KrustyKidd

I don't have anything against anybody. I just want to know who is looking at my ass.

That is certainly strange. I was ready to call this a simple case of overzealous reporting but now the source is citing the paper as it's source? The chicken before the egg before the chicken? I'm sure there is a logical explanation but, can't figure out what it is.

All of his stuff is fantasicly researched and, referenced. What I find is that even still, all he does is add it up through ommission and pre determined thesis to equal his point. Kind of like a Michael Moore who graduated kindergarten. While I often disagree with the overall point for logic not mentioned or addressed, that doesn't take away from the factualness of the individual points he makes that add up to the overall (and often in my mind wrong) theory. In short, his stuff is like going to a great sushie restaurant where the chef does a fine show, even when the food tastes like crap, it still had a great reason for going.

Going to weigh in real quick on this. If I was ever inclined to climb Mt Everest or K2 whatever, and, had the financial, physical and mental commitment to do it. It would take yeas of saving, planning, training and such to do that one thing - get to the top. I had sacrificed weekends with friends and family to do overtime, gotten up early to train, taken vacations to practice climbing and such. If I were lucky engough to have a shot at one of the big mountains and, after spending weeks in base camp eating crap food, preparing and waiting for the weather and was finaly within reach of the top, nothing would stop me. Not risk of death, not the weather, not family and not friends. Certainly not a climber who had overestimated his ability and is most likely beyond saving. Not being a great climber myself, I can however see the work, the mindset of years of dreaming and preparing all focused into one last push. In that moment, not even life itself holds the same value up there as it does down here. To give up the opportunity to realize a dream millions have for anything less than lack of ability is to give it all up. Making the years before wasted and meaningless. In short, people who do it for ego would have given up a long time before, it is actually a spiritual thing in my mind. From our armchairs where the biggest adventure many have had is to get married, people who persue such things may seem reckless or vain but in reality, who wouldn't wish they had climbed Everest? It's just how bad you wish it is all. And once you commit to it, the cost of not seeing it through go up step by step. Interesting about the SOP for pilots to get off the mountain in the event of a crash, never heard of that or, considered it. I do know from working in a chopper unit that the higher you get, the less control you have over a helecopter due to the thin air. This makes it extremely difficult to do what a helecopter is specificly designed to do - hover. Yep. And vain. Probably would have done it with a blindfold on the next time had he survived. And, was undoubtably a vetran of many high altitude climbs so this was a stunt for show to his clique. The forty or so people were not engaged in a sport. They were two separate entities - tourists and guides. For the tourists to be expected (Inlis the double amputee included) to be faulted for not saving this guy and giving up the 100 plus thousnad dollars they paid to have a crack at the summit is unrealistic. Second, for the guides to drop their charges and tell them they are on their own, their millions of dollars are up in smoke because of this guy who has nothing to do with them and then to tell them they are on their own while they try to save this guy is irresponsible. While I'm at it, Hillary to say that guided tours of Everest is wrong is bull. Possibly these 'tourists' don't have the skill, physical fortitude that he had when he did it back in the fifties or whenever but, they have something that gave them the power to save their money all those years and train the best they could inbetween working double shifts or whatever. Unlike him, those tourists are using their own money and not benifit to sponsors and the like. He doesn't own the mountain as much as he would like to.

Iran wants to become the predominent Islamic power in the Middle East and in order to do that, they have to take on Islamic and Arab positions in public. Being anti Israel is one of them. Being able to face of with the great powers is another. Both of those play well with the Middle Eastern countries and also, gets the world's attention.

They would never be asked, they would be told. And, in light of the situation, they would never be told, asked or requested. Digging In Picture it as South Korea. Not one particular one but an overall common sense thing that says the Iraqis want the US to stay until not needed. Talabani: U.S. forces to stay as long as needed The one with the Iraqi government. In the short term yes if support is not provided for the House of Saud to continue their fight.

Hi guys. Seems that a few are having difficulty with the 'quote' feature. It's really quite simple. You put in the word 'guote' between the brackets symbols [ ] and that starts the quote off. Then, to close the quote you place the word quote between the same brackets except this time, with a closing tag of '/' and then, this makes a nice neat thing that If your post comes out all screwed up like some of the ones on this thread are, it is because you have the closing tags at the beggining and other askew things which I'll explain in a second. For every opening quote code (remember where I said the word 'quote' between the brackets [ ] there has to be a closing one. If there is not, then none of the ones on the page will work. So, when it is all screwed up, you go edit your post and look, one of the opening quotes does not have a cloing one, or, vice versa. You simply check them off, "opening quote, closing quote." Looking at the post below, there is two opening quotes and three closing ones. Therefore, one of the closing ones has to be removed. That way, you can change this (letter e on the word quote dropped to allow for demo) [quot name=sahara' date='May 25 2006, 07:41 PM' post='114470] [quot name=Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe' date='May 25 2006, 01:42 PM' post='114422] Quote " The perpetrators of crime, no matter what ethnic background, must be held accountable under the law " [/quot] ***** Here is the offending extra closing quote tag (taken out in demo below)******* [/quot] I totally agree that the perpetrators need to be punished. Thats what the residents here want. We want peace and we want our lives back. I am not a racist. A little background Info, my hubbys father was from six nations his mother not,however he is disappointed in the carrys-on. And he feels shame right now, but he is also happy he takes after his mothers side physically, because its tough going around here right now. Also since my hubby is part native that means my children and grandbaby are too. Its not the principal WHO is causing upheaval, it is THAT it is Being done by Terrorists [/quot] Into this I totally agree that the perpetrators need to be punished. Thats what the residents here want. We want peace and we want our lives back. I am not a racist. A little background Info, my hubbys father was from six nations his mother not,however he is disappointed in the carrys-on. And he feels shame right now, but he is also happy he takes after his mothers side physically, because its tough going around here right now. Also since my hubby is part native that means my children and grandbaby are too. Its not the principal WHO is causing upheaval, it is THAT it is Being done by Terrorists Kapiche?

They certainly would except they would keep the bases they have built as part of the argreement made years ago. However, asking the US to leave would be the equivilent of telling your butler (who has sworn to serve and obey you) to cut your penis off with a rusty knife. It's not about freedom or democracy but it is about security. The west is going to trade with the ME for oil with or without the US. As will Russia and China. So, the Arabs are goig to get the going rate for oil no matter what. So, you think that having a militent Wahabbist group in charge of a good part of the world's oil supply is a good thing security wise? Placing conditions for oil on thirsty countries like China, Russia and France etc? Giving preferencial treatment to those who help them with weapons and all? I certainly don't. Terrporism is dangerous as it is now without allowing them access to untold trillions and a form of trade with other countries. With money they would provide aid to countries whom they have destroyed the working governments of like the ones where you find terrorism active in. This increases their popularity and influence. With money, they become a real force able to negotiate with the West and purchase things we would certainly like to keep from them. That in turn allows them to pressure other countries of the region they have not already been able to take down. With each, it increases their strength and influence. I prefer not to have Conservative Wahabbists in charge of things over there. That day will come whether we like it or not. And, it will not happen overnight. Rather, it will occur in spurts here and there all over the globe with countries being willing to do almost anything (including trade weapons and goods) to procur it. I prefer to have it (oil) under the control of governments that are somewhat stable rather than under the influence of a 'kill the infidel' mentality. If democracy is not the answer, then let's move back to good old iron fisted dictaors. "false in the sense of not actually producing anything of value" is descriptive of everything then. Nothing but a non replaceable commodity comes out of the ME. I own nothing that comes from there besides some cheap souvineers I got on some of my tours, how about you? Got any medical equipment or some Swiss precision like machinery made in Damascus perhaps? Are you goig to tell me that the world, with all it's ecological problems is going to be able to survive beyond a century if there is cooperative groups and another groups that is not cooperative? The world is becomming smaller and, with it, societies and cultures are being forced together. Hence, soon, there will be no opportunity to have an 'us' and 'them.' It will all be 'us.' So, you wish to be part of the 'us' that is bent on killing the non believers or the 'us' that is try8ing to give each and every person equal rights and manage resources in some sort of manner other than to simply hold power to kill others and convert the world to a religion of control?

They wouldn't though. Our two countries are on the same path theolgically, even if they are thousands of miles apart. BTW, how much do we send them?

There's a guy who posted early this morning who didn't like either but probably had fantasys about getting raped by the skipper.

Definition of Terrorism Which of these was it?

US has 150 thousand in theater. With 2000 dead over the past three years. That's one dead for every 150 on the ground. We have two thousand. So, question is, can we withstand 75 dead over three years? Or, broken down more, 25 a year?

Wrong. They are on Jihad and see themselves as a soldier of Allah. Suicide bombers are the lowest teir in a terror cell and are usually young and expendable. The makeup of a cell is actually amazing in that they are a self contained unit where they live together in their own little world. No contact with others in any real form and the only people they have anything in common with are their comarades who are just as brainwashed as they are. Those they kill are seen as extensions of the government they are trying to overthrow as they chose that government by election and, any doubts are taken away by the others in the cell in theological discusion. There is a planner who is usually the senior person and, there is the often a complete phsycotic nut who, while thinking he is in charge is very seldomly. While possibly not even be interested in the movement and purpose itself, his function is to keep the horror alive by dreaming up and pushing the others into killing, thus not allowing the momentum to be lost. The bombers themselves are kept around for a while to ensure they are motivated and brainwashed to the point where they are sure they will do the job, often given smaller jobs of watching, relaying messages and such until they bond with the group. Easy. It takes away from the randomness of it as well as making a lot more difficult to pull off. Meaning, with a bullet and a guy going up and down the aisles doing as you say executing people, there is a methodical purpose to it wheras a bomb just makes it a freak show. One where nobody knows where it will happen and when thus setting the entire country on edge. With your scenario, you need to have to to three people minimum to pull it off and with the added complications, adds to the risk of detection. With the payoff remaining the same, the chances for it's sucessful conclusion are lowered to thirty percent or worse. I disagree. The numbers are all from different clerics as there is no set number or even virgins at stake. It is an expression of paradise, not to be taken literally. For example, when you suddenly come into money, you say you hit the jackpot. In reality, you did not run over a pot of jacks in the middle of the road, it is an expression to convey an idea. These gius are already motivated and, remain outside society within their own group. Feeding off each other's beliefs and all. In their down time, they might get together and discuss numbers and what they want to find in pardise. 72, 10, 1000. Whatever. Like hungry soldiers talking about getting home while in the field, extra large with the works, case of beer, the beach, their kids, girls. None of it is written in stone, just candy for the mind.

Correct. The mindset of the average person of Islamic and Arab inclination is to believe they are right no matter what. Therefore, all problems they encounter are not of their making and, Israel is a perfect focal point for all their ills. The leaders of these nations encourage this thinking as it keeps the masses preoccupied outwardly in their anger rather than towards the leaders themselves. However, while simmering under control, there is always the potential for it to reach the boiling point.

If that were the case, they would not be able to blow up as many buses because they would need better technology, which they do not have in as great amounts as voluteers. Hence, they consider not being able to stick around a necessity rather than an action they have a choice in the matter about. To put this into perspective try looking at it from a soldier's standpoint. He becomes a father than, is called off to war. In your books, he would be a coward who didn't have the courage to stick around and raise his family. Even though he had no choice. His choice was made when he joined that army.

Well then there you go, on one hand they are courageous in doing the action. As for not being there to deal with the consequences, they are not able to as they are dead so the second part is neither courageous nor cowardly as there is no actin that can be taken eitherway.

True, but it doesn't take away from giving up your life for something you believe in either. You call them cowards just to have an extra insult to throw in but in fact, they are not. Let me make something clear, I think they are wrong, misguided, screwed up, brain washed but, one thing they are not is cowards.

And, thankfully so as we all know what would happen if they were not - a blood bath. So, in order to keep them that way, we should continue to support them.

I don't either except I don't like to see people get killed by the thousands. And, that is what will happen if Israel is not armed and ready to protect themselves against the entire Arab world by converntional means. See, if the Israleis don't have the means to protect themselves without using nuclear weapoons, they will have to use those nukes and that means that millions of Arabs will die. I don't wish to see that so therefore, don't mind supporting Israel in their lower tier weapons systems. On the other hand, any country n the Middle East that isn't calling for the death of the Infidel should be protected and watered and, given aid to grow. Not being from the middle east and, undenieably an Infidel, they are to me, at least not calling for mine and your collective deaths. That's also a plus in my books.

I hate glib rhetoric. It is not a cowardly act. It takes a lot of guts and comitment by the guy doing it while those doing the coordinating may be either cowardly or courageous we know not. However, it does not directly solve anything in most cases, it does have the effect of destabilizing whatever government it takes place in. So if that is the mission, it is sucessful, if it is not then it solves nothing. If you were to say with certainty those commiting those acts were cowards then you would have to say that every hero from Jesus to Churchill was a coward as they did what they did because they believed in something and felt they had to act.

Who would? The US people? The President? When people see horror they are humanistic and feel sorrow for the victims. The US does not laugh when Palestinian children are killed in colateral damage nor do they feel humor when an Iraq marketplace gets bombed. Nor did they think Gadaffis kid getting killed was a front page cartoon so where and what are you basing this rationale on? Besides, the reality of the fact that the west was involved in a broader war would be further driven home by an action such as what I speak.

Only an idiot would attempt to make that case though. If he was a nutbar they would have flown the evening of 911. Well after you can prove some logic that Japan or Germany or Russia or France or Belgium or Poland or Britain or Yugoslavia or ........... would not have used them had they had them during the first or second World War then you might have a point of some kind. As that satnds, it's crap. Because they have less respect for human life than the US or Russia does.