"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Bomber Kills 50 at Iraqi Police Center
By YAHYA BARZANJI, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

IRBIL, Iraq - An Iraqi carrying hidden explosives set them off
outside a police recruitment center Wednesday where people were
applying for jobs, police said.



(What the **** makes the author think that it was "an *Iraqi*
carrying hidden explosives"? Why not say "a *terrorist*", or "a
suicide bomber", or a "foreign national"?)

Gee....I don't know. Why don't you write to the AP and find out? Is it
possible they had information which you do not

I'm not alone in my belief:

"Mohsin al-Jarwa, the Sunni Arab lawmaker, said: "This is an inhuman
operation, killing the sons of the land who were coming to protect
Iraq. I don't believe those who carried this out were Iraqis. Iraqis
don't kill Iraqis, and I strongly condemn this terrorist act."


It irresponsible and careless to automatically report that "an Iraqi"
was carrying the hidden explosives. Anybody who's been following
what's happening is aware that jihadists are filtering into Iraq from
several neighboring countries.

"from several neighboring countries" : It was obvious that such an
influx would be the result of destroying what order existed before.
Therefore, your president's sitters wanted that result.

Yes, the Bush administration wanted it.

Why do you suppose that is? The
following stock answer is not allowed: "So the terrorists would come to
us in Iraq, rather than coming here to the U.S.".

It's not a stock answer. It's reality. As I pointed out in the thread
entitled "Washington Post admits the obvious", the general consensus
among counterterrorism officials is that "al-Qaida and like-minded groups
are focusing on Americans deployed in Iraq" rather than attacking us
domestically.

We might as well fight the terrorists over in the Middle East than on our
own soil. Bush has said as much on more than one occasion. Too bad you
weren't listening.



Sorry. That's like saying "Oops...I meant to do that", after you
accidentally back into someone's car while parallel parking.

Bush has been saying for over three years that he is taking the fight to al
Qaeda instead of them taking it to us over here.

It took the Washington Post 3 years to finally write an article admitting
that his plan seems to be working.

So why would you think that it was an accident? And why does it even matter
as long as it's working?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Bomber Kills 50 at Iraqi Police Center
By YAHYA BARZANJI, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

IRBIL, Iraq - An Iraqi carrying hidden explosives set them off
outside a police recruitment center Wednesday where people were
applying for jobs, police said.



(What the **** makes the author think that it was "an *Iraqi*
carrying hidden explosives"? Why not say "a *terrorist*", or "a
suicide bomber", or a "foreign national"?)

Gee....I don't know. Why don't you write to the AP and find out? Is
it possible they had information which you do not

I'm not alone in my belief:

"Mohsin al-Jarwa, the Sunni Arab lawmaker, said: "This is an inhuman
operation, killing the sons of the land who were coming to protect
Iraq. I don't believe those who carried this out were Iraqis. Iraqis
don't kill Iraqis, and I strongly condemn this terrorist act."


It irresponsible and careless to automatically report that "an Iraqi"
was carrying the hidden explosives. Anybody who's been following
what's happening is aware that jihadists are filtering into Iraq from
several neighboring countries.

"from several neighboring countries" : It was obvious that such an
influx would be the result of destroying what order existed before.
Therefore, your president's sitters wanted that result.

Yes, the Bush administration wanted it.

Why do you suppose that is? The
following stock answer is not allowed: "So the terrorists would come to
us in Iraq, rather than coming here to the U.S.".

It's not a stock answer. It's reality. As I pointed out in the thread
entitled "Washington Post admits the obvious", the general consensus
among counterterrorism officials is that "al-Qaida and like-minded
groups are focusing on Americans deployed in Iraq" rather than attacking
us domestically.

We might as well fight the terrorists over in the Middle East than on
our own soil. Bush has said as much on more than one occasion. Too
bad you weren't listening.



Sorry. That's like saying "Oops...I meant to do that", after you
accidentally back into someone's car while parallel parking.

Bush has been saying for over three years that he is taking the fight to
al Qaeda instead of them taking it to us over here.

It took the Washington Post 3 years to finally write an article admitting
that his plan seems to be working.

So why would you think that it was an accident? And why does it even
matter as long as it's working?



Bush also says things like "Mission Accomplished", "bring 'em on", and other
stupid things. His simplistic thinking is anappropriate for public office.

NOYB wrote:

If so, how will your nuclear bomb discriminate between your "average
Iraqi" and a radical Muslim?


The "average Iraqi" doesn't live in Syria. The ones living in Syria
are
Baath Party officials.

*********
Reply

There are over 16-million people living in Syria. You can't possible
believe they are all ex-Baath party officials. How will your nuclear
bombs discriminate between Baath partisans and the average, innocent,
Syrian?

wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

If so, how will your nuclear bomb discriminate between your "average
Iraqi" and a radical Muslim?


The "average Iraqi" doesn't live in Syria. The ones living in Syria
are
Baath Party officials.

*********
Reply

There are over 16-million people living in Syria. You can't possible
believe they are all ex-Baath party officials. How will your nuclear
bombs discriminate between Baath partisans and the average, innocent,
Syrian?

They won't.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:41:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
NOYB wrote:

If so, how will your nuclear bomb discriminate between your "average
Iraqi" and a radical Muslim?


The "average Iraqi" doesn't live in Syria. The ones living in Syria
are
Baath Party officials.

*********
Reply

There are over 16-million people living in Syria. You can't possible
believe they are all ex-Baath party officials. How will your nuclear
bombs discriminate between Baath partisans and the average, innocent,
Syrian?

They won't.


Chuck is showing us how to use oxymorons. Innocent Syrians, indeed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I want to be ananymous too!!! wrote:


You are welcome I think asshole but my name isn't Bert. I had an old
girlfriend nicknamed Bert but I don't think ......
snip



Ah ha! Looks like it is JimH & Bert trashing our newsgroup.

Ah ha! Looks like it is JimH & Bert trashing our newsgroup.


************

There was an odd exchange between
Dr Dr Dr Dr Smithers and Bert yesterday.

After the profane remailer filled half a dozen paragraphs with the same
four four-letter words and Harry commented he was just going to ignore
it, the DR, DR, DR, DR posted, "Bert, Harry has threatened to ignore
you!"

The profane remailer responded, and not with a denial that he was Bert.
He said something like, "I'm going to f* up this group until other
people stop trying to f* up the group!"

May not mean anything at all, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that
DR, DR, DR, DR and his close associates know *exactly* what's going on
and who's behind it.

To be fair, I don't see any evidence of JimH particiapting in the
anonymous profane postings. JimH has never been bashful about speaking
his mind and expressing his opinions of issues and other people, so I
doubt he'd need to hide behind an anonymous remail.

Regardless of the perp's identity, it is obvious he or she is
(properly) very ashamed of the behavior. Why else would anyone hide
behind a false name?
It is likely that the same person has a serious inferiority complex as
well- therefore the need to change his handle several times a day to
defeat any attempts to filter out the trash.

Gould,
I would not be surprised if we find out the anonymous profane posting came
from you, Harry or someone trying to besmirch my good name. ; )

Either way, I am not the anonymous poster, and I would bet it is not Bert.
My money is on a person who used to post under the name Charlie or Chuck.
He used the exact same tactics.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Ah ha! Looks like it is JimH & Bert trashing our newsgroup.


************

There was an odd exchange between
Dr Dr Dr Dr Smithers and Bert yesterday.

After the profane remailer filled half a dozen paragraphs with the same
four four-letter words and Harry commented he was just going to ignore
it, the DR, DR, DR, DR posted, "Bert, Harry has threatened to ignore
you!"

The profane remailer responded, and not with a denial that he was Bert.
He said something like, "I'm going to f* up this group until other
people stop trying to f* up the group!"

May not mean anything at all, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that
DR, DR, DR, DR and his close associates know *exactly* what's going on
and who's behind it.

To be fair, I don't see any evidence of JimH particiapting in the
anonymous profane postings. JimH has never been bashful about speaking
his mind and expressing his opinions of issues and other people, so I
doubt he'd need to hide behind an anonymous remail.

Regardless of the perp's identity, it is obvious he or she is
(properly) very ashamed of the behavior. Why else would anyone hide
behind a false name?
It is likely that the same person has a serious inferiority complex as
well- therefore the need to change his handle several times a day to
defeat any attempts to filter out the trash.

On 5 May 2005 06:57:28 -0700, wrote:

Ah ha! Looks like it is JimH & Bert trashing our newsgroup.


************

There was an odd exchange between
Dr Dr Dr Dr Smithers and Bert yesterday.

After the profane remailer filled half a dozen paragraphs with the same
four four-letter words and Harry commented he was just going to ignore
it, the DR, DR, DR, DR posted, "Bert, Harry has threatened to ignore
you!"

The profane remailer responded, and not with a denial that he was Bert.
He said something like, "I'm going to f* up this group until other
people stop trying to f* up the group!"

May not mean anything at all, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that
DR, DR, DR, DR and his close associates know *exactly* what's going on
and who's behind it.

To be fair, I don't see any evidence of JimH particiapting in the
anonymous profane postings. JimH has never been bashful about speaking
his mind and expressing his opinions of issues and other people, so I
doubt he'd need to hide behind an anonymous remail.

Regardless of the perp's identity, it is obvious he or she is
(properly) very ashamed of the behavior. Why else would anyone hide
behind a false name?
It is likely that the same person has a serious inferiority complex as
well- therefore the need to change his handle several times a day to
defeat any attempts to filter out the trash.

Chuck. If the anonymous poster was saying bad things about Harry's etiquette, it
could have been me.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

Chuck. If the anonymous poster was saying bad things about Harry's etiquette, it
could have been me.

JohnH...was that you admitting to having a girlfriend named 'Bert'?