More security does not mean less terrorism

Science > Abortion > More security does not mean less terrorism

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Deuteros"
Date:	10 Jul 2005 05:58:43 PM
Object:	More security does not mean less terrorism

The UK has more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other
country, yet big government couldn't stop a few determined terrorists
despite the myth of extra security.
.

User: "Nog"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 08:43:03 PM

"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:13fjcizw2wwvh$.dlg@sec12-crow.ultima.com...

The UK has more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other
country, yet big government couldn't stop a few determined terrorists
despite the myth of extra security.

Right, it only means less freedom. So to regain freedom, kill an Arab
terrorists or any Islamic bigot.
.

User: "Steven L."
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	10 Jul 2005 06:16:30 PM

Deuteros wrote:

The UK has more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other
country, yet big government couldn't stop a few determined terrorists
despite the myth of extra security.

Absolutely.
The answer to terrorism, as with every other war America has ever
fought, is to take the fight to the enemy's shores, and make sure that
the killing and dying takes place in some country OTHER than our own.
If terrorists are being slaughtered in other countries, they won't have
a chance to come over here and plot to kill us.
The best defense is a good offense. In every war.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.

User: "Deuteros"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 09:07:10 AM

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign policy.
Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When the US
responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When we went to
Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack." Counterattacks can be made
against both primary attacks and other counterattacks. No rhetorical
gamesmanship, here. Use the language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on your
territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our attack on
Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on Iraq? Did
9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons for
attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 09:30:03 AM

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign policy.
Just so.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to be a
threat?
I think you should read these words by Charlie Daniels, who has a very
good grasp on the problem.
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/soapbox.asp
Different Names Same Devils:
Terrorism shows no mercy, has no pity.
Terrorism has no conscience, no scruples, no morals and absolutely no
order. It doesn't care about guilt or innocence,
sovereignty, human rights or human suffering. Terrorism is a monstrous
horror, a monolithic self-perpetuating lie which takes advantage of
vulnerable, hungry people to do their bidding, promising heavenly
rewards they could not possibly have any control over.
Terrorism respects no national boundaries, wears no uniform has no
creed of conduct, honors no convention abides by no treaty. Terrorism
is an animal, a mad dog which has been so infected with hate that there
is no antidote, no serum, no cure other than annihilation.
People who say there was no connection between Saddam and 9- 11 are not
only naive but foolish. Is there a difference in the terrorists who
murdered British citizens in London subways, the ones who slaughtered
innocent passengers on a Spanish train, the ones who ran planes into
the Pentagon and Trade Towers, the ones who destroyed our embassies and
the U.S.S. Cole, the ones who blow up Israeli citizens on buses in
TelAviv and the thugs Saddam Hussein sent out to bind the hands of men,
women and children, murder them and dump them into unmarked mass
graves?
They may go by different names, Al Qaida, Shining Path, Hamas or some
other high sounding title but underneath the facade of nobility is
nothing more that an organization of heartless, wanton murderers,
determined to force their will on the rest of the world even at the
cost of sacrificing their sons and daughters to a god who supposedly
rewards murder and mayhem against innocent children, in a male
dominated heaven.
Terrorism is a scourge to Planet Earth, a threat to every man woman and
child who would live in freedom. It is a curse hiding behind the soiled
robes of a religion they defile and betray, a brotherhood of fools with
evil tunnel vision bent on forcing the world to its collective knees,
reducing women to little more than slaves, even if it means hacking off
heads and freely spilling the blood of their own brothers and sisters.
There is no honor to be found in terrorism. Deep and eternal shame is
the legacy of those demented zealots who practice it.
There will never be peace for these misguided souls, because
there will always be those with the will to battle them to the last
breath, men and women who refuse to bow to the fear, which is the
terrorist's stock in trade, nor the absolute tyranny which is their
ultimate goal.
There can be no placating, no letup, and no quarter given. This is an
all out battle for the soul of a planet. There will be much letting of
blood before this battle is decided, there will be much anguish and
destruction, but with the help of Almighty God and the loyalty of good
people everywhere we will win.
We take the fight to them or they'll bring the fight to us. They
may have different names in different places but they're the same
devils.
Pray for our troops.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
July 8, 2005

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on your
territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our attack on
Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on Iraq? Did
9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons for
attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and Al
Qaeda should be held responsible as well? That's why Bush got
re-elected, because most Americans happen to agree that the fight
against terrorism is a fight we must face. Even Hillary Clinton, one
of the left's hero's, agrees that the U.S. MUST stay in Iraq and finish
the job and that the fight in Iraq is related to the fight against
terrorism.
the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the
U.S.
Regardless of her personal viewpoints on Bush, she happens to agree
with the war.
Is Bush perfect? By no means is he even close, but American's made it
known loud and clear they are tired of terrorist being allowed to go
unchecked and ignoring the problem. We got a punch in the eye on 9/11,
there is more to the fight than just going after OBL. Actually, OBL is
small compared to the whole picture. Even if we got OBL today, Al
Qaeda would still be able to function.
It's time some of you learned to listen and open your eyes instead of
letting your hatred of George Bush drive your emotions.
I don't like everything about Bush either, but I am not going to close
my eyes and look the other way because I might be unhappy with
something he done or said.
.

User: "Deuteros"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 10:26:57 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign policy.
Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When the
US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When we went
to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack." Counterattacks can be
made against both primary attacks and other counterattacks. No
rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to be a
threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a threat?
China is a threat. Should we attack them?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on your
territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our attack
on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on
Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons
for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and Al
Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do? Invade every country that we think is helping
terrorists? We tried that with Iraq after our worthless intelligence
agencies told us Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Now who is going to believe us
if we try to justify invading some other country?
I believe it's a huge mistake to use the regular military to fight
terrorism. It's like using a chainsaw to extract a brain tumor. Not to
mention that it makes our troops big fat targets. Our military was built
to fight the Soviet Union, not terrorists. It's my opinion that the best
way to fight terrorists is to make more use of special forces type units.
Destroying whole cities to root out a few hundred terrorists isn't
practical.

That's why Bush got re-elected, because most Americans happen to agree
that the fight against terrorism is a fight we must face. Even Hillary
Clinton, one of the left's hero's, agrees that the U.S. MUST stay in
Iraq and finish the job and that the fight in Iraq is related to the
fight against terrorism.

Even though I believe that fighting the Iraq war is not helping the fight
against terrorism, we still must stay to fix the mess we made.

the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the
U.S.

Regardless of her personal viewpoints on Bush, she happens to agree
with the war.

At least until the polls show support waning for the war.

Is Bush perfect? By no means is he even close, but American's made it
known loud and clear they are tired of terrorist being allowed to go
unchecked and ignoring the problem.

We are still ignoring the problem. The terrorists don't hate us because of
our freedoms, like George Bush is fond of telling us. They hate us because
we don't mind our own damn business. How much meddling do we do in other
countries? How many dictators have we supported or helped come into power
over the last 50 years? Do you really think all of this occurs in a
vacuum? We're playing with fire and now we're getting burned.

We got a punch in the eye on 9/11, there is more to the fight than just
going after OBL. Actually, OBL is small compared to the whole picture.
Even if we got OBL today, Al Qaeda would still be able to function.

Agreed. Despite complaints that he has not been caught, actually capturing
Osama bin Laden would not affect much.

It's time some of you learned to listen and open your eyes instead of
letting your hatred of George Bush drive your emotions.

I don't hate George Bush. I even voted for him twice. The first time I
voted for him I was expecting a small government conservative. The second
time I voted for him it was only because I dreaded a Kerry presidency and
I didn't want Kerry appointing any judges.
My real problem with Bush is that he isn't the small government
conservative he made himself out to be. His tax cuts were great but his
expansion of the federal government, including the Patriot Act and the
more recent Real ID Act, is not.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 10:48:56 AM

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign policy.
Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When the
US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When we went
to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack." Counterattacks can be
made against both primary attacks and other counterattacks. No
rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to be a
threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a threat?
China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle. If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in Congress
and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would NOT take place
in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the terrorist would
love to have happen.
The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we are
going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on your
territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our attack
on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on
Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons
for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and Al
Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.
Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my mind
that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given more
time. You probably know as well as most people know that Saddam would
eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am sure you
are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY of time to
either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came in.
Invade every country that we think is helping

terrorists?

If they are not going to help us fight terrorism and they are going to
harbor, finance, and give aid to the terrorist then we must do what we
have to do. The terrorist need to know and get this in their head,
that there is no place for them to run to and hide. It's vital that
they get this message loud and clear.
We tried that with Iraq after our worthless intelligence

agencies told us Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Now who is going to believe us
if we try to justify invading some other country?

I really don't know, I am not in any position to make that sort of a
judgement.
You are right, our intelligence failed in more areas than one. A lot
has got to be fixed; however, I still believe that he either had them
or he was going to get them. Getting rid of Saddam was, in my opinion,
the right thing to do.

I believe it's a huge mistake to use the regular military to fight
terrorism. It's like using a chainsaw to extract a brain tumor. Not to
mention that it makes our troops big fat targets. Our military was built
to fight the Soviet Union, not terrorists. It's my opinion that the best
way to fight terrorists is to make more use of special forces type units.

O.k., you got my attention and you could very well have a point. We
need special forces that are trained in how to fight terrorist. But
answer this, how do we get those special forces without first having
forces that have the experience and training in fighting terrorist?
You got to remember, we have never really faced this kind of an enemy
and right now, our troops are getting the best training they could
possibly get, and that is to actually face the terrorist and learn.

Destroying whole cities to root out a few hundred terrorists isn't
practical.

Want to know my opinion? This is going to sound harsh and I know it
will never happen. You know how valuable the city of Mecca is to the
Muslim's right? Bush should give them a stern warning. One more
attack on the English, U.S., or any ally of the U.S., and Mecca is
gone.
That will get their attention because of the value Mecca has. But it
will never happen because the U.S. doesn't operate like that.

Even though I believe that fighting the Iraq war is not helping the fight
against terrorism, we still must stay to fix the mess we made.

We agree.

the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the
U.S.

Regardless of her personal viewpoints on Bush, she happens to agree
with the war.

At least until the polls show support waning for the war.

Well, that goes without saying. Most politicians are like that I
think.

Is Bush perfect? By no means is he even close, but American's made it
known loud and clear they are tired of terrorist being allowed to go
unchecked and ignoring the problem.

We are still ignoring the problem. The terrorists don't hate us because of
our freedoms, like George Bush is fond of telling us. They hate us because
we don't mind our own damn business.

There is more to it than just that. A few months ago I watched a
facinating documentary in which they went to the people in the Middle
East and asked hundreds of them why they hate the U.S..
You are right, part of the hatred stems from our presence in their
country and our wanting to push our democracy upon them. But that
isn't all.
The people in the Middle East come from the oldest origin known to man.
Their history goes back thousands of years.
The U.S. is just a little over 230 years old and look at how good we
have it and our lifestyle. They see the U.S. as being piggish, bullies,
and basically rubbing our lifestyle in their faces. Why should we, one
of the youngest nations on the face of the earth have it so much better
than the oldest nations on the earth.
While most of them do not agree with the actions that the terrorist
have taken, many of them understand the reasoning behind their actions.
How much meddling do we do in other

countries? How many dictators have we supported or helped come into power
over the last 50 years? Do you really think all of this occurs in a
vacuum? We're playing with fire and now we're getting burned.

Agreed. Despite complaints that he has not been caught, actually capturing
Osama bin Laden would not affect much.

Exactly.
And remember the comment Bush made about OBL? I can't remember word for
word but it had something to do with not being too worried about his
location or what he is doing. Many people got upset at that comment,
but I think it was made on purpose. We know that they listen to him
speak. It is possible that he said that on purpose to get OBL to relax
and make a crucial mistake.
Unfortunately it appears as if OBL was wise to that.
I am looking forward to the day when OBL is dead or captured, I have no
doubt that day will come.
Again, our troops are not used to this kind of a battle. They must
learn how the terrorist think and operate.

It's time some of you learned to listen and open your eyes instead of
letting your hatred of George Bush drive your emotions.

I don't hate George Bush.

Then my apology for a rash judgement.
I even voted for him twice. The first time I

voted for him I was expecting a small government conservative. The second
time I voted for him it was only because I dreaded a Kerry presidency and
I didn't want Kerry appointing any judges.

Oh boy do we agree there!!! That's a scary thought.

My real problem with Bush is that he isn't the small government
conservative he made himself out to be. His tax cuts were great but his
expansion of the federal government, including the Patriot Act and the
more recent Real ID Act, is not.

I think the first round of tax cuts were great. I think after 9/11 the
next round of tax cuts wasn't needed.
The Patriot Act, that is just another example of how Government reacts
to a new threat. Look at how our Government acted after Pearl Harbor,
how we created the internment camps and held Japanese Americans and
German Americans, all in the name of national security.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 12:06:32 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121096936.664313.138830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

The only good terrorist is the dead terrorist.

i believe the world views the lying monkey as the world's biggest
terrorist. are you threatening him?
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."

(pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
.

User: "Deuteros"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 09:38:27 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121096936.664313.138830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

You are right, our intelligence failed in more areas than one. A lot
has got to be fixed; however, I still believe that he either had them
or he was going to get them. Getting rid of Saddam was, in my opinion,
the right thing to do.

We can't keep going around and killing or throwing out leaders of countries
we don't like. That's part of the reason we are in this terrorist mess.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 12:15:18 AM

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121096936.664313.138830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

We can't keep going around and killing or throwing out leaders of countries
we don't like. That's part of the reason we are in this terrorist mess.

The terrorist have proven that they can not be reasoned with. I agree
with what Charlie Daniels has said, that they are nothing more than
murderous thugs.
In my own personal opinion, we helped create the problem with Saddam;
we should have gotten rid of him long ago when we were in Desert Storm.
We can sit here and talk all day and night about what we should have
done; but that doesn't help.
While I agree with you that we can't gou around and killing or throwing
out leaders we don't like, we must contain or control leaders that do
pose a threat or a threat in the future. With that said though, let me
clarify and say I don't think the U.S. should do that alone.
Right now, terrorism is a major problem throughout the world. We must
face it and we know that negotiations will not work.
Our boys are in Iraq now, and I think we should stay until the job is
finished.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 08:12:38 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145318.121643.21110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

The terrorist have proven that they can not be reasoned with

is that another threat against the creep many think is the world's most
dangerous terrorist, president bush?
.

User: "Ricky Ticket"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 12:38:41 AM

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 1:15:18 -0400, osprey wrote
(in message <1121145318.121643.21110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):

The terrorist have proven that they can not be reasoned with.

--
"Are YOU going to ever admit that the two people you're claiming are
convicted felons -aren't- the two people posting in this newsgroup? I will
settle for nothing less than a notarized statement to that effect." --Patrick
Humphrey
"I could possibly consider that. I offered it before and threw in some
conditions. You failed to agree to those conditions, so.....if you are
not willing to negotiate and be fair...don't ask what you can't do
yourself." --Osprey
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	11 Jul 2005 10:05:51 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121096936.664313.138830
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When the
US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When we went
to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack." Counterattacks can be
made against both primary attacks and other counterattacks. No
rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to be a
threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a threat?
China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in Congress
and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would NOT take place
in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the terrorist would
love to have happen.

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we are
going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,
any more than you can defeat murder or kidnapping
or extortion. I guess you think we are winning
the "war on drugs" too, right?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on
Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons
for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and Al
Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my mind
that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given more
time. You probably know as well as most people know that Saddam would
eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am sure you
are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY of time to
either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came in.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors and no means to
deliver any "WMD's", and yet he was "dire threat" to
the greatest superpower on the planet?
Your paranoia knows no bounds.

Invade every country that we think is helping

terrorists?

If they are not going to help us fight terrorism and they are going to
harbor, finance, and give aid to the terrorist then we must do what we
have to do.

The biggest financer of terrorism in the
world is Saudi Arabia, who head Bush was proudly
holding hands with last month. Is that "Standing
Tall Against Terrorism" or what?
Mitchell Holman
American citizen Jose Padilla is now in his
third year of confinement in federal prison,
without the government convicting or even
charging him with a crime.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 12:22:18 AM

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121096936.664313.138830
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When the
US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When we went
to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack." Counterattacks can be
made against both primary attacks and other counterattacks. No
rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to be a
threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a threat?
China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

I don't know, I am not in the field of military intelligence but
someone else is and they planned this.
I can only guess as to say it was to set up the stage for the battle
against terrorism. That is my guess.
The battle against Al Queda is still on and probably will be on for
several more years. We were told that the battle would be a long time,
and it will be.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,

Just because you can't defeat it doesn't mean we tuck in our tails and
run. It must be faced.

any more than you can defeat murder or kidnapping
or extortion. I guess you think we are winning
the "war on drugs" too, right?

I would like to suggest that we stay on topic. I have my own opinion
on that issue and if you would like to discuss it in another thread I
will be more than happy to discuss it and give you a professional view
point on that from the my side since I do work in corrections and have
a lot to offer on that issue.

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war on
their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it on

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack on
Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their reasons
for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and Al
Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Ask Israel, they found the way to slow it down. They went after the
source and fought back dirty. I hate to think that is what we would
have to do, but it had an effect on the suicide bombers.
You also go after anyone who is harboring, training, financing, or
giving them security.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.
and no means to

deliver any "WMD's", and yet he was "dire threat" to
the greatest superpower on the planet?

Your paranoia knows no bounds.

Look, I am going to try and give your opinion respect. I have not
discussed issues with you before and I don't mind. But if this is going
to turn into another one of those posts in which the personal attacks
start getting flinged, let me know now and you will be ignored. It
seems that these posts always turn out like that and it is childish as
well as a waste of time.
So, is it going to be like that or are we going to keep the discussion
in a civil manner?

Invade every country that we think is helping

terrorists?

If they are not going to help us fight terrorism and they are going to
harbor, finance, and give aid to the terrorist then we must do what we
have to do.

The biggest financer of terrorism in the
world is Saudi Arabia, who head Bush was proudly
holding hands with last month. Is that "Standing
Tall Against Terrorism" or what?

Mitchell Holman

American citizen Jose Padilla is now in his
third year of confinement in federal prison,
without the government convicting or even
charging him with a crime.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 07:01:23 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121096936.664313.138830
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When
the US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When
we went to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack."
Counterattacks can be made against both primary attacks and
other counterattacks. No rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the
language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to
be a threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a
threat? China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

More than Bush ever provided us with.
Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in
Congress and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would NOT
take place in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the
terrorist would love to have happen.

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

HERE is what we were told.
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we
are going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,

Just because you can't defeat it doesn't mean we tuck in our tails and
run. It must be faced.

Bingo. The war will never be over. So why is Bush
saying will release the Gitmo prisoners as soon as the
war is over?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war
on their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it
on

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack
on Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their
reasons for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and
Al Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Has Isreal stopped the suicide bombers? Is there
any end in sight to the violence there?

Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my
mind that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given
more time. You probably know as well as most people know that Saddam
would eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am
sure you are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY of
time to either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came
in.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.

Wrong. Clinton withdrew the inspectors, just
like Bush withdrew the inspectors. Saddam never
booted them out.
And none of the inspectors supported the invasion.
Mitchell Holman
American citizen Jose Padilla is now in his
third year of confinement in federal prison,
without the government convicting or even
charging him with a crime.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 10:55:26 PM

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121096936.664313.138830
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here. When
the US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack." When
we went to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack."
Counterattacks can be made against both primary attacks and
other counterattacks. No rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use the
language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to
be a threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a
threat? China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

More than Bush ever provided us with.

Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

Easy...support, finance, and harbor terrorist.
Not to mention, attack allies.

If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in
Congress and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would NOT
take place in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the
terrorist would love to have happen.

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

HERE is what we were told.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

Source?
And there are plenty of sources where Bush stated that this war would
take a very long time.

The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we
are going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,

Just because you can't defeat it doesn't mean we tuck in our tails and
run. It must be faced.

Bingo. The war will never be over.

It may not be, we don't know the answer.
So why is Bush

saying will release the Gitmo prisoners as soon as the
war is over?

Why shouldn't he say that?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the war
on their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage it
on

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack
on Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their
reasons for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL and
Al Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Has Isreal stopped the suicide bombers? Is there
any end in sight to the violence there?

No, and as I have said, the answer as to why, is explained in detail in
the bible.

Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my
mind that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given
more time. You probably know as well as most people know that Saddam
would eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am
sure you are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY of
time to either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came
in.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.

Wrong. Clinton withdrew the inspectors, just
like Bush withdrew the inspectors. Saddam never
booted them out.

And none of the inspectors supported the invasion.

Sigh...another person who has not done a little research.
The inspectors were getting absolutley NO cooperation what so ever.
Now, before I go and throw sources at you, please go do some research
on this.
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 07:17:52 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121226926.934339.252170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in

news:1121096936.664313.138830

@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here.

When

the US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack."

When

we went to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack."
Counterattacks can be made against both primary attacks and
other counterattacks. No rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use

the

language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to
be a threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a
threat? China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

More than Bush ever provided us with.

Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

Easy...support, finance, and harbor terrorist.

You mean like Saudi Arabia?

If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in
Congress and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would

NOT

take place in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the
terrorist would love to have happen.

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

time,

and it will be.

HERE is what we were told.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

Source?

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/ 11/15/world/printable529569.shtml

And there are plenty of sources where Bush stated that this war would
take a very long time.

The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we
are going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,

Just because you can't defeat it doesn't mean we tuck in our tails and
run. It must be faced.

Bingo. The war will never be over.

It may not be, we don't know the answer.

So why is Bush

saying will release the Gitmo prisoners as soon as the
war is over?

Why shouldn't he say that?

It makes as much sense as claiming drug prisoners
will be released as soon as the War on Drugs is over.
Are you so naive as to believe that as well?

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the

war

on their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack
on Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their
reasons for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL

and

Al Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Has Isreal stopped the suicide bombers? Is there
any end in sight to the violence there?

No, and as I have said, the answer as to why, is explained in detail in
the bible.

Huh? What does the bible have to do with
Israel's failed counterterrorism policy?

Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my
mind that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given
more time. You probably know as well as most people know that

Saddam

would eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am
sure you are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY

time to either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came
in.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.

Wrong. Clinton withdrew the inspectors, just
like Bush withdrew the inspectors. Saddam never
booted them out.

And none of the inspectors supported the invasion.

Sigh...another person who has not done a little research.

The inspectors were getting absolutley NO cooperation what so ever.

Google up "Inspectors withdrawn" and get back to us.

Mitchell Holman
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 05:02:19 PM

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121226926.934339.252170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in

news:1121096936.664313.138830

@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here.

When

the US responded against Japan, that was a "counterattack."

When

we went to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack."
Counterattacks can be made against both primary attacks and
other counterattacks. No rhetorical gamesmanship, here. Use

the

language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in order to
be a threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be a
threat? China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

More than Bush ever provided us with.

Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

Easy...support, finance, and harbor terrorist.

You mean like Saudi Arabia?

If the Saudi government is supporting, financing, and/or harboring
terrorist, I think they too should be held just as accountable.

If you had really listened to
what, not just Bush was saying but also many other leaders in
Congress and the Senate; that the battle against terrorism would

NOT

take place in the streets of the U.S. which is EXACTLY what the
terrorist would love to have happen.

The battle against Al Queda in Afghanistan
was going going great. Why did Bush suddenly
push it to the back burner to attack Iraq?

time,

and it will be.

HERE is what we were told.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

Source?

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/ 11/15/world/printable529569.shtml

And there are plenty of sources where Bush stated that this war would
take a very long time.

The battle will be long, there will be a lot of blood shed, and we
are going to have to adapt to this. It's just a fact of life.
The terrorist only know one thing, and that is to kill. They don't
care who they kill either. The only good terrorist is the dead
terrorist.

Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat it,

Just because you can't defeat it doesn't mean we tuck in our tails and
run. It must be faced.

Bingo. The war will never be over.

It may not be, we don't know the answer.

So why is Bush

saying will release the Gitmo prisoners as soon as the
war is over?

Why shouldn't he say that?

It makes as much sense as claiming drug prisoners
will be released as soon as the War on Drugs is over.

Are you so naive as to believe that as well?

I am not in any position to judge or guess when they will be released.
Personally, if they are terrorist or insurgents I think they should be
tried and convicted if found guilty and kept in jail.

So, the fact that they were able to
counterattack means that it is not preferable to wage the

war

on their territory? That it is, in fact, preferable to wage

your

territory alone?

Since you admit the counter attacks are
a result of our occupation, then perhaps ending
said invasion would end the domestic terrorism.

Perhaps not. Did the Khobar bombings happen as a result of our

attack

on Iraq? Did the sailors of the COLE die because of our attack
on Iraq? Did 9/11 occur becuase of our attack on Iraq?

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very specific in their
reasons for attacking us. Namely, our foreign policy.

And don't you think that those who are aiding and helping OBL

and

Al Qaeda should be held responsible as well?

What are we going to do?

Just what we are doing, hold them responsible for their actions.

How do you hold a suicide bomber responsible?
By picking their body parts and prosecuting them?

Has Isreal stopped the suicide bombers? Is there
any end in sight to the violence there?

No, and as I have said, the answer as to why, is explained in detail in
the bible.

Huh? What does the bible have to do with
Israel's failed counterterrorism policy?

It's about the violence and why it is happening and what will happen.

Saddam went unchecked for a very long time. I have no doubt in my
mind that he either did have WMD or he was going to have WMD given
more time. You probably know as well as most people know that

Saddam

would eventually want WMD if he didn't already have them. And I am
sure you are in agreement that if he did have them, he had PLENTY

time to either hide them, move them, or destroy them before we came
in.

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.

Wrong. Clinton withdrew the inspectors, just
like Bush withdrew the inspectors. Saddam never
booted them out.

And none of the inspectors supported the invasion.

Sigh...another person who has not done a little research.

The inspectors were getting absolutley NO cooperation what so ever.

Google up "Inspectors withdrawn" and get back to us.

The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief
inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N.
inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons
inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with
inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N.
ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/
As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer
from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons
inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
*********
The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad
today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to
cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British
airstrikes.
--AP, 12/16/98
Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled
U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
--AP, 9/7/02
*********
Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance,
Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities
since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the
regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make
weapons.
--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

Mitchell Holman

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 09:01:40 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121289595.591940.283640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121226926.934339.252170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Oh, puh-leeze. Saddam ruled over an impoverished
country crawling with UN inspectors

Wrong, he booted them out in the 90's if you remember.

Wrong. Clinton withdrew the inspectors, just
like Bush withdrew the inspectors. Saddam never
booted them out.

And none of the inspectors supported the invasion.

Sigh...another person who has not done a little research.

The inspectors were getting absolutley NO cooperation what so ever.

Google up "Inspectors withdrawn" and get back to us.

The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief
inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N.
inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons
inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with
inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N.
ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/

As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer
from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons
inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02

*********

The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad
today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to
cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British
airstrikes.

--AP, 12/16/98

Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled
U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

--AP, 9/7/02

*********

Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance,
Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities
since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the
regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make
weapons.

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

BINGO!
Your own post disproves your claim that Saddam
"booted out the inspectors in the 90's".
Can we consider your claim withdrawn?

.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 08:57:20 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121289595.591940.283640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in news:1121226926.934339.252170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in

news:1121096936.664313.138830

@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121092203.622680.77540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Deuteros wrote:

"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n2uAe.313$Bo3.136@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in
message news:Xns96904E5B3200Cta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

So the domestic terrorism attacks ARE a result of US
foreign

policy.

Just so.

No, Mitch, none of your usual leaps away from logic, here.

When

the US responded against Japan, that was a
"counterattack."

When

we went to Afghanistan, that was a "counterattack."
Counterattacks can be made against both primary attacks
and other counterattacks. No rhetorical gamesmanship,
here. Use

the

language properly.

When did Iraq attack us?

Since when did a nation have to "directly" attack us in
order to be a threat?

Do you really want to start attacking every nation that may be
a threat? China is a threat. Should we attack them?

Iraq is the center stage for the battle.

...only because Bush invaded a country that
wasn't even a threat to the US.

What does it take in your opinion for a nation to prove it was a
threat?

More than Bush ever provided us with.

Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

Easy...support, finance, and harbor terrorist.

You mean like Saudi Arabia?

If the Saudi government is supporting, financing, and/or harboring
terrorist, I think they too should be held just as accountable.

What to you mean "if"?
"New documents have been uncovered from Palestinian
offices that directly link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
with financial backing of terrorist attacks against
Israel. Last month, for example, Saudi state television
held a telethon for the families of "Palestinian martyrs"
that raised over $100 million."
http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-23.htm
"An embassy press release from January 2001 describes
how the "Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds
Intifada," chaired and administered by Prince Nayef bin
Abdulaziz, the kingdom's interior minister, has distributed
$33 million to "deserving Palestinians," including "the
families of 2,281 prisoners and 358 martyrs."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/001/231lukti.asp

"Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar - both
U.S. allies - pay money to families of Palestinians
killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers."
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/newslet/0207news.html
"The documents clearly unveil that Saudi Arabia
transferred inter alia large sums of money in a
systematic and ongoing manner to families of suicide
terrorists to the Hamas organization and to persons
and entities identified with Hamas." One Saudi group,
the Saudi Committee for Support of the Palestinian
Uprising, headed by Saudi Interior Minister Prince
Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz, transferred $55.7 million,
mostly to the families of suicide bombers."
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1729
"Unfortunately, while the Saudis appear to be taking
their own domestic threat seriously, there is no
indication that they have scaled back their support
for Hamas. The Israeli national assessment is that
Saudi Arabia today funds more than 50 percent of the
needs of Hamas and the Saudi percentage in the total
foreign aid to Hamas is actually growing. Saudi Arabia
continues to aid the families of suicide bombers. It
helps dual-use charities and charities that funnel funds
directly to military activities against Israel."
www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1399
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 07:09:05 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121289595.591940.283640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

If the Saudi government is supporting, financing, and/or harboring
terrorist,

how much you think the saudis give the united states in financial support?
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	13 Jul 2005 09:32:10 PM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> writes:
:"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
:news:1121289595.591940.283640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
:> If the Saudi government is supporting, financing, and/or harboring
:> terrorist,
:how much you think the saudis give the united states in financial support?
Probably more than they're giving Bobby. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 11:06:47 PM

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

Do tell us how a small country on the
other side of the world with no navy and
no air force and no allies is going to
attack the US.

Easy...support, finance, and harbor terrorist.

Discredited propaganda.

Not to mention, attack allies.

An outright lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Defendario"
Title: Re: More security does not mean less terrorism	12 Jul 2005 03:19:11 PM

Mitchell Holman wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1121145738.195100.267910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: