*

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:00:16 -0400, "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>9/11 was caused by denial and sloppy security policies. Reinforced
>cockpit doors have taken care of the 9/11 problem. If they ever manage
>to get control of air freight then the bomb problem can be helped. None
>of our security problems are helped by killing off out troops by leaving
>them in Iraq and helping the place develop as a terrorist training
>location. We are pretty much stuck with that result of the idiots in
>Washington but killing more of our kids while bankrupting the country
>isn't helping.
>
Exactly.

*

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:18:03 -0000, Beal <[email protected]> wrote:

>This nutball ...nutcase ...

You even believe Bush when he claims God
speaks through him, don't you.

Al Qaida has been CIA all along.

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of
mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...523838,00.html

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:17:32 -0000, Beal <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why can't we have the intelligent ...

There in the bushkult, only you morons
get to serve as the pawns.

>... represented by the kooks ...

You even believe Bush when he claims
God speaks through him, don't you.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:28:04 -0000, Beal <[email protected]> wrote:

>... the evolution, growth, and
>continued support of Al Queda...

See "CIA" ...

Frank F. Matthews

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> "Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>John Rennie wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:yfidnaBkMNMuvubbnZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d@giga news.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Crusader Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:369dd410bb95a025b5862b12d2d37fbc@pse udo.borked.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Al Qaeda was always in the Middle East, that's where it came
>>>>>>>>>>>>>from. Iraq is about engaging that threat.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Somehow, whenever you (or the Shrub) are askes about WHY the Shrub
>>>>>>>>>>invaded Iraq at the cost of a half million Iraqi lives, 25,000 US
>>>>>>>>>>casualties, and 4 million refugees in the region, 9/11 and al Qaeda
>>>>>>>>>>are invariably mentioned in the reply.
>>>>>>>>>>Not Osama bin Laden.
>>>>>>>>>>He's never mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>Not Weapons of Mass Destruction.
>>>>>>>>>>The USA has them. Saddam Hussein did not.
>>>>>>>>>>Even the Shrub has given up flogging that dead horse.
>>>>>>>>>>So the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
>>>>>>>>>>And America's punishment is to LOSE that war.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why? Al Qaeda were not in Iraq, as I keep on telling you. Are
>>>>>>>>>>>>you entirely stupid, Bill?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I think you are of limited capability because you can't address
>>>>>>>>>>>what I'm actually saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, he's entirely stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>He's simply here to provide amusement for his betters.
>>>>>>>>>>Kicking the retarded when they're down is a bit childish, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>SO satisfying!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
>>>>>>>>>>>Saudi Arabia?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>My position is that the USA should not have invaded Iraq, because
>>>>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>>>was no justification for doing so and because doing so made the
>>>>>>>>>>situation
>>>>>>>>>>in the Middle East far worse than it was before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>It didn't accomplish anything (other than to make George 'WMD' Bush
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>most hated man on earth).
>>>>>>>>>>It destroyed America's influence in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>It cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American, than Osama bin
>>>>>>>>>>Laden could ever have dreamed of.
>>>>>>>>>>It destroyed the balanced budget Bill Clinton left to the shrub.
>>>>>>>>>>It has substantially eroded American freedoms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And it has destroyed the Republican Party.
>>
>>>>>>>>>And now we all await with a certain amount of eagerness a repeat of
>>>>>>>>>Bill's 2003 post wherein he lists the 12 reasons for invading Iraq.
>>
>>>>>>>>Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
>>
>>>>>>>You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...2a95aa697f569c
>>>>>>>?hl>>>>>>>en&
>>>>>>>#begin quote
>>>>>>>A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
>>>>>>>resources in the
>>>>>>>region since 1990.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since the invasion, US resources in the region have been completely tied
>>>>>>up. So much so that the USA is probably unable to effectively deal with
>>>>>>Iran, which poses a considerably greater threat than Iraq ever did.
>>
>>>>>What does "deal with Iran" mean?
>>>>
>>>>I mean pose a sufficient threat to Iran (likely with UN help) that they
>>>>would back down.
>>
>>>There is no way to invade Iran without first dealing with Iraq. This is
>>>probably one reason why Iran keeps trying to keep Iraq in turmoil.
>>
>>>>>If you mean invade Iran,
>>
>>>>I don't. Simply looking as if it might realistically think about it
>>>>would be more than sufficient, if not actually overkill.
>>
>>>That never worked with Saddam. Clinton even bombed the hell out of Iraq
>>>in 1998 and Saddam didn't even flinch.
>>
>>>>The Iraq fiasco has shown Iran that the USA cannot even keep a lid on that
>>>>particular can of worms, hence the sabre rattling and nose thumbing.
>>
>>>Saddam is gone, isn't he? Any ruler of Syria or Iran has to consider
>>>that fact before considering that they are home free because the US
>>>can't quickly bring about order and security afterwards.
>>
>>>>>the US
>>>>>couldn't do that if it didn't first deal with Iraq. You do know that
>>>>>Iran is right next to Iraq, don't you?
>>
>>>>Evidently you are unaware of it, given your approval of an invasion that
>>>>has increased the threat emanating from Iraq's now stronger neighbour.
>>
>>>I don't agree with your assessment.
>>
>>>>>>>2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
>>>>>>>harping on point of bin Laden's.
>>
>>>>>>Let me get this straight...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You think that the invasion of Iraq would be good, if successful,
>>>>>>because it would allow us to make a concession to Osama Bin Laden.
>>
>>>>>No, the point of leaving Saudi Arabia is to take that argument away from
>>>>>bin Laden.
>>>>
>>>>What the **** does someone like Bin Laden care about arguments, Bill?
>>
>>>I suspect that nothing would satisfy bin Laden. OTOH, if he has fewer
>>>arguments to resonate, he will likely have fewer followers ready to blow
>>>up for him.
>>
>>That's one of the best reasons for getting the troops out of Iraq.
>>
>
> You are foolish. If the US left Iraq, the US would be blamed for the
> violence in Iraq anyway. The only way out is to build a stable
> democracy.

Given that there is likely no real solution so we should opt for one
that quits getting US kids killed.

Bill Bonde

John Rennie wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > > [email protected]
> >> > > says...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > > > > [email protected]
> >> > > > > says...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > > > > > > [email protected]
> >> > > > > > > says...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't
> >> > > > > > > > > necessarily get on
> >> > > > > > > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't
> >> > > > > > > > > necessarily get along
> >> > > > > > > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more
> >> > > > > > > > > complicated than
> >> > > > > > > > > that.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Could you address what I actually said?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > What you said doesn't make sense.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > You just cut what I said.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Makes more sense that way.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > You aren't winning in any sort of debate, you are just tossing out
> >> > > > fire
> >> > >
> >> > > LOL, if you were capable of debate, old son, I'd engage you. Sadly,
> >> > > you
> >> > > debate as well as the US manages its attempts at installing puppet
> >> > > regimes in the Middle-East. It must be an American thing...
> >> > >
> >> > Each time a discuss issue is presented, I make the better points.
> >> > That's
> >> > debating and that's winning debates.
> >>
> >> Well, I'm happy for you that you think so. It must be such a comfort in
> >> the face of the dreadful thrashing your "points" receive from all and
> >> sundry.
> >>
> > What are you talking about? My assessments aren't trashed other than
> > with nonsensical personal attacks which mean nothing.
>
> I answered your 12 arguments to my satisfaction if not yours without any
> personal attacks.
>
Did I reply back? What is the URL of this message?


> You have refused my challenge to discuss rationally
> anyone of those answers and that refusal shows that you are unable to
> substantiate most if not all of your original arguments.
>
I'm willing to discuss any of the answers at all. I've said that.


> I was, I assure
> you, looking forward to you developing and because of the passage of time,
> amending some of those original arguments. We both might have learned
> something.
>
What is the URL for the message that supposedly responds so effectively
to what I wrote?



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Bill Bonde

"a.spencer3" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "a.spencer3" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>The Republicans have shamed America, and the only thing holding
> them
> > > > > >>>>together is the collective pride that it was "the right thing",
> and
> > > > > >>>>even most Americans doubt that about now.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>So helping people in Iraq isn't the right thing? What is so evil
> > > about
> > > > > >>>helping Iraqis get free from Saddam?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Not evil just stupid. A waste of the lives of a lot of good
> troops.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's not evil or stupid to help free Iraqis. The US must act in
> the
> > > > > > Middle East because without action the hopelessness that brought
> us
> > > 9/11
> > > > > > will continue to exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose the question of stupidity turns on the worth of the lives
> of
> > > > > the troops and the chance that the expenditure of their lives will
> > > > > reduce the hopelessness. Personally, I would go with saving their
> lives
> > > > > and chance that terror can batter be held back by police work.
> > > > >
> > > > That was largely the pre-9/11 policy and we had 9/11. Police work is
> > > > vital, but it alone will not deal with what is fuelling the threat,
> the
> > > > hopelessness of the Middle East, and of Muslims in general. It's
> become
> > > > a cultural problem far beyond just individuals. Even middle class
> > > > Muslims become involved with terrorism because of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > " the hopelessness of the Middle East, and of Muslims in general"?
> > >
> > > It's that ignorant attitude by some from 'the West' that can cause so
> many
> > > problems.
> > >
> > Ignorant? Instead of claiming that Muslims are involved in terrorism
> > because they are inherently evil, I'm explaining that there are
> > substantive problems within some Muslim cultures that push some of the
> > people who are hopeless in directions they might not otherwise take.
> >
> >
> Well, now you've introduced the word 'some'. You're learning already.
>
What are you gibbering about? I've not changed what I said at all.

Bill Bonde

"a.spencer3" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Iraq today is about actually engaging the 9/11 threat where
> > it comes from, the Middle East.
> >
>
> Oh Gawd ........
>
> From which part of the Middle East did 9/11 come?
>
The Sunni Arab Middle East.

A.Spencer3

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "a.spencer3" wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Iraq today is about actually engaging the 9/11 threat where
> > > it comes from, the Middle East.
> > >
> >
> > Oh Gawd ........
> >
> > From which part of the Middle East did 9/11 come?
> >
> The Sunni Arab Middle East.

Such as Iraq, you mean?

Surreyman

John Rennie

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> John Rennie wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > > [email protected]
>> >> > > says...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > > > > [email protected]
>> >> > > > > says...
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > > > > > > [email protected]
>> >> > > > > > > says...
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't
>> >> > > > > > > > > necessarily get on
>> >> > > > > > > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't
>> >> > > > > > > > > necessarily get along
>> >> > > > > > > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more
>> >> > > > > > > > > complicated than
>> >> > > > > > > > > that.
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Could you address what I actually said?
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > What you said doesn't make sense.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > You just cut what I said.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Makes more sense that way.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > You aren't winning in any sort of debate, you are just tossing
>> >> > > > out
>> >> > > > fire
>> >> > >
>> >> > > LOL, if you were capable of debate, old son, I'd engage you.
>> >> > > Sadly,
>> >> > > you
>> >> > > debate as well as the US manages its attempts at installing puppet
>> >> > > regimes in the Middle-East. It must be an American thing...
>> >> > >
>> >> > Each time a discuss issue is presented, I make the better points.
>> >> > That's
>> >> > debating and that's winning debates.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I'm happy for you that you think so. It must be such a comfort
>> >> in
>> >> the face of the dreadful thrashing your "points" receive from all and
>> >> sundry.
>> >>
>> > What are you talking about? My assessments aren't trashed other than
>> > with nonsensical personal attacks which mean nothing.
>>
>> I answered your 12 arguments to my satisfaction if not yours without any
>> personal attacks.
>>
> Did I reply back? What is the URL of this message?
>
>
>> You have refused my challenge to discuss rationally
>> anyone of those answers and that refusal shows that you are unable to
>> substantiate most if not all of your original arguments.
>>
> I'm willing to discuss any of the answers at all. I've said that.
>
>
>> I was, I assure
>> you, looking forward to you developing and because of the passage of
>> time,
>> amending some of those original arguments. We both might have learned
>> something.
>>
> What is the URL for the message that supposedly responds so effectively
> to what I wrote?

We are wandering around both of us at cross purposes. You did respond to
my message answering as I thought your 2003 12 points. You ended a
further post message with this statement: "You haven't even got to the point
where you are actually addressing the arguments I'm actually making. To
claim you've "won" is absurd." Now I thought I had addressed you points
and you think I haven't. Are you with me so far? So then I asked you to
select one of your arguments/points that you thought I hadn't addressed.
Now that's what I'm waiting for.

Fred Bloggs

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > > > > says...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > > > > > > says...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't necessarily get on
> > > > > > > > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't necessarily get along
> > > > > > > > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more complicated than
> > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you address what I actually said?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What you said doesn't make sense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You just cut what I said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Makes more sense that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You aren't winning in any sort of debate, you are just tossing out fire
> > > >
> > > > LOL, if you were capable of debate, old son, I'd engage you. Sadly, you
> > > > debate as well as the US manages its attempts at installing puppet
> > > > regimes in the Middle-East. It must be an American thing...
> > > >
> > > Each time a discuss issue is presented, I make the better points. That's
> > > debating and that's winning debates.
> >
> > Well, I'm happy for you that you think so. It must be such a comfort in
> > the face of the dreadful thrashing your "points" receive from all and
> > sundry.
> >
> What are you talking about? My assessments aren't trashed other than
> with nonsensical personal attacks which mean nothing.

Good for you, Bill! Don't let those darned facts bother you.
>

Bill Bonde

"a.spencer3" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "a.spencer3" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iraq today is about actually engaging the 9/11 threat where
> > > > it comes from, the Middle East.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh Gawd ........
> > >
> > > From which part of the Middle East did 9/11 come?
> > >
> > The Sunni Arab Middle East.
>
> Such as Iraq, you mean?
>
9/11 didn't come from any sovereign nation state. It was brought about
by what is termed a "non state actor". This complicates our response. It
does not, however, preclude it.

A.Spencer3

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "a.spencer3" wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > "a.spencer3" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Iraq today is about actually engaging the 9/11 threat where
> > > > > it comes from, the Middle East.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh Gawd ........
> > > >
> > > > From which part of the Middle East did 9/11 come?
> > > >
> > > The Sunni Arab Middle East.
> >
> > Such as Iraq, you mean?
> >
> 9/11 didn't come from any sovereign nation state. It was brought about
> by what is termed a "non state actor". This complicates our response. It
> does not, however, preclude it.

Then respond.

Surreyman

Bill Bonde

"a.spencer3" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "a.spencer3" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "a.spencer3" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iraq today is about actually engaging the 9/11 threat where
> > > > > > it comes from, the Middle East.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh Gawd ........
> > > > >
> > > > > From which part of the Middle East did 9/11 come?
> > > > >
> > > > The Sunni Arab Middle East.
> > >
> > > Such as Iraq, you mean?
> > >
> > 9/11 didn't come from any sovereign nation state. It was brought about
> > by what is termed a "non state actor". This complicates our response. It
> > does not, however, preclude it.
>
> Then respond.
>
The US is responding.