On 04 Apr 2007 15:56:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns990882CD4693Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:6jh713tlqd92s3oufha99cct5q17ghvs07@4ax.com:

On 04 Apr 2007 13:29:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns990869E5B1F9Efreddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:4ua713dtiis9q3poq1katinrsa6iuvqfin@4ax.com:

On 04 Apr 2007 12:24:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99085ED249D1Efreddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:bm6713dgic94cbh1ejluiua7qe2hp28m8u@4ax.com:

On 03 Apr 2007 12:57:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns99076475223A1freddybear@

66.150.105.47>

wrote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015915.php

Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails

Lebanon

Here's a new idea to bring about peace -- appeasement! Yeah,
that'll do the trick! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

By Iman Azzi for the Daily Star, with thanks to DFS:

BEIRUT: On the eve of a meeting with Syrian President Bashar
Assad,
US Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday she believed greater

communication

between the United States and Syria could help establish
stability

in

the region and called the bilateral talks a matter of " US
national security."

"The road to solving Lebanon's problems passes through

Damascus,"

Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Lebanese parliamentary

leader

Saad Hariri at Qoreitem.

[Oh, this is brilliant, Piglosi! Ask the wolves to solve the
shepherd's problems.]

That is not what she said. But talking to people can help solve
problems.

Or it can make problems worse, when they perceive you as being
weak.

Wow, it is not a magic bullet. So if you have an argument that
this particular dialogue is bad then present that. And tell us why
the Administration worked with Republican delegations to Syria,
but denounced Pelosi's trip.

"Our trip to Syria is one that is important to us, it is
also
important to the Iraq Study Group which encourages such
diplomacy

and

engagement," she said, referring to a bipartisan US panel that
last year recommended engaging US foes Syria and Iran in order
to calm war-torn Iraq.

"The purpose of this trip is a part of our responsibility
for

the

national security of the United States," Pelosi said.

The Bush administration accuses Syria of supporting
"terrorism" and
harboring insurgents but a growing number of US politicians are
beginning to favor dialogue.

[Can we question Piglosi's patriotism now?]

Did you know that there is a Republican delegation in Syria?

I question their judgement too.

No, you did not. You attacked Pelosi. So did Shrub. And neither of
you mentioned the Republicans.

No *****. I didn't mention them. So you have no grounds for saying
anything about it.

Of course I do. Lots of Repubs have gone to Syria and talked to
Assad and you (and Shrub) said nothing. Now you call Pelosi a
traitor for doing the very same thing.

Matt, you can whine all you want about all the things that I didn't
say. You're full of *****.

I am pointing out your silence about Repubs doing something on the
weekend that you complain about during the week. Your silence on that
is relevant.

Or that there have been several
congressional delegations to Syria. Either you knew and chose to
mention this or your got fooled yet again by Shrub.

Oh, Matt, you want to open the door to criticism for all the things
that you didn't say?

Again, either you knew or you didn't. If you didn't then you got
fooled by Shrub. If you knew, then you have a different problem.

Either you're full of ***** or you're full of hot air, which is it?

Unlike your claim, mine was not a false dichotomy. Either you knew or
you did not. But feel free to let us know you actual position. Did you
know of the Republican congressmen who went before you attacked
Pelosi? If not, do you want to attack them and call them traitors?
Let's see you name the various Repubs who have gone to Syria and
talked to Assad, show us you really consider that treason.

"Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175843523.016805.142640@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:44 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On 04 Apr 2007 12:22:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns99085E75E7FEBfreddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:ao6713hrfhmu83lh6a331lcvh7c2q4s33e@4ax.com:

On 04 Apr 2007 11:20:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9908540622EF4freddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

MarkA <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:pan.2007.04.03.22.58.13
@somewhere.org:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:57:41 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015915.php
Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails
Lebanon
Here's a new idea to bring about peace -- appeasement! Yeah,
that'll do the trick! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Well, we tried the "Duke Nukem" approach. If Plan A fails, the
next logical step is NOT, repeat NOT, "Try Plan A again."

Ask Neville Chamberlin how well appeasement works.

Ask Reagan: he did it in Lebanon and really screwed the pooch. Or
ask Israel about Egypt: sometimes you can get a peace through
negotiation.

Yeah, how's that working out?

It worked pretty well for some time. Egypt has some serious internal
problems, but it is at peace with Israel. "Appeasement" seems to have
worked pretty well there.

But Pelosi never suggested anything about appeasement, she
suggested dialogue.

She doesn't have the authority to *negotiate with foreign leaders*.

And she did not *negotiate* with any foreign leaders. Nor, I assume,
did the Republican congressmen who just visited Syria.

..Wich I notice Stoned Fred is going out of his way not to mention.

Which is not the same. Those Republicans didn't tell Bashar Assad that
they're an alternative leadership and that he doesn't need to deal with
President Bush.

"Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175843523.016805.142640@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:44 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On 04 Apr 2007 12:22:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns99085E75E7FEBfreddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:ao6713hrfhmu83lh6a331lcvh7c2q4s33e@4ax.com:

On 04 Apr 2007 11:20:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9908540622EF4freddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

MarkA <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:pan.2007.04.03.22.58.13
@somewhere.org:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:57:41 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015915.php

Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails
Lebanon

Here's a new idea to bring about peace -- appeasement! Yeah,
that'll do the trick! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Well, we tried the "Duke Nukem" approach. If Plan A fails, the
next logical step is NOT, repeat NOT, "Try Plan A again."

Ask Neville Chamberlin how well appeasement works.

Ask Reagan: he did it in Lebanon and really screwed the pooch. Or
ask Israel about Egypt: sometimes you can get a peace through
negotiation.

Yeah, how's that working out?

It worked pretty well for some time. Egypt has some serious internal
problems, but it is at peace with Israel. "Appeasement" seems to have
worked pretty well there.

But Pelosi never suggested anything about appeasement, she
suggested dialogue.

She doesn't have the authority to *negotiate with foreign leaders*.

And she did not *negotiate* with any foreign leaders. Nor, I assume,
did the Republican congressmen who just visited Syria.

..Wich I notice Stoned Fred is going out of his way not to mention.

Which is not the same. Those Republicans didn't tell Bashar Assad that
they're an alternative leadership and that he doesn't need to deal with
President Bush.

"Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1175843523.016805.142640@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Apr 4, 9:44 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On 04 Apr 2007 12:22:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns99085E75E7FEBfreddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
innews:ao6713hrfhmu83lh6a331lcvh7c2q4s33e@4ax.com:

On 04 Apr 2007 11:20:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fston...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9908540622EF4freddyb...@66.150.105.47> wrote:

MarkA <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:pan.2007.04.03.22.58.13
@somewhere.org:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:57:41 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015915.php

Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails
Lebanon

Here's a new idea to bring about peace -- appeasement! Yeah,
that'll do the trick! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Well, we tried the "Duke Nukem" approach. If Plan A fails, the
next logical step is NOT, repeat NOT, "Try Plan A again."

Ask Neville Chamberlin how well appeasement works.

Ask Reagan: he did it in Lebanon and really screwed the pooch. Or
ask Israel about Egypt: sometimes you can get a peace through
negotiation.

Yeah, how's that working out?

It worked pretty well for some time. Egypt has some serious internal
problems, but it is at peace with Israel. "Appeasement" seems to have
worked pretty well there.

But Pelosi never suggested anything about appeasement, she
suggested dialogue.

She doesn't have the authority to *negotiate with foreign leaders*.

And she did not *negotiate* with any foreign leaders. Nor, I assume,
did the Republican congressmen who just visited Syria.

..Wich I notice Stoned Fred is going out of his way not to mention.

Which is not the same. Those Republicans didn't tell Bashar Assad that
they're an alternative leadership and that he doesn't need to deal with
President Bush.

On 09 Apr 2007 02:10:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns990CEAE674FF0freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

"MyUsefulAddress@googlemail.com" <MyUsefulAddress@googlemail.com> wrote
in news:1176056879.418282.298200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

Can you give any examples of a terrorist campaign being defeated by
conventional military means?

Algeria.

Do you mean the French? If so, you seem to have a different history
than I do.

Honduras.

When?

Panama.

When?

Philippines.

Again, you seem to have a different history than I do.

Vietnam, pre-1975.

It was a guerilla campaign, but not really a terrorist one. And we
lost, pre-1975.


[snip]