wrote in message
ink.net...
Instead it killed an American Civilian... A man in Iraq for no other
reason
than to help rebuild, to make life better for Iraqi people...

No, the Iraqi didn't kill him, he was killed by the real enemy, the ones
we
are supposed to be at war with... He was killed by al-Qaida...

An American killed, his head cut off. His body left alongside a bridge in
Baghdad.

Saved 1 American life... No, it caused an innocent to die.

Which pictures caused the four guys to be hacked up in Fallujah? Which
pictures caused Daniel Pearl's head to be cut off? Those events happened
long before the Abu Ghraib incident. You're a jackass if you think the Abu
Ghraib pics caused Nick Berg's death.

Radical Muslims want us dead. The argument that our troop's actions are
creating new radical fundamentalists each day is ridiculous. If Islam is a
peace-loving religion, a few hundred pics of naked Iraqis isn't going to
turn the moderates into radicals. There are no moderate, peace-loving
Muslims...which makes it easy to decide who gets bombed next.

NOYB wrote:
Radical Muslims want us dead. The argument that our troop's actions are
creating new radical fundamentalists each day is ridiculous.

Umm, no. It is a pretty easily verifiable fact.

... If Islam is a
peace-loving religion, a few hundred pics of naked Iraqis isn't going to
turn the moderates into radicals. There are no moderate, peace-loving
Muslims...which makes it easy to decide who gets bombed next.

So you love President George Bush because he is leading the U.S. step by
step into a holy war to exterminate all Muslims? That'll make a great
Republican campaign plank.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Radical Muslims want us dead. The argument that our troop's actions are
creating new radical fundamentalists each day is ridiculous.

Umm, no. It is a pretty easily verifiable fact.

Whooosh! You obviously missed the point. A *peaceful* Muslim doesn't
become a cold-blooded suicide bomber because of a few pictures of naked
Iraqis. America's actions are simply exposing the sleeper groups of
radicals who have been posing as "moderates". Did you notice how very few
"moderate" Muslim clerics denounced the killing of Berg?



... If Islam is a
peace-loving religion, a few hundred pics of naked Iraqis isn't going to
turn the moderates into radicals. There are no moderate, peace-loving
Muslims...which makes it easy to decide who gets bombed next.

So you love President George Bush because he is leading the U.S. step by
step into a holy war to exterminate all Muslims? That'll make a great
Republican campaign plank.

The Crusades in the 11th, 12th, and 13th century were preceded by Mohammed's
persecution of infidels. Remember that we didn't start this war.

NOYB wrote:
Whooosh! You obviously missed the point. A *peaceful* Muslim doesn't
become a cold-blooded suicide bomber because of a few pictures of naked
Iraqis. America's actions are simply exposing the sleeper groups of
radicals who have been posing as "moderates".

You really believe this? Oh yeah, and you really believe there really
are *still* WMDs. I guess I'm not going to ask your opinion on Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny.



So you love President George Bush because he is leading the U.S. step by
step into a holy war to exterminate all Muslims? That'll make a great
Republican campaign plank.


The Crusades in the 11th, 12th, and 13th century were preceded by Mohammed's
persecution of infidels.


In other words, yes?

I hope that you and your fellow Bush cheerleaders go around shouting
this from rooftops. Don't be afraid to tell the truth!

... Remember that we didn't start this war.

I agree, "we" didn't. Dick Cheney started it so that his clique of
military contractors, headed by Halliburton, would reap enormous profits
(Halliburton profits up something like 600% last year, check the news).

If you are talking about the war on terrorism, I'd agree again. But
invading Iraq is not about terrorism, and actually has weakened the US
tremendously. It's all about oil, as you pointed out yesterday.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Whooosh! You obviously missed the point. A *peaceful* Muslim doesn't
become a cold-blooded suicide bomber because of a few pictures of naked
Iraqis. America's actions are simply exposing the sleeper groups of
radicals who have been posing as "moderates".

You really believe this? Oh yeah, and you really believe there really
are *still* WMDs. I guess I'm not going to ask your opinion on Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny.



So you love President George Bush because he is leading the U.S. step by
step into a holy war to exterminate all Muslims? That'll make a great
Republican campaign plank.


The Crusades in the 11th, 12th, and 13th century were preceded by
Mohammed's
persecution of infidels.


In other words, yes?

I hope that you and your fellow Bush cheerleaders go around shouting
this from rooftops. Don't be afraid to tell the truth!

... Remember that we didn't start this war.

I agree, "we" didn't. Dick Cheney started it so that his clique of
military contractors, headed by Halliburton, would reap enormous profits
(Halliburton profits up something like 600% last year, check the news).

If you are talking about the war on terrorism, I'd agree again. But
invading Iraq is not about terrorism, and actually has weakened the US
tremendously. It's all about oil, as you pointed out yesterday.


No, I pointed out that oil is one of the major reasons we went into Iraq
before Syria or Iran. But it's not *the* reason.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:54:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


No, I pointed out that oil is one of the major reasons we went into Iraq
before Syria or Iran. But it's not *the* reason.

"American intelligence and State Department officials have told me that by
early 2002 Syria had emerged as one of the C.I.A.'s most effective
intelligence allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, providing an outpouring
of information that came to an end only with the invasion of Iraq."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030728fa_fact

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:54:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


No, I pointed out that oil is one of the major reasons we went into Iraq
before Syria or Iran. But it's not *the* reason.

"American intelligence and State Department officials have told me that by
early 2002 Syria had emerged as one of the C.I.A.'s most effective
intelligence allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, providing an outpouring
of information that came to an end only with the invasion of Iraq."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030728fa_fact

"The intelligence coöperation on Al Qaeda was important and effective," said
Martin Indyk, who served as Ambassador to Israel in the Clinton
Administration and is now director of the Saban Center. "But the Syrians
thought it would compensate for all their other games with Iraq and the
Palestinian terror organizations, and it doesn't."

I agree, "we" didn't. Dick Cheney started it so that his clique of
military contractors, headed by Halliburton, would reap enormous profits
(Halliburton profits up something like 600% last year, check the news).


RANT ON!

DO you really believe this?

That a senior official of ANY administration would jeopardize their
position and livelyhood by starting a war that has no preordained
outcome.

That by going into it, they would anatagonize about 50% of the
population and cause the LeftMedia to attack him/her at every
opportunity

Cheny is a rich man, he had the wherewithall, perserverence and
intelligence to succeed in the upper echelons of big business.
This is bad? I thought that was the American dream!!!

If you had 10M, 50M, 100M, would you volunteer to serve your country
or just retire to the islands and hope the jihad doesn't come there?.

He does not need more profits from Hal and neither do most of the
other principles and I don't want to here about the mistreated
workers, they are making a very good wage.

That does not mean that they won't take those profits. Would you give
back legally earned money?

Believing that this is about the admin trying to enrich their coffers
is really out there.

Don't you know, the Republicans have all the money and tax breaks, so
they don't really need it.