Plotting 911
 

Ossama and his dirtbags are bragging on Al jezzera TV today! They are
showing how he planned and pulled off the murder of 3000 citizens going
to work. How to hide a knife on an airplane. Is it a recruting effort
or warning? Included in Ossama TV message is the twin towers falling,
damn he's pround of murdering infedels like us. He's laughing at the
stupid ****ers to gentlemanly to stop what he did. He's spitting in
your face.

I'm sure glad we are not seeing re-runs on Al jezeera TV about the
attacks in LA.

Some people would rather see dead Americans more than dirtbags murders
getting treated in an un-gentle way.

Losers!

Joe

Plotting 911
 

OzOne wrote:
On 9 Sep 2006 15:11:46 -0700, "Joe"
scribbled thusly:

Ossama and his dirtbags are bragging on Al jezzera TV today!

He's
the guy Bush was chasing in Afghanistan.....



Do tell!

He's the same guy jacking off on the douchbags sucking up to his
"tortured" boy's now in Gitmo.

Joe


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Plotting 911
 

In article . com,
Joe wrote:
Ossama and his dirtbags are bragging on Al jezzera TV today! They are
showing how he planned and pulled off the murder of 3000 citizens going
to work. How to hide a knife on an airplane. Is it a recruting effort
or warning? Included in Ossama TV message is the twin towers falling,
damn he's pround of murdering infedels like us. He's laughing at the
stupid ****ers to gentlemanly to stop what he did. He's spitting in
your face.

I'm sure glad we are not seeing re-runs on Al jezeera TV about the
attacks in LA.

Some people would rather see dead Americans more than dirtbags murders
getting treated in an un-gentle way.

Like Bushco who is doing nothing about him and his followers. He's
hiding in Pakistan (our supposed friend) and they have an agreement
not to fight each other.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Plotting 911
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article . com,
Joe wrote:
Ossama and his dirtbags are bragging on Al jezzera TV today! They are
showing how he planned and pulled off the murder of 3000 citizens going
to work. How to hide a knife on an airplane. Is it a recruting effort
or warning? Included in Ossama TV message is the twin towers falling,
damn he's pround of murdering infedels like us. He's laughing at the
stupid ****ers to gentlemanly to stop what he did. He's spitting in
your face.

I'm sure glad we are not seeing re-runs on Al jezeera TV about the
attacks in LA.

Some people would rather see dead Americans more than dirtbags murders
getting treated in an un-gentle way.

Like Bushco who is doing nothing about him and his followers. He's
hiding in Pakistan (our supposed friend) and they have an agreement
not to fight each other.



Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan. Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.

Joe


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Plotting 911
 

Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan. Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,




Joe, Bin Laden is quite ill and carting around hundreds of lbs of
medical gear, or it must be waiting for him wherever he goes. He hasn't
been caught because there are enough high powered Americans who did
business with his family, Bush among them. It's all documented and has
been released to the public.
We're fighting a war for nothing of course and the majority of our
efforts, and the lives of children on both sides, continue to be
wasted. Our own soldiers are STILL scavenging for gear and armour. Last
week the senate panel stated that Bush falsley connected the 9/11
attacks and terrorism with Iraq to justify the war. Tony Snow's
response: That's the past, we need to focus on tomorrow."
In other words, Bush isn't guilty of anything because all of his
murderous activities are in the past.
Oh.


RB
35s5
NY

Plotting 911
 

Joe wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan.

Really? That's a big surprise to the Pentagon, and it would
certainly be very offensive to our friends the Pakistanis.

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.


.... Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.


Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.

When Islamic fundamentalist crazies take over Pakistan and
get control over the Pakistani nuclear (or "noo kyew lurr"
if you prefer) weapons, that will be Clinton's fault too.

DSK

Plotting 911
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan. Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,




Joe, Bin Laden is quite ill and carting around hundreds of lbs of
medical gear, or it must be waiting for him wherever he goes. He hasn't
been caught because there are enough high powered Americans who did
business with his family, Bush among them. It's all documented and has
been released to the public.



Don't believe everything that Saudi intelligence says. That's where the

dialysis rumor comes from originally. I guess Osama's kidneys are the
only
thing that Michael Moore trusts the Saudis to tell the truth about,
since
it serves Moore's argument that Osama should be easy to find. If
they're
telling the truth, captured witnesses who've seen Osama most recently
say
he doesn't have kidney disease.

------------------
Osama's Doc Says He Was Healthy
LAHORE, Pakistan, Nov. 27, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in531070.shtml


(AP) A Pakistani doctor said Wednesday he saw Osama bin Laden a year
ago
and the al Qaeda leader was in good shape at the time.


"When I saw him last he was in excellent health," Dr. Amer Aziz told
The
Associated Press. "He was walking. He was healthy."


Aziz was recently released after being held for one month and
questioned by
U.S. security officials said.


Aziz, a British-trained orthopedic surgeon, said he was summoned to a
meeting in November 2001 in Kabul, the Afghan capital. He was asked to
treat top al Qaeda leader Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden and his deputy,
Ayman al-
Zawahiri, were present. Atef, an Egyptian and the al Qaeda military
chief,
was killed shortly afterward in a U.S. airstrike.


Aziz said bin Laden showed no signs of the kidney failure that he is
widely
reported to suffer from.


"I didn't see any evidence of kidney disease. I didn't see any evidence
of
dialysis," he said.


Aziz said it was the second time he met bin Laden. The first time was
in
1999 when Aziz said he treated the al Qaeda leader after he hurt his
back
falling off a horse in southern Afghanistan. Bin Laden was in good
health
at both meetings, he said.


Aziz was recently released without official explanation after being
held
incommunicado and interrogated for a month by FBI and CIA agents. He
spoke
to the AP at his clinic in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore.


He admitted that he had treated al Qaeda and Taliban members but said
he
knew nothing of the terrorist group's plans and rejected allegations he

helped the organization in its efforts to obtain weapons of mass
destruction.


Reports of bin Laden's poor health, and his deteriorating appearance in

video tapes released shortly after U.S. bombing began in Afghanistan at
the
end of 2001, fueled speculation that he might have died. But
intelligence
officials now say an audiotape released last month was recorded
recently
and was the voice of the al Qaeda leader.


At the time of the last meeting with bin Laden, Aziz was working in a
surgical unit at the University of Jalalabad, near the border with
Pakistan.


Aziz said his American interrogators grilled him on bin Laden's health,

asked him for the names of those he treated, and accused him of helping
al
Qaeda obtain weapons of mass destruction. He denied the allegations.


------------------
Osama hiding in a Pakistani city or in Azad Kashmir, says expert
By Khalid Hasan
September 5, 2004
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-9-2004_pg7_17


Only three people outside Al Qaeda and the Taliban are known to have
spent
any time with bin Laden after9/11. Two are journalists, one a
Pakistani,
the other a Palestinian, while the third one is a doctor. He quotes Dr
Amer
Aziz, a Pakistani surgeon, as saying, "When I saw him (bin Laden) last,
he
was in excellent health. He was walking. He was healthy. I didn't see
any
evidence of kidney disease. I didn't see any evidence of dialysis."


Another Pakistani, a former ISI officer by the name of Khalid Khawaja
told
Bergen that he had received reliable reports since /11 that bin Laden
was "riding horses"-a further indication that he isn't suffering from a

serious illness. According to several US officials who track Al Qaeda,
bin
Laden's medical condition is not life threatening. There are, however,
credible reports, including one by Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari
Atwan,
that bin Laden suffered a shoulder injury at Tora Bora. When Tora Bora
was
attacked by US forces, bin Laden was there and, according to one
source,
escaped. This source said that there were three routes out of Tora
Bora.
The young and the energetic took the difficult, snow-covered passes
south
toward Parachinar. Others took the road to the southeastern Afghan city
of
Gardez. Older fighters headed east into Pakistan. According to him, bin

Laden took the Parachinar route, aided by members of the Pashtun
Ghilzai
tribe, who were paid handsomely for their efforts.


Bergen writes, "And so was lost the last, best chance to capture Al
Qaeda's
leader, at a time when he was cornered to an area of several dozen
square
miles. Bin Laden may now be somewhere in Pakistan's North West Frontier

Province-and if so, the area involved is approximately 40,000 square
miles,
a largely mountainous tract the size of Virginia.

Joe

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan.

Really? That's a big surprise to the Pentagon, and it would
certainly be very offensive to our friends the Pakistanis.

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.

Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


.... Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.


Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.

I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.

When Islamic fundamentalist crazies take over Pakistan and
get control over the Pakistani nuclear (or "noo kyew lurr"
if you prefer) weapons, that will be Clinton's fault too.

Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance? Or did
they worry about the legal issued involved, and focus on the blowjob
defence?

Joe

DSK

Plotting 911
 

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.


Joe wrote:
Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


I guess you know more about it than the the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Maybe you're the secret negotiator with our allies
that gets these things approved so that neither President
Bush nor President Musharaff know anything about it, either.




Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.


I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.


Yeah right. With a little help and faked tests, the missile
defence program can knock out 50% of test missiles and of
course will also keep us safe from exactly 0% of suitcase bombs.

Lucky for us that President Bush has made the U.S. borders
so tight that nobody can get in illegally... and our port
security is so well funded, well equipped, and well trained,
that not even fishies can swim into our harbors!





Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance?

Of course not. Osama Bin Laden had done nothing to warrant
it at the time. He was innocent.

Killing & torturing innocent people to "keep America safe"
had to wait until President Bush came along.

Clinton should have had a time machine so he could know for
sure that OBL would one day be guilty of the most horrible
crime against America ever committed, and that the future
President Bush would fail to catch him. Maybe developing a
time machine is one of President Bush's top priorities, and
that's why he has pushed science research & education
funding to the top levels ever in history.

DSK

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.


Joe wrote:
Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


I guess you know more about it than the the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Maybe you're the secret negotiator with our allies
that gets these things approved so that neither President
Bush nor President Musharaff know anything about it, either.

Simple logic.




Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.


I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.


Yeah right. With a little help and faked tests,

Faked test! Wow, but if a dem was in office then they be real right?
Bwahahahahah

the missile
defence program can knock out 50% of test missiles and of
course will also keep us safe from exactly 0% of suitcase bombs.


Lucky for us that President Bush has made the U.S. borders
so tight that nobody can get in illegally... and our port
security is so well funded, well equipped, and well trained,
that not even fishies can swim into our harbors!


Yeah it's all bushes fault.




Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance?

Of course not. Osama Bin Laden had done nothing to warrant
it at the time. He was innocent.

Besides funding mass murder, the attack of the USS Cole, we had the
intell and failed to act....



Killing & torturing innocent people to "keep America safe"
had to wait until President Bush came along.


What & Who innocent people were tortured?
Name one.


Clinton should have had a time machine so he could know for
sure that OBL would one day be guilty of the most horrible
crime against America ever committed,

It's sad to see you think so little of the people that saw and knew
what was going on.
The people who tried to prevent 911 and were over look by both Clitoon
and Bush, most likely because of the miles and miles of Libber rural
red tape.

Not some Pie in the sky, head in the ground, Libbey rural hicks version
of reality.


and that the future
President Bush would fail to catch him. Maybe developing a
time machine is one of President Bush's top priorities, and
that's why he has pushed science research & education
funding to the top levels ever in history.


Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.

Joe


DSK

Plotting 911
 

Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.

I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?


Joe wrote:
You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?


Don't know. It would be hard to do worse.

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Undoubtedly. For one thing, if Senator Kerry were President
he would not regard the war in Iraq as a just a convenient
means of funneling money to his cronies. I also doubt he
would twiddle his thumbs and blame Clinton for Iran's nukes,
North Korea's nukes, totally disregard the Pentagon's advice
about how much troop strength is needed & where, etc etc.



Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.


Ya think so?


Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?

No.
We need to actually *fight* the terrorists, and what's more
we need to stop their recruiting/training pipeline that is
ramping up every day.

I would say that brains beat brawn, we are supposed to be
the hi-tech super-capable modern force, not the dumbo-macho
grab-a-big-hammer guys.




Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?


We have many enemies and they have many different goals.
Fortunately the terrorists are disorganized and illogical,
but we are not using that to our advantage other than just
by luck.



Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?


Those who attack regular military forces are not terrorists,
by definition.

This is the first place to get a little smarter:
Know your enemy... and I'd take the next step of actually
fighting the enemy, not merely killing large numbers of
random guys who look like they might be the enemy. Or if
that turns out to be the only practical way, killing very
very much larger numbers of them.

DSK

Plotting 911
 

You're joking right? We are specifically barred from "hunting for Bin Laden"
in Pakistan. We're not bolstering any army, and Perez is actually become
hostile publically.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article . com,
Joe wrote:
Ossama and his dirtbags are bragging on Al jezzera TV today! They are
showing how he planned and pulled off the murder of 3000 citizens going
to work. How to hide a knife on an airplane. Is it a recruting effort
or warning? Included in Ossama TV message is the twin towers falling,
damn he's pround of murdering infedels like us. He's laughing at the
stupid ****ers to gentlemanly to stop what he did. He's spitting in
your face.

I'm sure glad we are not seeing re-runs on Al jezeera TV about the
attacks in LA.

Some people would rather see dead Americans more than dirtbags murders
getting treated in an un-gentle way.

Like Bushco who is doing nothing about him and his followers. He's
hiding in Pakistan (our supposed friend) and they have an agreement
not to fight each other.



Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan. Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.

Joe


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Plotting 911
 

You're sure? On what do you base this "intelligence"? Do you have an inside
track that the rest of us in the country lack? If you want to have a
discussion, you need to support yourself with facts, not wishful thinking.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan.

Really? That's a big surprise to the Pentagon, and it would
certainly be very offensive to our friends the Pakistanis.

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.

Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


.... Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.


Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.

I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.

When Islamic fundamentalist crazies take over Pakistan and
get control over the Pakistani nuclear (or "noo kyew lurr"
if you prefer) weapons, that will be Clinton's fault too.

Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance? Or did
they worry about the legal issued involved, and focus on the blowjob
defence?

Joe

DSK

Plotting 911
 

Joe, a trained monkey could do a better job. We've not secured our chem
plants, our railway/commuter system, or our containerized cargo. We only
inspect 5% of the latter. We can't even prevent people from bring liquids
onto planes if they get just the least bit creative about it.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.

I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?


Joe wrote:
You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?


Don't know. It would be hard to do worse.

Maybe...maybe not...the proff to me is we have not been attacked again,
and if you think they are not trying then you are blind.

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Undoubtedly. For one thing, if Senator Kerry were President
he would not regard the war in Iraq as a just a convenient
means of funneling money to his cronies.

Did M. Moore give you that line to use?

I also doubt he
would twiddle his thumbs and blame Clinton for Iran's nukes,
North Korea's nukes, totally disregard the Pentagon's advice
about how much troop strength is needed & where, etc etc.



Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.


Ya think so?

You don't?


Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?

No.
We need to actually *fight* the terrorists, and what's more
we need to stop their recruiting/training pipeline that is
ramping up every day.

And how do we do that? pass out cash, appeasement, cut and run?
Shackle and muzzle the intell servies?


Terrorist like the 14 the CIA questioned? Or just the ones found
guilty after 3 yr trials that cost taxpayers millions?


I would say that brains beat brawn, we are supposed to be
the hi-tech super-capable modern force, not the dumbo-macho
grab-a-big-hammer guys.


Super high tech like listening to telephone calls between terrorist
planners!!!

Good lord...that would be illegal and not playing fair, the loss of
personal privacy is to important according to some.



Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?


We have many enemies and they have many different goals.
Fortunately the terrorists are disorganized and illogical,
but we are not using that to our advantage other than just
by luck.

Luck or hard work? I have faith in the man on the ground and think
they are making the difference, not the politicians.


Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?


Those who attack regular military forces are not terrorists,
by definition.

This is the first place to get a little smarter:
Know your enemy... and I'd take the next step of actually
fighting the enemy, not merely killing large numbers of
random guys who look like they might be the enemy. Or if
that turns out to be the only practical way, killing very
very much larger numbers of them.

Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.

Simple tactic's and goals. All out war. Who's making them fight fair?

Joe

DSK

Plotting 911
 

Capt. JG wrote:
You're sure? On what do you base this "intelligence"? Do you have an inside
track that the rest of us in the country lack? If you want to have a
discussion, you need to support yourself with facts, not wishful thinking.

No im just not blinded by the press, and have faith in our military and
intell.
Pakistan has nukes and we can not afford for them to fall into the
hands of the taliban.

Joe

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan.

Really? That's a big surprise to the Pentagon, and it would
certainly be very offensive to our friends the Pakistanis.

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.

Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


.... Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.


Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.

I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.

When Islamic fundamentalist crazies take over Pakistan and
get control over the Pakistani nuclear (or "noo kyew lurr"
if you prefer) weapons, that will be Clinton's fault too.

Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance? Or did
they worry about the legal issued involved, and focus on the blowjob
defence?

Joe

DSK

Plotting 911
 

You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are no trains?

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Maybe...maybe not...the proff to me is we have not been attacked again,
and if you think they are not trying then you are blind.

We need to actually *fight* the terrorists, and what's more
we need to stop their recruiting/training pipeline that is
ramping up every day.

And how do we do that? pass out cash, appeasement, cut and run?
Shackle and muzzle the intell servies?

Not give in to the ways of the terrorist for one. Who is shackling the
intelligence services or even suggesting it? The point of intelligence is to
use it. Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't very smart
or effective.


Terrorist like the 14 the CIA questioned? Or just the ones found
guilty after 3 yr trials that cost taxpayers millions?

So, you'r saying that you don't like our system of laws and government? We
have laws and procedure for a reason. We need to use them. All of the
"successes" we've had have been due to good intelligence not invading a
country that wasn't an "imminent" theat to us.

I would say that brains beat brawn, we are supposed to be
the hi-tech super-capable modern force, not the dumbo-macho
grab-a-big-hammer guys.


Super high tech like listening to telephone calls between terrorist
planners!!!

Oh come on... super high tech? What about the even better super, duper,
quasi-terabit quadrangle of piazo diaphram technology? :-)

Good lord...that would be illegal and not playing fair, the loss of
personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police state.

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?


We have many enemies and they have many different goals.
Fortunately the terrorists are disorganized and illogical,
but we are not using that to our advantage other than just
by luck.

Luck or hard work? I have faith in the man on the ground and think
they are making the difference, not the politicians.

Then, by that logic, you don't trust Bush. Good! We're making progress!

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?


Those who attack regular military forces are not terrorists,
by definition.

This is the first place to get a little smarter:
Know your enemy... and I'd take the next step of actually
fighting the enemy, not merely killing large numbers of
random guys who look like they might be the enemy. Or if
that turns out to be the only practical way, killing very
very much larger numbers of them.

Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.

Simple tactic's and goals. All out war. Who's making them fight fair?

If any serious muslim thought that, we would be in deep, deep trouble. 99%
of muslims are peaceful people who just want to live their lives.

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

Plotting 911
 

Which press? Fox news or Air America? NKorea has nukes (or will shortly) and
we're not doing a damn thing about it. Iran won't have nukes for years, and
we know damn well, we can't do anything about that. The Taliban have their
own territory, BY TREATY, inside Pakistan. We could do something about that,
yet we're doing nothing.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
You're sure? On what do you base this "intelligence"? Do you have an
inside
track that the rest of us in the country lack? If you want to have a
discussion, you need to support yourself with facts, not wishful
thinking.

No im just not blinded by the press, and have faith in our military and
intell.
Pakistan has nukes and we can not afford for them to fall into the
hands of the taliban.

Joe

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Jon we have many many troops in Pakistan.

Really? That's a big surprise to the Pentagon, and it would
certainly be very offensive to our friends the Pakistanis.

One of the JCS was on the radio the other day explaining
that we have no troops in Pakistan and are forbidden by
treaty to enter, one of the issues that complicates the hunt
for Bin Laden.

Sorry..we have many in the border reagions and I'm sure black ops in
country.


.... Not only are we hunting
Ossama, but as importantly we are bolstering the Pakinstan military,
that if falls.... we leave the keys to the Nukes they have to the
taliban.


Why worry about that? North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting
them soon, and the Bush Administration is doing little or
nothing about it... in six years they've done less to head
off these developments... of course it's really Clinton's fault.

I'm not worried, remember Regan made the missle defence program that's
coming on-line, I have faith we will protect ourselfs.

When Islamic fundamentalist crazies take over Pakistan and
get control over the Pakistani nuclear (or "noo kyew lurr"
if you prefer) weapons, that will be Clinton's fault too.

Did Cliton and his staff kill Osama when they had the chance? Or did
they worry about the legal issued involved, and focus on the blowjob
defence?

Joe

DSK

Plotting 911
 

Can Hillary do a better job?

Don't know. It would be hard to do worse.


Joe wrote:
Maybe...maybe not...the proff to me is we have not been attacked again,
and if you think they are not trying then you are blind.


How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.

According to various official agencies that study such
things, there are approx 10X more terrorist attacks around
the world now than there were before the Iraq invasion. The
U.S. State Dept was ordered by the Bush Administration to
stop publishing their report on terrorism because the
results made the administration look bad.

In other words, they are doing a crappy job fighting
terrorists, unless the goal is simply to kill ragheads. And
if that is the method, they're not doing a good enough job
of it to convince the others to quit.


Think Kerry could have done better?

Undoubtedly. For one thing, if Senator Kerry were President
he would not regard the war in Iraq as a just a convenient
means of funneling money to his cronies.


Did M. Moore give you that line to use?


No. Why? Do Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove tell you what to say?

It is obvious when the various Cheney-aligned businesses
have overcharged & defrauded the gov't & the military out of
more than $500 million, and that's only what we know to
have been found by military and gov't auditors. This is on
top of the large profit they are making from the war.

Vice President Cheney's answer? Fire the auditors.

Unfortunately I'm not joking, that is how this
administration does business.

However, making kevlar body armor & arming the Humvees is
not profitable enough (to the right people) to pay for that.
How many U.S. soldiers would still be alive... or not left
maimed... if the Bush Administration had done so? That would
be fighting terrorism, wouldn't it, giving our soldiers a
better chance of winning a firefight against them once they
come out of hiding?



We need to actually *fight* the terrorists, and what's more
we need to stop their recruiting/training pipeline that is
ramping up every day.


And how do we do that? pass out cash, appeasement, cut and run?
Shackle and muzzle the intell servies?


I have never suggested any such thing. Why do you insist
that these are the only alternatives? Maybe because Karl
Rove is making you say that?

As for "cut & run" why insist on fighting a war against the
wrong people? Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th and no
Al-Queda connections before we invaded. According to
President Bush himself we've killed 25,000 of them (most
figures suggest a much higher number). What has that
accomplished other than to inspire a whole generation of
Muslims & Arabs to hate us and to agree with the jihadists?

You can't win a war by fighting it in the wrong country.
What if President Roosevelt had invaded Brazil? After all
Brazil is much closer than Japan or Germany and would have
been an easier and more profitable war.



Terrorist like the 14 the CIA questioned? Or just the ones found
guilty after 3 yr trials that cost taxpayers millions?


Unless you give serious investigation to the facts, how do
you know they're terrorists? Unless the results are public,
then torturing & killing them is not justice in anybody's
eyes, it's merely state-sponsored murder.

Secret trials & tribunals, strangling suspects in the
alleyway behind the courthouse, those are methods of the
banana dictatorship, not a free & democratic nation (or
republic, if you prefer).

The only people who FEAR justice is those who do evil.
Apparently that is who you want to be governed by.



I would say that brains beat brawn, we are supposed to be
the hi-tech super-capable modern force, not the dumbo-macho
grab-a-big-hammer guys.



Super high tech like listening to telephone calls between terrorist
planners!!!


With a warrant, sure.
BTW before you start whining about "muzzling" the intel
community, let me state that no warrant has ever been denied
and the special warrant issuing courts have the capability
to issue legal wiretapping warrants for national security
within 24 hours.... in fact they say that rush jobs take a
couple hours.

So why bypass the LEGAL means of justly pursuing evil?
It doesn't give any advantage whatever to our foes, it just
makes our hunters into vigilantes & thugs instead legally
constituted military/intel agents.



Good lord...that would be illegal and not playing fair, the loss of
personal privacy is to important according to some.


It just happens to be a Constitutional right of U.S.
citizens. You want to throw out the Constitution, don't you Joe?


Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?


We have many enemies and they have many different goals.
Fortunately the terrorists are disorganized and illogical,
but we are not using that to our advantage other than just
by luck.


Luck or hard work? I have faith in the man on the ground and think
they are making the difference, not the politicians.


There is a lot of hard work going on, and I agree that it is
the boots on the ground that make the difference.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to be giving a
very low priority to actually putting more boots on teh
ground in the war on terror.

There is a huge backlog of intel documents & recordings to
translate, but they are actually recruiting fewer Arabic
language speakers than before Sept 11th, 2001. They are
constantly insisting that more men are not needed in Iraq
despite the direct contradiction of militayr commanders.

If they were serious about fighting terrorism, wouldn't they
be saying, "OK Marines in Fallujah, you say you need two
divisions to take & control that town, we'll give you
seven." Isn't one of the big criticism of Clinton (or Carter
for that matter) that they committed too small a military
force to get the job done? Yet the Bush Administration not
only committed too small a force, they actually fired
generals for saying they needed more.






This is the first place to get a little smarter:
Know your enemy... and I'd take the next step of actually
fighting the enemy, not merely killing large numbers of
random guys who look like they might be the enemy. Or if
that turns out to be the only practical way, killing very
very much larger numbers of them.


Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.


Are you sure? Do you speak/read Arabic or Farsi? All you
know about it is what Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove tell you
about it, the same guys who blame Clinton six years later.


Simple tactic's and goals. All out war. Who's making them fight fair?


There is no such thing as "fair" in war. However there is
legal & illegal... the jihadists have no legal authority for
warring on the U.S. which is what makes them terrorists (or
irregulars & guerillas when they attack military forces). We
must either have legal standing for our actions or we are
terrorists too. There is no 3rd option.

If you are worried about fatwahs against the U.S. and
American, wouldn't it make sense to go after the clerics who
issue them, and maybe blow up their schools where they teach
radical jihadist Islam? Gee, that would actually be fighting
the enemy wouldn't it?

DSK

Plotting 911
 

Capt. JG wrote:
You're joking right? We are specifically barred from "hunting for Bin Laden"
in Pakistan. We're not bolstering any army, and Perez is actually become
hostile publically.

We are not.....jeeze then I want the 6 billizions bucks back.

The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing
(FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to
nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest
increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or
indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan,
including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan
($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain
($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States
stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with
alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF
funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have
leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested
$4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001
levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled
from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

Toss in a dozen F-16's too Pakistan........chump change right?

Oh and if we give ti to Pakistan then we gotta be fair and give the
same to india.

Joe

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
Can Hillary do a better job?

Don't know. It would be hard to do worse.


Joe wrote:
Maybe...maybe not...the proff to me is we have not been attacked again,
and if you think they are not trying then you are blind.


How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.

Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?



According to various official agencies that study such
things, there are approx 10X more terrorist attacks around
the world now than there were before the Iraq invasion. The
U.S. State Dept was ordered by the Bush Administration to
stop publishing their report on terrorism because the
results made the administration look bad.

In other words, they are doing a crappy job fighting
terrorists, unless the goal is simply to kill ragheads. And
if that is the method, they're not doing a good enough job
of it to convince the others to quit.

Maybe they are doing a better job recruiting and fighting a war.

Think Kerry could have done better?

Undoubtedly. For one thing, if Senator Kerry were President
he would not regard the war in Iraq as a just a convenient
means of funneling money to his cronies.


Did M. Moore give you that line to use?


No. Why? Do Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove tell you what to say?

No why? Are you reading Dixie Chicks lyrics?

It is obvious when the various Cheney-aligned businesses
have overcharged & defrauded the gov't & the military out of
more than $500 million, and that's only what we know to
have been found by military and gov't auditors. This is on
top of the large profit they are making from the war.

Vice President Cheney's answer? Fire the auditors.

Unfortunately I'm not joking, that is how this
administration does business.

However, making kevlar body armor & arming the Humvees is
not profitable enough (to the right people) to pay for that.
How many U.S. soldiers would still be alive... or not left
maimed... if the Bush Administration had done so? That would
be fighting terrorism, wouldn't it, giving our soldiers a
better chance of winning a firefight against them once they
come out of hiding?



We need to actually *fight* the terrorists, and what's more
we need to stop their recruiting/training pipeline that is
ramping up every day.


And how do we do that? pass out cash, appeasement, cut and run?
Shackle and muzzle the intell servies?


I have never suggested any such thing. Why do you insist
that these are the only alternatives? Maybe because Karl
Rove is making you say that?

As for "cut & run" why insist on fighting a war against the
wrong people? Iraq had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th and no
Al-Queda connections before we invaded. According to
President Bush himself we've killed 25,000 of them (most
figures suggest a much higher number). What has that
accomplished other than to inspire a whole generation of
Muslims & Arabs to hate us and to agree with the jihadists?

You can't win a war by fighting it in the wrong country.
What if President Roosevelt had invaded Brazil? After all
Brazil is much closer than Japan or Germany and would have
been an easier and more profitable war.



Terrorist like the 14 the CIA questioned? Or just the ones found
guilty after 3 yr trials that cost taxpayers millions?


Unless you give serious investigation to the facts, how do
you know they're terrorists? Unless the results are public,
then torturing & killing them is not justice in anybody's
eyes, it's merely state-sponsored murder.

Secret trials & tribunals, strangling suspects in the
alleyway behind the courthouse, those are methods of the
banana dictatorship, not a free & democratic nation (or
republic, if you prefer).

The only people who FEAR justice is those who do evil.
Apparently that is who you want to be governed by.



I would say that brains beat brawn, we are supposed to be
the hi-tech super-capable modern force, not the dumbo-macho
grab-a-big-hammer guys.



Super high tech like listening to telephone calls between terrorist
planners!!!


With a warrant, sure.
BTW before you start whining about "muzzling" the intel
community, let me state that no warrant has ever been denied
and the special warrant issuing courts have the capability
to issue legal wiretapping warrants for national security
within 24 hours.... in fact they say that rush jobs take a
couple hours.

So why bypass the LEGAL means of justly pursuing evil?
It doesn't give any advantage whatever to our foes, it just
makes our hunters into vigilantes & thugs instead legally
constituted military/intel agents.



Good lord...that would be illegal and not playing fair, the loss of
personal privacy is to important according to some.


It just happens to be a Constitutional right of U.S.
citizens. You want to throw out the Constitution, don't you Joe?

Not for American citizens...


Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?


We have many enemies and they have many different goals.
Fortunately the terrorists are disorganized and illogical,
but we are not using that to our advantage other than just
by luck.


Luck or hard work? I have faith in the man on the ground and think
they are making the difference, not the politicians.


There is a lot of hard work going on, and I agree that it is
the boots on the ground that make the difference.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to be giving a
very low priority to actually putting more boots on teh
ground in the war on terror.

There is a huge backlog of intel documents & recordings to
translate, but they are actually recruiting fewer Arabic
language speakers than before Sept 11th, 2001. They are
constantly insisting that more men are not needed in Iraq
despite the direct contradiction of militayr commanders.

If they were serious about fighting terrorism, wouldn't they
be saying, "OK Marines in Fallujah, you say you need two
divisions to take & control that town, we'll give you
seven." Isn't one of the big criticism of Clinton (or Carter
for that matter) that they committed too small a military
force to get the job done? Yet the Bush Administration not
only committed too small a force, they actually fired
generals for saying they needed more.






This is the first place to get a little smarter:
Know your enemy... and I'd take the next step of actually
fighting the enemy, not merely killing large numbers of
random guys who look like they might be the enemy. Or if
that turns out to be the only practical way, killing very
very much larger numbers of them.


Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.


Are you sure? Do you speak/read Arabic or Farsi? All you
know about it is what Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove tell you
about it, the same guys who blame Clinton six years later.


Simple tactic's and goals. All out war. Who's making them fight fair?


There is no such thing as "fair" in war. However there is
legal & illegal... the jihadists have no legal authority for
warring on the U.S. which is what makes them terrorists (or
irregulars & guerillas when they attack military forces). We
must either have legal standing for our actions or we are
terrorists too. There is no 3rd option.

If you are worried about fatwahs against the U.S. and
American, wouldn't it make sense to go after the clerics who
issue them, and maybe blow up their schools where they teach
radical jihadist Islam? Gee, that would actually be fighting
the enemy wouldn't it?

DSK

Plotting 911
 

How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.


Joe wrote:
Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?


Oh, I thought you meant against Americans, in America.

If you want to count those, then you should count the 1,000+
deadly attacks against American civilians around the world
that are going on every year now.

For example, how many journalists were kidnapped & beheaded
under the Clinton Administration? How many nail bombs going
off in resort nightclubs? Suicide car bomb attacks? There
are so many nowadays they barely make the news.

Of course, one way to make sure that you can make Clinton
look worse than Bush (why would this be necessary if you
really thought Bush was doing a good job, and had facts to
back it up?) is to count everything that went wrong before,
during, and after Clinton's Presidency... and to accept any
lame excuse for everything that goes wrong six years after
Bush has been in office.

DSK

Plotting 911
 

DSK wrote:
How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.


Joe wrote:
Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?


Oh, I thought you meant against Americans, in America.

American ships are American terriorty, as are our embassy's.
Clinton dropped the ball, so did Bush.

Joe


DSK

Plotting 911
 

Bush never even saw the ball. He and his "advisers" were warned repeatedly
before they took office about the threat. Bush went on vacation a lot. That
was his response.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

DSK wrote:
How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.


Joe wrote:
Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?


Oh, I thought you meant against Americans, in America.

American ships are American terriorty, as are our embassy's.
Clinton dropped the ball, so did Bush.

Joe


DSK

Plotting 911
 

We are specifically. Don't believe me. Do a google search. They now have a
their own territory inside Pakistan.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
You're joking right? We are specifically barred from "hunting for Bin
Laden"
in Pakistan. We're not bolstering any army, and Perez is actually become
hostile publically.

We are not.....jeeze then I want the 6 billizions bucks back.

The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing
(FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to
nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest
increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or
indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan,
including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan
($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain
($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States
stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with
alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF
funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have
leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested
$4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001
levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled
from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

Toss in a dozen F-16's too Pakistan........chump change right?

Oh and if we give ti to Pakistan then we gotta be fair and give the
same to india.

Joe

Plotting 911
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.



personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.



Then, by that logic, you don't trust Bush. Good! We're
making progress!


I don't trust ANY politician, do you?


SBV

Plotting 911
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Bush never even saw the ball. He and his "advisers" were warned repeatedly
before they took office about the threat. Bush went on vacation a lot. That
was his response.

Well Clinton was really on the ball.., slapping off Monica's chin.. but
that's about it.

Joe



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

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

DSK wrote:
How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.


Joe wrote:
Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?


Oh, I thought you meant against Americans, in America.

American ships are American terriorty, as are our embassy's.
Clinton dropped the ball, so did Bush.

Joe


DSK

Plotting 911
 

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:06:19 -0700, Joe wrote:


Besides funding mass murder, the attack of the USS Cole, we had the
intell and failed to act....


Uh, the attack on the USS Cole was on Oct. 12, 2000. Bush was elected a
month later, and he did what, exactly?

Plotting 911
 

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:06:19 -0700, Joe wrote:


Besides funding mass murder, the attack of the USS Cole, we had the
intell and failed to act....


Uh, the attack on the USS Cole was on Oct. 12, 2000. Bush was elected a
month later, and he did what, exactly?

Uh..Clinton was president, what did he do besides pass the buck?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

I prefer off-track betting.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.

So, it is then ok in your opinion to monitor the calls of millions of
American on the chance that one of those conversations is between two
terrorists. Do you really think that's the best way to gather intelligence..
listening to some mom gripe about her 8 year old? Don't you think that it
would be more productive to actually intelligently profile the people we're
looking for? I guess not.

personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.

Gun control? You're damn right I'm for gun control. I don't see any reason
for people to have dozens of semi-automatic weapons that are unlocked and
unregistered and easy to buy with no background checks by people who have no
idea how to actually use them. We make people take a test for car and truck
driving don't we?

Then, by that logic, you don't trust Bush. Good! We're
making progress!


I don't trust ANY politician, do you?

Certainly not. But, there are some here who actually believe what Bush says.

Plotting 911
 

While he was getting the blowjob in question, he was talking gov't business
on the phone with a Congressman.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
Bush never even saw the ball. He and his "advisers" were warned
repeatedly
before they took office about the threat. Bush went on vacation a lot.
That
was his response.

Well Clinton was really on the ball.., slapping off Monica's chin.. but
that's about it.

Joe



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

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

DSK wrote:
How about the PROOF that we had not been attacked for the 8
years before Sept 11th, 2001? That indicates to me that
Clinton was doing a much better job.


Joe wrote:
Guess the sailors on the USS Cole don't count in your opinion?
The Embassy's in Africxa....non-issues right?


Oh, I thought you meant against Americans, in America.

American ships are American terriorty, as are our embassy's.
Clinton dropped the ball, so did Bush.

Joe


DSK

Plotting 911
 

Nothing. Even though he was urged to respond by the previous administration.

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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:06:19 -0700, Joe wrote:


Besides funding mass murder, the attack of the USS Cole, we had the
intell and failed to act....


Uh, the attack on the USS Cole was on Oct. 12, 2000. Bush was elected a
month later, and he did what, exactly?

Plotting 911
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.

Substitute 'infidels' for 'Americans' in your post and you get the full
scale of the problem.
However he does have a special dislike of 'American infidels' due, it
seems, to the scale of US involvement in his native land , Saudi Arabia and
US support for Israel.

Plotting 911
 

I just got back from USA today on an American airline and I can see no way
anyone could have come aboard with liquids in hand baggage.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Joe, a trained monkey could do a better job. We've not secured our chem
plants, our railway/commuter system, or our containerized cargo. We only
inspect 5% of the latter. We can't even prevent people from bring liquids
onto planes if they get just the least bit creative about it.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

All they have to do is tape them to their legs. It's been publicised that
way on TV, and I'm sure other ways would work also. They could also put them
in the under-the-plane luggage, or send them via cargo, which isn't checked.

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

"Edgar" wrote in message
. ..
I just got back from USA today on an American airline and I can see no way
anyone could have come aboard with liquids in hand baggage.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Joe, a trained monkey could do a better job. We've not secured our chem
plants, our railway/commuter system, or our containerized cargo. We only
inspect 5% of the latter. We can't even prevent people from bring liquids
onto planes if they get just the least bit creative about it.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can
flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

Try to kill Bin Laden by firing missles into their camps. Unfortunately,
there was a lot of resistance on the part of Republicans in Congress about
doing much else.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:06:19 -0700, Joe wrote:


Besides funding mass murder, the attack of the USS Cole, we had the
intell and failed to act....


Uh, the attack on the USS Cole was on Oct. 12, 2000. Bush was elected a
month later, and he did what, exactly?

Uh..Clinton was president, what did he do besides pass the buck?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

"Joe" wrote...
Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.


Edgar wrote:
Substitute 'infidels' for 'Americans' in your post and you get the full
scale of the problem.
However he does have a special dislike of 'American infidels' due, it
seems, to the scale of US involvement in his native land , Saudi Arabia and
US support for Israel.


Just because he's a whacko doesn't mean that anybody should
listen to him... that fact that he is a well-financed whacko
who knows how to appeal to the prejudices of a large segment
of the population makes him dangerous. The single most
effective thing President Bush could have done, IMHO, is to
have captured Osama Bin Laden as promptly as possible, and
put him trial while treating him as just another
law-breaker. Giving him any special status just helps his
insane cause.

Meanwhile we should also be running a counter-campaign
telling all the Muslim populations around the Middle East
and Asia that Osama Bin Laden likes to screw underage girls
(he has married several as young as 14), that he drank &
gambled & partied back in his wild young days, that the Sept
11th attack was largely intended to force U.S. stocks to
drop sharply so that he could make a killing selling short,
and that he & his top lieutenants like to kick back over a
ham sandwhich & beer while they discuss how to dupe poor
Muslims children into blowing themselves up for OBL's glory.

We should have similar publicity campaigns against the
leaders of Hezbollah & Iran & the tribal heirarchy in what
used to be called Baluchistan.

Instead we are ****ing away lives & tremendous amount of
money for the sake of Halliburton's profits.

However I am glad to hear you say that they seem to be able
to keep improvised liquid explosives off airliners these
days. I guess it was just luck... and the stupidity of
terrorists... that no attack along these lines has taken
place in the past.

Regards
Doug King

Plotting 911
 

Scotty wrote:
I don't trust ANY politician, do you?


If President Nixon hadn't come along during my formative
years, I might.

DSK