On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:52:24 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

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.

Absence of an event does not proove apples.

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.

"Two attacks": Iraq & Afghanistan.

http://www.mgm.com/mgm/uk_images/box..._DVD_HIRES.jpg

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.

They asked for proof to make a criminal case.
It was blatently refused.
In point of fact, the US fleets were already on their way
to attack. The decision had been made.
Perhaps even before 9-11, as it had been to attack Iraq.

Not Iraq, their
"government" was playing games with the UN inspectors

Those the ones bush threw out to keep them from finishing
their inspections?

manipulating the
UN oil for food program

I take it that you did not read the report.

while starving the civilian population

Cites?

and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.

WHAT "Chemical weapons"???

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

So they did not have troops there?

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.

So you ignore Gunner & the wingers?

Q: WHAT CAUSES "TERRORISTS"?

Murdering ~100,000 of their close relatives?
Torturing others?
Bombing their homes?
Attacking their religions?
Supporting other terrorists for decades?

Things like that?

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

I don't think that you see a lot of it.

wingers try to paint. Perhaps you should consider looking past the
propaganda of your left wing buddies at the realities of the world.

What "left wing buddies" might these be?
The ones asking for proof?

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff