"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be
out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell
me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it
better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and
capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I
wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think
there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000
Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really
don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's
whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest
statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that
attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is
*not* important. What is important is the world-wide,
religiously based uprising against anything or anybody not
believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden may be a vocal
centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin
Laden was discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that
may be looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment,
for al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured
concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to
know is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain
about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You say
that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not capturing
OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to keep
whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.


Now THAT is funny. You won't tell us which specific measures have prevented
us from being attacked here since 9/11. The only factor you've alluded to
is Bush being in office.

Finish the discussion, or.....if you live in a glass house.....

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the
sovereignty of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how
we should respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on
saying silly things like that, then you need to explain how the
invasion of Iraq fits your definition of respecting sovereignty.



Excuse me. I paid for this computer. I'll say any silly thing I want.

Eisboch



Really, I need to understand this better. So far, I've interpreted your
words to mean the following:

"We should respect the sovereignty of other nations, except when we don't
feel like it."

Is that it?


Nope.

Eisboch


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"Reggie's correct. If we were going to go after Al Qaeda and all their
associated terrorists groups we would have to invade or be invited into
countries all over the world, including those of our allies. Just not going
to happen."

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?

"John H." wrote in message
...


Who do you think we should invade next? Who has "threats" waiting for us?


Lots of threats. None worth going to war for, yet.
--
John H


Congrats on your performance in this video, but tell your wife I agree with
your idea of invading from the west. She was wrong.
http://www.digitalfog.com/gallery/invasion.html

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to know
is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You
say that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not
capturing OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to
keep whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.

Yet another bizarre response.

I don't believe I ever suggested that I should personally go and collar Bin
Laden. I just suggested that the people that should be going after Bin Laden
have Attention Deficit Disorder and they keep getting sidetracked. If the
president of the United States had the WILL to capture Bin Laden, it would
happen. He simply hasn't applied himself.


Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:37:37 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:13:13 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be
out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't
tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it
better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL
and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I
wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think
there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000
Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really
don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's
whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest
statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those
that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is
*not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously
based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam.
Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not
that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin
Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public
that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment,
for
al-qiada.

Not under MY plan, he doesn't.
Enlighten us please.
Find and kill the *******. Then put his remains in the poured
concrete
foundation of the new World Trade Center.
We already know you want to find him and kill him. What we want to
know
is how you would go about the task of finding OBL?


Our leaders need to stay focused. If they had, we wouldn't be
wondering about how to find him.
You are all talk and not action. You just want something to complain
about.


Thats a fairly bizarre response.

You wont tell us what you would do to track down and capture OBL. You
say that OBL needs to be captured and that GWB has failed us by not
capturing OBL. What would you do or would you have done to capture OBL.

If you are not willing to tell us what your plan to capture OBL then you
are just blowing smoke, sucking up air for no reason or just want to
keep whining about the US not capturing OBL.

You are beginning to show traces of Kanterism.

Yet another bizarre response.

I don't believe I ever suggested that I should personally go and collar
Bin
Laden. I just suggested that the people that should be going after Bin
Laden
have Attention Deficit Disorder and they keep getting sidetracked. If the
president of the United States had the WILL to capture Bin Laden, it would
happen. He simply hasn't applied himself.


Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

Do you think that if salty hasn't got the details of the proposed mission,
then it cannot be done, even by people who DO know how to do it?

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/20...den-still.html

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

Psssst! Can I tell you a little secret? GWB already ignores the
sovereignty of other countries. Please don't say silly things about how
we should respect the sovereignty of other countries. If you insist on
saying silly things like that, then you need to explain how the
invasion of Iraq fits your definition of respecting sovereignty.


Excuse me. I paid for this computer. I'll say any silly thing I want.

Eisboch


Really, I need to understand this better. So far, I've interpreted your
words to mean the following:

"We should respect the sovereignty of other nations, except when we don't
feel like it."

Is that it?

Nope.

Eisboch


Well, that's what your theory sounds like. In your other post, you said
"Reggie's correct. If we were going to go after Al Qaeda and all their
associated terrorists groups we would have to invade or be invited into
countries all over the world, including those of our allies. Just not going
to happen."

If you are going to tell us what we are thinking why the heck bother to
ask any questions?

You will misinterpret any statements made by anyone, so it fits your
preconceived assumptions.

In other words, we can CLAIM we're going after AQ, and give ourselves a
green light to invade any country we want. Of course, we'd need to add a few
more weak reasons in case the original one fizzled out. That's how it worked
with Iraq, remember? The list of vanishing reasons?

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:46:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:22:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

snipped

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
--
John H

Do you think that if salty hasn't got the details of the proposed mission,
then it cannot be done, even by people who DO know how to do it?

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/20...den-still.html


This is the kind of stuff you believe (from your source):

"...President Musharraf has helped create a quiet mountain retreat, a
veritable terrorism spa, for Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to refresh
themselves and get back in shape."

One can only wonder where that stupid cow gets her intelligence.

No one asked Salty for details, just an idea. Dowd has a great idea, drop
in a team of Rangers or SEALs. That sounds cool. Is that what you'd do? Is
that what Salty would do?
--
John H

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:




Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"


Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

On Jan 18, 7:26*am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:

Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.

I admit no such thing.

I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"

Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

He will never answer the questions, you are one of the last in the
group wasting their time..

wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:26 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:44:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:50 -0500, wrote:
Salty, you've got to admit you keep dodging the question.
I admit no such thing.
I think perhaps your nickname should be, "Red Herring"
Good idea, but you've yet to answer the question. Perhaps you should change
your nickname to Doug Kanter?
--
Red Herring

He will never answer the questions, you are one of the last in the
group wasting their time..


Maybe Doug likes to task slow-witted conservatrashers - herring, bilious
bill, bertie, you...