wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:25:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
The principle I have is this war is totally ineffective, even if you
believe killing thousands of random Taliban (and as many innocent
civilians) will stop global terrorism. We still can't kill them all.
Islamic terrorists can come from anywhere. There are a billion of them
in the pool and it only took 19 on 9/11.
The war is stupid, It is just our 21st century Vietnam.


There are no "billion" terrorists. Give me a break.


Nobody said there were a billion terrorists. It may actually be less
than 1000 worldwide but some people think we should declare war on all
billion Muslims.


You said, "There are a billion of them in the pool." Who is "them"? If
you're talking about people, there are many more billions. If you're talking
about Muslims, then you just claimed they are "in the pool," which sounds
like you're lumping them in a monolithic group, which is inaccurate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 15, 8:11*am, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

| We were attacked by 19 Saudis who did as much of this planning in
| western Europe as anywhere.

Did the Saudis have a grudge?

yeah they had a grudge. we weren't muslims. that, alone, is enough to
kill us, according to their logic

On Sep 17, 1:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:59:07 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

The Crusades took hundreds of years and didn't accomplish a thing.

irrelevant.

OK, You win

If you don't see the parallel it is senseless to continue.

it's senseless to raise non sequiturs

On Sep 17, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:05:46 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 17, 1:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:59:07 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

The Crusades took hundreds of years and didn't accomplish a thing.

irrelevant.

OK, You win

If you don't see the parallel it is senseless to continue.

it's senseless to raise non sequiturs

The thing that was senseless in your tirade was the name calling.
It only demonstrates the weakness in your logic.

zzzzzzzzzzz...

IOW when you, deep in the throes of paranoia, come out of your trance
long enough to dump the fruits of your delusions here, we're supposed
to pat you on your head and tell you what a great guy you are.

sorry. that doesn't work, and i'd just impale my hand petting you on
your pointy head.

If you think we will stop islamic terrorism by killing a lot of
innocent civilians in an attempt to get a couple "leaders" you do not
understand terrorism.

ah. i see. so if we surrender to them, and just let them massacre us
THAT will stop them, just like it did on 9/11 when, not only didn't we
KILL any, we actually protected them in bosnia.

yes, i see your point. it's at the top of your head.

You are making more terrorists than you are
killing and the next cell may be Indonesian or African, having nothing
in common with Al Queda but the hatred of America ... because of this
war on Islam.
On the other hand, if we destablize Pakistan much more, the next
terror attack might be nuclear, with a real warhead, not just a dirty
bomb.

and your view that we surrender stops this how? how many attacks have
been successful in the US in the last 8 years? seems to me that
whatever we're doing is working. and your view?

perhaps we could meet at the WTC in new york to discuss.

On Sep 17, 6:26*am, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 17, 4:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:


You say "in your opinion. just as christianity has died in europe
because of its internecine warfare" *You surely don't know much about
Christianity in Europe.

You remind me of the character played by Larry Lavon Linville

IOW you don't know about the figures for believers in europe vs the
US.


In France, which is predominantly Catholic but emphatically secular,
about one in 20 people attends a religious service every week, compared
with about one in three in the United States.


yep, good post. i've been to europe a number of times and no matter
where i go, they're always amazed at how religious americans are. in
addition, during discussion over the recent european constitution, the
vatican tried to have mention made of christianity's role in the
history of europe. the pope complained that europe was so secular that
it had forgotten its history.

his suggestion was turned down.

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:26 am, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 17, 4:44 am, TopBassDog wrote:

You say "in your opinion. just as christianity has died in europe
because of its internecine warfare" You surely don't know much about
Christianity in Europe.
You remind me of the character played by Larry Lavon Linville
IOW you don't know about the figures for believers in europe vs the
US.

In France, which is predominantly Catholic but emphatically secular,
about one in 20 people attends a religious service every week, compared
with about one in three in the United States.


yep, good post. i've been to europe a number of times and no matter
where i go, they're always amazed at how religious americans are. in
addition, during discussion over the recent european constitution, the
vatican tried to have mention made of christianity's role in the
history of europe. the pope complained that europe was so secular that
it had forgotten its history.

his suggestion was turned down.



Possibly because of all of those who died in Europe and the Middle East
as a result of christianity.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sep 17, 1:21*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:00:53 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

how many attacks have
been successful in the US in the last 8 years? seems to me that
whatever we're doing is working. and your view?

How much of that do you attribute to bombing Afghan citizens and how
much do you attribute to increased domestic security?

and the difference is?

In real life we have just been lucky. People act like 9/11 was some
very complex plan that could not have been hatched in a basement in
Manhattan. It was 19 guys with, a few hours on a simulator, airplane
tickets and box cutters, nothing much more complicated than that. You
don't *need an international conspiracy to do it.

and by denying AQ a base in afghanistan we have removed a base of
planning, training and operations.

On Sep 17, 4:08*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:32:59 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 17, 1:21*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:00:53 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

how many attacks have
been successful in the US in the last 8 years? seems to me that
whatever we're doing is working. and your view?

How much of that do you attribute to bombing Afghan citizens and how
much do you attribute to increased domestic security?

and the difference is?

Taking your shoes off at the airport and showing your ID is not
killing innocent people halfway around the world.

and if you think that stops terrorists, tell your mom you still
believe in the tooth fairy

In real life we have just been lucky. People act like 9/11 was some
very complex plan that could not have been hatched in a basement in
Manhattan. It was 19 guys with, a few hours on a simulator, airplane
tickets and box cutters, nothing much more complicated than that. You
don't *need an international conspiracy to do it.

and by denying AQ a base in afghanistan we have removed a base of
planning, training and operations.

Why does that need to be in Afghanistan. They fly the Predators from
Nellis AFB in Nevada. Bin Laden is in Pakistan,

do you read the stuff you write? hiding in a cave in pakistan is quite
a bit different than openly training murderers to attack the US


this is your logic? really? no wonder you're clueless


if he is alive at all.
khalid sheikh mohammed is in Gitmo. This could be planned on a carrier
in the Indian Ocean.
We are just killing teenagers who we think are Taliban members for no
particular reason except to fulfill some revenge motive guys like you
have.

and since we're not doing that, you're welcome to your delusions

I would still take the bet that our next terror attack comes
from some place other than the middle east and not by arabs.
I would also bet it will not be airplane related.
We have blinded ourselves to the fact that there are plenty of Muslims
in other countries who are offended by this war and the prejudice we
have placed on their beliefs.

there were plenty of muslims who hated us before we liberated
afghanistan. you just know nothin about arabs, or islam. you're a
typical western far leftist who confuses cowardice with gallantry

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:29:14 -0400, wrote:

I really can't keep the players straight here since most are ashamed
to use their real name when they pontificate.

WF3H is easy:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=wf3h&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

or

http://www.qrz.com/

On Sep 17, 10:29*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:55:19 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

there were plenty of muslims who hated us before we liberated
afghanistan.

Just the fact that you use words like "liberated" make you sound like
George W Bush, is that your intent?

even GW got some things right. not often. and he screwed them up...but
sometimes he was right


I really can't keep the players straight here since most are ashamed
to use their real name when they pontificate.

it's a simple matter to find out who wf3h is. everyone here seems to
know how to find me. hell there's even a picture of me


I suppose as long as people think we are accomplishing something we
will still get our kids coming home in bags and our budget will be
busted. As I said before, I heard this during Vietnam too.

and the 343 firemen who went home in body bags after 9/11. what do you
tell their families? that you approve of their deaths?