum from the west; the words 'unconditional surrender' were
>   used in the communique from the Casablanca Conference in Feb 1943,
>   again at the Moscow Conference at October 1943, reaffirmed at the
>   Cairo Conference of November 1943 and while Yalta only said
>   "defeated", lacking the adjective, the statement from the Potsdam
>   conference made it abundantly clear that this was not a change in
>   policy. And, in fact, the Potsdam statement makes no reference to
>   the Emperor, so the assertion that the U.S. required some
>   accomodation on that score is also, quite simply, false, the Fluffy
>   Spider's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

See the following schoolboy essay that answers all your points about Japan
very concisely:

http://users.erols.com/goodmank/



> But the reader should look at DEM's casualty figures,
> as they are as exaggerated as are his moral distinctions.

The essay cited deals with the question of figures. It puts the total at
240,000 but acknowledges that there's a lot of variance in the estimates.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:54 EDT 2001
Article: 976606 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCF9E34.A0AE7EE4@nizkor.org> <3bd025b1@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:23:45 +0100
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.248
Message-ID: <3bd060ad@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 18:19:41 GMT, 213.78.40.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.esat.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.40.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976606


"Sara"  wrote in message
news:catamont-32DEA0.08061819102001@news.concentric.net...
> In article <3bd025b1@212.67.96.135>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > "Steven Mock"  wrote in message
> > news:3BCF9E34.A0AE7EE4@nizkor.org...
> > > david_michael wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > (b) a land invasion of Japan that 'could' have killed unknown
> > numbers;
> > > > >
> > > > > ... oh no.  Certainly not us...
> > > >
> > > > Well 'you' (in the plural) seem to be planning a land invasion of
> > > > Afghanistan that could kill unknown numbers!
> > >
> > > War is hell, Dr. Michael.  Who started this one?
> > >
> > > Steven Mock
> >
> > I can say without a shadow of a hesitation that the answer is 'America'.
> >
> > But see what I've said about the 'who started it?' argument in the other
> > thread.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
> On 2001-09-11 11:19:06 PST in the newsgroup alt.revisionism, the
> racist and sociopath David Michael openly celebrated the mass murder
> that took place in the WTC and the Pentagon. He expressed sheer
> elation at the death of thousands of innocents, praised the terrorists,
> described the mass murder as a "truly wonderful thing", and added
> "Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it".
>
> Among the thousands of innocent victims whose death the sociopath
> David Michael celebrated were two sisters, who were on AA flight 77:
> Zoe and Dana Falkenberg, who were eight and three year old. According
> to Michael, their death was a "truly wonderful thing", and he
> expressed his hope for many more such deaths.
>
> --
> "It's always nice to see a prejudice overruled by a deeper prejudice."
> John Sayles, _Lone Star_


That's right, Ms S -- you spam away in the hope that people won't see what
revisionists are really saying.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:54 EDT 2001
Article: 976607 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <3bceedd8@212.67.96.135> <3BCF32ED.3DA449AD@nizkor.org>   <3bd02a5b@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:29:46 +0100
Lines: 77
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.248
Message-ID: <3bd061c5@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 18:24:21 GMT, 213.78.40.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.40.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976607


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2wv1rq28m.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2vghctvcw.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > Orac  writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <3BCF32ED.3DA449AD@nizkor.org>,
> > > >  Steven Mock  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david_michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > America drops bombs on civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima
killing
> > around
> > > > > > 270,000. That's an 'act of war', so America is whiter than white
and
> > it's
> > > > > > just tough that the civilians were in the way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Britain drops bombs on civilians in Hamburg and Dresden killing
God
> > alone
> > > > > > nows how many tens of thousands. That's also an 'act of war'.
> > > > >
> > > > > All of these actions were undertaken in the context of an ongoing
war.
> > > > > Yes, they were targeted at civilians, and to that effect, there
were
> > > > > excessive acts of war, as I have already said many times, as you
well
> > > > > know (though a good case could be made re: Hiroshima that it saved
> > more
> > > > > lives than it destroyed, as you also well know, which would
mitigate
> > > > > that conclusion to some extent).
> > > >
> > > > An argument which David Michael should accept, given that he's made
> > > > exactly the same argument defending the targeting of the World Trade
> > > > Center by the terrorists.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   There is also a predictable fluidity when the question of
> > >   *intention* comes up. It's important when it tends to prove the
> > >   nefariousness of action of the U.S. now, or in the past as one of
> > >   the Allies in WWII (and in both instances he has to simultaneously
> > >   misrepresent those intentions, but that's another, very important
> > >   question) but it's completely unimportant when discussing, for
> > >   instance, the actions of the WTC bombers. Or, if not important,
> > >   their intent is misrepresented: it's not an 'act of terrorism' but
> > >   an 'act of war' or 'military action.'
> >
> > The question of intention is relevant when you're evaluating a person.
>
>   On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in message
> <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, David E. Michael expressed support
> for the craven cowards who hijacked four airliners, flying two into
> the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and simply crashing the fourth,
> with an attendant loss of life estimated in the thousands, with the
> words:
>
>   "This afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened . . . Today was
>   a glorious day. May there be many others like it."
>
> For the complete post of this terrorist sympathizer, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk


>From the fact that you have deleted my argument I take it that you now
accept it and do not wish others to see it.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:54 EDT 2001
Article: 976608 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135>  <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:30:31 +0100
Lines: 51
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.248
Message-ID: <3bd061f4@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 18:25:08 GMT, 213.78.40.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.40.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976608


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m21yjzrgv1.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2ofn4vbyf.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > They were trying to surrender. They may well have surrendered had
they
> > been
> > > > allowed to keep their emperor (a concession they eventually got
> > anyway!).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   David E. Michael is an holocaust denier,
> >
> > No I am not.
> >
>
>   [flush]
>
>   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
> whd
> --
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100, in message
> <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, David E. Michael expressed support
> for the craven cowards who hijacked four airliners, flying two into
> the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and simply crashing the fourth,
> with an attendant loss of life estimated in the thousands, with the
> words:
>
>   "This afternoon a truly wonderful thing has happened . . . Today was
>   a glorious day. May there be many others like it."
>
> For the complete post of this terrorist sympathizer, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b9e5465%40news-uk.onetel.net.uk

>From the fact that you have snipped my argument I take it that you now
accept it and do not wish others to see it.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:55 EDT 2001
Article: 976613 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCFA0BC.925D98AC@nizkor.org> <3bd02569@212.67.96.135> <3BD034EA.C95E217A@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:03:33 +0100
Lines: 228
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.248
Message-ID: <3bd069b2@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 18:58:10 GMT, 213.78.40.248
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.40.248
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976613


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BD034EA.C95E217A@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > The horrible truth, old fruit, is that you'd support ANY amount of
barbarism
> > so long as it is done by YOUR side with the support of the Establishment
and
> > the mass media.
>
> Nope.  I have frequently condemned actions by the U.S. and its allies
> that I found gratuitous or excessive.

In this very thread you have supported US nuclear attacks on entire cities!
You have attempted to justify them using worn-out and unconvincing
propaganda slogans that wouldn't convince a reasonably inquisitive 11 year
old nowadays.

> But, of course, you have to believe this to make your own open support
> for mass murder seem more palatable and less beyond the pale of
> humanity.

That's rich coming from someone who makes excuses for the nuclear
annihilation of hundreds of thousands.

I don't know how you manage to live with your own stench.

> Unfortunately its not true, and you have yet to cite a word that any of
> us have said - or indeed, anything that you haven't inserted into our
> mouths - that makes it true.
>
> Live with it.  Or shoot yourself.  Whichever is easier.
>
> > > Indeed, one could play the pacifist and make a morally consistent
> > > argument that it is not merely the party that starts the war who is
> > > responsible for the inevitable suffering to civilians that the war
> > > causes, but that anyone who even FIGHTS a war bears equal
> > > responsibility.
> >
> > This is the second time this week that I've heard this bit about 'the
party
> > that starts the war' being morally responsible for the death of
civilians.
> > Let's take a closer look.
> >
> > (a) It implies that if government A starts a war, than government B may
> > quite legitimately perpetrate whatever horrors it wishes against the
> > civilians of party A's country. This position is not recognized in
> > international law -- see the Hague Conventions, for example.
>
> It implies no such thing, worm.  There is a difference between jus ad
> bellum and jus in bello.  There is acceptable and unacceptable war
> conduct, and indeed, there are acts committed by allies that have
> crossed that line (the bombing of Dresden, etc., comes to mind).
>
> But that was not your argument, cockroach.  At no time, in the course of
> this current war, has the U.S. targeted civilians, yet you seem to think
> that it should be placed on the same moral level as the terrorists who
> did simply because civilians are suffering and will suffer as a result
> of their military actions.  That is a flawed argument.

The US is embarking on a course of action that can only result in thousands,
if not millions, of innocent Afghan civilians dying. It is destroying the
infrastructure of a country on the verge of famine shortly before the onset
of winter. You might not call that 'targeting civilians', Mr M, but I sure
as hell do.

> > (b) It means that the ordinary citizens of a country are held
responsible
> > for the actions of their government, even if they are totally against
it.
> > This institutionalizes 'collective punishment'.
>
> It means no such thing, worm.  They are not held responsible at all.  It
> it simply a fact that civilians will suffer as a result of war.

Oh quit using the passive voice. They don't just suffer -- they are murdered
and maimed horribly as a direct result of avoidable American government
policy.

>  It is
> incumbant on the combattants to reduce that suffering as much as
> possible within the confines of their war aims (as the U.S. is now doing
> as best it can for Afghanistan),

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. They've bombed the airport so planes can't get in to
deliver aid. They've bombed the telephone exchanges so that people can't
communicate with each other. They're bombing the roads, so that aid can't
move around. They are systematically murdering the population of
Afghanistan.

> but such suffering is inevitable
> nonetheless.

Disgusting nonsense. It could have been avoided simply by not dropping the
bombs!

>  Therefore, it is widely recognized by people with a shred
> of conscience that aggression is itself a crime, in that it unleashes
> the hell of war on populations.

Except, I suppose, when it's American or Israeli aggression!

> For never two such kingdoms did contend
> Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops
> Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
> 'Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords
> That makes such waste in brief mortality
> (Shakespeare, Henry V, 1:2)

If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate,
On me, my bargains and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe,
If I forgive him!
(Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, I:3)

> > (c) It rather glosses over the problematic nature of the start of wars.
Who
> > started World War I? Who started the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Who
started
> > the Irish problem?
>
> As I said, the question of aggression can often be a problematic one.
> It certainly is in all of the above cases.
>
> > Indeed, who started the current round of hostilities in
> > Afghanistan?
>
> Far less problematic in this case.  For the starting point of every
> exploration of the question of aggression is always: which party was the
> first to violate and attack the sovereign territory of another.

> You know the answer in this case, Dr. Michael.  It happened on Sept.11,
> in which the first act of war between Al-Queda and the U.S. et al. was
> committed with an unprovoked attack against civilian populations on U.S.
> territory.

First, that has never been proved. No evidence has been released into the
public domain to indicate that Al-Qaeda had anything whatsoever to do with
the events of September 11. You are merely parroting your government and its
media outlets on that point.

Second, if it had been proved, then it would hardly provide a case for
attacking another sovereign nation!

Third, even if it DID provide such a case, which it does not, then it would
hardly provide a case for attacking that nation in such a way as to ensure
the deaths of possibly millions of its citizens.

Fourth, even if it DID provide such a case, then it would hardly provide a
case for doing this without any discernible strategic goal. We are told that
the aim is to get Osama. Fine. What then? You think that Islamic
fundamentalism will just go away? You think that the hatred that America's
actions will cause in the hearts of Afghans and the Arab world will not come
back to claim its pound of flesh?

>  The moral principles of statecraft since antiquity, as well
> as the modern principles of collective security both concur that a state
> has the right, indeed the DUTY as a state to retaliate in the face of
> such an attack.

'Moral principles of statecraft since antiquity', eh? Care to cite them?

First, it is by no means proven that any foreign power has attacked the
United States.

Second, even if some foreign power did so, it has not been proven that such
power was the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Third, even if such had been proven, this would not justify actions that can
only result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Afghan
civilians. Indeed, this is expressly forbidden by, inter alia, the Hague
Conventions.

> Which is why your behaviour is doubly reprehensible.  On Sept.11 you not
> only gloated over the unprovoked mass murder of thousands of civilians.
> You also gloated over an act that would inevitably be the start of a
> protracted conflict that would claim even more innocent lives.

It was not the 'start' of anything. If Osama were indeed responsible, it
would appear to be merely a response to American-financed terrorism in the
Middle East. Indeed, given the American actions against the Arab peoples of
the world, were we to apply YOUR standard, they would be perfectly justified
in attacking the United States!

> > > I take it then, that you have no intention of discussing or debating
the
> > > arguments I've made explaining the moral distinctions you fail to
> > > grasp.  I expected as much.
> >
> > I think that your moral distinctions are clear for all to see: you will
> > praise the murder of civilians up to the hilt when your side does it;
>
> Nope.  Never done it.  You're lying.  You're the only one who has
> praised the targeted murder of civilians.

You have tried to excuse the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You are now
trying to excuse the murder that is even now being prepared on a massive
scale in Afghanistan. Your 'morality' stands exposed for all to see, no
matter how hard your colleagues here spam in order to try to hide it: you
will try to excuse any amount of barbarism if it is perpetrated by America,
while frothing at the mouth at even small-scale retaliation by its victims.

> > you'll
> > whine and froth at the mouth about it when your side gets a hefty dose
of
> > its own medicine.
>
> Nope.  You didn't get it.  Or you're just pretending not to, since you'd
> rather argue with this straw man than with what I really said.  I
> expected as much.

Your arguments are there for all to see, Mr Mock. That's why your colleagues
are so desperate for them not to be seen that they have to try to fill the
thread with spam.

> Steven Mock
> --
> "I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
> but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger

 David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:55 EDT 2001
Article: 976629 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCFA0BC.925D98AC@nizkor.org> <3bd02569@212.67.96.135> <3BD034EA.C <3BD07FA7.DEBC539B@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:13:41 +0100
Lines: 11
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.168
Message-ID: <3bd0882e@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 21:08:14 GMT, 213.78.39.168
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!shale.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.168
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976629


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message



I can do that too.







From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:55 EDT 2001
Article: 976633 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <4bc3e2e1.0110191059.198cc265@posting.google.com> <20011019160556.14361.00000226@mb-fq.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:26:55 +0100
Lines: 106
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.168
Message-ID: <3bd08b4b@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 21:21:31 GMT, 213.78.39.168
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.168
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976633


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011019160556.14361.00000226@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
>
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> >>
> >>   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> >>
>
> >This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> >> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
> >> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> >> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
> >> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
> >> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> >> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
> >> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
> >>
> >> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
> >>
> >> Death to American capitalism!
> >>
> >> Death to international finance!
> >>
> >> David Michael
>
>
>
>
>  DEM has used the equivelency of acts of war as a basis for his pleasure
at
> what the US endured on Sept 11.

No I haven't, liar. I have pointed out the hypocrisy of those who froth at
the mouth with indignation at the military action taken against the World
Trade Center while applauding or remaining silent over mass murder
perpetrated by the American government and its allies, both in the past and
currently.

> To him, it would appear, the whole issue in the
> main is similar to a football match: points won by one sides aggression,
> validates return behaviour by the other.

No it isn't. If that were the case I would argue for the nuclear
annihilation of China and Russia. My point, which I have made very clearly
several times, was that now that people have started to fight back and give
the Americans a dose of their own medicine, perhaps the Americans will think
twice before exporting murder, mayhem and depravity across the entire globe.

> He has touched on motive,  but if we
> are to agree that war itself is the atrocity, and that statement gives
away
> many points to the terrorists in that they do aim for a high civilian
death
> count, then what started the war, or what motive can be identified,
ultimately
> defines which side is at fault?

Christ almighty! Whoever taught you to write should be shot. Just look at
that sentence and ask yourself however anyone could possible work out what
it means!

> So, if we identify the root causes and any exacerbating acts which tend to
> sustain rather than end the conflict/s in question, some sense of who is
right
> can be arrived at.

You mean whoever started it is wrong?

>   The Axis powers started WW2.

So does that excuse every single barbaric act perpetrated by their
opponents?

> Sure there may have been mitigating
> circumstances, but were they sufficient to have any bearing on the moral
> bearing of each party? In the case of WW2 I dont think so imho.

I think that the Nazis were fighting against the depravities of Bolshevism
and for more living space for their own people. I think that the latter goal
was somewhat questionable to say the least. The former was entirely correct.

> The middle east conflict is pretty complicated, but at the end of the day
who
> is trying the hardest to end that conflict? Hint: Who stands between
Arafat and
> the Israeli Prime mimister of the day for those photo opportunities?

The Americans could end that conflict immediately by taking a tight reign on
Israel.

> To cut to the chase, when has the US and or her allies *Started* a
*Conflict*
> as defined by the conventions wrt to rights to sovereignty, right to exist
> without interference etc?

Looks to me like the bombing of Afghanistan is an excellent example.

>
> Jason James
>

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:56 EDT 2001
Article: 976662 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3bd08b4b@212.67.96.135> <20011019165512.14361.00000232@mb-fq.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:32:47 +0100
Lines: 203
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bd0a8cd@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 23:27:25 GMT, 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976662


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20011019165512.14361.00000232@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 20/10/01 6:26 AM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3bd08b4b@212.67.96.135>
> >
> >
> >"Vellicet"  wrote in message
> >news:20011019160556.14361.00000226@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >> >Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
> >>
> >> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>   About DEM, one needs know nothing more than . . .
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> >> >> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very
fat
> >> >> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> >> >> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks
on
> >> >> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as
they
> >> >> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> >> >> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade
Center.
> >> >> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
> >> >>
> >> >> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Death to American capitalism!
> >> >>
> >> >> Death to international finance!
> >> >>
> >> >> David Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  DEM has used the equivelency of acts of war as a basis for his
pleasure
> >at
> >> what the US endured on Sept 11.
> >
> >No I haven't, liar.
>
> You have to be kidding. Did you or did you not express pleasure at what
you
> characterised as the down trodden traumatised victims of US aggression,
giving
> the US a bloody nose?????????????????????????????????

Certainly, but because I hope that such a bloody nose will make it think
again before exporting murder, mayhem and depravity across the earth.

>  I have pointed out the hypocrisy of those who froth at
> >the mouth with indignation at the military action taken against the World
> >Trade Center while applauding or remaining silent over mass murder
> >perpetrated by the American government and its allies, both in the past
and
> >currently.
>
>  No -one has applauded the victims of Hiroshima,

That is false.

> but you have applauded the WTC
> incident.

And I've told you why several times, and I expect I'll tell you why several
times more and it still won't penetrate.

>
> >> To him, it would appear, the whole issue in the
> >> main is similar to a football match: points won by one sides
aggression,
> >> validates return behaviour by the other.
> >
> >No it isn't. If that were the case I would argue for the nuclear
> >annihilation of China and Russia. My point, which I have made very
clearly
> >several times, was that now that people have started to fight back and
give
> >the Americans a dose of their own medicine, perhaps the Americans will
think
> >twice before exporting murder, mayhem and depravity across the entire
globe.
>
>  " Exporting murder, mayhem and depravity", when and where?

Murder? Where do I start? We've already mentioned Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
We've already mentioned its sponsorship of the murderous Israeli regime, and
its ferocious assaults on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We could cite
its adventurism in Grenada, Panama and Cuba and its disgraceful role in
bankrolling communism (which continues to this current day -- witness how
the supposedly anti-communist Bush is cozying up to the murderous regime in
China). And let us not forget American support for the terrorist African
National Congress in South Africa, either. You people worship Mandela as a
god, yet let us never forget that he described Robert McBride, who planted a
bomb in a bar on the Durban seafront, killing several people, as a 'hero'.
And we're supposed to believe that America is sincere when it goes off into
hysterics of feigned anguish over attacks in New York! Well, let me tell you
something -- I've seen the fruits of American-backed terrorism up close, and
you bastards got precisely what you deserve.

Mayhem -- look at the mess that your wonderful 'new world order' has created
in Africa, Asia and much of Eastern Europe!

Depravity. Turn on your television for a few hours and you'll see precisely
what I mean. And they export that filth all over the world now.

> >> He has touched on motive,  but if we
> >> are to agree that war itself is the atrocity, and that statement gives
> >away
> >> many points to the terrorists in that they do aim for a high civilian
> >death
> >> count, then what started the war, or what motive can be identified,
> >ultimately
> >> defines which side is at fault?
> >
> >Christ almighty! Whoever taught you to write should be shot. Just look at
> >that sentence and ask yourself however anyone could possible work out
what
> >it means!
>
>  And that is my problem David. I just cant work out your line of logic
behind
> your statements.

No Jason, your problem is more fundamental. It is a tendency to produce
sentences that do not mean anything.

> That was an attempt to construct a model if you like, of what
> you are saying.

It failed. Try again, preferably following basic rules of grammar and
syntax.

> >> So, if we identify the root causes and any exacerbating acts which tend
to
> >> sustain rather than end the conflict/s in question, some sense of who
is
> >right
> >> can be arrived at.
> >
> >You mean whoever started it is wrong?
> >
> >>   The Axis powers started WW2.
> >
> >So does that excuse every single barbaric act perpetrated by their
> >opponents?
>
> No. But you are excusing Sep 11,....get it?

Certainly. Now -- a quick test for you. What reason did I give for this?
(Clue -- scroll up.)

> >> Sure there may have been mitigating
> >> circumstances, but were they sufficient to have any bearing on the
moral
> >> bearing of each party? In the case of WW2 I dont think so imho.
> >
> >I think that the Nazis were fighting against the depravities of
Bolshevism
> >and for more living space for their own people. I think that the latter
goal
> >was somewhat questionable to say the least. The former was entirely
correct.
> >
> >> The middle east conflict is pretty complicated, but at the end of the
day
> >who
> >> is trying the hardest to end that conflict? Hint: Who stands between
> >Arafat and
> >> the Israeli Prime mimister of the day for those photo opportunities?
> >
> >The Americans could end that conflict immediately by taking a tight reign
on
> >Israel.
>
> How so? "Take Control"? Reduce aid? Leave her defenceless?

Threaten to reduce aid and leave her defenceless. :-)

> >> To cut to the chase, when has the US and or her allies *Started* a
> >*Conflict*
> >> as defined by the conventions wrt to rights to sovereignty, right to
exist
> >> without interference etc?
> >
> >Looks to me like the bombing of Afghanistan is an excellent example.
>
> Gotcha. You know that statement is false.

Then let's see your argument to substantiate your view that it is false.


David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:56 EDT 2001
Article: 976664 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135> <3BCF485C.CE861971@nizkor.org> <3bcf659d@212.67.96.135> <3BCFA0BC.925D98AC@nizkor.org> <3bd02569@212.67.96.135> <3BD034EA.C <3BD08263.BCFC414A@nizkor.org>
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:37:47 +0100
Lines: 42
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bd0a9f5@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Oct 2001 23:32:21 GMT, 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!diablo.theplanet.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976664


"Steven Mock"  wrote in message
news:3BD08263.BCFC414A@nizkor.org...
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > Fourth, even if it DID provide such a case, then it would hardly provide
a
> > case for doing this without any discernible strategic goal. We are told
that
> > the aim is to get Osama. Fine. What then? You think that Islamic
> > fundamentalism will just go away? You think that the hatred that
America's
> > actions will cause in the hearts of Afghans and the Arab world will not
come
> > back to claim its pound of flesh?
>
> Just one other thing.  Who the hell is supposedly telling us that the
> aim is to get "Osama" (on a first name basis, I see?)

Interesting point. I've heard the view that this was the objective several
times from persons interviewed on the BBC News 24 programme. I believe at
one point they were saying that they didn't necessarily have to bring down
the Taleban regime so long as they got Osama and neutralized his network and
bases.

>On the contrary,
> everything we have been told is that the aim of the American offensive
> is to destroy al-Qaeda, its active supporters, and all related terrorist
> networks operating internationally, which is precisely what they are
> doing by the most effective means possible, both in Afghanistan and
> elsewhere world-wide by other means.
>
> Steven Mock

Yes, I've heard that too. I suppose the two are not contradictory. My point
however is that, as you can see in Israel, you can kill a lot of
anti-American Moslems, but new ones always seem to spring up to take their
place.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:56 EDT 2001
Article: 976880 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135>  <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:39:04 +0100
Lines: 250
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bd17d32@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 20 Oct 2001 14:33:38 GMT, 213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!peer.news.eu-x.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-42-34.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:976880

One advantage of reading a newsgroup BACKWARDS, from most recent post to
earlier posts, is that you see the bit where they killfile you before you
waste 3 hours responding to the earlier ones! There were some interesting
points raised by this poster but no point in discussing them if he's gone.

David

"Rob Mitchell"  wrote in message
news:lawsuite-1910012245270001@hunt-pri6-a18.txucom.net...
> In article <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135>, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> > See the following schoolboy essay that answers all your points about
Japan
> > very concisely:
> >
> > http://users.erols.com/goodmank/
> >
> > 
> >
> > > But the reader should look at DEM's casualty figures,
> > > as they are as exaggerated as are his moral distinctions.
> >
> > The essay cited deals with the question of figures. It puts the total at
> > 240,000 but acknowledges that there's a lot of variance in the
estimates.
>
> It also contains some statements which undermine your own arguments:
>
> "Concurrent with the Manhattan project, both Japan and America were making
> preparations for a final all-encompassing conflict, which both sides
> expected would involve an American invasion of mainland Japan. The
> Americans expanded conventional bombing and tightened their increasingly
> successful naval blockade. The Japanese began the stockpiling of aircraft,
> amassed a giant conscripted military force, and commenced the creation of
> a civilian army--who swore total allegiance to the emperor. This
> awe-inspiring army included 'so-called 'Sherman Carpets,' children with
> dynamite strapped to their bodies and trained to throw themselves under
> American tanks."
>
> The last 2 sentences do not seem to indicate actions by a country that was
> "prepared to surrender."
>
> And:
>
> "A non-combat demonstration would have entailed either dropping the bomb
> in a desolate area with international observers or the dropping of the
> bomb on an unpopulated area of Japan. This alternative was brought up
> twice, once on 31 May 1945 at the Interim Committee Lunch and again in the
> Frank Committee report on 11 June 1945. The recommendation by the
> Scientific Panel (presided over by the four principal physicists involved
> in the Manhattan Project--Fermi, Lawrence, Compton and Oppenheimer) was to
> use the bomb only in 'direct military use.' This recommendation was
> collectively embraced by Stimson, Truman, Byrnes and others because they
> feared that the bomb might turn out to be a' dud' and thus prove
> counterproductive toward intimidating the Japanese, and also because there
> was a severe limit to the materials on hand; as Stimson later wrote 'we
> had no bombs to waste.'"
>
> Thus we see sound reasons given for not simply showing the Japanese a
> "demonstration" of the new nuclear weapon.
>
> As to whether or not the dropping of the bombs actually saved lives, there
> is this:
>
> "During fighting in the Pacific, from 1 March 1944 to 1 May 1945, the
> Japanese were killed at a ratio of 22 to 1.(44) Thus, if we use an
> estimate of 40,00 [sic] American deaths, we can extrapolate 880,000
> Japanese deaths--for a combined total of 920,000 deaths. Although death
> rates for Hiroshima and Nagasaki vary widely, none are even half this
> high. Thus we can conclude that if an invasion of Kyushu had been
> necessary, and the Japanese were killed at a rate comparable to previous
> fighting, then the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually
> saved lives."
>
> Also this article does not refute the paragraph written by Mr. Daffer, to
> whom you responded, but neglected to quote this particular bit, describing
> it instead as "dishonest nonsense":
>
> "And, if Japan was trying to 'surrender' why didn't they do it after
> Hiroshima?  Instead, they acted as if nothing had happened and went back
> to planning for an invasion where millions were going to die. In fact,
> even after the *second* bomb had been dropped the War Cabinet refused to
> surrender and even *then*, after the Emperor directed them to do so,
> several ministers attempted a coup d'etat, which failed only after one
> minister commited ritual suicide so as to simulatneously obey his Emperor
> while escaping the shame of surrendering. This is not the behaviour of
> people simply waiting for the opportunity to surrender."
>
> I have seen similar statements in enough historical studies of the war to
> be reluctant to refute them as "dishonest nonsense."  I challenge Mr.
> Michael, here & now, to provide solid documentation that no such
> resistance to surrender by the Japanese War Cabinet ever occurred, or
> immediately retract his assessment of it being "dishonest nonsense."
>
> Bottom line: this was a war, the largest war this planet has ever seen, &
> Germany & Japan were the primary aggressors, which hardly anyone
> disputes.  It is entirely possible that had Japan not seen an utter
> defeat, it would have continued to pose a danger to a large portion of the
> world.  Was The Bomb absolutely necessary?  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  But
> there is no question that it quickly ended a 6-year conflict which had
> engulfed a large portion of the world.
>
> And what, may I ask, does any of this have to do with September 11 2001?
> Islamic extremists are not even mildly concerned with Japan, or Korea, or
> Vietnam, or Pinochet in Chile, or any other of these American "atrocities"
> in any area of the world which is not primarily Islamic.  They have
> consistently expressed themselves as being concerned with 2 issues only:
>
> 1. The presence of American troops in the "Holy Land" of Islam, Saudi
> Arabia, even though those troops are there at the request of the Saudi
> Arabian government to protect it from a hostile Islamic neighbor.  An
> utterly ridiculous triviality of a grievance, much like the trivial
> grievance of another Islamic country, Iran, which remains the only country
> in the past 100 years to openly, not clandestinely, in full view of the
> world, call for a worldwide death threat on an author of an innocuous
> fictional satire on Islam which presented no danger whatsoever to Islam or
> any Muslim on this earth, & who was not American or even European in
> origin.  Thus a major Islamic regime set the example for the Islamic world
> that it is perfectly acceptable to murder an author any time one does not
> like the author's works, even if no one living on the earth can
> demonstrate that the author's works cause even the slightest danger to
> anyone.  These are the actions of extremists & fanatics, not rational
> people.  And what other religion in the world with even a tithe of the
> membership & influence of Islam consistently calls for all people which do
> not share its beliefs to immediately leave the "Holy Land" of its
> religion?  If the Muslims who believe this (including Mr. bin Laden) were
> to be consistent & not blazing hypocrites, then they must also agree that
> all non-Judeo/Christians must immediately leave the "Holy Land" of the
> entire Judeo/Christian tradition, which of course would be Israel.
>
> 2. Duh, Israel itself, of course.  So is the Israeli government a
> "terrorist" government?  Or are they merely defending themselves against
> terrorism?  Or is the truth somewhere in between?  Tell ya what: the
> Palestinians are hardly "innocent babes" in all this; they are absolutely
> as much to blame for their situation as anyone else.  During Rabin's term
> there was more talk than there had ever been before about allowing them to
> govern themselves in their own provinces, & it seemed as if a final
> resolution to this entire long conflict might just be visible on the
> horizon.  Yet Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli soldier, & even before
> that his successor, who promised to take a harder line against the
> Palestinians, had been voted into office.  Why was this?  One reason only:
> the Palestinians refused to stop committing terrorist acts & refused to
> even give diplomacy a chance.  Had they stopped their terrorism decades
> ago, it is blindingly obvious that their situation would be much better
> today.  And several Islamic regimes also share equal responsibility for
> the Palestinian situation: had they not set the world record for all of
> history for the shortest time between the creation of a country &
> declarations of war against that country, things would be far different in
> Israel today.
>
> Let's look at the IRA's terrorism.  It accomplished nothing constructive
> whatsoever for their cause.  Two decades of bombings achieved nothing but
> the consistent & stubborn refusal of the British government to grant them
> even the slightest of their demands.  Suddenly, when Jerry Adams et al
> decided to try diplomacy instead, things have gotten much better.
>
> When Martin Luther King Jr. led civil rights protests in America in the
> 1960's, he did not encourage terrorism or anything remotely like it, &
> within a decade, blacks gained several orders of magnitude more than the
> Palestinians or the IRA ever has.
>
> Palestinian terrorism, like IRA terrorism, has gained nothing but the
> stubborn refusal of the Israeli government to give them even the most
> meager of their demands.  It has accomplished nothing constructive
> whatsoever.
>
> Terrorism, on any level, has been shown repeatedly to rarely achieve its
> ultimate goals.
>
> An Islamic regime remains the only government within living memory to
> issue a worldwide death threat on an author merely because he wrote a
> perfectly harmless work of fiction which happens to contain a satire of
> Islam.  This had not the slightest thing to do with America.  This is the
> action of an uncivilized, irrational, extremist, & fanatical regime, which
> has taught the entire Islamic world that violence in retaliation for any
> perceived slight, even one made up out of thin air, is perfectly
> acceptable for its people.  And this is hardly the only Islamic regime
> which has set such an example, nor is such an example the only type which
> has been set.  If U.S. policies are entirely to blame, then why didn't
> Chilean terrorists bomb the U.S. after the CIA installed Pinochet, why
> didn't Vietnamese terrorists hijack planes (even easier to do in the 60's
> & 70's than it was on September 11 2001) & fly them into major U.S.
> buildings after the carpet bombings of Hanoi, & why didn't terrorists from
> so many other areas of the world which have grievances against the U.S.
> absolutely as legitimate (some even more so) than the Islamic world do the
> same thing?
>
> Answer: fanaticism & extremism, taught by regimes espousing an abominably
> perverse interpretation of a religion.  A religion called "Islam."
>
> As you said in your September 11 article, which quite interestingly was
> posted less than 6 hours after the WTC was first hit:
>
> "They thought they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from
> their comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty
> deals in the World Trade Center."
>
> Do explain to me how the 700 Pakistanis who were killed in the WTC were
> guilty of "dirty deeds" against the Islamic world (since they were
> presumably mostly Muslims themselves), & do also explain to me exactly how
> Cantor & Fitzgerald, whose CEO was shown weeping bitterly at the deaths of
> almost all of his WTC employees on more than one network, was guilty of
> the same thing.
>
> Or on second thought, don't.  In your article you also said:
>
> "Today was a glorious day.  May there be many others like it."
>
> So obviously you think killing 6000 people (& doing it again & again &
> again) is the proper way to respond to any grievance, rather than peaceful
> protest which was proven in the instances of MLK Jr. & Gandhi to have
> achieved far more constructive results, & further illuminate your
> incredible hypocrisy by stating in your article yesterday that,
>
> "It is truly bizarre how those who regard the 'Holocaust' with such
horror,
> and who even now are foaming at the mouth with moral self-righteousness
over
> the World Trade Center business, fall over themselves to find excuses for
> bestialities of horrific magnitude when they are perpetrated by their 'own
> side,'
>
> & labelling them as "hypocrites" in yet another article, when you yourself
> are falling all over yourself to find excuses for the bestialities of your
> side, & exulting triumphantly over them.  Plenty of Americans have
> viciously criticized certain American activities, including, I'm sure, a
> fair percentage of the thousands who were killed on 9-11, yet you think
> they all deserve to die anyway, no matter what their point of view
> actually is?  You also ended your 9-11 article with this:
>
> "Death to international finance!"
>
> "International"...so it is apparently your wish that the entire global
> ecomomy fail?  Oh good, let's all plunge back into the Stone Age & beat
> each other up with nuclear clubs.  While we're at it, why don't we end
> civilization entirely?
>
> I suspect that'll end the Palestinian problem, ya think?
>
> I have no desire to ever read again any article by such an abysmally
> fanatical & nihilistic person such as yourself, & I will now take steps to
> ensure that I will be unable ever again to see any of your articles, those
> steps primarily being:
>
> *plonk*
>
> Rob




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:56 EDT 2001
Article: 977044 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: buck turgidson address
Date: 20 Oct 2001 20:17:07 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 24
Message-ID: 
References:  <20011014200911.26726.00001855@mb-mi.aol.com> <3BD11D49.468A789E@mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003634228 12441 127.0.0.1 (21 Oct 2001 03:17:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Oct 2001 03:17:08 GMT
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:977044

Buck Turgidson  wrote in message news:<3BD11D49.468A789E@mindspring.com>...
> Nicegoy wrote:
> 
> > >Subject: buck turgidson address
> > >From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header  (Paul Kneisel)
> > >Date: 10/15/01 9:20 AM E. Australia Standard Time
> > >Message-id: 
> > >
> > >Scott Murphy
> > >3113 N Racine Ave Apt 1
> > >Chicago, IL 60657
> > >Phone: 773-880-5139
> >
> > Yaaawwwwnnnn, don't expect I'll be needing this, however if I am ever in your
> > neck of the woods, we might toss back a pint or two... how about it Buck?
> 
> I told you, Ross! I don't like you in "that way."
> 
> 
> -- Dep

Yes, I recall your interests were rather more . . . er . . . grave.

David


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:57 EDT 2001
Article: 977141 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135>  <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135>  <3bd061f4@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:06:59 +0100
Lines: 20
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.28
Message-ID: <3bd30d7d@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2001 19:01:33 GMT, 213.78.39.28
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.39.28
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:977141


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2n12lvzyi.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > From the fact that you have snipped my argument I take it that you now
> > accept it and do not wish others to see it.
>
>   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
supporters.
>
> whd
> --
> The message DEM hope's we'll all forget about.

Why did you put an apostrophe after 'hope'?




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Mon Oct 22 14:48:57 EDT 2001
Article: 977156 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20011017142603.01785.00000445@mb-fe.aol.com>   <3bce3740@212.67.96.135>  <3bceb9c1@212.67.96.135> <3BCED877.7523CC8B@nizkor.org> <4bc3e2e1.0110181035.2aa8c401@posting.google.com> <3bcf2e24@212.67.96.135>  <3bd02cdc@212.67.96.135>  <3bd061f4@212.67.96.135>  <3bd30d7d@212.67.96.135> 
Subject: Re: Tony Blair Is Insane
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:27:08 +0100
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-78-43-12.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Message-ID: <3bd32043@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2001 20:21:39 GMT, 213-78-43-12.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!212.67.96.135!213-78-43-12.friaco.onetel.net.uk
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:977156


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m2adylvw1h.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m2n12lvzyi.fsf@ulysses.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > From the fact that you have snipped my argument I take it that you
now
> > > > accept it and do not wish others to see it.
> > >
> > >   We do not negotiate with terrorists, or their morally cretinous
> > supporters.
> > >
> > > whd
> > > --
> > > The message DEM hope's we'll all forget about.
> >
> > Why did you put an apostrophe after 'hope'?
>
>
> --
> David E. Michael comments on the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, where
> Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airlines and crashed them, complete
> with crew and passengers, two into the two World Trade Center's and
> one into the Pentagon, the fourth crashing after the passengers had
> been informed of their fate and decided to risk death to save innocent
> civilisans. These four attacks had a combined death toll of over 6000
> civilians.



SIX thousand?

What evidence do you have that 'over 6000' died?

Are they going to erect a plaque saying that 'over 6000' died?

You know, like the one at Auschwitz that claimed that four million died
there.

Until they changed it . . .

David





Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.