Islam and Bicycling in NYC



"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote:
>
> Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 3 Oct 2004 11:48:38 -0700, [email protected] (Trent
> >Piepho) claims:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Yes, we made the mistake of helping the muslims. We should
> >>>have been killing as many muslims as possible instead of helping them
> >>>kill Russians. Our thanks for assisting the Afghan muslims was 9/11.
> >>
> >>
> >>Is "killing as many muslims as possible" your Final Solution for the war
> >>on terrorism?
> >
> > Since all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated only by
> >muslims, it would be a huge advantage to emiminate all muslims. You
> >could instead insist on eliminating red haired Irishmen, but it would
> >not be as sucessful, IMHO.
>
> Ah yes, I had forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim. And
> the Unabomber. And....

The Columbine Kids.

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
slim <pickin'[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote:
>>
>> Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On 3 Oct 2004 11:48:38 -0700, [email protected] (Trent
>> >Piepho) claims:
>> >
>> >>In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> Yes, we made the mistake of helping the muslims. We should
>> >>>have been killing as many muslims as possible instead of helping them
>> >>>kill Russians. Our thanks for assisting the Afghan muslims was 9/11.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Is "killing as many muslims as possible" your Final Solution for the war
>> >>on terrorism?
>> >
>> > Since all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated only by
>> >muslims, it would be a huge advantage to emiminate all muslims. You
>> >could instead insist on eliminating red haired Irishmen, but it would
>> >not be as sucessful, IMHO.
>>
>> Ah yes, I had forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim. And
>> the Unabomber. And....
>
>The Columbine Kids.

Let's nuke Colorado.

(Do they have a bomb that kills everyone but cyclists?)

--
Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 3 Oct 2004 11:48:38 -0700, [email protected] (Trent
>>Piepho) claims:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, we made the mistake of helping the muslims. We should
>>>>have been killing as many muslims as possible instead of helping them
>>>>kill Russians. Our thanks for assisting the Afghan muslims was 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Is "killing as many muslims as possible" your Final Solution for the war
>>>on terrorism?
>>>
>>>
>> Since all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated only by
>>muslims, it would be a huge advantage to emiminate all muslims. You
>>could instead insist on eliminating red haired Irishmen, but it would
>>not be as sucessful, IMHO.
>>
>>
>
>Ah yes, I had forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim. And
>the Unabomber. And....
>

Timothy McVeigh was from way North of here. There's some Muslims in
Canada. Why didn't Clinton have the sense to invade Canada? After all
when Saudi Citizens attacked the US, we invaded Iraq.

Jack Dingler
 
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 3 Oct 2004 11:48:38 -0700, [email protected] (Trent
>>Piepho) claims:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, we made the mistake of helping the muslims. We should
>>>>have been killing as many muslims as possible instead of helping them
>>>>kill Russians. Our thanks for assisting the Afghan muslims was 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Is "killing as many muslims as possible" your Final Solution for the war
>>>on terrorism?
>>>
>>>
>> Since all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated only by
>>muslims, it would be a huge advantage to emiminate all muslims. You
>>could instead insist on eliminating red haired Irishmen, but it would
>>not be as sucessful, IMHO.
>>
>>
>
>Ah yes, I had forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim. And
>the Unabomber. And....
>

Timothy McVeigh was from way North of here. There's some Muslims in
Canada. Why didn't Clinton have the sense to invade Canada? After all
when Saudi Citizens attacked the US, we invaded Iraq.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On 4 Oct 2004 18:52:29 -0700, [email protected] (Trent
>Piepho) claims:
>
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we made the mistake of helping the muslims. We should
>>>>>have been killing as many muslims as possible instead of helping them
>>>>>kill Russians. Our thanks for assisting the Afghan muslims was 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Is "killing as many muslims as possible" your Final Solution for the war
>>>>on terrorism?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Since all terrorist attacks have been perpetrated only by
>>>muslims, it would be a huge advantage to emiminate all muslims. You
>>>could instead insist on eliminating red haired Irishmen, but it would
>>>not be as sucessful, IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>So tell me Ken, how many muslims have you eliminated? Should they be shot
>>where they are found, or deported to camps where they can be eliminated in a
>>more efficient manner? Provide some more details of your Final Solution.
>>
>>I didn't know Timothy McVeigh was a muslim. I'm also surprised the July 21st
>>1972 'Bloody Friday' bombings by the IRA were in fact done by muslims. I
>>always though the Irish Republican Army was made up of Irishmen, some with red
>>hair. Tell me Ken, what else is the global muslim conspiracy up to?
>>
>>
>
> The IRA and Aum Shinrikyo aren't threats to the United States.
>Muslim jihadists are.
>
>
Bush promised to go after terrorists and the regimes that support them,
wherever they may be found. Are you calling him a liar?

Bush never said we'd only go after terrorists that were an immediate
threat to the US, but would go after all terrorists. So in the case of
the IRA, isn't it clear we need regime change in both Ireland, England
and Boston?


>The government also turned up experts who believed they found possible
>evidence of a Middle Eastern signature on the bombing. In 1997,
>Stephen Jones, lead attorney for McVeigh, filed a motion claiming the
>defense team had acquired a one-page summary of a government report by
>two unnamed Israeli experts who examined the Murrah Building. "Their
>conclusion was the Oklahoma City bombing bore the indisputable earmark
>of Middle Eastern terrorists," said Jones in an interview.
>
>The men were eventually identified as Dorom Bergerbest-Eliom, chief of
>security for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., and Yakov (or
>Yaskov) Yerushalmi, a civil engineer and Israeli government
>consultant. Attorney Jones filed a court motion complaining to federal
>Judge Richard Matsch that the government had wrongly denied the
>document to McVeigh's defense team.
>
>
>
Oh well, if the Mossad says there's a connection, there must be. After
all, Washington seems to be taking orders from them and passing on a lot
of secret info to them. Clearly we can trust our Israeli leaders, no?

During the debate, Bush declared that the war in Iraq made for a safer
Israel. I'm still not clear on that point. As an Israeli supporter,
perhaps you can clarify this argument Ken? I can only think of one point
and it doesn't seem to be enough to justify enslaving the Iraqis.
Perhaps you're looking for the rapture and Armageddon?

Check out these enemies of Iraqi freedom.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec04/battle_10-04.html

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:45:14 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>>>We could start with Omar Khaddafi. He's been a terorist and big
>>>>supporter of terrorism for 30 years. He's responsible for shooting down
>>>>airliners full of civilians, supporting Al Quada, Hamas and other
>>>>terorist organizations. He's known to have torture and rape rooms also.
>>>>He's funded and organized assinations of world leaders. He's threatened
>>>>US presidents also.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Your point is that the US should be attacking those countries
>>>that support terrorism? Well, we have done just that with Afghanistan
>>>and Iraq.
>>> And Omar recently gave up his WMD to the US and the UK. He has
>>>cleaned up his act. But when did he try to kill an American president?
>>>He never had rape rooms or slaughtered hundreds of thousands of
>>>civilians like ******, Stalin and Hussein did.
>>> Nice try, but no cigar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Uhm, dude, lot's of nations that have been at war have slaughtered
>>hundreds of thousands of civilians. Don't forget that Saddam did it for
>>you and I, with Donald Rumsfield's blessing.
>>
>>So, if Osama Bin Laden said he was sorry, then you'd forgive him, just
>>like Omar Khaddafi? Please...
>>
>>I never thought of you as a terrorist sympathiser Ken. But it's clear
>>you are.
>>
>>
>
> That's me, Terrorist Sympathizer Ken. I hope that they all get
>their 72 virgins in heaven, but I want it to happen sooner rather than
>later.
>
>
>
>>Where's you get the idea that Iraq sponsored terrorism?
>>
>>
>
> You REALLY gotta ignore whatever news sources you presently
>are using, if you missed this huge story. And you really ought to
>think about why your news sources kept this from you last January. For
>your own good, I suppose? Or to manipulate your vote using the old
>"Bush-lied-vote-Kerry" manure?
> The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that there were many
>operational links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, as the
>US government has been saying for years, even going back to the
>Clinton administration.
>

It's turning out that those stories are as accurate as the forged
documents in Dan Rather's reports.

Ken, you are increasingly sounding like a man who's destined to be on
the ground in Iraq. You should sign up. You could kill all the Muslims
you want. you could actually be doing your christian duty instead of
just cheering it.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:49:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>
>
>>> What other regimes used rape rooms and slaughtered hundreds of
>>>thousands of innocent people, attempted to kill one of our presidents,
>>>and had close ties to al-Qaeda?
>>>
>>>
>>The "close ties to Al-Qaeda" were, as far as I can make out, as
>>follows: Al-Qaeda to CIA: Thanks for the weapons and training, would
>>you like us to go in and finish Saddam now? CIA: No thanks.
>>
>>
>
>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>By Scott Wheeler
>CNSNews.com Staff Writer
>October 04, 2004
>
>(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S.
>forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam
>Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious
>terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They
>demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and
>anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of
>2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors
>were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens
>of terrorists inside its borders.
>
>
>
I thought you didn't trust CBS? Is this more stuff provided to Dan Rather?

There are a few problems with these stories leaking so late.

1. US forces only protected the Iraqi Oil ministry after the invasion.
The other offices were looted or suffered from fires.
2. If this information was true, then the Bush administration would've
been crowing to high heaven over it since the beginning, instead of
taking heat.
3. The Bush administration still isn't crowing over it. Likely because
they know it's faked. If it were true, you can bet they'd be shouting
from the roof tops.

Jack Dingler
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:25:14 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:50:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:26:08 GMT, soinie <[email protected]> wrote
>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Thanks for those words of wisdom Adolf.
>>>Or as George Bush would say; "I knew that..."
>>
>>Hurrah! A Godwin post.
>
> Thanks. I didn't notice it since he did it so quietly. For the
>few newbies who don't know what Godwin's Law is:
>
>Godwin's Law: prov.
>
> [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
>a comparison involving Nazis or ****** approaches one." There is a
>tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
>and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
>argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
>existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
>there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional
>triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending
>effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the
>subject.
>

Excuse me for jumping in here. I actually visited for the purpose of
discussing cold weather biking, in particular the need for clips. But,
since this is the discussion on hand, are there no exceptions to
Godwin's Law for conditions where the mention of Facism or Nazism
actually makes sense?

For instance, I believe that the definition of facism is a
expansionist marriage between state and corporate power. I note that
the think tank Project for a New American Century, formed by Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and such, calls for the use of American
military power to take over the world and replace governments opposed
to American interests, beginning with Iraq - which will yield bases
required for a permanent military presence in the middle east. Kerry
actually mentioned those fourteen bases in the debate.

Thus, while all the stated reasons for invading Iraq were shown to be
without justification, the real reason could well be that PNAC is now
in a position to do just what they called for, and that is the real
reason that the US invaded.

I believe that the US government (I should add that it is my
government) is in fact a fascist power. Thus, the mention of Nazi or
****** is not out of line when discussing the Neo-Cons. It is right on
the money.
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:19:13 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:49:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>><[email protected]> claims:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> What other regimes used rape rooms and slaughtered hundreds of
>>>>thousands of innocent people, attempted to kill one of our presidents,
>>>>and had close ties to al-Qaeda?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The "close ties to Al-Qaeda" were, as far as I can make out, as
>>>follows: Al-Qaeda to CIA: Thanks for the weapons and training, would
>>>you like us to go in and finish Saddam now? CIA: No thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>>By Scott Wheeler
>>CNSNews.com Staff Writer
>>October 04, 2004
>>
>>(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S.
>>forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam
>>Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious
>>terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They
>>demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and
>>anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of
>>2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors
>>were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens
>>of terrorists inside its borders.
>>
>>
>>
>I thought you didn't trust CBS? Is this more stuff provided to Dan Rather?
>
>There are a few problems with these stories leaking so late.
>
>1. US forces only protected the Iraqi Oil ministry after the invasion.
>The other offices were looted or suffered from fires.
>2. If this information was true, then the Bush administration would've
>been crowing to high heaven over it since the beginning, instead of
>taking heat.
>3. The Bush administration still isn't crowing over it. Likely because
>they know it's faked. If it were true, you can bet they'd be shouting
>from the roof tops.
>
>Jack Dingler

Note the linkage to William Kristol (the Standard). He is a founder of
the Project for a New American Century, as I mentioned in another
post. They call for the invasion of Iraq as a first step in world
domination. Hardly what I would call a neutral source. There was
NOTHING that Chalabi (remember their pet liar) told them that was ever
questioned. Funny indeed that he ended up as an Iranian operative.
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:10:23 -0400, dgk
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>are there no exceptions to
>Godwin's Law for conditions where the mention of Facism or Nazism
>actually makes sense?

Not unless it's in the strictest historical context, IMO.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

And on the news this morning, Rumsfeld says there were no links with
Al-Qaeda.

Invading Libya yet?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:51:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:10:23 -0400, dgk
><[email protected]> wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>are there no exceptions to
>>Godwin's Law for conditions where the mention of Facism or Nazism
>>actually makes sense?
>
>Not unless it's in the strictest historical context, IMO.
>
>Guy

When you start talking about eliminating a religious group, it sounds
a lot like the episode in Europe in '42. Hence, the Adolf comment is
extremely relevant. Ken is a ****ing neocon troll. What's he doing
in a bicycle newsgroup anyway?
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>
> And on the news this morning, Rumsfeld says there were no links with
> Al-Qaeda.
>
> Invading Libya yet?


How about SAUDI ARABIA?

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:50:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:26:08 GMT, soinie <[email protected]> wrote
>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Thanks for those words of wisdom Adolf.
>>>Or as George Bush would say; "I knew that..."
>>
>>Hurrah! A Godwin post.
>
> Thanks. I didn't notice it since he did it so quietly. For the
>few newbies who don't know what Godwin's Law is:

I did it a day earlier, but my reference to your enthusiastic support of the
Gesamtlosung went over your head I'm afraid.
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:53:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>
>And on the news this morning, Rumsfeld says there were no links with
>Al-Qaeda.
>
>Invading Libya yet?
>
>Guy

Gadaffi was really clever. Gave up a weapons program that he never had
and gets paid off. Remember when the right wingers were trying to make
HIM the next big evil? Hey, if we don't have a big evil, how can we
keep the offense budget up?
 
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:14:07 GMT, soinie <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>When you start talking about eliminating a religious group, it sounds
>a lot like the episode in Europe in '42.

I think you can allude to that without invoking Godwin, though. I
could be wrong. Maybe a comment along the lines of "I think this idea
may have been tried before in Europe" is a broad enough hint ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
dgk wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:53:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>>wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>>>
>>>
>>And on the news this morning, Rumsfeld says there were no links with
>>Al-Qaeda.
>>
>>Invading Libya yet?
>>
>>Guy
>>
>>
>
>Gadaffi was really clever. Gave up a weapons program that he never had
>and gets paid off. Remember when the right wingers were trying to make
>HIM the next big evil? Hey, if we don't have a big evil, how can we
>keep the offense budget up?
>

I know that was smart. His whole operation was funding terrorism. He
didn't make WMDs himself, he just bought weapons on the market and
redistributed them. He can still do that, still support terrorism and
still be shums with Bush and Cheney as long as Halliburton works his oil
fields.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:26:34 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>> The IRA and Aum Shinrikyo aren't threats to the United States.
>>>Muslim jihadists are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Bush promised to go after terrorists and the regimes that support them,
>>wherever they may be found. Are you calling him a liar?
>>
>>Bush never said we'd only go after terrorists that were an immediate
>>threat to the US, but would go after all terrorists. So in the case of
>>the IRA, isn't it clear we need regime change in both Ireland, England
>>and Boston?
>>
>>
>
> I am sure that when he promised to go after the terrorists who
>attacked those buildings, he was not talking about the IRA. You're
>getting silly and trying to change the subject.
>
>
>
>
Now you're changing his words Ken. He said he'd go after terrorists
wherever they may hide. He meant all terrorists.

Being silly? Are you playing favorites with terrorists? Never mind, you
are. You've already given Khaddafi your endorsement.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:27 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>> You REALLY gotta ignore whatever news sources you presently
>>>are using, if you missed this huge story. And you really ought to
>>>think about why your news sources kept this from you last January. For
>>>your own good, I suppose? Or to manipulate your vote using the old
>>>"Bush-lied-vote-Kerry" manure?
>>> The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that there were many
>>>operational links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, as the
>>>US government has been saying for years, even going back to the
>>>Clinton administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It's turning out that those stories are as accurate as the forged
>>documents in Dan Rather's reports.
>>
>>
>
> No, the memo is a genuine government document, unlike what the
>Rather/DNC/Kerry campaign invented. Senators Pat Roberts and Jay
>Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence
>Committee, who know it is genuine, had information from it mentioned
>in the 9/11 Commission final report! This isn't a blurry "1973 era" MS
>Word fax your CBS network keepers tried to sell you.
> Do you really feel more secure having your news filtered by
>the dominant liberal media? Are you another liberal Kool-aid drinker?
>I thought better of you than that.
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B
>
>
>
>>Ken, you are increasingly sounding like a man who's destined to be on
>>the ground in Iraq. You should sign up. You could kill all the Muslims
>>you want. you could actually be doing your christian duty instead of
>>just cheering it.
>>
>>
>
> There ya go again, a chicken hawk with a bloodthirsty call for
>others to volunteer to fight a war. I served in my war, now it's your
>turn, Jack.
>
>
>
You're the proponent of genocide and mass murder here Ken. You're the
crusader that wants to rid the Holy Land of the heathen horde. I'm
asking why you won't fight for your beliefs.

I personally don't see a rational for killing billions of people for
religion. I don't see how you could've argued for it as you do. As I
don't believe fervently in mass murder, I don't see where I have a
responsibility to engage in it.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:19:13 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:49:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>><[email protected]> claims:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
>>>By Scott Wheeler
>>>CNSNews.com Staff Writer
>>>October 04, 2004
>>>
>>>(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S.
>>>forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam
>>>Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious
>>>terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They
>>>demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and
>>>anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of
>>>2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors
>>>were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens
>>>of terrorists inside its borders.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I thought you didn't trust CBS? Is this more stuff provided to Dan Rather?
>>
>>
>
> This is CNSNews.com, not the disgraced CBS News.
>

This after you argued that because the UN has some bad apples, all of
their reports are false?

>>There are a few problems with these stories leaking so late.
>>
>>1. US forces only protected the Iraqi Oil ministry after the invasion.
>>The other offices were looted or suffered from fires.
>>2. If this information was true, then the Bush administration would've
>>been crowing to high heaven over it since the beginning, instead of
>>taking heat.
>>
>>
>
> Moan. The president and VP have been talking about these
>extensive connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda for years. Didn't you
>read the other article in the Weekly Standard which I posted? Here is
>the note at the top of it:
>
>Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank
>reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month
>with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of
>information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a
>relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified
>information."
>
>Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was
>referring.
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B
>
>

Cheney and Bush told us lot's of things that turned out to be outright
lies and fabrications. Like the eminent threat that Saddam was going to
set off nukes in the US.

Unlike you, I have trouble believing in people that lie a lot.

Jack Dingler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back