At 05:02 PM 10/24/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>The 9/11 attacks were planed financed and carried out mostly by Saudis.
>Why haven't we made them accountable for their atrocities?
Because the ones who flew the planes are dead, and the remaining planners
are still at large? And because grou
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a common thread, Gautam, let me help you see
> it. Planning:
> Saudi's and some others, Saudi in charge.
> Financing: Saudi. Terrorists
> involved 15 Saudis, 4 others.
There's another common thread, Doug, let me help _you_
find it. Not
Gautam wrote:
There's another common thread, Doug, let me help _you_
find it. Not government agents. It's kind of a
significant difference.
Except Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi agent, who provided extensive assistance
to two of the hijackers whom he met after meeting one Fahad al-Thumairy,
later dep
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 09:51:24PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> Congratulations, you're actually _worse_ than Falwell, you're accusing
> the President of treason. You have completely forfeited the right to
> complain about _any_ Republican tactic or accusation without looking
> hopelessly hypoc
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The first two sentences above really set me off. And
> I can only hope
> that you can understand why.
Actually, after everything I've heard on this list, I
have no sympathy whatsoever, Rob, and I really don't
appreciate having you compare me to rac
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
In this case, of course, I was pointing out whose side
I am on. I'm not on President Bush's side. I'm not
on Senator Kerry's side. I'm just on America's side.
This is a wonderful sentiment when it is a reminder that even when we
disagree, we have a great deal in common.
At 10:56 PM 10/25/2004 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
>> Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite
>> sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though.
>
>If he said this, and your response was "I'm on America's side," it's
>easy for me to hear that as implying that David is not on Ame
JDG wrote:
No poster has questioned more people's patriotism on this List than Dr.
Brin, and no person has launched more overheated insults than Dr. Brin.
And quite frankly, it is a bit appalling when your only response is to go
after the *targets* of said comments.
"Only response" appears to be ba
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
> Taking off my list manager hat... Are you saying that there are
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Nick Arnett&qu
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
> But, in fact, isn't it just possible that with the right am
Dan wrote:
I find myself arguing someone I think is a bad president is simply a bad
president, not a traitor...so my stakes are more analytical than heart
felt. (I'm roughly assigning odds of 10^-6 that GWB is actually a
traitor).
So what, to you, are the repercussions if it is shown that Bush is
Dan wrote:
1) Crooks
2) Throwbacks
3) Idiots
I think I mistated 3. It should be Crazy.
I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that still think Nixon
was a good president.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
> Dan wrote:
>
> >> 1) Crooks
> >> 2) Thr
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
> Dan wrote:
>
> > I find myself arguing someon
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
> >
> > I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that
> still think Nixon
> > was a good president.
>
> As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was
> trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text.
I've always got the impression that David
Dan Minette wrote:
His "flair for the dramatic" can be very insulting.
I see it that way, too.
I don't see how calling those that differ with you idiots is helpful in
maintain dialog.
Me, neither, which may reflect a certain idiocy on my part, but I doubt
it... ;-)
Also, David is an award win
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:21:47 -0500, Dan Minette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > His "flair for the dramatic" can be very insulting. I get by very easy
> > because I'm a Kerry voter who thinks that his comments on Bush are akin
> to
> > those of my dear departed aunt and uncle who were Birchers an
> > His "flair for the dramatic" can be very
> insulting.
>
> I see it that way, too.
Hate to post a "me too" message but...
What bothers me is his penchant to post rebuttals to
arguments with words like "pathetic" rather than
deconstructing the argument and presenting a
counterargument. He co
On Oct 26, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of Dan Minette
I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people
that still think Nixon was a good president.
As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was
trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text.
I've always got the
At 08:47 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>So what, to you, are the repercussions if it is shown that Bush is
>protecting the Saudi government - members of the Saudi royal family that
>were directly funding the 9/11 terrorists?
Protecting the Saudi government from what?
JDG
__
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:56:47 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
directly funding the 9/11 terrorists?
Protecting the Saudi government from what?
The fact that members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi agents ergo the
Saudi government were directly involved in the planning and funding of the
Dan wrote:
As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was trying to
parse
the clearest meaning of David's text. BTW, the scientist in me would like
to see a similar questionnaire with Kerry supporters to see if there is a
significant difference in knowledge. The questions would have
Dan wrote:
The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot.
Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a
coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage.
A trillion dollars worth of investments in the U.S. alone, maybe?
It would certainly not
At 09:02 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:56:47 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Protecting the Saudi government from what?
>
>The fact that members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi agents ergo the
>Saudi government were directly involved in the planning
At 09:25 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot.
>> Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a
>> coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage.
>
>A trillion dollars worth of investment
At 07:17 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
>> No poster has questioned more people's patriotism on this List than Dr.
>> Brin, and no person has launched more overheated insults than Dr. Brin.
>> And quite frankly, it is a bit appalling when your only response is to go
>> after the *targets* o
JDG asked:
>
> Let me put it another way. Let's say that it is March of 2002, you are
> National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and you
> are presented with evidence that the Saudi Royal Family helped fund 9/11.
> What is your policy reccomendation?
>
Nuke Mecca and Medin
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
> Dan wrote:
>
>
> > The world is full of possibiliti
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The first two sentences above really set me off. And
>> I can only hope
>> that you can understand why.
>
> Actually, after everything I've heard on this list, I
> have no sympathy whatsoever, Rob, and I really don't
> app
Dan wrote:
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia does have extensive -- around $100
billion -- foreign assets, which provide a substantial fiscal "cushion."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2202781.stm
"Saudi investors have threatened to withdraw some of the $750bn (£487bn;
766bn euros) they have in
31 matches
Mail list logo
