XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: D-E-M-I-G-O-D@SHAW.CA   
      
   "Bill Levinson"  wrote in message   
   news:lmZnb.10253$X22.7284@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...   
   >   
   >   
   > D E M I G O D wrote:   
   >   
   > > "Bill Levinson"    
   > > wrote in message   
   > > news:9dynb.9954$FI2.8646@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>I'm using it against the Saddam holdouts   
   > >>who are not only waging guerrilla war on   
   > >>Americans, but also against the ordinary   
   > >>Iraqi people. I don't call the ordinary Iraqis   
   > >>ragheads, I call the enemy ragheads.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > It seems you are stuttering in you vagueness... Are you babbling   
   this   
   > > to yourself? Just say it straight: ragheads are ragheads. The term   
   > > itself is being taken for its value. And as followers of religious   
   > > cults of every denomination, they tend to be damaging in their   
   zealocy   
   > > when their extremism is going too far. Or is it a name of one of   
   > > Saddam's daughters?   
   > >   
   > > There are no enemies, as such, stupid. They are always being   
   invented.   
   > > But there are assailants and attackers who violate the boundaries   
   of   
   > > law and common rules of behavior, including crossing of the borders   
   and   
   > > invasion into others' space without having a right to do so. Those   
   > > violator are naturally provoke the resistance, which usually   
   amounts in   
   > > equally aggressive and sometimes more damaging reaction of   
   opposition.   
   > > This is the reaction which americunts are now facing from "ordinary   
   > > Iraqi people", AKA *ragheads*, as YOU expressed it..   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>>brutal agents of injustice and repression   
   > >>>induced through perpetuation   
   > >>>of the incarceration industry.   
   > >>   
   > >>What's wrong with incarcerating violent criminals?   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > I will tell you WHY... Because those "violent criminals" are also   
   > > individuals who happened to be unable to claim the opposite to   
   those   
   > > labels against themselves, because of their powerlessness and   
   > > helplessness in contesting those claims in unfair environment   
   created   
   > > by corrupt judicial system.   
   > >   
   > > It's also because those individuals are being railroaded into   
   official   
   > > slavery of the incarceration industry in violation of the   
   international   
   > > standards of human rights, which prohibits all forms of slavery.   
   And   
   > > it's because incarceration is depriving individuals of their   
   inherent   
   > > rights to life, liberty and dignity.   
   >   
   > And what should be done with an individual who has been proven beyond   
   a   
   > reasonable doubt (or, in some cases, any doubt) to have unlawfully   
   > deprived an innocent person of his/her life or health (e.g. through   
   > aggravated assault)?   
      
   Of all the number of incarcerated individuals, how many exactly have   
   unlawfully deprived an innocent person of his/her life thorough   
   aggravated assault? I'm sure pigs have done this many folds over, yet   
   they haven't been persecuted for it, let alone being incarcerated.   
      
   So, the number of people incarcerated for "aggravated assault" is   
   minuscule, out of the total amount of prison population. And I'm sure   
   that banishing them would be more conforming to their BASIC and   
   INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS (and certainly less expensive) than perpetuating   
   long abolished institutionalized slavery and keeping sadists on the   
   payroll in the capacity of slave drivers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)