"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8@4ax. com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbbo@4a x.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggdhf9@ 4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duhm7eo ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i91ei ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get
to your library:

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219


If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8@4ax .com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbbo@4 ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggdhf9 @4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duhm7e ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i91e ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novbb7@4ax. com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8@4a x.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbbo@ 4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggdhf ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duhm7 ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i91 ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who
attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a
question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country
from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now
I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or
not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the
royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government
of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life
incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a
reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a
reliable authority.



If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a
few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of
his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?


Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novbb7@4ax .com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8@4 ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbbo @4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggdh ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duhm ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i9 ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who
attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a
question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country
from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now
I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or
not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the
royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government
of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life
incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a
reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a
reliable authority.



If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a
few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of
his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?


Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin


No, not 'onward'.

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

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:lr6sl41qc66du6mekjihh6q7ed4uifner2@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novbb7@4a x.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8@ 4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdbb ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4ggd ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote
in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7duh ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14i ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've
still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really
attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who
attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a
question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him
'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can
name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country
from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now
I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi
Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were
responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters
than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to
Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or
not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the
royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the
government
of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around
because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read
more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again.
Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life
incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a
reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a
reliable authority.



If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a
few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied
to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or
properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of
his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?


Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin


No, not 'onward'.

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

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


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.

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?

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...hp&oref=slogin

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:lr6sl41qc66du6mekjihh6q7ed4uifner2@4ax .com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novbb7@4 ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur8 @4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmdb ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4gg ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote
in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7du ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug14 ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've
still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really
attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who
attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a
question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him
'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can
name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country
from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now
I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi
Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were
responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters
than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to
Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or
not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the
royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the
government
of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around
because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read
more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again.
Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life
incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a
reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a
reliable authority.



If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a
few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied
to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or
properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of
his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?


Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin


No, not 'onward'.

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...hp&oref=slogin


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 H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:3h7sl4lj07ug48helf3ekqv29diem1ht0m@4ax. com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:lr6sl41qc66du6mekjihh6q7ed4uifner2@4a x.com...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novbb7@ 4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
newspmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hnuur ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrkqmd ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14farj4g ...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote
in
message
news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgtr7d ...
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
news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0ug1 ...
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.


Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've
still
not
answered it.


It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really
attacked
us.
You
really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who
attacked
us.

Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football
is
rotting
your brain, old soldier.


Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a
question,
willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?

Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him
'punish'?"

My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can
name
the
country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer
because
you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country
from
which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do
not
share.

So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come
from?
"New
Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers.


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

My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'?


OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia.
Now
I'm
curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi
Arabia,
because more than any other country you can name, they were
responsible
9/11.

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters
than
any
other into Iraq.

Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to
Iraq.


Thank you. But, first things first.

You seem to think that the government and people of a country are
responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or
former
citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether
or
not
those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country.

The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the
royal
family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the
government
of
Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around
because
we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read
more,
and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again.
Get
to your library:


"...after the fact...."

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219

Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in.

"Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the
street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually
disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories
sound
more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life
incidents,
such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by
Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon."


And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a
reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a
reliable authority.



If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of
a
few
of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied
to
any
country from whence citizens have acted against the people or
properties
of
this country.

How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires
of
his
citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we?


There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers,
and
pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico.

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

Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame.


Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question,
will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin
with
personal insults, rather than simply answer the question?


Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin


No, not 'onward'.

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...hp&oref=slogin


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.


Oh please....slamming the source is so immature. Address the content. You
are saying our military lied about this information.

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..