NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than 1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those 3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war
on terror").

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you get
8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word "terrorists"
than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate tactics, I guess that
I have just proven that they are terrorists and not insurgents.

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)

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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you
get
8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word
"terrorists"
than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate tactics, I guess
that
I have just proven that they are terrorists and not insurgents.

Well google returned 78,500 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and Liar.......
as well as 718,000 for "John Kerry" and "stupid"


(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start
promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more
intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:02:40 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


Well google returned 78,500 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and Liar....... as
well as 718,000 for "John Kerry" and "stupid"

LOL, switch George Bush for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and see what
you get.

NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.

An interesting note, if you Google up "Liberal Asshole" you get 310,000 hits
and "Liberal ****" gives you 961,000 hits.
and last but not least:

"Kevin Noble Pothead" gives you 547 hits.


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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you
get 8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word
"terrorists" than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate
tactics, I guess that I have just proven that they are terrorists and not
insurgents.

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start
promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more
intelligent adversaries to argue against.)

P. Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties

than

1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.



Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to

Google

and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says

there

are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the

war

on terror").




It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If you're talking about me...I bend more toward socialists/labour.

Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says there
are over 2 million hits.


NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who these
terrorists really are.

You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency. Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war
on terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America, then they would also
have to admit the Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to actually fight
terrorism and the long string of lies leading us into war in Iraq.

So, keep spinning & dodging, NOBBY! Maybe you'll be rewarded with a nice
cushy appointment, or maybe you'll have to wait for your reward in Heaven.

DSK