On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:01:05 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Senior Al Qaeda commander killed in Pakistan
Sat Dec 3, 2005 1:48 PM GMT

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - An al Qaeda commander ranked among the top five in
Osama bin Laden's network was killed in a tribal region of Pakistan
bordering Afghanistan, President Pervez Musharraf said on Saturday.

Abu Hamza Rabia, an Egyptian credited with heading al Qaeda's
international operations, was among five militants killed in an explosion
at a house where they were hiding in North Waziristan on Thursday.

***

Let's see, we've killed the 2nd in command, third in command, fourth in
command, fifth in command al Qaeda leader what, 20 times each now? Only
10,000 "Top 5" leaders left.




Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?



There will always be a Top 5 because there will always be an al Qaeda
network, or a similar network by another name to succeed it.

You understand that...eh?

The almighty US military cannot defeat a large, well-financed,
multi-national, faith-based group like al Qaeda. All we are doing in
Iraq is providing advanced training for al Qaeda and for the insurgents
who want us out of there.

But, hey, if you want to volunteer up your son and if the rest of the
righties here want to volunteer up their sons to head over to Iraq and
fight in Bush's Folly, you don't need my permission or blessing.

Go for it.

What would you suggest, Oh Harry? Should we just roll over and bare
our stomachs?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:26:10 -0500, John H. wrote:


What would you suggest, Oh Harry? Should we just roll over and bare our
stomachs?

Explain to us again, John, what did Iraq have to do with terrorism,
*before* we invaded? Help me out here, John, was it Saddam behind 9/11,
or was it Osama bin Missin'?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:26:10 -0500, John H. wrote:


What would you suggest, Oh Harry? Should we just roll over and bare our
stomachs?

Explain to us again, John, what did Iraq have to do with terrorism,
*before* we invaded? Help me out here, John, was it Saddam behind 9/11,
or was it Osama bin Missin'?

What proof do you have that Saddam wasn't harborring terrorists? We have
found, and killed, al-Qaieda members in Iraq since we invaded. So, you can
stop with the terrorist thing and move back to the WMDs. Oh, nevermind we
did find nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq or production and
delivery systems which are in fact WMDs.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:14:38 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:26:10 -0500, John H. wrote:


What would you suggest, Oh Harry? Should we just roll over and bare our
stomachs?

Explain to us again, John, what did Iraq have to do with terrorism,
*before* we invaded? Help me out here, John, was it Saddam behind 9/11,
or was it Osama bin Missin'?

Did I say something about Iraq, or was I responding to a post about
the war on terrorism?

Do you believe Saddam would have just been a good boy after the 21st
UN Resolution?

--
John

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you the best as we celebrate the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:26:10 -0500, John H. wrote:


What would you suggest, Oh Harry? Should we just roll over and bare our
stomachs?

Explain to us again, John, what did Iraq have to do with terrorism,
*before* we invaded? Help me out here, John, was it Saddam behind 9/11,
or was it Osama bin Missin'?

It depends upon who you ask. Former CIA director James Woolsey says that
Saddam had a hand in 9/11.