At what point will air travel become unaffordable

The terminology isn't a problem. You represent the problem yourself: no
substance. The usenet is is arranged hierarchically so that people can send
their texts to an appropriate group (sometimes even to two groups so that
one group is clearly a subset in the other group). The focus of
rec.travel.europe and rec.travel.air is not on the relationship (hostile or
not) of the peoples living in the Middle East. You want to discuss on the
ragheads - fine. Just do it somewhere else.



"TOliver" kirjoitti
.. .


Gee, this guy's terminology certainly makes it clear which side his Daddy

"Markku Grönroos" wrote ...
The terminology isn't a problem. You represent the problem yourself: no
substance. The usenet is is arranged hierarchically so that people can
send their texts to an appropriate group (sometimes even to two groups so
that one group is clearly a subset in the other group). The focus of
rec.travel.europe and rec.travel.air is not on the relationship (hostile
or not) of the peoples living in the Middle East. You want to discuss on
the ragheads - fine. Just do it somewhere else.

From my perspective, the same constraints apply to your public revelations
of your racism on the travel groups, not quite as likely to bring you harm
as shouting the same words in public places where the targets of your crude
spew might be listening and respond, but still clearly identifying you as
well as establishing your level of intelligence, modestly below that of a
herring.

I suppose, however, that in having so exposed and labeled yourself, you're
willing to accept that the reading public is likely to grant about as much
credibility to your posts as it might to the sight of a flea, floating down
a mighty river on its back, jacking off/wanking while shouting "Raise the
drawbridges!"

Thanks for your help. Not only do we know who you are, we know what you
are, a far more telling tattoo.

TMO

"TOliver" kirjoitti
viestissä


I suppose, however, that in having so exposed and labeled yourself, you're
willing to accept that the reading public is likely to grant about as much
credibility to your posts as it might to the sight of a flea, floating
down a mighty river on its back, jacking off/wanking while shouting "Raise
the drawbridges!"

Credibility is not much of an issue in the usenet. It was sometimes but then
it was also populated by different sort of people. The issue is substance.
The substance of these groups is travelling. It is travelling even if your
drivel doesn't suggest this. The usenet has always been an open resource. It
worked fine as long as the community was relatively small and in it's
senses. Nowadays every turd from everywhere can access and spew out whatever
to the usenet. This free structure is just utilized. Now, be a man and
bugger off.

Tchiowa wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

[...]
Was the promotion of the Taliban in Afghanistan in America's best
interest?

No. And we didn't.

No, but we did anyway.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
"How Washington Funded the Taliban"

"The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious
regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most
shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially
reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering
a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001,
U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of
Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged
accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of
consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That
characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was
not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist
Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S.
response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its
farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it
"grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in
such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's
proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of
State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in
addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been
providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's
comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for
Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in
context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2
billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have
required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was
very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters."

Was the support for Saddam in his war against Iran in America's best
interest?

At the time, yes.

Nope.
--
dgs

Markku Grönroos wrote:


Credibility is not much of an issue in the usenet.

In your case, asshole, it's not an issue at all. Now **** off.
--
dgs

"TOliver" skrev i meddelandet
...

"Markku Grönroos" wrote........

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Perhaps the oddball finds another forum for this insane filth on
ragheads. What about some American travel groups? Perhaps they are most
delighted on this babble on hebes and camel riders of other sort. It is
funny that american barmies populate groups whose scope is in air
travelling and travelling in Europe. Are you really so bored that you
don't find anything meaningful to do? Perhaps there is an employer
somewhere who pities you much enough to hire you.

Gee, this guy's terminology certainly makes it clear which side his Daddy
(if he was identified and recorded as such) fought on in WWII.
-------
If father was involved in a war it's likely to have been in the defense of
his country against the attack from Soviet-Union. I don't know exactly
what's so wrong with that but uncle Joe's comrades may of course have their
opinions...

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:57:14 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote:


"TOliver" kirjoitti
viestissä


I suppose, however, that in having so exposed and labeled yourself, you're
willing to accept that the reading public is likely to grant about as much
credibility to your posts as it might to the sight of a flea, floating
down a mighty river on its back, jacking off/wanking while shouting "Raise
the drawbridges!"

Credibility is not much of an issue in the usenet. It was sometimes but then
it was also populated by different sort of people. The issue is substance.
The substance of these groups is travelling. It is travelling even if your
drivel doesn't suggest this. The usenet has always been an open resource. It
worked fine as long as the community was relatively small and in it's
senses. Nowadays every turd from everywhere can access and spew out whatever
to the usenet. This free structure is just utilized. Now, be a man and
bugger off.

Is LIDL closed this week?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

nobody wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Or maybe you should get a grip on reality. The problems there aren't
about Israel occupying anything. They are about the fact that Israel
exists. Whenever you hear Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the other groups
talking about "The Occupied Territories" they are not talking about the

You are listening to american rethoric which doesn'ty provide the full
picture.

No. I am reading history. And I'm listening to the statements of the
groups like Hamas. They don't want Israel to exist, period. The leader
of Hamas was on Hard Talk a couple of years ago. I watched the
interview. He stated quite openly that his group's goal was the
elimination of the state of Israel. When he was challenged that this
sounded racist (barring all Jews from the Middle East) he said that he
had no problem with Jews living there. As long as they lived there
under Muslim rule.

This is a bit like believing that northern ireland's conflict
was based on religion. It wasn't. It was a conflict between people of
irish and british origins and/or a conflict between poor and rich etc
etc etc. Far more complex than just what the media mentioned.

Simularly, the conflict in the middle east is far more complex than just
accepting the existance of one or the other country. There are a lot of
postion taking and negotiating tactics.

Sorry, but you're wrong. This is about the existence of Israel.

Israel/USA insist that peace must first be acheived before it is even
willing to negotiate peace. (aka: make sure no peace accord is ever
reached).

??? Really? Talk to Egypt. Israel and Egypt achieved peace and the
Sinai was returned. All that was required was that Egypt recognize
Israel's right to exist and quit attacking it.

And some middle east factions refuse to acknowledge Israel's
right to exist until Peace has been reached.

Your sentence is too long. It is not that they "refuse to acknowledge
Israel's right to exist UNTIL PEACE HAS BEEN REACHED" it is that they
"refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist" PERIOD. End of
statement.

If the USA's request that country X stop supplying arms to neighbours of
israel, then the USA must also announce it has stopped supplying arms to
Israel. Starving only one side of arms/money will not allow mutually
agreed peace plan.

Wrong. First, it is not the USA's request, it is Israel and the UN's
request. Second, it is not that they stop supplying arms to neighbors
of Israel but rather it is that they stop supplying arms to terrorist
groups operating within those neighbors. No objections to Lebanon
having weapons as they are a sovereign country with the same rights as
Israel. It is objecting to Syria supplying HEZBOLLAH with weapons.

Please tell me that you understand the difference.

And with the USA's souble standards, it not only increases hatred
against the USA (hence terrorism against the USA), but also discredits
any attempt to reach peace in the middle east.

Double standards??? The US has always insisted that BOTH sides be
treated equally. That is what offends the Muslims.

TOliver wrote:
"Markku Grönroos" wrote........

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Perhaps the oddball finds another forum for this insane filth on ragheads.
What about some American travel groups? Perhaps they are most delighted on
this babble on hebes and camel riders of other sort. It is funny that
american barmies populate groups whose scope is in air travelling and
travelling in Europe. Are you really so bored that you don't find anything
meaningful to do? Perhaps there is an employer somewhere who pities you
much enough to hire you.

Gee, this guy's terminology certainly makes it clear which side his Daddy
(if he was identified and recorded as such) fought on in WWII. I suspect he
keeps Daddy's armband in the cupboard (along with the jackboots) and
practices saluting with elbow, wrist and finger joints stiffly locked. At
least he seems an equal oppotunity hater, when it comes to racist paranoia.
I'd hate to think what an inventory of his home library, briefl though it's
certain to be, would reveal aside from the coloring books and crayon stubs.

I challenged Markku some time ago about his racist comments. He
admitted to being a racist and expressed pride about it. So your
comments are probably more accurate than you know.

dgs wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

[...]
Was the promotion of the Taliban in Afghanistan in America's best
interest?

No. And we didn't.

No, but we did anyway.

No we didn't. Paying a government to help wipe out drug cultivation is
a far cry from "promoting" that government.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
"How Washington Funded the Taliban"

"The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious
regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most
shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially
reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering
a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

Was the support for Saddam in his war against Iran in America's best
interest?

At the time, yes.


Sorry, but history shows otherwise.