soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Iran, Iraq Crises Converge Despite U.S. Hardliners - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c2acc3e63af008fa
* Christian convert risks death penalty - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/22e43fa36dad70e1
* Three Ways to Remember Rachel - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
* Do you have a moment to help Impeach President Bush? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/910b4b1caac725a9
* U.S. threatens to bomb Iran sites “after a month” – report - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/583703541ea98dfb
* FBI ignored 911 warning - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c1ada38049163080
* US WANTS TO 'COOL' DOWN ISRAEL THROUGH IRAN TALKS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1a717520cfdf30bb
* Racism still rife in US, says China - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d9b7345c735cc004
* Australia - Uranium to China: it's a deal - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1e8d41633c73eca5
* Jobs That Americans Won't Do ?? Think Again - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5f87ba45eaeed9fb
* A Question "Pro-Life" Christians Are Too Cowardly to Answer - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1f0d605fcbcefff0
* The Zionist Lobby and American Foreign Policy - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/95abc7205c5ce432
* PENTAGON PREPARING FOR CONFLICT WITH CHINA - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f420176900d34d72
* International Stuff - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/095f40fc54bbdf6d
* We can't blame the Palestinians for Israel's economic mess - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f6c780a8745e913
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Iran, Iraq Crises Converge Despite U.S. Hardliners
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c2acc3e63af008fa
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 1:41 am
From: "DoD"
[We better leave Iran alone. We have no business meddling in their affairs]
WASHINGTON - The agreement last week between Washington and Iran to hold
direct talks on Iraq has forged a new linkage between the Iraq and Iran
crises.
Hardliners in the George W. Bush administration are resisting any linkage
between the two crises, because they want to avoid pressure for a broader
settlement with Iran.
But they have already lost the battle against talks with Iran on the
stabilisation of Iraq. Those negotiations are likely to increase the
pressure for bilateral negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme and Iranian
security concerns.
The convergence of the two issues is being driven both by the need of the
United States and Iraqi political factions for Iranian help in resolving the
sectarian violence and political deadlock in Iraq, and by Iran's desire to
reach a broader settlement with Washington.
The U.S. reactions to the Iranian acceptance of talks on Iraq reveal a sharp
contrast in the attitudes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other
administration officials toward the talks.
Before flying to Australia, Rice said the talks with Iran on Iraq "could be
useful". The following day, however, some administration officials began to
denigrate the value of those talks. White House National Security Adviser
Stephen J. Hadley said they were "simply a device by the Iranians to try to
divert pressure that they are feeling in New York".
Hadley suggested that there was no need for the United States to talk with
Iran at all, because, "We're talking to Iran all the time: We make
statements, they make statements."
The same day a "senior U.S. official", speaking to reporters while demanding
anonymity, called the Iranian offer of talks "a stunt" and said Washington
would participate only to avoid "criticisms that it did not do all it can do
to defuse bloody tensions in Iraq". And a White House official sought out
reporters to say the Iranian offer was "almost puffery".
The attacks by those associated with the administration's hard-line policy
toward Iran revealed sharp differences over which is more important --
isolating Iran diplomatically, or taking advantage of its influence within
the Shi'a political leadership in Iraq to help settle the crisis there.
The Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld group, whose views were expressed by Hadley
and the anonymous officials minimising the importance of talks with Iran,
clearly care less about what happens in Iraq than they do about maintaining
the policy of implicit, if not explicit regime change in Tehran.
Rice and Khalilzad, however, are apparently willing to risk a weakening or
breach of the policy of isolating and threatening Iran, because they
recognise the desperation of the sectarian-political situation in Iraq and
believe Iran could help.
Since late last year, Bush has sided with Rice and Khalilzad against Cheney
and Rumsfeld, when they prevailed on Bush to authorise talks with Iran on
the Iraq crisis. In late December or early January, Khalilzad dispatched a
message to Iranian authorities proposing cooperation on Iraq, according to
the London-based Arab-language newspaper Al-Hayat.
The Cheney-Rumsfeld group did not attack the decision then, because they
were confident that Iran would reject an invitation for discussions limited
solely to Iraq. Iran's foreign minister quickly confirmed that belief by
declaring that Iran would not agree to those terms.
Khalilzad has apparently repeated his proposal to Iran to discus the
stabilisation of Iraq more recently. According to a Mar. 12 article in the
London Sunday Times by Lindsey Hilsum, the international editor of London's
Channel 4 news, a senior Iranian intelligence official said that the U.S.
invitation of talks on Iraq had been "renewed" in late February.
This time, the Iranians did not reject the U.S. proposal. Their willingness
to help stabilise the situation in Iraq without any commitment to broader
talks reflects the increased perception in Tehran of a danger of military
confrontation with Washington.
Since the Iranian rejection of Khalilzad's earlier proposal for talks, the
Bush administration has stepped up its pressure on Tehran over the nuclear
issue and orchestrated a campaign to take the nuclear issue to the Security
Council.
In agreeing to help the United States on Iraq, the Iranians are primarily
interested in the possibility of using talks on Iraq as a bridge to broader
diplomatic negotiations with Washington. The Iranian intelligence official
told Hilsum that Tehran would accept the U.S. offer for talks but wanted
them to be in a neutral country, hoping they would eventually lead to a
dialogue on the nuclear issue as well.
In announcing Tehran's acceptance of U.S. terms for the talks, Ali Larijani,
Iran's chief negotiator on its nuclear programme, who is known to be close
to the supreme leader of the regime, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, hinted at the
desire to reach an accommodation with Washington on nuclear and other
issues.
"If the Americans stop their troublemaking in the region and if they examine
their previous conduct and behaviour, a lot of things may happen," he said.
The hardliners in Washington are determined to avoid just such negotiations
on Iran's nuclear programme. No sooner had the Iranian agreement to discuss
Iraq been made public on Mar. 16 than Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns
publicly ruled out any discussions with Iran on the nuclear issue.
He asserted that any such negotiations would be "futile in view of the
country's track record on the issue". But he also revealed that rejecting
negotiations on the nuclear enrichment is part of the administration's
strategy of pressure on Iran, referring to its "calculationàthat it is
better to isolate the Iranian regime."
Although the administration seeks to keep cooperation with Iran over the
crisis in Iraq separate from its strategy of isolation of Iran, the
evolution of the Iraq crisis may make such separation impossible. The
discussions on Iraq will have to involve various political formulas which
the United States and Iran could both support. Iran would be asked to help
sell the militant Shiite parties on a settlement plan with unpalatable
compromises for those same parties.
If the Iranians become more deeply involved in the internal negotiation in
Iraq, and the usefulness of their role becomes widely recognised, it will
certainly be more difficult for the United States to resist
political-diplomatic pressures to talk with Tehran about the larger issues
threatening the peace of the region -- Iran's nuclear programme and the U.S.
efforts to isolate and destabilise the regime.
Ironically, Iran's assistance in brokering a Shiite-Sunni political
compromise has been sought by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI, the
largest party in the dominant Shiite alliance.
Sunni political leaders, meanwhile, have rejected the idea of U.S.-Iranian
talks on a settlement, despite the fact that the Iranian support is
necessary to get the Shiites to agree on key Sunni demands.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-02.htm
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 1:47 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:61nUf.14027$Eg2.289@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil>
wrote:
> [We better leave Iran alone. We have no business meddling in their
> affairs]
If Iran didn't want other countries "meddling" in its affairs, it should
never have joined the UN, and then signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 2:16 am
From: "Mark Donovan"
"DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:61nUf.14027$Eg2.289@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> [We better leave Iran alone. We have no business meddling in their
> affairs]
>
> WASHINGTON - The agreement last week between Washington and Iran to hold
> direct talks on Iraq has forged a new linkage between the Iraq and Iran
> crises.
>
The only linkage here is that the US is establishing the extreme
ultra-fundamentalist islamic regimes in both countries.
Mark
> Hardliners in the George W. Bush administration are resisting any linkage
> between the two crises, because they want to avoid pressure for a broader
> settlement with Iran.
>
> But they have already lost the battle against talks with Iran on the
> stabilisation of Iraq. Those negotiations are likely to increase the
> pressure for bilateral negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme and
> Iranian security concerns.
>
> The convergence of the two issues is being driven both by the need of the
> United States and Iraqi political factions for Iranian help in resolving
> the sectarian violence and political deadlock in Iraq, and by Iran's
> desire to reach a broader settlement with Washington.
>
> The U.S. reactions to the Iranian acceptance of talks on Iraq reveal a
> sharp contrast in the attitudes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
> other administration officials toward the talks.
>
> Before flying to Australia, Rice said the talks with Iran on Iraq "could
> be useful". The following day, however, some administration officials
> began to denigrate the value of those talks. White House National Security
> Adviser Stephen J. Hadley said they were "simply a device by the Iranians
> to try to divert pressure that they are feeling in New York".
>
> Hadley suggested that there was no need for the United States to talk with
> Iran at all, because, "We're talking to Iran all the time: We make
> statements, they make statements."
>
> The same day a "senior U.S. official", speaking to reporters while
> demanding anonymity, called the Iranian offer of talks "a stunt" and said
> Washington would participate only to avoid "criticisms that it did not do
> all it can do to defuse bloody tensions in Iraq". And a White House
> official sought out reporters to say the Iranian offer was "almost
> puffery".
>
> The attacks by those associated with the administration's hard-line policy
> toward Iran revealed sharp differences over which is more important --
> isolating Iran diplomatically, or taking advantage of its influence within
> the Shi'a political leadership in Iraq to help settle the crisis there.
>
> The Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld group, whose views were expressed by
> Hadley and the anonymous officials minimising the importance of talks with
> Iran, clearly care less about what happens in Iraq than they do about
> maintaining the policy of implicit, if not explicit regime change in
> Tehran.
>
> Rice and Khalilzad, however, are apparently willing to risk a weakening or
> breach of the policy of isolating and threatening Iran, because they
> recognise the desperation of the sectarian-political situation in Iraq and
> believe Iran could help.
>
> Since late last year, Bush has sided with Rice and Khalilzad against
> Cheney and Rumsfeld, when they prevailed on Bush to authorise talks with
> Iran on the Iraq crisis. In late December or early January, Khalilzad
> dispatched a message to Iranian authorities proposing cooperation on Iraq,
> according to the London-based Arab-language newspaper Al-Hayat.
>
> The Cheney-Rumsfeld group did not attack the decision then, because they
> were confident that Iran would reject an invitation for discussions
> limited solely to Iraq. Iran's foreign minister quickly confirmed that
> belief by declaring that Iran would not agree to those terms.
>
> Khalilzad has apparently repeated his proposal to Iran to discus the
> stabilisation of Iraq more recently. According to a Mar. 12 article in the
> London Sunday Times by Lindsey Hilsum, the international editor of
> London's Channel 4 news, a senior Iranian intelligence official said that
> the U.S. invitation of talks on Iraq had been "renewed" in late February.
>
> This time, the Iranians did not reject the U.S. proposal. Their
> willingness to help stabilise the situation in Iraq without any commitment
> to broader talks reflects the increased perception in Tehran of a danger
> of military confrontation with Washington.
>
> Since the Iranian rejection of Khalilzad's earlier proposal for talks, the
> Bush administration has stepped up its pressure on Tehran over the nuclear
> issue and orchestrated a campaign to take the nuclear issue to the
> Security Council.
>
> In agreeing to help the United States on Iraq, the Iranians are primarily
> interested in the possibility of using talks on Iraq as a bridge to
> broader diplomatic negotiations with Washington. The Iranian intelligence
> official told Hilsum that Tehran would accept the U.S. offer for talks but
> wanted them to be in a neutral country, hoping they would eventually lead
> to a dialogue on the nuclear issue as well.
>
> In announcing Tehran's acceptance of U.S. terms for the talks, Ali
> Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator on its nuclear programme, who is known
> to be close to the supreme leader of the regime, Ayatollah Ali Khameini,
> hinted at the desire to reach an accommodation with Washington on nuclear
> and other issues.
>
> "If the Americans stop their troublemaking in the region and if they
> examine their previous conduct and behaviour, a lot of things may happen,"
> he said.
>
> The hardliners in Washington are determined to avoid just such
> negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme. No sooner had the Iranian
> agreement to discuss Iraq been made public on Mar. 16 than Undersecretary
> of State Nicholas Burns publicly ruled out any discussions with Iran on
> the nuclear issue.
>
> He asserted that any such negotiations would be "futile in view of the
> country's track record on the issue". But he also revealed that rejecting
> negotiations on the nuclear enrichment is part of the administration's
> strategy of pressure on Iran, referring to its "calculationàthat it is
> better to isolate the Iranian regime."
>
> Although the administration seeks to keep cooperation with Iran over the
> crisis in Iraq separate from its strategy of isolation of Iran, the
> evolution of the Iraq crisis may make such separation impossible. The
> discussions on Iraq will have to involve various political formulas which
> the United States and Iran could both support. Iran would be asked to help
> sell the militant Shiite parties on a settlement plan with unpalatable
> compromises for those same parties.
>
> If the Iranians become more deeply involved in the internal negotiation in
> Iraq, and the usefulness of their role becomes widely recognised, it will
> certainly be more difficult for the United States to resist
> political-diplomatic pressures to talk with Tehran about the larger issues
> threatening the peace of the region -- Iran's nuclear programme and the
> U.S. efforts to isolate and destabilise the regime.
>
> Ironically, Iran's assistance in brokering a Shiite-Sunni political
> compromise has been sought by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI,
> the largest party in the dominant Shiite alliance.
>
> Sunni political leaders, meanwhile, have rejected the idea of U.S.-Iranian
> talks on a settlement, despite the fact that the Iranian support is
> necessary to get the Shiites to agree on key Sunni demands.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-02.htm
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christian convert risks death penalty
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/22e43fa36dad70e1
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 1:48 am
From: "Mark Donovan"
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bWmUf.2167$KC3.1178@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mark Donovan" <mdon@don.org> wrote in message
> news:kKmUf.10187$TK2.4519@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Chancellor_Goth" <eye@ofharmony.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:dvs9ar$69hh$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
>
> The world would be much better off if Moslems were converted to
> Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism ANYTHING but Islam, the most
> dangerous religion on earth.
The world would be much better off if humans were converted into basic
sanity.
Mark
>
>> > 20 March, 2006
>> > AFGHANISTAN
>> > Christian convert risks death penalty
>> >
>> > Abdul Rahman left Islam 16 years ago; he refused to recant in his
>> > trial.
>> >
>>
>> That's exactly what American soldiers are dying for. An
>> ultra-fundamentalist, anti-American Islamic democracy.
>> Stupid American mothers. Keep sacrificing your children for the cause of
>> Islam.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> > Kabul (AsiaNews) - "Christian convert may be condemned to death": this
> is
>> > today's front-page headline blazed across several newspapers in
>> > Afghanistan. AsiaNews sources in Kabul have confirmed that the news has
>> > been reported "in red letters" and "this is not hopeful".
>> > Abdul Rahman, 41 years, is separated from his wife; he was arrested
>> > last
>> > month after his family - fighting with him over the custody of his
>> > children - denounced him for being a convert. The man, who was found
>> > carrying a Bible, was accused of having rejected Islam.
>> >
>> > Throughout his trial in Kabul, Rahman confessed to having converted 16
>> > years ago after getting to know a health worker belonging to a
>> > Christian
>> > group, who assisted Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The prosecutor, Abdul
>> > Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman would convert
> back
>> > to Islam, but he had refused to do so. Wasi described the Christian's
>> > behaviour as an attack on Islam and called for the death penalty.
>> >
>> > Experts on Afghanistan told AsiaNews that the case "is none other than
> the
>> > application of Shar'ia, Islamic law, on which the very Constitution of
> the
>> > country is based." They said cases of converts to Christianity were
>> > frequent among Afghan refugees in Iran or Pakistan, but often these
>> > were
>> > "only for convenience": many converted "in the hope of getting a visa
> for
>> > the United States or Canada, where they later re-embrace Islam."
>> >
>> > Catholics from the international community in the capital said: "The
>> > possible death penalty is worrying not only because it is a violation
>> > of
>> > one of the most fundamental human rights, that of freedom of worship,
> but
>> > also because it would be an abrupt step backwards, almost a halt, in
>> > the
>> > path of dialogue with Islam." The sources added: "We hope the West will
>> > not look on silently in the face of such blatant desecration of man's
>> > fundamental freedoms."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5681
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 1:57 am
From: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
>
> The world would be much better off if humans were converted into basic
> sanity.
>
> Mark
>
that's correct, people should not be worshipping a mass-murdering god,
whether that god is islamic or christian in nature.
islam and christianity, the two biggest crock of shit religions there are
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three Ways to Remember Rachel
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:54 pm
From: "Ed"
The below is a forgery.
Sorry, phony reverend, but you've been outted again.
This post NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.129.237.119
The REAL DoD NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.148.137.131
"DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:nQlUf.17883$iR1.708@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> On the third anniversary of Rachel's killing in Gaza, here are three
> things that we urge you to consider doing today, or as soon as possible:
>
> 1) From New York: "The "Rachel's Words" initiative is made up of a broad
> spectrum of groups and individuals who believe that Rachel's words and her
> message of human rights and justice should be heard. We hope that Rachel's
> Words will open the door for other equally important and silenced voices.
> We resist the pervasive climate of fear and challenge to free speech that
> is increasingly prevalent in our society. Rachel wrote about issues that
> concern us all. People must have the opportunity to hear her message and
> decide for themselves what they think. Nobody's agenda should stand in the
> way of that."
>
> To endorse this initiative, please go to Rachel's Words--and to the
> "About" or "Endorsement" links.
>
> If you, your family, or your group are spending any time today or in
> upcoming days returning to Rachel's e-mails and words, please list this
> under "Actions" at
>
>
> 2) The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation held a day of action
> yesterday, March 16th. Please go to their website to learn about their
> Caterpillar campaign and more that you can do:
>
> 3) While the U.S. Government is on record stating that the report of the
> Israeli military investigation into Rachel's killing did not meet the
> standard of "thorough, credible, or transparent," the U.S. has taken no
> steps to investigate this killing of an American citizen by a foreign
> military. Our family's often frustrating efforts to demand accountability
> from both the U.S. and Israeli governments continue.
>
> This week, family members are in Washington DC meeting with members of
> Congress. Please help us.
>
> Pick up the telephone and call your representative and Senators in the
> U.S. Congress and tell them that more must be done and that after three
> years it is an outrage that members of the Corrie family must still walk
> the halls of Congress seeking support simply to learn the truth.
>
> If you live in Washington State, please make a special call to Senator
> Murray's office noting that for three years she and her staff have drug
> their feet and have refused to take any leadership whatsoever in this
> matter-leadership that other members of Congress tell us they look to a
> senior senator to provide when a citizen of their state is so gravely
> impacted.
> http://www.counterpunch.org/corrie03172006.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 2:00 am
From: "DoD"
"Ed" <nesorde@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QI2dnTjnB5F2YrzZRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> The below is a forgery.
>
> Sorry, phony reverend, but you've been outted again.
>
> This post NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.129.237.119
>
> The REAL DoD NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.148.137.131
Wrong, I turned liberal. Look at the whole path. kc.rr.com
Path:
news-wrt-01.rdc-kc.rr.com!news-feed-01.rdc-kc.rr.com!news.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.jewish
References: <nQlUf.17883$iR1.708@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>
<kfmUf.617$Pe.553@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Three Ways to Remember Rachel
Lines: 69
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: <UDmUf.14024$Eg2.12518@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:14:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.129.237.119
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com 1143076468 72.129.237.119 (Wed, 22 Mar 2006
19:14:28 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:14:28 CST
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
Xref: news-wrt-01.rdc-kc.rr.com soc.culture.israel:1240522
soc.culture.usa:1631544 soc.culture.europe:384069
talk.politics.mideast:734327 soc.culture.jewish:1188684
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:04 pm
From: "Ed"
"DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:gjnUf.14030$Eg2.3902@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Ed" <nesorde@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QI2dnTjnB5F2YrzZRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>> The below is a forgery.
>>
>> Sorry, phony reverend, but you've been outted again.
>>
>> This post NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.129.237.119
>>
>> The REAL DoD NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.148.137.131
>
> Wrong, I turned liberal. Look at the whole path. kc.rr.com
Sorry, phony rev, I don't buy it.
You can't fake an NNTP Posting Host.
>
> Path:
> news-wrt-01.rdc-kc.rr.com!news-feed-01.rdc-kc.rr.com!news.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> From: "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil>
> Newsgroups:
> soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.jewish
> References: <nQlUf.17883$iR1.708@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>
> <kfmUf.617$Pe.553@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Three Ways to Remember Rachel
> Lines: 69
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
> Message-ID: <UDmUf.14024$Eg2.12518@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:14:28 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.129.237.119
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
> X-Trace: tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com 1143076468 72.129.237.119 (Wed, 22 Mar 2006
> 19:14:28 CST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:14:28 CST
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Xref: news-wrt-01.rdc-kc.rr.com soc.culture.israel:1240522
> soc.culture.usa:1631544 soc.culture.europe:384069
> talk.politics.mideast:734327 soc.culture.jewish:1188684
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you have a moment to help Impeach President Bush?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/910b4b1caac725a9
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 5:58 pm
From: "Aardman"
"Calife" <user@user.net> wrote in message
news:44210fcb$0$18312$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
> Aardman wrote:
>> "Calife" <user@user.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>> Frogland, the Muslims will own you before long.
>>>
>>> Nah!!! But thanks for caring!! ;-)
>
>> Maybe some of your Arab friends will drop by and torch your ratty
>> little Peugot tonight and then kick your door down to your ratty
>> little hash encrusted apartment. You'll probably enjoy the rest of it.
>
>
> You're mistaking Arabs in France for Federal storm-troopers in the US. If
> someone is likely to get an ominous bang on his door in the dead of night,
> it's YOU in 'merka, or 'merka's innocent victims in Iraq, not I in Paris.
> Deal with reality, not your fantasy Fox nightmares and fears
The storm troopers in US already kick down doors, when the Democrats
are in power. Remember Elian Gonzalez? Waco?
All they had to do at Waco was wait for the kids to go to school, then
arrest the parents.. but no , they had to come get em when they were all
at home, and the Feds killed 100 American kids. Does that bother you?
Probably not.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S. threatens to bomb Iran sites “after a month” – report
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/583703541ea98dfb
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:06 pm
From: "The Last 2463 days™ ♥"
GOODAY peoplez !!!!
So !!!!!!!
We now have a clear time-frame for commencement of world war III....
The US has given a warning that it would bomb Iranian nuclear sites one
month after Iran was referred to the Security Counci.
Iran was refered to the UN Security Council on March 8th, 2006....One
month takes us to April 8th, 2006......
So we have a major war of nerves & possible pre-emptive attack by one
side or the other **before** April 8th, 2006.....
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
=========
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6297
U.S. threatens to bomb Iran sites “after a month” – report
Thu. 16 Mar 2006
Iran Focus
London, Mar. 16 – The United States warned Iran through a secret
channel that it would launch military attacks on a number of nuclear
sites in Iran if there was no diplomatic progress a month after the
Islamic Republic’s referral to the United Nations Security Council,
according to a Persian-language website run by associates of the former
Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami.
Khatami was quoted by the website Rooz Online as telling allies that he
had received a message through a third party from a senior United
States official during a visit to Germany last autumn. The U.S.
official had warned Iran that the U.S. would bomb the country’s
nuclear sites “if there is no breakthrough in resolving Iran’s
nuclear dossier a month after the case is referred to the Security
Council”.
Khatami said that he conveyed the message to the country’s senior
officials and the Supreme National Security Council, but “not much
attention has been paid to it”, Rooz reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran to the Security
Council at the end of the last meeting of its Board of Governors on
March 8. The council can impose sanctions on Iran for violating its
international obligations and concealing critical parts of its
extensive nuclear program.
Iran’s top negotiator, Ali Larijani, reiterated on Thursday the
theocratic regime’s rejection of Western demands that Tehran stop
trying to produce fuel that can be used in nuclear power stations or,
if highly enriched, in bombs. The United States said diplomacy must
succeed to avert a confrontation with the Islamic Republic.
---0---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: FBI ignored 911 warning
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c1ada38049163080
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 2:12 am
From: Vandar
Freedom Fighter wrote:
> "Jason A. Kaatz" <jkaatz@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:IG5Uf.24534$nB6.7251@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>>The building was made out of reinforced concrete. The heat generated from
>>the jet fuel was intense.
>
>
> You should read the information on the websites below.
> Jet fuel does not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt or soften steel, and
> it burned off quickly after the plane impacts.
> The buildings were steel frame, and no steel frame building has EVER
> collapsed from even the most intense fires.
>
>
>>Yes, Clinton had signed the Al Gore Bill which lead to downsizing the DOD
>>which lead to base closures, a contributing factor in the response time.
>>
>>I lost a good friend in the WTC. To my knowledge there was no controlled
>>demolition by explosives. When the planes hits the WTC jet fuel pursed
>>down from the top and when it ignited it created intense heat - the rest
>>is history. People have a tendency to under estimate what jet fuel will
>>do under such conditions.
>
>
> Of course _to your knowledge_ there were no explosives, as you obviously
> have not investigated this in depth. Again, the jet fuel could not possibly
> have caused the collapses.
OFFICE buildings.
> See what the experts say:
And then he can see what the non-experts say in the links you provided.
> 9/11 documentation:
> http://www.st911.org/
> http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/
> http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html
> http://www.septembereleventh.org/audio.php
> http://911busters.com/SanFran04/index.html
> http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=gallery
> http://www.reopen911.org/
> http://www.911truth.org/
> http://www.911truthseekers.org/
> http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/news/
> http://www.gnn.tv/
> http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
> http://www.911studies.com/index.html
> http://www.septembereleventh.org/index.php
> http://infowars.com/
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
> http://www.mujca.com/index.htm
> http://proliberty.com/observer/20051213.htm
> http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> http://911review.com/
> http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/dust-cloud.htm
> http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html
>
> ----------------------------
>
>>"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
>>news:Y10Uf.601722$qk4.20855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>"Jason A. Kaatz" <jkaatz@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Av%Tf.24453$4%1.7860@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>You might be interested in knowing that Clinton had advanced warning of
>>>>an attack as early as 1996 and that WTC was the target and that a plane
>>>>or planes would be used. The information was based on police reports
>>>>out of Philipeans
>>>
>>>It wasn't Clinton that caused the sophisticated NORAD aerospace defense
>>>system to fail abysmally on 9/11!
>>>
>>>There are TWO BASIC 9/11 ISSUES to be focused upon:
>>>
>>>1) Controlled demolition by explosives, which requires advance
>>>preparation, proving prior knowledge of and complicity in the attacks.
>>>Steel-framed building 7 was not structurally damaged by the planes and
>>>the small fires in it could not have accounted for its collapse. No
>>>steel-frame building has EVER collapsed from a fire. Deliberate,
>>>pre-planned explosive demolition is the ONLY explanation. This is the
>>>weakest link in the official coverup - and the 9/11 Commission report
>>>ignores building 7 entirely!
>>>
>>>2) The total failure of our sophisticated NORAD aerospace defense
>>>system, to the extent that such a failure could not have happened without
>>>it being intentional.
>>>
>>>These issues and these alone are valid grounds to demand a new and
>>>independent investigation of this mass-murderous crime against humanity -
>>>the most evil deed ever perpetrated against the American people. Should
>>>those responsible be allowed to get away with it?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US WANTS TO 'COOL' DOWN ISRAEL THROUGH IRAN TALKS
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1a717520cfdf30bb
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:13 pm
From: "The Last 2463 days™ ♥"
www.iranmania.com/
US wants to cool down Israel through Iran talks
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, March 22 (IranMania) - A noted defence analyst in Pakistan on
Wednesday welcomed Iran's and the US' readiness for talks over the Iraq
situation, IRNA reported.
Lieutenant General (Ret'd) and ex-chief of Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) Hameed Gul hailed the US' and Iran's decision to hold parleys on
Iraq, saying the American nod for talks was aimed at cooling down
Israel.
He maintained during an interview with IRNA that the ''Zionist' '
regime appeared bent on resorting to military action against the
Islamic Republic but that the US was opposed to any such extreme
measure keeping in view its precarious position in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
"In case Israel mounts military operation against Iran there is
likelihood of eruption of World War III as oil supplies across the
world will be disrupted," he contended.
Iran has outrightly rejected US allegations of its involvement in the
instability in Iraq and has offered negotiations, to which the US only
recently agreed.
The analyst, replying to a question, said that he believed Iran's
spiritual leadership was also in favor of dialogue to resolve the
nuclear issue.
Similarly, he argued that countries such as China and Russia also
favored further talks on the issue as against the US line which did not
favor talks.
He welcomed Iraqi leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani's advice to the nation
to maintain calm and unity after the attacks on the holy shrines in
Samarra.
Likewise, the analyst appreciated the call of another leader, Moqtada
Sadar, for maintaining sobriety after the attacks that triggered anger
across the Islamic world.
Regarding the Iran nuclear issue, he said that China and Russia wanted
to defuse the standoff and wanted a negotiated settlement of the same.
Referring to the issue, he said that despite the fact that India had
exploded nuclear devices, the US signed a significant nuclear agreement
with New Delhi allowing it to purchase more nuclear reactors but has
vehemently opposed Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
"We must not forget that Iran has not exploded a nuclear device, but
biased US policy may force it to come out of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.
---0---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Racism still rife in US, says China
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d9b7345c735cc004
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:13 pm
From: Voice Of Reason <>
On 14 Mar 2006 08:16:28 -0800, "Karl" <karlpet@gmail.com> wrote:
>gonesailing_gonefishing wrote:
>> K James wrote:
>>
>> > Beijing - China on Thursday lashed out against United States criticism of its human rights record,
>>
>> Yyeah right, and of course the chinks have a perfect score card on
>> their own Human rights performance.
>
>This is funny - just like watching two pigs compare how much shit
>they're covered in.
Still can't tell the difference between the US and Red China, I see.
It's just sad.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Australia - Uranium to China: it's a deal
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1e8d41633c73eca5
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:13 pm
From: "kamath"
I still don't understand why Aussies want to get into bed with commies
of China by selling Uranium. What would they do next -sell their soul
for a dollar? It is disgusting!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:14 pm
From: "kamath"
I still don't understand why Aussies want to get into bed with commies
of China by selling Uranium. What would they do next -sell their soul
for a dollar? It is disgusting!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jobs That Americans Won't Do ?? Think Again
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5f87ba45eaeed9fb
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 5:52 pm
From: Antipodean Bucket Farmer
In article <8oCdndpqrcM9p4bZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net says...
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > Q wrote:
> >
> >> I think the idea that there are jobs that Americans won't do is
> >> ridiculous. Let the law of supply and demand set the wages.
> >
> >
> > That's exactly what's happening now. One problem with bottom-level jobs
> > is that the Chinese can do them way cheaper than anybody here in the
> > US. Pay locals more and you move their jobs to China.
> >
>
> The going rate for farm labor is set by an illegal black market.
> Expecting citizens to take jobs at that payscale is like expecting the
> RIAA to lower CD prices to $1 to compete with piracy.
>
> Besides, a law-abiding citizen working alongside illegal immigrants is
> effectively making *less* than they are... the citizen will be paying
> taxes, health and auto insurance, etc.
The solution is obvious.
Illegally immigrate to China or India, and get a job there ;)
--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Question "Pro-Life" Christians Are Too Cowardly to Answer
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1f0d605fcbcefff0
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:21 pm
From: Ken Chaddock
David W. Barnes wrote:
> In article <UjgTf.2739$J43.1149@edtnps90>, Ken Chaddock
> <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> I guess that would depend upon how your define "convenience".
> No kidding! It is funny how the "pro-life" are always trying to
> redefine certain words in their never ending effort to change reality
> and push propaganda. Osprey, for example, does it daily.
>>The
>>definition I recognize is the one that I find in the major dictionaries
>>of the English and American languages, like the Oxford English
>>Dictionary and Merriam Websters...since your "definition" seems to vary
>>from these, can you explain what *you* mean by "convenience" ?
> Better yet, can you explain why you want to use such a label?
Simply to point out that the *reasons* that a woman might wish to
exercise some form of reproductive rights is primarily about abrogating
parental obligations and responsibilities NOT about controlling her
body, though that is the legal mechanism that we have chosen to allow
her to do so AND to make it clear that these reasons are EQUALLY VALID
for a man.
A woman may wish that her life not be disrupted by an unwanted
pregnancy/baby at this time, so may the man, a woman may not wish to
have another child because she can't afford to support it, so might a
man and etc. We have *chosen* to allow women to control their future
socio-economic situation by aborting, by putting a child up for adoption
without the consent of the father and, in a growing number of US States,
simply by abandoning the baby to a "responsible" agency. None of these
options is available to a man.
In other words, we recognize that it is valid that a woman have
reproductive rights but we refuse to acknowledge that a man have equal
or equivalent rights...
>>>You're just another anti-choice liar.
>>
>> Calling someone a liar for holding a different opinion *does* seem to
>>be a very common thing today, It seems to be particularly engaged in by
>>faux-liberals when their arguments are shown to be false and their
>>beliefs are shaken...
> My bet is he was referring to the desire by the "pro-life"
> propagandists to claim women choose abortions (expensive, complicated,
> painful, shame inducing, stigma attaching) over birth control (cheap,
> easy, painless, private, and accepted by all but the fundamentalists)
> because the former is more CONVENIENT.
No, he, like you, refuses to accept PP and CDC statistics on abortion
and calls me a liar for repeating them...
...Ken
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:23 pm
From: Ken Chaddock
David W. Barnes wrote:
> In article <wsgTf.2420$A4.41@clgrps12>, Ken Chaddock
> <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>Except when you don't agree with her choice.
>>
>> It's not my place (or yours) to "agree" with or to "disagree" with her
>>decision. I support a woman's right to CHOOSE and if this "right to
>>choose" is to survive, it MUST come to be recognized as the exercise of
>>*REPRODUCTIVE* choice, not just "body rights" because terminating a
>>pregnancy for "body rights" reasons without automatically killing the
>>fetus will be possible in the (relatively) near future. If you think for
>>one instance that most jurisdictions won't jump on this with legislation
>>that requires the preservation of the living fetus you are dreaming in
>>technicolour...and if you don't understand what *that* means then you
>>are just an idiot.
> The idiot here seems to be you.
You're the one with your head in the sand...
>>>>The USSC did NOT, however...now pay close attention...give women the
>>>>right to kill a fetus for the sole purpose of killing the fetus.
>>
>>>And nobody has ever asked for any such right, pro-liar.
>>
>> Yet over 93% of abortions are carried out exactly FOR that reason...
> You are a damn liar. How proud you must be.
Then so are Planned Parenthood USA and the Center For Disease Control...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Zionist Lobby and American Foreign Policy
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/95abc7205c5ce432
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:21 pm
From: "Ed"
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:VccUf.13844$bu.10941@trnddc04...
>
> On 22-Mar-2006, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote:
>
>> In the last weeks there have been some very serious rumours, probably
>> originated in Israel, claiming that George W. Bush's latest speech
>> concerning the need for 'Palestinian reforms' was sent to Jerusalem for
>> final proofing and corrections not less than twenty-eight times. Whether
>> this is the case, whether it was twenty-eight times or just seven,
>> whether
>> it was physically corrected in Jerusalem or just followed some guidelines
>> that were drawn by the Jewish lobby in Washington,
>
> Since when don't you know better than this?
>
> Susan
It's the phony rev again, Susan. Check the paths.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:22 pm
From: "Ed"
"DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:p9jUf.17861$iR1.16402@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> That's right.... You go girl.
And you go, phony pervert reverend forger, you go straight to hell.
>
> " torresD" <torresd30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8BhUf.16346$S25.15866@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> A Warning From USA
>> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=697059&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
>>
>>
>>
>> <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:VccUf.13844$bu.10941@trnddc04...
>>>
>>> On 22-Mar-2006, "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the last weeks there have been some very serious rumours, probably
>>>> originated in Israel, claiming that George W. Bush's latest speech
>>>> concerning the need for 'Palestinian reforms' was sent to Jerusalem for
>>>> final proofing and corrections not less than twenty-eight times.
>>>> Whether
>>>> this is the case, whether it was twenty-eight times or just seven,
>>>> whether
>>>> it was physically corrected in Jerusalem or just followed some
>>>> guidelines
>>>> that were drawn by the Jewish lobby in Washington,
>>>
>>> Since when don't you know better than this?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PENTAGON PREPARING FOR CONFLICT WITH CHINA
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f420176900d34d72
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:22 pm
From: "The Last 2463 days™ ♥"
www.washtimes.com/
Pentagon 'hedge' strategy targets China
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 17, 2006
The Pentagon is moving strategic bombers to Guam and aircraft carriers
and submarines to the Pacific as part of a new "hedge" strategy aimed
at preparing for conflict with China, Pentagon officials said
yesterday.
Peter Rodman, assistant defense secretary for international
security affairs, told a congressional commission that the response to
the emerging military threat from China is part of the White House
national security strategy made public yesterday.
Although U.S. relations with China are good, "both sides understand
very well that there is a potential for a conflict, particularly in the
Taiwan Strait," Mr. Rodman said during a hearing of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission.
China's arms buildup in recent years altered the U.S. "strategic
calculus" for defending Taiwan from a mainland attack and shows that "a
prudent hedging policy is essential," Mr. Rodman said.
The placement of about 700 Chinese missiles opposite Taiwan has
changed the status quo between the non-communist island and the
communist mainland, he said.
The Pentagon policy calls for watching China's military and "being
ready to deal with it, if the worst case should happen," Mr. Rodman
said.
James Thomas, deputy assistant defense secretary for plans, said
key elements of the "hedging" policy are aimed at nations with
uncertain futures, including China and Russia.
Cooperation is preferred, but the Pentagon must prepare "for the
possibility that others could choose a more hostile path," Mr. Thomas
said.
"In [the China] part of the hedging strategy, we're looking at the
deployments of bomber elements to Guam on a more routine basis," he
said. "We're also looking at making adjustments in our naval posture
globally, shifting to six carrier battle groups in the Pacific region,
given the shift in global transport and trade, as well as over the next
several years shifting approximately 60 percent of our attack submarine
fleet to the Pacific."
The public term for the strategy is "hedge," but in internal
Pentagon discussions the term is "effective preparations to swiftly
defeat Chinese aggression," one defense official said.
The comments about a conflict contrast with statements by Pentagon
officials that have sought to minimize the emerging threat from China.
The plan calls for frequent rotations of B-2 strategic bombers to
Guam, part of what the Air Force calls its global strike mission to
reach crisis areas quickly. Special hangars and other deployment and
maintenance facilities are being built on Guam, a U.S. territory about
1,800 miles from the Chinese coast.
Three attack submarines are based in Guam, and arms storage there
includes long-range air-launched cruise missiles and Joint Direct
Attack Munitions.
Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of the Pacific Command, has
visited Guam and told reporters that the island will become a pivot
point for U.S. forces in the Pacific because of the relatively short
distances to the Taiwan Strait, South Korea and Southeast Asia.
Yesterday, Mr. Thomas said the Pentagon is strengthening alliances
in Asia as part of the strategy.
================================
==============================================================================
TOPIC: International Stuff
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/095f40fc54bbdf6d
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:22 pm
From: "marika"
Frank Kalder wrote:
> However, in the real prince's case, it's all gone & over. His Anni
> (who had quit already eight months ago) loves another one, meanwhile.
> Tobi, presently (on job-duty) on the Spanish island Mallorca, would
> anyway have *no time* to care about her -
> http://groups.google.com/group/HAPLIF-BLOGGING_Deutsch/msg/1a0f8d7dafabddc1?&hl=en
>
>
> > > >
> > > Cute website! Perhaps, I'll provide a link at
> > > DESIGNER FASHION ...(HAPLIF.net).
> >
> Here's the link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/HAPLIF-DESIGNER-FASHION/msg/0dfe102a4ae488af?&hl=en
>
>
> > > http://www.orbitalreviews.com/movies/Dragonfly.html
> > > >
> > > > this song is the PERFECT backdrop for the Dragonfly movie
> > > > "Gonna see where I'm going, oh
> > > > Po, po, po, po, popozao, popozao
> > > > Po, po, po, po, popozao, popozao
> > > > Po, po, po, po, popozao, popozao"--kevin federline
> > > >
> > > http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/2006/01/27/james_lipton_recites_kevin_fed.html
> >
> > O MY GOD that was a great site absolutely howlingly funny
> >
> :)))
>
> > Have you ever seen James Lipton's show
> >
> > This is a great satire on both of these people
> >
>
> Not yet, though - but I bet it is!
Lipton interviews actors, the show is called Actors Studio. actors
love to be interviewed by him i guess because he is one of them,
but he is so pompous and pretentious
to have him recite THIS lyric means that at least he has a sense of
humor about himself after all
>
> James Lipton:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0513851
>
>
>
>
> > > BibaBui on January 30, 2006:
> > > "In Brazil, the word "popozao" is a slang for "big ass".
> > >
> > > Popo (German) = booty :)
> >
> > Really, it's nearly the same word in German
> >
>
> More en vogue is now the abbreviation "Po".
>
> It's mega IN with the adjective "knackig" (firm).
>
> Sexiness-minded people (women and men alike) use to eat "einen
> knackigen Salat" and to have "einen knackigen Po".
>
> More on "knackige Pos":
> http://www2.onhandy.t-online.de/dyn/c/03/81/83/381836,ei=httpx3Ax2Fx2Ftonline2004x2Eaffiliatex2Ehandyx2Edex2Fx2FshowCategoryx2Edox3Fcatx3D1155x26chlx3D2x26hsetx3D429x26affcatx3D543.html
>
>
> I'd guess it's equivalent to "hot butts":
> http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmcollection/0/2344
not so hot to me tho
>
> > >
> > > - Belarus -
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/be9de851194ba0ec
> > >
> > > Unlike the Ukrainians the Belarusian people did not realize any change
> > > in their politic system... - Are they sort of jackasses or just loyal
> > > Russian friends?
> > > >
> >
> > Here is what I think about that. If it's loyalty it's not to Russia
> > but to the previous communist/socialistic regime that took care of
> > needs. The winner of the election promised the electorate the same
> > degree of security that they had before independence.
> >
> > I don't remember Belarus people campaigning for freedom in the same
> > manner as Ukrainians throughout the ages. Ukrainians in the US were
> > very active politically and very unified in lobbying politicians since
> > at least the 60s. I am unaware that american belarussians did anything
> > similar.
> >
> > However I could not call them jackasses. I always thought it was
> > interesting when the USSR was ended and the countries were given the
> > right to pursue independence. At that time many people wanted to
> > return to Ukraine to remake Ukraine in their image and also, in the
> > image of the parents who had come to the US in diaspora. I laughed at
> > these people because first of all, no one who lived in the Ukraine
> > wanted these people to come over there and do so. Because they hadn't
> > struggled side by side with them. But also, they didn't want this
> > because the returnees were already stuck with old style ideas of a
> > century gone past.
> >
> > I always thought that it was interesting to watch how these newly
> > liberated countries developed, to see how they would develop their own
> > little laboratories of democracy/socialism/independence.
> >
> > Belarus is just one of the experiments where people have demonstrated
> > that they want something closer to what existed in the days of USSR.
> >
> > Ukraine is a laboratory for a different direction.
> >
>
> Great and sensible *Eastern European Politics* analysis
> - thanks very much!
>
> > This is on tv in the computer room while I am typing
> >
> > http://www.shopnbc.com/product/?familyid=J153238&track=-10102&ciid=11281&taxid=&cm_re=HP-_-HS3-_-OnAir
> >
> > Each choice has 34 round single cut diamonds in bezel and prong
> > settings making up the dragonfly designs at the top and bottom of the
> > center stone
> >
> > It's hard to see the little dragonfly but he's SO CUTE
> >
>
> Yeah, I guess, I can see the dragonfly, too, particularly in the
> enlarged photo :)
> >
> > "(ay, where yo' name at? )
> > It's in the source, you ain't seen it?
> > (ay, where yo' change at? )
> > You can't tell dirty, I'm sparklin? "--nelly, jang-a-lang
>
> http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/182535//Jang_a_Lang
>
> Could we say (theoretically) "he's sparkling while he talks
> dirty"?
>
maybe it's a double meaning, i thought he was saying, that the person
is unable to recognize 'dirty" and that the person who thinks he is
dirty is wrong.
"you can't tell dirty" means to me 'you can't
understand/perceive/appraise dirty"
and then he corrects the person and says, i'm not dirty, I'm sparkly.
mk5000
"all those people inspired me to be unique. at the end of the day, you
don't have to sell sex"--singer janelle monae on her singing role models
==============================================================================
TOPIC: We can't blame the Palestinians for Israel's economic mess
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f6c780a8745e913
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:23 pm
From: "Salah Jafar"
No onlly Jews can suck on my cock, because they are faggots and they need milk.
SJ
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.
To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
