| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2005 01:31:04 AM |
| Object: |
Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S.
soil since 9-11?
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence
website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has
threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror
leader strike America again.
On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush
administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map
as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability - the Damoclean Sword
hanging over his head.
"Israel recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword,"
writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a
war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under
20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians,
the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of
1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."
Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the
Beltway.
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor
floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has
figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's
head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed
services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members
clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons
love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by
elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the
rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11?
How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant
threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single
terrorist attack on American soil?"
Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column
by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.
"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering
what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the
ground is retribution of biblical proportions - and those are the only
proportions that will do the job.
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that
Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as
Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq - obviously never expressed publicly - was
to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates
America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the
nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come
remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.
Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing.
Smart move."
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 02:36:38 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:UJmdnVa9k4lF4HncRVn-qA@rcn.net...
Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S.
soil since 9-11?
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence
website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has
threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror
leader strike America again.
On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush
administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map
as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability - the Damoclean Sword
hanging over his head.
"Israel recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword,"
writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a
war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under
20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians,
the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of
1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."
Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the
Beltway.
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor
floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has
figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's
head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed
services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members
clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons
love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by
elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the
rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11?
How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant
threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single
terrorist attack on American soil?"
Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column
by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.
"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering
what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the
ground is retribution of biblical proportions - and those are the only
proportions that will do the job.
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that
Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as
Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq - obviously never expressed publicly - was
to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates
America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the
nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come
remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.
Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing.
Smart move."
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 05:12:45 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:mKmdnUKiE-YREHncRVn-sA@io.com...
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:UJmdnVa9k4lF4HncRVn-qA@rcn.net...
Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S.
soil since 9-11?
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence
website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has
threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror
leader strike America again.
On his website, To the Point, Wheeler explains how the Bush
administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map
as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability - the Damoclean Sword
hanging over his head.
"Israel recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword,"
writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a
war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under
20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians,
the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of
1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."
Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the
Beltway.
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor
floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has
figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's
head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed
services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members
clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons
love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by
elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the
rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11?
How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant
threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single
terrorist attack on American soil?"
Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column
by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.
"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering
what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the
ground is retribution of biblical proportions - and those are the only
proportions that will do the job.
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that
Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as
Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq - obviously never expressed publicly - was
to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates
America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the
nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come
remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.
Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing.
Smart move."
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat
intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
I don't doubt it, but Bush wouldn't have been the one to
think of it. Of course, if it ever happened, what makes the
Bushies think that the Muslim fanatics with nuclear
capabilities wouldn't return the favor? It's a stupid idea
all around and could very well lead to WWIII.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 05:02:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:36:38 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote, in part:
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
While blasting Mecca off the face of the Earth would be something Osama
bin Laden would dislike to have happen, and thus something with
deterrent force, the trouble is that it would kill many innocent people
who are sincerely religious.
Thus, it would be uncharacteristic of the United States. Even in
retaliation against an unspeakable terrorist act, it would _still_ brand
the United States as an aggressor nation - instead of the leader of the
democratic world.
After that, Europe and other Western countries would feel that anything
further that might happen to the United States would be only what it
deserved. (Their *actions* might fall short of that attitude. If anyone
really thought that the U.S. just might do that sort of thing, watch for
Europe to build its own nuclear deterrent, starting from that of Britain
and France, to be equivalent of that of the U.S., so they would no
longer depend on the U.S. to keep Russia, or China, or whoever, from
invading them.)
Despite this, the idea is still very tempting. If there were just some
way to do the *equivalent* of nuking Mecca without actually hurting
innocent Muslims. Unfortunately, it is the Islamic world that has the
power to do this, and it has chosen not to.
If, after September 11, the Islamic world were so shocked and horrified
that it rethought the questionable elements within their faith, and even
started converting in large numbers to Christianity... this would have
sent bin Laden the message that he had made a real boo-boo.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 11:10:51 AM |
|
|
TV's John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:36:38 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote, in part:
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat
intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
While blasting Mecca off the face of the Earth would be something Osama
bin Laden would dislike to have happen, and thus something with
deterrent force, the trouble is that it would kill many innocent people
who are sincerely religious.
Thus, it would be uncharacteristic of the United States. Even in
retaliation against an unspeakable terrorist act, it would _still_ brand
the United States as an aggressor nation - instead of the leader of the
democratic world.
Everything the Bush regime has done has been uncharacteristic of the US.
After that, Europe and other Western countries would feel that anything
further that might happen to the United States would be only what it
deserved. (Their *actions* might fall short of that attitude. If anyone
really thought that the U.S. just might do that sort of thing, watch for
Europe to build its own nuclear deterrent, starting from that of Britain
and France, to be equivalent of that of the U.S., so they would no
longer depend on the U.S. to keep Russia, or China, or whoever, from
invading them.)
Despite this, the idea is still very tempting. If there were just some
way to do the *equivalent* of nuking Mecca without actually hurting
innocent Muslims. Unfortunately, it is the Islamic world that has the
power to do this, and it has chosen not to.
If, after September 11, the Islamic world were so shocked and horrified
that it rethought the questionable elements within their faith, and even
started converting in large numbers to Christianity... this would have
sent bin Laden the message that he had made a real boo-boo.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 11:44:15 AM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34ketlF48flnjU1@individual.net...
TV's John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:36:38 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote, in part:
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat
intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
While blasting Mecca off the face of the Earth would be something Osama
bin Laden would dislike to have happen, and thus something with
deterrent force, the trouble is that it would kill many innocent people
who are sincerely religious.
Thus, it would be uncharacteristic of the United States. Even in
retaliation against an unspeakable terrorist act, it would _still_ brand
the United States as an aggressor nation - instead of the leader of the
democratic world.
Everything the Bush regime has done has been uncharacteristic of the US.
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
Hey, they started it, they wanted their holy war, now they got it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 07:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov2dnW3vpvDykHjcRVn-og@comcast.com...
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34ketlF48flnjU1@individual.net...
TV's John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:36:38 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote, in part:
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat
intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
While blasting Mecca off the face of the Earth would be something Osama
bin Laden would dislike to have happen, and thus something with
deterrent force, the trouble is that it would kill many innocent people
who are sincerely religious.
Thus, it would be uncharacteristic of the United States. Even in
retaliation against an unspeakable terrorist act, it would _still_ brand
the United States as an aggressor nation - instead of the leader of the
democratic world.
Everything the Bush regime has done has been uncharacteristic of the US.
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
lie
Hey, they started it,
lie
they wanted their holy war, now they got it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 10:11:55 PM |
|
|
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cs6i1p$jhl$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov2dnW3vpvDykHjcRVn-og@comcast.com...
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34ketlF48flnjU1@individual.net...
TV's John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:36:38 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote, in part:
Well, that's a creditable attempt at making Bush look somewhat
intelligent.
That said, I don't believe a word of it.
While blasting Mecca off the face of the Earth would be something Osama
bin Laden would dislike to have happen, and thus something with
deterrent force, the trouble is that it would kill many innocent people
who are sincerely religious.
Thus, it would be uncharacteristic of the United States. Even in
retaliation against an unspeakable terrorist act, it would _still_
brand
the United States as an aggressor nation - instead of the leader of the
democratic world.
Everything the Bush regime has done has been uncharacteristic of the US.
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
<snip> Lesson learned...don't pay kooks any attention
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 05:11:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/eo12947an.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo-980822.htm
http://www.emergency-management.net/ex_order_13130.htm
When Clinton did these things, the Republicans screamed that he was
trying to distract the American people from the vital questions about
his sex life.
Oh, and Clinton passed on not only a complete counter-terror plan to
the Bush administration, but even passed on the guy who wrote it! The
plan was shelved, and Bush ignored Richard Clarke.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/1537217
alt.abortion, alt.tasteless.jokes, talk.abortion, rec.arts.sf.written,
alt.fan.air-america, and alt.france snipped
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 09:58:04 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
12 Jan 2005 10:20:25 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:N4WdnYDsXODxAHjcRVn-1g@rcn.net...
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
Speaking of going "after the source", did the military decide they didn't
need a phony keyboard warrior after all, Gactipuss?:
"I am in the military and will likely go to Iraq which is more than anyone
can say about a coward like yourself."
From: Gactimus <gacti...@xrs.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:53:13 EST
Message-ID: <1102805593.23c32497591dbb4c019e4992dff7a0ed@bubbanews
LC~ Thinks Uncle Sam determined there was little need for a half-wit troll
capable of nothing else but 200 posts per hour.
"It is easier to stay out than get out."~ Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 02:08:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 04:17:49 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago. Past Presidents tried to
negotiate, play nice, hit a target here, hit a target there...nothing
worked. It is time to take the gloves off and that is what Bush is doing.
They wanted a holy war, they got one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 07:23:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:17:49 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
Yes, and that's not what I asked. Nice to see you admit that Cinton
did in fact attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago. Past Presidents tried to
negotiate, play nice, hit a target here, hit a target there...nothing
worked. It is time to take the gloves off and that is what Bush is doing.
They wanted a holy war, they got one.
Great Ghu, you live in a fantasy world. Bush started oput doing
things right, but got distracted by his big dream of invading Iraq,
and that has drawn resources away from hunting down al Qaeda,
distraxcted America from the real issues involved, and turned Iraq
into a bloody recruiting and training station for every whackjob for
Allah that can hop and undefended border! In the meantime, troops
actually in Afghanistan cope with insuffcient support and and a lack
of belief that anyone cares about them or their mission.
I have friends stationed there right now, with more on the way.
If it's a holy war, why did we attack the single most secular of the
Gulf States? Osama bin-Laden condemned the Ba'ath Party rule of Iraq
as being non-Islamic. Hell, under Saddam Christians and Jews lived
openly in Bagdahd! Try that in our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 04:40:47 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:v18cu0lg2jhle0kivj2r45eisl562tuma5@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:17:49 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
Yes, and that's not what I asked. Nice to see you admit that Cinton
did in fact attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago. Past Presidents tried to
negotiate, play nice, hit a target here, hit a target there...nothing
worked. It is time to take the gloves off and that is what Bush is doing.
They wanted a holy war, they got one.
Great Ghu, you live in a fantasy world. Bush started oput doing
things right, but got distracted by his big dream of invading Iraq,
and that has drawn resources away from hunting down al Qaeda,
distraxcted America from the real issues involved, and turned Iraq
into a bloody recruiting and training station for every whackjob for
Allah that can hop and undefended border! In the meantime, troops
actually in Afghanistan cope with insuffcient support and and a lack
of belief that anyone cares about them or their mission.
I have friends stationed there right now, with more on the way.
If it's a holy war, why did we attack the single most secular of the
Gulf States? Osama bin-Laden condemned the Ba'ath Party rule of Iraq
as being non-Islamic. Hell, under Saddam Christians and Jews lived
openly in Bagdahd! Try that in our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
Ahh, that explains the camp they found with a mock set up of an airplane.
You can turn your head and put it in the sand all you like. The picture is a
lot bigger, and I think I figured out exactly why we went into Iraq.
Clinton even supported it himself.
But I am not going to make this an political issue. You believe what you
want too.
I have friends there too by the way, many fellow officers I work with are
over there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 06:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Ahh, that explains the camp they found with a mock set up of an airplane.
Right. Until 9/11 no terrorist had *ever* hijacked an airplane.
Never even been thought of before.
You can turn your head and put it in the sand all you like. The picture is a
lot bigger, and I think I figured out exactly why we went into Iraq.
Clinton even supported it himself.
But I am not going to make this an political issue. You believe what you
want too.
I have friends there too by the way, many fellow officers I work with are
over there.
In Iraq or Afghanistan?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 06:45:00 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:6nfdu0hv5lc11k35e37g60r70qcogidht3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Ahh, that explains the camp they found with a mock set up of an airplane.
Right. Until 9/11 no terrorist had *ever* hijacked an airplane.
Never even been thought of before.
You can turn your head and put it in the sand all you like. The picture is
a
lot bigger, and I think I figured out exactly why we went into Iraq.
Clinton even supported it himself.
But I am not going to make this an political issue. You believe what you
want too.
I have friends there too by the way, many fellow officers I work with are
over there.
In Iraq or Afghanistan?
In Iraq at the moment, but I have had friends in both regions. And I was
also military myself.
I have a few of them send me emails from time to time and one thing I hear
the most is that we are not getting the whole story. There is a lot of
positive things we accomplished over there and the media just doesn't show
it. The media is the most powerful influence we have in this country and we
are not seeing all sides. Bringing democracy to Iraq is a good thing, if it
works. I hope it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 01:23:23 AM |
|
|
TV's Osprey wrote:
In Iraq at the moment, but I have had friends in both regions. And I was
also military myself.
I have a few of them send me emails from time to time and one thing I hear
the most is that we are not getting the whole story. There is a lot of
positive things we accomplished over there and the media just doesn't show
it. The media is the most powerful influence we have in this country and
we
are not seeing all sides. Bringing democracy to Iraq is a good thing, if
it
works. I hope it does.
Sure there are good things happening there, as well as bad things, but when
the entire operation was based on lies and half-truths, a few small good
deeds won't change the perspective of the world that the invasion was wrong.
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 01:15:01 AM |
|
|
TV's Osprey wrote:
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
Ahh, that explains the camp they found with a mock set up of an airplane.
You can turn your head and put it in the sand all you like. The picture is
a
lot bigger, and I think I figured out exactly why we went into Iraq.
Clinton even supported it himself.
But I am not going to make this an political issue. You believe what you
want too.
I have friends there too by the way, many fellow officers I work with are
over there.
Funny that you continue to flog this deceased equine long after the Bush
cartel abandoned it.
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 01:51:43 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:v18cu0lg2jhle0kivj2r45eisl562tuma5@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:17:49 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
Yes, and that's not what I asked. Nice to see you admit that Cinton
did in fact attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago. Past Presidents tried to
negotiate, play nice, hit a target here, hit a target there...nothing
worked. It is time to take the gloves off and that is what Bush is
doing. They wanted a holy war, they got one.
Great Ghu, you live in a fantasy world. Bush started oput doing
things right, but got distracted by his big dream of invading Iraq,
and that has drawn resources away from hunting down al Qaeda,
distraxcted America from the real issues involved, and turned Iraq
into a bloody recruiting and training station for every whackjob for
Allah that can hop and undefended border! In the meantime, troops
actually in Afghanistan cope with insuffcient support and and a lack
of belief that anyone cares about them or their mission.
I have friends stationed there right now, with more on the way.
If it's a holy war, why did we attack the single most secular of the
Gulf States? Osama bin-Laden condemned the Ba'ath Party rule of Iraq
as being non-Islamic. Hell, under Saddam Christians and Jews lived
openly in Bagdahd! Try that in our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 06:32:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:43 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:v18cu0lg2jhle0kivj2r45eisl562tuma5@4ax.com:
Yes, and that's not what I asked. Nice to see you admit that Cinton
did in fact attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
That's not what happened, and you know it. We destroyed several base
camps, and killed many terrorists.
Then the GOP screamed that Clinton was trying to distract America from
his all-important sex life. No support at all for the war on ObL.
Great Ghu, you live in a fantasy world. Bush started oput doing
things right, but got distracted by his big dream of invading Iraq,
and that has drawn resources away from hunting down al Qaeda,
distraxcted America from the real issues involved, and turned Iraq
into a bloody recruiting and training station for every whackjob for
Allah that can hop and undefended border! In the meantime, troops
actually in Afghanistan cope with insuffcient support and and a lack
of belief that anyone cares about them or their mission.
I have friends stationed there right now, with more on the way.
If it's a holy war, why did we attack the single most secular of the
Gulf States? Osama bin-Laden condemned the Ba'ath Party rule of Iraq
as being non-Islamic. Hell, under Saddam Christians and Jews lived
openly in Bagdahd! Try that in our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
It's the one Bush used to justify invading Iraq. But OK, list the
terrorist attacks on US targets that Saddam Hussein supported or
funded. Cite sources for the claims.
alt.tasteless.jokes, talk.abortion, rec.arts.sf.written,
alt.fan.air-america, and alt.france snipped
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 12:49:01 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:adfdu0hidc3m0cro1g16smssjiop0e4pbv@4ax.com:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:43 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:v18cu0lg2jhle0kivj2r45eisl562tuma5@4ax.com:
Yes, and that's not what I asked. Nice to see you admit that Cinton
did in fact attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
That's not what happened, and you know it. We destroyed several base
camps, and killed many terrorists.
Then the GOP screamed that Clinton was trying to distract America from
his all-important sex life. No support at all for the war on ObL.
Great Ghu, you live in a fantasy world. Bush started oput doing
things right, but got distracted by his big dream of invading Iraq,
and that has drawn resources away from hunting down al Qaeda,
distraxcted America from the real issues involved, and turned Iraq
into a bloody recruiting and training station for every whackjob for
Allah that can hop and undefended border! In the meantime, troops
actually in Afghanistan cope with insuffcient support and and a lack
of belief that anyone cares about them or their mission.
I have friends stationed there right now, with more on the way.
If it's a holy war, why did we attack the single most secular of the
Gulf States? Osama bin-Laden condemned the Ba'ath Party rule of Iraq
as being non-Islamic. Hell, under Saddam Christians and Jews lived
openly in Bagdahd! Try that in our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
then of course there's the minor fact that no Iraqis were involved in
9/11, and none of the training or money ever went through Iraq.
And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
It's the one Bush used to justify invading Iraq.
No he didn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 02:10:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:43 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
Come now. Clinton knew that someday those evil terrorists were going
to bring down our airplanes by shooting aspirin at them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 06:46:01 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:43 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
Come now. Clinton knew that someday those evil terrorists were going
to bring down our airplanes by shooting aspirin at them.
See the lunacy of the pro-Bush neocon: When Clinton bombs factories
they because empty tents and medicine factories. When Bush spends
hundreds of millions to invade Iraq, non-existant weapons of mass
destruction become the justification for killing tens of thousands of
people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 04:50:43 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:43 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Bombing empty tents and a medicine factory don't count.
Come now. Clinton knew that someday those evil terrorists were going
to bring down our airplanes by shooting aspirin at them.
See the lunacy of the pro-Bush neocon: When Clinton bombs factories
they become empty tents and medicine factories. When Bush spends
hundreds of millions to invade Iraq, non-existant weapons of mass
destruction become the justification for killing tens of thousands of
people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 05:28:44 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
And he's still wandering around free because Bush let him go.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist,
he's creating more terrorists.
I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago.
Heishman is in favor of killing innocent people by the tens and
hundreds of thousands.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 04:36:40 AM |
|
|
TV's Osprey wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
And he (supposedly) survives today.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago.
Are you serious? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Dumpya has done very little in
trying to capture Osama. Instead he's been wasting money and human lives in
the quagmire in Iraq.
Past Presidents tried to
negotiate, play nice, hit a target here, hit a target there...nothing
worked. It is time to take the gloves off and that is what Bush is doing.
Which is absolutely nothing.
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 01:51:44 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:34mcclF4ci1n8U2@individual.net:
TV's Osprey wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvlbu09dc7tkl35lci4pnq49p81lf22ttb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:iklau0l170ptk81bqdc84t2i5maij3duni@4ax.com:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:44:15 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
Yea, he actually took the fight to the terrorist this time.
That would be President Bill Clinton, who signed two orders calling
for Osama bin-Laden's death, froze bin-Laden's assets, attacked al
Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan, and increased federal spending on
counter-terrorism every year he was in office.
Clinton never went after the source. He just treated the symptoms.
So, what do you call ordering the death of Osama bin-Laden, and attack
al-Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan?
Osama Bin Laden survived to kill again in 2001.
And he (supposedly) survives today.
Bush is not playing games with the terrorist, I think he is doing what
needed to have been done a long time ago.
Are you serious? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Dumpya has done very little
in trying to capture Osama. Instead he's been wasting money and human
lives in the quagmire in Iraq.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Lets run like we did in Nam. If Iraq is a "quagmire" then
what was World War II, where casualties were 400 times higher?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
13 Jan 2005 06:33:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:44 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Lets run like we did in Nam. If Iraq is a "quagmire" then
what was World War II, where casualties were 400 times higher?
World War II had clearly defined missions and objectives: defeat the
Axis powers.
What is the clearly defined mission in Iraq? Are we achieveing it?
Even Republicans are getting sick of Bush's open-ended lie.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 12:49:01 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:mkfdu0p2g6ghjl376lgg7rfti7klrfbbuh@4ax.com:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:44 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Lets run like we did in Nam. If Iraq is a "quagmire"
then what was World War II, where casualties were 400 times higher?
World War II had clearly defined missions and objectives: defeat the
Axis powers.
What is the clearly defined mission in Iraq?
Defeat the terrorists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Another 9-11? Nuke Mecca |
14 Jan 2005 04:50:22 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:mkfdu0p2g6ghjl376lgg7rfti7klrfbbuh@4ax.com:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:51:44 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Lets run like we did in Nam. If Iraq is a "quagmire"
then what was World War II, where casualties were 400 times higher?
World War II had clearly defined missions and objectives: defeat the
Axis powers.
What is the clearly defined mission in Iraq?
Defeat the terrorists.
Then why did the US destroy the Iraqi government instead?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
