Cliff wrote:

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.

So you're now confirming your flawed reasoning?


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

Not interested in any winger propaganda.


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.

They asked for classified information knowing full well who they were
harboring and that no sane person would turn over such information to
them.

US Fleets moving does not in any way indicate that a decision to attack
has been made. It's called "posturing" and it's also called keeping your
options open since it takes some time to get equipment into position.


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

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

Bust didn't throw anyone out, Saddam did several times. The inspectors
were so mired in UN bureaucracy that they couldn't accomplish anything
anyway. Every site they inspected, as they drove in on one side a convoy
of trucks was seen leaving on the other side. They had no way to get to
a site unannounced and no way to stop and inspect whatever was being
moved out as they arrived. Those are the facts.


manipulating the
UN oil for food program

I take it that you did not read the report.

Did you? Saddam was manipulating and funneling funds to support himself
and his troops and weapons and virtually nothing was reaching the
civilian population.


while starving the civilian population

Cites?

Too many to list, look at the UN reports, look at old NPR reports, it
was abundantly clear that the UN sanctions were only hurting the
civilians and having no effect on Saddam and his cronies.


and of
course playing games with the chemical weapons thing.

WHAT "Chemical weapons"???

The ones the first UNSCOM teams located and inventoried. The reports are
out there, try reading them.


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?

Your point? You're the one who said they didn't attack Iraq or
Afghanistan.


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?

I see a larger threat from the naieve left wingers than from the right
wingers at the moment. The potential issues from the right wingers
aren't ones that threaten my physical safety.


Q: WHAT CAUSES "TERRORISTS"?

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

A: Radical failed religions in conjunction with collapsed societies.


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.

I see far more that you do apparently, you seem to have your left
blinders on.


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?

Proof of what? Their conspiracy theories? We know who AQ&CO are, we've
known about them for years. Your leftie buddies ignored them during
their administration and 911 and the previous WTC bombing were the
result. The various embassy bombings in Africa and some assorted other
incidents were additional early warnings that your buddies chose to
ignore.


Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

Yes, as a matter of fact I have, and you're one of them. It was the
negligent inaction of the naieve left wingers that allowed 911 to
happen.

Pete C.