Skimmer

Joined

• started 77 topics
• posted 559 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Skimmer

• 
  47

  THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL JEHOVAH'S WITNESS SITE

  by nyc_gal in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this site is not an official website of jehovah's .

  witnesses.

  i cannot believe some of the horrible things i have read here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  >>> Witnesses would never put a patriotic flag on their site.

  Are you so sure? After all, the WTBTS has signed up with the United Nations, and they have every flag in the world flying on their property.
• 
  6

  WTBTS annual meeting this Saturday

  by Skimmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wtbts annual meeting is this saturday (if i recall correctly), and so today (friday) is the last day for the prescient among us to publicly offer our speculations, and if available, inside knowledge as to what new turdlets will be emitted from "god's only true channel".. i will repeat my main guess here and write that we will see a number of organizational changes that have the effect, which has been seen before, of moving assets closer to brooklyn while moving liabilities to the circuit and congregational levels for protective compartmentalization.. anyway, here is your last opportunity to offer your views before the big day.

  so feel free to post your comments to this thread; you too can be a cassandra or a tiresias or a fred the wonder cat.. well, skip the last one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  The WTBTS annual meeting is this Saturday (if I recall correctly), and so today (Friday) is the last day for the prescient among us to publicly offer our speculations, and if available, inside knowledge as to what new turdlets will be emitted from "God's Only True Channel".

  I will repeat my main guess here and write that we will see a number of organizational changes that have the effect, which has been seen before, of moving assets closer to Brooklyn while moving liabilities to the circuit and congregational levels for protective compartmentalization.

  Anyway, here is your last opportunity to offer your views before the Big Day. So feel free to post your comments to this thread; you too can be a Cassandra or a Tiresias or a Fred the Wonder Cat.

  Well, skip the last one.
• 
  62

  What R U Reading lately?

  by Tina in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm interested in finding out what everyone is reading these days.. or what books have had an impact on your worldview since leaving the org.. what have you found helpful in re-constructing and broadening the way you think and feel?.

  what have you found to be particularly enlightening on 'your journey?'.

  thanks in advance,luv to all.tina.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  I have just finished re-reading all seven books of the Narnia Chronicles by C. S. Lewis. I have found these works of Christian Allegory to be surprisingly thought provoking given that they are commonly considered to be children's books.
• 

  Worse than war

  by Skimmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote:.

  "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.

  the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse.

• 

  Skimmer

  A quote:

  "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

  John Stuart Mill
• 
  17

  Osama's Fate?

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if osama bin laden is captured and has to come to trial, what should his punishment be if he is found to be guilty of the murder of over five thousand people?.

  would europeans accept any us demands for execution?.

  this could get very complicated!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  A POW (prisoner of war) does not have the same status as a prisoner of the criminal justice system. A POW does not have a definite sentence, but can be held until hostilities are ended. When every Islamic country switches over to a democratic government with a well established freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of education, and equality of gender, then that would be a condition for the cessation of war of muslim terrorists. Until then, bin Laden and his pals can be held in a military prison, the location of which need not be disclosed.

  In other words, death by incarceration.
• 
  44

  view of an American from Afghanistan

  by Tatiana in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was posted on another forum by someone i talk to.....any thoughts on this post?.

  "this was sent to me from a friend and is supposedly written by an american that is from afghanistan.

  > i've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  : This is from Tamim Ansary, a writer and columnist in
  : San Francisco who is a native of Afghanistan. It's
  : both interesting and chilling....

  I've already seen this same crap posted on other boards.

  Important Note: My comments below are intended for the original author, Tamim Ansary.

  : > * * * *
  : > I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing
  : Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO
  : Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing
  : innocent people, people who had nothing to do with
  : this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept
  : collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes
  : later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we
  : "have the belly to do what must be done."

  Failure to act will result in more terrorist attacks, each more deadlier than the last. I don't give a crap about "belly"; I want us to exhibit some backbone!

  : > And I thought about the issues being raised
  : especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and
  : even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
  : lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell
  : anyone who will
  : listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

  Do you understand what it looks like from the people outside the World Trade Center? From the Pentagon?

  : > I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama
  : Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these
  : people were responsible for the atrocity in New York.
  : I agree that something must be done about those
  : monsters.

  Okay, how about a suggestion or two? You seem to have no problem criticizing demands for a prompt decisive response, so how about putting your plan on the table? Or maybe you don't even have a plan.

  : > But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan.
  : They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The
  : Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took
  : over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
  : criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think
  : Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And
  : when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the
  : Jews in the concentration camps."

  The Taliban are running Afghanistan. They have done this for years. There is no doubt about this.

  Ninety five percent of the population of Afghanistan either support the Taliban or are too cowardly to rebel against them. Comparing them with Jews in Nazi concentration camps is an utter insult and displays an appalling lack of knowledge of history. Emitting this kind of bullshit totally destroys whatever credibility you might have had.

  : > It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing
  : to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims
  : of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would
  : come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the
  : rat's nest of international thugs holed up in their
  : country.

  As far as I can see, millions of those in Afghanistan care only about their own skins and are running away to other countries. True, a few in the Northern Alliance are trying to put the Taliban out of business. They would succeed if the majority of Afghanis weren't cowards.

  : > Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and
  : overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved,
  : exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few
  : years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are
  : 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country
  : with no economy, no food. There are millions of
  : widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
  : widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with
  : land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the
  : Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the
  : Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

  Sounds too much like what I heard from professional victim classes. If they refuse to defend themselves, then they get what they deserve.

  : > We come now to the question of bombing
  : Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.Trouble is, that's
  : been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make
  : the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level
  : their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of
  : rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
  : Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
  : medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already
  : did all that.

  Apparently, the Taliban have no problem maintaining internal communication, power generation, power distribution, and any number of other phenomena not associated with being in the Stone Age. So that whole paragraph of yours is just more crap.

  : > New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier
  : bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not

  If the bombs are big enough, then they will work just fine.

  : likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat,
  : only they have the means to move around. They'd slip
  : away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those
  : disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't
  : even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and

  Perhaps the uncles, cousins, and other relatives of those orphans might decide to show a little bravery for once and strike against their Taliban masters. But I'm not holding my breath on this.

  : dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the
  : criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it
  : would only be making common cause with the
  : Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been
  : raping all this time

  Taking out the war fighting capability of terrorists and those that give them safe harbor can only help innocent people no matter where they live.

  : > So what else is there? What can be done, then?
  : Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The
  : only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with
  : ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly
  : to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms
  : of having the belly to kill as many as needed.>

  If the 95 percent of Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban had any kind of "belly", then ouside action would not be necessary.

  : Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about
  : killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of
  : the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans
  : dying. And not just because some Americans would die
  : fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's
  : hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to
  : get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through
  : Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest

  Read the news, idiot. Pakistan has given us their full support.

  : of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim
  : nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're
  : flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

  If that's what it will take to end terrorism, then that's what has to be done.

  : > And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program.
  : That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this.
  : Read his speeches and statements. It's all right
  : there. He really believes Islam would beat the west.
  : It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can
  : polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a
  : billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in

  It will be hard for him to issue any commands when his atoms have been distributed in the stratosphere.

  : those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left
  : to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of
  : view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would
  : win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last
  : for years and millions would die, not just theirs but

  Millions of ours do not have to die.

  : ours. Who has the belly for that?
  : Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

  Fuck bin Laden. He is going to be dead, and very soon, I'm sure.

  Warning to all: DO NOT DOUBT THE DEEP AND ENDURING STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

  : Tamim Ansary

  Hey Tamim, you seem to like Afghanistan. Certainly you are trying to save the miserable asses of the twenty million Taliban supporters. Why don't you return there instead of using up valuable American oxygen?
• 
  21

  Brits: 90% Say Go In With Yanks.

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought you folk in the states might like to know how things stand this side of the pond.. sky news interactive showed that 90% of those polled thought that the uk should join with the us military in attacks on countries harbouring terrorists.. the the entrance to the us embassy in london is stacked high with flowers and tributes, the fdr statue in particular has also been similarly honoured.. flags all around the country are at half-mast.. the queen ordered that the daily changing of the guard ceremony at buckingham palace should feature the usa national anthem, this has never happened before at such a nationalistic event.. the famous last night of the proms at the albert hall and hyde park has been restructured to honour the american dead.. it is know that several hundred brits were in the trade centre at the time of the attack.. i just wanted you people to know that your country is by no means on its own in this crisis.

  ((((((big british hugs))))))).

  englishman.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  Hello Englishman, and thank you very much for your posting.

  We Americans thank you and all of the Brits who support the United States against terrorism. We remember how the UK assisted with the retaliatory air strike against Tripoli that helped keep Libya quiet for a long time.

  I am sorry for the loss of British lives that occurred in the World Trade Center area, as I am sorry for the losses of all other international workers and visitors who were there that day. The United States is supposed to be a protector of both its own residents and all of those who are peaceably residing in the country. We have failed that day; let us hope that we will not fail in the promptness, intensity, and effectiveness in our response.

  Any help that the UK can give us is very much welcome. There are reports that MI5 is helping us right now. We could also use the help of the RAF, as our Air Force has seen far too many budget and personnel cuts over the past decade. The Royal Navy can help too; with its aircraft carriers and its submarines, the RN can help patch the gaps in the US Navy. The USN had about 590 ships at the end of the Reagan administration but has since been gutted to about 317 ships at the end of the Clinton administration.

  At the moment, the American media is reporting that the United States is going to wait for "international consensus" before acting. I don't know how much of this is just talk; personally, I fear that too long of a wait will serve to reduce the effect of whatever action will be taken.
• 
  68

  NATO INVOKES ARTICLE V - Serious

  by Amazing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when nato invokes article v, it is more than just one member asking for support from the other member states, but article v invocation means all member states view the attack as an attack on them all.

  in other words, nato aliance is at war with those responsible, and will support the us lead, which will now hold not only the terrorists responsible, but hold those nations that host them as equally responsible.. "brussels, belgium (cnn) -- nato has unanimously declared the hijack attacks on the u.s. to be an assault against all member states.".

  "it is the first time in 52 years that the alliance has invoked article v -- the nato self-defence charter that says if one member state is under attack all other member nations would defend it.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  Hello Grunt;

  The problems with your proposal are:

  1. It will take far too long, and we cannot afford the luxury of waiting when only a very prompt response will adequately show our resolve.

  2. Extensive involvement with other countries, even our allies, will blunt the response.

  3. It will cost too many American lives; enough have already been lost.

  A hypothetical question for you: in 1945, the United States already had a workable plan (Operation Olympic) for the invasion of the homelands of Imperial Japan. The plan estimated a loss of life of about one million Allied soldiers and four million Japanese soldiers and civilians. The plan did have some similarities to your proposal: it involved a coalition, it relied upon conventional weapons, and it was rather slow paced. President Truman rejected it, saved millions of lives, and earned a healthy respect from other countries. Do you think Truman was mistaken?
• 
  17

  React, Retaliate, and Respond Forcefully

  by Bendrr in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for far too many years we americans have paid our taxes and gone about our peaceful lives believing we lived in the best and safest country in the world.. september 11, 2001 claimed the title of the day that will live in infamy.

  the attack on pearl harbor must now relinquish that title, as tuesday's attack was undeniably worse than that military attack on a naval base.

  millions of people watched in horror as the second plane crashed into the world trade center tower on live television and thousands of innocent civilians-americans-died before a worldwide audience.. terrorist hijackers, some receiving their pilot training in america.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  Hello Bendrr:

  I sadly agree with your post.

  The United States has tried negotiations. It has tried very expensive foreign aid programs. It has tried using international law. It has tried limited military action. The evidence is that none of this has been a successful deterrent.

  In August of 1945, President Truman made the decision to use nuclear weapons to quickly end the horrible disease of inhumane, expansionist imperialism that had infected the Japanese government and military. Years later he commented that it was the hardest decision he had ever made and that the the fact that it was a necessary one did not make it any easier. He knew he would have critics and that the criticism would last for years, long after he was gone.

  In September of 2001. President Bush is also faced with a tough decision. He sees that the last twenty years of negotiations and relatively limited military action has not deterred the terrorist atrocities seen on the eleventh of the month.

  Remember that the main purpose of war is to remove the war fighting capability from the adversary. Against the terrorists and the countries that give them shelter, we have but one weapon in our arsenal that will do the job quickly and without further loss of American lives.
• 
  14

  Now Iraq is in on it ....

  by BobsGirl in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  looks like israeli intelligence is saying that our old friend sadaam has hooked up with bin lahden to cook up yesterdays attacks.

  great ... this means war with an insane man who has chems and nukes and can't wait to use them.

  hold on folks ... it is going to be a bumpy ride.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Skimmer

  For some unbiased assessments of nuclear weapon capabilities of various countries, try:

  -> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html

  And for Iraq in particular:

  -> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/index.html