"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.

Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh

-W



"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American
forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he
thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was
more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers.
This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the
operations, thanks be to God...

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate
John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and
each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.


--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...
Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months, a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months, a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months,
a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly
guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several
attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

I think that Bush, AFTER THE ELECTION, must say: The fact that a terrorist
supporting country has nuclear weapons does not mean that they are immune
from attack, it just means that nuclear weapons are now authorized to be
used on them. Up the ante by upping the threat if they have nuclear
weapons.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...
Bin Laden saw Moore's F-911 I see...... sigh


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately, they
all sound remarkably alike.

You all gone over the deep end with this ****. If you honestly believe
that because someone isn't a goose stepping republican, that they are
automatically terrorist sympathetic, then you are indeed more ignorant
than one could imagine. Do you just memorize Hannity and Rush's
non-factual rantings, then repeat verbatim, without any thought?

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...



Excerpts from bin Laden tape
Fri 29 October, 2004 22:59

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration
because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are
ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They
have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.



So bin Laden doesn't like Bush, eh? GOOD! **** him.

That's the only thing you can glean from the above statements? Pretty
shallow of you, or ignorant.