On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:36:46 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:47:05 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

snip


IF you were correct then clearly "terrorists" are of little
threat as it did not happen G.

Your theory assumes that the scenario has reached a conclusion. This
scenario has a time scale of years, not days or months.

How many more do you wish to murder & terrorize?

Pretty good way to make long term friends, eh?

Or are you thinking of gunner's loonie buddies with their
rants of taking over the government with a few flintlocks
if the "liberals" try to get them health care (probably in
fear of Lithium)?

What relevance does that comment

Lithium?

have to my comment about your flawed reasoning

No Lithium?

terrorist attacks? You implied that since the US didn't
collapse after 911 that there was no threat of that from terrorist
attacks.

Your "reasonong" was flawed, such that it was.

Two attacks does not in any way indicate a conclusion, only a
beginning.

So who's next on your list of nations to attack?
Canada? Mexico?
Might be cheaper ...

It's also only a beginning locally since it has been going on
for years outside the US.

There are always a few and always will be.
Did anyone else bomb the wrong nations over the criminal
acts of a few?

The events in Spain clearly indicate the
dangers of an emotionally reactionary population.

LOL .... THEY DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.

Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff