"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Donal" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message

"Donal" wrote in message


Hasn't Al Qaeda been mortally weakened by the defeat of Saddam?

Al qaeda has been weakened, but only because they've been kept busy
shoveling ignorant, uneducated dupes (suicide bombers) and money
into
Iraq
to torment the US and the new Iraqi ruling council. You might have
noticed
that they've not accomplished anything in the USA since 9/11, beyond
the
ongoing frustration and expense incurred by our gummint.

That's a very interesting point of view. You have manage to sum up,
very
succinctly, the arrogance that is generating so much hostility to the
Bush
administration.

Your post demonstrates, very clearly, that you place a much lower
value
on
the lives of innocent Iraqi people, than you do on innocent Americans.
You
seem to obtain a degree of satisfaction from the fact that your
President's
actions mean that Al Qaeda is active in Iraq.

Shame on you.

Shame on you for making this insipid leap of illogic. Only your extreme
anti-US bias could lead you to such a one-sided conclusion.

Rubbish!

Do you deny that you hate my country and everything about it? Do you deny
that when presented with possibilities regarding the USA that you'll always
accept as gospel that which denegrates her?


You sarcastically asked if al qaeda had been weakened since the fall of
Saddam. I gave reasons why the organization had been weakened,

You said, .. and I quote "Al qaeda has been weakened, but only because
they've been kept busy
shoveling ignorant, uneducated dupes (suicide bombers) and money into
Iraq".

Are you intellectually incapable of understanding that you have said that
you are pleased that Al Qaeda have been diverted into Iraq? Do you really
feel that they have been weakened?

Put words in you own mouth, Donal, and thoughts into you own distorted mind.
Do NOT put them in mine. You, it would appear, are intellectually incapable
of realizing that that was statement of fact, not of preference or pleasure.

As I stated before, al qaeda has made it abundantly clear that the USA is
its prime target, the sole thrust of its efforts. In that it has been
unable to accomplish its goal of killing innocent civilians in this country,
YES, it has been weakened. And this statement bears no pretense to
preference of this action over action in the USA. It is simply a statement
of fact. You seem to have problems discussing issues dispassionately,
doncha. But then you are so filled with hatred for my country that you
simply are unable to be anything but derogatory.

but made no
morality judgments whatsoever toward the innocents being slaughtered in
Iraq
vs. those in the US.

Yes you did.

Hogwash. Only in your decidedly myopic view.

You feel that Al Qaeda have been weakened. Yet many more
innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the WTC
incident. Is it anti-American to tell the truth?

If al qaeda's mission was to kill innocents anywhere, I'd have to agree that
they'd not been weakened. If their goal was to disrupt political and
economic processes in any old country, I'd agree. But it is not. They (bin
Laden, others) have stated unequivocally that the US is their target. Not
Iraq, not Britain, not Ireland. The USA.

Al qaeda's prime target is and has been the US and its
citizens, by its own admission repeatedly.

I think that you need to do some research, Al Qaeda's prime target is the
"West".

Hmmm? I was unaware that Iraq was included in "the west."

Beyond attacking US soldiers and
US contractors in Iraq, it has been ineffective in that regard.

You don't use aircraft, do you? Anybody who flies on commercial airlines
will be aware of the effect of Al Qaeda.

I'm well aware of the changes in airline security. How much I fly is none
of your business. But suffice it to say that these same near-draconian
measures have been taken by El Al for decades. Do you consider the
increased security as an al qaeda success? Strange logic indeed, and I've
no doubt bin Laden would strongly disagree with you.

That
translates to weakened. Now, if you'd care to discuss my feelings
toward
ANY needless victims of al qaeda, including OTHER coalition soldiers,
civilians of OTHER countries, and the innocent Iraqis you mentioned,
that's
another matter entirely.

And shame on you for attempting to place blame for terrorism on the US
or
anyone other than Islamic extremists.


Terrorism *is* terrorism. I don't make any attempt to justify the
murder
of any humans.

Did I accuse you of attempting "to justify the murder of any humans?" Your
debating skills are, um . . . arcane.

Do you?

That doesn't deserve an answer.

Max

According to the IDIOT joey, he'd rather have a president lie
to the American people, rather than garner support by telling
the truth.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Really? They're not innocent, when they were put in harms way for
no good reason? The small children, old people, and women of
Iraq weren't innocent victims? Wow, you're quite a humanitarian!
But, living in a war zone, a war started for no good reason, hey
that's just tough luck.

Max, According to the IDIOT jonathan, it would of been better to
just let Saddam kill another 250,000 + of his guilty people. Not to
mention the other 100,000 that he was nice to and only chopped off
body parts.

Joe







--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Right only approaching 1000 US solders have died and 1000s more
have been wounded. It seems to me that it's approaching 9/11.

Soldiers are not innocent civilians, Jon. Or were you having
difficulty
making that distinction?

And,
I haven't even mentioned other foreign troops or innocent Iraqies.

Other foreign troops are not innocent civilians either. As for
innocent
Iraqis, I'm betting a lot of them weren't *innocent.* As for the
truly
innocent ones, it is most unfortunate. Living in a war zone isn't
healthy
for bystanders. I grieve for any innocent civilians killed by
terrorism
or
war.

Max

Well, it's not my fault if you're too stupid to listen to facts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Joe" wrote in message

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Really? They're not innocent, when they were put in harms way for
no good reason? The small children, old people, and women of
Iraq weren't innocent victims? Wow, you're quite a humanitarian!
But, living in a war zone, a war started for no good reason, hey
that's just tough luck.

Max, According to the IDIOT jonathan, it would of been better to
just let Saddam kill another 250,000 + of his guilty people. Not to
mention the other 100,000 that he was nice to and only chopped off
body parts.

Joe

Jon is typical of the Bush-hating crowd, given to such extremely distorted
thinking that anything Bush does is more heinous than anything Saddam,
Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot might have done. Jon's irrationality, and that
of those like him, will backfire eventually. Failing to apply reason to
their arguments will ultimately cause more thoughtful, reasoned folks to
distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore and Jon.

Democrat actor Ron Silver was on O'Reilly tonight, making this same point.
Unusual for a Hollywood liberal, but finally demonstrating that
intelligent
folks do exist on the liberal side. Not all are knee-jerk
extremists--just
most of them.

Max

I think you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.
You don't seem to be able to follow simple logic.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Really? They're not innocent, when they were put in harms way for
no good reason?

If you're referring to soldiers, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'
Soldiers follow orders; good, bad or otherwise. They are NOT innocents.
Would you consider innocent the dupes who wear 30# of C-4 into a crowd and
detonate it as instructed by al qaeda operatives?

The small children, old people, and women of
Iraq weren't innocent victims?

I left my complete post (below) for you to re-read and show me where I
said
that such individuals were NOT innocent civilian victims. Please do that
now.

Wow, you're quite a humanitarian!
But, living in a war zone, a war started for no good reason, hey
that's just tough luck.

It's extremely myopic to reason that the war was started for "no good
reason." The majority of Iraqis are happy to have Saddam gone. Most wish
he were dead. That is one good reason. I can give you others, despite
the
reason for Bush's rush to war not being one of them. Don't forget that
John
Kerry voted for this war. He must have thought there was a good reason.

That said, it is still tragic when innocents are casualties in ANY war,
justified or not.

Max


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Right only approaching 1000 US solders have died and 1000s more
have been wounded. It seems to me that it's approaching 9/11.

Soldiers are not innocent civilians, Jon. Or were you having
difficulty
making that distinction?

And,
I haven't even mentioned other foreign troops or innocent Iraqies.

Other foreign troops are not innocent civilians either. As for
innocent
Iraqis, I'm betting a lot of them weren't *innocent.* As for the
truly
innocent ones, it is most unfortunate. Living in a war zone isn't
healthy
for bystanders. I grieve for any innocent civilians killed by
terrorism
or
war.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, it's not my fault if you're too stupid to listen to *facts.*

Must have been a typo, Jon, because you certainly must have meant *liberal
lies.*

Max


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Joe" wrote in message

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Really? They're not innocent, when they were put in harms way for
no good reason? The small children, old people, and women of
Iraq weren't innocent victims? Wow, you're quite a humanitarian!
But, living in a war zone, a war started for no good reason, hey
that's just tough luck.

Max, According to the IDIOT jonathan, it would of been better to
just let Saddam kill another 250,000 + of his guilty people. Not to
mention the other 100,000 that he was nice to and only chopped off
body parts.

Joe

Jon is typical of the Bush-hating crowd, given to such extremely
distorted
thinking that anything Bush does is more heinous than anything Saddam,
Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot might have done. Jon's irrationality, and
that
of those like him, will backfire eventually. Failing to apply reason to
their arguments will ultimately cause more thoughtful, reasoned folks to
distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore and Jon.

Democrat actor Ron Silver was on O'Reilly tonight, making this same
point.
Unusual for a Hollywood liberal, but finally demonstrating that
intelligent
folks do exist on the liberal side. Not all are knee-jerk
extremists--just
most of them.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I think you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.
You don't seem to be able to follow *simple* logic.

Surely you mean *simple-minded* Jon.

Max

So it's better that we kill them instead (as we've been doing)?

Max, According to the IDIOT jonathan, it would of been better to
just let Saddam kill another 250,000 + of his guilty people. Not to
mention the other 100,000 that he was nice to and only chopped off
body parts.

Joe







--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Right only approaching 1000 US solders have died and 1000s more
have been wounded. It seems to me that it's approaching 9/11.

Soldiers are not innocent civilians, Jon. Or were you having
difficulty
making that distinction?

And,
I haven't even mentioned other foreign troops or innocent Iraqies.

Other foreign troops are not innocent civilians either. As for
innocent
Iraqis, I'm betting a lot of them weren't *innocent.* As for the
truly
innocent ones, it is most unfortunate. Living in a war zone isn't
healthy
for bystanders. I grieve for any innocent civilians killed by
terrorism
or
war.

Max

That would be your typo. I don't distinguish between liars.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, it's not my fault if you're too stupid to listen to *facts.*

Must have been a typo, Jon, because you certainly must have meant *liberal
lies.*

Max


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Joe" wrote in message

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Really? They're not innocent, when they were put in harms way for
no good reason? The small children, old people, and women of
Iraq weren't innocent victims? Wow, you're quite a humanitarian!
But, living in a war zone, a war started for no good reason, hey
that's just tough luck.

Max, According to the IDIOT jonathan, it would of been better to
just let Saddam kill another 250,000 + of his guilty people. Not to
mention the other 100,000 that he was nice to and only chopped off
body parts.

Joe

Jon is typical of the Bush-hating crowd, given to such extremely
distorted
thinking that anything Bush does is more heinous than anything Saddam,
Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot might have done. Jon's irrationality, and
that
of those like him, will backfire eventually. Failing to apply reason
to
their arguments will ultimately cause more thoughtful, reasoned folks
to
distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore and Jon.

Democrat actor Ron Silver was on O'Reilly tonight, making this same
point.
Unusual for a Hollywood liberal, but finally demonstrating that
intelligent
folks do exist on the liberal side. Not all are knee-jerk
extremists--just
most of them.

Max

I don't know. Are you simple-minded?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I think you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.
You don't seem to be able to follow *simple* logic.

Surely you mean *simple-minded* Jon.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't know. Are you simple-minded?

No. But I can point toward someone who most assuredly is.

Max