First -- my exercise of human rights.

No denying. I am 1st.

Your effort to claim first is an assaul of my human rights. I will be contacting Mr. Amin.

KJ was not first, but was appointed first by Socialist Secretary-General Kofi Annann.

Probably funded during the Clinton presidency.

This claim to be first is offensive to all those who are not first.

Trench, how does that make you feel?

I keep seeing Garret Morris doing "Idi Amin Dada" on SNL.
"That's two 'A's three 'D's and one gun!"

Although my appointment to first was supported by status as a member of a protected group (I am a hispanic lesbian trapped in a white male body), my achieving first status would have been attained on the merits, w/o the affirmative discrimination progarm in place here. I am hurt and dismayed that you would stigmatize my brief tenure as first poster for the most recent article. Once again, my human rights are violated. My claims continue to grow. Mr. Amin has told me that he quite put off by this discrimination.

KJ..I feel for you. No, really, I do. Your claim that you would have been first without the special consideration of your preferred status is a pathetic whimper.

BTW, Mr Amin is apparently so put out by your claims that he has slipped further into his coma. News of this has reached Uganda, where the entire nation has stopped their work to celebrate. Unfortuntely, CNN has taken this to mean they are celebrating the man, celebrating his life and his legacy.

Well, I know you will all agree with me that IDI AMIN is the silliest name ever to appear in ScrappleFace.
For those people who want to come up with a good fake name to post stuff on ScrappleFace I have thoughtfully provided a link.

Yes. It is silly.

The late Pol Pot has been named UN Human Rights Commissioner Emeritus, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at bringing peace to Cambodia. After all, what could be more peaceful than a nation of corpses.

That Bambi Stokes-Hymington sure is funny! Bambi, I read that whole list all the way to the end and found it to be very funny. I will sure use it a lot if I ever decide not to use my real name. Also, Pol Pot is a funny name. I will enter that in your funny names of Dictators contest.

Well Zelda, I wasn't exactly having a contest for funny names for dictators. I would enter "George Bush" if I was. He has been to Africa too. Like Idi Amin.

A nation full of corpses is quite frightening to those of us still alive. The walking undead are quite difficult to kill. And that is just from radiation. When you mix in bio-warfare, like in Resident Evil, I really fear a country full of corpses, all hungry for brains.

Hhmmmmmmmmmm . . . brains!

This was a distinct possibility with the current Junta running the U.N. human rights commission.
""BIG DADDA""
former heavyweight champion of Uganda and just one helluva an example of African progress since colonialism.

I hear Idi Amin Dada is on a respirator now. I wonder how Hillary is making out? ("I could hardly breathe. Gasping for air...") Hope she has a spare one.

Retired to Saudi Arabia, huh?

Must have fit right in.

That speaks volumes of the Saudi ruling family.

interfunk.blogspot.com notes that people are so excited at the prospect of Amin's demise that they have gotten a head start on the rhetorical rejoicing!

It speaks volumes about our favorite arab playmate.

The best tyrants were both truely horrible and had catchy names. Some of the tough variety (Stalin, Hitler, Hillary Clinton), some of the silliy (Amin, Pol Pot, Lil Kim). If you want to be remembered as a horrible tyrant, but have a borring or wimpy name, do you think you should change your name like hollywood types do?

yes KJ...change your name and come up with a derivative tune claiming that you "keep it real":

Don't be fooled by brains that I eat/
I'm still, I'm still Idi from the street
Ex-Uganda ruler now I'm in Riyadh/
Just makin' sure you know where I came from....

GO Lance!!!

COMMENT:
Trench, how does that make you feel?

I am an Unfirst-American.

Josef wouldn't have done nearly as well if he had kept Dzuhgashvilli. Stalin, or "Steel Man" had a much better PR ring.
And Hitler sounds waaay better than Schickelgrubber. "Heil Schickelgrubber" just sounds silly.

hmmmm..."Heil Hillary" has a ring to it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Then again, "Praise Ashcroft" is pretty scarey, too.

See Nation of Corpses on tour with Ozzfest.

I wonder if Mike Tyson will be the understudy.
Did Saddam mentor Amin, or boot him out as a jinx? Inquiring minds...where is Oogaly Hussein these days? Is he at Amin's bedside, standing in for Papa Saddam?

LOL "Praise Ashcroft"

I personally think that will smith will play the rol of idi amin in the movie

>>>I keep seeing Garret Morris doing "Idi Amin Dada" on SNL.
"That's two 'A's three 'D's and one gun!"

Posted by: some random guy on July 21, 2003 10:02 AM

The Garret Morris episode I'd like to see again, is when Julian Bond was a guest host and told Morris, "It's a known fact that light skinned Negro's are more intelligent than dark skinned Negro's!"

I wonder if he was REALLY joking?

My Friends, If I were not on a liquid diet, I would like to have you ALL for dinner. To my French Friends, PLEASE, shower first!

"The late Pol Pot has been named UN Human Rights Commissioner Emeritus"

surely, rand, you mean the CIA Human Rights Commissioner Emeritius ? The title can alternate between Pinochet and Pol Pot ?

"Washington has covertly aided and abetted the Pol Potists' guerrilla war to overthrow the Vietnamese backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, which replaced the Khmer Rouge regime.
.... International relief agencies were pressured by the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas"

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

You know, Comical Rummy, the one thing that always amazes me is that the people who talk about how the U.S.'s hands are unclean because it has a history of supporting bloody dictators and other evil people/groups on the enemy-of-our-enemy principle have this strange aversion to criticizing Franklin D. Roosevelt for supporting Josef Stalin. Despite, oddly enough, the fact that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than all the U.S.-backed groups combined.

Do you happen to know why that is?

I think we both know, WL. Its because we were both fighting the Nazis.
actually I'm not sure we brought Stalin to power in the same way we helped bring Pinochet to power overthrowing the previous democratic government of Allende.
But you're right, its OK to support any bloodthirsty tyrant on this "enemy of my enemy" principle because they're not as bad as Stalin. Thats your point isn't it.
Next step we can start arming Hamas and the Pal resistance, they're much better than Stalin !

But they are the enemy of our ally.

And "everybody" knows that the whole Vietnam war was just a big game to get the military-industrial complex lots of money, and to let the OSS-CIA frat boys get into the drug trade.

Oh, poor little third-world countries! Evil Americans are coming!

To quote the eminent philosopher Andrew "Dice" Clay: Wonk, wonk, wonk. You sound like Charlie Brown's ...teacher!

>
Israel is no more an ally of mine than Saddam is.
And neither should be an ally of the US if the US cares about human rights.

>
is this a flippant reference to US support for brutal terror states.
I wonder if the survivors of, say, the El Mozote massacre crack those sort of gags ?
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page61.html
Or maybe they say "O poor little americans in their trade centers, big bad Al Qa'ida coming"

y'know rand - you seem to be admitting we don't support countries because we and they are upstanding governments, democracies etc, we support them just because they're our friends: Pinochet, Suhiarto, Saddam and Sharon, all our friends and we don't care about right and wrong just out own national interests - usually oil playing a big part there.And we don't care how bloodthirsty these friends are.
And yet then we have the nerve to claim we're the "leader of the free world" and nod aprrovingly when Bush tells us we're in a war between good and evil.

whoops - my quotes of you got misformatted !
"But they are the enemy of our ally."
Israel is no more an ally of mine than Saddam is.
And neither should be an ally of the US if the US cares about human rights.

"Oh, poor little third-world countries! Evil Americans are coming! "
is this a flippant reference to US support for brutal terror states.
I wonder if the survivors of, say, the El Mozote massacre crack those sort of gags ?
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page61.html
Or maybe they say "O poor little americans in their trade centers, big bad Al Qa'ida coming"

y'know rand - you seem to be admitting we don't support countries because we and they are upstanding governments, democracies etc, we support them just because they're our friends: Pinochet, Suhiarto, Saddam and Sharon, all our friends and we don't care about right and wrong just out own national interests - usually oil playing a big part there.And we don't care how bloodthirsty these friends are.
And yet then we have the nerve to claim we're the "leader of the free world" and nod aprrovingly when Bush tells us we're in a war between good and evil.

I don't particularly care about "the evil that men do" in other countries.
If they aren't a military or economic threat to this country, then they matter very little, to me.
If you have a brutal dictator, have a revolution.
Don't like your government? then kick it out.
Drought and famine caused by overgrazing and cutting down every tree and shrub? Tough. I don't give a darn if you and your kids starve.

We have enough problems to solve in our own borders, before we start being "do-gooder" and "policeman to the world."

Does this make me sound callous? Ask me if I care.
Fix things here first, then take over...ummm...rescue and liberate the rest of the planet.

Support for brutal regimes? If it was advantageous at the time, sure, go for it.

well the US doesn't have to be policemen or do-gooder. where it raises hackles is when it tries to exploit other countries for its own interest and installs terror regimes.

"Don't like your government? then kick it out."
well they tried - sometimes succeeded - in many central american countries at overthrowing the terror regimes the US installed eg the regime installed by the US in Guatemala in 1954 (when the USAF bombed the capital) led to a 30 year war with the resistance branded commied - ditto El Salvador. In Chile they had a democratically elected government until the US decided they should have a brutal torturer like Chile.
"Support for brutal regimes? If it was advantageous at the time, sure, go for it."
you need to tell GWB this next time he spouts about regimes that support terrorists.
yup, flying planes into trade centers ? if its advantageous, go for it ! who "gives a darn" if a few americans die.

I honestly don't think another terrorist group is going to try anything in the United States.
They blew up a building (or two) and we blew up a country.

Lesson learned.

I never feared Soviet caused nuclear destruction leading to the end of the world. As long as both sides believed in assured mutual destruction, Godless commies wouldn't kill themselves for the cause b/c they had nothing beyond this life to live for.

The extremist Islamists commiting terror acts don't think that way. With the religious indoctrination they have absorbed, they will kill the entire world, and think nothing of it. Blow up a country? Whatever -- where are my virgins?

Oh good. Rummy's here. Now I'll unsubscribe from what was a funny thread becaues some people have no life or sense of humor.

Rummy: "Israel is no more an ally of mine than Saddam is."

How do you stack these two up against each other and come out equal? Oh, RIGHT, Israel is nothing but the "Zionist entity"....

Have you set these words to music yet?

Lyrics: PLO Charter; Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.

There. So long as it is the Israelis protecting the "dignity of man and his freedom in the world", and not those trying to free us from freedom itself, Israel won't be an ally of your's.

The people who actually aim the suicide bombers are probably a little more realistic than the fanatics. They like having their satallite TV and Internet connections. Plus they like getting the bucks from the Saudi "charities." They have no illusions of getting half a gross of inexperienced bed-partners.

I've often wondered how they came up with the number 72. Why not 50? or 75? Did they barter it? Is Allah a market-place vendor? (If any Muslims were offended by that remark, so what? I don't apologize.)

Who would want to have to be the first sexual experience for that many girls? The performance anxiety would be a killer. Of course in their society, they don't really seem to care about women, so it probably wouldn't be a problem. (Once again, I any Muslims or Arabs were offended by that comment, good!)

I am a male chauvanist pig, but I am still irritated that women are considered a reward for some task. If they only wound a few infidels, do they only get a half dozen virgins? Do virgins get traded like a commodity? How's the futures market?

Moreover, I don't understand the rise in female homicide bombers. What good is it for them? Do they get 72 inexperienced, fumbling, 15 seconds before blastoff male virgins? Of 72 femal virgins, properly raised muslims who believe homosexuality is wrong, so lets start a sewing club in heaven?

difficult to know rand whether you're serious. I guess to you then 911 wasn't a horrible atrocity. After all so a few 1000 innocents got killed. We 'd do the same if it was worth a while, we 'd support murderers, torturers, so what ?
o, and I seriously doubt many suicide bombers do their deeds under the impression they're getting any virgins. Just a myth thats been propagated I'm afraid. Its about as likely as Israeli bombers bombing Qana for the virgins.

cosmic, I guess you're another one who supports terrorists ? there's no other explanation for your soft spot for a regime like Israel that elects bloodthirsty terrorists like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Who knows, maybe OBL next ?

Am I serious? Or did I just let my sociopathic side out to play?
Difficult to tell, even for me.
Do I care about my fellow man? Depends.
My fellow humans? citizens of Starship Earth? Not very much. Six billion is way too many. Half that much is too many.
My fellow American? Yes, I do. To an extent. Maintaining the way of life, the liberties afforded to citizens, is important to me. Do I care about the people in this country who do not contribute (or have not contributed) to the thriving economy we have? No. I don't. Those who are able to be gainfully employed, and who are not; those who do not earn but subsist only on the public largese, I care for not at all.
Leeches are not my favorite creatures.

If you try, and try hard, I'll willingly give you a hand. If you just stick your hand out and whine, I'll kick you off the sidewalk and out into traffic.

Am I serious about not caring what happens in the third world? You decide.

I care about what happens in the third world. I like things mostly poor but stable. If it gets too unstable, people can't get to work. If it gets too prosporous, people want more wages. Whichever happens though, it is up to them.

Either way, Commical Rummy (really isn't) will find a way to blame it all on Israel or some US backed dictator from 1975. But he isn't anti-semitic.

Comical Rummy: Change your name. You aren't comical, and aren't smart either. So stop trying to be. You seem to turn every argument into a trading of flames about Israel and the peace-loving (not!) Pals within two posts.

Go Lance GO: I always thought a derivative was either f'(x) or dy/dx, not something about tunes or songs.

Since when has Africa NOT been in turmoil? It was even a mess before the slave trade started - that's how the slaves got captured, in civil and inter-tribal wars. Each side would capture the others, and sell them. I say we just leave them alone. They might sort it out in about ten thousand years, but us sticking our noses in the door wan't do anything but get it pinched. Any peace might last about a month, then it'll start all over. And our noses will still be pinched, too.

Is Idi Amin that idiot that keeps trying to get me to let him empty {ahem} deposit money in my [nonexistent] credit card account? If he is, he should be cursed to read those E-scams for all eternity.

so rand, when the US sponsors terror regimes that murder its people we are just kicking leeches off the sidewalk ?

Go Lance Go? Didn't Lance use to make those little packs of crackers and snacks in the 60's and 70's?

Mmmmmmmmmm.....crackers, and snacks!

Kathy,
"If it gets too prosporous, people want more wages"
and what would happen then ? profits of US multinationals would be hit, and then the income of us "leeches" (to use rand's word) would suffer.

I don't blame everything on Israel. I certainly blame the El Mozote massacre, among others, on a US backed dictator because - um - it was carried out by Jose Napoleon Duarte's US trained troops. Crazy, I know ! Its as crazy as blaming 911 on Bin Laden - ie not crazy at all.

Lugubrious Dummy,

Re: "Next step we can start arming Hamas and the Pal resistance, they're much better than Stalin."

No they aren't they're just less efficient.

hmm .. I wonder if all the brutal dictatorships that we've sponsored are also "as bad as Stalin just less efficient" then ? And we helped those tyrants so, again, why not the Pals ?
Were the Israeli terrorist groups Irgun and the Stern Gang and their leaders Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir as bad as Stalin too ?
actually one difference I've already noticed between the Pal resistance and Stalin is that the Pals are fighting for their life against an ethnic cleansing campaign and an illegal occupation by the Israelis. worth repeating cos its true !

Uh, CR, my company makes clothing in the third world, and if they get too prosporous they want more wages ... thus, it hurts my profits. Gee, what a genius you are, you saw my sarcasm, and thought I was missing the boat. That you for that. But of course, that was what I meant -- it is called sarcasm.

And then you blamed everything on Israel, just like I said you would.

KLG: Don't listen to CR. He's a nutcase who does indeed try to blame everything on Israel and the US. He's obsessed with them being Nazis (yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense, but neither does anything else he says) who want to exterminate the peace-loving (not!) Pals. And he even takes jokes seriously.

Comical(?) Rummy:

want some of my catnip? Ya need a stress reliever, dude! I'm happy to share with you so you have a **shot at "living up to your name" (comical).

Maybe Scrappleface Head of Security Ken Stein will have to hold you down while a few of us force feed it to you. I'll just warn you: I'm not declawed!..(after the American grown catnip---- See...isn't life better now, Not so CR? :~})

**not intended as an Israeli or PAL term.

Kath, yeah you saw through me, when I said "I don't blame everything on Israel" and then described the El Mozote massacre I really meant "I DO blame everything on Israel" - good spot.

now, Ken, point me to the post where I've described Israelis as Nazis ? you know you're making it up cos it never happened. you're just sore because I exposed your misconception that Israel had agreed, subject to some conditions, to end its illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. Israel has made clear it wil maintain its ILLEGAL settlements under all circumstances.
its awful for you isn't it ? you guys are happily chortling at all the anti-Pal satire agreeing with yourselves that the Pals are the most evil people since ... well ..ever ! and the Israelis are peace loving tolerant etc etc and the Pals must just "hate Jews" to want to defend their land (nothing to do with having their land stolen) and then some crazy man starts presenting the Pal perspective ! All those facts !! Of course he must be "biased" !! Of course he must be biased cos he's not 110 % pro-Israeli like everyone else, how much more biased can you get !?
Crazy huh, I guess I must be some escapee from a mental unit !!

CR,
Re-read what I posted. Then ask questions. The "leeches" comment concerned individuals in this country.
As for supporting muderous dictators in other countries, I suppose that depends on the strategic and/or tactical reasons for that support.

hmm, rand. I've never thought about that rationale for supporting murderers before.
You know I've never considered whether there may be strategic and/or tactical reasons for supporting the attack on the WTC on 911.

The Taliban boys probably had a tactical purpose for the attack. Just as the japanese had a tactical reason for bombing Pearl Harbor. Just as the Allies had a reason for turning Dresden into a fire-storm.
Doesn't mean that we will say, "Oh, okay. You had a reason. We forgive you."
It just means that it wasn't simply a random act of mass murder.
It also doesn't mean that we can't respond by killing those responsible for it.

actually rand, the Taliban weren't behind 911. Al Qa'ida was. Of course Al Qa'ida were supported by the Taliban just like we supported mass murderers in central america and beyond.
So 911 wasn't a random act of mass murder then ?
I guess the El Mozote victims or their relatives have as much right to retaliate against the US as we had to attack Afghanistan. Its just lucky might is right I guess.

Random thoughts for CR:

CR, you are a neighboring dog that won't stop barking at the moon.

Might may not be right, but it is relative safety.

Is it possible for you to comprehend a large country, with different leaders every 4-8 years, has a very complex series of long and short term decisions that are good, bad, neither or both? For you to ONLY focus on some decisions (which you do over and over again) makes you a simpleton and narrow minded. Even in the past when I tried to give you an inch (eg, the US has made foreign policy mistakes in the past), you were unwilling to quit harping about whatever ancient foreign atrocity you were whining about that day and bad mouthed my admission. You know, the US does a lot. A lot of good. A lot of bad. But compare it to any other country of international presence, it stands at the top for its overall goodness. That doesn't wipe away the bad, but since that is all you can talk about, you obviously lack perspective. [CR will respond: What about the El Mozote victims or their relatives, I guess they lack perspective too huh]

If the US wants to play a role in some areas of the world, unless we go in and take over ala Iraq, sometimes we are stuck supporting one scoundrel over another. We probably should stay out sometimes. But once Soviets left and we stopped helping, that gave us Afganistan.

How many years before the statute of limitations runs on all of the US's misdeeds? I mean, it hasn't run on slavery yet (140 years) or Jim Crow (40 years - though O'Conner said it should expire, maybe, in 25 years). With CR, every administration carries the sins of the fathers, even the fathers who were nothing like the sons. Very old testiment of you, though I didn't mean to insult you just now.

KJ,
"leaders every 4-8 years, has a very complex series of long and short term decisions that are good, bad"
actually the US has supported murderers under a hsot of regimes, Eisenhower toppled the Guatemala democracy, Nixon installed the torturer and murderer Pinochet, Reagan supported central american dictators and tried to cover up their crimes, LBJ (a democrat) helped Suhiarto,

and these weren't "mistakes" they were disgustng foreign policy decisions

"How many years before the statute of limitations runs on all of the US's misdeeds? "
hmm ... I guess when the US's crimes are universally accepted, maybe we need something like a Holocaust museum (and I'm not claiming all of the US's misdeeds were on the same scale as the Holocaust) - or several: one for the native americans, another for the victims in central america etc

"though I didn't mean to insult you just now"
no offence taken, KJ, we're just having a robust though sincere difference of perspective on this issue.

CR: You seem to have forgotten that LBJ also did this: He started the Vietnam War - without even the support of Congress, never mind the UN! He did ask for Congress' support, but it was several days AFTER launching the attack. Talk about unilateral - and, irony of ironies - it was to bail out the French! But you never brought that up here, have you?

Yo Ken,
no I remember LBJ and Vietnam, didn't he also lie or at least bend the truth on his reason? I refer to the gulf of tonkin incident. Not sure Vietnam was to bail the French out, bit late if it was, they left years earlier after Diem Bien Phu.
by the way did you ever find a quote of mine to back up your claim that I'd compared the ISraelis to the Nazis ?

Yes - he did. Four days after the fact.

And it was to bail the French out - We started out by giving them advice about how to defend themselves. But they were French, so instead they just bugged out. Then along came LBJ. He actually sent Americans to Vietnam, and then we got more and more stuck, because we were fighting defense, and the armed forces were not allowed to win, in effect. Our strong point is sudden, irresistable attack - hyperwar, not long, drawn-out resistance.

No, I didn't. I figure that since you say there may be a strategic reason for 9/11, you are so out of touch with reality that I'm not going to bother. I got better things to do than argue with you, like going scuba diving for roto-rooter.

Ken,

"And it was to bail the French out "
the French had left years earlier, some bail out. next you'll be claiming that if we'd won Vietnam we;d have handed it back to the French.

", so instead they just bugged out. "
whereas we had a roaring success in Vietnam.

"I figure that since you say there may be a strategic reason for 9/11, "
Now, Ken - 2 lies don't make a truth. I didn't say that either. you're confusing rand with myself. I commented critically on rand's comment that there can be strategic reasons for supporting murderers which rand confirmed was his view when he stated "The Taliban boys probably had a tactical purpose for the attack.".

so you admit now you lied when you tried to claim "I'm obsessed the Israelis being Nazis". typical. if you're going to try and smear at least make it a smear that isn't so transparently false.

Oh yes, we had a roaring success in Vietnam. Because the politicians wouldn't let the armed forces win - they were for defense only.

"hmm, rand. I've never thought about that rationale for supporting murderers before.
You know I've never considered whether there may be strategic and/or tactical reasons for supporting the attack on the WTC on 911."

"Now, Ken - 2 lies don't make a truth. I didn't say that either. you're confusing rand with myself."

I dunno - sure looks like I'm confusing you with yourself. You did say it.

And where exactly did I admit that I lied? I didn't, because I didn't lie. That was a lie, and a transparent smear too.

so Ken, well I guess I can't knock you for having an obvious reading comprehension problem. what part of "never" don't you understand ?

I say that
"I've never considered whether there may be strategic and/or tactical reasons for supporting the attack on the WTC on 911"
and you claim this means I "say there may be a strategic reason for 9/11" ?????

whereas rand said "The Taliban boys probably had a tactical purpose for the attack." following "Support for brutal regimes? If it was advantageous at the time, sure, go for it" and "supporting muderous dictators in other countries ... depends on the strategic and/or tactical reasons for that support."

you ask "And where exactly did I admit that I lied? "
you've admitted you can't back up your latest ludicrous claim that I compared the Israelis to the Nazis. Just like your attempts to claim I justified 911 have fallen pretty flat.

CR: When you say 'I've never...' it generally means you just thought about it.

And WHERE did I admit that I lied? I didn't lie, so I didn't admit that I had. Give me an exact quote. You started out by saying that I admitted that I'd lied (which I hadn't), and then when I refute the claim, you just say "you've admitted" again. Prove it. Your ludicrous claim that I lied has fallen pretty flat.

And BTW, just because you say you don't blame everything on Israel doesn't mean you don't.

Ken,

"When you say 'I've never...' it generally means you just thought about it."
erm, no it doesn't. actually, as you remember (?) the subject came up because rand claimed "supporting muderous dictators in other countries ... depends on the strategic and/or tactical reasons for that support." and later "The Taliban boys probably had a tactical purpose for the attack."
but never did I at any point agree with his views that there was a tactical reason behind 911.

re admissions, you tried to claim I compared Israelis to Nazis and then admitted you couldn't back it up and instead tried to deflect to an equally ludicrous 911 claim. If you claim I misrepresent you then back up your Nazi/Israel claim now - where did I say such a thing ?

WHERE did I admit that I couldn't back it up?

yet more lies, Ken ?
I asked (July 27 5:29 pm) if you ever found a quote to back up your claim that I'd compared Israelis to Nazis and you admitted "No, I didn't" and then tried to change the subject to 911.

Come on, Ken, stop wriggling: either find this alleged Nazi/Israel quote or admit you lied.