OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Message from the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades:

"Praise be to God who gave us this victory in the conquest of Madrid...
where one of the pillars of the axis of Crusader evil was destroyed," the
statement said, affirming its earlier claim for the Madrid attacks.

------------------------------------------------------

When the polls are closed election day 2004, do you really want to read the
following al Qaeda statement broadcast all over the news?

"Praise be to God who gave us this victory in the conquest of America...
where the final pillar of the axis of Crusader evil was destroyed."

A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.

Run on anything except Bush's record, eh? Nice straw man.

bb

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.

Run on anything except Bush's record, eh? Nice straw man.

As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record, and can (and
have) successfully defended it against any partisan attacks.

However, Democrats have decided to turn this election into an "anybody but
Bush" campaign. Well, it's time for Americans to realize the danger of such
a decision.

It's no secret that al Qaeda would claim a huge victory should Bush be run
from office. Why do you think that is? Supposedly, according to Democrats,
the war on terror is a failure. However, our opponent continues to do
everything possible to mar Bush's chances for reelection. If Bush's
anti-terror policies were such a failure, the enemy wouldn't be so eager to
see him replaced by a liberal Democrat. That's commonsense. By all
indications, Bush is an enemy to radical Islam. Radical Islam is a threat to
the survival of Western civilization...which makes them my (and your) enemy.
And an enemy of our enemy is our friend.


A vote for Kerry is a victory for al Qaeda.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

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

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.

Run on anything except Bush's record, eh? Nice straw man.

As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record, and can
(and
have) successfully defended it against any partisan attacks.

And I'm very proud of the lettuce seedlings in my front window. So what?


However, Democrats have decided to turn this election into an "anybody
but
Bush" campaign. Well, it's time for Americans to realize the danger of
such
a decision.

There is no danger. You need to think this through more thoroughly.


It's no secret that al Qaeda would claim a huge victory should Bush be run
from office.

1) They can claim whatever the f..k they want, but they know what you don't:
Only a moron would draw a connection between the election results and the
future of al Qaeda.

2) They've claimed a victory in the Spanish elections. Zzzzzzz..... Nobody
cares.


Why do you think that is? Supposedly, according to Democrats,
the war on terror is a failure.

If you base the quality of the results on whether there's been another
attack HERE, then the results have been good. But, only a moron would limit
his view to THIS country at this point in time. Iraq is still pretty much a
free play zone, and the terrorist kiddies are having a ball. Therefore, that
has been a failure. Afghanistan is also a circus, but you won't believe
that. Try this: We thought we'd create a nice country that could behave like
other nice countries. Just one problem: 60% of their GNP is derived from
opium poppies, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.


However, our opponent continues to do
everything possible to mar Bush's chances for reelection. If Bush's
anti-terror policies were such a failure, the enemy wouldn't be so eager
to
see him replaced by a liberal Democrat.

Let's see if I understand you: If we get a Democratic president, the war
ends, the soldiers come home, and all domestic security measures enacted
since 9/11 are reversed? Is that what you predict?

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.3d4a67ea3ab3c3d08f81a143402ec0b2@107 9614429.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Message from the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades:

"Praise be to God who gave us this victory in the conquest of Madrid...
where one of the pillars of the axis of Crusader evil was destroyed,"
the
statement said, affirming its earlier claim for the Madrid attacks.

------------------------------------------------------

When the polls are closed election day 2004, do you really want to
read the
following al Qaeda statement broadcast all over the news?

"Praise be to God who gave us this victory in the conquest of America...
where the final pillar of the axis of Crusader evil was destroyed."

A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.



It must be wonderful to go through life as you do, without a real
thought in your head, and able to follow a "leader" as simple-minded as
you are, and even believe that both of you are doing the right thing.

Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the hell he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position than we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the hell he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position than we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!



Irrelevant. Like comparing molars to watermelons.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

NOYB wrote:
As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record,

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record? Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?

More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack? That is something to be proud of all right.

But that's all old news. Let's talk about the present. How about Bush's
vetoing spending money on intel & security? That might really help fight
terrorism, but he nixed it. How about his record of ignoring... and even
falsifying... military casualties? His record of reducing veteran's
benefits?

How about his record of stonewalling the Sept 11 investigation? His
record of going on vacation more than any other President, ever? His
record of lying about many things, from the Clinton staff vandalizing
the White House to his declaration that he would not use Sept 11th
politically? How his record of bragging about his foreign policy
success, while stabbing his own Secretary of State in the back and
driving a wedge between the US and our longest & closest allies?

It must take a supreme effort of the will to be proud of these things.
Either that, or you're really a not-so-undercover Socialist agitator who
mocks Bush by praising him. If that's the case, as I suspect, then
you're overdoing it.

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

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

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


A vote for Kerry is victory for al Qaeda.

Run on anything except Bush's record, eh? Nice straw man.

As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record, and can
(and
have) successfully defended it against any partisan attacks.

And I'm very proud of the lettuce seedlings in my front window. So what?


However, Democrats have decided to turn this election into an "anybody
but
Bush" campaign. Well, it's time for Americans to realize the danger of
such
a decision.

There is no danger. You need to think this through more thoroughly.


It's no secret that al Qaeda would claim a huge victory should Bush be
run
from office.

1) They can claim whatever the f..k they want, but they know what you
don't:
Only a moron would draw a connection between the election results and the
future of al Qaeda.

It'd be terrific propaganda. "By inflicting great harm on America and its
allies, we were able to drive the evil Crusader Bush from office."

You don't think that would be a terrific recruiting tool? You don't thank
that al Qaeda training camps would teach the idea that the West's will can
be broken, and its people and elections manipulated through acts of terror?



2) They've claimed a victory in the Spanish elections. Zzzzzzz.....
Nobody
cares.

The terrorist care. The message coming out of all of the terror groups
linked to al Qaeda is that the Spanish elections were a great victory for
them. It was a morale-booster at a time when al Qaeda desperately needed
one.



Why do you think that is? Supposedly, according to Democrats,
the war on terror is a failure.

If you base the quality of the results on whether there's been another
attack HERE, then the results have been good. But, only a moron would
limit
his view to THIS country at this point in time. Iraq is still pretty much
a
free play zone, and the terrorist kiddies are having a ball. Therefore,
that
has been a failure. Afghanistan is also a circus, but you won't believe
that. Try this: We thought we'd create a nice country that could behave
like
other nice countries. Just one problem: 60% of their GNP is derived from
opium poppies, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.


However, our opponent continues to do
everything possible to mar Bush's chances for reelection. If Bush's
anti-terror policies were such a failure, the enemy wouldn't be so eager
to
see him replaced by a liberal Democrat.

Let's see if I understand you: If we get a Democratic president, the war
ends, the soldiers come home, and all domestic security measures enacted
since 9/11 are reversed? Is that what you predict?

No. But I do predict an increase in al Qaeda's morale leading to emboldened
attacks that result in further appeasement by the West. The end result? al
Qaeda controls 2/3 of the World's oil supply, and America undergoes an
economic collapse not seen since the Great Depression.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record,

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record?

Big deal. By the time we graduated from high school, 1/3 of my graduating
had been "arrested" for underage drinking while in high school. However,
they didn't call it an "arrest" (no miranda rights read, no handcuffs, and
no night in jail). The term was "juvenile adjudication".


Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?

His






More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack?

He was a target you doofus.

That is something to be proud of all right.

But that's all old news. Let's talk about the present. How about Bush's
vetoing spending money on intel & security?

He did no such thing.

That might really help fight
terrorism, but he nixed it.

Lie.

How about his record of ignoring... and even
falsifying... military casualties?

Lie.

His record of reducing veteran's
benefits?


Another lie.


How about his record of stonewalling the Sept 11 investigation?

Bull****.

His
record of going on vacation more than any other President, ever?

So what.

His
record of lying about many things, from the Clinton staff vandalizing
the White House

another lie. Check with the GAO. Their report shows it happened just as he
says it happened.

to his declaration that he would not use Sept 11th
politically?

Where'd he say that?

How his record of bragging about his foreign policy
success, while stabbing his own Secretary of State in the back and
driving a wedge between the US and our longest & closest allies?

The wedge has been there for some time. I'm glad he just exposed the
phonies for what they are...backstabbing ingrates.



It must take a supreme effort of the will to be proud of these things.
Either that, or you're really a not-so-undercover Socialist agitator who
mocks Bush by praising him. If that's the case, as I suspect, then
you're overdoing it.

I suspect that you couldn't find proof for more than one...maybe two...of
your aforementioned allegations.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the hell
he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position than
we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!



Irrelevant. Like comparing molars to watermelons.


Sure it is, Doug.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record?



NOYB wrote:
Big deal. By the time we graduated from high school, 1/3 of my graduating
had been "arrested" for underage drinking while in high school.

Ah, so now you're saying that you think it is morally OK to set an
example of boozing irresponsibly... driving while drunk among other
things... for today's young people?




Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?


His




What, did speech fail you? It's true, matter of record. Prescott Bush
paid a fine out of court rather than be charged with trafficking with an
enemy state. But then the Bush family was not as rich nor as powerful as
they are now. What sort of parallel can be drawn form this, given the
free ride that the Bin Laden family and Saudi business connections have
been getting?




More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack?


He was a target you doofus.

Really? That was proclaimed loudly but so far there is no evidence at
all.... none... just another excuse and another lie.



That is something to be proud of all right.

But that's all old news. Let's talk about the present. How about Bush's
vetoing spending money on intel & security?


He did no such thing.

Really? Why did they cut funding for DARPA, a key military intelligence
project? What about the CDC's funding for emergency equipment & training
for counter-bioterror programs? What about the roll back on airport
security? Cutting funds for updating the CIA and FBI computer systems?

The list goes on. Bush is spending gazillions on war in Iraq, which
posed only very slight terrorist threat to the US. However, when it
comes to actually taking steps to combat terrorist groups, with money
that will not be funneled into the pockets of his supporters, he doesn't
give a rat's patootie.




That might really help fight
terrorism, but he nixed it.


Lie.

Unfortunately it's all true.


How about his record of ignoring... and even

falsifying... military casualties?


Lie.

Nope, true again.


How about his record of stonewalling the Sept 11 investigation?


Bull****.

Oh? Why then has Bush refused to meet with them? So far he's given a
string of statements about his dignity, and executive priviledge... he
puts his dignity above America's safety, his priviledges above the
truth... apart from that disturbing & undeniable fact, what does he have
to hide?

So far, the Bush Administration has given minimal coopoeration with the
9-11 investigation. They've even had to get court orders.


His
record of going on vacation more than any other President, ever?


So what.

Interesting set of priorities.

His

record of lying about many things, from the Clinton staff vandalizing
the White House


another lie. Check with the GAO. Their report shows it happened just as he
says it happened.

Umm, no. Their report said NONE of it happened.



to his declaration that he would not use Sept 11th
politically?


Where'd he say that?

About fifteen times, from two years ago until about two months ago.


How his record of bragging about his foreign policy
success, while stabbing his own Secretary of State in the back and
driving a wedge between the US and our longest & closest allies?


The wedge has been there for some time. I'm glad he just exposed the
phonies for what they are...backstabbing ingrates.

An interesting attitude.

But the FACT remains that his policies have failed. We have regime
change in Spain (and possibly coming up in Britain) and made a lot of
new enemies, but have not ended the first threat.

So we see... you are pro-Bush to the point of denying very obvious and
easily verifiable fact... in your opinion, the Bush family should come
first above the good of the rest of the country. In your opinion, lies
and profiteering are fine *if* the guys you like are doing it.

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record?



NOYB wrote:
Big deal. By the time we graduated from high school, 1/3 of my
graduating
had been "arrested" for underage drinking while in high school.

Ah, so now you're saying that you think it is morally OK to set an
example of boozing irresponsibly... driving while drunk among other
things... for today's young people?




Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?


His




What, did speech fail you? It's true, matter of record. Prescott Bush
paid a fine out of court rather than be charged with trafficking with an
enemy state. But then the Bush family was not as rich nor as powerful as
they are now. What sort of parallel can be drawn form this, given the
free ride that the Bin Laden family and Saudi business connections have
been getting?




More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack?


He was a target you doofus.

Really? That was proclaimed loudly but so far there is no evidence at
all.... none... just another excuse and another lie.



That is something to be proud of all right.

But that's all old news. Let's talk about the present. How about Bush's
vetoing spending money on intel & security?


He did no such thing.

Really? Why did they cut funding for DARPA, a key military intelligence
project? What about the CDC's funding for emergency equipment & training
for counter-bioterror programs? What about the roll back on airport
security? Cutting funds for updating the CIA and FBI computer systems?

The list goes on. Bush is spending gazillions on war in Iraq, which
posed only very slight terrorist threat to the US. However, when it
comes to actually taking steps to combat terrorist groups, with money
that will not be funneled into the pockets of his supporters, he doesn't
give a rat's patootie.




That might really help fight
terrorism, but he nixed it.


Lie.

Unfortunately it's all true.


How about his record of ignoring... and even

falsifying... military casualties?


Lie.

Nope, true again.


How about his record of stonewalling the Sept 11 investigation?


Bull****.

Oh? Why then has Bush refused to meet with them? So far he's given a
string of statements about his dignity, and executive priviledge... he
puts his dignity above America's safety, his priviledges above the
truth... apart from that disturbing & undeniable fact, what does he have
to hide?

So far, the Bush Administration has given minimal coopoeration with the
9-11 investigation. They've even had to get court orders.


His
record of going on vacation more than any other President, ever?


So what.

Interesting set of priorities.

His

record of lying about many things, from the Clinton staff vandalizing
the White House


another lie. Check with the GAO. Their report shows it happened just
as he
says it happened.

Umm, no. Their report said NONE of it happened.



to his declaration that he would not use Sept 11th
politically?


Where'd he say that?

About fifteen times, from two years ago until about two months ago.


How his record of bragging about his foreign policy
success, while stabbing his own Secretary of State in the back and
driving a wedge between the US and our longest & closest allies?


The wedge has been there for some time. I'm glad he just exposed the
phonies for what they are...backstabbing ingrates.

An interesting attitude.

But the FACT remains that his policies have failed. We have regime
change in Spain (and possibly coming up in Britain) and made a lot of
new enemies, but have not ended the first threat.

So we see... you are pro-Bush to the point of denying very obvious and
easily verifiable fact... in your opinion, the Bush family should come
first above the good of the rest of the country. In your opinion, lies
and profiteering are fine *if* the guys you like are doing it.

DSK


Oh, I get it, you took all the stuff about Kerry and replaced the name with
bush. :)

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

I hear Kerry is ahead in the polls for the president of FRANCE :)

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record?



NOYB wrote:
Big deal. By the time we graduated from high school, 1/3 of my
graduating
had been "arrested" for underage drinking while in high school.

Ah, so now you're saying that you think it is morally OK to set an
example of boozing irresponsibly... driving while drunk among other
things... for today's young people?

How was I "setting an example for young people" when I was drinking in high
school. Afterall, I *was* "young people".






Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?


His




What, did speech fail you? It's true, matter of record. Prescott Bush
paid a fine out of court rather than be charged with trafficking with an
enemy state. But then the Bush family was not as rich nor as powerful as
they are now. What sort of parallel can be drawn form this, given the
free ride that the Bin Laden family and Saudi business connections have
been getting?




More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack?


He was a target you doofus.

Really? That was proclaimed loudly but so far there is no evidence at
all.... none... just another excuse and another lie.

The Secret Service hustled the Vice President from the White House since
they believed it was a target. There is even speculation that the
terrorists that hit the Pentagon were looking to hit the White House.




That is something to be proud of all right.

But that's all old news. Let's talk about the present. How about Bush's
vetoing spending money on intel & security?


He did no such thing.

Really? Why did they cut funding for DARPA, a key military intelligence
project?

Who is "they"? And WTF are you talking about?


What about the CDC's funding for emergency equipment & training
for counter-bioterror programs? What about the roll back on airport
security? Cutting funds for updating the CIA and FBI computer systems?

The list goes on. Bush is spending gazillions on war in Iraq, which
posed only very slight terrorist threat to the US. However, when it
comes to actually taking steps to combat terrorist groups, with money
that will not be funneled into the pockets of his supporters, he doesn't
give a rat's patootie.




That might really help fight
terrorism, but he nixed it.


Lie.

Unfortunately it's all true.


How about his record of ignoring... and even

falsifying... military casualties?


Lie.

Nope, true again.


How about his record of stonewalling the Sept 11 investigation?


Bull****.

Oh? Why then has Bush refused to meet with them? So far he's given a
string of statements about his dignity, and executive priviledge... he
puts his dignity above America's safety, his priviledges above the
truth... apart from that disturbing & undeniable fact, what does he have
to hide?

So far, the Bush Administration has given minimal coopoeration with the
9-11 investigation. They've even had to get court orders.


His
record of going on vacation more than any other President, ever?


So what.

Interesting set of priorities.

His

record of lying about many things, from the Clinton staff vandalizing
the White House


another lie. Check with the GAO. Their report shows it happened just
as he
says it happened.

Umm, no. Their report said NONE of it happened.



to his declaration that he would not use Sept 11th
politically?


Where'd he say that?

About fifteen times, from two years ago until about two months ago.


How his record of bragging about his foreign policy
success, while stabbing his own Secretary of State in the back and
driving a wedge between the US and our longest & closest allies?


The wedge has been there for some time. I'm glad he just exposed the
phonies for what they are...backstabbing ingrates.

An interesting attitude.

But the FACT remains that his policies have failed. We have regime
change in Spain (and possibly coming up in Britain) and made a lot of
new enemies, but have not ended the first threat.

So we see... you are pro-Bush to the point of denying very obvious and
easily verifiable fact...

Fact? If it's so easily verified, why didn't you provide proof for any your
accusations?

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

NOYB wrote:
How was I "setting an example for young people" when I was drinking in high
school. Afterall, I *was* "young people".

heh heh but you're only an example of an internet blow-hard Bush
cheerleader. Why would any young people want to be like you?

But you are avidly praising a man who not only has been in trouble for
alcohol, including a DUI or two (who's counting), but has used cocaine.
You are holding him up as an example, and saying that he is of higher
moral standard than 'the other guy(s).' By urging others to vote for
such a man as President, you are encouraging young people to do as he
did... drink heavily, do drugs, dodge responsibility...




The Secret Service hustled the Vice President from the White House since
they believed it was a target. There is even speculation that the
terrorists that hit the Pentagon were looking to hit the White House.

Oh? Is this 'speculation' hard proof? Seems very doubtful to me. If they
could hit the twin towers on planned vectors, why would they miss the
White House by a couple miles, by chance hitting another very symbolic
public building. But you have a different standard of logic & proof than
I do... if a BushCo flack says it, you seem to regard it as proven fact.

Here's what you are saying... there *might* have been an intent for the
Sept 11th terrorists to go after Bush or the White House... therefor he
was perfectly justified in running like a coward. Not only that, but you
proclaim that GB Jr's running like a coward, making false statements,
and totally failing to do anything other than follow his handlers,
*proves* he's a brave and intelligent leader!

Bottom line: on Sept 11th, Guiliani showed that he has leadership. Bush
showed that he's a chicken****.



So we see... you are pro-Bush to the point of denying very obvious and
easily verifiable fact...


Fact? If it's so easily verified, why didn't you provide proof for any your
accusations?

Anybody who has been paying the slightest attention knows these are all
real.

Of course, by saying "it's a lie" over and over, you get to convince
yourself... and maybe a few of the other Bush cheerleaders... that
you're winning!

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record,

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record? Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?

More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack? That is something to be proud of all right.
snip
DSK


SOP. The plane that crashed in PA was headed for the White House.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack? That is something to be proud of all right.



Calif Bill wrote:
SOP. The plane that crashed in PA was headed for the White House.

Really? How do you know that?

Anyway, does this make Bush's actions on that day somehow acceptable?
Does it make his subsequent evasion & lying justifiable?

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message thlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record,

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record? Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?

More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack? That is something to be proud of all right.
snip
DSK


SOP. The plane that crashed in PA was headed for the White House.

I don't believe that, at the time of the attacks, anybody knew WHERE
that plane was headed.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
As a Conservative Republican, I'm very proud of Bush's record,

Really? Are you proud of his arrest record? Are you proud of his
grandfather's record of selling war materials to Nazi Germany?

More recently, how about his record of running and hiding when the US
was actually under attack? That is something to be proud of all right.
snip
DSK


SOP. The plane that crashed in PA was headed for the White House.

I don't believe that, at the time of the attacks, anybody knew WHERE
that plane was headed.

If it happened when Clinton was in office, would you have then believed it?
I think so.

You talk about others goose stepping and wearing blinders. Take a look in
the mirror bud.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Jim-- wrote:
If it happened when Clinton was in office, would you have then believed it?
I think so.

Here's the real problem. For most of these people, 3+ years later, it's
*still* about Clinton.

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

The terrorist care. The message coming out of all of the terror groups
linked to al Qaeda is that the Spanish elections were a great victory for
them. It was a morale-booster at a time when al Qaeda desperately needed
one.

Al Qaeda is no longer the same entity it was in the past, nor does it need
to be. You really need to listen to more news sources. I've told you this
before. When your knowledge has as much depth as a saltine cracker, you
sound like a fool. The terrorists rounded up in Spain appear to be
associated with a me-too group from Morocco. AQ may cheer, but it seems they
had little to do with the train bombing. Similar to the situation in Israel
where multiple groups raise their hands and take credit for the latest
suicide bombing.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim-- wrote:
If it happened when Clinton was in office, would you have then believed
it?
I think so.

Here's the real problem. For most of these people, 3+ years later, it's
*still* about Clinton.

DSK


Its EZ 2 memorize.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the
hell
he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position than
we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!



Irrelevant. Like comparing molars to watermelons.


Sure it is, Doug.



I see. In WWII, Hitler was already marching through Europe by the time we
got involved. We didn't need to do ANYTHING to collect allies. Please
describe how this compares to the current situation, where we have a list of
"allies", 99% of whom have contributed nothing but an agreement to not
criticise the effort.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim-- wrote:
If it happened when Clinton was in office, would you have then believed
it?
I think so.

Here's the real problem. For most of these people, 3+ years later, it's
*still* about Clinton.

DSK


You people think it would be nirvana if Clinton (or his surrogate) was still
in office. No 9/11, no rescession, no job loss.
Bill

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim-- wrote:
If it happened when Clinton was in office, would you have then
believed
it?
I think so.

Here's the real problem. For most of these people, 3+ years later, it's
*still* about Clinton.

DSK


You people think it would be nirvana if Clinton (or his surrogate) was
still
in office. No 9/11, no rescession, no job loss.
Bill



DSK said nothing of the sort. "You people" only think in black or white.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

The terrorist care. The message coming out of all of the terror groups
linked to al Qaeda is that the Spanish elections were a great victory
for
them. It was a morale-booster at a time when al Qaeda desperately
needed
one.

Al Qaeda is no longer the same entity it was in the past, nor does it need
to be. You really need to listen to more news sources. I've told you this
before. When your knowledge has as much depth as a saltine cracker, you
sound like a fool. The terrorists rounded up in Spain appear to be
associated with a me-too group from Morocco. AQ may cheer, but it seems
they
had little to do with the train bombing.

Like every other news story out there, I wrote: "...the terror groups
*linked* to al Qaeda".

Are you claiming that Abu Hafs al-Masri has no affiliations with al Qaeda?

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the
hell
he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or
the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position than
we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!



Irrelevant. Like comparing molars to watermelons.


Sure it is, Doug.



I see. In WWII, Hitler was already marching through Europe by the time we
got involved. We didn't need to do ANYTHING to collect allies. Please
describe how this compares to the current situation, where we have a list
of
"allies", 99% of whom have contributed nothing but an agreement to not
criticise the effort.

bin Laden's army's have marched through dozens of countries that have been
the victim of terrorist attacks from radical muslim groups. See the
similarity now?

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:07:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Are you claiming that Abu Hafs al-Masri has no affiliations with al Qaeda?

Well, his daughter is married to bin Laden's son.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Calif Bill wrote:
You people think it would be nirvana if Clinton (or his surrogate) was still
in office.

Please point out where & when I ever said any such thing.


... No 9/11, no rescession, no job loss.

Actually, there is very good reason to think that Sept 11th would not
have happened if anybody except G.W.Bush had been elected in 2000. His
business dealings with the Taliban and the Saudis, and his carte-blanche
backing of Israel, were precipitating factors.

But hey, that's just my speculation. Based on careful observation and
historical perspective, but still just speculation.

The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Bush *is* the epitome of Crusader evil. He doesn't know what the
hell
he
is doing. He's done nothing at all to make the United States or
the
world safer. In fact, he's put all of us in a worse position
than
we've
been in since the early days of World War II.

And we all know how that conflict turned out!



Irrelevant. Like comparing molars to watermelons.


Sure it is, Doug.



I see. In WWII, Hitler was already marching through Europe by the time
we
got involved. We didn't need to do ANYTHING to collect allies. Please
describe how this compares to the current situation, where we have a
list
of
"allies", 99% of whom have contributed nothing but an agreement to not
criticise the effort.

bin Laden's army's have marched through dozens of countries that have been
the victim of terrorist attacks from radical muslim groups. See the
similarity now?



Apparently, the countries they've marched through don't feel threatened.
Care to list the dozens, and compare that list to the few who have chosen to
send troops to Iraq?

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
You people think it would be nirvana if Clinton (or his surrogate) was
still
in office.

Please point out where & when I ever said any such thing.



Just read your opinions over the last couple of years and you will see the
inference.


... No 9/11, no rescession, no job loss.

Actually, there is very good reason to think that Sept 11th would not
have happened if anybody except G.W.Bush had been elected in 2000. His
business dealings with the Taliban and the Saudis, and his carte-blanche
backing of Israel, were precipitating factors.

But hey, that's just my speculation. Based on careful observation and
historical perspective, but still just speculation.


How would you even speculate that it would not have happened. It was
already attempted to take down the WTC with a truck bomb. And the planing
and training for 9/11 had to take more than 9 months. You have to be really
biased to think it would not have happened under another candidate. Hell,
the Muslim extremists are waging war all over the world on those they figure
are not pure and chosen. Look at Algeria. 100 of thousands to killed and
mutilated people. They of the wrong branch of Islam.



The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK



The Secret Service always tried to keep the President out of harms way. And
you have planes crashing into buildings in different parts of the USA and
you think he is not in danger? Watch the tapes of any assassination or
attempt to assassinate the President and watch the Secret Service get him
out of danger.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:10:08 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
You people think it would be nirvana if Clinton (or his surrogate) was
still
in office.

Please point out where & when I ever said any such thing.



Just read your opinions over the last couple of years and you will see the
inference.


... No 9/11, no rescession, no job loss.

Actually, there is very good reason to think that Sept 11th would not
have happened if anybody except G.W.Bush had been elected in 2000. His
business dealings with the Taliban and the Saudis, and his carte-blanche
backing of Israel, were precipitating factors.

But hey, that's just my speculation. Based on careful observation and
historical perspective, but still just speculation.


How would you even speculate that it would not have happened. It was
already attempted to take down the WTC with a truck bomb. And the planing
and training for 9/11 had to take more than 9 months. You have to be really
biased to think it would not have happened under another candidate. Hell,
the Muslim extremists are waging war all over the world on those they figure
are not pure and chosen. Look at Algeria. 100 of thousands to killed and
mutilated people. They of the wrong branch of Islam.



The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK



The Secret Service always tried to keep the President out of harms way. And
you have planes crashing into buildings in different parts of the USA and
you think he is not in danger? Watch the tapes of any assassination or
attempt to assassinate the President and watch the Secret Service get him
out of danger.


According to my hero, Michael Moore, the second most honest person in
the world (Harry K being the first, since he has a secret lobsta boat)
many of the 9/11 folks were here for two years.

But, Bush was probably the one that got them here.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Calif Bill wrote:
Just read your opinions over the last couple of years and you will see the
inference.

Your inference is wrong. Not everybody that hates Bush likes Clinton.


How would you even speculate that it would not have happened. It was
already attempted to take down the WTC with a truck bomb.


Yes, that's true. It was a much smaller operation. And the right-wing
loudmouths often overlook the fact that the people who did it are in
jail... and have been since long before Bush took office.


... And the planing
and training for 9/11 had to take more than 9 months.

Sure... the real crazies have been out there, and working devotedly, for
a long time. But when Bush won the election, the behind the scenes
people who can get serious about planning & financing such a large
operation got involved where they might have stayed out. Look who
benefitted financially from the Sept 11th attacks.


... You have to be really
biased to think it would not have happened under another candidate. Hell,
the Muslim extremists are waging war all over the world on those they figure
are not pure and chosen. Look at Algeria. 100 of thousands to killed and
mutilated people. They of the wrong branch of Islam.


Yes but many of those particular crazies are not into attacking *us*.




The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK




The Secret Service always tried to keep the President out of harms way. And
you have planes crashing into buildings in different parts of the USA and
you think he is not in danger?

The President was in less danger than anybody in NYC or DC. And sure,
it's their job to get him out of danger... but he's the President. A
leader, a brave man, would have looked at the situation and said, 'there
is no immediate threat. Let's think this over and take some action.'
Instead he simply ran like a rabbit, making several false public
statements and being led around by the nose.

That's chicken****.

Maybe that's a bit harsh... let's just say it falls far short of the
standard of leadership I expect... and that the U.S. needs.

DSK

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:20:21 -0500, DSK wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
Just read your opinions over the last couple of years and you will see the
inference.

Your inference is wrong. Not everybody that hates Bush likes Clinton.


How would you even speculate that it would not have happened. It was
already attempted to take down the WTC with a truck bomb.


Yes, that's true. It was a much smaller operation. And the right-wing
loudmouths often overlook the fact that the people who did it are in
jail... and have been since long before Bush took office.


... And the planing
and training for 9/11 had to take more than 9 months.

Sure... the real crazies have been out there, and working devotedly, for
a long time. But when Bush won the election, the behind the scenes
people who can get serious about planning & financing such a large
operation got involved where they might have stayed out. Look who
benefitted financially from the Sept 11th attacks.


... You have to be really
biased to think it would not have happened under another candidate. Hell,
the Muslim extremists are waging war all over the world on those they figure
are not pure and chosen. Look at Algeria. 100 of thousands to killed and
mutilated people. They of the wrong branch of Islam.


Yes but many of those particular crazies are not into attacking *us*.




The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK




The Secret Service always tried to keep the President out of harms way. And
you have planes crashing into buildings in different parts of the USA and
you think he is not in danger?

The President was in less danger than anybody in NYC or DC. And sure,
it's their job to get him out of danger... but he's the President. A
leader, a brave man, would have looked at the situation and said, 'there
is no immediate threat. Let's think this over and take some action.'
Instead he simply ran like a rabbit, making several false public
statements and being led around by the nose.

That's chicken****.

Maybe that's a bit harsh... let's just say it falls far short of the
standard of leadership I expect... and that the U.S. needs.

DSK

How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.

It's a non-issue. They could've simply taken him to Christfield's, an
excellent seafood place in Silver Springs, and he would've been safe.
However, I think he would choked on a lobster claw, so perhaps it *was*
better that they got him onto an airplane.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...


How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.


It's a non-issue. They could've simply taken him to Christfield's, an
excellent seafood place in Silver Springs, and he would've been safe.
However, I think he would choked on a lobster claw, so perhaps it *was*
better that they got him onto an airplane.



It's Chrisfield's, actually, and I'm pretty sure lobster isn't on the
menu. But Bush could have choked on a "arster" shell.

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:53:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...


How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.


It's a non-issue. They could've simply taken him to Christfield's, an
excellent seafood place in Silver Springs, and he would've been safe.
However, I think he would choked on a lobster claw, so perhaps it *was*
better that they got him onto an airplane.



It's Chrisfield's, actually, and I'm pretty sure lobster isn't on the
menu. But Bush could have choked on a "arster" shell.

Speaking of lobsters, can you tell me about your lobster boat? Is
Rockhold the creek in which you keep it? I'd love to see it.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:27:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.

It's a non-issue. They could've simply taken him to Christfield's, an
excellent seafood place in Silver Springs, and he would've been safe.
However, I think he would choked on a lobster claw, so perhaps it *was*
better that they got him onto an airplane.


Thank God for sanity!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Calif Bill wrote:
Just read your opinions over the last couple of years and you will see
the
inference.

Your inference is wrong. Not everybody that hates Bush likes Clinton.


How would you even speculate that it would not have happened. It was
already attempted to take down the WTC with a truck bomb.


Yes, that's true. It was a much smaller operation. And the right-wing
loudmouths often overlook the fact that the people who did it are in
jail... and have been since long before Bush took office.



Run by the same group of ringleaders. And the fact the building did not
collapse was luck. The fact they tried and failed actually saved lives on
9/11. There were people who said to stay in the building it was safe and
those that had been through the earlier event, were smart enough to say.
Nah. We're leaving. The locals are in jail, but the financiers and planers
aren't.


... And the planing
and training for 9/11 had to take more than 9 months.

Sure... the real crazies have been out there, and working devotedly, for
a long time. But when Bush won the election, the behind the scenes
people who can get serious about planning & financing such a large
operation got involved where they might have stayed out. Look who
benefitted financially from the Sept 11th attacks.


... You have to be really
biased to think it would not have happened under another candidate.
Hell,
the Muslim extremists are waging war all over the world on those they
figure
are not pure and chosen. Look at Algeria. 100 of thousands to killed
and
mutilated people. They of the wrong branch of Islam.


Yes but many of those particular crazies are not into attacking *us*.



You think it is not the same wing of crazies? They are trying to spread
their brand of Islam to the world, and will not be happy until they succeed
or get to those 72 Virgins. Not the ones Don White is dreaming about.



The FACT is that Bush acted like a chicken**** on Sept 11th. Anybody can
see that, but some prefer to deny the obvious.

DSK




The Secret Service always tried to keep the President out of harms way.
And
you have planes crashing into buildings in different parts of the USA
and
you think he is not in danger?

The President was in less danger than anybody in NYC or DC. And sure,
it's their job to get him out of danger... but he's the President. A
leader, a brave man, would have looked at the situation and said, 'there
is no immediate threat. Let's think this over and take some action.'
Instead he simply ran like a rabbit, making several false public
statements and being led around by the nose.

That's chicken****.

Maybe that's a bit harsh... let's just say it falls far short of the
standard of leadership I expect... and that the U.S. needs.

DSK



How the hell you think he was not in assumed to be in danger, with planes
crashing in different locations? Planes still flying? That's Bull****!

OT--al Qaeda already claiming Aznar's defeat as victory
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...


How the hell could Bush or the Secret Service have possibly said,
"There is no immediate threat" as long as airplanes were still flying
around the country?

This "Bush was a coward" stuff is totally inane. You folks say it to
keep your lib circle jerk going, but it's ridiculous.


It's a non-issue. They could've simply taken him to Christfield's, an
excellent seafood place in Silver Springs, and he would've been safe.
However, I think he would choked on a lobster claw, so perhaps it *was*
better that they got him onto an airplane.



It's Chrisfield's, actually, and I'm pretty sure lobster isn't on the
menu. But Bush could have choked on a "arster" shell.

Why no lobster? Don't they ship any in from up North?