| |
Main
Date: 28 Jan 2007 14:27:17
From: larry
Subject: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
firestorm.
NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is
the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using
weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and
biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we
should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of
supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale
of threat.
Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested
people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they
arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in
order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the
planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing
to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the
warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand
years.
But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so
much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill
you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery
beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they
are arresting British citizens, born inBritain, speaking English, who
went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to
want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that
will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is
dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who
advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or
biological weapons.
And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if
we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of
engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their
capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free
speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from
recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young
people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the
first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of
losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million
Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to
proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for
fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight
outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass
destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject
to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect
civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength
that it is truly horrendous.
This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national
dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait
until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen
within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So
(APPLAUSE)
This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
take over our land, but to KILL us.
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 18:24:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Jan 28, 10:00 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:48:32 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>>The British are fighting them over there, and if we are to believe you
> >>>& Newt (a first on both counts), they're still asshole-deep in
> >>>terrorists.
>
> >>>Thank you for helping to debunk another of the Bush regimes lies.
>
> >>Who in the Bush administration has made that claim?
>
> >If England is so rife with the Muslim terrorists, as Newt says, why
> >haven't they blown London to pieces as we are warned will happen here?
> >I think that's part of what Annika is saying.Sure. And I know that all sorts of Republican apologists are saying
> these things - but if someone close to the president said it, I missed
> it - and I would like to know if it is the president saying this.
He has certainly implied it, every time he calls Iraq the central
front in the war on terror (or war or tur, as he says it). Iraq never
had anything to do with any terrorist movement before we invaded,
except for a few incidental contacts with al Qaeda that never amounted
to anything.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 13:02:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On 29 Jan 2007 18:24:41 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>He has certainly implied it, every time he calls Iraq the central
>front in the war on terror (or war or tur, as he says it). Iraq never
>had anything to do with any terrorist movement before we invaded,
>except for a few incidental contacts with al Qaeda that never amounted
>to anything.
How does that imply "we are fighting them over there so we
don't have to fight them here at home"?
I have a card game called "Illuminati", where various factions fight
each other in secret cabals. Each faction has an opposite, enemy
faction. The exception is Fanatics are the opposite of Fanatics.
The fundamentalist Muslims are the enemies of fundamentalist Muslims.
A few skirmishes are against the west, but their war is against each
other.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 17:06:27
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> The President is a victim of his own success. After eliminating terrorist
> attacks on US soil Americans have become complacent and don't feel
> threatened
Think how stupid that statement would sound if you said it on 9/10/01.
It sounds just as stupid today.
The only reason some people feel threatened today is because the
administration keeps telling us to be afraid. That's all they got.
Be afraid of the Muslims. Be afraid of Islama-Fascists. Be afraid of
queers getting ried. And Nancy Pelosi? Be very, VERY afraid!
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 10:39:50
From: billwarnock@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
>What Bush knows? I am envisioning a gigantic empty warehouse...<
Hmmm... does that mean:
"Somewhere in Texas, there's a village missing an idiot."
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 16:03:58
From: larry
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On 29 Jan 2007 10:39:50 -0800, "billwarnock@earthlink.net"
<billwarnock@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>>What Bush knows? I am envisioning a gigantic empty warehouse...<
>
>Hmmm... does that mean:
>
> "Somewhere in Texas, there's a village missing an idiot."
Oh yeah, he is the most popular governor in Texas history, a jet pilot
with 500 hours, a Harvard MBA and a Yale graduate with a transcript
sufficient to matriculate into Harvard B school. A real idiot.
However, likely you would need to stand on a stool to kiss his ass. I
would bet he has a higher IQ than anyone reading this-- and certainly
has accomplished more in his life by FAR than those saying he is an
'idiot.' What have you done that compares with his
accomplishments???
The idiots are those who have been so easily led by the liberal media.
You have been patronized. You let them make you hate your president
for simply doing his job, to protect this country from further
attacks. You were duped.
Osama Bin Ladin wrote that he did 9/11 as an escalation of the dozen
smaller attacks on America that were ignored (by Clinton). He wrote
that he attacked BECAUSE we were showing cowardice.... He stopped
attacking when Bush attacked him-- showed bravery.
Bush read what he wrote-- and attacked Iraq and Afghanistan because he
knew that aggressive action in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the
world would be the ONLY thing that would stop an onslaught of
terrorist attacks on America. Radical Islam could very easily send
enough suicide bombers to make American cities look like Baghdad. City
cops would be helpess to stop what the US Army and US ines can't.
They will do that when we pull out of Iraq and let the world ridicule
our cowardice. Hopefully Bush will be retired by then. You will
realize he was right all along-- but it will be too late.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all the
> cock roaches.
>
> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort you
> put into it.
>
> Randy
>
We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 10:32:32
From: larry
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all the
>> cock roaches.
>>
>> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort you
>> put into it.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>
>We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
>endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
>and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
>the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
and effect.
When Bush attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the opposite of
cowardice-- they respected us and quit trying to attack the US
mainland. But the original motive is still there; when we show
cowardice in Iraq again, they will resume attacks on America--
And they will get through by the dozens! If the US Army and ines
cannot stop thousands of devastating bomb attacks in Iraq and
Baghdad-- city cops will be helpless against them in NYC, LA, D.C. and
especially San Francisco. They will destroy this country.
And we will know who to blame. Only Bush has remembered what Bin
Ladin wrote--He learned from books and briefings about Radical Islam--
and he realizes what he must do to protect this country--whether it
makes him less popular or not, whether the Republicans lose the
congress or not-- it must be done. Too many politicians, even
conservative republicans, have put their short term careers above the
welfare of their country--because they know what Bush knows. They
should be held accountable when the bombings start.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 00:54:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:32:32 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>killed dozens on the USS Cole.
But he finally got the response he wanted.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 22:19:44
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
In article <uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> >> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all the
> >> cock roaches.
> >>
> >> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort you
> >> put into it.
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> >
> >We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
> >endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
> >and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
> >the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
>
> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
> and effect.
Where did he write this? Come on, Larry: you must know to claim it, so
where?
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 18:03:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:19:44 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:
>In article <uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> >> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all the
>> >> cock roaches.
>> >>
>> >> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort you
>> >> put into it.
>> >>
>> >> Randy
>> >>
>> >
>> >We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
>> >endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
>> >and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
>> >the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
>>
>> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
>> and effect.
>
>Where did he write this? Come on, Larry: you must know to claim it, so
>where?
Wow. Amazing that an adult in America in 2007 could be so poorly
informed.
Their intercepted correspondence is everywhere. Bush referred to in
in a State of the Union message. Rumsfeld has quoted from it.
Do you only watch the Golf Channel and read Golf Digest?
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 02:19:33
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
In article <493tr2p5mdgqrfi3qsim0ub81jjvlqqe3e@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:19:44 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> >> >> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all
> >> >> the
> >> >> cock roaches.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort
> >> >> you
> >> >> put into it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Randy
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
> >> >endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
> >> >and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
> >> >the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
> >>
> >> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
> >> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
> >> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
> >> and effect.
> >
> >Where did he write this? Come on, Larry: you must know to claim it, so
> >where?
>
> Wow. Amazing that an adult in America in 2007 could be so poorly
> informed.
Wow. Someone living in the 21st century who automatically assumes that
anyone speaking English must be posting from America.
>
> Their intercepted correspondence is everywhere. Bush referred to in
> in a State of the Union message. Rumsfeld has quoted from it.
If that's the case, why don't you give me a source?
>
> Do you only watch the Golf Channel and read Golf Digest?
Rather than cast around aspersions, why don't you give me a source?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 02:28:05
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:19:33 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:
>In article <493tr2p5mdgqrfi3qsim0ub81jjvlqqe3e@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:19:44 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>> >> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>> >> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>> >> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
>> >> and effect.
>> >
>> >Where did he write this? Come on, Larry: you must know to claim it, so
>> >where?
>>
>> Wow. Amazing that an adult in America in 2007 could be so poorly
>> informed.
>
>Wow. Someone living in the 21st century who automatically assumes that
>anyone speaking English must be posting from America.
>
>>
>> Their intercepted correspondence is everywhere. Bush referred to in
>> in a State of the Union message. Rumsfeld has quoted from it.
>
>If that's the case, why don't you give me a source?
>
>>
>> Do you only watch the Golf Channel and read Golf Digest?
>
>Rather than cast around aspersions, why don't you give me a source?
Whatever LLLLLLarrrry posts will be a lie. However, give him some
credit. I understand that he's been trying to join Liar's Anonymous,
but they keep giving him a wrong address for the meetings. :-)
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:32:47
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:86btr2lhlfkibqr02dpfqqud6qnj7eloh6@4ax.com...
> Whatever LLLLLLarrrry posts will be a lie. However, give him some
> credit. I understand that he's been trying to join Liar's Anonymous,
> but they keep giving him a wrong address for the meetings. :-)
> bk
LLLLaarryy doesn't post here.
He's ashamed to.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 02:38:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:32:47 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:86btr2lhlfkibqr02dpfqqud6qnj7eloh6@4ax.com...
>> Whatever LLLLLLarrrry posts will be a lie. However, give him some
>> credit. I understand that he's been trying to join Liar's Anonymous,
>> but they keep giving him a wrong address for the meetings. :-)
>> bk
>
>LLLLaarryy doesn't post here.
>He's ashamed to.
>
Amazing. You mean that someone is posing as LLLLLlarrrry? Who in the
world would want to even be associated with him, much taken for him?
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:40:10
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:6qbtr2psh52nsjtd55ao49vivrpvpfpo4v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:32:47 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:86btr2lhlfkibqr02dpfqqud6qnj7eloh6@4ax.com...
>>> Whatever LLLLLLarrrry posts will be a lie. However, give him some
>>> credit. I understand that he's been trying to join Liar's Anonymous,
>>> but they keep giving him a wrong address for the meetings. :-)
>>> bk
>>
>>LLLLaarryy doesn't post here.
>>He's ashamed to.
>>
> Amazing. You mean that someone is posing as LLLLLlarrrry? Who in the
> world would want to even be associated with him, much taken for him?
> bk
Maybe LLLaarryyy just forgot what he typed yesterday.
Or maybe he's ashamed of that too?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:42:21
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote in message
news:45beb08c$0$494$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:6qbtr2psh52nsjtd55ao49vivrpvpfpo4v@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:32:47 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:86btr2lhlfkibqr02dpfqqud6qnj7eloh6@4ax.com...
>>>> Whatever LLLLLLarrrry posts will be a lie. However, give him some
>>>> credit. I understand that he's been trying to join Liar's Anonymous,
>>>> but they keep giving him a wrong address for the meetings. :-)
>>>> bk
>>>
>>>LLLLaarryy doesn't post here.
>>>He's ashamed to.
>>>
>> Amazing. You mean that someone is posing as LLLLLlarrrry? Who in the
>> world would want to even be associated with him, much taken for him?
>> bk
>
> Maybe LLLaarryyy just forgot what he typed yesterday.
> Or maybe he's ashamed of that too?
He was probably blinded by the glare from the corner glass office.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:07:04
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:493tr2p5mdgqrfi3qsim0ub81jjvlqqe3e@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:19:44 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com>,
>> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>>> >> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing
>>> >> all the
>>> >> cock roaches.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort
>>> >> you
>>> >> put into it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Randy
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
>>> >endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
>>> >and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
>>> >the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
>>>
>>> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>>> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>>> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
>>> and effect.
>>
>>Where did he write this? Come on, Larry: you must know to claim it, so
>>where?
>
> Wow. Amazing that an adult in America in 2007 could be so poorly
> informed.
>
> Their intercepted correspondence is everywhere. Bush referred to in
> in a State of the Union message. Rumsfeld has quoted from it.
>
> Do you only watch the Golf Channel and read Golf Digest?
>
> Larry
> I would be ashamed to post here more than very very occasionally-- and
> then as you said, I post simply to bait you morons and watch the
> frenzy to "get" me. Pathetic. You guys apparently don't even know
> that you don't know how sick this forum has become.
>
> See ya. I may be reading the posts-- or I may not... you'll never
> know.
>
> Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 21:32:07
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com...
> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>>> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all
>>> the
>>> cock roaches.
>>>
>>> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort
>>> you
>>> put into it.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>
>>We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
>>endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
>>and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
>>the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
>
> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
> and effect.
>
> When Bush attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the opposite of
> cowardice-- they respected us and quit trying to attack the US
> mainland. But the original motive is still there; when we show
> cowardice in Iraq again, they will resume attacks on America--
>
> And they will get through by the dozens! If the US Army and ines
> cannot stop thousands of devastating bomb attacks in Iraq and
> Baghdad-- city cops will be helpless against them in NYC, LA, D.C. and
> especially San Francisco. They will destroy this country.
>
> And we will know who to blame. Only Bush has remembered what Bin
> Ladin wrote--He learned from books and briefings about Radical Islam--
> and he realizes what he must do to protect this country--whether it
> makes him less popular or not, whether the Republicans lose the
> congress or not-- it must be done. Too many politicians, even
> conservative republicans, have put their short term careers above the
> welfare of their country--because they know what Bush knows. They
> should be held accountable when the bombings start.
>
> Larry
Hey Crazy Larry,
White coat time again. Time for your meds.
What a oon.
Alan
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 16:08:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:32:07 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>news:uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 29, 2:09 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>>>> Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all
>>>> the
>>>> cock roaches.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort
>>>> you
>>>> put into it.
>>>>
>>>> Randy
>>>>
>>>
>>>We could (if we ***REALLY*** wanted/needed too) put them on the
>>>endangered species list. But that is a whole lot of killing (millions)
>>>and Americans (and the world) just don't have the stomach for it. But
>>>the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
>>
>> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
>> and effect.
>>
>> When Bush attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the opposite of
>> cowardice-- they respected us and quit trying to attack the US
>> mainland. But the original motive is still there; when we show
>> cowardice in Iraq again, they will resume attacks on America--
>>
>> And they will get through by the dozens! If the US Army and ines
>> cannot stop thousands of devastating bomb attacks in Iraq and
>> Baghdad-- city cops will be helpless against them in NYC, LA, D.C. and
>> especially San Francisco. They will destroy this country.
>>
>> And we will know who to blame. Only Bush has remembered what Bin
>> Ladin wrote--He learned from books and briefings about Radical Islam--
>> and he realizes what he must do to protect this country--whether it
>> makes him less popular or not, whether the Republicans lose the
>> congress or not-- it must be done. Too many politicians, even
>> conservative republicans, have put their short term careers above the
>> welfare of their country--because they know what Bush knows. They
>> should be held accountable when the bombings start.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Hey Crazy Larry,
>
>White coat time again. Time for your meds.
>What a oon.
>
>Alan
Oh gee, suicide bombers have decided to walk into the most crowded
mall in your city....
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 14:55:08
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com...
> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
> and effect.
>
> When Bush attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the opposite of
> cowardice-- they respected us and quit trying to attack the US
> mainland. But the original motive is still there; when we show
> cowardice in Iraq again, they will resume attacks on America--
>
> And they will get through by the dozens! If the US Army and ines
> cannot stop thousands of devastating bomb attacks in Iraq and
> Baghdad-- city cops will be helpless against them in NYC, LA, D.C. and
> especially San Francisco. They will destroy this country.
>
> And we will know who to blame. Only Bush has remembered what Bin
> Ladin wrote--He learned from books and briefings about Radical Islam--
> and he realizes what he must do to protect this country--whether it
> makes him less popular or not, whether the Republicans lose the
> congress or not-- it must be done. Too many politicians, even
> conservative republicans, have put their short term careers above the
> welfare of their country--because they know what Bush knows. They
> should be held accountable when the bombings start.
>
> Larry
The President is a victim of his own success. After eliminating terrorist
attacks on US soil Americans have become complacent and don't feel
threatened.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 16:07:23
From: larry
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:55:08 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>news:uqesr2limg8rmlonijsp3divp8h0bh30jv@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Jan 2007 09:37:15 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Osama wrote that he tested America a dozen times leading up to 9/11--
>> and finally did 9/11 because we didn't respond, even after they had
>> killed dozens on the USS Cole. We show cowardice, they attack. Cause
>> and effect.
>>
>> When Bush attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the opposite of
>> cowardice-- they respected us and quit trying to attack the US
>> mainland. But the original motive is still there; when we show
>> cowardice in Iraq again, they will resume attacks on America--
>>
>> And they will get through by the dozens! If the US Army and ines
>> cannot stop thousands of devastating bomb attacks in Iraq and
>> Baghdad-- city cops will be helpless against them in NYC, LA, D.C. and
>> especially San Francisco. They will destroy this country.
>>
>> And we will know who to blame. Only Bush has remembered what Bin
>> Ladin wrote--He learned from books and briefings about Radical Islam--
>> and he realizes what he must do to protect this country--whether it
>> makes him less popular or not, whether the Republicans lose the
>> congress or not-- it must be done. Too many politicians, even
>> conservative republicans, have put their short term careers above the
>> welfare of their country--because they know what Bush knows. They
>> should be held accountable when the bombings start.
>>
>> Larry
>
>The President is a victim of his own success. After eliminating terrorist
>attacks on US soil Americans have become complacent and don't feel
>threatened.
The president is a victim of the liberal media and democrats-- who
would rather see their country lose in Iraq than to see the president
regain his popularity with success there. The partisan media refuses
to report the positives, schools, shops, newspapers opening, etc.
I believe those who want us to lose just so they can keep a
congressional majority and possibly elect a democrat President-- are
traitors. Their real motive for not supporting our troops and our
troops' mission in Iraq should be challenged every day.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:05:42
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
What Bush knows?
I am envisioning a gigantic empty warehouse...
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 02:09:59
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
Trying to kill all the terrorists is about as achievable as killing all the
cock roaches.
I'm all for it. But it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much effort you
put into it.
Randy
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>
> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> firestorm.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is
> the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using
> weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and
> biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we
> should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of
> supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale
> of threat.
>
> Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested
> people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they
> arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in
> order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
>
> Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the
> planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing
> to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the
> warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand
> years.
>
> But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so
> much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill
> you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery
> beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
>
> And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they
> are arresting British citizens, born inBritain, speaking English, who
> went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
>
> This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to
> want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that
> will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is
> dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who
> advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or
> biological weapons.
>
> And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if
> we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of
> engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their
> capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free
> speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from
> recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young
> people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
>
> This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the
> first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of
> losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million
> Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to
> proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
>
> And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for
> fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight
> outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass
> destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject
> to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect
> civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength
> that it is truly horrendous.
>
> This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national
> dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait
> until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen
> within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
> are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
> take over our land, but to KILL us.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 22:38:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
In article <2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>
> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> firestorm.
>
. . .snip, snip neocon garbage . .
> This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
> are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
> take over our land, but to KILL us.
Cheers, Larry. Here goes RSG's own professional tyr with yet ANOTHER
off topic, political, thread, that he gratuitously starts without any
provocation. No doubt by Tuesday he will be wailing and whining about
how no one bothers to post here any more or take it seriously.
I wonder why?
What a sad, sad loser.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 07:42:14
From: Al
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-2F2E34.22383728012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>>
>> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
>> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
>> firestorm.
>>
>
> . . .snip, snip neocon garbage . .
>
>
>> This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
>> are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
>> take over our land, but to KILL us.
>
> Cheers, Larry. Here goes RSG's own professional tyr with yet ANOTHER
> off topic, political, thread, that he gratuitously starts without any
> provocation. No doubt by Tuesday he will be wailing and whining about
> how no one bothers to post here any more or take it seriously.
>
> I wonder why?
>
> What a sad, sad loser.
>
> William Clark
>
That is my name asswipe. Go stalk LLLLary some more and don't bother me.
You are one of the biggest losers on the internet as all can see on a daily
basis.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 19:10:53
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
Imo, it's not that the grandparents hate the other side but that they
actually believe that they will enter heaven because of their sacrifice. Who
agrees/ disagrees? Is there any way to understand this?
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>
> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> firestorm.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is
> the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using
> weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and
> biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we
> should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of
> supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale
> of threat.
>
> Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested
> people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they
> arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in
> order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
>
> Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the
> planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing
> to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the
> warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand
> years.
>
> But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so
> much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill
> you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery
> beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
>
> And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they
> are arresting British citizens, born inBritain, speaking English, who
> went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
>
> This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to
> want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that
> will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is
> dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who
> advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or
> biological weapons.
>
> And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if
> we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of
> engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their
> capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free
> speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from
> recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young
> people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
>
> This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the
> first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of
> losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million
> Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to
> proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
>
> And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for
> fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight
> outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass
> destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject
> to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect
> civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength
> that it is truly horrendous.
>
> This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national
> dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait
> until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen
> within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
> are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
> take over our land, but to KILL us.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 16:25:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Jan 28, 5:27 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com > wrote:
> And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they
> are arresting British citizens, born inBritain, speaking English, who
> went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
>
Well, so much for all that "we are fighting them over there so we
don't have to fight them here at home" bullshit.
The British are fighting them over there, and if we are to believe you
& Newt (a first on both counts), they're still asshole-deep in
terrorists.
Thank you for helping to debunk another of the Bush regimes lies.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:44:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On 28 Jan 2007 16:25:43 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Well, so much for all that "we are fighting them over there so we
>don't have to fight them here at home" bullshit.
>
>The British are fighting them over there, and if we are to believe you
>& Newt (a first on both counts), they're still asshole-deep in
>terrorists.
>
>Thank you for helping to debunk another of the Bush regimes lies.
Who in the Bush administration has made that claim?
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:48:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:44:52 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2007 16:25:43 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, so much for all that "we are fighting them over there so we
>>don't have to fight them here at home" bullshit.
>>
>>The British are fighting them over there, and if we are to believe you
>>& Newt (a first on both counts), they're still asshole-deep in
>>terrorists.
>>
>>Thank you for helping to debunk another of the Bush regimes lies.
>
>Who in the Bush administration has made that claim?
If England is so rife with the Muslim terrorists, as Newt says, why
haven't they blown London to pieces as we are warned will happen here?
I think that's part of what Annika is saying.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 03:00:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:48:32 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>>>The British are fighting them over there, and if we are to believe you
>>>& Newt (a first on both counts), they're still asshole-deep in
>>>terrorists.
>>>
>>>Thank you for helping to debunk another of the Bush regimes lies.
>>
>>Who in the Bush administration has made that claim?
>
>If England is so rife with the Muslim terrorists, as Newt says, why
>haven't they blown London to pieces as we are warned will happen here?
>I think that's part of what Annika is saying.
Sure. And I know that all sorts of Republican apologists are saying
these things - but if someone close to the president said it, I missed
it - and I would like to know if it is the president saying this.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 19:17:36
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
From the Bush Administration and all its hacks, the only thing we've had to
hear is fear itself.
Randy
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>
> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> firestorm.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is
> the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using
> weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and
> biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we
> should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of
> supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale
> of threat.
>
> Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested
> people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they
> arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in
> order to hide the bomb as baby milk.
>
> Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the
> planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing
> to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the
> warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand
> years.
>
> But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so
> much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill
> you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery
> beyond anything we have tried to deal with.
>
> And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they
> are arresting British citizens, born inBritain, speaking English, who
> went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
>
> This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to
> want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that
> will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is
> dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who
> advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or
> biological weapons.
>
> And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if
> we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of
> engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their
> capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free
> speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from
> recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young
> people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
>
> This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the
> first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of
> losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million
> Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to
> proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
>
> And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for
> fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight
> outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass
> destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject
> to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect
> civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength
> that it is truly horrendous.
>
> This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national
> dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait
> until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen
> within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we
> are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to
> take over our land, but to KILL us.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 16:11:52
From: Al
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
>
> This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> firestorm.
You and your ilk are nothing but cowards. Go hide under your bed. "As for
me, give me liberty or give me death."
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 09:46:11
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
"Al" <alg@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:epje4b0185h@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> > Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
> >
> > This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> > Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> > firestorm.
>
> You and your ilk are nothing but cowards. Go hide under your bed. "As for
> me, give me liberty or give me death."
Don't you mean. "Give me liberty and I will whine that I don't get enough?"
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 22:40:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
In article <epje4b0185h@news1.newsguy.com >, "Al" <alg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:2p8qr2pplao0hno25bmdsrm6hivmo4tvua@4ax.com...
> > Subject: Fw: Gingrich. . . on Terrorism
> >
> > This is a transcript (obtained from Gingrich) of a section of a
> > Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a
> > firestorm.
>
> You and your ilk are nothing but cowards. Go hide under your bed. "As for
> me, give me liberty or give me death."
As opposed to you, of course, who us too gutless to post under your own
name.
Yup, a real hero.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 21:00:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <epje4b0185h@news1.newsguy.com>, "Al" <alg@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> You and your ilk are nothing but cowards. Go hide under your bed.
>> "As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
>
> As opposed to you, of course, who us too gutless to post under your
> own name.
William - spend five minutes to read this article. It might make you more
sympathetic to folks who want to be anonymous these days - it's a pretty
scary story: The group it talks about is rec.radio.cb
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.12/murder_pr.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 15:46:46
From:
Subject: Re: Why Bush persists in Iraq-- what he knows
|
On Jan 28, 2:27 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com > wrote:
his usual cowardly crap.
I can't get over how Bush has you blokes so scared of a few fanatics.
Save me, we have never faced such danger, lets give up all our rights
to the Dear Leader so we won't get killed!!!!
Get real, mate. The worst these twits can do is kill a few hundred
people at a time. The WTC was a fluke - nobody, including the
terrorists, expected the buildings to collapse. It was crappy
engineering, not diabolical planning. Yet even that, the worst they
ever did or ever will do, was a measly 3000 dead. If that's a low
number when you nutjobs talk about US dead in Iraq, then its an
insignificant number when you talk about the total death toll from
terrorists.
The danger from the Soviet Union, which had ICBMs with multi-megaton
warheads pointed at most US cities, was a thousand times worse, and
you didn't wet your pants every time you thought about that. One
press of a button could have killed tens of millions, or even
sterilized the earth if a full exchange got started. To say that the
danger today is one percent of that, let alone worse, is completely
crazy. Which is why you do it, I suppose.
|
|
