Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!

Religions > Atheism > Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"quibbler"
Date:	11 Aug 2005 09:16:16 AM
Object:	Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!

We all remember the phony rallies that the pentagon staged in Iraq
and how they had to use US tanks to topple statues of Saddam. Now
the pentagon is using taxpayer money to fund, what a surprise, a
pro-war rally to support *THEMSELVES*. Rum-dum crassly calls this
the "America Supports Your Freedom" Walk, which is true, in a sense,
because American taxpayers are being asked to support this rally
involuntarily by footing the bill. The only thing they neglected to
tell the dupes taking part in this propaganda event is that the
cadence of the walk will be goosestepping and the dress code is
brown shirts and arm bands.
What a sickening display of compulsory, stage-managed pseudo-
patriotism. It's too bad that Leni Riefenstahl died a while back,
because otherwise they could get her to produce a film about this,
the same way she did for der Fuhrer.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 09:42:56 AM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6657e4478988f89898a6@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123815947.8ab1a1d3fb9b1f2f380223967bd2885e@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d65a85435ba3edc98989e@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article
<1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it)
administration policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with
the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism
that came to us on 9/11

They're not reminding people of that. They're celebrating the fact
that we attacked the wrong people and therefore that Osama Bin
Laden is still free because Bush was too busy attacking saddam
without any kind of justification.

Concentrating all our attention on Osama would have been stupid

That doesn't follow at all. We certainly could have continued
operations until Osama and all other top leadership were dead.

They would have simply fled to Iraq where they had been offered
sanctuary by Saddam. And so we'd be in Iraq anyway.

It's a
dangerous organization and like cancer, it's not good enough to just
get the majority of it. It might be hard, but it would "send a
message" to terrorists that we would pursue their asses no matter
what. Bush keeps talking about "sending messages" in Iraq. Well, the
message he sent was cutting and running from a fight with Osama Bin
Laden.

We didn't cut and run. We still have troops in Afghanistan.

Bush has been a complete coward and a failure with no follow
up against Al Quaeda, the actual people who attacked the US with
weapons of mass destruction.

That's the message *YOU* want to send, but it ain't getting through.

once his
organization was nearly destroyed.

Bullcrap. First off, their estimates are highly suspect and, like
everything else they do, distorted by what they wish was the case,
rather than corresponding to reality.

You would know all about distorting reality, quibbler. You're trying to
do it right now.

You should know better than
that. This is the same president who thinks there's good evidence for
literal creationism and so-called "intelligent design".

We had *plenty* of justification for
attacking Saddam. I know you're not so stupid as to have forgotten
that.

False. He had no legal justification for war against Iraq that would
even pass the laugh test.

I'm laughing at *you* quibbler. You're so dense it's amazing.

No, there are still plenty of rogue states that support terrorism,
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being prime examples. Those two states
are also brutal muslim dictatorships which probably both harbor far
more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

We don't have to do them all at once, quibbler, nor by the same
methods, nor with the same goals in mind.

The strategy he chose was asinine and predicated upon obvious lies.
There is no way that Iraq was more of a threat than North Korea or
Iranian supported Hizbollah terrorists, or any number of other
terrorist factions, including the still operational elements of Al
Quaeda.

That must be why all those terrorists are trying to save Iraq from the
wicked infidel invaders.

However,
repeating that lie is not something that the majority of this
country believes, regardless of how many times Bush tries to
pretend that it was Saddam Hussein, rather than Osama Bin Laden,
who attacked us on that day.

It's only gullible fools like you who believe that Bush tried to
pretend that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot.

You've got it backwards. It was dumber-than-dogshit repug thugs
who believed there was a connection, screamed it from the rooftops
and continue shrieking it to this very day, despite the fact that
every intelligent person knows their claim is a lie.

There was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

What that they both have beards?

No, you stupid liberal. But I'm being redundant there.

That's been proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know that as well as I do.

No sir, nothing the bush administration did was proven beyond the
shadow of a doubt. Your standard seems to be that if there was one Al
Quaeda operative in Iraq that saddam was connected to al quaeda. But
every single claimed official link has been debunked beyond a
reasonable doubt.

There were a lot more than one al Qaeda operative in Iraq, with official
permission.

Both movies were fictionalized and for entertainment purposes
only. So is the dishonest propaganda coming out of the bush
administration. It's good only for a laugh and it makes you feel
dirty after watching it.

So what's your problem? Nobody's forcing you to watch it, any more
than you could force people to watch anti-American propaganda from
Michael Moore.

Criticizing the corruption and injustice, which demonstrable exists
due to repug subversion of american democracy, is a high form of
patriotism.

Only your incredible level of Orwellian doublespeak could make you or
Moore out to be patriots when all you want is to tear down American
ideals and values.

No, you lying sack of *****, the only values real patriot or american
values are those held on the left.

Ah, the Big Lie from the Left. You're all the "real patriots" because
you slime everything America ever stood for.

Rightwingers are universally
traitorous to their country, their class and humanity in general.
Most of them, like you, are too stupid and delusional to understand
that you are undermining everything that makes america free and just
and economically viable.

Michael Moore is certainly more a patriot than you or the
rest of you fascist chickenshits who would attempt to censor him
and lie about his work.

Michael Moore isn't a patriot, he's a traitor.

Then give a few examples of his actions which constitute treason and
explain why the bush administration has failed to prosecute him.

Aid and comfort to the enemy. Propaganda support for the enemy.
And we don't prosecute traitors any more or Fonda and Kerry would have
been strung up long ago.

He's the lowest form of
self-serving propaganda-spewing wretch.

You've clearly confused him with Fox News.

Ah, more of that liberal moral equivalence. The only thing you ever
judge is "the right" because "the left" doesn't really give a ***** about
morality or ethics.

I wouldn't censor him if I
could,

If his actions actually rose to the level of treason, which they never
had, then you would be justified in restraining those activities.

for the simple reason that he's a fine example of just how
disgusting your liberal politics really is.

I can understand that you consider liberty and economic justice to be
disgusting

I know what you mean by "liberty and economic justice" and it is the
most disgusting collection of lies and deceits ever practiced on the
human race.

but that's because you're a self-hating psychopath, unaware
that your feeble brain has been thoroughly washed. Granted, the
washing was a small job for repugs to do. It probably only needed a
light rinse anyway, but at this point your brain is remarkably lacking
in content. Why do you so despite real freedom of expression or the
actual exercise of constitutional rights?

You don't have any moral basis to complain about anything, quibbler. You
don't have any morals, period.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 11:52:32 AM

In article <1123857781.beee963825bcd334983b8b52c7811a5a@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6657e4478988f89898a6@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123815947.8ab1a1d3fb9b1f2f380223967bd2885e@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d65a85435ba3edc98989e@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article
<1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it)
administration policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with
the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism
that came to us on 9/11

Concentrating all our attention on Osama would have been stupid

That doesn't follow at all. We certainly could have continued
operations until Osama and all other top leadership were dead.

They would have simply fled to Iraq where they had been offered
sanctuary by Saddam.

That's another lie, as usual. These terrorists hide in lots of places,
but there's no indication that there was any kind of blanket policy or
invitation to al quaeda. Naturally, you can't defend your warmongering
without blatant lies.

We didn't cut and run. We still have troops in Afghanistan.

He drew down soldiers to the point of insignificance and they have run
from confronting the taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They've also
run away from confronting the opium drug lord there and have propped up
a puppet dictator in the form of the corrupt Karzai.

Bush has been a complete coward and a failure with no follow
up against Al Quaeda, the actual people who attacked the US with
weapons of mass destruction.

That's the message *YOU* want to send, but it ain't getting through.

It's definitely gotten through despite the stranglehold of the
rightwing, corporate media on most public communication.

once his
organization was nearly destroyed.

Bullcrap. First off, their estimates are highly suspect and, like
everything else they do, distorted by what they wish was the case,
rather than corresponding to reality.

You would know all about distorting reality, quibbler. You're trying to
do it right now.

Given that you have no facts, you have no way of knowing that any
distortion is going on.

You should know better than
that. This is the same president who thinks there's good evidence for
literal creationism and so-called "intelligent design".

We had *plenty* of justification for
attacking Saddam. I know you're not so stupid as to have forgotten
that.

False. He had no legal justification for war against Iraq that would
even pass the laugh test.

I'm laughing at *you* quibbler. You're so dense it's amazing.

You're starting to sound like dukkke now. You're so lacking in the
ability to justify the criminal war that you love so much that you have
failed to state a single, legally justifiable pretext for the invasion
and occupation.

We don't have to do them all at once, quibbler, nor by the same
methods, nor with the same goals in mind.

That must be why all those terrorists are trying to save Iraq from the
wicked infidel invaders.

Most of these guerillas are probably being sponsored by intelligence
forces of surrounding countries and the many theocrats in Saudi and Paki
that Bush refuses to go after.

What that they both have beards?

No, you stupid liberal. But I'm being redundant there.

Only in that you're both lying about me and being a republican, which
amount to the same thing.

That's been proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know that as well as I do.

There were a lot more than one al Qaeda operative in Iraq, with official
permission.

Does this include people in the Kurdish territories that Saddam didn't
even control?

No, you lying sack of *****, the only values real patriot or american
values are those held on the left.

Ah, the Big Lie from the Left. You're all the "real patriots" because
you slime everything America ever stood for.

Provide an example of something you even stand for. What is it,
imperialist wars of aggression? Stealing from the public treasury?
What other noble things do you stand for, anyway?

Aid and comfort to the enemy. Propaganda support for the enemy.

But morons like yourself don't understand that "aid and comfort" is very
specifically defined as providing direct military support and cannot, I
repeat *CANNOT* simply include criticizing US military strategy or even
praising someone that the Bush administration doesn't like.

And we don't prosecute traitors any more or Fonda and Kerry would have
been strung up long ago.

He's the lowest form of
self-serving propaganda-spewing wretch.

You've clearly confused him with Fox News.

Ah, more of that liberal moral equivalence. The only thing you ever
judge is "the right" because "the left" doesn't really give a ***** about
morality or ethics.

No, the left is the only side that even understands what morality and
ethics are, while the right is utterly incapable of any kind of
significant ethical conduct.

I know what you mean by "liberty and economic justice" and it is the
most disgusting collection of lies and deceits ever practiced on the
human race.

You continue to vilify liberty and justice, making you an enemy of
humanity.

You don't have any moral basis to complain about anything, quibbler. You
don't have any morals, period.

If that were truly the case, which it's obviously not, then repug idiots
like you and bush wouldn't be stealing air anymore.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 12:42:16 PM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6681bbed7048f69898ac@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123857781.beee963825bcd334983b8b52c7811a5a@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6657e4478988f89898a6@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123815947.8ab1a1d3fb9b1f2f380223967bd2885e@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d65a85435ba3edc98989e@news.readfreenews.net:

In article
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article
<1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it)
administration policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with
the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism
that came to us on 9/11

They're not reminding people of that. They're celebrating the
fact that we attacked the wrong people and therefore that Osama
Bin Laden is still free because Bush was too busy attacking
saddam without any kind of justification.

Concentrating all our attention on Osama would have been stupid

That doesn't follow at all. We certainly could have continued
operations until Osama and all other top leadership were dead.

They would have simply fled to Iraq where they had been offered
sanctuary by Saddam.

That's another lie, as usual. These terrorists hide in lots of
places, but there's no indication that there was any kind of blanket
policy or invitation to al quaeda.

Yes there is.

Naturally, you can't defend your
warmongering without blatant lies.

Naturally, you can't defend your defeatism without blatant lies.

It's a
dangerous organization and like cancer, it's not good enough to
just get the majority of it. It might be hard, but it would "send
a message" to terrorists that we would pursue their asses no matter
what. Bush keeps talking about "sending messages" in Iraq. Well,
the message he sent was cutting and running from a fight with Osama
Bin Laden.

We didn't cut and run. We still have troops in Afghanistan.

He drew down soldiers to the point of insignificance and they have run
from confronting the taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Baloney.

They've
also run away from confronting the opium drug lord there and have
propped up a puppet dictator in the form of the corrupt Karzai.

Double baloney.

Bush has been a complete coward and a failure with no follow
up against Al Quaeda, the actual people who attacked the US with
weapons of mass destruction.

That's the message *YOU* want to send, but it ain't getting through.

It's definitely gotten through despite the stranglehold of the
rightwing, corporate media on most public communication.

And you come up with still another blatant lie.

once his
organization was nearly destroyed.

Bullcrap. First off, their estimates are highly suspect and, like
everything else they do, distorted by what they wish was the case,
rather than corresponding to reality.

You would know all about distorting reality, quibbler. You're trying
to do it right now.

Given that you have no facts, you have no way of knowing that any
distortion is going on.

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face.

You should know better than
that. This is the same president who thinks there's good evidence
for literal creationism and so-called "intelligent design".

We had *plenty* of justification for
attacking Saddam. I know you're not so stupid as to have forgotten
that.

False. He had no legal justification for war against Iraq that
would even pass the laugh test.

I'm laughing at *you* quibbler. You're so dense it's amazing.

You're starting to sound like dukkke now. You're so lacking in the
ability to justify the criminal war that you love so much that you
have failed to state a single, legally justifiable pretext for the
invasion and occupation.

You can deny it all you want, quibbler, you won't make it go away.

No, there are still plenty of rogue states that support
terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being prime examples.
Those two states are also brutal muslim dictatorships which
probably both harbor far more weapons of mass destruction than
Iraq.

We don't have to do them all at once, quibbler, nor by the same
methods, nor with the same goals in mind.

That must be why all those terrorists are trying to save Iraq from
the wicked infidel invaders.

Most of these guerillas are probably being sponsored by intelligence
forces of surrounding countries and the many theocrats in Saudi and
Paki that Bush refuses to go after.

What that they both have beards?

No, you stupid liberal. But I'm being redundant there.

Only in that you're both lying about me and being a republican, which
amount to the same thing.

That's been proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know that as well as I do.

No sir, nothing the bush administration did was proven beyond the
shadow of a doubt. Your standard seems to be that if there was one
Al Quaeda operative in Iraq that saddam was connected to al quaeda.
But every single claimed official link has been debunked beyond a
reasonable doubt.

There were a lot more than one al Qaeda operative in Iraq, with
official permission.

Does this include people in the Kurdish territories that Saddam didn't
even control?

Saddam controlled the territory there. We have records from his
government sending money to the terrorists operating there.

No, you lying sack of *****, the only values real patriot or
american values are those held on the left.

Ah, the Big Lie from the Left. You're all the "real patriots" because
you slime everything America ever stood for.

Provide an example of something you even stand for. What is it,
imperialist wars of aggression? Stealing from the public treasury?
What other noble things do you stand for, anyway?

Real freedom. Democracy. Standing up to our enemies instead of cringing
like cowards when they make threats.

Aid and comfort to the enemy. Propaganda support for the enemy.

But morons like yourself don't understand that "aid and comfort" is
very specifically defined as providing direct military support and
cannot, I repeat *CANNOT* simply include criticizing US military
strategy or even praising someone that the Bush administration doesn't
like.

"Aid and comfort" does include material aid in the form of propaganda.

And we don't prosecute traitors any more or Fonda and Kerry would
have been strung up long ago.

He's the lowest form of
self-serving propaganda-spewing wretch.

You've clearly confused him with Fox News.

Ah, more of that liberal moral equivalence. The only thing you ever
judge is "the right" because "the left" doesn't really give a *****
about morality or ethics.

No, the left is the only side that even understands what morality and
ethics are, while the right is utterly incapable of any kind of
significant ethical conduct.

No, the left redefines and equivocates morality and ethics to the point
where they don't mean anything except as sticks to beat anyone who
disagrees with their totalitarian plans.

I know what you mean by "liberty and economic justice" and it is the
most disgusting collection of lies and deceits ever practiced on the
human race.

You continue to vilify liberty and justice, making you an enemy of
humanity.

You prove my point.

You don't have any moral basis to complain about anything, quibbler.
You don't have any morals, period.

If that were truly the case, which it's obviously not, then repug
idiots like you and bush wouldn't be stealing air anymore.

No, quibbler, you just don't have the power to enforce your
totalitarianism.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "Sean C"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 11:29:38 PM

In article <1123815947.8ab1a1d3fb9b1f2f380223967bd2885e@teranews>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d65a85435ba3edc98989e@news.readfreenews.net:

reminding people of that. They're celebrating the fact

that we attacked the wrong people and therefore that Osama Bin Laden
is still free because Bush was too busy attacking saddam without any
kind of justification.

Concentrating all our attention on Osama would have been stupid once his
organization was nearly destroyed. We had *plenty* of justification for
attacking Saddam. I know you're not so stupid as to have forgotten that.

Exactly what justification did we have for attacking Saddam?

and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

No, there are still plenty of rogue states that support terrorism,
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being prime examples. Those two states are
also brutal muslim dictatorships which probably both harbor far more
weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

We don't have to do them all at once, quibbler, nor by the same methods,
nor with the same goals in mind.

At $200-500 billion a pop, I should hope not.

It's only gullible fools like you who believe that Bush tried to
pretend that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot.

You've got it backwards. It was dumber-than-dogshit repug thugs who
believed there was a connection, screamed it from the rooftops and
continue shrieking it to this very day, despite the fact that every
intelligent person knows their claim is a lie.

There was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. That's been proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know that as well as I do.

No it hasn't. The alleged connection was a lie, and you know it.

Both movies were fictionalized and for entertainment purposes only.
So is the dishonest propaganda coming out of the bush
administration. It's good only for a laugh and it makes you feel
dirty after watching it.

So what's your problem? Nobody's forcing you to watch it, any more
than you could force people to watch anti-American propaganda from
Michael Moore.

Criticizing the corruption and injustice, which demonstrable exists
due to repug subversion of american democracy, is a high form of
patriotism.

Only your incredible level of Orwellian doublespeak could make you or
Moore out to be patriots when all you want is to tear down American
ideals and values.

What ideals and values are those, Fred? Spell them out. Invading
countries and killing innocent people while demanding that everyone
fall into lockstep and not question any of it is not an American value.

Michael Moore is certainly more a patriot than you or the
rest of you fascist chickenshits who would attempt to censor him and
lie about his work.

Michael Moore isn't a patriot, he's a traitor. He's the lowest form of
self-serving propaganda-spewing wretch. I wouldn't censor him if I
could, for the simple reason that he's a fine example of just how
disgusting your liberal politics really is.

And you're just a trained parrot with no ethics or honor.
Sean C
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 08:17:13 AM

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
news:120820050029388541%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com:

In article <1123815947.8ab1a1d3fb9b1f2f380223967bd2885e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d65a85435ba3edc98989e@news.readfreenews.net:

reminding people of that. They're celebrating the fact

that we attacked the wrong people and therefore that Osama Bin
Laden is still free because Bush was too busy attacking saddam
without any kind of justification.

Concentrating all our attention on Osama would have been stupid once
his organization was nearly destroyed. We had *plenty* of
justification for attacking Saddam. I know you're not so stupid as to
have forgotten that.

Exactly what justification did we have for attacking Saddam?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf

and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

We don't have to do them all at once, quibbler, nor by the same
methods, nor with the same goals in mind.

At $200-500 billion a pop, I should hope not.

It's only gullible fools like you who believe that Bush tried to
pretend that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot.

There was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. That's been
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know that as well as I do.

No it hasn't. The alleged connection was a lie, and you know it.

No, it wasn't a lie.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.
asp?pg=1

So what's your problem? Nobody's forcing you to watch it, any more
than you could force people to watch anti-American propaganda from
Michael Moore.

Criticizing the corruption and injustice, which demonstrable exists
due to repug subversion of american democracy, is a high form of
patriotism.

Only your incredible level of Orwellian doublespeak could make you or
Moore out to be patriots when all you want is to tear down American
ideals and values.

Liberating countries from tyranny is an American value. Freedom and
democracy are American values.

Michael Moore is certainly more a patriot than you or the
rest of you fascist chickenshits who would attempt to censor him
and lie about his work.

Michael Moore isn't a patriot, he's a traitor. He's the lowest form
of self-serving propaganda-spewing wretch. I wouldn't censor him if I
could, for the simple reason that he's a fine example of just how
disgusting your liberal politics really is.

And you're just a trained parrot with no ethics or honor.

What would you know about ethics or honor?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "Sean C"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 06:35:12 PM

In article <1123852633.3921042786060e65e231550f115d157b@teranews>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
news:120820050029388541%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf

Can you give me the name of the file so I can find it myself on
Thomas? When I use this link, I'm just getting a broken alias.

No it hasn't. The alleged connection was a lie, and you know it.

No, it wasn't a lie.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.
asp?pg=1

This is you evidence? Some brainless screed from the Weekly Standard?
C'mon, you're joking, right?
The guy who concocted this was obviously a typical neo-con chickenhawk
with no military experience, otherwise, he wouldn't have written
something so retarded.
How do you "blow up" an embassy with a "chemical mortar?" I'm assuming
he means an actual mortar equipped with chemical rounds. Chemical
rounds are not "explosive" in the sense that they produce a large
explosion capable of levelling buildings. In fact, they produce a very
small explosion designed to disperse their chemicals into the air
undamaged, and would not likely damage a building more than
superficially. This is especially true of embassy buildings, which are
often build like fortresses and can sustaing direct hits from RPGs and
other light explosive munitions.
Secondly, the idea of attacking a building with chemical weapons fired
from a mortar is absurd, since mortars are by design an "area of
effect" weapon designed to rain shells over a wide area, and do not
have pinpoint accuracy. Thus you would have to fire a sustained barrage
of 40 rounds or more to even have a chance of hitting the building. It
is unlikely such an attack would do much damage to anyone inside the
building, as the gas would tend to disperse outside.
Thirdly, they would have to use real mortar rounds, and not some
homemade crap, to have any chance of success. Though the technology for
poison gas shells goes back to WWI, it is actually very complex
technology requiring considerable manufacturing know-how, and is not
something a terrorist could concoct in his basement. How, precisely,
was Saddam going to get a shipment of mortar rounds into Pakistan
without getting caught, when getting caught would give the US and UK
the causus belli they were clearly looking for?
Why go to all this trouble and all this risk when you can just load up
a truck with fertilizer, drive it to the front gate, and produce an
explosion powerful enough to level any building? The fact is, you
wouldn't, and the idea of a "chemical mortar" attack is absurd on its
face. This is just an attempt by some neo-con shill to somehow tie
Saddam in with both terrorists and WMDs, and a pathetic one at that.
The rest of this crap is just hearsay at best, and considering its
source, more likely pure fiction.
The fact is, even the 9-11 Commission, which was a Bush-apppointed
whitewash brigade, found no evidence of links between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda. Neither did the Republican-dominated Congress. And Bush's
decision to go to war occurred prior to any of this alleged "evidence"
being unearthed, and thus was still based on lies.

Liberating countries from tyranny is an American value. Freedom and
democracy are American values.

Then maybe we should begin practicing them in the rest of the world.
America has done more to prop-up dictators throughout the world than it
ever has to "liberate" countries. Name a country since WWII that we've
"liberated" (hint, it isn't Iraq, where 95 percent of the people don't
regard our illegal war and occupation as very liberating).

And you're just a trained parrot with no ethics or honor.

What would you know about ethics or honor?

That you have none.
Sean C
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 08:09:15 PM

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
news:120820051935120026%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com:

In article <1123852633.3921042786060e65e231550f115d157b@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
news:120820050029388541%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cg

i- bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf

Can you give me the name of the file so I can find it myself on
Thomas? When I use this link, I'm just getting a broken alias.

Try this one:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B

No it hasn't. The alleged connection was a lie, and you know it.

No, it wasn't a lie.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804y

qqnr. asp?pg=1

This is you evidence? Some brainless screed from the Weekly Standard?
C'mon, you're joking, right?

Feel free to post evidence that refutes it.

The guy who concocted this was obviously a typical neo-con chickenhawk
with no military experience, otherwise, he wouldn't have written
something so retarded.

How do you "blow up" an embassy with a "chemical mortar?" I'm assuming
he means an actual mortar equipped with chemical rounds.

Don't ask me, that's what was in the US government Summary of Evidence.

Chemical
rounds are not "explosive" in the sense that they produce a large
explosion capable of levelling buildings. In fact, they produce a very
small explosion designed to disperse their chemicals into the air
undamaged, and would not likely damage a building more than
superficially. This is especially true of embassy buildings, which are
often build like fortresses and can sustaing direct hits from RPGs and
other light explosive munitions.

Secondly, the idea of attacking a building with chemical weapons fired
from a mortar is absurd, since mortars are by design an "area of
effect" weapon designed to rain shells over a wide area, and do not
have pinpoint accuracy. Thus you would have to fire a sustained
barrage of 40 rounds or more to even have a chance of hitting the
building. It is unlikely such an attack would do much damage to anyone
inside the building, as the gas would tend to disperse outside.

Thirdly, they would have to use real mortar rounds, and not some
homemade crap, to have any chance of success. Though the technology
for poison gas shells goes back to WWI, it is actually very complex
technology requiring considerable manufacturing know-how, and is not
something a terrorist could concoct in his basement. How, precisely,
was Saddam going to get a shipment of mortar rounds into Pakistan
without getting caught, when getting caught would give the US and UK
the causus belli they were clearly looking for?

Why go to all this trouble and all this risk when you can just load up
a truck with fertilizer, drive it to the front gate, and produce an
explosion powerful enough to level any building? The fact is, you
wouldn't, and the idea of a "chemical mortar" attack is absurd on its
face. This is just an attempt by some neo-con shill to somehow tie
Saddam in with both terrorists and WMDs, and a pathetic one at that.

Why go to all the trouble to dispute what was reported by the US
interrogators at Gitmo?

The rest of this crap is just hearsay at best, and considering its
source, more likely pure fiction.

There are several citations from the Senate Intel report in there. You
haven't addressed any of them.

The fact is, even the 9-11 Commission, which was a Bush-apppointed
whitewash brigade, found no evidence of links between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda.

Wrong. They found no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11
attack. The Senate Intel committee *did* find evidence that al Qaeda was
in Iraq.

Neither did the Republican-dominated Congress. And Bush's
decision to go to war occurred prior to any of this alleged "evidence"
being unearthed, and thus was still based on lies.

Wrong.

Liberating countries from tyranny is an American value. Freedom and
democracy are American values.

Then maybe we should begin practicing them in the rest of the world.
America has done more to prop-up dictators throughout the world than
it ever has to "liberate" countries. Name a country since WWII that
we've "liberated" (hint, it isn't Iraq, where 95 percent of the people
don't regard our illegal war and occupation as very liberating).

Grenada. Panama. Honduras. Afghanistan. Oh, that's four.

And you're just a trained parrot with no ethics or honor.

What would you know about ethics or honor?

That you have none.

You're projecting again.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 08:15:39 PM

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

Then what is our support for Pakistan and Saudi for? If I was
interested in stopping terrorism I would have left Iraq along and gone
after Pakistan and Saudi. (Yes, I know the notion of "going after"
Pakistan is nonsense.)
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 08:35:39 PM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

LOL! As though the idea of "going after" Saudi Arabia weren't nonsense.
Tell us, oh strategic one, just what would you do once we were done, "going
after" them? Do you suppose that occupying Mecca and Medina would be the
way to discourage terrorists in the future? Do you think that taking the
royal family out would in some way make us safer? And do you really suppose
that leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq while we're doing whatever you think
it is we should have been doing in Saudi Arabia would reduce the risk of
terror in either the short or the long term?
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 10:06:43 PM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote

Do you suppose that occupying Mecca and Medina would
be the way to discourage terrorists in the future?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who thinks that the
Israeli occupation of the west bank has brought nothing but
peace & security these last 40 years...
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 09:28:25 PM

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:35:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <L1TKe.98746$oj4.2362029@twister.southeast.rr.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

LOL! As though the idea of "going after" Saudi Arabia weren't nonsense.

Compared to Pakistan it is not.

Tell us, oh strategic one, just what would you do once we were done, "going
after" them?

Sigh.

Do you suppose that occupying Mecca and Medina would be the
way to discourage terrorists in the future? Do you think that taking the
royal family out would in some way make us safer?

If you did not understand my point you should just have said so. I was
not suggesting that we start a war, I wondered why we did not go after
some of the major supporters of terrorism rather than a minor player.

And do you really suppose
that leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq while we're doing whatever you think
it is we should have been doing in Saudi Arabia would reduce the risk of
terror in either the short or the long term?

Yep. Iraq represented an alternative in the Arab world to radical
Islam. Eliminating Iraq has helped the radicals by significantly
weakening their competition.
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 05:08:26 AM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:9d1of19e4ove87l50kehraimt0ps9gj1ba@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:35:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <L1TKe.98746$oj4.2362029@twister.southeast.rr.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to
put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

LOL! As though the idea of "going after" Saudi Arabia weren't nonsense.

Compared to Pakistan it is not.

Tell us, oh strategic one, just what would you do once we were done,
"going
after" them?

Sigh.

Do you suppose that occupying Mecca and Medina would be the
way to discourage terrorists in the future? Do you think that taking the
royal family out would in some way make us safer?

If you did not understand my point you should just have said so.

You have taken for granted that we should all know what you meant by "going
after" them. If the phrase didn't mean regime change, then what did you
mean?

I was
not suggesting that we start a war, I wondered why we did not go after
some of the major supporters of terrorism rather than a minor player.

A term you have still to explain.

Yep. Iraq represented an alternative in the Arab world to radical
Islam. Eliminating Iraq has helped the radicals by significantly
weakening their competition.

Saddam was a supporter of radical Islam. A major partner in crime. One
which possessed the means of production, and suspected of having stocks of
WMDs. One who was known to have transferred such technologies to Al Qaeda.
We could not allow such a collaboration to continue.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 07:37:18 AM

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:08:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <uy_Ke.100157$oj4.2380972@twister.southeast.rr.com>
wrote:
[snip]

Saddam was a supporter of radical Islam.

Not particularly, no. He was making some moves towards the radicals
after he lost Gulf War I, but he was still running and promoting a
secular alternative.

A major partner in crime.

Nope.

One
which possessed the means of production,

No, he did not.

and suspected of having stocks of
WMDs. One who was known to have transferred such technologies to Al Qaeda.

No, he did not.

We could not allow such a collaboration to continue.

It was a good step when we stopped collaborating with him in his use
of WMD.
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 04:34:30 PM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gs5pf1tf1bav2lrcobhot2nl5mrc4sv4d7@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:08:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <uy_Ke.100157$oj4.2380972@twister.southeast.rr.com>
wrote:

[snip]

Saddam was a supporter of radical Islam.

Not particularly, no. He was making some moves towards the radicals
after he lost Gulf War I, but he was still running and promoting a
secular alternative.

A major partner in crime.

Nope.

One
which possessed the means of production,

No, he did not.

and suspected of having stocks of
WMDs. One who was known to have transferred such technologies to Al
Qaeda.

No, he did not.

We could not allow such a collaboration to continue.

It was a good step when we stopped collaborating with him in his use
of WMD.

Oh what a convincing response. Deny, deny, deny, but not a lick of
evidence. You've got a lot in common with Nancy Reagan. She used to just
say no as well.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 10:23:51 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9d1of19e4ove87l50kehraimt0ps9gj1ba@4ax.com:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:35:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <L1TKe.98746$oj4.2362029@twister.southeast.rr.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it)
administration policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the
Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq
to put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

LOL! As though the idea of "going after" Saudi Arabia weren't
nonsense.

Compared to Pakistan it is not.

Tell us, oh strategic one, just what would you do once we were done,
"going after" them?

Sigh.

Do you suppose that occupying Mecca and Medina would be the
way to discourage terrorists in the future? Do you think that taking
the royal family out would in some way make us safer?

The "minor player" was possible.

And do you really suppose
that leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq while we're doing whatever you
think it is we should have been doing in Saudi Arabia would reduce the
risk of terror in either the short or the long term?

Yep. Iraq represented an alternative in the Arab world to radical
Islam. Eliminating Iraq has helped the radicals by significantly
weakening their competition.

It'll significantly strengthen opposition to the whole pack of thieves
once Iraq establishes democratic rule. Maybe you missed the news about
how the radicals are *losing* support all through the mideast due to
their attacks on Muslims?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 09:18:19 PM

In episode <sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
burst into the room and exclaimed:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to support the
official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that came
to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to put an
end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

Then what is our support for Pakistan and Saudi for?

For regimes that support terrorism of course. But their *our regimes that
support terrorism and that makes *all the difference!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 09:32:56 PM

In article <po6dnZ2dnZ1xhOmpnZ2dnXGbYd-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@megapath.net>,
alt-atheism@org.webmaster says...

For regimes that support terrorism of course. But their *our regimes that
support terrorism and that makes *all the difference!

How better to terrorize the rest of the world than to pretend to declare
"war on terror" and use it as a pretext to invade any countries of one's
choice. Naturally, we feign shock and outrage when little five and ten
pound bombs go off in London, as we drop one and two-thousand pound
bombs on civilian targets in places like Iraq.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 09:52:26 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq
to put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

We don't have to "go after" every possible target at the same time, nor
by the same methods, nor with the same goals in mind. We chose to engage
the Pakistani government in order to make it possible to "go after" the
Taliban in Afghanistan. The fact that the Paks have nukes was not to be
ignored either, as you noticed.
Iraq's strategic position in the mideast puts pressure on several
terrorist-sponsoring states, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan and Iran. And it was ripe for the picking. Saddam's regime was
weak, easily defeated. That gave us the opportunity to initiate regime
change at a much lower cost in lives than taking on Saudi Arabia would.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals
to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals
to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper
that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from
the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing
to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best
for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Robert E. Lee
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	11 Aug 2005 10:28:42 PM

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:52:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123815148.001126d600e0f54de2171e7b93b4d468@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq
to put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

We don't have to "go after" every possible target at the same time,

But we gave both of them support.

nor
by the same methods, nor with the same goals in mind. We chose to engage
the Pakistani government in order to make it possible to "go after" the
Taliban in Afghanistan. The fact that the Paks have nukes was not to be
ignored either, as you noticed.

I agree. I just don't see how working with the (radicalized) military
and giving them support helps our cause at all. The sentence women to
gang rape! They put women in jail if they report that they were raped.
These are our allies!

Iraq's strategic position in the mideast puts pressure on several
terrorist-sponsoring states, including Saudi Arabia,

It helps Saudi by removing a threat and so giving them much more
freedom of action. The only pressure is that some Moslems think they
are on our side.

Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan and Iran.

How's that last one going for us? Iran is re-opening their nuclear
sites and they are now allied with the largest power block in Iraq.
Iran seems like the big winner so far.

And it was ripe for the picking. Saddam's regime was
weak, easily defeated.

I'll give you that. This is a big version of Reagan's invasion of
Grenada. When you screw up, get yourself some headlines. And there's
nothing like a war to help re-election.

That gave us the opportunity to initiate regime
change at a much lower cost in lives than taking on Saudi Arabia would.

Great regime change we are getting. Basra is what the Shiites are
going to do with the rest of the areas they can control. Women are
back in the burkah, the new Constitution is going to take away women's
rights, and Iraq is going to ally with Iran. And that is the best
outcome I can see, I see much worse possibilities down the line.
But not all is bad. We are going to have announced troop withdrawals
and just enough movement to give the Republicans cover in the 06
elections. And when Iraq becomes a radical fundamentalist country, or
falls into civil war, you can blame the liberals and maybe get the 08
as well. Shrub has really learned to fail forward.
(You know, I wonder if there was an interesting ulterior motive to the
trial balloon about letting foreign born become president. Maybe they
really want to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This is, of course, pure
rank speculation.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 06:35:06 AM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:d75of11hivtesfmstjt9d08hp8qdq2jrnd@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:52:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123815148.001126d600e0f54de2171e7b93b4d468@teranews> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:sutnf1t3peu8b43hnhbskghn07f0bd8m3r@4ax.com:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<1123807646.f0ca53937343d56400808bb649b9d8aa@teranews> wrote:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6575a39388ca2f98989d@news.readfreenews.net:

In article <1123791902.2f01bdf603c9c9e3381d6ee109c704e7@teranews>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

Heaven forbid

Heaven has nothing to do with it, Bush worshipper.

that they should do anything to encourage anybody to
support the official policy of the country.

Thanks for admitting that it's official Bu(ll)sh(it) administration
policy to lyingly conflate September 11th with the Iraq war.

It's not a lie to remind people of the real threat of terrorism that
came to us on 9/11 and the fact that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq
to put an end to rogue regimes that supported terrorists.

We don't have to "go after" every possible target at the same time,

But we gave both of them support.

Iraq's strategic position in the mideast puts pressure on several
terrorist-sponsoring states, including Saudi Arabia,

It helps Saudi by removing a threat and so giving them much more
freedom of action. The only pressure is that some Moslems think they
are on our side.

Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan and Iran.

How's that last one going for us? Iran is re-opening their nuclear
sites and they are now allied with the largest power block in Iraq.
Iran seems like the big winner so far.

And it was ripe for the picking. Saddam's regime was
weak, easily defeated.

I'll give you that. This is a big version of Reagan's invasion of
Grenada. When you screw up, get yourself some headlines. And there's
nothing like a war to help re-election.

That gave us the opportunity to initiate regime
change at a much lower cost in lives than taking on Saudi Arabia would.

I'm glad that you think so. You haven't been right about anything so far,
so I take all this as a good omen.

But not all is bad. We are going to have announced troop withdrawals
and just enough movement to give the Republicans cover in the 06
elections. And when Iraq becomes a radical fundamentalist country, or
falls into civil war, you can blame the liberals and maybe get the 08
as well. Shrub has really learned to fail forward.

Oh good, more gloom and doom predictions from the most inaccurate
prognosticator on the net.

(You know, I wonder if there was an interesting ulterior motive to the
trial balloon about letting foreign born become president. Maybe they
really want to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This is, of course, pure
rank speculation.)

I wish we could be so lucky.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Pentagon Stages Phony Rallies in Iraq and Now AMERICA!	12 Aug 2005 09:10:31 AM

In article <KP%Ke.101550$oj4.2383945@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...

I'm glad that you think so. You haven't been right about anything so far,
so I take all this as a good omen.

So I take it that you predicted that zero WMDs would be found in Iraq,
despite constant and confident predictions by Rumsfeld and others that
huge caches of WMDs would be found. Yes, I know, you're still banking
only them being hidden in Syria. Dream on, mor-on.

But not all is bad. We are going to hav