Alan Watts on modern warfare
28 Oct 2010, 8:02 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 8:07 am
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
28 Oct 2010, 8:18 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f*****g Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 8:22 am
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f***ing Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
Oh, and here is a quote from the Liberalpedia even:
Quote:
The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.[1]
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
28 Oct 2010, 8:34 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Say, during WWII, didn't England perform saturation bombardment of civilians in retaliation for the attacks upon London? I think I remember the planes used were called "mosquitos" and were made out of balsa.
The De Havilland Mosquito IS made of wood, yes. It isn't a heavy bomber. You need squadrons of heavy bombers to do "saturation" or "carpet" bombing.
Web Page Name
Mosquito. Used as a nightfighter (and source of the infamous "carrots improve eyesight" legend.), a pathfinder, and a precision bomber, amongst other things.
Web Page Name
B-17 Flying Fortress. Heavy bomber, Used for bombing. Heavily, in Germany by the USAAF.
So, having set you right on your military history again, what exactly IS the relevance of carpet bombing during a global conflict against an enemy who utilized saturation bombing even before the war, a tactic used by American airforce units as much and more than the RAF, against an enemy state replete with anti-aircraft defences, to Israeli espionage and strafing/bombing of an allied ship?
These Mosquito bombers were used by England, at least once, in a gigantic swarm in the bombardment of civilian targets.
At a guess, you're referring to Hamburg (a major port sporting, amongst other things U-boat Pens which built U-boats used in unlimited naval warfare against military AND civilian ships, and Nobels very own dynamite factory). Your "gigantic swarm" is about 50 planes, tops.
So, the RAF (and the USAAF) bombed German cities. Boo f***ing Hoo. Shouldn't have started a genocidal global conflict hell-bent on conquest, or engaged in a tit-for-tat bombing campaign with an island nation. Still not at all relevant to Israel false-flag operations or even particularly to "Modern" warfare, except in so far as the Mossie was used a great deal for the kind of pin-point precision bombing favoured by modern fighter jets. In which case thank you for noticing our pioneering work.
Oh, and here is a quote from the Liberalpedia even:
Quote:
The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.[1]
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[2] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[3] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[4][5]
In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[6][7][8] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[9]
In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[10] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[11] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[12] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.
Coventry. Warsaw. Hell, I could name cities that got bombed for hours. Total war kills civilians. The moral of the story is "Don't start a total war." As Bomber Harris said, "The Nazis started this war under the rather naive belief that they would bomb everybody else, and no-one would bomb them. They have sowed the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind." The Nazis openly threatened to (and attempted to) make whole cities disappear overnight in order to make gains against the Czechs, the Poles, and anyone else who stood against them. My heart truly bleeds for the poor Nazis. It was so mean of the allies to bomb them.
STILL NOT RELEVANT.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 5:22 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Seems that you have a patriotic soft spot for the bloody redcoats. It's sad that you'd be willing to insult Americans and Israelis and yet stick up for the English.
1) When did I insult Israelis? You appear to have imagined some persecution by proxy. The fact that I consider Israel (like any other nation) to be capable of espionage, dirty tricks and so forth doesn't mean that I dislike them, hate them, or anything of the sort.
2) Why is it so sad or unusual that I might be a touch patriotic towards my own nation? This forum and many others are liberally bedecked with flag-waving patriots for the US, and that ISN'T sad? Ridiculous.
3) I happen to have a low opinion of American military strategy in general, considering it to be cack-handed, hamfisted, and wholly too reliant on gung-ho militarism, sheer weight of numbers, and reliance on technology. That and overwhelming hubris and arrogance that simply isn't backed up by American military achievements. Military strategy that is lent the appearance of success by dint of geographical isolation. I also happen to have a low opinion of "Patriots" who insist on waving flags in battles that happened in the 1700s as if they were personally there, and demonstrate absolutely ridiculous rudeness and ill manners towards a nation that is their ALLY and which sends its own soldiers to fight alongside (and be killed by) American soldiers. Such attitudes lead me to feel that we should pull out from being your bedfellow in these "World Police" activities and develop a separate international policy that has bugger all to do with America. Likewise I refuse to "be grateful" towards a nation populated by people who by majority were quite happy to let the rest of the world burn until they were "surprised" by the Japanese and subsequently made the target of a Nazi declaration of war. Cheers for the save there....
However, I also have a great deal of respect for anyone who happens to end up serving in that military, and any soldier who can survive such leadership.
4) I will let you google the last time British soldiers wore red coats in battle. Maybe you can get a date for when the US Army stopped being a shower of "traitor militia" as well? Then you could pull your head out of the War of Tax Evasion long enough to notice that STILL none of this bears any relevance towards either the topic, or Israeli espionage and false-flag operations.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 5:28 pm
Macbeth wrote:
sheer weight of numbers, and reliance on technology.
Sheer weight of numbers & reliance upon technology. So, I suppose the sheer weight of numbers in terms of aircraft gaining air superiority prior to engaging in ground based combat? The sheer weight in numbers of M1A1's? The sheer weight in numbers of anti-materiel and anti-personnel snipers? The sheer weight in numbers of carrier battle groups? I'm sorry, have you gotten your history of American military engagement from the movie Platoon?
28 Oct 2010, 5:41 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sheer weight of numbers, and reliance on technology.
Sheer weight of numbers & reliance upon technology. So, I suppose the sheer weight of numbers in terms of aircraft gaining air superiority prior to engaging in ground based combat? The sheer weight in numbers of M1A1's? The sheer weight in numbers of anti-materiel and anti-personnel snipers? The sheer weight in numbers of carrier battle groups? I'm sorry, have you gotten your history of American military engagement from the movie Platoon?
Add them all together. What do you get? A HUGE military force. THAT weight of numbers. You're drifting into the ridiculous again. The conclusion that because you only have a small number of VAST FLOATING AIRFIELDS in your navy somehow makes your monolithic multi-billion dollar war machine small and efficient? Because "snipers" occur less in an infantry unit than riflemen, your bloated army is a teeny weeny elite highly trained super-honed rapier. Don't talk bollocks.
And don't even start on that poorly thought out neo-colonialist farce that wasn't even given the dignity of being a "war" in Indo-china. Which you lost. Badly. Completely even.
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 6:09 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
Not relevant or on topic. Please do tell me what the topic of this thread is then.
Certainly isn't "RAF bombing missions of the mid-forties." or "How evil the British are, based apparently on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." or even "Trying to compare saturation bombing with low level strafing."
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 6:26 pm
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
Not relevant or on topic. Please do tell me what the topic of this thread is then.
Certainly isn't "RAF bombing missions of the mid-forties." or "How evil the British are, based apparently on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." or even "Trying to compare saturation bombing with low level strafing."
I don't think the British are evil nor do I have anything against imperialism nor the bombardment of enemies even if there are civilian losses. However, making claims that an ally intentionally sought to bring America into the Six Day War by attacking an American vessel in the hopes of passing the blame off is a rather thin accusation made of specifically knowledge-less conjecture.
28 Oct 2010, 6:51 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
Not relevant or on topic. Please do tell me what the topic of this thread is then.
Certainly isn't "RAF bombing missions of the mid-forties." or "How evil the British are, based apparently on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." or even "Trying to compare saturation bombing with low level strafing."
I don't think the British are evil nor do I have anything against imperialism nor the bombardment of enemies even if there are civilian losses. However, making claims that an ally intentionally sought to bring America into the Six Day War by attacking an American vessel in the hopes of passing the blame off is a rather thin accusation made of specifically knowledge-less conjecture.
Except that it isn't "knowledge-less conjecture." Knowledge-less would be the term for your digression. So, what reason DID you have for wandering off into a side-bar of inaccurate waffle about half-remembered bombing runs in the forties, given its total lack of relevance to Israeli behaviour in the Six Day War?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
28 Oct 2010, 7:00 pm
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
Not relevant or on topic. Please do tell me what the topic of this thread is then.
Certainly isn't "RAF bombing missions of the mid-forties." or "How evil the British are, based apparently on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." or even "Trying to compare saturation bombing with low level strafing."
I don't think the British are evil nor do I have anything against imperialism nor the bombardment of enemies even if there are civilian losses. However, making claims that an ally intentionally sought to bring America into the Six Day War by attacking an American vessel in the hopes of passing the blame off is a rather thin accusation made of specifically knowledge-less conjecture.
Except that it isn't "knowledge-less conjecture." Knowledge-less would be the term for your digression. So, what reason DID you have for wandering off into a side-bar of inaccurate waffle about half-remembered bombing runs in the forties, given its total lack of relevance to Israeli behaviour in the Six Day War?
Going back to the mid-1940's for an example of a war crime committed against civilians by that nation you seem to give blind patriotism to in order to compare to a military action against a military vessel misidentified during a week-long war where everything was touch-and-go is not irrelevant. If anything it continues to show how you are not willing to admit any fault by your nation and yet you mind nothing said against America or her allies.
28 Oct 2010, 7:14 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
STILL NOT RELEVANT or even ON TOPIC.
Not relevant or on topic. Please do tell me what the topic of this thread is then.
Certainly isn't "RAF bombing missions of the mid-forties." or "How evil the British are, based apparently on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot." or even "Trying to compare saturation bombing with low level strafing."
I don't think the British are evil nor do I have anything against imperialism nor the bombardment of enemies even if there are civilian losses. However, making claims that an ally intentionally sought to bring America into the Six Day War by attacking an American vessel in the hopes of passing the blame off is a rather thin accusation made of specifically knowledge-less conjecture.
Except that it isn't "knowledge-less conjecture." Knowledge-less would be the term for your digression. So, what reason DID you have for wandering off into a side-bar of inaccurate waffle about half-remembered bombing runs in the forties, given its total lack of relevance to Israeli behaviour in the Six Day War?
Going back to the mid-1940's for an example of a war crime committed against civilians by that nation you seem to give blind patriotism to in order to compare to a military action against a military vessel misidentified during a week-long war where everything was touch-and-go is not irrelevant. If anything it continues to show how you are not willing to admit any fault by your nation and yet you mind nothing said against America or her allies.
Even in your own description you manage to make the two events sound completely different and unrelated (which they are.) And I remind you again of the EPIC difference between a high level saturation bombing raid upon a legitimate industrial land target using massed propeller-driven aircraft against an aggressor nation in a legally declared war, and a low level strafing/bomb run using French-built fast mover jet aircraft at sea. Not to mention the motor boat part of the attack. Regardless of whether it was a genuine friendly-fire incident or not, its still absolutely f**k ALL like the bombing of Hamburg. Seriously. Give it up and go find an event that actually shares some similarities.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Alan Watts |
28 Jun 2012, 2:08 am |
| alan watts teaches meditation |
26 Jan 2011, 5:40 pm |
| Has anyone ever read "The Book" by Alan Watts? |
18 Jan 2008, 6:33 pm |
| Modern Warfare 2 TEASER |
17 Aug 2009, 5:50 am |
