help help I am getting emails from the local TV station meteoroligist asking me why I dont support

[Mari333]

the occupations.

wtf.

He posted, on his TV website, that Iraq had less troop deaths in December 2009.

sooooo I posted that in Afghanistan the troop deaths went up.

I even provided a link.

Now he keeps emailing me asking me why I dont support the occupations.

I sent him oodles of info, about AIPAC< PNAC< Pepe Escobar..he has every link I can provide.

his question to me on email was this:

'So, you’re the President…you’re response to 9/11 and the general terrorism committed by young Muslim males all around the border of the Islamic world would be….'









so I said "I would take a serious look at the policies we have in place that would create such a climate of hate in ME nations. I would start with the ongoing support we have of Israel, and our need to condone some of the overtly militaristic behaviours that Israel condones. and our monetary support via AIPAC, and the ties it has with the evangelical christian community in the USA . (I am a Jew, but I condemn the use of force in Gaza)
I condemned, back in the 90's , Clinton's use of force in Iraq, the sanctions and flyovers we perpetrated.
I condemned the Vietnam war, and the waste of lives and monies back then.
I believe that the United States has a huge problem with it's own vision. As Eisenhower stated to us back in the 50's "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex".
Afghanistan is not about terrorists. It is about an oil pipeline.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KL24Ag07.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KC26Ag01.html

Iraq was never about terrorists. even the most gung ho advocates of that occupation are aware of that now.
PNAC was a think tank of very radical neocons back in the 1990's.
their vision was to take over the oil fields and nations of Iraq and surrounding areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Iraq is now being sold to the highest bidder. highest oil company bidder.

i.e., these occupations are not about attacking terrorists. they are assuring multinational corporations their piece of the pie.

In many countries, we are seen as the terrorists.

and, unfortunately, Obama is continiung along the same path as his predecessor.

Thank you for asking.
Peace be with you and your family.

(I tried to keep it simple.)


----------------------------------------


if you have anything else I can write to this guy, help me out.
or maybe, I should just give up.

I cannot believe I am getting emails from the local meteoroligist about this.

this is surreal. its late.

[rwheeler31]

1. Tell him the weather is changing most people go to bed when it

is dark.

[Mari333]

2. LOL

[NYC_SKP]

3. I think he's got more than a passing interest in you.

I recommend you don't encourage him.

He wouldn't be writing as much if you weren't responding, I'm thinking.

Props for your perseverance, though!

:toast:

[Mari333]

4. it is all very odd.

this guy is on TV in all over SW Michigan. why he wants to spar with me is insane.

oh, and you unrec assholes can kiss off.

[NYC_SKP]

6. agreed.

to the unrec assholes.

I just recced it up, now at two. :P

[Terra Alta]

5. what is a meteoroligist doing

talking about the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?:shrug:

Perhaps you could ask him about climate change.

[Mari333]

7. he posted one link on his weather blog about the troop death decline in Iraq

so I linked him to the uptick in deaths in Afghanistan.

after that, I started getting his personal emails .

This is cracking me up. I have been laughing all evening.

[Terra Alta]

16. has he posted anything on his blog about climate change?

It would be interesting to know what his views are on it, since it is in his field.

[ashling]

11. Ask him about the weather where he is

in fantasy land

[niyad]

8. my response to him would be "kindly learn the difference between you're and your" and--as a weather

person, why the hell are you questioning my politics?"

[niyad]

9. I have you up to six rec's. time for all the good little un'rec'ers to be in bed anyway.

[Mari333]

15. hahaha a lot of people hate me

but I LOVE THEM ANYWAY.

[instantkarma]

10. you waste too much energy

trying to reason with those assholes is useless.

Fire this back at him

"So you're the president... your response to the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic bombing, the clinic bombings and murders and the general terrorism committed by young white right-wing Christian males within the borders of the United States would be..."

See what he has to say about that.

[Mari333]

12. THANK YOU IM SENDING IT NOW

I just sent that. I will wait and let you know his response. LOL

[instantkarma]

18. you're welcome

and anyway, troop deaths are down in Iraq because they were pulled out of the major cities. They're up in Afghanistan because we've escalated the fighting. Less fighting equals less deaths, more fighting equals more deaths.

[Terra Alta]

13. his head would probably explode.

Logic doesn't work well with these types. I know, I've tried. It's best just to let them wallow in their own misery and denial.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Well played...

:toast:

NGU.

[rpannier]

14. How many times is he wrong in his weather report

If it's a lot just tell him he's as right about Iraq as he is about the weather

Leave it at that

[Hissyspit]

17. Well, There's This:

http://sify.com/news/over-700-innocent-pak-civilians-killed-in-us-drone-strikes-in-2009-news-international-kbeoueiiddg.html

Over 700 innocent Pak civilians killed in US drone strikes in 2009

2010-01-04 14:20:00
Of the 44 predator strikes reportedly carried out by US drones in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians.

Most of the attacks were carried out on the basis of human intelligence, reportedly provided by the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen, who are spying for the US-led allied forces in Afghanistan.

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die.

Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, The Dawn quoted authorities, as saying.

The success percentage for the drone hits during 2009 was hardly 11 per cent.

[Hissyspit]

19. And This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x418074

Rachel Maddow: Breaking News - Pentagon Report Says Afghanistan Mission Faces HUGE Obstacles

MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 29 December 2009: Pentagon Report & Afghan Coalition Soldiers Turning On American Soldiers With American Weapons.

MADDOW: "We are about to break some serious news on this show. Next, joining us here in studio is NBC's Richard Engel. He's NBC's chief foreign correspondent and he is joining us with an exclusive jaw-dropping report from the Pentagon about America's chances for military success in Afghanistan. This is a report that Richard has obtained exclusively. It may change the whole narrative of how we discuss the war...

- snip -

He broke the story tonight on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. We'll have Richard here in person in just a moment to walk us through this document he has obtained.

Because we are talking about Afghanistan, I do want to report first, though, that an American soldier was killed today there under very worrying circumstances. The Defense Department and NATO are not saying anything about this yet, other than to confirm that an American was killed in a shooting, but it's reports from Afghan and Italian sources that make this so worrying. They're saying this American was killed by an Afghan soldier, who opened fire on foreign troops with whom he was serving. Two Italian soldiers wounded in the same incident in which one American was killed... A corps commander with the Afghan National Army told the Associated Press that this Afghan solider got angry when NATO soldiers tried to keep him away from a helicopter that was about to land. Italian sources reporting that there was no chance that this shooting was accidental - it was intentional.

Now, this isn't the first time something like this has happened, not by a long shot. In November, an Afghan policeman shot and killed five British soldiers in Helmand province. Late October two American soldiers killed when someone wearing an Afghan National Police uniform opened fire on them... In March, an Afghan soldier killed two American servicemen and wounded a third before killing himself. Back in July 2007 an Afghan soldier opened fire and killed four of his own countrymen and wounded an American advisor. The American was reportedly the target of his outrage. And in May or 2007, an Afghan soldier shot and killed two American soldiers and wounded two others outside a top security prison outside of Kabul.

... but incidents like today's and this, even, abbreviated catalog of past carnage of this type, raise questions about the nature of our mission in Afghanistan, even as our President escalates it. The most minimal description of what our forces are there to do is to train and equip Afghanistan's military and police, so that they can defend their country themselves. It appears that at times, we are arming them and then they are turning around and training that fire on us.

There are also new questions today about whether our mission to train Afghan forces, even if it is wise, a question about whether it has a chance of succeeding. At least, whether it has a chance at succeeding within the time frame that President Obama has laid out for that mission.

With us again tonight is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel..."

ENGEL: "This report, it's 25-pages long, was provided for a briefing for the top commander, CENTCOM commander, David Patraeus. Also CCed on this report was the senior commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and it talks about the readiness of the Afghan security forces, primarily, the Afghan National Army.

To understand the context of this: THE main mission of the United States Army, all of the different forces that are there, is to train the Afghan security forces so that American forces can ultimately leave. That is THE No. 1 priority. The reason 30,000 extra troops are going there is to try and create enough security so that an Afghan Army can be built. I was told this by numerous commanders. No. 1 priority.

This report says that that priority is facing serious, serious problems and the military knows it.

This was an independent study; if I could just read a few things... It talks about how, this is the opening statement, 'The ANA (which is the Afghan National Army) above company level is not at war.' Now, company level means the small units, so the soldiers on the ground, they're fighting. Above, say 150 soldiers, anything, colonel, general, anyone at that level, doesn't believe he's at war. They talk about corruption. This is a quote: 'Nepotism, corruption, and absenteeism among ANA leaders makes success impossible. Change must come quickly.' Another line: 'If Afghan political leaders do not place competent people in charge, no amount of coalition support will suffice in the long term.'

It's more than sobering. It says that this is a serious challenge. It goes on to say that rehabilitating the Afghan security forces will not take one year, it will take a long time."

MADDOW: "Do they give a time frame about how long it would take if it was going to happen?"

ENGEL: "No. I've heard that, independently from this report, that they're thinking about four years. And the reason that the dates are important is, there is the key speech by President Obama - he says he wants to start dialing back the surge, roughly, eighteen months - the summer of 2011, eighteen months from when he announced it. That is impossible according to this study, to get the Afghan security forces up and running and in place and even with some sort of semblance. Another key finding in this report says that the numbers of Afghan troops and police that on the ground are inaccurate, that some battalions will over-report by 40-50 percent, inflate their numbers."

MORE

[Hissyspit]

20. And This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6120920

There Is No Reason for Us to Be in Afghanistan -- Everyone Knows It, and It Spells Defeat

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted July 21, 2009.

The confusion of purpose in Afghanistan mirrors the confusion on the ground. We are embroiled in a civil war.

Al-Qaida could not care less what we do in Afghanistan. We can bomb Afghan villages, hunt the Taliban in Helmand province, build a 100,000-strong client Afghan army, stand by passively as Afghan warlords execute hundreds, maybe thousands, of Taliban prisoners, build huge, elaborate military bases and send drones to drop bombs on Pakistan. It will make no difference. The war will not halt the attacks of Islamic radicals. Terrorist and insurgent groups are not conventional forces. They do not play by the rules of warfare our commanders have drilled into them in war colleges and service academies. And these underground groups are protean, changing shape and color as they drift from one failed state to the next, plan a terrorist attack and then fade back into the shadows. We are fighting with the wrong tools. We are fighting the wrong people. We are on the wrong side of history. And we will be defeated in Afghanistan as we will be in Iraq.

The cost of the Afghanistan war is rising. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed or wounded. July has been the deadliest month in the war for NATO combatants, with at least 50 troops, including 26 Americans, killed. Roadside bomb attacks on coalition forces are swelling the number of wounded and killed. In June, the tally of incidents involving roadside bombs, also called improvised explosive devices (IEDs), hit 736, a record for the fourth straight month; the number had risen from 361 in March to 407 in April and to 465 in May. The decision by President Barack Obama to send 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan has increased our presence to 57,000 American troops. The total is expected to rise to at least 68,000 by the end of 2009. It will only mean more death, expanded fighting and greater futility.

- snip -

We are losing the war in Afghanistan. When we invaded the country eight years ago the Taliban controlled about 75 percent of Afghanistan. Today its reach has crept back to about half the country. The Taliban runs the poppy trade, which brings in an annual income of about $300 million a year. It brazenly carries out attacks in Kabul, the capital, and foreigners, fearing kidnapping, rarely walk the streets of most Afghan cities. It is life-threatening to go into the countryside, where 80 percent of all Afghanis live, unless escorted by NATO troops. And intrepid reporters can interview Taliban officials in downtown coffee shops in Kabul. Osama bin Laden has, to the amusement of much of the rest of the world, become the Where's Waldo of the Middle East. Take away the bullets and the bombs and you have a Gilbert and Sullivan farce.

No one seems to be able to articulate why we are in Afghanistan. Is it to hunt down bin Laden and al-Qaida? Is it to consolidate progress? Have we declared war on the Taliban? Are we building democracy? Are we fighting terrorists there so we do not have to fight them here? Are we "liberating" the women of Afghanistan? The absurdity of the questions, used as thought-terminating cliches, exposes the absurdity of the war. The confusion of purpose mirrors the confusion on the ground. We don't know what we are doing.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of U.S. and NATO-led troops in Afghanistan, announced recently that coalition forces must make a "cultural shift" in Afghanistan. He said they should move away from their normal combat orientation and toward protecting civilians. He understands that airstrikes, which have killed hundreds of civilians, are a potent recruiting tool for the Taliban. The goal is lofty but the reality of war defies its implementation. NATO forces will always call in close air support when they are under attack. This is what troops under fire do. They do not have the luxury of canvassing the local population first. They ask questions later. The May 4 aerial attack on Farah province, which killed dozens of civilians, violated standing orders about airstrikes. So did the air assault in Kandahar province last week in which four civilians were killed and 13 were wounded. The NATO strike targeted a village in the Shawalikot district. Wounded villagers at a hospital in the provincial capital told AP that attack helicopters started bombarding their homes at about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday. One man said his 3-year-old granddaughter was killed. Combat creates its own rules, and civilians are almost always the losers.

MORE

[Mari333]

21. thank you I am going to inundate his email box with all of those

he may be shivering in a corner by the time I am thru with him, or he will learn and be enlightened.

(its like icing on the cake.)

[petronius]

22. I would think that a meteorologist in Michigan in winter would have more productive

ways to use his time.

Here in CA I could understand - arguing about Iraq would be a nice break from trying to adopt out a dog or making small-talk with the local butterfly farmer - but don't you all have real weather for him to deal with?

:shrug:

[Mari333]

24. SW MI is in a state of emergency right now..4 feet of snow and more on the way

they have closed the airports here, closed everything. and he is writing me emails.
this has been a strange night.
hahahaha I am cracking up. thank GOD I made potato soup.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. "you’re response?" He wrote that? Your response should be to return his email thoroughly proofread

and question the validity of his educational degree.

[LiberalFighter]

39. And send a copy to the station manager.

[SoCalDem]

25. I'd just block his emails, and not bother with his tripe

It sounds like he's got waaaay too much time on his hands :)

[Mari333]

26. I just did. he sent me an email telling me that he was a xian male

who believed in the bible. and believed in war.
I decided, fuck it. He isnt worth it.

BLOCKED AND DELETED.

[SoCalDem]

32. It's odd how adamant some people are.. and how eager they are to

push their views.. I read very few emails..even my son accuses me of deleting his emails :rofl:

[patrice]

27. I'm kind of wondering what his employer would think of his behavior.

[ClassWarrior]

31. I agree. Tell his employer about it and threaten to take it to the competing TV stations...

...unless the jackass makes some sort of restitution. Link to the Vets for Peace web site on his blog or somesuch.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Ok, I'm sorry, but your titles has me

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


"I cannot believe I am getting emails from the local meteoroligist about this.

this is surreal."

Neither can I.

:rofl:

I'm so sorry....

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

30. He sounds creepy and obsessed

I'd stay away from him.

[left coaster]

33. Do you really want the correspondence with this person to end?

Then just stop replying, or specifically ask that he not contact you again.. or block his email address. If you continue to "discuss", you only encourage him.

You should also contact the station he works for.. I'm sure they'd be interested to learn of his unprofessional behavior.

[johnaries]

34. Iraq was a "distraction", but Afghanistan is a different story. nt

[jgraz]

35. Might be worth a note to his station manager.

If this guy is harassing you, there's probably a morals clause in his contract that will come into play.

[unhappycamper]

36. Send him a link to the Veterans forum.

Pretty much every day I post new stories from the military rags.

You might also suggest he read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast and "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer.

[PVnRT]

37. Tell him to STFU and watch the Doppler radar like he's supposed to

And if he's using his station's email account, notify his bosses he's using company email for personal and political purposes.

[mudplanet]

38. On 9/11 I said essentially the same thing that you did and got fired from

my job for my efforts. That might put your frustration with this jerk in perspective.

Frankly, I'm not sure the path Obama is taking in Iraq isn't the right one, as he inherited a clusterfuck and seems to be resolving it in a reasonably quick and consistent manner.

His actions in Afghanistan are criminal.

You want an exit strategy - go to the airport, get on an airplane and get the fuck out. Done. If you shouldn't have been there in the first place (and we shouldn't have) then all your arguments about why you can't leave now that you're there (our "commitment to democracy") are complete bullshit.

The very word "occupation" negates any moral stance the U.S. may have had for the conflict. If you occupied my country and shot my little brother in the face, I'd blow you up, too. Probably by any means necessary. Anyone who wouldn't is, arguably, a coward.

I wouldn't even bother to engage the weatherman. But you could ask him how "the general terrorism committed by young Muslim males all around the border of the Islamic world" which has resulted in fewer than ten thousand deaths over two decades compares to the general terrorism that the U.S. has subjected the people of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia to over the last four decades, which has resulted in, literally, millions of violent deaths (three million in Vietnam alone).

Or, if the (large scale and systematic) terrorism committed by young Hindu men and women in Sri Lanka (these guys literally invented suicide bombing) means we should put the nation of India on the list of "terrorists," round up all the Hindus living in America and put them in concentration camps, and begin our invasion plans for India (oh, wait a minute. They were only killing Buddhists. No problem).

Comparatively, it's pretty obvious that the vast bulk of terrorism in this world is committed by "Christians." Usually they get to wear uniforms (and fly supersonic aircraft) and pretend it's not terrorism but "a military action." Those aren't dead civilians, they're "collateral damage." "We had to torture and kill them. They were communists." (Actual quote from a Salvadoran soldier I interviewed).



Americans can sure dish it out, but they don't seem to be able to take it. We've become a nation of bedwetters.

[LearnedHand]

41. OMG, we ARE a nation of bedwetters!

:rofl:

That's SO funny, and I'm stealing it! (I used it just today, in fact.) Thanks for the laugh.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.