 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / September 2006Why we should assassinate foriegn leaders...
Whenever we feel like it. Theory that U.S. orchestrated Sept. 11 attacks 'not absurd': Venezuela Sep 12 2:23 PM US/Eastern Theory that U.S. orchestrated Sept. 11 attacks 'not absurd': Venezuela CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it's at least plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Chavez did not specifically accuse the U.S. government of having a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks, but rather suggested that theories of U.S. involvement bear examination. The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes crashed into them in 2001. "The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited," Chavez said in a speech to supporters. "A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion." "The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world," Chavez said. "Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq." Chavez has said the U.S. launched those wars to ensure its political and economic power. The U.S. government says al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "A plane supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, but no one ever found a single remnant of that plane," Chavez said, citing a television program he had seen on Venezuela's state television. Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro raised the same theories in an earlier speech Tuesday, and called for an independent investigation. "It's really worrisome to think that all of that could have been a great conspiracy against humanity," Maduro said. "An independent international investigation must be carried out one day to discover the truth about the events of Sept. 11."  SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > Whenever we feel like it. <snip> Typical. Scary part is that Hugo, besides being a pinko leftist idiot (and a real champion of human rights and freedoms), Bin Laden, Saddam, Hammas, Al Qaeda, Ahmadinejad all have allies here in the lying leftist idiots like Moore, Clinton, Kerry, Dixie Chicks, Alan Street, the entire Democrat party leadership, etc. Moon walk was staged, the Holocaust never happened, WTC came down at the hand of the US government Everyone who even entertains this bullshit is willing to ignore more than 40 years of Islamic mass murders. And it seems really handy that they bring all these wonderful conspiracy "theories" up, after the site has been sanitized of any evidence that would support their lunacy. I know I watched on TV two aircraft slam into those buildings, the people jumping to their deaths rather than burn, and the inevitable collapse. We wont even go into each and every desperate leftist scheme to hang a scandal of any kind on the current administration that have all, one by one, been proven wrong and a malicious act. And they act like no one knows any better, or wont remember. Republicans are no better or worse than Democrats, the only difference is defined by the extremists on both sides, and the evidence suggests very strongly that the Democrats are all but completely unhinged, and have been since they started losing elections. ************************************** Editorial from a Romanian newspaper by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu Why are Americans so united? They don't resemble one another even if you paint them! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations. Some of them are nearly extinct, others are incompatible with one another, and in matters of religious beliefs, not even God can count how many they are. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed on the streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand. After the first moments of panic, they raised the flag on the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colours of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a minister or the president was passing. On every occasion they started singing their traditional song: "God Bless America!". Silent as a rock, I watched the charity concert broadcast on Saturday once, twice, three times, on different tv channels. There were Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Robert de Niro, Julia Roberts, Cassius Clay, Jack Nicholson, Bruce Springsteen, Silvester Stalone, James Wood, and many others whom no film or producers could ever bring together. The American's solidarity spirit turned them into a choir. Actually, choir is not the word. What you could hear was the heavy artillery of the American soul. What neither George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Colin Powell could say without facing the risk of stumbling over words and sounds, was being heard in a great and unmistakable way in this charity concert. I don't know how it happened that all this obsessive singing of America didn't sound croaky, nationalist, or ostentatious! It made you green with envy because you weren't able to sing for your country without running the risk of being considered chauvinist, ridiculous, or suspected of who-knows-what mean interests. I watched the live broadcast and the rerun of its rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who fought with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that would have killed other hundreds of thousands of people. How on earth were they able to bow before a fellow human? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit which nothing can buy. What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases which risk of sounding like commonplaces. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion. Only freedom can work such miracles! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/romania.htm Two reasons: 1. They need killing. 2. Knowing that they're targets too, will keep our leaders on their toes. Lee > Two reasons: > 1. They need killing. > 2. Knowing that they're targets too, will keep our leaders on their toes. An armed society is a polite society. >> Two reasons: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >An armed society is a polite society. Yes sir, it is. Thank you, sir, for pointing that out. And have a wonderful day, sir. Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > >> Two reasons: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > >An armed society is a polite society. > Yes sir, it is. Thank you, sir, for pointing that out. And have a > wonderful day, sir. No, really, after you. >> Two reasons: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > An armed society is a polite society. good to see those college kids in Montreal being so polite > > An armed society is a polite society. > good to see those college kids in Montreal being so polite Yeah, if one or two of them had been packing, the bad guy(s) would have been DRT. Both times. >> > An armed society is a polite society. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Both times. Thankyou I was wondering how long for someone to come up with the " if everyone was armed the perpetrators would have been instantly shot" argument. 26 minutes not the quickest but not to bad. >>>>An armed society is a polite society. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > everyone was armed the perpetrators would have been instantly shot" > argument. 26 minutes not the quickest but not to bad. Is he wrong? And not everyone, just those who would choose to be. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > Is he wrong? > And not everyone, just those who would choose to be. Q: What do you call an Aussie with a sheep under each arm? A: A pimp. >> Is he wrong? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A: A pimp. A polygamist? >>> Is he wrong? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A polygamist? aren't these the same jokes you tell about the welsh and we tell about the NZers > aren't these the same jokes you tell about the welsh and we tell about the > NZers Q: Why did the sheep swim from Australia to New Zealand? A: Cause they'd rather be slaughtered than raped. >> aren't these the same jokes you tell about the welsh and we tell about >> the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A: Cause they'd rather be slaughtered than raped. yep those are them. >>>> Is he wrong? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > aren't these the same jokes you tell about the welsh and we tell about the > NZers Actually yeah, it was a kiwi joke when I first heard it, ooooooh mebbe 15 years ago? Then again, I had Aussie and Kiwi roomates at the time. LD. > Thank you. I was wondering how long for someone to come up with the " if > everyone was armed the perpetrators would have > been instantly shot" argument. 26 minutes not the quickest but not to bad. Now that you mention it . . . One armed person held 10,000 students hostage and shot 14 of them before he was killed. Things could have been different if only one person had been ready, willing and able to stop him a bit sooner. One cop, one armed teacher, one armed security guard, just one person in the right place at the right time, could have made a difference. Nobody was there until it was too late for 14 kids guilty of nothing more than trying to get an education. It's a damned shame. Lee > Now that you mention it . . . > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > late for 14 kids guilty of nothing more than trying to get an education. > It's a damned shame. One of the shops I worked at in Alaska fired a guy for being drunk at work. He threatened to come back and kill us all. We all went home at lunch, and independently armed ourselves (great minds think alike). After about 2 hours, we realized that everyone in the building was armed (which didn't include the rifles and shotguns in the vehicles outside). He wouldn't have made it past the time clock. >> Now that you mention it . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >He wouldn't have made it past the time clock. Not exactly what I think of when they say "punching out", but it certainly applies. Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > Thankyou I was wondering how long for someone to come up with the " if > everyone was armed the perpetrators would have been instantly shot" > argument. 26 minutes not the quickest but not to bad. One, single, armed person. Tell you what; You dont try to tell us what to do with our freedoms and guns, and we wont tell you how to rape sheep, get killed by stingrays, or how to play a digireedo. M'kay? >> Thankyou I was wondering how long for someone to come up with the " if >> everyone was armed the perpetrators would have been instantly shot" >> argument. 26 minutes not the quickest but not to bad. > > One, single, armed person. sorry for your argument to work than everybody would have to armed because you would never know when the attack was coming > Tell you what; > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > M'kay? poor little diddums did I upset you with a bit of logic. > sorry for your argument to work than everybody would have to armed because > you would never know when the attack was coming It's not an argument, it is simple math. Two significant integers; Zero and more than zero. > > Tell you what; > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > poor little diddums did I upset you with a bit of logic. Let me know when the logic hits you next time, so we can see it bounce off. >> sorry for your argument to work than everybody would have to armed >> because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Zero and more than zero. I think you're losing it >> > Tell you what; >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Let me know when the logic hits you next time, so we can see it bounce > off. yep you are. Anonymous wrote in an e-mail to me rather than the group: > BTW, Osama bin Laden couldn't have had associations with al-Qaeda in 1979. > Osama bin Laden didn't form al-Qaeda until after > Iraq's invasion of Kuwait 1990. > Don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies you ignorant f.ck. First, directly from CNN.COM, "1979 The young bin Laden goes to Afghanistan to help Afghan resistance fighters, known as the mujahedeen, repel the Soviet invasion of the country. Abdullah Azzam founds an organization to provide assistance to the mujahedeen. Bin Laden becomes the chief financier of the organization, which evolves into a group known as al Qaeda (the base)." Second, don't send any more email to my address unless it is accompanied by a real name and e-mail address you cowardly f.ck. Lee > Anonymous wrote in an e-mail to me rather than the group: He used to do that sh.t to me too, until I killfiled every remailer he cowers behind. > > BTW, Osama bin Laden couldn't have had associations with al-Qaeda in 1979. > > Osama bin Laden didn't form al-Qaeda until after > > Iraq's invasion of Kuwait 1990. > > > Don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies you ignorant f.ck. From a cowardly moron of galactic proportion, that is pretty funny. > First, directly from CNN.COM, > "1979 The young bin Laden goes to Afghanistan to help Afghan resistance [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Second, don't send any more email to my address unless it is accompanied by > a real name and e-mail address you cowardly f.ck. Do like I did and just start adding the remailers to your filters. Soon his abuse of the service he hides behind will render him impotent (as if he had a dick) as well as silent. > Do like I did and just start adding the remailers to your filters. > > Soon his abuse of the service he hides behind will render him impotent (as > if he had a dick) as well as silent. Me too, if people never quoted it, I'd never have to read it. LD. > >> Thankyou I was wondering how long for someone to come up with the " if > >> everyone was armed the perpetrators would have been instantly shot" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sorry for your argument to work than everybody would have to armed because > you would never know when the attack was coming Nope. For the argument to work, one single person would have to be armed. That's all it would take. Just one. More would be better, but one would be enough. > You dont try to tell us what to do with our freedoms and guns, and we wont > tell you how to rape sheep, get killed by stingrays, or how to play a > digireedo. I certainly won't tell anyone how to play a didgeridoo, but I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me how the hell to do the circular breathing that's critical to doing it right. Lee > > You dont try to tell us what to do with our freedoms and guns, and we wont > > tell you how to rape sheep, get killed by stingrays, or how to play a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee I'll ask my brother the next time I see him. He's got one and knows how to play it. Don't hold your breath though, I haven't seen him in probably 2 years. >> I certainly won't tell anyone how to play a didgeridoo, but I'd >> appreciate >> it if someone would tell me how the hell to do the circular breathing >> that's >> critical to doing it right. > I'll ask my brother the next time I see him. He's got one and knows how > to play it. > Don't hold your breath though, I haven't seen him in probably 2 years. I have one and know how to play it too. I even know what the books say about circular breathing. I just can't seem to master it. Then again, I have limited incentive to master it. Didgeridoo players are not in high demand in the US. I like the reference to not holding my breath. Somehow it seems so appropriate. Lee > >> I certainly won't tell anyone how to play a didgeridoo, but I'd > >> appreciate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I like the reference to not holding my breath. Somehow it seems so > appropriate. And on topic. :-) >> An armed society is a polite society. > good to see those college kids in Montreal being so polite They don't live in an armed society. That's exactly the point. > Two reasons: > 1. They need killing. -That- guy needs killing for his country's own good. I'm sure they'll get around to it soon enough. > 2. Knowing that they're targets too, will keep our leaders on their toes. I think most of ours remember the American Royal Family... SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > Everyone who even entertains this bullshit is willing to ignore more than > 40 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aircraft slam into those buildings, the people jumping to their deaths > rather than burn, and the inevitable collapse. It's the 'inevitable collapse' where some people have unanswered questions. And it ain't just pinko liberals like Alan Street. Even Mormons believe it: "Jones brought both personal and professional credibility to 9/11 Truth, which sorely needed both. His conservative Mormon background made him an unlikely promoter of conspiracy theories. Even more important in a movement whose academics are often philosophy or theology professors, Jones has taught physics at BYU since 1985 and has 'continuing status,' roughly equivalent to tenure. "In his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Jones suggests the towers were felled by a controlled demolition rather than by damage caused by the airliners. His claims were tackled head-on in a fact sheet last month from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which created a 43-volume report about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. "In the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm The fact is, the secret evil-doings of the Bush administration that have already been exposed lend credibility to the idea that sickos like Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, and Rove could have indeed put Bush up to committing such a dastardly deed in order to gain in the ratings. I simply wouldn't put it past them. > The fact is, the secret evil-doings of the Bush administration that have > already been exposed lend credibility to the idea that sickos like Cheney, > Rumsfield, Rice, and Rove could have indeed put Bush up to committing such a > dastardly deed in order to gain in the ratings. I simply wouldn't put it > past them. You are part of the nutbags that have been spewing sh.t without evidence, and unapologetic when proven, in a court of law, to be wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself. Greg Mossman wrote > The fact is, the secret evil-doings of the Bush administration that have > already been exposed lend credibility to the idea that sickos like Cheney, > Rumsfield, Rice, and Rove could have indeed put Bush up to committing such > a dastardly deed in order to gain in the ratings. I simply wouldn't put > it > past them. I wouldn't either. I've seen enough to believe that they would do pretty much anything, to pretty much anyone if it significantly furthered their vision of what America should be. I'm not real happy about that, but I'm not nearly as unhappy about it as I would be if I believed, for even a second, that they did arrange for the events of 9/11. Lee > Greg Mossman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not nearly as unhappy about it as I would be if I believed, for even a > second, that they did arrange for the events of 9/11. It's pretty clear by now that Bush has a soft spot for Bin Laden. The most powerful country in the world and we still can't catch the bastard? Of course a Bin Laden at large means a continual threat to U.S. security. A threat to security traditionally means that the people vote Republican. It's worked for Bush et al. so far. The scheme backfires when the threat continues long enough to expose Republican corruption and incompetence in the face of the threat, beyond campaign-trail bluster, and the tide switches back to Democrats in charge. We'll put Bin Laden away in a hole in Guantanmo, flood the poverty-stricken camel humpers with lots of foreign aid, and we'll all head in the sunset together singing "we are the world". >>Greg Mossman wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > threat to security traditionally means that the people vote Republican. > It's worked for Bush et al. so far. If you whining liberal appeasers would let us invade Pakistan, we'd have Bin Laden. > The scheme backfires when the threat continues long enough to expose > Republican corruption and incompetence in the face of the threat, beyond > campaign-trail bluster, and the tide switches back to Democrats in charge. > We'll put Bin Laden away in a hole in Guantanmo, flood the poverty-stricken > camel humpers with lots of foreign aid, and we'll all head in the sunset > together singing "we are the world". Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>>Greg Mossman wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you whining liberal appeasers would let us invade Pakistan, we'd have > Bin Laden. If you invade Pakistan I hope you do better than you are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs > ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs And they know enough to keep them holstered. >> ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs > > And they know enough to keep them holstered. be interesting to see what happens if the US invades >>> ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs >> >> And they know enough to keep them holstered. > > be interesting to see what happens if the US invades I suspect a lot will depend on how it's done. A successful surgical strike probably wouldn't trigger more than a mile adverse reaction and maybe not even that. If we were to successfully, and demonstrably deal with Bin Laden, chances are good that Pakistan would quickly tell the world about their cooperation in the event. Lee >>>> ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lee This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical strike while invading Pakistanis sovereignty has already been done with no result ( in the hunt for Bin Laden ) except further upsetting the radical Pakistanis and also upsetting some of the moderates > This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical strike > while invading Pakistanis sovereignty has already been done with no result > ( in the hunt for Bin Laden ) except further upsetting the radical > Pakistanis and also upsetting some of the moderates The downside being what? >> This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical >> strike [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The downside being what? none overly except that the level of co-operation from the Pakistanis has probably dropped and qhite frankly the Americans need all the help they can get in Afghanistan >>>This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical >>>strike [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > probably dropped and qhite frankly the Americans need all the help they can > get in Afghanistan How much were they *really* helping before? Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>>>This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical >>>>strike [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > How much were they *really* helping before? I agree probably not much > none overly except that the level of co-operation from the Pakistanis has > probably dropped and qhite frankly the Americans need all the help they can > get in Afghanistan Oh good, more cheap shots from the cheap seats. I dont see you boys jumping up to volunteer. But dont worry, your chance to deal with Islamic Fascism is on the way, and we'll be sure to critique it. >> none overly except that the level of co-operation from the Pakistanis has >> probably dropped and qhite frankly the Americans need all the help they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I dont see you boys jumping up to volunteer. Sorry what are you trying to say > But dont worry, your chance to deal with Islamic Fascism is on the way, > and > we'll be sure to critique it. my point above >>> none overly except that the level of co-operation from the Pakistanis >>> has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > my point above you can't explain what you were trying to say or have you made a prat of yourself? > you can't explain what you were trying to say or have you made a prat of > yourself? I dont have to explain it to anyone else, why are you special? >> you can't explain what you were trying to say or have you made a prat of >> yourself? > > I dont have to explain it to anyone else, why are you special? so which boys do you think should jump up and volunteer? > >> you can't explain what you were trying to say or have you made a prat of > >> yourself? > > I dont have to explain it to anyone else, why are you special? > so which boys do you think should jump up and volunteer? All those that sling cheap shots like the one you did. >> >> you can't explain what you were trying to say or have you made a prat > of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > All those that sling cheap shots like the one you did. I've done my bit to help the Yanks and you do realize that there are Australian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don't you? > I've done my bit to help the Yanks and you do realize that there are > Australian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don't you? Of course. I have family in both places and Egypt. And it isnt just the yanks, it is every free person on earth that doesnt want to live under Muslim rule. >> I've done my bit to help the Yanks and you do realize that there are >> Australian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don't you? > > Of course. > > I have family in both places and Egypt. WOW good on you!!! > And it isnt just the yanks, it is every free person on earth that doesnt > want to live under Muslim rule. actually it's not. > WOW good on you!!! Actually, good on them. My nephew just finished his first hitch and re-enlisted. > > And it isnt just the yanks, it is every free person on earth that doesnt > > want to live under Muslim rule. > actually it's not. I guess thats why Islamic fascists have been arrested and their operations snubbed in Canada, Holland, England, etc., and they are pretty active getting on with killing people in the south pacific as well. >> WOW good on you!!! > > Actually, good on them. My nephew just finished his first hitch and > re-enlisted. good on you nephew >> > And it isnt just the yanks, it is every free person on earth that >> > doesnt [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > snubbed in Canada, Holland, England, etc., and they are pretty active > getting on with killing people in the south pacific as well. what has this got to do with being in both places and Egypt? I said: > >> > And it isnt just the yanks, it is every free person on earth that > >> > doesnt want to live under Muslim rule. You said: > >> actually it's not. I said: > > I guess thats why Islamic fascists have been arrested and their operations > > snubbed in Canada, Holland, England, etc., and they are pretty active > > getting on with killing people in the south pacific as well. You now ask: > what has this got to do with being in both places and Egypt? We do both speak english, but I guess your comment "actually it's not" went on by. > I said: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > went > on by. Sorry yes the world is against terrorism from all races and religions obviously ( although one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist ) but what has this got to do with being in Egypt and Iraq >>This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical strike >>while invading Pakistanis sovereignty has already been done with no result >>( in the hunt for Bin Laden ) except further upsetting the radical >>Pakistanis and also upsetting some of the moderates > > The downside being what? No downside. But a most critical situation will arise when Pakistan momentary stability gets toppled by fundamental maniacs. This has to be avoided by all means. Matthias >> I suspect a lot will depend on how it's done. A successful surgical >> strike probably wouldn't trigger more than a mile adverse reaction and >> maybe not even that. If we were to successfully, and demonstrably deal >> with Bin Laden, chances are good that Pakistan would quickly tell the >> world about their cooperation in the event. > This sub thread was talking about "invading" Pakistan. The surgical strike > while invading Pakistanis sovereignty has already been done with no result > ( in the hunt for Bin Laden ) except further upsetting the radical > Pakistanis and also upsetting some of the moderates I said "A successful surgical strike." Our recent track record isn't that good, hence my suggestion that we ask for help from our Canadian friends, who previously helped us get some of our citizens out of the hands of crazies and our Israeli friends who've don the same on several occasions. Lee >>>>Greg Mossman wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you invade Pakistan I hope you do better than you are doing in Iraq and > Afghanistan. Agreed. > ps remember Pakistan DOES have WMDs I do remember. But if you want Bin Laden, you have to go where he is. And Pakistan isn't doing the job. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > If you whining liberal appeasers would let us invade Pakistan, we'd have > Bin Laden. That may just be the single most STUPID thing I've ever read here. Things written by scott or popeye excepted, of course. >> If you whining liberal appeasers would let us invade Pakistan, we'd >> have Bin Laden. > > That may just be the single most STUPID thing I've ever read here. > Things written by scott or popeye excepted, of course. I must have set a new record with you, you've said that to me before. I take your disagreement as an honor. My statement stands. To get Bin Laden, we have to go where he is. Pakistan isn't going to go into the mountains to get him, and if the US tried, the folks like Greg (and apparently you) would scream and cry. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > I must have set a new record with you, you've said that to me before. Consider yourself in good comapny. > I take your disagreement as an honor. > > My statement stands. To get Bin Laden, we have to go where he is. > Pakistan isn't going to go into the mountains to get him, and if the US > tried, the folks like Greg (and apparently you) would scream and cry. Connell isn't smart enough to know the difference between sh.t and Shinloa. >> I must have set a new record with you, you've said that to me before. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Connell isn't smart enough to know the difference between sh.t and Shinloa. Sure I do, Greg spews shinola and you're sh.t. > Connell isn't smart enough to know the difference between sh.t and > Shinloa. Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the Republicans are doing a better job on terrorist issues than the Democrats did. Lee > Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, > he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the Republicans > are doing a better job on terrorist issues than the Democrats did. Dont hold your breath. >> Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, >> he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the > Republicans >> are doing a better job on terrorist issues than the Democrats did. > > Dont hold your breath. I don't always agree with him, but I've found that he's one of the few that are worth arguing with. YMMV> Lee > Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, > he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the Republicans > are doing a better job on terrorist issues than the Democrats did. > > Lee Must have missed that statement from him. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > > Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, > > he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the Republicans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Must have missed that statement from him. Never happened. >> Yes, he is. In fact, of those consistently criticizing the Republicans, >> he's the one most likely to recognize, and even admit, that the >> Republicans are doing a better job on terrorist issues than the Democrats >> did. > Must have missed that statement from him. He hasn't gotten there yet. He may never get there, but he does seem to think things through and discuss them honestly. Lee > My statement stands. To get Bin Laden, we have to go where he is. Pakistan > isn't going to go into the mountains to get him, and if the US tried, the > folks like Greg (and apparently you) would scream and cry. We don't have a real good track record on this kind of clandestine operation. Perhaps the Canadians or the Israeli will help us out. Lee >>My statement stands. To get Bin Laden, we have to go where he is. Pakistan >>isn't going to go into the mountains to get him, and if the US tried, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee If the US wants Bin Laden, It'll have to be the US that goes and gets him. The canadians wouldn't, and the Israelis would start a war by there mere presence in any muslim country. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>>My statement stands. To get Bin Laden, we have to go where he is. >>>Pakistan isn't going to go into the mountains to get him, and if the US >>>tried, the folks like Greg (and apparently you) would scream and cry. >> We don't have a real good track record on this kind of clandestine >> operation. Perhaps the Canadians or the Israeli will help us out. > If the US wants Bin Laden, It'll have to be the US that goes and gets him. > The canadians wouldn't, and the Israelis would start a war by there mere > presence in any muslim country. You never know. Lee > > Greg Mossman wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > powerful country in the world and we still can't catch the bastard? Of > course a Bin Laden at large means a continual threat to U.S. security. A Good to see you realize that - too bad Clinton didn't think (feel) the sam e way when he had the chance to do something about it. > threat to security traditionally means that the people vote Republican. > It's worked for Bush et al. so far. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > campaign-trail bluster, and the tide switches back to Democrats in charge. > We'll put Bin Laden away in a hole in Guantanmo, flood the poverty-stricken No you won't - the ACLU wont let you :-) > camel humpers with lots of foreign aid, and we'll all head in the sunset > together singing "we are the world". Dennis > It's pretty clear by now that Bush has a soft spot for Bin Laden. Nothing of the sort is clear to anyone. It's not even clear to you, but it was a nice try at stirring things up a bit more. > The most powerful country in the world and we still can't catch the > bastard? Of course a Bin Laden at large means a continual threat to U.S. > security. A threat to security traditionally means that the people vote > Republican. It's worked for Bush et al. so far. Bin Laden's affiliation with al Qaeda dates back to 1979. Jimmy Carter was President then. President Carter is, I believe a Democrat. In 1990, during Republican George Bush's administration, the Saudi government allowed US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia following the Iraqui invasion Kuwait. Bin Ladin was outraged by the US presence in the cradle of Islam and begain writing treatises against the Saudi and the US. Note that it was an act of Bin Laden's own government that set him off. In 1993, during Democrat Bill Clinton's term, the World Trade center was attacked. Also during his term, a truck bombing at a military base in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed five Americans and two Indians. In 1996, still during his administration, Bin Laden was moved to Afghanistan and declared a jihad, or holy war, against U.S. forces. Nineteen U.S. soldiers died in a bombing of the Khobar military complex in Saudi Arabia. The United States indicted bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993 attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia, but failed to bring him to justice. In 1998, still during the Clinton administration, Bin Laden declared that Muslims should kill Americans, civilians included, wherever they can find them. On August 7, a pair of truck bombs explodes outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people. On August 20, U.S. President Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks against suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, that he says is involved in making weapons. They missed again. In November, the United States indicted bin Laden on charges of masterminding the attacks on the U.S. embassies. In 2000, Algerian Ahmed Ressam plead guilty in connection with a failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations. He claimed he was trained in urban warfare and explosives at an Afghanistan camp run by bin Laden. In 2001, the year that George W. Bush took office, Four of bin Laden's alleged supporters were convicted May 29 of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa. Following the September 11 terrorism attacks in the United States, George W. Bush named bin Laden as a prime suspect. In 2002, as a direct result of a U.S.led military operation, the Taliban fell. The allied forces increased ground troops flanked by air support in an effort to rout out hold-out al Qaeda forces. In March, the battle intensified in the mountainous terrain of eastern Afghanistan, where reports say bin Laden was located and, according to some, directing troops. It seems to me that, by far, a majority of the problems with Osama Bin Laden developed during Clinton's Democratic administration. While Bill was pumping Monica, Osama was killing Americans. While Bill was lying to Congress, Osama remained free and unpunished. Despite knowing who Bin Laden was, knowing where he was at least twice during the period and bringing charges against him for several capital crimes, absolutely nothing definitive was done to stop him during the Democratic administration. The first definitive action against Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban occurred during a Republican administration, under George W. Bush. Imagine that. If I, who has left no doubt that I don't like George or George W, can so clearly document what the Democrats didn't do and what the Republicans did, surely a bright young attorney like yourself could to. Lee > > It's pretty clear by now that Bush has a soft spot for Bin Laden. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > so clearly document what the Democrats didn't do and what the Republicans > did, surely a bright young attorney like yourself could to. From a used to be democrat like me. > From a used to be democrat like me. I'm still a Democrat. I just not a blind one. Lee > > From a used to be democrat like me. > I'm still a Democrat. I just not a blind one. I am an American. I am sick to death of both parties, but mostly laughing at the idiocy of the democrats, and pissed at the republicans. Many people like me only voted for Bush in the last election because the Democrats were unfathomably stupid enough to run on a real turd like John Kerry. That Kerry got as far as he did is illustration of how f.cked up the republican party is. > I am an American. I am sick to death of both parties, but mostly laughing > at > the idiocy of the democrats, and pissed at the republicans. You should be a Democrat. You get all the propaganda first hand. You would not believe the pure, unadulterated garbage I get from the party. Maybe I'll start posting some of it. Sometimes exposing stupidity to the light of day is the best way to combat it. Lee > You should be a Democrat. You get all the propaganda first hand. You would > not believe the pure, unadulterated garbage I get from the party. Maybe > I'll start posting some of it. Sometimes exposing stupidity to the light of > day is the best way to combat it. Ok; http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1C7252CD http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q2E7212CD http://makeashorterlink.com/?V208322CD And this should go over real well (just in time for another Democrat defeat, snatched from the jaws of victory)... http://makeashorterlink.com/?W271541CD > Greg Mossman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lee That pretty much is My feelings about it as well,Lee. This administration is far to caught up in "The end justifies the means" type thinking. It reminds me of a couple of members of this group. While, like Roosevelt and Pearl harbor ) there may be questions about how much was known and just what, if any, intelligence was ignored that permitted 9-11, I don't for a minute believe even shrub's administration capable of the deed. Capable of using the result to further their own agenda, yes. Capable of looking the other way and allowing it to happen - I hope not. > That pretty much is My feelings about it as well,Lee. This administration > is far to caught up in "The end justifies the means" type thinking. It > reminds me of a couple of members of this group. It's not just this administration. It wasn't all that long ago that Nixon lost his job or that Clinton lied to Congress. > While, like Roosevelt and Pearl harbor ) there may be questions about how > much was known and just what, if any, intelligence was ignored that > permitted 9-11, I don't for a minute believe even shrub's administration > capable of the deed. He would have had to have planned it way in advance. He only took office in January. The conflict with Bin Laden developed, intensified and should have been stopped during the Clinton administration. Bill was too busy with Monica to do his job. The end result of that inaction occurred on 9/11/2001, during the Bush administration. Since that time, the only difinitive action to put a stop to Bin Ladin, the Taliban and al Qaeda was initiated and carried out under the administration of President George W. Bush. Say what you will about him, and I've said a lot of unking things about him, he's done done a better job of actually facing and dealing with the problem than anyone, Democrat or Republican, before him. Lee >> That pretty much is My feelings about it as well,Lee. This administration >> is far to caught up in "The end justifies the means" type thinking. It >> reminds me of a couple of members of this group. > > It's not just this administration. It wasn't all that long ago that Nixon > lost his job or that Clinton lied to Congress. Nixon is a good example, Clinton is not, ANY married man caught with his stick wet says exactly the same thing. Clinton lied to congress about something that was none of their business to start with. That is not to say is was OK but it is understandable and in my opinion forgiveable. >> While, like Roosevelt and Pearl harbor ) there may be questions about how >> much was known and just what, if any, intelligence was ignored that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He would have had to have planned it way in advance. He only took office in > January. daddy Bush has many friends in many places - it's possible they plugged things up a little. I doubt it but it's possible. > The conflict with Bin Laden developed, intensified and should have been > stopped during the Clinton administration. Bill was too busy with Monica to > do his job. The end result of that inaction occurred on 9/11/2001, during > the Bush administration. You're statement is only partly correct - Clinton was preoccupied with the fallout from the (what was her name?) mess Before Monica ( she was just a sidelite). > Since that time, the only difinitive action to put > a stop to Bin Ladin, the Taliban and al Qaeda was initiated and carried out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee > You're statement is only partly correct - Clinton was preoccupied with the > fallout from the (what was her name?) mess Before Monica ( she was just a > sidelite). The Paula Jones fiasco, where a judge forced a sitting president to be distracted by a nuisance sexual harrassment claim trumped up by agent of the Republican Party? The same Republican Party that has the gall to claim that Clinton left the Al Qaeda mess for Bush to deal with? Maybe they should have wasted $40,000,000 of taxpayer money chasing terrorists instead of trying to pin Clinton on an adulterous bl.wj.b. > The Paula Jones fiasco, where a judge forced a sitting president to be > distracted by a nuisance sexual harrassment claim trumped up by agent of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $40,000,000 of taxpayer money chasing terrorists instead of trying to pin > Clinton on an adulterous bl.wj.b. That's pretty much how I saw it at the time and still see it. A very Large waste of time and money. As for the BJ from a secretary, I wish I had a nickel for every time that a cooperate bigwig got that!! It's funny that Lee mentioned 'WaterGate' I've always felt that that was responsible for much of the interparty nastyness that goes along with presidential politics these days - still trying to get even for Nixon ;-) >> The same Republican Party that has the gall to claim that Clinton left >> the Al Qaeda mess for Bush to deal with? Maybe they should have wasted >> $40,000,000 of taxpayer money chasing terrorists instead of trying to pin >> Clinton on an adulterous bl.wj.b. Well sure. There's just one problem. It was the Democrats that were in power when the money should have been spent. The Republicans only reaped the rewards of the Democrat's failure to do their job. > That's pretty much how I saw it at the time and still see it. A very Large > waste of time and money. As for the BJ from a secretary, I wish I had a > nickel for every time that a cooperate bigwig got that!! Teh corporate bigwig wasn't elected by the citizens of the US and did not take an oath to serve our needs. Clinton was and did. > It's funny that Lee mentioned 'WaterGate' I've always felt that that was > responsible for much of the interparty nastyness that goes > along with presidential politics these days - still trying to get even for > Nixon ;-) You don't get even with a President, who failed the people that elected him, by failing to serve the same people yourself. You want to get even, do it by doing a better job and, in the end, being able to say, see, that's how it should be done. When you think the Democratic Party is ready to do that, let me know and I'll, once again, vote for representative of the party that I'm a member of. Lee > Well sure. There's just one problem. It was the Democrats that were in > power when the money should have been spent. The Republicans only reaped > the rewards of the Democrat's failure to do their job. Not in the congress. Dems may have had the white house but they couldn't 'control' the legislature. The same was true for Nixon the legislature was democrat. > You don't get even with a President, who failed the people that elected him, > by failing to serve the same people yourself. You want to get even, do it > by doing a better job and, in the end, being able to say, see, that's how it > should be done. When you think the Democratic Party is ready to do that, > let me know and I'll, once again, vote for representative of the party that > I'm a member of. You're ranting Lee, this sounds like scott. If you really believe what you just wrote, you should change parties. You're basic tenant is correct, about the revenge, but many is the time when Partisanship has taken precedence over what is right and best. and what part makes no difference - they both are just as bad. >> You don't get even with a President, who failed the people that elected >> him, by failing to serve the same people yourself. You want to get even, >> do it by doing a better job and, in the end, being able to say, see, >> that's how it should be done. When you think the Democratic Party is >> ready to do that, let me know and I'll, once again, vote for >> representative of the party that I'm a member of. > You're ranting Lee, this sounds like scott. > If you really believe what you just wrote, you should change parties. Ranting? Hardly. I'm a registered Democrat. The party that did nothing is the one I belong to. I'm ashamed for the party. If the Democrats ever what to regain power, I'd prefer they do it the right way, by finding someone who can, and will, actually do something constructive. It's time to quit complaining about the other guy and start doing something the party can be proud of on its own merits. > You're basic tenant is correct, about the revenge, but many is the time > when Partisanship has taken precedence over what is right and best. and > what part makes no difference - they both are just as bad. I don't think they're just as bad. I think the Democrats have done a really shitty job and have paid for it by lose of respect and power. The Republicans haven't done much better, but in my opinion, they have done somewhat better. Lee > It's time to quit complaining about the other guy and start doing something the party can be > proud of on its own merits. Seems as though they lost that ability long ago, and have no prospects of recovering it any time soon. > The same Republican Party that has the gall to claim that Clinton left the > Al Qaeda mess for Bush to deal with? If the shoe fits . . . Lee >> It's not just this administration. It wasn't all that long ago that >> Nixon lost his job or that Clinton lied to Congress. > > Nixon is a good example, Clinton is not, ANY married man caught with his > stick wet says exactly the same thing. The Presdient of the United States is not "ANY married man" and Congress is not his wife's divorce attorney. > You're statement is only partly correct - Clinton was preoccupied with the > fallout from the (what was her name?) mess Before Monica ( she was just a > sidelite). Fair enough. The point is, the problems escalated to their current level during his administration. His administration had opportunities to put a stop to it before anybody flew planes into the World Trade Center. His administration failed to take care of it and the Republicans really did inherit the problem from them. The Republicans have done better than the Democrats did. That doesn't mean the job is done. Lee >>> It's not just this administration. It wasn't all that long ago that >>> Nixon lost his job or that Clinton lied to Congress. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Presdient of the United States is not "ANY married man" and Congress is > not his wife's divorce attorney. Oh, get off your high horse - the prez is first and foremost Human, if he wasn't he'd be useless. Congress is a bunch of silly bastards with axes to grind and agendas to further. Our goverment lies to us we lie to it and it lies to itself, get used to it. >> You're statement is only partly correct - Clinton was preoccupied with the >> fallout from the (what was her name?) mess Before Monica ( she was just a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee The point is if the opposite party hadn't been on a Very spendy witch hunt, more Might have been done. You know as well as I that yhings don't get done just because they *need* to be, a good example is sudan or n. korea, if the media isn't keep it in front of people 'they' don't care. >> The Presdient of the United States is not "ANY married man" and Congress >> is not his wife's divorce attorney. > Oh, get off your high horse - the prez is first and foremost Human, if he > wasn't he'd be useless. Congress is a bunch of silly bastards with axes to > grind and agendas to further. Our goverment lies to us we lie to it and it > lies to itself, get used to it. Since I'm in the business of investigating and prosecuting those that commit federal crimes, including crimes like Clinton's, I think I'll stay on my high horse. What he did is a felony. Had I done the same thing, I would be unemployed, and unemployable, as soon as anyone found out about it. They would not have waited for the trial that probably would have followed. > The point is if the opposite party hadn't been on a Very spendy witch > hunt, more Might have been done. Those that did nothing don't have a lot of basis for complaining that someone that did something, didn't do enough. Lee >>>The Presdient of the United States is not "ANY married man" and Congress >>>is not his wife's divorce attorney. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Lee And here you just said that he was |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message