Re: When women are in the Army........

[TekTeam26]

That whole story about Jessica Lynch being well treated by the Iraqi's is
completely false. What really happened is that Jessica Lynch was brutally
raped, sodomized, beaten and tortured by her Iraqi captors. Her injuries were
not the result of a truck wreck, unlike what the Army has claimed. Jessica's
book was heavily censored by the Pentagon before they would allow her to have
it published also. The Pentagon was scared to death that if the truth was told
that the US public would demand that all female servicemembers be pulled out of
harm's way. As any servicemember who was out in the Gulf at the beginning of
the war and saw the Al Jazeera TV broadcast with the murdered US POW's, the men
with their penises cut off and Lori Ann Piestewa fully exposed with the ends of
her breasts cut off and a large hole in her abdomen where her entrails used to
be.....and you believe that Jessica Lynch was treated well. She is still under
orders not to talk about what really happened to her...not about the
torture....not about the rapes....not about having to watch her best friend
being disemboweled alive before her eyes...not about the abortion that Jessica
had to have six weeks after her rescue...none of it. The media played along
because the Pentagon leaned hard on those who had the truth already.

Any female servicemembers who are captured are sure to be very roughly
treated. But that has been the case since the beginning of Desert Storm...

J

[lysdexic]

"which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have."


Neither true.

"However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
than god thus they should be a god."

Not logical.

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:30:55 -0700, "lysdexic"
> > wrote:
>
> |Perhaps I have spent to much time learning math, science, history, and
> |philosophy and not enough time in worship to be considered educated.
>
> 1) which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have.
>
> 2) no one is asking you to worship, only respect the wisdom.
> Much of wisdom is not that different between the various
> religions. Most wisdom does not change over time or culture.
> However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> than god thus they should be a god. In reality you do not have a
> clue.
>
> In time, nature will take care of you via death and the fact that
> no one will remember you 10 years after your death. And this
> little experiment that the left has been doing will be swept away
> by nature and time. Wisdom prevails because only the wise
> survive.
>
>
>




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[la n.]

lysdexic > wrote in message ...
> "which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have."
>
>
> Neither true.
>
> "However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> than god thus they should be a god."
>
> Not logical.

Heh. Good one. BTW, lysdexic, we have to train you *not*
to top post ... :)

- nilita

>
> "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:30:55 -0700, "lysdexic"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > |Perhaps I have spent to much time learning math, science, history, and
> > |philosophy and not enough time in worship to be considered educated.
> >
> > 1) which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> > you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have.
> >
> > 2) no one is asking you to worship, only respect the wisdom.
> > Much of wisdom is not that different between the various
> > religions. Most wisdom does not change over time or culture.
> > However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> > than god thus they should be a god. In reality you do not have a
> > clue.
> >
> > In time, nature will take care of you via death and the fact that
> > no one will remember you 10 years after your death. And this
> > little experiment that the left has been doing will be swept away
> > by nature and time. Wisdom prevails because only the wise
> > survive.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <quSrc.3764$J02.2915@edtnps84>, "la n."
> wrote:

> lysdexic > wrote in message
> ...
> > "which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> > you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have."
> >
> >
> > Neither true.
> >
> > "However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> > than god thus they should be a god."
> >
> > Not logical.
>
> Heh. Good one. BTW, lysdexic, we have to train you *not*
> to top post ... :)
>
> - nilita


I cherish the definition of a zealot as "one who would be happy to
explain, to an omniscient deity, what the deity's correct actions should
have been had the deity been in possession of all the facts."
>
> >
> > "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:30:55 -0700, "lysdexic"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > |Perhaps I have spent to much time learning math, science, history,
> > > |and
> > > |philosophy and not enough time in worship to be considered educated.
> > >
> > > 1) which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> > > you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have.
> > >
> > > 2) no one is asking you to worship, only respect the wisdom.
> > > Much of wisdom is not that different between the various
> > > religions. Most wisdom does not change over time or culture.
> > > However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> > > than god thus they should be a god. In reality you do not have a
> > > clue.
> > >
> > > In time, nature will take care of you via death and the fact that
> > > no one will remember you 10 years after your death. And this
> > > little experiment that the left has been doing will be swept away
> > > by nature and time. Wisdom prevails because only the wise
> > > survive.

I do find it fascinating when people throw around terms such as "left"
and "right" as if the terms have rigorous definitions, as opposed to
some historical artifacts of seating customs in several Parliaments.
Take the "right", for example, and the "New Right" movements of the
sixties that brought Goldwater, and, in general, a Republican
resurgence. Having been a participant in some of the New Right politics
of the late sixties and early seventies, virtually anyone identified
with the movements would have been shocked to have simply been called a
"rightist".

At the very least, groups distinguished themselves as to government
power, the role of mandatory moral codes, the freedom of the
marketplace, and the role of the military. People would identify as
traditionalists, religous conservatives, libertarians of all flavors,
fusionists, and
people-that-desperately-were-trying-not-to-call-their-ideology-fascist.

Mr. Steele makes a generic reference to the "left", but why should the
"left" be more monolithic than the "right"? You can find self-identified
members of the left ranging from "ADA (Americans for Democratic Action)
mainstream" types, to assorted flavors of Marxist (Monolithic? Shall we
have Messrs. Trotsky, Stalin, Tito and Mao debate that?), political
correctness activists, etc.

Nihilists and anarchists can sort of drop into an extreme where left
meets right.

And yes, there is a meaningful concept of a pragmatic centrist.

[la n.]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message
...
> In article <quSrc.3764$J02.2915@edtnps84>, "la n."
> > wrote:
>
> > lysdexic > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "which means that you are best, a mediocre student. Otherwise
> > > you would have mentioned the university and degrees you have."
> > >
> > >
> > > Neither true.
> > >
> > > "However, it is people like you who think that they are smarter
> > > than god thus they should be a god."
> > >
> > > Not logical.
> >
> > Heh. Good one. BTW, lysdexic, we have to train you *not*
> > to top post ... :)
> >
> > - nilita
>
>
> I cherish the definition of a zealot as "one who would be happy to
> explain, to an omniscient deity, what the deity's correct actions should
> have been had the deity been in possession of all the facts."

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the
worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
- Woody Allen

- nilita


> >
>

[B2431]

>From: "The Enlightenment"
>
>"Karl Hungus" > wrote in message
>news:n7Prc.97283$iF6.8728923@attbi_s02...
>>
>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > And when did captured females not receive very harsh treatment?
>You
>> > were perhaps thinking of the nurses on Corregidor?
>>
>> The nurses on Corregidor were treated quite well, which is
>surprising, given
>> the way the Japanese normally treated POWs.

I hardly call rape, physical abuse, starvation and denial of medical care being
treated "quite well" except in comparison to the way male POWs were treated.

>
>Someone who allowed themselves to be captured alive was a disgrace
>according to their Warrior code.

The Japanese in WW1 treated the POWs so well that some Germans decided to
remain in Japan after WW1. The "warrior code" to which you refer was an
invention of the lates 1920s and 1930s by idiots who had no idea what Bushido
was really all about.

The attitude towards women would
>have been different.

Not under the later Bushido. Even civilians who surrendered were considered
dishonourable and the Japanese treatment of them was barbaric at best.

>
>Their code had developed differently to the chivalric code of the
>comutatus of the Germanic peoples. (chivalry was a form of religious
>syncretism)
>
>The misuse of some colonial western women as prostitutes was a
>different matter. They seem to have pressed them by offering an
>easier life to them in return for this.

That would come as a great surprise the the women and girls, some were
prepubescent, who were kidnapped and raped then forced into prostitution as
"comfort girls." Do you really expect a system that would release biotoxins in
China on the population, butchered 200,000 people in Nanking etc would bother
with niceties like offering people they despised a better life?

The Japanese behaviour between the "Manchurian Incident" and the end of the war
was barbaric in the extreme. The one sad thing is too many war criminals got
away.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired