"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why? Because we are fighting them? If so, I say great work Bush.

No. They want us to fight them. That's the whole point. They will do
whatever
they can do to insure that we continue to attempt a military solution to a
non-military
equation.



If you do not think it requires military type action, you are immensely
deluding yourself. The type people they are, have been killing Muslims of
the wrong pursuasion, flying airplanes into sky scrapers, and blowing up
buses and schools and bars and other gathering places for a lot of years.
They cna not to be reasoned with. The only cure for the bad guys is to
remove them from the gene pool.

If you do not think it requires military type action, you are immensely
deluding yourself. The type people they are, have been killing Muslims of
the wrong pursuasion, flying airplanes into sky scrapers, and blowing up
buses and schools and bars and other gathering places for a lot of years.
They cna not to be reasoned with. The only cure for the bad guys is to
remove them from the gene pool.


Good idea Bill.

Let's send our army to attack their army, our air force to attack their air
force, and our navy to attack their navy.

Any idea where we find their army, navy, or air force?

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
There are speculations that the Al Qaida attack suppopsedly planned for between
now and late October will be intended to influence the elections.

Al Qaida was correct that the attack in Madrid would move the Spanish to vote
out
their government.

Al Qaida is convinced that an attack on the US between now and the election
will rally the country to GWB. I believe they are correct, and should we be
attacked we
should evaluate just why our mortal *enemy* wants a particular president in
office.

A letter sent to a British paper by a top Al Qiada leader confirmed that Al
Qaida is very desirous of keeping Bush in the White House. The letter writer
asserts that the
actions and attitudes of the US administration has made it extremely easy to
recruit new members for their organization.

Under Bush, the US more closely resembles the "great Satan" (from the Arab
perspective, at least) that Al Qaida has always represented it to be.


The fanatical religious right is running the country. How depressing.

Osama and Bush deserve one another, I just wish the rest of us could be
left out of their little religious war.

jps

Kerry will let them get us first, and *then* he'll try to take action.
Those Al Qaida guys have TV's too. They know what Kerry said.



Only problem with that line is that as far as I know Kerry never said that.

You're confusing what Rush Limbaugh says "Kerry said", with Kerry actually has
actually said.

Chuck, what do we do during ther 5-10 years it takes to recruit, train, and
*infiltrate* (to the point of becoming confidants) the terrorist groups?

Same question you asked yesterday.
Same anwer. It won't take 5-10 years.
Al Qaida is recruiting very actively right now. There are more Al Qaida members
today than there were in September 2001, so it looks like our current approach
is *not* working, wouldn't you say? If we kill 1000 a month and they recruit
1500, we're going backwards- not forwards.

Didn't Clinton, or someone, sign an executive order making assassinations
illegal?

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to overturn an executive order-
merely another executive order. I believe it was Bush the First, btw.

We've had presidential aversions to pre-emptive strikes, too. See how easily
that was overturned?

We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there
was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there
was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

Speculation is quite different from "evidence".