US government employing terrorist group inside Iran

[fastpat]

Yes, our wonderful maximum leader, Bush II, is funding a Mujahideen cult to conduct murder and mayhem within Iran. Just like they've been doing for nearly five years in Somalia.

The United States was conducting similar operations using Iranian opposition forces, in particular the MEK -- that’s the Mujahideen cult, which is a terrorist group, defined by us as an at-one-time anti-Saddam, now anti-Iran group that works very closely still with us, despite its being listed as a terrorist group.

Put known terrorists on your payroll, become a terrorist yourself. George W. Bush is a terrorist.

[sammyg2]

[Rearden]

You forgot to paste the funniest part, the headline:

Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change

[thrown_hammer]

I love Engrish! This one cracks me up too.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by thrown_hammer
I love Engrish! This one cracks me up too.

What's yer F'ing point, son?

[thrown_hammer]

I believe the correct term is Effing.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by thrown_hammer
I believe the correct term is Effing.

Roger, got it. Bush II was made an "effing" mess out of his presidency, beyond wildest imagination.
So true, so true.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by fastpat
What's yer F'ing point, son?

No point at all, he is just having fun with Pelican's village idiot!

[Moneyguy1]

And trying to help those in Iran who want to westernize a bit (read eliminate the theocracy that now exists) is a bad thing?

Please tell me how.....

[Usmellgass2?]

Originally posted by fastpat
What's yer F'ing point, son?

Truly amazing, to take stupidity to a monumental level then top that celestial elevation with ego, seek counseling.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
And trying to help those in Iran who want to westernize a bit (read eliminate the theocracy that now exists) is a bad thing?

Please tell me how.....

Because it's immoral to use money taken at gunpoint in America, and use it to interfere and kill people in another country.

Every petty dictator whose ever invaded another country has used the "we're helping them out" justitication, it's nothing new or unique to the little fuhrer in the White House.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Usmellgass2?
Truly amazing, to take stupidity to a monumental level then top that celestial elevation with ego, seek counseling.

Next time you post, try to post something of value, and something that's accurate while you're at it.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fastpat
Next time you post, try to post something of value...

For the sake of all of us, bored by your rants, try to follow this bit of advice for the new year. It will cut down on the senseless clutter.

And Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
For the sake of all of us, bored by your rants, try to follow this bit of advice for the new year. It will cut down on the senseless clutter.

My, my, such vitriol.

Meanwhile, the little fuhrer in the White House steps up his propaganda campaign against Iran with actual violations of international law, to provide additional provocation to Iran for action on their part.
U.S. highlights Iran-meddling charge in Iraq

[Moneyguy1]

Gee, I pay my taxes willingly as part of the cost of freedom. Never has anyone come to my door from any level of government with a gun and demanded money!!

Then again, we have never tried anarchy here. Think it would work each man (and women) for themselves?

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
Next time you post, try to post something of value, and something that's accurate while you're at it.

yeah--just like paste, full of pertinent information based upon the thoughts of others.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Gee, I pay my taxes willingly as part of the cost of freedom. Never has anyone come to my door from any level of government with a gun and demanded money!!

Now, Bob, that's disengenuous at best. Government violence doesn't require them to come to your house with guns, that they come to the homes of others with guns is well known and documented hundreds if not thousands of times each year. Whether you admit it or not, your taxes are in fact removed from you at gun point.

Then again, we have never tried anarchy here. Think it would work each man (and women) for themselves?

That's not what would happen, Bob. Most of the associations we have now are by mutual agreement between interested parties. I've documented many times out here that no one person should determine how our society should work because no one person knows how it should work. See this article for an explanation. this is why government planning, for anything, doesn't work. Note also that private police forces are the fastest growing segment of law enforcement in America, that I have three private garbage services to chose from, two satellite TV companies to chose from (with more likely), and so forth.

Also, note, that America got along quite well as a near anarchy in most places, and it was those living in specific areas of the country that little by little imposed strict government rule over Americans, almost always for profit via the threat of or actual government violence.

[Moneyguy1]

pat....

As much as I hate to confront you precisely, you have mentioned being "robbed at gunpoint" by government a number of times.

In addition, where YOU may be able to act independently, protect your property and supply everything you need, the VAST majority of the citizenry want a degree of "guidance" and do not wish to be in a situation where their survival depends on eternal vigilism, surrounding themselves with land mines, firearms, bazookas, and frontier justice.

You are obviously intelligent, but apparently unable to follow your separatist philosophy to the logical conclusion which would be based upon the individual's strength, placing many at the mercy of their more powerful and amoral neighbors. From your postings, one could assume, rightly or wrongly, that you would be loathe to help your less prepared neighbors and indeed might just take advantage of their relative weakness, leading to a situation no unlike a feudal system, that is, if you permitted these less fortunate folks to live......

Those parts of America that were near anarchy such as the Soutwest of the late nineteenth century had the advantage of sparce population. Built-up areas (Cities) would quickly collapse economically and socially. This is the way history works. Proving otherwise would be to refute the thing upon which you hang your hat so strongly.....History.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
pat....

As much as I hate to confront you precisely, you have mentioned being "robbed at gunpoint" by government a number of times.

I've related that fact to you, and others, many times. Everyone that pays taxes directly does so at gun point. And, since few avoid indirect taxes on things they use in daily living, it's fair to say that everyone pays at gun point.

In addition, where YOU may be able to act independently, protect your property and supply everything you need,

Everyone can do so.

the VAST majority of the citizenry want a degree of "guidance" and do not wish to be in a situation where their survival depends on eternal vigilism, surrounding themselves with land mines, firearms, bazookas, and frontier justice.

Since we don't do that now, there's no reason to think we'd do that in the future. I'd point out to you the number of gated communities today as proof that government isn't protecting anyone, but you might not believe that. Further, that's the issue with democracy, it's mob rule. Those that "don't want to" live in a certain way, force me to live as they do, to help supply the things they don't want to have to figure out how to supply for themselves.

You are obviously intelligent, but apparently unable to follow your separatist philosophy to the logical conclusion which would be based upon the individual's strength, placing many at the mercy of their more powerful and amoral neighbors.

We don't use swords anymore, Bob, so weapons of the like that require professional level skills to use, that's why skilled swordsment had such famous reputations and were so rare, aren't required for self defense. Guns, despite the mythology of some, are relatively simple to use and never more so than today. I'd be foolish to think I could take advantage of my neighbors through physical strength, as would you. I'm not likely to cheat him through guile, either.

From your postings, one could assume, rightly or wrongly, that you would be loathe to help your less prepared neighbors and indeed might just take advantage of their relative weakness, leading to a situation no unlike a feudal system, that is, if you permitted these less fortunate folks to live......

You couldn't be more wrong if you studied how to accomplish it for years. Then again, you're having a hard time imagining freedom as it is, so I guess this is to be expected. Have you not read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", Rothbard's work (any of them), or any other Austrian School of Economics work? Before you can say the above meaningfully, you'll have to study the Austrian's and then prove them wrong. Since the Keynesians have been trying to do that for 70 years or more unsuccessfully, you'll have your work cut out for you.

Those parts of America that were near anarchy such as the Soutwest of the late nineteenth century had the advantage of sparce population. Built-up areas (Cities) would quickly collapse economically and socially. This is the way history works. Proving otherwise would be to refute the thing upon which you hang your hat so strongly.....History.

Those parts of cities built on government's web of corruption would certainly collapse, and that might harm people dependant on that corruption. It's my opinion that we shouldn't concern ourselves with potential harm of parasites, when we have actual, proven harm from the way we do things now.

[wrcRS]

Funny...

I've read many of fastpats' thread topics...

...and then I read nothing but people trying to argue that he's crazy.

Seems to me that no one really ever has an honest rebuttal for his topics besides thinking that he's crazy. I am in no way bothered by what he says...but I am bothered by how many people react to him.

Seems somewhat childish. Just a thought.