IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: CIA report on Iraq's weapons
Sounds like it's about time to go get that fool.

Sad thing is the people that are argueing against going to get him right now, will point at that report and say "See you know he was building those things! Why did you not do something!" if he uses them and we don't do anything.

I was reading some of the post around here about the "NO Fly Zones" and I have a question to those people that don't think they are legal:

1. We have had the damn things in place for about 13 years now. If the UN thinks they are wrong, Why aren't they asking us to stop? We have always said we were supporting resolution 668(688?). Don't give me that we'd veto it bit. Koffi is always glad to disagree with us in public and he would be all over the news if he was saying the no fly zones were bad...

2. If they were sooooo bad, why didn't Clinton stop them. I mean he had 8 years to stop them. I mean Clinton and Bush are about 180 degrees apart on the political spectrum. If what I classify the main stream on both sides AGREE on something, shouldn't that give you a hint?

3. Clinton was in the same situation in 1998. anyone see a pattern here?

Before you go claiming I'm supporting one side or the other, let me say this. Both sides are wrong! We should have done something about this guy a long time ago! We are all caught up in this idea of a proportional responce. It's nuts! We established the no-fly zones and he respected them for about 16 months. Then he started firing on our people. We should have wiped his ass up then! We know he tried to have one of our presidents killed! Where's the outrage!

Both sides have avoided dealing with this issue for far too long. 9-11 has given the American people the will to do what needs to be done. We need to do it. Anyone around here really think Saddam would not use WMD on the US given the right chance?

For those worried about the elections, I do not believe we will do any fighting there before Feb. That's when the military would like to go in. Better weather for guys dressed in chem gear.

Final thought, We need a Marshal Plan for Afgan & Iraq(assuming we go in). Bush's statements tha we do not need to do nation building is 100% wrong. It's far cheaper to do what we did for Europe and Japan than to keep going back in every few years. I'm not saying we go in and take over, but we should give them a good starting point.

I don't get a chance to post around here too often, so I expect the normal crowd to talk about how evil we are.

Ah well, have fun guys...

James
New Re: CIA report on Iraq's weapons
Have fun with these couple of cartoons

[link|http://zmag.org/cartoons/toons//934.jpg|http://zmag.org/car...ons//934.jpg]

[link|http://zmag.org/cartoons/toons//935.jpg|http://zmag.org/car...ons//935.jpg]

Oh BTW, Israel's OCCUPATION of Palestinian's land has been UN resolutions for how many years? Does the US or you care?

Where's the airstrikes against Israel for non-compliance to UN resolutions? Or taking them out because of their NUCLEAR capability (hey, we're talking REAL Nuclear capability for Israel and not "probable" like Iraq) and WMD?

Where's the NO FLY zone?

IT'S ABOUT OIL!
Expand Edited by TTC Oct. 7, 2002, 12:58:23 AM EDT
Expand Edited by TTC Oct. 7, 2002, 01:00:29 AM EDT
New what occupation, what palestinian land?
In 1948 Israel was declared a state by the UN the only one declared at that time. Please cite the resolution declaring palestine to be an independant state and not part of the hashemite kingdom of Jordan. Please read the history texts,
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New But, when Israel was declared a state...
they were supposed to have about 50% of what was called Palestine and religious places were to be under UN control. The city of Jerusalem was to belong to neither the "Jewish" or "Arab" state! The boundaries of the "Arab State" are well described. See link below.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947:
Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.
The Israelis want 100% - The Greater Land of Israel.
Alex

The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
New back atcher :-)
[link|http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1431|Sharon's view]
"The most widely accepted myth of Arab propagandists is that Jewish communities (AKA: settlements) in Judea and Samaria (AKA: The West Bank) are an obstacle to peace. The opposite is true: They are a barrier to the final jihad planned by Yasser Arafat and his unholy warriors.
Jewish roots are sunk deep in the hill country of Judea and Samaria \ufffd the region\ufffds names from Biblical times until the Jordanian occupation of 1948-1967, when the Hashemite Kingdom renamed the area the West Bank (of the Jordan) to falsify a claim to the land."
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New The Palestinians are children of Arbraham!
So is this then a religious war? The Zionist version of the Crusades?

The reference to Hitler is amusing. Please contrast Warsaw ghetto and the "curfew" of 800K Palestinians. Could you imagine what would happen is there were no modern communications in the area. Crematoriums in the Nageb, anyone?

Yeh, the swastika (haken-kreuz) is just a cross.
Alex

The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
New But they ate the soup ana deals a deal
What is happening on the west bank makes it imperative that the Palestinians have a state since no one but themselves really gives a shit if they lived or die, just like the jews. The reference that I understood was the indefensability of the 67 borders. I think thet Israel should pull back unilaterally. The settlers become palestinian citizens or move and the ensuing bloodbath (or not) will give Israel a green light to own all of palestine or have a superior economy with partnerships with the new state, Jordan and lebanon. Time will tell which happens.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New Re: Bill's right re partitioning of Palestine
Trans-jordan existed before the state of Israel came into existance. The formation of Israel was pretty much a way that Europe tried to atone for its sins over the past 800 years during which anti jewish pogroms became a national sport in almost *all* parts of Europe but particularly Germany & Spain. Some links ...

[link|http://carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zreligion/Islamhall/cas/2551.html|Persecution of Jews in Europe]
[link|http://www.yovel.org/yovel_history_latermedieval.asp|Interesting chronology]

A group of Jews in the 1890s who became known as Zionists - [link|http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/zion.html|(link to history of Zionism)] had been lobbying for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine so the Jews could once again get control of their own destiny. For obvious reasons they had little to no faith in anyone else having their interests at heart, even the US (at that time). Then the second world war Hitler created the 'Jewish Problem' & had a solution this in turn created what was known afterwards as the 'Jewish Question' & Great Britain began to champion the cause of a Jewish homeland. US also began to support the idea where the Zionists had established a solid base of support among American Jews. Jews began moving into the Palestine region throughout the 1st half of the 20th century & the Palestinan Arabs became increasingly alarmed & hostile.

Just before the declaration of the state of Israel, there were three sides all armed to the teeth. The Jews with home made & smuggled guns & bombs - the Arabs with the same and also backed in part by the soon to be formed Jordainian army & other Arabs, - and The UN force (mostly British). Once the state was declared in 1948, the next day was war & Israel lost part of its territory but survived, they also managed to capture some small areas. Terror and mayhem was committed by both sides (e.g. 'Deir Yassien' one of the worst attacks - [link|http://www.pnic.gov.ps/arabic/quds/quds_e_infring1.html|A list of the attacks the budding Israelis carried out on Arab villages]

The Arabs also did similar to the Jews but perhaps not in the numbers the Jews achived against them).
[link|http://pnews.org/art/4art/shofar.shtml|Palestinians blowing up Jews started a long time ago] ----- [link|http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_jews_why.php|a better history of the massacres of Jews]

Many Arabs panicked after the Deir Yassin massacre & their fear was whipped up by other Arabs esp ther grand mufti of Jerusalem. The fleeing of these Arabs created the 'Palestinan Problem'. Israel closed its borders after the ceasefire & refused to allow any of them to return to their homes. Over time the Palestinans began to adopt terror tactics against the west in order to get attention to their demands for their own homeland and the right to return to Arab lands left behind in the new Israel. War by the Arabs had only led to greater losses to the Jews. This created even more refugees. The occupied lands were those lands the Jews siezed in the 1967 war, from Jordan. In 1973 there was also the 'Yom Kippur' war which was a surprise attack against Israel that nearly succeeded but ended when the US stopped Israel from invading & surrounding the defeated Egyptian army in Egypt.

Subsequently the Jews in an attempt to resolve the Palestinian problem attempted peace with Jordan & Egypt (for which Egypt's PM, Mr Sadat, was assasinated). This was supposed to lead to the setting up of a homeland for the Palestinains but neither side really made it. The Oslo seemed to be the great breakthrough but common hatred & mistrust & the inability to resolve all the issues esp refugees, caused the peace effort to fail. Arafat was mostly to blame for the failure by he and Barak (of Israel) to seal a deal under Clinton's presidency. That really was their best hope. Now it will be a 'peace' forced on the Palestinians by aggressive Jews under Sharon who have no more patience for negotiations. Not a good omen.

***************************************

As bizzare as it sounds, this 'Jewish Question' problem goes right back to the inability of the Romans to control Jewish extremists who resented Romans being in their holy land (now does this story begin to sound in any way familiar ???). The romans after 100s of years of trouble & insurrection decide to wipe out Israel.

After two major (66AD & 132AD) and many minor Jewish revolts the Romans in 70AD went in and sacked Jerusalem & tore down their holy temple. Both then and in 132 AD [link| http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberessays.com%2FHistory%2F95.htm|(Bar Kochba Revolt}], the Jews that weren't slaughtered in these insurrections were rounded up & in a sort of act of humnity, the Romans dispersed them to all parts of the Roman empire - these Jews became known as part of the great 'Diaspora'. Because of their piety & intensity (special relationship with God) most Jews kept their religion & customs and because of this tended to be persecuted as being different. The Romans also under the Christian church of Saul (St Paul) shifted the blame for the death of Jesus to the Jews which added a religious reason to persecute them.

Mohammud at first regarded the Jews with some respect but in time he developed a hostility to them & was responsible for slaughtering some in a famous incident where he gave a particular group the choice of Allah or death, that subsequently set the scene for the Arab attitude to them (this was pretty odd because they had the same God).

Anyway back to Palestine.

Most people agree that the Palestinains need their own country. The problem is getting there.

Doug Marker

New Clinton is not/was not/will never be God.
If they were sooooo bad, why didn't Clinton stop them.
Because Clinton is not the embodiment of all that is Good.

Okay, for everyone who STILL has a problem with this concept......

It is POSSIBLE to oppose Bush's actions WITHOUT believing that Clinton was flawless.

I mean he had 8 years to stop them.
See above.

I mean Clinton and Bush are about 180 degrees apart on the political spectrum.
Really? The Defense of Marriage Act. Have I made that clear enough?

If what I classify the main stream on both sides AGREE on something, shouldn't that give you a hint?
Yes, it means that your definitions are wrong.

Clinton was "right" of "center". Bush is FURTHER "right".

It's like arguing over which is less Democratic, Fascism or Soviet Communism.

Well, since the Russians opposed Hitler and supported us in WWII, that means that they're Democratic like us.

Before you go claiming I'm supporting one side or the other, let me say this. Both sides are wrong!
Cool. You say that others are either for or against one or the other but you can see a third option.

We should have done something about this guy a long time ago!
Why? What threat is he to us? Why do >WE< have to do something about him?

We are all caught up in this idea of a proportional responce. It's nuts!
Ummm, he hasn't even attacked us yet. How can any "responce" be "proportional"?

Oh, when someone does NOT attack you, you can attack him because you think that he might, in the future, possibly get a weapon and then he MIGHT attack you?

"Proportional"? No.

What is "proportional" to zero?

We established the no-fly zones and he respected them for about 16 months. Then he started firing on our people. We should have wiped his ass up then!
Okay, I'm guessing that you don't understand what "no-fly zone" means. It means that if Iraqi aircraft fly in Iraqi airspace, we can shoot them down.

We know he tried to have one of our presidents killed! Where's the outrage!
Perhaps you missed my posts where members of our current regime are going on the airwaves advocating that we have Saddam assassinated.

So, we can assassinate, but they can't. Love that "logic".

Both sides have avoided dealing with this issue for far too long.
What issue? Someone who hasn't attacked us is a "bad man"? So what? What makes Saddam any different from Yasser or Castro? Why aren't we going after Yasser or Castro?

Answer: It's the oil.

9-11 has given the American people the will to do what needs to be done.
No. It's given the current regime an excuse to establish a US military presence on a prime oil site. The US will establish control of the oil in that region.

I don't get a chance to post around here too often, so I expect the normal crowd to talk about how evil we are.
Whatever. You post tripe that's been refuted before, with specific examples and you make the same old allegations (if you aren't for Bush's war, then you're for Clinton).

Rather than a drive-by posting of old, refuted arguments, why don't you focus on refuting the refutations of those arguments?

Naw. Strangely enough, the people FOR the war seem to lack facts but not "patriotism" nor "bravery".

The simple fact is that Saddam is TODAY, less of a threat to the US and its allies than the PLO is. Yet we aren't going after the PLO.

Nor are we going after Castro who is right next door to us. And who has a history of abusing his people.

In fact, the list of people we are NOT going after is rather long.

There is one key difference between them and Saddam.

Saddam has oil.
New Re: Switch on brain !!!
You asked for this <grin>

" I was reading some of the post around here about the "NO Fly Zones" and I have a question to those people that don't think they are legal:

1. We have had the damn things in place for about 13 years now. If the UN thinks they are wrong, Why aren't they asking us to stop? We have always said we were supporting resolution 668(688?). Don't give me that we'd veto it bit. Koffi is always glad to disagree with us in public and he would be all over the news if he was saying the no fly zones were bad..."

1) 'legal' ??? - what f*** has legality got to do with it. When you are the world's only superpower & impose a no fly zone on another country it is 'enforced' !!! - whoose legality are you looking for ???? - most of us were happy
to see US correct their appaling f***-up re encoutraging the kurds to revolt then being left to Iraqi massacre when US failed to back them up. I for one felt the shame of seeing those poor bastards fleeing in panic from the Iraqi army after they had first siezed control of northern Iraq at our urging.

2) "UN thinks they are wrong" ??? - who the f*** said that - all we said was that the no-fly zones were (read my lips) *not* imposed by the UN !!! - where is the mystery or problem with that ??? - certain brainless people claimed or directly implied that the no-fly zones were legal UN orders - Bush even tried implying this but his implications were (if not dishonest) plain wrong.

There are many of us here who are smart enough to know the difference between facts - mistakes - deceptions - misleading impressions & plain lies.

It seems that are also many who just can't tell the difference & who are dumb enough to go into print without checking their facts or the quality of their information - this would be forgiveable if ever these people acknowledged their mistakes instead of (as is the case with certain people (or bots)) rolling on to the next set of 're-interpretations of the facts'

Cheers

Doug Marker
(not all aimed at your post)

#2 Just wanted to add - today I read that many of the German Bader-Meinhoff gang were originally (before they became murderous terrorists) just young Germans pissed off at their elders for so willingly supporting Hitler - they were so pissed off they started killing ex NAZI officials in Germany.

Watchout that your own children or grandchildren don't form such a gang & come after you or your peers - some of you are in serious danger of it.

Expand Edited by dmarker2 Oct. 7, 2002, 06:17:57 AM EDT
New re Bader-Meinhoff___US branch
Well.. anything's possible - depending upon all the conceivable consequences of the next 'regime change' (and after all of Sen. Hatch's prayers heard just now on NPR's coverage of Senate hearings) on behalf of the Citizens of Utah - Natch: God, save Our Boys\ufffd from harm..

(Now as to what you do to Their Boys, well - you Are on Our Side, God, aintcha -?- or yer a Terrorist too.)

I can't see current crop of US consumer-offspring, with cel-fones, expensive Logo-ed baggy pants; not a clue about math, history, civics or much else.. forming any such vendettas whatsoever

('cept maybe gettin the $16-18 per Cee Dee to hear *Other* folks [brave with distance from danger] rap about them bitches and the usual excrescences of people with neither direction nor discrimination to form one - nor any intention to look for such.)

Nope, Bader-M folks began from pissed-offishness of the usual kind: Our Parents screwed up Royally. Incestuous self-indoctrination within the illusion of Retribution led to ... the same sort of 'justice' as with the Christians VS queers (or any other heretics). Neither did Bader-M or most Xians more than gloss over, vengeance is mine, saith the Lord and other cautions to retard homo-saps - enroute to vigilantism and massive egotism. But their org. indeed consisted of dedicated types and a POV.

Both would be missing from most 'impressionable youth' in our consumption and feel-good besotted culture, y'know? But WTF - maybe a few anyway! Nothing better to do except shop.. and when that gets too boring and after the 300th Cee Dee with the same chords and maudlin lyrics as the other 299 [??]
After all, the poverty of one's psyche - begins from being carefully taught trite homilies by a shallow parent within a banal culture.
New Now the German youths are shaving their heads and putting
the boot in to non white immegrants and Jews again, just like the good old days, doesnt take long, one generation to suffer the horror of all out war and keep silence after it. One generation to be sickened when they found out what their parents did and one that thinks granda was right.

Over here we have a generation that straightened the nazi's and nips out, came home and shut their mouths and got to work. Their kids were the questioning ones fighting a war that didnt make any sense and revolted against the silence then sold the american dream for a corner office. Their kids are the money hungry dotbombers who think that the world owes them 6 figures and a porche out of highschool, or spawning kids who will join the absolute underclass of society and we start all over again.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New Wow! Box..
Brevity Award with Silence is Golden epaulets!

(It may be a leetle more complex than that, but not much)



[cackle]
New Re: Switch on brain !!!
> You asked for this <grin>
>
> " I was reading some of the post around here about the "NO Fly Zones" and I have a >question to those people that don't think they are legal:
>
> 1. We have had the damn things in place for about 13 years now. If the UN thinks >they are wrong, Why aren't they asking us to stop? We have always said we were >supporting resolution 668(688?). Don't give me that we'd veto it bit. Koffi is >always glad to disagree with us in public and he would be all over the news if he >was saying the no fly zones were bad..."
>
> 1) 'legal' ??? - what f*** has legality got to do with it. When you are the >world's only superpower & impose a no fly zone on another country it >is 'enforced' !!! - whoose legality are you looking for ???? - most of us were happy
> to see US correct their appaling f***-up re encoutraging the kurds to revolt then >being left to Iraqi massacre when US failed to back them up. I for one felt the >shame of seeing those poor bastards fleeing in panic from the Iraqi army after they >had first siezed control of northern Iraq at our urging.
>

Ok so the no fly zones are cool with you...

> 2) "UN thinks they are wrong" ??? - who the f*** said that - all we said was that >the no-fly zones were (read my lips) *not* imposed by the UN !!! - where is the >mystery or problem with that ??? - certain brainless people claimed or directly >implied that the no-fly zones were legal UN orders - Bush even tried implying this >but his implications were (if not dishonest) plain wrong.
>
> There are many of us here who are smart enough to know the difference between >facts - mistakes - deceptions - misleading impressions & plain lies.
>
> It seems that are also many who just can't tell the difference & who are dumb >enough to go into print without checking their facts or the quality of their >information - this would be forgiveable if ever these people acknowledged their >mistakes instead of (as is the case with certain people (or bots)) rolling on to >the next set of 're-interpretations of the facts'
>
> Cheers
>
> Doug Marker
>

Doug,

My point is I see a difference. Saying we have the no fly zones to support the UN resolutions is not a lie. Ok, nowhere do the resolutions say "Establish no fly zones." Just like the resolutions aimed at getting Iraq out of Kwait(sp, late, lazy) did not say it's OK to bomb Bagdad. The UN resolutions gave us an inch, we took a mile. It's kind of the way those things work.

My whole point is that argueing about this now is pointless. The no fly zones exist. They will be there until Saddam goes away.

Switch brain on and Move on.....

james
New Re: But if claims are made, they should stand ..

Some of us a merely pointing out that many claims made about Iraq are either mistakes, are deceptions or plain lies.

I haven't seen one person here argue that Saddam is not a thuggish dictator deserving of a swift visit to Allah. The arguments have been mostly about the claims as to why at this time US can justify a *unilateral* attack when there is clearly worldwide and UN opposition to a war call.

The republicans are playing with the facts & truth. They don't have UN backing - hence the hints that the UN will be sidelined unless the scurity council 'rolls over'. I know bare faced threats when I hear them - I hope you do too.

Bush keeps claiming to speak on behalf of the world - *a bare faced lie*.

Bush says he has a coalition. Again a complete distortion in that he has Italy and UK whoose PMs both do *not* have the support of their own countries other than to act through the UN. Australian PM has offered Bush support but the vast majority of Australians are telling Howard that it must be through the UN.

When a president keeps lying, the world is a dangerous place - some of us begin to wonder who the bigger threat to peace is and as awful as it sounds, Bush's lack of facts & justifications paints an awful picture of his administration & in turns puts the whole US in a bad light in the world.

But what the f*** as I said before when you are the only superpoer f*** the rest of the world & that seems to be the republican mantra based on their actions.

Cheers

Doug

New Whatever.
My point is I see a difference. Saying we have the no fly zones to support the UN resolutions is not a lie. Ok, nowhere do the resolutions say "Establish no fly zones."
That's right. No where does it state that. No where.

Just like the resolutions aimed at getting Iraq out of Kwait(sp, late, lazy) did not say it's OK to bomb Bagdad.
Ummmm, an invasionary force went into another country and we went to war against said invasionary force. We were NOT acting upon a UN resolution at that time.

The UN resolutions gave us an inch, we took a mile. It's kind of the way those things work.
Only when it is us.

By your same "logic", it would be "okay" for us to start bombing Israel whenever the UN sanctions them.

Now, something for you to realize is that the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD has no problem seeing Bush's rationalizations for what they are.

The UN passes a resolution requesting humanitarian aid for the Kurds and we interpret that to mean we can kill Iraqis.

Request: "Please help the homeless in this season of giving."

Translation: "I can shoot landlords."

Again, the entire rest of the world sees Bush's rationalizations for what they are. There isn't one other country that supports our unilateral invasion.

What was that you said about UN resolutions? When they say "humanitarian aid", we think "shoot pilots". Yet when the UN will NOT support our invasion plans, we will go ahead unilaterally.

So, when the UN supports our plans, we do what we want.

When the UN doesn't support our plans, we do what we want.

When the UN passes a resolution, we interpret it to mean that we can do what we want.

I'm seeing a pattern here. I'm not sure if everyone else is.
New Re: Pattern is very clear ...

We iz de supapowa - we sez wot goez - don't fuk wid us !!!!

Blat blat blat - Boom - blat blat - Boom - Blatt - Kerummmmppphhhhh - KA-Whooooosh

You got da message yet ???

(with appologies to Rambo)

Cheers

Doug Marker <sickly grin>
New are you apologizing to the porn star who whined out of nam
or the character? :-) Always thought he reminded me of the chickenhawks, looked tough talked tough and when he was filming in the ME and it got dicey he goes, "Im just an actor" and weaseled home.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New Re: Whatever.
>
>By your same "logic", it would be "okay" for us to start bombing Israel whenever the UN sanctions them.
>

Well, maybe, depends on what they are doing....

>
>Now, something for you to realize is that the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD has no problem seeing Bush's rationalizations for what they are.
>

Thanks, sometimes there is a fine line between a rationalization and a lie.

Oh and NEWS FLASH, the British still have planes flying to protect the no fly zones. So much for the "ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD", Oh, forgot about the Israels. Bet they have no problem with it. Oh, forgot about what's left of the Kurds and Shittes(sp? again). Bet they don't have a problem with it either. Damn, that entire rest of the world actually gets smaller and smaller when you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE FACTS.

Of course, you are not REALLY interested in the facts. You want to make claims like "ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD" and have people believe it as fact.

BSSSSTTTT would you like to try for double jepordy?

James
New Re: Sorry, but we have a low mips problem here!!!
New Re: Yep, you are due an upgrade...
     CIA report on Iraq's weapons - (admin) - (21)
         Re: CIA report on Iraq's weapons - (staijo) - (20)
             Re: CIA report on Iraq's weapons - (TTC) - (6)
                 what occupation, what palestinian land? - (boxley) - (5)
                     But, when Israel was declared a state... - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                         back atcher :-) - (boxley) - (2)
                             The Palestinians are children of Arbraham! - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 But they ate the soup ana deals a deal - (boxley)
                     Re: Bill's right re partitioning of Palestine - (dmarker2)
             Clinton is not/was not/will never be God. - (Brandioch)
             Re: Switch on brain !!! - (dmarker2) - (11)
                 re Bader-Meinhoff___US branch - (Ashton)
                 Now the German youths are shaving their heads and putting - (boxley) - (1)
                     Wow! Box.. - (Ashton)
                 Re: Switch on brain !!! - (staijo) - (7)
                     Re: But if claims are made, they should stand .. - (dmarker2)
                     Whatever. - (Brandioch) - (5)
                         Re: Pattern is very clear ... - (dmarker2) - (1)
                             are you apologizing to the porn star who whined out of nam - (boxley)
                         Re: Whatever. - (staijo) - (2)
                             Re: Sorry, but we have a low mips problem here!!! -NT - (dmarker2) - (1)
                                 Re: Yep, you are due an upgrade... -NT - (staijo)

Living in our own private Idaho.
234 ms