Is it me, or the world?

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Thru December 2001: Is it me, or the world?
By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Oh you're flippin' Tav. You're flippin' dude.

By Tavarua on Monday, December 03, 2001 - 07:36 am: Edit

Check your mail, and you shall be very afraid.

By Verawench on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit

"whisker biscuit..."

Head fears not thine wrath. Slosho to the rescue!

By Tavarua on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Go ahead, provoke me you silly whisker biscuit. You have no idea of the wrath and dry goods that I possess. I'll flip ya, I'll flip ya for real.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Hey Tav, while you're way out there in left field how about keeping your eye on the ball.

By Tavarua on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 02:22 pm: Edit

I am very disapointed in you. Now who am I going to appoint as the new Mayor to the Altered States of ______achusetts.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 05:55 am: Edit

I hired a couple of Churpas to do all those menial tasks like gum chewing, breathing, lifting my head up to look over at the TV. That gives me plenty of free time to post and read. I usually save my creative energy for the head.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 12:45 am: Edit

Right on, Dr O.

Anyone who thinks a few posts are getting in the way of my productivity, hasn't seen the big black circles under my lovable eyes (well, eye) from burning the midnight oil doing frigging still engineering.

I'm sure Dr O can do more than one thing at the same time as well. Neither of us is related to Gerald Ford. I mean, we CAN walk and chew gum.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Vera, hon, we have talent and energy to waste galore...

By Verawench on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 08:20 pm: Edit

I wasn't talking about bandwidth. I was talking about talent and energy.

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, December 01, 2001 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Aw, c'mon, Wench. You've wasted quite a lot more than your quota of Kallisti's electrons. Why kvetch when some others are doing little different?

Dr O and I smooched and made up, or at least agreed to call a halt to this, in another thread.

So why should you weigh in a day late and a dollar short with all this less-wasteful-than- thou sermonette?

By Verawench on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 11:50 pm: Edit

you know, if you edit the text of the thread and replace every:

"fighting" with "farting"
and
"Al-Qaeda" with "Al Bundy"

It's actually slightly amusing.

Otherwise, fuck, what a waste.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 04:34 pm: Edit

O and A are all over the place. In fact there's a whole family of them behind the library. People keep leaving boxes and boxes of them. Sometimes I see them in big bundles under the car port at the ATM. By the end of the day they're gone mysteriously, in the middle of the night, they return.

Creepy!

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit

"It's me" that is to say, It is he.
Or at least a very small majority of the world.

By Cheri on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 11:08 am: Edit

Did anyone ever answer the original question that started the thread?

By Tavarua on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 10:39 am: Edit

HP, you guys get O and A up there?

By Don_Walsh on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 08:40 am: Edit

Heiko, darling, I thought the elephant-piss line sounded like it was written for Dr Ordinaire.

He's the one having his heart bleed for the Al-Qaeda.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 07:34 am: Edit

Cleveland Steamers 1
SF Nortons 0

By Heiko on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 05:56 am: Edit

"Some people emit outrage like elephants' piss"

That sounds like Don ;-)


But I agree - if there's some European soldiers watching a bunch of Northern Alliance fighters killing or beating Taliban - what are they supposed to do? Arrest the Northern Alliance guys? Shoot them? Say "hey dudes, that's not ok!"

They could only intervene if they claimed to have total military control over Afghanistan and therefore over the Northern Alliance. But this is not what they want to do, right?
In any case we ("the West") do not want to conquer Afghanistan - that means we cannot rule everything that's going on down there.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 05:50 am: Edit

And Asshole, every time you misuse the term 'war crime' you minimize what evil the real war criminals are and were.

And every time you label someone you don't like a Nazi, or throw around WWII German Nazi imagery as you have been doing, you diminish the real significance of what monsters the Nazis were.

Instead you just pule out meaningless blather and do so without the facts, you are just drooling for a cause celebre to use against the US, and you are pathetic.

That's me, shitting on your head, Asshole.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 05:39 am: Edit

Asshole: I fart in your general direction.

Absinthedrinker: The second piece you cited is right on.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/david_aaronovitch/story.jsp?story=107507

By Dr_Ordinaire on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 03:04 am: Edit

And, Don, if you don't behave...I will use the T word again...

By Dr_Ordinaire on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:49 am: Edit

"The glorious Dr Asshole's position is that the people who carry out suicide bombings and who insurrection. crash jetliners into buildings at the cost of their own lives wouldn't do anything as SUICIDAL as a phony surrender followed by a futile

What logic! I mean, what logic?"

OK, let's follow Don's logic. We are actually flying an airplane. The pilot and the co-pilot are terrorists. We want to crash into the Pentagon.

So, first thing we do, we surrender the cockpit. Yep, we give away EVERY advantage we have. We get handcuffed and taken back to the head.

THEN we start fighting...

By Dr_Ordinaire on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:34 am: Edit

Thanks, Ian. Don, this is from someone on YOUR side:

"Besides, there was a more worrying report coming from near Kandahar yesterday. There an anti-Taliban leader appeared to admit that his men had shot 150 captured Taliban, despite pleas from eight US observers that their lives should be spared. That, if true, was certainly a war crime. And we are, to some extent, implicated. We must stop this where we can."


What more do you need, Don? A sign saying TREBLINKA? Arbeit Macht Frei?

By Marccampbell on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:33 am: Edit

I am you as you are me and we are all together.

By Absinthedrinker on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:17 am: Edit

In the interest of balance, this morning another journalist working on The Independent newspaper puts the other side of the story.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/david_aaronovitch/story.jsp?story=107507

By Don_Walsh on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 02:13 am: Edit

The glorious Dr Asshole's position is that the people who carry out suicide bombings and who crash jetliners into buildings at the cost of their own lives wouldn't do anything as SUICIDAL as a phony surrender followed by a futile insurrection.

What logic! I mean, what logic?

A massacre wouldn't have taken 2-3 days and wouldn't have needed air support.

Sounds to me more like, the NA did a shitty job of disarming these Al-Qaeda hardcores, and it was the intention of these fake 'prisoners' to strike at the NA guards and try to take over from the beginning. In fact it appears, from the time it took to crush this, that they may well have succeeded had the US not bombed the dogshit out of them.

Fuck 'em. (See the 'Hijackers Surprised to Find Themselves in Hell' piece from The Onion for further sentiments I share.)

By Dr_Ordinaire on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 01:57 am: Edit

Geoff, are you for real? What you are writing is incredibly stupid...

The Taliban surrendered ALL their weapons and their tactical advantage so they can OVERPOWER their NA captors...?

By Geoffk on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 01:29 am: Edit

> Geoff, did they riot? Or were just massacred? Why would anyone give away every possible tactical advantage and THEN start fighting?

The news reports that I read said that they were being questioned and attacked their jailors, walking straight into gunfire in order to overpower them. That's gutsy, but it certainly opens them up to retaliation. From what I've read and seen, it wasn't a massacre by the jailors--this was real fighting.

Why would they wait to fight until AFTER they've been captured? Well, maybe because after the capture they had an advantage of numbers over weaker opposition. In other words, they acted strategically to choose the best moment to attack, like combatants are supposed to. Too bad they lost anyway.

-- Geoff K.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 12:04 am: Edit

"I really don't see what Dr. O's point is. If POWs don't want to be killed, they shouldn't riot and resist."

I apologize for posting on this thread after saying I wasn't going to do it.

Geoff, did they riot? Or were just massacred? Why would anyone give away every possible tactical advantage and THEN start fighting?

By Geoffk on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Actually, the Japanese made a pretty good tradeoff there. While most of the leaders took responsibility for the failure of the war (which is the traditional thing to do in Japan), the government and corporations used the Peace treaty with the US to disclaim liability for repayment to victims for "war crimes". While German companiesand banks have payed out millions of dollars to Jewish and other organizations, the Japanese have never paid a penny of reparitions to anyone and probably never will.

On separate topics:
1. Given the expense and difficulty of obtaining absinthe vs regular hooch and given that it seemingly makes you LESS drunk than an equivalent amount of said hooch, I doubt that a true alcoholic would bother with it. You can be an alcoholic with anything from beer to burner fuel, but nowadays absinthe isn't likely to be a first choice of someone truly out of control.

2. We're fighting a war. In war, people who fight back are often killed. That's how it works. Since even the Afghans are happy to see the Taliban ousted, I really don't see what Dr. O's point is. If POWs don't want to be killed, they shouldn't riot and resist.

-- Geoff K.

By Heiko on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 03:29 pm: Edit

"After WWII, the Allies hanged considerably more Japanese military leaders than German military leaders. And it wasn't because the Germans were nicer ... "

Right, according to the '68 leftists, the German parliament in the 60ies was filled with 95% Nazis. They higher their rank was, the more of a chance they had to keep their jobs - either in Germany, or in the States...

On the other hand, there were quite a few communists freed from concentration camps and then put to prison again because they wouldn't deny their 'dangerous' attitude (the former nazis were rather quick in denying everything tho)

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Bin Laden was probably responsible, but if he wasn't he still would have good reason to claim responsibility. That sort of claim by those not actually responsible happens all the time.

Bin Laden wanted to start a war with the West and that is what he got. Where he failed is that he wanted a war between the West and Islam, which did not happen (beacuse Pakistan did not take his side). So whether or not he carried out the attack (and he probably did) he still would have 'benefited' from claiming responsibility for the attack either way.

Shit like that happens all the time in Northern Ireland. Often it suits an organisation to claim responsibility for an attack carried out by another (often enemy) organisation, while it suits the actual perpretrators to keep quiet.

Hobgoblin

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Don, Tav, this is my last post in this thread. You guys think we are doing fine? OK. Now when someone vaporizes half of Manhattan or kills a few millions with smallpox, well, don't worry about me.

I'm looking for land in Patagonia.

By Tavarua on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:13 pm: Edit

"Don, you are being naive here. What do we care about what OSL SAYS? If you were a target, like OSL is, would you mind making yourself a hero?"

OBL would likely claim no responsibity if he was not responsible. What would serve his cause more, admitting to a massacre he did not commit, or playing this as one more way those Americans have given our people undeserved hardship and influence, being that this is what bin Laden is all about.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:02 pm: Edit

"That you are complaining about supposed lack of proof of OBL's complicity in Sept 11 means it is you who are in denial not I. OBL taped an interview for broadcast, which the British obtained, in which he admitted and bragged about masterminding the WTC and Pentagon attacks. "

Don, you are being naive here. What do we care about what OSL SAYS? If you were a target, like OSL is, would you mind making yourself a hero?

Hey, Don, think about this. By now, Osama would make himself responsible for Lincoln's assasination...would you believe that?

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Boy, Don buddy, was I wrong or what...

"The BBC has been reporting all night that some of these Al-Qaeda/Taliban non-Afghan mad dogs apparently survived the counterattack on the 'riot' (read: deliberately planned Trojan Horse operation) by hiding among the corpses."

Yeah, let me change my "absurd" scenario. No, they did not surrendered all their weapons, let themselves be tied up, and THEN start fighting.

Oh, no, they surrendered all their weapons, let themselves be tied up, waited until 90% of them were killed, hid under their corpses and THEN start fighting.

Don, for a smart guy...

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Oh, so I'm in denial am I?

The BBC has been reporting all night that some of these Al-Qaeda/Taliban non-Afghan mad dogs apparently survived the counterattack on the 'riot' (read: deliberately planned Trojan Horse operation) by hiding among the corpses.

Three Afghan health workers who went into the basement redoubt to remove bodies were shot and wounded or killed by these Al-Qaeda undead. This is confirmed by the Intl Committee of the Red Cross.

Speaking of which, if the NA were to elect to summarily execute these assholes, with the connivance of the US as you apparently believe, don't you think that maybe just maybe they would have chosen to do so at ANY time other than the start of a scheduled meeting at same location with the ICRC?

Come ON, wake up and smell the coffee, Al-Qaeda sent these people in to 'surrender' with concealed weapons, with every intention of this uprising, with the intention of taking over the NA commander's fortress. They did succeed in killing one CIA officer, whose name has been made public, a highly unusual move -- most CIA dead since 1947 are anonymous stars on the stone wall of the main entrance hall at CIA.

Anyway, your heart is bleeding for the wrong people. These were terrorists not 'prisoners of war' and even POWs who smuggle in or seize arms and fight with the captors, anywhere, anytime, can expect to get little quarter.

Man, read your Kipling, nothing has changed. You expect the NA to conduct themselves by European laws of war, and you assume that the Al-Qaeda scum were poor innocents. Bullshit. They were vermin, and they died the death of vermin.

That you are complaining about supposed lack of proof of OBL's complicity in Sept 11 means it is you who are in denial not I. OBL taped an interview for broadcast, which the British obtained, in which he admitted and bragged about masterminding the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Your comments about Bush and Rumsfeld are reprehensible.

You side with the enemies of mankind against the US and the Coalition.

I think you more than deserved that FUCK YOU! and I'm sure I'm not alone.

By Bjacques on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Come on, real choices do come along now and then. If you live in Tweedledee/Tweedledum district or a safe seat for some fascist jerk or liberal sellout, then help out in a neighboring district where you might make a difference. You don't vote there, but you can help with the phones.

As for Afghanistan, I haven't been paying close attention lately, but it doesn't look like the Great Powers have a whole lot of influence on the victors right now. Are they going to draw down on the NA? That's a real win/win situation. The best they can do is point out how incredibly stupid it was to shoot the prisoners. I'm not crying for the Taliban--it's the same deal they gave Najibullah and other losers--but the lesson isn't lost on the Taliban holed up in Kandahar. If they were thinking about giving up before, they aren't now.

By Chevalier on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

Hobgoblin wrote:

"The definition of war crimes depends solely on who wins the war. If Hitler had won WWII then there would have been no Nazi war crinminals."


Don may have mentioned this before: After WWII, the Allies hanged considerably more Japanese military leaders than German military leaders. And it wasn't because the Germans were nicer ...

By Heiko on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

Some scientists say more than half a liter of beer per day makes you an alcoholic. Then I am (even there's some days when I don't drink any alcohol at all).

I'd say you're an alcoholic when you drink in every possible situation to make life easier. Of course then you'd never tell other people you just had some alcohol.

At the moment when I first realized I had told somebody that I'd "never smoke weed in the morning", while actually I did so about every second morning, I knew I had to quit. Luckily that was much easier than if I had been an alcoholic...

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

I believe that the definition of an alcoholic is someone who can't control his drink problem.

Many people have drink problems whether it's being desperate for a pint on Friday night or drinking 2 bottles of Vodka every day. Whether you are an alcoholic or not depends solely on whether you can control your drink problem (be it a large or small problem).

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit

Heiko,

""then we, the offended, will "pull a medieval on [our government's] ass" at election time"

Who are you going to elect then to change what you don't like?"

Exactly, they're all the fucking same. Our governments act in the interests of the Corporations who bankroll them.

If the Democrats were in power they'd be doing the same bloody thing.

What real differences are there between Republican and Democrat policies on major issues? No difference.

But Heiko as to war crimes. A war crime is something that your enemy does in war that you do not approve of. The definition of war crimes depends solely on who wins the war. If Hitler had won WWII then there would have been no Nazi war crinminals. War is a dirty business, there are no good guys in war.

Hobgoblin

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

Actually, Marc, it makes some "twisted" sense: if you are an alcoholic, you have to stop drinking alcohol. After discovering (and better: MAKING) absinthe? NO WAY....

By Chevalier on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

I suspect this falls under the "don't go there" category.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:39 am: Edit

Dr. O's paradox:

"I need alcohol so much, I cannot afford to become an alcoholic"

By Chevalier on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:37 am: Edit

Makes one wonder if any of us here consider themselves alcoholics. And how many of us would be considered alcoholics by others? A touchy subject -- like this war.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

Meat said:

"After two nice sized glasses of NS 70 that last post by head seemed unusually psychotic and disturbing. Maybe a third glass would make sense of it. Nothing better than alcohol-induced faulty logic."

Meat, it's your life, you can do whatever you want with it. But if you are planning to use ethanol to make sense of Head's posts...

I can see you in a few years standing up at an AA meeting and saying: Hi, I'm Meat and I'm an alc..

By Heiko on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

"then we, the offended, will "pull a medieval on [our government's] ass" at election time"

Who are you going to elect then to change what you don't like?

In Germany, the conservative CDU party is green with envy because the government, the social democrats in coalition with the ex-leftist green party are doing everything they would also like to do, only better.
The greens, decorated with sunflowers, voted for war recently.
You don't even have a party which is that "radical" (one of our ministers is only allowed to enter the US in official mission - as a private person he's 'unwanted' because he was a lawyer for some of the RAF terrorists...another highly debatable fact...)

There's not too much hope for the US that an election will change anything...

By Chevalier on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:01 am: Edit

Many Americans are waiting until the G.I. Joes and Janes (American, British, and so on) get home and start telling their families and friends what they saw, heard and did. It will take a while, but the truth -- whatever it may be -- will out. And if that truth violates our ethics -- whatever THEY may be -- then we, the offended, will "pull a medieval on [our government's] ass" at election time, if not before. That's the American way, and only Lincoln (in the presidential election of 1864, barely) managed to escape its wrath.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:52 am: Edit

"As long as American and European soldiers don't commit war crimes, they are no war criminals"

Well, Don is not the only one in denial.

Heiko, we are AIDING AND ABETTING these crimes.

Am I the only who think this is outrageous?

Can I ask for a show of hands? Should I shut up?

By Heiko on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:44 am: Edit

As long as American and European soldiers don't commit war crimes, they are no war criminals. They are not the mommies of the Northern Alliance to tell them what to do and not to do every second. Neither American nor British military has (or wants to have) total political and military control over Afghanistan - they actually wanted to prevent being too much involved, they never wanted to conquer the country (what a media uproar if they would!)
War isn't nice, war kills people. Well, that's no news for me...

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:28 am: Edit

Don, I truly think you are one of the smartest people in this Forum. No kidding, I really do.

So if ALL you can answer to my arguments and Ian's article is:

"Well, all I can say to you, Dr O, is a hearty FUCK YOU, asshole. "

I think you are conceding. We ARE war criminals.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 09:46 am: Edit

Well, all I can say to you, Dr O, is a hearty FUCK YOU, asshole.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 08:42 am: Edit

Well, no more European vacations for war criminals Rumsfeld and Bush...

By Absinthedrinker on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:33 am: Edit

You might like to read this opinion piece in the Independent newspaper from a British journalist who is in Afghanistan.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=107292

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:45 am: Edit

Don, the media can be revealing.

In today's newspaper (The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, CA) there is a picture of a convoy. Long line of trucks filled with people. The caption reads (sic): "The fate of the Taliban prisoners being transported Tuesday from Kunduz to Mazar-el-Sharif is unknown."

Why would they say that? This was written BEFORE the riot. The fate of prisoners of war is KNOWN. They get interned, then they get released when the war is over.

Don, whoever wrote this KNEW that this guys were cattle going to the slaughterhouse.

I am surprised at how pissed I am. I am not an Arab, a terrorist, an Afghan, anything.

The reason why I hate what's going on is that all my life I thought of us (the U.S., the West, whatever) as the good guys. For the first time, I doubt that.

What was done to these prisoners is not different that was was done by the S.S. to U.S. POWs in France. Even though the number was relatively small, it stays in our collective memory as one of the more horrid episodes in WW2. Because it's the kind of things you JUST DON'T DO.

Don, I don't intend to pick a fight with you. I actually believe that, deep inside, you know that this is wrong.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Dr O, you are far too quick to believe the bullshit line that the news media is shoveling, and far far too quick to assume that this event was a study in black and white.

By Tavarua on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 09:37 pm: Edit

"head seemed unusually psychotic and disturbing."

That's right, your new, stick around. The rest of us have been saying, "Where the hell has Heads psychotic and disturbing behavior been lately."

By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 08:59 pm: Edit

After two nice sized glasses of NS 70 that last post by head seemed unusually psychotic and disturbing. Maybe a third glass would make sense of it. Nothing better than alcohol-induced faulty logic.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:23 pm: Edit

They'll be together always now...

"We go together like ramma lamma lamma a ding gadi dinga dong
Remembered forever like shoo wha shoo wha shoo wha shoo
yippidy boom che boom
Chang chang changity chang shoo bop that's the way it should be
Waooo Yeah"

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I have my Grandparents gold teeth

of course they were alive when I took them.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:13 pm: Edit

The more I read about Mazar-el-Sharif, the worse it looks.

An Argentine journalist saw the Northern Alliance soldiers cutting loose the hands of cadavers. They were tied. Yeah, just what a terrorist would do. Take away all my weapons, tie up my hands and then... I'll begin to fight.

He also saw a NA soldier pulling a gold tooth from a cadaver. "Shindler's list", anyone?

Yeah, Don, THESE are our allies.

By Louched_Liver on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:03 pm: Edit

"ramshackle little apartment" and staring @ a 15 to 19" screen.
Get in line brother!!!!!!

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Well it wasn't Fantômas

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:44 pm: Edit

"I have seen no evidence that links Iraq to Al-Qaida. "

Myself, I have not seen any evidence linking bin Laden to the twin towers or the Pentagon...

And yet we have toppled another country's government...and replaced it with another bunch of...mommy lovers...

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:03 pm: Edit

from an interview with Chuck Parello(Ed Gein - dir.)


Quote:

Was Ed Gein unique?

"There are too many people like him: incomplete individuals left alone with their thoughts and desires, who sometimes get goofy and do things to draw attention to themselves. A psychopath rarely acts if he's got a healthy lifestyle and healthy interaction with people. It's usually the person who is bitter with the world and living alone in some ramshackle little apartment."




tee hee...

By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 05:42 pm: Edit

As if my opinion matters on this; Right now I am not opposed to the actions we have taken in Afghanistan. The Taliban sucks and so does Al-Qaida. But going into a place like Somalia? We start fucking around with various countries just because we suspect there may be terrorists there and we are going to no doubt get the entire world thinking we are arrogant bastards. I agree that the thing about the Humanitarian Aid program sounds a bit fishy too. Perhaps here it was justified to bomb them, I don't know though because incriminating evidence hasn't come out about them and probably never will. Sounds like they were an unintended target to me, and the implications of bombing any humanitarian aid program without a lot of evidence to support they had malicious intent are grim. The thing that really bothers me about the situation though is that we are most likely going to get involved in Iraq again. Funny they were a problem during the first bush administration, then they werenít for eight years, and now they are again. I have seen no evidence that links Iraq to Al-Qaida. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough but for something this important I really shouldn't have too. Thatís my take on the situation as a young man who fears we will go to war for reasons we don't fully understand, like Vietnam. Whenever this is the case, you can bet there is a reason the public doesn't understand fully, because Uncle Sam has a hidden agenda (the bushs are oil tycoons and Iraq is the richest nation in the world as far as petroleum is concerned and Bush Senior flat out stated that was why we were there originally). I think I am paranoid but with good reason.

By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Death before surrender. That is what they are supposed to do.

But a bunch of them turned out not to want to die that bad, probably the press-gang Afghanis.

So the real hardcore guys snuck in, and made sure no one got to surrender, even if it cost them their own lives, because thats the sort of shit they do. And they would rather see their comrades dead, than live having betrayed Allah by surrendering.

Suicide missions a specialty. Sorry, only one per customer.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Don,let me clarify this: before Sept. 11, there was no group in the world I despised more than the Taliban. Their treatment of women, their senseless destruction of priceless statues, those guys are not only mean but irredeamably stupid.

That said, I'm talking about something different here.

This "riot" scenario is just bullshit. As you said, these guys are: "HARD CORE INTL TERRORISTS" and these people DO NOT surrender all their weapons, all their tactical advantage and then stage a riot when fucking EVERYTHING is against them.

I think a Flight 93 scenario is far more likely. They were going to be massacred, hey, let's take some of them with us.

Don, as much as these guys were nasty motherfuckers, they were warriors who had surrendered.

If I read your resume correctly, you were a warrior once. You cannot possibly condone the killing of a prisoner of war.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 11:19 am: Edit

Dr O, these were the non-Afghan Al-Qaeda/Taliban, which is to say, the real Al-Qaeda and Taliban not the draftee cannon fodder. Just what sort of comfortable position did they have in Konduz? Comfortable against US air power? No. Certain death. While there Afghan press-gangees could expect to go home to their wive and children, the hated 'Arabs' (hated by the Afghans -- and these are Chechens, Chinese moslems, Arabs, N.Africans, whatever) knew they had arrest and anything from UN jurisdiction to war crimes tribunals to look forward to, assuming that the UF/NA didn't kill them out of hand and save the world a lot of aggravation.

SO yeah it looks like they planned this incident as either a possible takwover of Gen Rashid's HQ or at worst a blaze of glory going out party, which is more or less what it came to.

Surely you don't believe this was a heroic Mila-18 type resistance against the evil oppressors?

THESE WERE HARD CORE INTL TERRORISTS AND DESERVED TO DIE. That they died fighting after a false surrender, is just corroboration of my statement.

Fuck them. There will be many more of their comrades to follow.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit

"Personally I am inclined to at least throw a large brick through the window of Amnesty Intl, who seem to regard the non-Afghan hardcore Al-Aqaeda and Taliban POWs who smuggled in grenades and staged a revolt, and who got their just desserts, as 'political prisoners'. Well, fuck Amnesty Intl. They came down on the wrong side at the start of this and they are playing sour grapes when it is well on its way to being finished."

Don, I would certainly agree with you if this is what really happened.

But...think of yourself for a moment as one of those Talibans. You are in a comfy, well-fortified position. You have RPGs, guns and ammo and, of course, the tactical advantage of a well-fortified position.

Would you surrender, leaving behind all your heavy weapons, carrying only the small arms that your clothes would conceal, be herded into a place where you have NO cover and THEN...start fighting?

I think this entire scenario smells worse than Ed Gein's mommy. Or mummy, whatever...

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:23 am: Edit

And Dr O, we may well be bombing Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and anyplace else we deem appropriate.

Personally I am inclined to at least throw a large brick through the window of Amnesty Intl, who seem to regard the non-Afghan hardcore Al-Aqaeda and Taliban POWs who smuggled in grenades and staged a revolt, and who got their just desserts, as 'political prisoners'. Well, fuck Amnesty Intl. They came down on the wrong side at the start of this and they are playing sour grapes when it is well on its way to being finished.

These scumbags were being treated a lot more humanely than they merited and they abused the privilege. Obviously, I hope the UF/NA do not make the same mistake twice, searches of prisoners should not be cursory, and anyone caught smuggling in a weapon or ammunition when surrendering (just make a Red Line and say Weapons on One Side or Death on the Other) should be summarily executed -- pour l'encouragement les autres.

WHY is AI not calling for inquiries into the Afghan Taliban fighters and CIVILIANS who were press-ganged by the Taliban into fighting, and then were massacred by the non-Afghan Taliban/Al-Qaeda when they wanted to surrender?

AI has its agenda, and its agenda is showing.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:12 am: Edit

Ed Gein not only kept his Mommie as a Mummy, he kept her so for sexual purposes. Furthermore, that's not what they finally got old Eddie for, they got him when he graduated from necrophilia and bodysnatching and ghoulism to murder one. He abducted and slaughtered a neighbor lady and was doing rude things with her suspended and excised corpse.

Ed also had a passion for deer hunting and used to present his neighbors with lots of venison, muchg of which was apparently either venison admixed with Long John Special or else was straight Long John Special.

His little corner of Wisconsin was never quite the same after this.

Eddie was absolutely the model for (Wisconsinite) Robert Bloch's Norman Bates, Bloch was a small time HP Lovecraft adherent and protege and a Jack the Ripper student, but the Gein affair really sent ripples through mid America during the dull Eisenhaueresque 50s and Bloch plugged right into it. All this despite the heavy censorship associasted with the juicy details of the case.

Students of the horror genre ascribe the impact of Gein not only on Bloch but on later subgenre classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and several others.

By Verawench on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 12:34 am: Edit

*burps Heineken*

Yeah boys. Whatever.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Cool! Steve Railsback plays Ed.
He did a great Charles Manson.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:35 pm: Edit

He didn't keep his mom mumified, that's a horrible accusation.


http://www.edgeinthemovie.com

By Tavarua on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

"Ed Gein...canabalistic and horrifying"

Eddie takes to much flack just because he dug up graves to make human corpse sculptures and kept his mom in a mummified state for many years. Oh yea, he was a canabal too. Hey, nobody's perfect.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Head, for once, the usually mild Swiss doctor feels like a terrorist.

FUCK NIKE!

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:06 pm: Edit

And if they are secret who'd missem' right?

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:04 pm: Edit

I hate Nike

By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Head, buddy, we're talking GENEVA.

You would blow up the secret bank account of every motherfucker who has ever exploited third world workers...The name NIKE rings a bell...you wouldn't want to do that...

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Skin Swatches? Is that were Ed Gein and the Nazi's got there ideas? That's canabalistic and horrifying. That's reason enough.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Well, Head, their Skin Swatches are tacky, but that's not what I mean...

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Fuck yeah

By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:43 pm: Edit

"Rumsfeld said the compound was thought to hold leaders of the ruling Taliban militia, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization and Wafa, a Saudi humanitarian aid organization that was among several groups named by the United States as alleged money conduits for bin Laden and his network."

"Somalia has been a place that has harbored al-Qaida and, to my knowledge, still is,'' he said."

So now we will bombing Somalia, or humanitarian organizations, or any other foreign sounding name...?

Hey, Osama Bin Laden was in Switzerland some years ago, should we bomb them?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation