Re: OT Hatred (was Re: New Ada compiler for .NET)

[Adrian Hoe <mailbox@*nospam*adrianhoe.com>]

James S. Rogers wrote:

> 
> To my knowledge, the only depleted uranium exposure in Iraq was from
> the cannon shells fired by the A10 Warthog. These are not bombs. They
> were fired mostly at Iraqi tanks. What are 1 million Iraqi children doing
> playing in destroyed tanks?
> 
> The "bunker buster" bombs used in Iraq contained no depleted
> uranium. They were rather hastily constructed by packing explosives
> into howitzer cannon barrels. The bombs worked because the
> strength of the barrels allowed the bomb to retain is basic shape
> while burrowing through several meters of concrete.
> 
>>That sounds like a biased news source.  It sounds like you've been
>>
> mislead.
> 




>>This is one of the real problems ignorance causes.  People tend to believe
>>what they want to hear and not question the information sources.  Would
>>
> you
> 
>>stop opposing the US if you discovered that this news report isn't true.
>>No, probably not since it is obvious that you are ready to believe
>>
> anything
> 
>>negative about the US.  Look at those statistics; they make no sense.
>>
> These
> 
>>are obvious traits of an unreliable information source.  What is a poor
>>uranium bomb anyway?  Sounds like a ambiguous term specially developed to
>>twist the truth and get people's blood boiling.  It sounds like
>>
> propaganda.
> 



You could be misled too by your own media. Who knows. God knows. It 
was my mistake to mention "poor uranium". "Depleted uranium" is more 
appropriate. Can you guarantee that your media is not biased? Who can 
guarantee that? Wise people know the intention of US politicians.


> In fact the US would love to eliminate its nuclear arsenal.
> Unfortunately, such a move is impractical when so many countries are
> doing their best to increase their own nuclear capability. People who
> hate the US today would not stop hating it tomorrow if we destroyed
> all our nuclear capability.
> 



I didn't say if US eliminate its nuclear arsenal, hatred will stop.






>>>Big countries like US, Australia and their allies are becoming the
>>>barbarians of 21st century. They claim their rights to launch military
>>>campaign on foreign soils to attack "suspected" terrorist
>>>establishment. They cowardly bomb targets from UAV using missiles from
>>>high above the sky. This is war. This challenges the sovereignty of
>>>the attacked contries.
>>>
> 
> Be careful of the accusation of cowardice. It is a form of manure
> that can be thrown in any direction. What about the cowardice of
> organizations that bomb night clubs filled with people?
> 

> 
> Look at the hatred in the Middle East. The people there still talk about
> revenge for the Crusades of the Middle Ages. They seem to forget that
> Europe only sent troops to the area after the Moslims attacked and
> destroyed an area occupied mostly by Christians. Apparently, in their
> minds, it is evil to resist oppression.
> 
> 
>>No, terrorism goes on and on because ignorance allows people to convince
>>people to take out their grief and hatred on innocents.
>>
>>
>>>I hope this is not going to
>>>happen on me. But no one can guarantee my hope will not be shattered
>>>one day. Who is going to be responsible if they turn me into a
>>>terrorist? If I have children at home, do you think I want to have
>>>explosive tied to my body and turn myself into suicide bomber? Think!
>>>
> 
> True. I am sure the thousands of people who worked in the World Trade
> Center did not want their lives shattered either.  Who is responsible for
> turning their families and friends into terrorists?
>
> The only thing that can stop the cycle of terrorism is a belief in a higher
> good; something better and more important than revenge. Some
> religions offer this. Some do not.
> 



Exactly my intention. Who is the coward? You want to fight the war but 
don't want to see your men and women killed on the battle field. Don't 
  go to war. It needs great courage to be a suicide bomber. I don't 
agree to their acts. I would say they have used their courage on the 
wrong side. But, what choice do they have? They don't have technology. 
They dare to go to war in person.

What is your belief in a higher good? The most powerful man in the 
world keeps on saying "We fight for freedom!"? The liberty? The oil? 
The US$? Global marketing? Global power? Global dominance?

After Sept 11, only the emotion and feeling of the survivors were 
screened on CNN. What about the feeling of people in Afganistan, 
Palestine, and Iraq when they dropped tonnes of explosive onto thier home?


>>>If you still have conscience and you (c.l.a.) claim you are a group of
>>>intelligent software engineers, exercise your vote now to bring down
>>>the cow boy!
>>>
> 
> I do not know any cowboy. The President of the United States is
> acting as honorably as any leader can under the circumstances.
> He has not acted irrationally since the United States has come under
> direct attack. He has been honest, and tough. He has also been
> fair. He has given first the Taliban, and now the Iraqi regime,
> a bloodless diplomatic way out of the problem. The Taliban chose
> war. We will soon see which choice is made by the Iraqi regime.
> 
> Jim Rogers
> 
> 
> 

Fair? Ha... Oil is thicker than blood!

-- 
type Dmitry is new Adrian;           -- Adrian Hoe
                                      -- http://adrianhoe.com
                                      -- Remove *nospam* to email