CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

On a more practical level, the GOP is in nomination disarray. I predict that
JEB Bush will be the nominee! After eight years with JEB (leading us to
security, hegemony, and prosperity), it'll be time for that good-looking
Bush Hispanic nephew. By the end of his two terms, the dynasty will be well
established.

After that, it's only a small step to a monarchy, which is what we
Republicans are really working for.

Don't tell anybody!

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.


If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

On a more practical level, the GOP is in nomination disarray. I predict that
JEB Bush will be the nominee! After eight years with JEB (leading us to
security, hegemony, and prosperity), it'll be time for that good-looking
Bush Hispanic nephew. By the end of his two terms, the dynasty will be well
established.

After that, it's only a small step to a monarchy, which is what we
Republicans are really working for.

Don't tell anybody!


The word is already out. Ain't gonna happen.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.


If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

On a more practical level, the GOP is in nomination disarray. I predict that
JEB Bush will be the nominee! After eight years with JEB (leading us to
security, hegemony, and prosperity), it'll be time for that good-looking
Bush Hispanic nephew. By the end of his two terms, the dynasty will be well
established.

After that, it's only a small step to a monarchy, which is what we
Republicans are really working for.

Don't tell anybody!


The word is already out. Ain't gonna happen.

Sez you. I'm laying in extra moustache wax.

--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a
(successful) attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not
finding OBL.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without
capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!


Yeah, there's that.

It took the FBI five years to locate Eric Rudolph, despite a high reward
being offered. As we all know, the hills and caves of North Carolina make it
difficult to track a vagabond on foot.

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a
(successful) attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not
finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east
as easy targets.

Count total American losses and then figure out how
well this is working.

It's not working, whether you count losses
as bodies or losses as dollars.
In fact it's a total disaster.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in
the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty much what they want
until they attract attention. Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it
is a whole other story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not. Maybe
it was just a coincidence that the neo-cons got just what they were
prayin' for. Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16,
no tomahawk missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft
carriers. Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bull****. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

"Rod Speed" writes:

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier
he would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.
What does replacing one dictator with another have to
do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to
dictatorship when we leave.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Total, complete, utter failure.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place
like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under
Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was
under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their
homes? Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment, continuing
blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism by people who don't want
peace (not necessarily arabs).
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave
etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bull****. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh? Who did Osama work for before he went free
lance, hmmm.

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came
up, according to the NSA.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Osama was managed before. He may still be being managed.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their homes?

What happens in many civil wars.

Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment,
continuing blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism
by people who don't want peace (not necessarily arabs).

Yes, I clearly said that their circumstances are much worse than it was
under Saddam, and I personally dont think that Iraq should have been
invaded, essentially because they are so stupid that once Saddam was
deposed, they started enthusiastically ripping each others throats out.

Thats nothing like a total disaster tho.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bull****. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh?

Its completely useless if he has enough of a clue to not use any electronic communication.

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came up, according to the NSA.

Irrelevant to what he got up to in afghanistan when the russians were attempting to occupy it.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Certainly without 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been possible and maybe even afghanistan too.

Osama was managed before.

Nope.

He may still be being managed.

Nope.

Rod Speed wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!


He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11


No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the
terrorist sought -- the destruction of America -- no need for the
terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

B
bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole and
those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece of WTC I,
he would be able to actually pull off something like this. Boggles the
mind that anyone would think that.



Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers went down
but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?


Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.


Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the planning took
place before Bush, et al, took office.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Boggles the mind that anyone would think that.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers
went down but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

They did go after those who could be proven to have been involved in WTC I.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two
terms of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those
after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the terrorist sought -- the destruction of
America --

Clearly wouldnt know what the real destruction of america was if it bit it on its lard arse.

no need for the terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

How odd that they bothered with 9/11 then.

One hell of a footshot for them, thats what got them done over very
comprehensively indeed in Afghanistan and saw bin laden having to spend
his entire pathetic excuse for a 'life' down some rat hole, just like Saddam.

Its just a bit harder to find bin Laden's rat hole given that its likely in the wilds of Pakistan.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:


Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.
Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression or any
ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.


Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden
involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on
the line.
Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it
all off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund
raiser and one of the planners.



There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.
Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.
ook place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the
justification of 9/11 after that.
Stopped 9/11 part two.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.

or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone as stupid as bin laden
would have realised that the US would get its act into gear if 9/11 succeeded.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that
with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.
From the Cole (single) to the African Embassies (multiple planned
and coordinated attacks) doesn't indicate a progression. Actually it
sorta follows the classic serial killer progression.


or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.
YOU were the one that brought up the 5 attacks, making the ability
to pull off more than one thing at a time very much the same thing
entirely.


Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden
involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives'
on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it
all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.


No, they just had to pay a whole bunch of people while they were in
the US, had to pay for the flight lessons, had to get them from one
place to another. Heck no money involved in that.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.
You would be in the minority in that idea.


There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden
particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.
Like what?



Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone as stupid as bin laden
would have realised that the US would get its act into gear if 9/11
succeeded.
Well you have been sorta ignoring the other attacks on the Brits or
the ones that were broken up by the FBI here in the US.

HeyBub wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without
capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!



Yeah, there's that.

It took the FBI five years to locate Eric Rudolph, despite a high reward
being offered. As we all know, the hills and caves of North Carolina make it
difficult to track a vagabond on foot.


And you think Eric Rudolph was the same priority as Osama?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

Rod Speed wrote
snip

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.


bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.


snip

Actually, Clinton was trying to get something done about him, but
the political pressure from the Republican Congress against his efforts
was intense. Then, when Bush took over, he and his people deliberately
took the heat off, not wanting to seem in any way like Clinton.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.

From the Cole (single) to the African Embassies (multiple planned
and coordinated attacks) doesn't indicate a progression.

The words 'in that direction' were there for a reason. Thats not aircraft hijacking in the US.

Actually it sorta follows the classic serial killer progression.

No it doesnt.

or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.

YOU were the one that brought up the 5 attacks,

5 simultaneous aircraft hijackings in the US, actually.

Nothing like anything he had done before.

making the ability to pull off more than one thing at a time

Even that says nothing useful about whether he would have
attempted something like 9/11, let alone be able to pull it off.

very much the same thing entirely.

Nope, nothing like it.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.

No, they just had to pay a whole bunch of people while they were in the US,

You dont know they were paid at all.

had to pay for the flight lessons, had to get them from one place to another.

Like I said, no great funds were required and someone with the money
that bin laden has available wouldnt need to do any 'fund raising' for that.

Heck no money involved in that.

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.

You would be in the minority in that idea.

Nope, not on that last.

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.

Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone
as stupid as bin laden would have realised that the
US would get its act into gear if 9/11 succeeded.

Well you have been sorta ignoring the other attacks on the Brits

Nope, I explicitly excluded those in my original,
which you carefully deleted from the quoting.

AND you dont know that bin laden was involved in those anyway.

or the ones that were broken up by the FBI here in the US.

Nope, I explicitly excluded those in my original,
which you carefully deleted from the quoting.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave
etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bull****. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.
Prior to 9/11, American intelligence considered Osama a spoiled rich
boy, playing at being a terrorist (some Arabs would call him a
nationalist, the Wahabis for example). We wanted to grab him but had no
idea what he represented. Which explains why Bush allowed a couple of
747s full of Saudis to leave the country after 9/11, when all other
flights were grounded. A half dozen members of the bin Laden family were
on board. Since all the hijackers were Saudi, it makes you wonder who
else was on board.

Never heard of Echelon, huh?

Its completely useless if he has enough of a clue to not use any electronic
communication.
He didn't at the time, Inmarsat satellite telephone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...551037,00.html

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

In Afghanistan, Osama and "his" arabs, were supplied with boots,
weapons, intelligence, and training courtesy of the USA.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20011005.htm

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came up,
according to the NSA.

Irrelevant to what he got up to in afghanistan when the russians were
attempting to occupy it.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Certainly without 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been possible and maybe even
afghanistan too.

Osama was managed before.

Nope.
See above

He may still be being managed.

Nope.
You have this how, by divine revelation?

I've referenced sites that won't appear fringe to you.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article , CJT
wrote:


And you think Eric Rudolph was the same priority as Osama?

Probably to the FBI he was higher. They don't do that much work
in the hills of Pakistan.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.
You mean like Bush?

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we
leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.
But NATO doesn't want to play any more and attacks are on the rise.
Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...1jan31,1,66067
33.story
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a
place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under
Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was
under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the
Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their
homes?

What happens in many civil wars.

Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment,
continuing blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism
by people who don't want peace (not necessarily arabs).

Yes, I clearly said that their circumstances are much worse than it was
under Saddam, and I personally dont think that Iraq should have been
invaded, essentially because they are so stupid that once Saddam was
deposed, they started enthusiastically ripping each others throats out.

Thats nothing like a total disaster tho.

The US disbanded the Iraqi army and civilian law enforcement. The US
left Iraqi military bases and their armories unprotected. And they did
this knowing that they didn't have the troop to insure the peace.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

snip

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

snip

Who trained him?




--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bull****. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Prior to 9/11, American intelligence considered
Osama a spoiled rich boy, playing at being a terrorist

Wrong, particularly after the embassy bombings and the Cole.

(some Arabs would call him a nationalist, the Wahabis for example).

Wahabism has nothing whatever to do with nationalism.

We wanted to grab him but had no idea what he represented.

They knew enough to want to kill him after the embassing bombings and the Cole.

Which explains why Bush allowed a couple of 747s full of Saudis to
leave the country after 9/11, when all other flights were grounded.
A half dozen members of the bin Laden family were on board.

Nope, they didnt realise that 9/11 had anything to do with Saudis at that time.

Since all the hijackers were Saudi,

Wrong.

it makes you wonder who else was on board.

Unlikely to have been any involved with 9/11.
Those would have left the US before it happened.

Never heard of Echelon, huh?

Its completely useless if he has enough of a
clue to not use any electronic communication.

He didn't at the time, Inmarsat satellite telephone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...551037,00.html

Even he noticed the downsides with that and isnt that stupid NOW, which
is why they havent been able to work out which rat hole he's hiding in NOW.

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

In Afghanistan, Osama and "his" arabs, were supplied with
boots, weapons, intelligence, and training courtesy of the USA.

Pigs arse they were, and thats not 'work for' anyway.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011005.htm

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked
that Osama's name came up, according to the NSA.

Irrelevant to what he got up to in afghanistan
when the russians were attempting to occupy it.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Certainly without 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been
possible and maybe even afghanistan too.

Osama was managed before.

Nope.

See above

Completely useless.

He may still be being managed.

Nope.

You have this how, by divine revelation?

No one would actually be that stupid post 9/11.

I've referenced sites that won't appear fringe to you.

The second one is just claims. Not a shred of evidence is actually presented.

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

No one 'trained him'

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6606733.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their homes?

What happens in many civil wars.

Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment,
continuing blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism
by people who don't want peace (not necessarily arabs).

Yes, I clearly said that their circumstances are much worse than it
was under Saddam, and I personally dont think that Iraq should have
been invaded, essentially because they are so stupid that once Saddam
was deposed, they started enthusiastically ripping each others throats out.

Thats nothing like a total disaster tho.

The US disbanded the Iraqi army

Yes.

and civilian law enforcement.

Not entirely.

The US left Iraqi military bases and their armories unprotected.

They did with germany and japan too.

And they did this knowing that they didn't have the troop to insure the peace.

They didnt with germany and japan either.

Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Billy wrote


Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


Who trained him?


No one 'trained him'


Ostrich.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

No one 'trained him'

Ostrich.

****wit.

Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Billy wrote


Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


Who trained him?


No one 'trained him'


Ostrich.


****wit.


Do you kiss your pig's ass with that mouth?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

snip

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

snip

Who trained him?

To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy. Now
who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush