Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!amir
From: amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: The atomic bomb - (nf)
Message-ID: <332@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 12:18:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.332
Posted: Tue Oct 23 12:18:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Oct-84 19:14:15 EDT
References: <272@digi-g.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: amir@digi-g.UUCP (amir)
Organization: DigiGraphic Systems Corp., Mpls.  MN
Lines: 44
Summary: 

My appologies to others.  I some times wonder if Mike is even worth replying too.
But here it goes any way.


>> You are comparing a conventional war with a mass murder by a bomb.  I really
>> feel sorry for your kind.
>
>Amir, you ignorant slut, "conventional war" *is* mass murder (oops, it's
>been sanctioned by the state, so we have to call it "killing").
>
There you go again by calling me your mama's name.

>> You are trying to tell me that killing 450,000 people in a shot is ok.  There
>> is no way that that many people would have died in a conventional war.
>
>I don't believe it - he quoted me saying that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>wasn't a good thing (see below) and can still make that statement. Amir,
>I can believe that you don't read the articles you reply to, but you could
>at least read the articles you write!
>
you stupido, what I said quotes you as saying that the nuking was good, as you
again admit to it further down.  You apparently can not understand mine or 
anyone else's letter or your own statements for that matter.

>
>-------------------- promised quote --------------------
>> > > > -------------------- end quote --------------------
>
>> Ok Ronnie.  You did always believe that you could win a nuclear war.
>
>We won one - you said so yourself, nitwit. Unlike you, I do try and
>keep track of things other than "facts" to support my opinions, I know
>that we probably couldn't survive an full-scale nuclear exchange. I prefer
>not to find out - but I'll make an exception for you.
>
>