Rod Speed wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!


He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11


No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the
terrorist sought -- the destruction of America -- no need for the
terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

B
bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole and
those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece of WTC I,
he would be able to actually pull off something like this. Boggles the
mind that anyone would think that.



Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers went down
but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?


Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.


Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the planning took
place before Bush, et al, took office.

Billy wrote:
In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Comics Momma WebTV wrote:

He McCain is a lefty pinko.
Did not fight in viet nam, helped and assisted the viet cong by
turning himself in and being a prisoner.

OK, Mr. brave guy. What wars did you fight in? What medals
did
you get? I think this is big talk from someone who has never
been in battle.


Real patriot would not have surrendered.

That's what the Nazi SS did. We had to kill every one of the
*******s.

Pinkos surrender. My son
comic would not have surrendered, he would hide under his bed
like
during this war.
I see somebody left the door open. Thanks for the weirdoes "Doo",
not that a fascist, zionist pig would know any better.

Billy

Look what just crawled out from under a rock!

Zionists are to Judaism, what the Klan is to Christianity. Whatever
they claim their motives are, the reality is that they are about
stealing land. With no justice in the middle east, there will be no
peace. Two wrongs don't make a right. Re-unite Palestine.

So you're saying that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt should give up their
pieces of Palestine?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Boggles the mind that anyone would think that.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers
went down but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

They did go after those who could be proven to have been involved in WTC I.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two
terms of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those
after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the terrorist sought -- the destruction of
America --

Clearly wouldnt know what the real destruction of america was if it bit it on its lard arse.

no need for the terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

How odd that they bothered with 9/11 then.

One hell of a footshot for them, thats what got them done over very
comprehensively indeed in Afghanistan and saw bin laden having to spend
his entire pathetic excuse for a 'life' down some rat hole, just like Saddam.

Its just a bit harder to find bin Laden's rat hole given that its likely in the wilds of Pakistan.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:


Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.
Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression or any
ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.


Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden
involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on
the line.
Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it
all off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund
raiser and one of the planners.



There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.
Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.
ook place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the
justification of 9/11 after that.
Stopped 9/11 part two.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.

or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone as stupid as bin laden
would have realised that the US would get its act into gear if 9/11 succeeded.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that
with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.
From the Cole (single) to the African Embassies (multiple planned
and coordinated attacks) doesn't indicate a progression. Actually it
sorta follows the classic serial killer progression.


or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.
YOU were the one that brought up the 5 attacks, making the ability
to pull off more than one thing at a time very much the same thing
entirely.


Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden
involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives'
on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it
all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.


No, they just had to pay a whole bunch of people while they were in
the US, had to pay for the flight lessons, had to get them from one
place to another. Heck no money involved in that.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.
You would be in the minority in that idea.


There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden
particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.
Like what?



Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone as stupid as bin laden
would have realised that the US would get its act into gear if 9/11
succeeded.
Well you have been sorta ignoring the other attacks on the Brits or
the ones that were broken up by the FBI here in the US.

HeyBub wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without
capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!



Yeah, there's that.

It took the FBI five years to locate Eric Rudolph, despite a high reward
being offered. As we all know, the hills and caves of North Carolina make it
difficult to track a vagabond on foot.


And you think Eric Rudolph was the same priority as Osama?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

Rod Speed wrote
snip

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.


bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.


snip

Actually, Clinton was trying to get something done about him, but
the political pressure from the Republican Congress against his efforts
was intense. Then, when Bush took over, he and his people deliberately
took the heat off, not wanting to seem in any way like Clinton.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.

From the Cole (single) to the African Embassies (multiple planned
and coordinated attacks) doesn't indicate a progression.

The words 'in that direction' were there for a reason. Thats not aircraft hijacking in the US.

Actually it sorta follows the classic serial killer progression.

No it doesnt.

or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.

YOU were the one that brought up the 5 attacks,

5 simultaneous aircraft hijackings in the US, actually.

Nothing like anything he had done before.

making the ability to pull off more than one thing at a time

Even that says nothing useful about whether he would have
attempted something like 9/11, let alone be able to pull it off.

very much the same thing entirely.

Nope, nothing like it.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.

No, they just had to pay a whole bunch of people while they were in the US,

You dont know they were paid at all.

had to pay for the flight lessons, had to get them from one place to another.

Like I said, no great funds were required and someone with the money
that bin laden has available wouldnt need to do any 'fund raising' for that.

Heck no money involved in that.

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.

You would be in the minority in that idea.

Nope, not on that last.

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.

Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone
as stupid as bin laden would have realised that the
US would get its act into gear if 9/11 succeeded.

Well you have been sorta ignoring the other attacks on the Brits

Nope, I explicitly excluded those in my original,
which you carefully deleted from the quoting.

AND you dont know that bin laden was involved in those anyway.

or the ones that were broken up by the FBI here in the US.

Nope, I explicitly excluded those in my original,
which you carefully deleted from the quoting.

Rod Speed wrote:

snip
No one cares much about the debt except a few rabid loons.

snip

.... just like everybody was happy with the subprime market except "a few
rabid loons."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:


And you think Eric Rudolph was the same priority as Osama?

Probably to the FBI he was higher. They don't do that much work
in the hills of Pakistan.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.
You mean like Bush?

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we
leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.
But NATO doesn't want to play any more and attacks are on the rise.
Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...1jan31,1,66067
33.story
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article , CJT
wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

snip
No one cares much about the debt except a few rabid loons.

snip

... just like everybody was happy with the subprime market except "a few
rabid loons."

At the time. Yeah. Congress and the White House and the Fed were all
touting subprime as a way to get more people into houses and help people
who might not otherwise acheive the American Dream. Of course the rabid
loons were eventually proved right (just like the naysayers of the Tech
Bubble, the GoGo 60s, and probably the Tulip Bubble in 1593.
I knew we were going to have trouble when the Rocket Scientists
started telling us that The Subprime Was Different from all the other
bubbles. Generally that is when you start heading for the doors (g).