Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. JSB, You and Vic are sounding the ultra Reich Wing Hawks. Nuke them all, let God sort them out. I can't believe anyone would actually use the term RAGHEAD to describe our ally. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:58:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. Honor was not mentioned in the discussion. Why do you feel it necessary to change the subject? Do you find name-calling and derogatory personal attacks 'honorable'? Don't 'pansy out' on me now. -- John H |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:58:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. Honor was not mentioned in the discussion. Why do you feel it necessary to change the subject? Do you find name-calling and derogatory personal attacks 'honorable'? Don't 'pansy out' on me now. -- John H I'm not changing the subject. You have a problem with minor detours that most competent adults find perfectly normal in conversations. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:04:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:58:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. What's that supposed to mean? That we're honorable for not invading Pakistan? Uh oh. Honor was not mentioned in the discussion. Why do you feel it necessary to change the subject? Do you find name-calling and derogatory personal attacks 'honorable'? Don't 'pansy out' on me now. -- John H I'm not changing the subject. You have a problem with minor detours that most competent adults find perfectly normal in conversations. Your 'minor detours' always seem to occur when you've lost another one. -- John H |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex. There's always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that already existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics claim he is, he would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the troops in to capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a short term goal but would have set off another major crisis. Nope. Iraq is making more and more sense as being the focal point on the war on terror. No surrounding nations liked Sadam; in fact they were threatened by him. The people of Iraq were oppressed and treated to terrorism from within. Rather than invade every country where members of Al Qaeda reside, or the many terrorist organizations associated with Al Qaeda (al Jihad, the National Islamic Front, Hezballah and others) all of whom, BTW, share a common goal .... the defeat of western civilization and freedom, particularly that represented by the United States, it makes more sense to bring them to us. If that was the plan, it's working to a degree. Eisboch |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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. If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about us, doesn't it? Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan. I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex. There's always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that already existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics claim he is, he would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the troops in to capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a short term goal but would have set off another major crisis. 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. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Democrats behaving like democrats. | General | |||
Go Democrats! | ASA | |||
Don't Know leads the Democrats | ASA | |||
Bad news for Democrats | ASA |