The Telegraph reports: Benazir Bhutto was so fearful for her life that she tried to hire British and American security experts to protect her, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

But the plans collapsed because President Pervez Musharraf refused to allow the foreign contractors to operate in Pakistan, according to senior aides.

"She asked to bring in trained security personnel from abroad," said Mark Siegel, her US representative. "In fact she and her husband repeatedly tried to get visas for such protection, but they were denied by the government of Pakistan."

PD: "It is a war of ideas, not bullets."

Actually, there is a third ingredient: morality. And I wish that American representatives would explicitly hold forth a romantic view of freedom, in every other sentence they utter. Rand in Atlas, makes a beautiful aside of watching young lovers getting a ice cream cone--it paints a carefree existence in which joy is the standard. As simple as that may seem it implies that they don't expect the next kid to enter the ice cream parlor will be a suicide bomber or that the girl will be sentenced to a 100 lashes for going out on date.

Glenn you did this with your dolphin analogy.

The queerest thing is that Muslim countries cannot compete with ideas, technology, or by military power--so why would there be this intense fear of them taking over the world. It is simply because the West is extremely weak in its ability to take the moral high ground--they hiccup, sputter, and fart in this area. I apologise that I bring up art, but it is the metaphorical figurehead of a culture's morality--and ours simply stinks of rotten, impotent rage. I give you Hirst's Shark (nod to Glenn) as an example. Far from being unique, it is simply an example of the inept stuff you will see in any contemporary art fair which shows us the leading "lights" of what the West has to offer the World.

We are in trouble until that changes.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

He's a traitor. He's worse than Islamofilth because HE IS American.

Admit what mistake?

Scores of Muslim extremists are being stopped everyday, Scott, with bullets and other ordinance. US troop casualties are by far fewer, one of many proofs that Islamism is indeed inferior to Capitalism.

Unfortunately, superior schools of thought are not immune to totalitarian domination and barbarian annihilation. That's why we need armies and the FBI, and politicians who refuse to appease those who might want to harm us - in other countries and in our own.

Capitalist ideas may eventually end Islamofascism, but I doubt the Muslims will get there on there own - not by subscribing to a book that categorically commands the end of those very ideas. Ultimately, our ideologies are incompatible - entirely different species altogether. Islamism is like the primordial shark that never evolved; hopelessly unchanged, highly unintelligent, and wholly unattractive. Capitalism is like the sleek, agile, aerodynamic dolphin; playful, coachable, clever, and likes to have sex just for the fun of it.

Marc Cuban is like a sea slug.

Speech should be protected.  It is not un-American to disagree with the Iraq war and the handling of it.  If you can't admit a mistake, which Bill can't bring himself to do, then you can't fix the mistake.  The greatest of his mistakes being that he believes Muslim extremism can be stopped by force.  It is a war of ideas, not bullets. 

You should take comfort in the fact that Islam is inferior to capitalism and freedom.  It will eventually fall to the superior schools of thought.  However, if we declare war on 1.3 billion people, they will have no other choice than to declare war on us.  We must divide the enemy through their own self interest, not solidify them through our own ignorance.

Bill O’Rielly is a true patriot.

He roasts anti-American politicians, anti-American Muslims, anti-American conspiracy theorists, anti-American actors and especially the anti-American media - on a daily basis.

Here are some highlights [click on pics to view]:

Bill kicks the crap out of anti-American American Marc Cuban…

… then he takes the piss out of him…

Bill and guest Brigitte Gabriel slam Islam spokesman over the Mohammed Bear…

He's the anti-American media watchdog…

He hates Anti-American celebrities - these he'd like to "crush"...

Bill debates Ron “Blow-back” Paul…

Bill makes a lot of sense…

Even Bill’s fill-in kicks butt. This one’s on the silent Muslim moderates...

Bill kicks ass on radio too…

A Warning to the Far-left, NBC, MSNBC Bush-Haters

total lefties but I've got to admit, Terri Gross is a damn good interviewer.

Thanks for the report, I'm enjoying it. Fox isn't all bad all the time but over all, hacks. Even the report you posted seems to be a well researched, though completely one sided piece. It's not a good idea to surround yourself with journalists who agree with you 100 percent of the time, not that I suspect you do do that. Just saying.

I always enjoy catching Fox's business shows because I think stock-market-talk is really sexy and I think Red Eye is a lot of fun but all of their Headliner shows are unbearable. I find O'Reilly's misguided godliness impossible to endure. He's a paranoid old man. Even when I agree with his basic opinions (which I do around about 50 percent of the time) I almost always disagree with his reasoning and he's a lazy journalist who never does any corrections even when he's categorically proven wrong.

I wont deny there is a left wing bias in most other news media but I think as far as dishonesty and bias goes, as an individual news source, Fox takes the cake. At least some left leaning news outlets make an effort to be fair. Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN has actually been pretty impressive from what I've seen. And I think the BBC where the 1st major outlet to break the story about 100s of Iraqis returning home. That shows that they're at least interested in positive developments in Iraq.

As far as where I get my news from: I watch a bit of Fox and a bit of CNN but mostly I get linked to stories through blogs. I check Reason's Hit & Run, Andrew Sullivan, Not PC and The Huffington Post daily. And of course you guys alway keep me up to date

I haven't found it yet, so I can't help you there. 

BBC and NPR have their issues.  BBC is paid for through taxation, agreed, but they have a good product.

NPR is paid for by taxes, but almost all of the budget comes from other sources.  They would like more tax money, but they don't get it.  I would bet that they all vote Democrat and they like to present their version of reality as mainstream thus helping create the mainstream.  However, they try to be objective.  The reporting is more indepth, complete and fair. 

Fox is partisan.  It is a tool of the neocon wing of the Republican party.  More often than report the news, they interpret it.  I don't need Neitche's fool.   

You mean this BBC:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

Full story here

Re: NPR (or National Partisan Radio as some like to call it) has been a left-wing dumping ground for years. It appears to be starting to swing right, but any news outlet that's funded by the taxpayer should be shut down immediately.

I have to agree with Matty.  I like Hitchens although I get the impression he compromises his principles in order to influence policy.  Oreilly, Gibson, and Hannity are hacks.  

If you are looking for everyday news I'd suggest the BBC and NPR, but to really keep a handle on things you need to research specific issues on the internet and in books.  I wish I had more time to research specific issues.

Fox has some excellent segments and has produced some explosive exposés. For all his misguided godliness, I think O'Reilly is bang on the money on most subjects, and gives the Dem-scum a real run for their money.

It's the only major news outlet that sticks it up the left-wing media on an hourly basis.

Where do you get your news?

Small edit:

less time with Dem-scum-journos and Ron Paul; more with Fox and Christopher Hitchens.

If you've got brainless propaganda and a thoughtful intellectual next to each other and they both agree with you, it's best to just stick with the credible voice exclusively.

Here it is again...

Roots of Muslim Rage: Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified

Bernard Lewis is the best!

And Noam Chomsky is an evil little garden-variety Gnome!!

[William - I hate this loss of the edit function when someone replies... real pain in the arse! Does SOLO really need to protect itself from those who'd weasel with an edit?]

The link which explains why the Muslims hate us didn't work.  I don't know who the Gnome is, but it is a bad idea to threaten a Texan with force. 

You may be right - donations worked in the American Revolution. Trouble is, today we'd be putting our lives in the hands of lilly-livered liberals and supporters of Ron Paul.

"A government which taxes its people to support its goals is inimical to liberty. "

Unless, of course, that's what they're fighting to protect...

You're opening up a can of worms here, Scott...

> "In war, I think we should use a strong discipline and command structure. "

What makes you think Petraeus hasn't created that? Have you been keeping up with the allied successes? ... you need less time with Dem-scum-journos and Ron Paul; more with Fox and Christopher Hitchens.

> "I certainly wouldn't be against mercenaries in all situations, but Iraq is certainly a bad example for promoting their cause. "

Because of this one Blackwater case?

> "The question after 9/11 was "why do they hate us?"

Bernard Lewis will categorically answer this question for you: Roots of Muslim Rage: Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified.

> "... hated for [our] freedom and [our] wealth. Well, if that's why they hate us, there can be no peace and the evil doers must be destroyed..."

Halle-fuckin'-lujah!

> "... Therefore I think we should hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11... "

Firing up the Humvee as we speak!!

> "... The point to be made, in order to protect ourselves in the future, is that we are much too powerful to mess with..."

Loading the Tomahawks!!

> "... purging the world of evil dictators..."

I can hear the "Star Spangled Banner" now, baby!!!

> " ... In the process we have taught the world that we are completly incompetent and vulnerable... "

Oh Nuts!!!

Stop listening to that traitor R(i)P - please!! His policy of "let's bring the war home to American soil" will make life in the great state of T far more tenuous, I assure you.

> "... We needed a new eternal enemy in order to justify such idiotic military expenditures and foreign meddling..."

... and if I find out you're reading the Gnome, I'll personally hunt you down for a beating!

Mercenaries have historically destroyed nations and empires, but then again, so have militaries.  I'm not much for using force period.  In war, I think we should use a strong discipline and command structure.  I certainly wouldn't be against mercenaries in all situations, but Iraq is certainly a bad example for promoting their cause. 

Blowback: If I lived in the third world I would probably think so. I am not blaming Americans for our foreign policy beyond the fact that they have allowed themselves to be manipulated into supporting our foreign policy and then forgetting about our interference.  The question after 9/11 was "why do they hate us?"  Americans were asking that question over and over again.  They were then told that they are hated for their freedom and their wealth.  Well, if that's why they hate us, there can be no peace and the evil doers must be destroyed.  My perspective is a little different, and I know why they hate us.  I also know that the domino theory is defunct but very profitable.  We needed a new eternal enemy in order to justify such idiotic military expenditures and foreign meddling. 

However, I am from Texas and New York and Washington are under our protection

Therefore I think we should hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11.  The point to be made, in order to protect ourselves in the future, is that we are much too powerful to mess with.  We have decided that that is too hard so we are purging the world of evil dictators instead.  Evil dictators are the ones who don't do everything we tell them and sit on top of huge oil reserves.  In the process we have taught the world that we are completly incompetent and vulnerable while bankrupting ourselves at the same time. 

Scott-
"The U.S. military managed to win WWI and WWII without mercenaries. They are not necessary to "win" in Iraq."

I consider US involvement in WWI a big mistake, and think the US approach to WWII could have been handled much better even if not avoided. I'm assuming if you're a Ron Paul advocate that you're at least as against foreign intervention. But I don't see any reason why you'd be against paying mercenaries instead of regular military. Why that opposition to mercenaries?

On your #3 (blowback) - So do you think US foreign policy justified 9/11? Only that it motivated the attacks but didn't justify them (i.e. we should still kill any bastards that planned and paid for it)? Or something else?

Glenn-
Thanks for the link. I knew Saddam was an enemy of the Iranians and even al-Qaeda opposed him, but was interested learning about the funding of PLO, etc. and providing sanctuary for specific terrorists. It wouldn't have made me support a country-wide invasion+occupation - but may have bumped Saddam up a notch or two on my 'foreign dictators who need killing' list.

As for funding, I think a defensive military could be supported voluntarily. Special ops, surgical strikes, etc. very likely. Even larger scale overseas actions could be funded without coercion in certain circumstances. A direct attack on the nation would spark resounding financial support for response. Post 9/11, billions were given even to charities for victims' families, and the nation was hungry for vengeance. Though I think the ongoing $500B+ Iraq occupation wouldn't stand a chance of being funded without taxation, I think the Afghanistan invasion and more al-Qaeda hunting (and possibly even the initial blitz into Iraq and toppling its govt) could have been supported voluntarily in a post-9/11 outcry and outpouring of $.

Whether people want to give to fund a particular war you support or not, however, the principle stands. A government which taxes its people to support its goals is inimical to liberty. Regardless if something may be good and moral assuming you are willing to pay for it of your own free will - a road, security guards, a school, health insurance, or taking out a foreign menace - it doesn't justify robbing people to pay for it.

1. Funding?

2. Don't be so lazy... you prove your assertion.

3. Agreed, this started before 9/11 (I was condensing the last beat of the whole sorry episode) but not in the way you depict. That kind of "America brought this on itself" bullshit will win you no friends here, mate. I suggest you start a thread on that theory and see just how out of step you really are with this treacherous line of reasoning.

4. Three Blackwater contractors are presently standing before a judge in a court of law. What makes you think they're above it?

I support Ron Paul, how could I not?

You have analyzed my arguments well. 

1.  The U.S. military managed to win WWI and WWII without mercenaries. They are not necessary to "win" in Iraq.

2.  Um, that's the way things work over here.  I need proof that politicians in this country accept money for government contracts?  As for Blackwater and corruption, google it.  A great documentary is Iraq for Sale. 

3.  Terrorism didn't start on 9/11.  The problem with militant Islamists and this country started way before 2001.  Our foreign policy has been propping up terrible governments all over the third world since the end of WWII.  The 9/11 attack was a repercussion of these policies.  Americans don't realize the corruption that they encourage in the third world, but each country has an educated class that understands and can't reconcile the bastion of freedom with the country that forces a bad government on them.  In this case: Saudi Arabia.  Al Qaeda wants revenge.  Killing innocent people all over Islam wont diminish the need for revenge nor number of recruits.  I'm not saying the current strategy of killing all the bad people wont work eventually.  If you were to kill all the Muslims in the entire world, you would end the threat from "Islamofascists".  However, I think this would be lamentable. 

4.  I wasn't talking about the unprovoked attack.  It is an obvious consequence of having a class that is above the law. 

1. Given the current rise of the Dem-scum peaceniks, how practical do you think it would be, in a true laissez-faire system, to fund a war by donations?

3. Saddam Hussein most certainly harboured and funded Islamofascists... according to a report released by the Hudson Institute. They determined that he was supporting Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, the Palestinian Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization and the Arab Liberation Front right up until the war began.

1) Any actions of a just government must be funded without coercion, otherwise it completely contradicts the Objectivist basis of government. I don't think non-coercive funding means military action impossible, but all-out war would almost certainly be much harder to support without domestic theft. I tend to think the role of Blackwater type outfits would increase, and advocate a relatively laissez-faire attitude to them supporting themselves as well by the spoils of war.

3) You know the drill on this one. America invaded one country harboring Islamofascists and another led by an evil man but detested by the Islamofascists, and proceeded to ignore substantial other harborers of IFs such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

A Ron Paul supporter perhaps?

You've raised multiple issues here, Scott (welcome aboard):

1. Taxpayers funding mercenaries
2. The bribing of politicians
3. Politicians and their mercenaries perpetuating a war
4. Blackwater's unprovoked attack

My response:

1. How else does one fund a war except through taxes? If were up to me, I'd make the enemy pay for it once they're beaten. Now, when there's a lack of troops the use of mercenaries becomes necessary, and the only reason we don't have more troops over there is because the Dem-scum wouldn't have a bar of it. Outfits like Blackwater are doing far more good than bad: "6,000 missions and they've discharged their weapons fewer than 200 times" - and not a single diplomat or dignitary has been killed under their protection. The irony is they also do a great job protecting journalists who turn around and shit on their bodyguards.

2. I think you'll need to support this with some facts.

3. The sequence of events as I see it: Islamofascists rip America apart on 9/11; America invades countries harbouring Islamofascists; Islamofascists refuse to surrender; the war continues.

4. The investigation is on-going, and seems to be focusing on 3 contractors. But, whatever the outcome, mistakes happen in a war zone - and I really don't think these highly trained contractors were bloodthirsty killers on a rampage. The thing that pisses me off is the attention this case is getting. Line 'em up against the wall massacres are happening all the time over there and it's not by the good guys.

I think using tax money to pay for mercenaries to commit an unprovoked act of aggression is a bad idea.  What makes it worse is when those same mercenaries can use a tiny portion of their pay to pay the politicians that used tax money to send them to war in the first place in order to pay for continued war.  A truly vicious vicious circle. 

Jumped the gun, my apologies.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Did you read the posts above Robert's? This post is not about racist twats.

Please, stick this comment on the new thread: "Elijah Lineberry, are you a racist?"

"Others where might be withholding their judgment but I've read enough. You might be stinking rich, but in my estimation you're are the sort of person SOLO and Libertarianz can do without.

You are a complete an irredeemable fuckwit and I wash my hands of you"

Well done, bravo, and I could not agree more. I am glad to see others kicking this guy's ass over his chosen beliefs.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

This is a post about Blackwater that has been hijacked several times already. If you want to discuss Elijah, there is a separate thread dedicated to that end.

Why is Elijah even welcome on this website?

And the fact remains that whoever started the incident - the actual terrorist bomber in a red zone - is the one to blame.

Amazing statistic, given they're in the middle of a war zone.

Having said that, the FBI think most of the deaths were unnecessary. My suspicion is "Paul" freaked out under pressure and saw everyone as a potential threat. A bit like that scene in Apocalypse Now when the young soldier, sweating on a hair trigger, saw the old lady reach for something in the boat and shot her family to bits.

Whatever the verdict, I'm sure it was not a "My Lai" massacre.

The thing that makes me sick is the anti-American press in America turning this into another excuse to pull out of Iraq - instead of making milage out the real massacres occurring at the hands of the Islamofascists. A total fucking pro-Islamic distortion of the facts.

I can't qualify this, but I bet more people know about the My Lai massacre than the fact that 99.99% of the village massacres in Vietnam were committed by Vietnamese Communists.

Back to Blackwater, it is extremely unlikely that Blackwater would just go on a shooting fest, when in something like 16,000 missions they've discharged their weapons fewer than 200 times.

Deleted and moved...
http://www.solopassion.com/node/3701#comment-42938

Your stupidity has already hijacked this thread - answer the charges on the new thread with your name on it!

do not advocate 'ethnic cleansing' of any ethnic group.

I do, however, think there are criminal organisations in NZ which Blackwater could sort out...(as the Police seem incapable of the least little task).

That is all I was meaning on this topic, (which has been a fascinating study in mass hysteria!)

ABC news has posted a slide show of the dramatic events leading up to the incident and immediately afterward.

This is the testimony of Blackwater guard "Paul" who maintains he was under fire.

And the treacherous leftist media vampires are sticking their fangs in deep.

...that by now people would have realised that day trading and serious philosophical analysis don't go together.

As an intellectual argument I wondered out loud as to whether it would exactly be any loss to the World were Blackwater engaged to sort out some of these people, so we can stop this endless cycle of appeasement.
I also wondered out loud if there would be a large number of benefits of doing so.

However, all that was ignored because everyone just wants to name call...and so be it.

You didn't wonder out loud Elijah, you wished for it.

Furthermore, this is not an issue of people wanting to "name call" you. That's just wet.

You have made a very racist proclamation. Please stand up and be prepared to have your thinking challenged, because your thinking is immoral.

You used the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' - and not in jest.

You have failed to state specifically what ethnic group it is you want cleansed, though it most certainly appears to be the Maori.

And now you're advocating capital punishment for 'petty criminals'. The Chinese have 68 crimes that are punishable by death. That's not one of them.

You're the sort of fringe fanatic that gives Objectivism a bad name. May I ask you to run a disclaimer at the foot of your posts?... The opinions expressed by this chap are NOT based on Objectivist principles.

you are quite right, and indeed, what I had written earlier was deliberately misread in order for some people to engage in name calling.

There we are. I am used to it.

I used to term 'spiv' ...meaning petty criminal, and suggested we should line a few of those sorts of chaps up and bump them off

What disappoints me is this sort of thing is not new.

30 years ago we had the trouble at Bastion Point in Auckland...and hysteria over supposed injustice and other nonsense.
Today the same thing is happening...and in 30 years time it will still be happening.

The reason is that we engage in continual 'Munich Conferences' ...appeasement...and like Munich, against an enemy who has no goodwill and no intention of moderating their behaviour or demands until unreasonable and stupid objectives have been attained.

Whether it be Tuhoe wanting the 'Tuhoe Nation'...environmentalists wanting the removal of the entire human race...gangs wanting to commit crime and intimidate...Ngai Tahu wanting yet another fishing quota...the Maori Party wanting increasingly bizarre policies enacted...(I could go on and on)

These are not men of 'goodwill'...these are not chaps you can talk to and reason with, because they will never compromise under any circumstances, ever.

As an intellectual argument I wondered out loud as to whether it would exactly be any loss to the World were Blackwater engaged to sort out some of these people, so we can stop this endless cycle of appeasement.
I also wondered out loud if there would be a large number of benefits of doing so.

However, all that was ignored because everyone just wants to name call...and so be it.

Those people have scoured solopassion.com seeking examples of racist comments, and without success...not that the facts are allowed to interfere with a good story.

If I said 'white'...they would say 'black' ...if I said 'day' they would say 'night' ...and so on..and so on.

If you look carefully at the terrorism arrests issue, it was never the police or any of the "perpetrators" that started it up; because (less than) 1/5 of the people arrested were Maori, the issue was an excellent scapegoat for Sharples and Harawera to further their ideals of Maori victimization and white guilt. If they genuinely want the best for Maori people, it's that stupid, primitive mindset (both "victimization" and Elijah's "negro" distaste) that needs to be put behind NZ.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place"-Ayn Rand

Elijah, how many Maori people do you think were arrested as part of the Urewera 16? The answer: 3.

You've hit the nail on the head here Callum. I think there were more European Greenies arrested: the terrorism raids were never a race issue for the police (and not at all, other than in Iti's infantile mind, and perhaps his two cohorts).

... thus, by the way, all the more deplorable that Sharples and Harawira tried to use the Maori Party to turn this into one, as did our (jokingly so-called) media. I really don't understand how that party thought it was acting in the interests of its supposed constituents in the way they handled the entire issue of the raids, from day one when before any facts were out, Sharples had already decided on Police wrong-doing. As ever, irresponsible.

Elijah, how many Maori people do you think were arrested as part of the Urewera 16?

The answer: 3.

Obviously, those three are troublemakers. But to extend that label to the rest of the Maori population is stupid and racist. It should be noted that, before the Europeans came, Maori people were in fact excellent traders and businessmen. Labels such as "negro" only help to destroy the self-esteem many Maori people need to be successful and productive.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place"-Ayn Rand

you are more foul mouthed and malcontented than the average Socialist.

I have seen several of your posts in the last week getting all hot and bothered at various people on solopassion.com

It seems it is 'my turn'

If this is the way you behave I think everyone is glad to be doing without your presence in this Country.

As for being an anti cancer researcher ...I notice you are not at Sloan Kettering in New York ...

I'm employed as an Anti Cancer Researcher in Kansas. The Free State. On the front line of the anti-slavery crusade in the 1850s and 1860s.

Indeed, Lawrence where I live was raised to the ground, its male citizens executed, by a bunch of Missourians angry at Lawrence's status as a bastion of abolitionism in a sea of Slave-holding States.

But I wouldn't expect an ignorant frivolous pillock like you to give a shit about slavery or the means by which it was destroyed. It was all about 'Negros' afterall.

You are someone who has giggled at 'ethnic cleansing.' You've pejoritively and incorrectly labelled Ahmed Zaoui, a Berber refugee locked up without trial by the NZ government and subsequently released, a 'Negro' terrorist. And that was only one of several off-colour remarks you've made in that vein.

Only a racist would use the word Negro pejoritively and then, when called on it, would pass it off as a sick joke.

Others where might be withholding their judgment but I've read enough. You might be stinking rich, but in my estimation you're are the sort of person SOLO and Libertarianz can do without.

You are a complete an irredeemable fuckwit and I wash my hands of you.

I'm glad to see it's not just us Yanks not getting his sense of humor. Ethnic cleansing... gosh!

I have no sympathy whatsoever!

You're a real piece of work, you know that?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

So what the fuck do you mean by 'ethnic cleansing'?

spiv is a term for petty criminals.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiv

You WEREN'T joking about 'ethnic cleansing'?! With a friend like you who needs Dr. Mengele?

Would you care to elaborate on this 'ethnic' group called the Spivs?

'de-spiv' means...ummmmm...remove the spivs ...(not sure how I can explain that more clearly) ...lol

In short, we have chaps in terror training camps and I was suggesting we give them an 'army' to fight against..(and well and truly meet their match)...and these Blackwater people seem ideal for the task!

I think, Robert, you have spent too much time in Utah...(and, indeed, too much time in Utah bored to tears and lamenting your unemployability anywhere else in the World lol)

Stop beating around the bush and say what you mean.

Let me give you an example:

I think you are a disingenuous, racist git. The pubescent teen pictures you posted on another thread made me sick to my stomach and I shudder to think what prompted you to post them. Not least, your brand of humor is about as funny as a fart in an elevator.

1. I mean we should 'de-Spiv' New Zealand.

2. No.

3. At the moment it seems to be the Maoris...(Tuhoe not exactly well known for its Anglo-Saxon branch)

We're all sick of those things. But please answer my questions.

I mean is...

I am sick to death of all the nonsense which has been going on in NZ in recent weeks.

I am sick of the appeasement of it in the media.

I am sick of the idea that certain people are 'hard done by' due to their arrests in the terror raids

I am sick of an ignorant rabble engaging in a hick-oi to Parliament where they can hold up traffic and yell and scream...and everyone is too scared to challenge them.

I am sick of gangs and crime and violence in our Great Nation.

If it were up to me, I would give everyone 5 minutes to decide which they prefer....to behave themselves, or to get eliminated (as no loss to the World) ...so that whatever happens next is purely voluntary.

Just so we're clear:

1) When you advocate ethnic cleansing, in inverted commas, and say you're not joking, what then precisely do you mean? Do you mean the genocide/deportation of Maori and other "Negroes"? If not, what?

2) Do you believe any race is inherently inferior to any other? That Maoris are inherently inferior to Europeans?

3) Do you believe one race has a monopoly on radicals, terrorists and troublemakers?

think you have the 'Friday PM grumps', Duncan.

I am sure your friends were the greatest opponents of the British Empire.. re: Rhodesia ...(despite 1001 warnings from Ian Smith and others)...so have only themselves to blame.

I have no sympathy whatsoever!

With regards to my previous post, I am surprised anyone would think I was joking..but..there we are.

The main problem with New Zealand is this:

1. If I was in charge we most certainly would 'de-Spiv' the Country of all the f***wits and troublemakers.

2. We would never do so...(because it would not be right)...and hence, 20 years from now, 2027, we will still be dealing with Maori radicals and terrorists and troublemakers....(scratching our heads wondering how to 'solve these problems')

To put it bluntly, get them to indulge in a long overdue spot of 'ethnic cleansing'.

Maybe I've just got the Friday PM grumps, or maybe it's that some of my friends narrowly escaped ethnic cleansing with their lives (think Zimbabwe and Cambodia) but that just wasn't funny.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Nobody fucks up a war like a politician.

The military is getting screwed because of the lack of funding, which is creating a market for men of action in companies like Blackwater. If only Congress could do the math and figure out that spending more money and sending more troops will actually cost less than hiring freelancers.

I know you're being extreme to be funny, but I have to say if you're going to use phrases like 'ethnic cleansing' can you please put (and I can't believe I'm saying this) one of your ubiquitous smiley faces at the end of it. Better still, find a more sophisticated way of making us laugh than resorting to the blunt instrument of shock.

God, now I'm sounding like Phyllus.

A classic example of today's totally screwed up military.

The politicians should be distancing themselves away from their enemies not their armies.

As a matter of interest I have been closely watching Blackwater and in particular trying to find out the ties with Blackstone

wish the New Zealand Government would engage the services of Blackwater to 'de-spiv' our great Nation.

Get some chaps over here to clean up the Tuhoe Terrorists, the gangs in South Auckland and all the other low life scum which pollutes these Isles.
To put it bluntly, get them to indulge in a long overdue spot of 'ethnic cleansing'.

I am sure they would not charge us too much, and we could throw in free holidays in Queenstown or Rotorua for their chaps once their mission was completed (which would take all of about 5 minutes as Maori/Pacific Island 'hard men' are actually all girly men).

The benefits of this would be immeasurable and possibly stem the flow of people leaving New Zealand, once we made it clear that 'enough is enough' and from now on New Zealand was for the benefit of 'normal people' not troublemakers.

incapable of properly equipping its soldiers, and shown a penchant for prosecuting soldiers for fire fights which occur in the heat of battle, then I say, bring on the capitalists.

You'll note the Iraqis are bitching and trying to get rid of Blackwater because it is not beholden to some mealy-mouthed spineless politician--these guys can actually shoot the bad guys and not get court martialed , and they have state of the art body armor and properly armored vehicles, and all other state of the art equipment.

In other words, they cannot be allowed because they are too good at what they do.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!