Cliff wrote:

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.

Your reasoning is apparently nonexistent.


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 ...

Don't know where AQ&CO plan to attack next although I suspect that
Mexico is at the bottom of their list. Canada is not out of the realm of
possibility, but is likely low on the list. If I were the betting type,
which I am not, somewhere in Europe would be the most likely.


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?

Historically, yes, or the equivalent thereof pre bombs and aircraft. In
the present sense, which countries might that be? Not Afghanistan, their
"government" was knowingly supporting AQ&CO. Not Iraq, their
"government" was playing games with the UN inspectors manipulating the
UN oil for food program while starving the civilian population and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.


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

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

No, they didn't, and yet they were attacked by terrorists anyway which
should teach them something about the risk of ignoring terrorists just
because they don't appear to be a direct threat. Terrorists will
inevitably become a direct threat at some point and the longer you
ignore the threat, the larger it becomes.


Pete C.

Winger's Disease getting really bad?
--
Cliff

Apparently yours is. I'm in the center bud, and I look left and right
and see the wingers and their nonsense. Then I look at the real world
which is strikingly different from either of the ones the left and right
wingers try to paint. Perhaps you should consider looking past the
propaganda of your left wing buddies at the realities of the world.

Pete C.