Blair 'has seen proof' that bin Laden is guilty By George Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 01/10/2001)

TONY BLAIR said yesterday he had seen "absolutely powerful incontrovertible evidence" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington.

He voiced confidence that while the struggle would be lengthy, America and its allies would be able to locate bin Laden and close down his terror network.

Mr Blair signalled his readiness to commit British forces to any American-led military action against the terrorist networks and sought to prepare the public for the possibility that these forces could suffer casualties.

While he faced a big responsibility, he said, it was more difficult for the troops, who were expected "to go and put their lives on the line".

Mr Blair said it was a tremendous strength to have the dedication and professionalism of the British Armed Forces behind him.

Interviewed on BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost programme, the Prime Minister was asked whether he had seen evidence against bin Laden that would stand up in a British or American court.

"I have seen absolutely powerful, incontrovertible evidence of his link to the events of September 11," he said.

However, there was a question over how much of it could be made public "because much of this evidence comes to us from sensitive sources, from intelligence sources".

Mr Blair insisted that it was possible successfully to hit the terrorist networks. "We can certainly eradicate the bin Laden network and we should do that. And I think we can take huge measures and steps against terrorism if we have the international will," he said.

"If we treat this as a fundamental evil in our world, a new form of mass international terrorism that can wreak absolute devastation and havoc in a country like America, if we consider the threat that that poses, then I am sure that we can take action against it and be successful in the action that we take."

He underlined his previous warnings to Afghanistan's Taliban rulers that they must hand over bin Laden and close down his training camps or face the possible overthrow of their regime.

"If they are not prepared to give up bin Laden, which they could do if they wanted to, then they become an obstacle that we have to disable or remove in order to get to bin Laden, so that is their choice," he said.

"It is not as if we set out with the aim of changing the Taliban regime, but if they remain in the way of achieving our objective - namely that bin Laden and his associates are yielded up and the terror camps are closed - then the Taliban themselves become our enemy."

Labour's national executive declared yesterday that the fight against the "cancer" of terrorism following the September 11 atrocities must be a long-term global effort including appropriate military action.

Meeting ahead of the party's annual conference in Brighton, the NEC agreed a statement on terrorism which will form the basis of a debate to be held tomorrow.

The statement declared: "Just as terrorists operate without borders, so the fight against terrorism needs to be a global one.

"Only a true coalition of the civilised world offers a real chance of cutting out the cancer of mass terrorism."

It urged the Government to work with Britain's allies in the United States, Europe and elsewhere to seek out those who were responsible for the attacks and ensure they were brought to justice.

But in in pursuing the perpetrators of these atrocities, military action, where appropriate, must be "measured, effective and focused".

-- (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 01, 2001

Answers

It seems Anita is not convinced that bl is behind the 9/11 attacks.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

Anita wants a signed and notarized confession, supported by lie detector data and tape recordings. Then she wants a Grand Jury to indite. Then she wants a trial at the Hague with Johnny Cochrane, F.Lee Baily and Alan Dershowitz hired by the American government to provide defense She wants full coverage on Court TV with in-depth analysis by Greta Van Susterin.

She wants the jury to be selected from a distinguished panel of Islamic "clerics". If BL is found guilty, she wants appeal to the US Supreme Court (if it is still standing at that time). If SS finds BL guilty she wants him to be sentenced to A Psychiatric Hospitel where he will receive the finest Group Therapy. He came from a very dysfunctional family doncha know.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 01, 2001.

Lars, that is insufficient. To be absolutely certain, there must be eye witnesses. There must be psychological profiling. There must be fingerprints. There must be the latest forensic evidence including microscopic fiber analysis and DNA "fingerprints" of OBL semen (OBL is known to always ejaculate on his martyrs before they journey to paradise). This means that every single recovered scrap of the crashed airliners be scrutinized in the most modern crime labs.

-- (Janet Reno @ Everglades.moshpit), October 01, 2001.

Lars, can you point me to where Anita said she wanted all that? I missed it.

My memory is that she just pointed out that no evidence of bin Laden's guilt had really been brought forward at that time. Not sketchy evidence. Not weak evidence. Not circumstantial evidence. But NO evidence. None.

All the evidence I had "seen" at that time was the repeated assertion that the WTC and Pentagon attacks appear to match bin Laden's MO. Except ObL had never done anything exactly like it before.

Recently, after Anita made this point, Tony Blair (or a cabinet minister of his?) said the US had showed him "incontrovertible" evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. That's better than nothing, but neither you nor I nor Anita has seen this evidence.

It might be nice to see something in the way of evidence, don't you think?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

Aren't you guys going a little overboard? Why not settle for just one concrete shred of proof?

Not necessarily a smoking gun, but an iota of the "evidence" that Mr Bush and his administration have gathered to share with the world community. Must be getting pretty bad for you to feel you need to make fun of Anita.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

JBT--

Anita can take it.

As far as "evidence", this is not simply a crime, this is war.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 01, 2001.

JBT, how much evidence do you need? What kind would suffice?

Janet, too funny! Too bad JBT doesn't get it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

...this is war.

Yes, but without knowing who was responsible for the attacks, how do you know who to make war on? Make war on the wrong targets and we accomplish worse than nothing.

At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese planes wore ensignia so it was a simple matter. In this case, it is no simple matter.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

LN, weren't you the one saying that this was Osama's plan?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

Maria, I said (italics added):

"Assuming Osama bin Laden is the major figure behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks, I think he is well-pleased at everything that has happened so far, including the American reaction."

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

Maria,

Oh I get it and I get your avoidance of an issue by ridicluing anyone who doesn't see it your way. It is your M.O. as they say.

"JBT, how much evidence do you need? What kind would suffice?"

Any, any kind at all. Apparently there is some according to Mr. Blair. Surely there is some tiny shred of this ultra top secret evidence that could be released?

My real point here is not the evidence issue but the making fun of someone when you have no answer to their question besides "Bush is our President, trust in him to lead us to the Promised Land." Normally, even you wouldn't buy that kind of statement especially if it was issued between January 20, 1993 and January 19, 2001.

In fact I see it was you who drug Anita into this thread where I see no post by her requesting evidence be provided or anything at all by her. You just wished to take a shot at someone in your usual bitchy manner.

Now why does that not surprise me? Anyway I'm glad to see you've gotten past the Oaks if that Elm tree sticking out of your ass is any indication. Too bad your head has to go in after it to see it up close.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

And you concluded with, "Have you seen anything happening yet that shows he is much off course? I don't." Stop being such a weasle. You think HIS plan is going the way HE envisioned. Your crystal ball sees the Muslins will unite under the protection of their whimmpy nukes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

"I see no post by her requesting evidence be provided or anything at all by her" Maybe you're too busying looking at the forest. Here try this.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006VcQ

FWIW JBT, I'm just stating facts about Anita, not taking any cheap shots. She's a big girl, she can take care of herself. If she didn't want someone to know that she needs evidence, then maybe she shouldn't have written it on this forum. If you find my comment bitchy, then you need some laxatives and you can go fuck yourself.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

OOhh, Maria, I love it when you talk dirty.

Do you see a pattern here? You go out of your way to take cheap shots about someone (for things posted on a totally different thread) then when someone else questions your motivations in doing this you totally ignore the point (in this case, if there is evidence shouldn't that be shared even a little tiny scrap or should we just trust your man) then you proceed to attack the person who questions you.

Besides being bitchy I would say that would indicate that you are pretty shallow. If you aren't able to answer the point in a reasonable manner then the other people can just go fuck themselves. Brilliant Maria.

Maybe instead of taking cheap shots at posters on this board you should just go peddle a military secret somewhere. As I recall there are some who feel that is one thing that YOU can do well. Trying to discuss something in a rational manner is apparently not something you react well too.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

You are a total asshole JBT.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 01, 2001.

What evidence do they have that isn't circumstantial? Phone records? Money trails? Any live members of his organization willing to testify against him?

-- helen (yeah@what.evidence), October 01, 2001.

Maria, if it was 'weaseling' to state up front that everything that followed was operating under an assumption, and to state what that assumption was, then I have no intention of stopping. I wish you would weasel like that from time to time.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

JBT, don't let Maria bother you, she is mentally challenged. No, that is not a joke. It never occurred to me either, that there are some retarded people using the internet and posting on forums. Then I was informed that she IS a mentally challenged person, for real.

So she knows what she hears on the news and what she hears Bush say on the television, and she believes that this is the way things are. Bin Laden is being accused all over the media, so she assumes he is guilty. She does not have the reasoning capabilities to conceive of the possibility of anything other than what she has heard. Please understand, her mental abilities are limited.

I happen to agree with you, that some evidence should be announced to the public before attempts are made to kill Bin Laden. I've no doubt that his intentions are evil, and circumstantial conditions would seem to indicate that he was involved in what happened, and maybe even masterminded it. But there are other powers in this world who also could have masterminded it. Perhaps Saddam Hussein? Maybe the men who did the hijacking were working for him.

In any event, Tony Blair has announced to the public that he has seen conclusive evidence. Something that proves Bin Laden is guilty of this attack without a doubt. Well, surely if he can announce this to the world all over the news, he can at least let us know WHAT it is!

If not, and they kill Bin Laden, the world will never know the real truth. We will always wonder, was Bin Laden just a scapegoat for the real culprit, someone a lot more powerful and dangerous?

-- we CAN handle the truth! (let's have @ it. Tony), October 01, 2001.

helen: "What evidence do they have that isn't circumstantial?"

I would be perfectly happy to see some circumstantial evidence. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is very powerful and convincing.

I am not pretending I'm on a jury and I certainly don't need our government to rise to the level of evidence needed in a courtroom. I just think it would be good for us as a people and for the success of this war, if the government produced at least a fig leaf's worth of evidence showing that what we claim to be true is true.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 01, 2001.

Actually, LN, I don't have a problem with holding the government to courtroom standards of evidence. It would be nice to capture the guy alive and put him on trial. Killing him will martyr him and everyone killed with him.

-- helen (no@secret.courts), October 01, 2001.

Helen I think putting him on trial would martyr him even more. Just eliminate him. Out of sight, out of mind. Does anyone still carry candles for Timothy McVeigh? Timothy who?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 01, 2001.

J does.

BTW KoFE, I'm not a total asshole but I am a practicing professional prick. But I at least pay my taxes and say so publicly. You never did answer that question. Do you pay income taxes?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

Just what are YOUR taxes, you friggin zombie?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 01, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

You said, "I'm not a total asshole..."

May I ask by who's opinion? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 01, 2001.

"Civilized" people don't just proceed to kill others without legitimate justification backed up by incontrovertible evidence, or at least they shouldn't.

One of the biggest dangers, here, is that we nail the wrong guy(s), and the real perpetrators get off scot free, or that we take out OBL and his 'known' followers before we really ferret out his entire support network, isn't it?

Some of you people really need to get a grip on your childish, spoiled brat addictions to "instant gratification". Maybe even realize: nobody owes you one fucking thing, in that regard, hey?

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 01, 2001.

I've also gotta take my stick after Lars again, too. I was just starting to think you actually had a pretty decent head on your shoulders, guy; then you start to really make me wonder...

"As far as "evidence", this is not simply a crime, this is war."

It's beginning to become clearer by the day that the Taliban is not a legitimate government, in any real sense of the word. It's just a band of opportunistic zealots that happened to seize that 'title' in the power vacuum left behind following the failed Soviet onslaught and withdrawl.

Now, as a soldier, I call it "war" when we're up against a legitimate government and it's military forces. If we're fighting a non-governmental entity such as a group or an organization it's rightly called a "police action" when the military becomes involved (i.e. Manuel Noriega in Panama). That lack of a recognized "government" behind this makes it a "crime", not a "war".

the truth of this will surely be borne out by our own future actions, as our "police agencies" around the world carry out the vast bulk of the effort in this new "police action".

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 01, 2001.

Hell. I don't even need to post anymore. Heh.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 01, 2001.

Killing people without legitimate justification backed up by incontrovertible evidence already has a name: MURDER.

People that practice indiscriminate murder, even under the thinn guise of patriotism, are not called "Patriots", they are called "a bloodthirsty vigilante mob.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 01, 2001.

For those of you who don't already know me from previous posts, and are about to jump my ass with your typical tripe about being a peace loving pansy ("pansy dove" was once used by Tony Baloney), let me remind you, just for the record: I'm a US Army Ranger and paratrooper, with my first combat experience in Viet Nam and my last in Desert Storm. I can verify this through others in this forum who know me personally.

I strongly advise you: Don't even go there with me; don't even think about it...I will eat your armchair fucking hero lunch. You'll have a lot more fun messing with a pissed off pit bull, believe me.

What you need to be thinking about is calming your lust for instant (blood) gratification here, and hunkering down for the long haul.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 01, 2001.

Lars, McVeigh carried out an attack on American civilians. His crime was called "murder". There was essentially no difference between his attack on a building in OKC and the ones carried out in September of this year. His method of delivery and the scale of the destruction and death are the only real differences, but both attacks were supposedly carried out against our government for perceived wrongdoing. No one suggested we "war" with citizens of New York state.

McVeigh was put to death quickly compared to the average death penalty case. Nichols faces the death penalty if he goes to trial for murder in Oklahoma state court.

Another citizen of our country who decides to try something like that has learned that s/he will likely die for it -- and death strapped to a table after years of incarceration may look worse than death by suicide. We've raised the threshold, if you will.

Meanwhile, any attack carried out now will be blamed on Muslim terrorists just as the OKC bombing was initially blamed on them.

It's a mess, Lars. The mess has great potential to get messier.

-- helen (got@mop.bucket), October 01, 2001.

KoFE,

You answered the question as best you can I guess. So you DO pay income taxes all the while trying to sucker others into not paying their taxes thereby earning a criminal charge. Beautiful, just beautiful. Blow me you IRS lackey. Porter?

J,

An independent, bipartisan commission was convened to determine if I was an asshole or a prick. After years of study they issued a report finding me to be 99.99% prick with just a dash of asshole thrown in for good measure. If you wish a copy of the commission findings please forward $9.95 and a SASE.

As my mother always told me, take pride in something that you do well, and I proudly acknowledge my prickness.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 01, 2001.

Zzzzzzz--

Thanks for the left-handed compliment. I respect your combat experience and thank you for serving where most of us feared to tread. I have never been in the military, even in an Al Gore-ish way, so I make no judgements on tactics or on the nature of war.

But that does not mean I cannot have opinions on our current dilemma, so here goes. Your definition of war strikes me as too legalistic. Korea was called a "police action" by the pols, I'm sure those who were thare called it a war. What was Viet Nam called? It was a "Civil War" wasn't it? But it was a war. Then we have all these lovely "Peace Keepings" in which brave young Americans are served up as cannon fodder by the equivocating pols who won't call a spade a spade (Somalia comes to mind).

What do you call the attack on WTC and Pentagon if not an act of war? Vandalism? Mass murder? Yes, but it was much more. It was a deliberate violent surprise strike at the citizens and economy of this nation by a cabal of unknowns that do not have a national flag and do not have the guts to formally identify themselves. But if it was the Islamic radicals, it was "war" by their own statements---it was "Holy War". Holy War is an ancient and historically recognized form of war.

I don't want young American soldiers to die in a futile response to this act of war. I don't want innocent Afghan hillbillies to die. But I don't want more American civilians to die. The first responsibility of a government is to provide for the common defense.

I think our goverment's restraint to date has been laudable. Maybe we can prevail without launching conventional war (special ops but not conventional). Much has already been done without miltary action. But we do not yet know what we are up against. The fact that we cannot identify a single enemy country does not mean someone is not waging war against us. What will it take for you to acknowledge that? One more WTC? Ten more?

I have a modicum of confidence in how our government and citizens have responded to date. I do believe the proper authorities will determine who did this. Then we will be obliged to respond with force. No other choice.

In the meantime we must be vigilant to further attacks. We do not yet know what we are up against. I would prefer for the US to declare war now. Against who? Against the as yet unidentified conspiracy that has done this thing.

Be careful with that stick. I'd hate to see you hurt yourself.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 02, 2001.

ZZZZZ you sound like Phil Donahue. We can't call this a crime because we do not want (unlike what helen believes) this in the courts for years. So what to call it. Hey I know how 'bout war? Totally different rules apply now. We didn't call it a crime when Japanese pilots bombed PH. We call it an act of war. We didn't need to investigate a crime to ensure these pilots were indeed sent by the Japanese government, not just some hijackers who looked oriental. We declared war. We all realize (your patronizing banter leaves me feeling putrid) that we're up against a band of terrorists not some recognized form of government. But this doesn't imply that we can't call it a war.

IMO we are not reacting like red necks; while most posters here seem to think that the administration is doing just that when they (the posters) can't even spell SIOP. I don't get it. Powell is playing the diplomat very well. Rumsfeld is also playing the war department very well. It makes for a nice mix of diplomacy and agression. You may return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

"We didn't call it a crime when Japanese pilots bombed PH. We call it an act of war. We didn't need to investigate a crime to ensure these pilots were indeed sent by the Japanese government, not just some hijackers who looked oriental."

Of course Maria having our soldiers and sailors see the rising sun painted on the aircraft that were dropping bombs and torpedos on them might of have given them a clue as to who attacked them. Or surely the announcement by the Japanese ambassador after the attack might have let us know who attacked Pearl Harbor which would eliminate the need to investigate in order to find out who attacked Pearl Harbor.

Besides these small matters your comparison is wonderful. Analyzing why some people might want some evidence produced to determine who is responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center by comparing it to the attack on Pearl Harbor makes sense to me.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Maria -

Call it whatever you like, honey bun; I really don't care, because it doesn't change a thing. We've spent years and billion$ fighting the "War on Drugs", too. We even use our military forces! I see this as exactly the same sort of thing. In fact, a hell of a lot more people have died of drug overdoses, and it's related diseases, that you could cram into a dozen WTC's - and we have not managed to accomplish a single thing when it comes to stopping that, now have we? And we won't stop terrorism that way, either. IF you honestly believe for a second that we will, well...just dream on, sweet cakes.

My "patronizing banter leaves you feeling putrid"? Ohhhhh, geeeee, you pooooor little thing! I'm sooooo sorry! Please forgive me! I guess I shouldn't be the least little bit concerned that both my seventeen year old (ROTC cadet) son and I might soon both be fighting and possibly dying for your selfish, childish fucking stupidity. That's what really frosts my ass, dear - you dumb fucks (and all your ilk) just ain't worth it, my "safe and comfy at home" little cupcake...you just aren't.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 02, 2001.

Excuse me JBT but I was not addressing you or your comments. If you desire 'evidence', please don't let me stop you from looking for it. Let me know when you find it to your satisfaction. I'll be so glad. My comment went to the discussion between ZZZZ and Lars and the label of crime versus war.

And to your comment on my talking dirty, I expected male type units of your ilk to liken a 'go fuck yourself' plea to a love call. I apologize for giving you the wrong impression.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

ZZZZ isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing! You're making lots of assumption about what I think on the war. But make no assumptions on this one; I don't give a shit about you or what you think or your stupid son. Thanks for your time.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Nor do we really give a flying fuck about your's, love bump. Why don't you just go take a nice hot bath (and your meds) babes...

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 02, 2001.

And I'll thank you for not telling me what to do asshole.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Freedom of speech, remember? I'll say anything I like to you, asshole. If you don't like it you know what you can do?

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 02, 2001.

I have an ilk?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Well, asshole if you don't give a flying fuck why bother to give me advice?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

"JBT, don't let Maria bother you, she is mentally challenged. No, that is not a joke. It never occurred to me either, that there are some retarded people using the internet and posting on forums. Then I was informed that she IS a mentally challenged person, for real."

I know I shouldn't pick on those too feeble to defend themselves, and I feel bad. I was just trying to help, I can see that's a waste of my time and yours.

Have a nice day, my little Froot Loop...

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 02, 2001.

I have an ilk?

It's probably due to the shoes you wear.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 02, 2001.

know for a fact that an Army paratrooper doesn't require any intelligence. The criteria for paratroopers do not include even decent grades or a college education. So, I'll guess that our little vet here has a lower than average intellect. That kinda makes sense since he can't get his point across without slamming, just like other trolls. I feel sorry for the little guy but actually more so for his family.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

"has a lower than average intellect. That kinda makes sense since he can't get his point across without slamming"

Gosh Maria, it sure sounds like you are describing YOURSELF!

-- (having@freudian.slip?), October 02, 2001.

I think Zzzz is Cherri in mufti drag.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 02, 2001.

What's wrong with my shoes? They're not Birkenstocks. And since when did we get a dress code anyway? Is this another one of Unk's "special" days that drive Z nuts.

I love you Anita. You too Maria (cough,choke,hack).

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

Troll Maria says...I don't give a shit about you or what you think or your stupid son

Troll Maria says...I feel sorry for the little guy but actually more so for his family

Zzzzz, you're in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Thank you for your service to our country. The amazing thing is that both you and your son will serve our Nation, if called, no matter your opinion of some of its citizens. Blessings to you both, and stay safe.

-- I'll never (forget@troll.maria), October 02, 2001.

Thanks hardliner

-- Troll Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Hardliner, glad you think that this (My "patronizing banter leaves you feeling putrid"? Ohhhhh, geeeee, you pooooor little thing! I'm sooooo sorry! Please forgive me! I guess I shouldn't be the least little bit concerned that both my seventeen year old (ROTC cadet) son and I might soon both be fighting and possibly dying for your selfish, childish fucking stupidity. That's what really frosts my ass, dear - you dumb fucks (and all your ilk) just ain't worth it, my "safe and comfy at home" little cupcake...you just aren't.) could resemble anything close to a 'battle of wits'. Bolded emphasis mine for JBT's dim wit.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Oh my mistake, I thought that this was the ilk you were referring to:

And to your comment on my talking dirty, I expected male type units of your ilk to liken a 'go fuck yourself' plea to a love call. I apologize for giving you the wrong impression.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001.

Thanks for the enlightenment, you fascist slut.

Yours in ilkness.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 02, 2001.

my my maria, what a lady

-- (tsk@tsk.tsk), October 02, 2001.

"What's wrong with my shoes?"

When I graduate I'm going to take off my shoes, sit in a tree and play the flute!

-- Porgy Tirebyter, More Science High School

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), October 02, 2001.

Jumping back into the fire again, I'll submit this article.

JBT: Shoes don't matter? I thought the ilk came with the shoes, kindof like the extra button in the little plastic bag.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 02, 2001.

I have an elk.

-- helen (shoes@make.the.elk.ilk), October 02, 2001.

Maria, Noriega's trial didn't take years. The trials for the guys who bombed the WTC in '93 didn't take years. The trials for the guys who bombed the embassy in ... Sudan? ... that didn't take a long time either. If they have the evidence, I think they can try bin Laden in absentia, can't they?

-- helen (courts@can.handle.it), October 02, 2001.

It's easy for anonymous jerks to make empty-headed comments in a forum such as this. I don't want to stoop to your level, Maria, but I must say you're not worthy to walk on the same street as Zzzzzzzz. How dare you attack him and his family! Check out the facts about Army Rangers and Paratroopers before you spout off again, Birdbrain!

Zzzzzzz...please pay no attention to asinine comments that were made here. I for one would be honored to kiss your feet. Some of us are aware of the tremendous sacrifices you and your family have made for our country. Your insight here is invaluable. Too bad some are too shallow and blind to realize it.

-- Kelly (amazed@ungrateful.americans), October 02, 2001.

It took me four days to get home after the WTC attack. I was actually on my way to a meeting in the first tower that morning. I saw things I am not ready to talk about yet, and I haven't slept more than three hours at a stretch since the night of September the 10th. I had thought normalcy was gone forever. What a delight to come here and find that absolutely nothing has changed at Unk's!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 02, 2001.

Tarzan, Jane let us know you lived through it. I'm sorry you're having trouble sleeping. I don't remember how long it took us to sleep normally after OKC. I remember feeling like an explosion could take place at any moment. It was a feeling of hyper-alertness mixed with exhaustion. I cried a lot. Crying didn't help.

Unk's microcosm proves there will never be peace in the middle east.

-- helen (no@good.help), October 02, 2001.

Thanks Helen. It was about this time last year that I was dealing with cancer. Two close calls in a single year. Wow.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 02, 2001.

Kelly, whoever you are

How do you know "Zzzz" is who he says he is?

-- (Whoever@I.am), October 03, 2001.

She probably asked Bemused, a regular poster on this forum, and Zzzzz's little brother...

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 03, 2001.

LN - Thank you.  Same-same Kelly and the rest of you that commented and supported me so kindly during this "flame war" Maria began with me.

Maria - You are a sad, sad example of an "American". You started this crap with this:

"ZZZZZ you sound like Phil Donahue...(your patronizing banter leaves me feeling putrid) -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001. "

When I pointed out to you that I thought I had a right to disagree, since both I and my son may find ourselves actually fighting this next war, Your Brilliance came up with this:

"You're making lots of assumption about what I think on the war. But make no assumptions on this one; I don't give a shit about you or what you think or your stupid son. Thanks for your time. -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001"

Then, you proceeded to attack not just me, but every American and past and present veteran in this entire country with this really brilliant post:

"I know for a fact that an Army paratrooper doesn't require any intelligence. The criteria for paratroopers do not include even decent grades or a college education. So, I'll guess that our little vet here has a lower than average intellect. -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 02, 2001."

You're obviously way too psychotic to let this whole matter just drop - you continued to dredge thru the old posts and came up with my [stated] past experience as an RN and tried to use that to infer that I can't be "telling the truth" about having served (volunteered actually) in both Viet Nam and Desert Storm.  Then you go and post that to another thread altogether.

Okay - I've had quite enough of you, Maria, and I'm going to clarify a few things, for you and some of the other regulars here.  I would do this privately, via email, but you're too chickenshit to post a real email address (tho I'm sure somebody here has one on you and will share that with me soon enough), so I'll just do it right here.

I've been posting here on Unc's for about three weeks now.  I'd never heard of this place before then, and I'm not one of the "old Y2K" regulars.

I had sent a semi-personal email to my little brother (and a few other close friends) in the midst of the WTC/Pentagon attacks.  He liked it, apparently, and asked me if I would mind if he shared it with a "few people", and I said "Sure, no problem".  I had NO idea that he was going to post it here at Unc's, but that's what he did, the little shit.

My little brother goes by the name Bemused (and_amazed@you.people) (and I'm sure he's cringing and cussing now that I've 'linked' myself to him, and will never want to post under that moniker again - sorry little brother).  My original "posted" email is still in the forum archives here.   Maria - you can also find my email address there, if you have the guts to ever use it - feel free.

I mention this only because Maria (and a few others) have as much as called me an outright liar, and it's the only "proof" I have (or should need) of my claims.   Maybe you'll take the word of an old "regular" here, if you won't take mine.

Little Nipper - you are exactly right. I enlisted and "volunteered" to go to Viet Nam right after I graduated from HS.  I was only 17 when I graduated and enlisted; and I was sent, by the Army, to Ranger Training partly (it's strictly volunteer, too) to pass the time until I turned 18, since you can't serve in a combat zone as a "minor".

And Maria: trust me or do your own research - the Army's Ranger School is the hardest school to get into (and pass) in the entire Army, it's generally held - and you have to score in the 98%+ percentile on all the military entrance exams, and be in supremely excellent physical condition, to even qualify to try for a rare and precious slot in that school.  It's considered one of the greatest honors in the Army to earn and wear the Ranger Tab.  FYI: Colin Powell also wears it, as do all the highest Army brass.  And, also, Maria; you have to first qualify and pass the Army's Airborne (Parachutist) School before you can even apply for Ranger School - and "Jump School" is no gimme either, let me tell ya.

Anyway - Viet Nam kicked my ass, and I won't deny it.  And coming home, so proud, in my Army uniform - only to be spit on, attacked and shunned by good "patriotic American's" just like you, Maria, kicked it even harder.

At the ripe old age of 20 (too young to even buy a beer or vote yet) I got out of the service and went to college on the GI Bill.  And following that I spent several years working as an RN in surgery (exclusively) in our Regional Trauma Center - becaused I liked the mental challenges and the intensity of the job, and also because I wanted to try my hand at healing people, instead of killing them. I guess you might even call it an attempt to heal myself.

A friend of mine eventually (it took a few years) talked me into going back into an Army Reserve unit here.  They wanted me to be an RN there, too (that's a college degree'd "Officer" rank position, Maria) but I didn't want to do, on drills, what I already did at work in my civilian job, and I'd always been a "combat arms" soldier, so I took the only other choice in this locality - we had an Armor unit here (tanks) and I became a tanker.  I became a very good tanker, in fact.  I'm a Master Gunner (the highest qualification you can get in Armor) and outshot and outfought every "active duty" tanker I competed against in annual training every year - and they put us up against the very best Tankers in the Army All Armor Competition at Graefenwohr, Germany every year.  I had the highest qualification scores as a Tank Commander for two years running just before Desert Storm began.

When Desert Storm came around my Reserve unit was not called up - but I personally requested (volunteered) to be put back on Active Duty (Federalized) and sent to the Gulf War with a combat Armor unit - since it was a "tank war" and they needed as many good, experienced men as they could get; and they took me (I got the call on a Friday that I had two days to say goodbye to my family and report to Ft Knox, KY for assignment to an armor unit in the Gulf that following Monday).

Maria, let me tell you just one little part of that whole experience.  A very few close friends of mine from my armor unit were also granted active duty volunteer requests (we were a "crew" together).  We went together to Ft Knox to get our gear issued and to be given our unit assignments to the Gulf.  In one of the initial breifings my friends and I asked "Will we be assigned together when we get to Saudi Arabia? We've crewed together for years and know each other so well, and work together as a team so well..." and we were told (and this is as near verbatum as I can be) "You guys are casualty replacements...when you get there here's what's going to happen: somebody will point to a "battle damaged" M1A1 Abrams tank that welders will be busy welding metal plates over the holes in, and you will be told to get in, scrape the brains and blood and charred body parts of your "predecessors" out of the turret, get your vehicle and yourselves ready, and get it back into action as soon as possible."

Now, Maria, I'd appreciate it if you would just lay off.  I'm asking nicely.   Just once.

If you should choose not to, I'm going to take your own words of total disrespect for me, as a soldier - and of disrespect for EVERY American soldier - and I'm going to post them (with your email, phone and home address) to the internet in every place I know of that "vets" and soldiers visit.   Let's just see you defend those words to thousands (or tens of thousands) of American vets and soldiers, or even try.

I will find out your email address and your HOME address and your home phone number, and let all of them "have at you".  Do you understand?   If you don't think I can, or that I won't, just try me, lady...you'll never regret messing with anybody as much in your entire life as you'll regret messing with me now, I promise you.  I do not want to hear another word from you ever again, in this matter.

You have been warned.  You stepped over the line, Maria, WAY over the line, and   it's time to back up and back down, or you'll be wishing to God you had, soon enough.

The rest of you: I don't expect anything from you, personally.  But I will ask that you don't stoop to Maria's pathetic level and demean and belittle the incredible sacrifices of those that serve you so selflessly in this dangerous world.  Not if you expect them to continue to.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), October 03, 2001.

Tarzan, I'd like to hear about your experiences when you are ready to talk about them. I only slept 4 hours for the first 5 days, you should get something to help you sleep, sleep depravation will make it harder mentally for you. Hang in there....

What's mufti? And I don't jump out of airplanes, the only time I went up with a parashute I stayed in the plane, and I don't have any living sons.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 03, 2001.

NATO also announced that they believe the evidence is overwhelming, but I guess they are not to be believed either. And who the hell thinks that "capturing" Bin Laden to put him on some bogus trial will not lead to less lives being lost, not more???!!!

What frigging idiots the socialists continue to prove themselves to be.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 03, 2001.

Yeah, lousy idiots. Don't they know that intelligent people like libs are idiots simply stop questioning and take NATO's word as gospel? The nerve of those morons! Bad enough they question our own government, but to question the governments of other countries, great nations such as Luxembourg and Italy, something has to give!

Liberals of the board, it's time to do as libs are idiots commands: stop thinking and start accepting. Free thought and independant minds are the antithesis of freedom. Blind faith is freedom.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), October 03, 2001.

JBT: Shoes don't matter? I thought the ilk came with the shoes, kindof like the extra button in the little plastic bag.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 02, 2001.

Is that what they call the litle thingy on the end of shoestrings?

I have an elk.

-- helen (shoes@make.the.elk.ilk), October 02, 2001

A mule, goats and now an elk. Just what kind of menagerie are you running Helen?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 03, 2001.

Mufti is a word they use in the British military. It means civilian clothes.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 03, 2001.

"Is that what they call the litle thingy on the end of shoestrings?"

I think that's called an aglet.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 03, 2001.

Hey, I'm back. It seems like we've been busy in this thread!

My little brother goes by the name Bemused (and_amazed@you.people) (and I'm sure he's cringing and cussing now that I've 'linked' myself to him, and will never want to post under that moniker again - sorry little brother).

Nothing to apologize for. I figured you would get a kick out of this forum in some ways.

By the way, how does "A" feel about the possibility of going over there? Is he gung ho, worried, does it seem real to him? It seems like just yesterday he was just a little kid.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), October 03, 2001.