"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4a x.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country
whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although
that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the
region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since
Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters
are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You
deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty
well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to
the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of
the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our
diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people
are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would
disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.


Here - chew on this number: 2973

By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular
government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that
there WAS a government involved?

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4ax .com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c @4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country
whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although
that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the
region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since
Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters
are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You
deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty
well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to
the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of
the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our
diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people
are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would
disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.


Here - chew on this number: 2973

By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular
government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that
there WAS a government involved?


Which government?

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4a x.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5 ...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean
in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country
whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although
that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or
BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the
region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please
explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be
inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since
Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters
are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You
deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff
said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty
well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to
the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent
here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either
way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of
the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like
it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our
diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people
are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated
attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads
of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused
multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would
disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.


Here - chew on this number: 2973

By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any
particular
government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that
there WAS a government involved?


Which government?


Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the
impression I described above.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:59:59 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newsprsl45ee6sns59clo7t2h22p2cunlnu0i@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4a x.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltg ...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0g ...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean
in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country
whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although
that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a
question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or
BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the
region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please
explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be
inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since
Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi
fighters
are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to
senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****.
You
deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff
said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and
intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a
pretty
well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported
the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico.
The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over
to
the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent
here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either
way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little
arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part
of
the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation
to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi
Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like
it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our
diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these
people
are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's
not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated
attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or
robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have
loads
of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused
multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would
disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.


Here - chew on this number: 2973

By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any
particular
government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that
there WAS a government involved?


Which government?


Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the
impression I described above.


OK, bye.


Yeah. You said that two messages ago, but now you're back. You said "Good,
so we're done".

Your research project for this year: Find books which describe the
relationship between Paul Wolfowitz and a thing named Manucher Ghorbanifar.
You will wonder how Wolfowitz fits into this picture. You *should* wonder.
Don't ask. I won't tell you. Go find your public library.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:59:59 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4ax .com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi @4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc ...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote:


Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico?

Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue.

Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean
in
your
usage?



And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country
whose
citizens
or
leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident?

Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although
that
doesn't
matter to you.

Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or
BEGIN
WITH
THE
PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question?



Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the
deaths
of
more
soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the
region?

Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again?



If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please
explain
why.
Is
there
something in the article which you believe to be
inaccurate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r...

From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite
increased
efforts
by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since
Sept.
11,
2001,
when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters
are
still
getting through."

Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior
American
military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You
deny
being
a
liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff
said.

John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual
dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty
well
documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the
Mexican
incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The
corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to
the
US
and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent
here
we
have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either
way,
Joe
is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments
here.

One wonders why he came back..
=================

Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of
the
world,
we
must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too?


Did he say that? Wow. I missed it.



Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to
include
Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia.


No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like
it.


I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly
orchestrated
mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our
diplomats
and
intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way.

What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people
are
all
FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?"
Forget
it.
That doesn't work.


I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not
pertinent
to the discussion.

The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to
warrant
the
punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?"


Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated
attack.


And who must do the orchestrating?


Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery
incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads
of
information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds
directly
to schools which train lunatics.


Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks?

Because I told you 82 was the number.


We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused
multiple
times of teaching anti-US sentiment.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your
Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around.

http://tinyurl.com/a3arge

You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as
Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon.

If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi
bribes.


Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it.


You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would
disagree
with it. You know that.


Good, so we're done.


Here - chew on this number: 2973

By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any
particular
government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that
there WAS a government involved?


Which government?


Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the
impression I described above.


OK, bye.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D K" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in
no
time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already
concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in
office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.
Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney
Frank
crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H
Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking
us.

What country would you have had him 'punish'?
15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country,
to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their
government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to
the
Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely
unchallenged
by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans.
Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's.

In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda
operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged
(or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's
borders.

Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this
country
go free.....
Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That
will
be
funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR
SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies",
who
provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our
soldiers.

"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers
discovered
in
September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near
Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an
insurgent
cell
believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign
fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection
of
biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for
more
than
700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006."

I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from
whence
have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted
felons.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for
Pearl
Harbor.

Enuff. Bye.

It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if
you can call it logic.
Why are you always such an asshole, Doug?


I asked John to name the country which attacked us on 9/11. If that's being
an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Live with it.

My impression at this point of the discussion is that John's refusal to name
the enemy fits the constitutional term "adhering to the enemy" (see Article
III section 3, definition of treason). What do you think?



I think you are waaaay out there...

"D K" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D K" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following
well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed
in no
time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already
concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in
office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be
a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.
Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq
and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney
Frank
crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H
Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for
attacking us.

What country would you have had him 'punish'?
15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That
country,
to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their
government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to
the
Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely
unchallenged
by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000
Americans.
Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's.

In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda
operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been
charged
(or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that
country's
borders.

Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this
country
go free.....
Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That
will
be
funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over
OUR
SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called
"allies", who
provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our
soldiers.

"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers
discovered
in
September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert
near
Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an
insurgent
cell
believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of
foreign
fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection
of
biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for
more
than
700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006."

I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from
whence
have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted
felons.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for
Pearl
Harbor.

Enuff. Bye.

It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic",
if you can call it logic.
Why are you always such an asshole, Doug?


I asked John to name the country which attacked us on 9/11. If that's
being an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Live with it.

My impression at this point of the discussion is that John's refusal to
name the enemy fits the constitutional term "adhering to the enemy" (see
Article III section 3, definition of treason). What do you think?

I think you are waaaay out there...


That's a good thing. Thank you.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
D K wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following
well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in
no
time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already
concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in
office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be
a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.
Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney
Frank
crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H

Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking
us.

What country would you have had him 'punish'?
15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That
country,
to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their
government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to
the
Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely
unchallenged
by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000
Americans.
Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's.

In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda
operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been
charged
(or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that
country's
borders.

Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this
country
go free.....

Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That
will
be
funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR
SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called
"allies", who
provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our
soldiers.

"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers
discovered
in
September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert
near
Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an
insurgent
cell
believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of
foreign
fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection
of
biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for
more
than
700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006."

I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from
whence
have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted
felons.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for
Pearl
Harbor.

Enuff. Bye.


It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic",
if you can call it logic.


Why are you always such an asshole, Doug?

You should know better.

Makes Boater look like a gentleman