This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C44CE2.D959FE10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Prosecutors are struggling to build a case against Saddam Hussein =
because they lack both witnesses and evidence to prove the ousted Iraqi =
dictator is guilty of atrocities, according to a British official quoted =
by The Times on Monday.
Although the US-led coalition has caught 40 of the 55 people on its list =
of "most-wanted" Iraqis linked to Saddam's former regime, none of them =
will testify for the prosecution, the unnamed official said.
"It's the fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the =
other detainees know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's =
evidence', revenge would be taken against members of their families".
The newspaper's source also said the Iraqi dictator, ousted by the US =
and British invasion in March 2003, had hidden any written proof of his =
direct responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Saddam was very clever at power-laundering, which meant that decisions =
were filtered down to junior levels, making it difficult to prove a =
direct line of responsibility", the source said.
Saddam has been in US custody in an undisclosed location since his =
capture on December 13, and is due to be tried along other members of =
his ousted regime by a special Iraqi tribunal.
He is likely to be tried for the persecution of the Shiite Marsh Arabs =
in southern Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as for alleged war =
crimes against Kuwait.
Iran is also believed to be preparing a formal complaint against him for =
the torture of Iranian prisoners captured during the 1980-1988 war.
A 20-member defense team appointed by Saddam's family has complained =
about not being able to meet its client and accused the US authorities =
of holding him in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C44CE2.D959FE10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D3>Prosecutors=20
are struggling to build a case against Saddam Hussein because they lack =
both=20
witnesses and evidence to prove the ousted Iraqi dictator is guilty of=20
atrocities, according to a British official quoted by The Times on=20
Monday.<BR><BR>Although the US-led coalition has caught 40 of the 55 =
people on=20
its list of "most-wanted" Iraqis linked to Saddam's former regime, none =
of them=20
will testify for the prosecution, the unnamed official =
said.<BR><BR>"It's the=20
fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the other =
detainees=20
know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's evidence', =
revenge would=20
be taken against members of their families".<BR><BR>The newspaper's =
source also=20
said the Iraqi dictator, ousted by the US and British invasion in March =
2003,=20
had hidden any written proof of his direct responsibility for war crimes =
and=20
crimes against humanity.<BR><BR>"Saddam was very clever at =
power-laundering,=20
which meant that decisions were filtered down to junior levels, making =
it=20
difficult to prove a direct line of responsibility", the source=20
said.<BR><BR>Saddam has been in US custody in an undisclosed location =
since his=20
capture on December 13, and is due to be tried along other members of =
his ousted=20
regime by a special Iraqi tribunal.<BR><BR>He is likely to be tried for =
the=20
persecution of the Shiite Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq in the 1980s and =
1990s,=20
as well as for alleged war crimes against Kuwait.<BR><BR>Iran is also =
believed=20
to be preparing a formal complaint against him for the torture of =
Iranian=20
prisoners captured during the 1980-1988 war.<BR><BR>A 20-member defense =
team=20
appointed by Saddam's family has complained about not being able to meet =
its=20
client and accused the US authorities of holding him in breach of the =
Geneva=20
Conventions.</FONT></STRONG><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C44CE2.D959FE10--
.
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 05:26:06 PM |
|
|
"dreamwalker" <backfromthe@dead.net> wrote in message news:<673e0$40c53942$407628b7$13040@powerweb.allthenewsgroups.com>...
Prosecutors are struggling to build a case against Saddam Hussein
because they lack both witnesses and evidence to prove the ousted Iraqi
dictator is guilty of atrocities, according to a British official quoted
by The Times on Monday.
Although the US-led coalition has caught 40 of the 55 people on its list
of "most-wanted" Iraqis linked to Saddam's former regime, none of them
will testify for the prosecution, the unnamed official said.
SNIP>
A 20-member defense team appointed by Saddam's family has complained
about not being able to meet its client and accused the US authorities
of holding him in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Oh the unprepared are usually caught short, however Saddam should have
residence in Hotel Hague.
But then again how are they going to convene a court in Sovereign
Iraq?
Saddie has destroyed the evidence, and is in relative safety for the
moment.
But he is finished.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 11:17:40 AM |
|
|
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Saddam should have
residence in Hotel Hague.
But then again how are they going to convene a court in Sovereign
Iraq?
Saddie has destroyed the evidence, and is in relative safety for the
moment.
But he is finished.
LB
Yeah, he'll be found not guilty and then be free, yet you claims that "he is
finished".
Come again?
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 05:30:55 AM |
|
|
"dreamwalker"
wrote:
"It's the fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the =
other detainees know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's =
evidence', revenge would be taken >against members of their families".
Which means that soon Saddam will be free.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "ex" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 05:45:26 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608063055.27551.00000703@mb-m05.aol.com...
"dreamwalker"
wrote:
"It's the fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the =
other detainees know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's =
evidence', revenge would be taken >against members of their families".
Which means that soon Saddam will be free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Figures, you and your terrorist *****-licking scumbags never fail to surprise
me.
-ex
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 11:17:20 AM |
|
|
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message news:<cNgxc.18849$8k4.456821@news20.bellglobal.com>...
================================================================================
I never did understand that cliche...'The smoking gun'.
I always thought guns 'smoked' after having been fired, rather than before.
Who made that one up anyway? ;)
Ricky
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 05:35:04 AM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <RickyColeclough@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85ebfda0.0406080817.1c7b4209@posting.google.com...
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:<cNgxc.18849$8k4.456821@news20.bellglobal.com>...
============================================================================
====
I never did understand that cliche...'The smoking gun'.
I always thought guns 'smoked' after having been fired, rather than
before.
Who made that one up anyway? ;)
Conan Doyle apparently! First used in current context by Barber Conable
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordors.htm
Fascinating, wot?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 12:02:04 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<ca6p0d$o8d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
Conan Doyle apparently! First used in current context by Barber Conable
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordors.htm
Fascinating, wot?
================================================================================
Oh my and gosh TW! Thanks ;)
The imagery of the cliche is strong, so I thought it's current use to
be literal, rather than along a metaphorical line. That's why it
didn't make sense as currently applied to mass destruction weapons.
Ah ha... They still appear...The 'Nixon tapes' that is! I suppose
Conable was being accurate at the time, in that 'the deed was done'
and the tape proved the matter.
TW, I bow to you.... Thanks ;) (good site too)
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
10 Jun 2004 04:41:46 AM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <RickyColeclough@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85ebfda0.0406090902.305ca82@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<ca6p0d$o8d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
Conan Doyle apparently! First used in current context by Barber Conable
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordors.htm
Fascinating, wot?
============================================================================
====
Oh my and gosh TW! Thanks ;)
The imagery of the cliche is strong, so I thought it's current use to
be literal, rather than along a metaphorical line. That's why it
didn't make sense as currently applied to mass destruction weapons.
Ah ha... They still appear...The 'Nixon tapes' that is!
I suppose
Conable was being accurate at the time, in that 'the deed was done'
and the tape proved the matter.
TW, I bow to you.... Thanks ;) (good site too)
It's fun isn't it? Doesn't explain the etymological roots of "too small to
swing a cat" though ;-)
(please note smiley!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
10 Jun 2004 07:04:27 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<ca9a8f$ev$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
It's fun isn't it? Doesn't explain the etymological roots of "too small to
swing a cat" though ;-)
(please note smiley!)
================================================================================
Heya again TW. I always thought the expression was a naval one, the
'cat' being the cat o' nine tails.
I've looked about and found someone who wrote the following:-
"No room to swing a cat may come from Mark Twain. I remember him
describing a room as being too small to swing a cat in. Possibly in
Innocents Abroad.
: Here's what I found out about the origin:
: If there's not enough room to swing a cat then space is very tight;
the room is very tiny. The cat in this instance is said not to be of
the ***** variety but, rather, o'nine tails type. The nine thronged
whip was used as punishment at sea. Because space was at a premium
below decks there was not enough room to wield the whip; in
consequence the whipping always took place on deck.
: Evidence against the above origin comes from the fact that the
expression was in use in the 1500s and the cat o'nine tails was not
invented until the mid 1600s. Thus it may be that the saying truly
involves felines, since there used to be a "sport" of swinging cats by
their tails as targets for archers."
So, in view of the information concerning the archery practice, we
still can't be certain!
Poor cats!
Ricky
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 08:43:39 PM |
|
|
Oh my and gosh TW! Thanks ;)
Where Goofy, I hope ya didn't think the word ' gun' was ancient Greek
or Egyptian when you asked. Then I would be worried.
TW, I bow to you.... Thanks ;) (good site too)
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 06:34:07 PM |
|
|
In article <85ebfda0.0406080817.1c7b4209@posting.google.com>, (Werewolfy) wrote:
"ex" <ex@ex.com> wrote in message
news:<cNgxc.18849$8k4.456821@news20.bellglobal.com>...
===============================================================================
=
I never did understand that cliche...'The smoking gun'.
I always thought guns 'smoked' after having been fired, rather than before.
Who made that one up anyway? ;)
Yes, 'the smoking gun' is evidence that it's the gun that was just fired - the
murder weapon, which is a key piece of evidence in any murder trial.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 03:56:40 AM |
|
|
(Woodswun) wrote in message news:<P1sxc.319156$M3.90007@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Yes, 'the smoking gun' is evidence that it's the gun that was just fired - the
murder weapon, which is a key piece of evidence in any murder trial.
Woods
================================================================================
Ummmm..Yes Woods. I think I had realised that.
My point was that the cliche is used a great deal to emphasise a
future event, a possibility of 'being fired'.
That's why the cliche seems so odd. I would have thought that maybe,
'a loaded gun' would have been more accurate...if one must use
cliches.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
13 Jun 2004 08:26:47 AM |
|
|
(Werewolfy) Spat the Words
woodswun@tepidmail.com (Woodswun) wrote in message
news:<P1sxc.319156$M3.90007@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
Yes, 'the smoking gun' is evidence that it's the gun that was just
fired - the murder weapon, which is a key piece of evidence in any
murder trial.
Woods
=======================================================================
=========
Ummmm..Yes Woods. I think I had realised that.
My point was that the cliche is used a great deal to emphasise a
future event, a possibility of 'being fired'.
That's why the cliche seems so odd. I would have thought that maybe,
'a loaded gun' would have been more accurate...if one must use
cliches.
Werewolfy
'Smoking Gun' has become somewhat synonymous with 'certain evidence'
or 'proof beyond any doubt'. As such I suppose you could use the
phrase to refer to a future event which hasn't happened.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 11:25:55 AM |
|
|
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying to
implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones who said this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. Bush.
They are so Anti-American that they can only see an American as the Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is astounding, yet they continue on.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 06:19:08 PM |
|
|
In article <20040609122555.16194.00000842@mb-m15.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying to
implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones who said this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!? And who said Bush, Sr. was the anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that - I'm sure I'd
recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they can only see an American as the Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is astounding, yet they continue on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance when they see it.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
10 Jun 2004 08:47:20 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying to
implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones who said
this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. >>Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!?
Brain freeze, it was supposed to be Ronald Reagan.
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that - I'm sure
I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as the
Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they continue on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get taken in by
one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating President Bush.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
13 Jun 2004 08:39:49 AM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying
to implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones
who said
this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. >>Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!?
Brain freeze, it was supposed to be Ronald Reagan.
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that -
I'm sure I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as the
Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they continue
on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get
taken in by one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American
President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating President
Bush.
Not really implicating. If he is the A-Christ, he'll implicate
himself (then we're all in for it). I've just noticed parallels
with descriptions of the antichrist. The A-Christ is described
as 'a man without law' or 'a lawless man'. Bush appears to be
violating laws at his own descretion, whenever he chooses, and
he justifies it by saying he has a higher purpose (namely, the
security of the US). I'm all for security but if we let Bush
continue on this path we risk not only losing all credibility
in the world but we risk having the US becoming a totalitarian
state controlled by (who else) Sovereign Bush.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
13 Jun 2004 10:54:20 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns95074DF534D26rrfkwrantispamattbic@204.127.204.17>, "R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying
to implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones
who said
this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. >>Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!?
Brain freeze, it was supposed to be Ronald Reagan.
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that -
I'm sure I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as the
Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they continue
on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get
taken in by one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American
President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating President
Bush.
Not really implicating. If he is the A-Christ, he'll implicate
himself (then we're all in for it). I've just noticed parallels
with descriptions of the antichrist. The A-Christ is described
as 'a man without law' or 'a lawless man'. Bush appears to be
violating laws at his own descretion, whenever he chooses, and
he justifies it by saying he has a higher purpose (namely, the
security of the US). I'm all for security but if we let Bush
continue on this path we risk not only losing all credibility
in the world but we risk having the US becoming a totalitarian
state controlled by (who else) Sovereign Bush.
See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/08/hilden.torture/index.html
and http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/bush.torture/index.html
These two articles, and there are others that are similar to the above, could be
read in such a manner as to indicate that Bush himself authorized the actions in
Abu Graib, but that they are not (in his mind) "illegal".
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
13 Jun 2004 04:26:03 PM |
|
|
(Woodswun) Spat the Words
In article <Xns95074DF534D26rrfkwrantispamattbic@204.127.204.17>, "R.
Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now
trying to implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very
same ones who said
this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. >>Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!?
Brain freeze, it was supposed to be Ronald Reagan.
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that -
I'm sure I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as
the Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they
continue on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get
taken in by one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American
President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating
President Bush.
Not really implicating. If he is the A-Christ, he'll implicate
himself (then we're all in for it). I've just noticed parallels
with descriptions of the antichrist. The A-Christ is described
as 'a man without law' or 'a lawless man'. Bush appears to be
violating laws at his own descretion, whenever he chooses, and
he justifies it by saying he has a higher purpose (namely, the
security of the US). I'm all for security but if we let Bush
continue on this path we risk not only losing all credibility
in the world but we risk having the US becoming a totalitarian
state controlled by (who else) Sovereign Bush.
See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/08/hilden.torture/index.html
and http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/bush.torture/index.html
These two articles, and there are others that are similar to the
above, could be read in such a manner as to indicate that Bush himself
authorized the actions in Abu Graib, but that they are not (in his
mind) "illegal".
Also note Bush's loose application of the word 'terrorist' when
referring to the Iraqi insurgents. This in itself should have
some (legal?) implications as it's another form of lying to the
American people.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
10 Jun 2004 06:16:04 PM |
|
|
In article <20040610094720.07875.00000887@mb-m06.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Just a heads up to any newbies here, these people that are now trying to
implicate President Bush as the Antichrist are the very same ones who said
this
about Ronald Read and George H. W. >>Bush.
Who the devil is Ronald Read?!?
Brain freeze, it was supposed to be Ronald Reagan.
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that - I'm sure
I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as the
Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they continue on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get taken in by
one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating President Bush.
Well, he's definitely a contender.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
12 Jun 2004 02:07:28 PM |
|
|
(Woodswun) wrote in message news:<UY5yc.328027$M3.124006@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
In article <20040610094720.07875.00000887@mb-m06.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
wrote:
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
snip
And who said Bush, Sr. was the >anti-Christ (or
the Read character)? Please provide a quote from google for that - I'm sure
I'd recall the Bush, Sr. one.
They are so Anti-American that they >>can only see an American as the
Antichrist.
Their ignorance of the prophecies is >>astounding, yet they continue on.
I think most newbies can tell ignorance >when they see it.
Uh, if they're newbies and don't know the prophecies they might get taken in by
one of you Clowns that wants to implicate and American President.
And don't play dumb, a few of you are currently implicating President Bush.
Well, he's definitely a contender.
Woods
Hehehe......bush sr. may not be the antichrist but barbara bush wore
white to reagan's funeral. (didn't nosty say something about this) ;)
of course, she has never been accused of being "fashionable"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 08:45:46 AM |
|
|
"ex"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040608063055.27551.00000703@mb-m05.aol.com...
"dreamwalker"
wrote:
"It's the fear factor," he explained. "Saddam may be in custody but the =
other detainees know from past experience that if they turned 'Queen's =
evidence', revenge would be taken >against members of their families".
Which means that soon Saddam will >>be free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be >free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Nope, but when you know something is going to happen, it's good to let it be
known.
Figures, you and your terrorist *****-licking >scumbags never fail to surprise
me.
-ex
LOL!!! Don't turn your Terrorist supporting on me, Moron.
You;re the one who roots against US forces in their battle against Terrorism.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "KJ Ayau" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 09:28:15 AM |
|
|
Which means that soon Saddam will be free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
No, he wants Saddam to be free so that he can go back to Iraq, return to power,
and become the Antichrist, which has been Tony's song all along. The
Antichrist lives closer to home, I fear. Rev 13:4: "Men worshipped the
dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the
beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?"
Bush's announced strategic policy is to make it impossible for anyone to
challenge the U.S. militarily. In essence, he wants the rest of the world to
look at us and say, "Who is like the U.S., and who can fight against it?"
What do you think about that, Tony?
.
|
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 09:46:28 AM |
|
|
"KJ Ayau" <kjayau@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040608102815.15285.00000336@mb-m26.aol.com...
Which means that soon Saddam will be free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
No, he wants Saddam to be free so that he can go back to Iraq, return to power,
and become the Antichrist, which has been Tony's song all along. The
Antichrist lives closer to home, I fear. Rev 13:4: "Men worshipped the
dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the
beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?"
Bush's announced strategic policy is to make it impossible for anyone to
challenge the U.S. militarily. In essence, he wants the rest of the world to
look at us and say, "Who is like the U.S., and who can fight against it?"
What do you think about that, Tony?
Hogwash.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 02:46:16 PM |
|
|
(KJ Ayau) wrote in message news:<20040608102815.15285.00000336@mb-m26.aol.com>...
Which means that soon Saddam will be free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
No, he wants Saddam to be free so that he can go back to Iraq, return to power,
and become the Antichrist, which has been Tony's song all along.
Intimate knowledge of this groups past.
That is what I thought. ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 09:42:01 AM |
|
|
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau)
wrote:
Which means that soon Saddam will be >>free.
You sound anxious for Saddam to be >>free. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
No, he wants Saddam to be free so that >he can go back to Iraq, return to
power, and become the Antichrist, which >has been Tony's song all along.
Wants and knows are two very different things. It's like knowing a storm is
coming, doesn't mean you want it to.
The Antichrist lives closer to home, I fear.
Another anti-Bush clown who knows nothing of the prophecies.
Rev 13:4: "Men worshipped the
dragon, for he had given his authority to >the beast, and they worshipped the
beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, >and who can fight against it?"
Exactly, after 2 major wars against him, and if he regains power, that is
exactly what the world will be saying. Muslims will stream to him as being
unbeatable.
Anyone who has studied the region knows that in and around Iraq there are many
who already believe that Saddam is somehow in league with supernatural powers,
which is one reason that they fear him so much.
Bush's announced strategic policy is to >make it impossible for anyone to
challenge the U.S. militarily. In essence, >he wants the rest of the world to
look at us and say, "Who is like the >U.S., and who can fight against it?"
Obviously many are fighting against us.
What do you think about that, Tony?
I think you are clueless in regards to what the prophecies say about the
Antichrist.
Hey, are you that nut down in Florida who had the huge "Bush is the
Anti-Christ" sign on his house, which has been taken down and he is suing to
get it put back up?
LOL!!!
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "KJ Ayau" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
08 Jun 2004 11:54:39 AM |
|
|
Hey, are you that nut down in Florida who had the huge "Bush is the
Anti-Christ" sign on his house, which has been taken down and he is suing to
get it put back up?
LOL!!!
Tony
No, I don't live in a state where elections are stolen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
09 Jun 2004 11:23:33 AM |
|
|
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau)
wrote:
Hey, are you that nut down in Florida who had the huge "Bush is the
Anti-Christ" sign on his house, which has been taken down and he is suing to
get it put back up?
LOL!!!
Tony
No, I don't live in a state where elections >are stolen.
What are you talking about? Gore was stopped from stealing the election, his
people wanted to allow people that had already voted the chance to go in and
vote again.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
13 Jun 2004 08:12:16 AM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau)
wrote:
Hey, are you that nut down in Florida who had the huge "Bush is the
Anti-Christ" sign on his house, which has been taken down and he is
suing to get it put back up?
LOL!!!
Tony
No, I don't live in a state where elections >are stolen.
What are you talking about? Gore was stopped from stealing the
election, his people wanted to allow people that had already voted the
chance to go in and vote again.
It was Republican agitators who caused such a ruccus during the
ballot recount that they were unable to complete their recounting
of the ballots. Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by the
Supreme Court.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam trial lacks 'smoking gun' evidence, |
15 Jun 2004 06:45:57 AM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" >eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau)
wrote:
Hey, are you that nut down in Florida who had the huge "Bush is the
Anti-Christ" sign on his house, which has been taken down and he is
suing to get it put back up?
LOL!!!
Tony
No, I don't live in a state where elections >are stolen.
What are you talking about? Gore was stopped from stealing the
election, his people wanted to allow people that had already voted the
chance to go in and vote again.
It was Republican agitators who caused such a ruccus during the
ballot recount that they were unable to complete their recounting
of the ballots. Bush wasn't elected, he >was appointed by the Supreme Court.
Wrong.
The Ballots were counted several times by various organizations, and every
single time George Bush came out the winner.
The Dem Party was trying every which way to steal that election, thankfully
their efforts were thwarted.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
