NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible
for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Sure. You do remember McVeigh's letter about why he bombed the Murrah
Federal building, right?
Here's an excerpt:
Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a
message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a
government building and the government employees within that building who
represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally
and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in
Serbia, *Iraq*, or other nations.

There were also reports about Nichols and McVeigh meeting with a
"dark-skinned man" prior to the attack. This doesn't sound like the actions
of declared "white supremacists".

In addition, there were reports of Nichols travelling to the Phillipines and
meeting with Ramzi Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Why is it beyond your belief that various terrorist countries and
organizations were working together to undertake a coordinated terrorist
assault against the US...specifically, its government?

The Clinton Administration decided to address terrorism as a criminal act,
and punish the perpetrators...rather than consider it a state-sanctioned
act. The reason? Because then it would mean having to find the country
responsible and going to war with them...something Clinton didn't have the
stomach to do.

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.

NOYB wrote:

The Clinton Administration decided to address terrorism as a criminal act,
and punish the perpetrators...rather than consider it a state-sanctioned
act. The reason? Because then it would mean having to find the country
responsible and going to war with them...something Clinton didn't have the
stomach to do.

Or it could be, that although he did enjoy an illicit blow job or two, Clinton
actually had the moral integrity to not become a terrorst himself. Bush could
not resist temptation, especially when it meant lots of profits for his &
Cheney's military industrialist cronies.

JohnH does not have an answer for the obliterating of an entire block of
downtown Baghdad, and everyone unlucky enough to be there at that moment, trying
to get Saddam. Do you?

Would you like to comment on the morality of Rumsfelds assassination program?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....

WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK

DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

Or if you are a Democrat trying to cover up lies in a legal case. Perjury.
Kill a few in Bosnia, blow up an aspirin plant. That kind of killing is OK
in the Spinmeisters view.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.

Hey Harry, is it OK to kill babies just because you don't want them?

Bob

"DSK" wrote in message

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

Why, Person 2, of course. No contest.

Person 1, I presume by your reference, is Bill Clinton. You forgot to
mention that he then lied directly and deliberately about the events no less
than seventeen times, at least twice under oath.

Person 2 would be Saddam Hussein. I think 5,000 is a serious
underestimation, although everyone will agree he's a world-class slug.

Now, does this quiz have a point?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:27:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.
What the hell do you know about military courts? Ever participated in a court
martial? Ever administered an Article 15? Ever conducted an Article 32
investigation? I didn't think so.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD