What does that even mean?
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I KNEW you were Papa Bear in drag!
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs
ht
> Sam wrote:
> His bravery in Vietnam in the 60's says nothing about his
> understanding of the situation in Iraq today. The fact that he's on
> MSNBC screams volumes since they tend to focus on the very liberal
> version of news.
>
I KNEW you were Papa Bear in drag!
~
Odd how you only list the good.
His bravery in Vietnam in the 60's says nothing about his
understanding of the situation in Iraq today. The fact that he's on
MSNBC screams volumes since they tend to focus on the very liberal
version of news.
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ma
> Sam wrote:
> I'm actually not interested in anything an armchair general from
> PMSNBC has to say. Any other advisers I should read?
>
Maybe your largest flaw is your poor character judgment ... it's hard
to say ... Oh! That's right! You think documented heroism and
military experience is all
>Iran attack Saudi Arabia, blockade the gulf? They don't have that kind
>of power.
>
Easily enough done, several large ships filled with concrete sunk at the
narrowest parts of the Straits of Hormuz (the entrance to the Red Sea). Instant
blockade of the Persian Gulf. It would take months to clea
I agree -- if they would prefer to solve their own problemsthey should.
On 1/19/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well duh, we ARE foreign occupiers. That's a silly question.
>
> It's more important to ask "Do you feel these foreign occupiers make you
> more safe, or less safe, right no
Well duh, we ARE foreign occupiers. That's a silly question.
It's more important to ask "Do you feel these foreign occupiers make you
more safe, or less safe, right now?"
Early on, the response was almost overwhelmingly in the positive to this
question. That has steadily declined, and today I thi
no ;) I didn't. Nice try though. I have however previously made the point
that this is a point of view that almost certainly exists and does not
respond easily or well to a surge in tanks and soldiers ;)
You keep saying that most people support our presence there, but the
facts do not support this
Didn't you used to call them freedom fighters? I guess it depends on
which side you're on.
As I said, most do not support the terrorists so only the terrorists
consider themselves martyrs. Since they are now using innocent
victims, the willing to die pool is obviously getting very small.
On 1/19
who are perhaps known in Iraq as "the valiant few who are willing to
martyr themselves to remove the infidel invader from our land" Sam,
think about that. It's all a matter of definition. The Bushies should
understand that -- they are good at definitions like that. Did I ever
mention that it's ok f
What are you talking about? There's a small portion of the population
causing the terror. The rest live in peace and their economy is
starting to do well.
There was a video on CNN the other day about the terrorist kidnapping
people and putting them in booby-trapped cars. There suicide bombers
aren'
ok... I have work work to do ;) I should haveknown better than to
revive this thread ;)
as you all were.
On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I keep falling out of your kill file?
>
> Leave me in there because I don't want you to read my posts because
> when you do, you end up resp
How do I keep falling out of your kill file?
Leave me in there because I don't want you to read my posts because
when you do, you end up responding with something really stupid. Then
I have to create a kill file for you. But, since kill files are for
idiots that don't know how to debate I am not c
Sam. They think we are occupying their country. Fight for freedom
doesn't come into it in their eyes, and possibly not at all. You've
been drinking the KoolAid again.
You also don't seem to have gotten the memo. The President said on
Sixty Minutes that we are in Iraq to reduce chaos. The intervie
Well, Sam just made it to the killfile again.
It just isn't worth the time to delete them anymore.
On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm actually not interested in anything an armchair general from
> PMSNBC has to say. Any other advisers I should read?
>
~~~
I'm actually not interested in anything an armchair general from
PMSNBC has to say. Any other advisers I should read?
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Iran attack Saudi Arabia, blockade the gulf? They don't have that kind
> > of power.
> >
>
> Wow, do you need t
Is your argument that by killing people by the thousands and having
them live in fear is better than helping them fighting for freedom?
On 1/19/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes and he is dead now right? What's dead-Iraqi-a-day number up to
> now, meanwhile? So please explain to me why doz
yes and he is dead now right? What's dead-Iraqi-a-day number up to
now, meanwhile? So please explain to me why dozens of people dying a
day means that we are saving lives? I know you're going to pull out
Saddam's war crime file and say that the people dying today are
collateral damage and that's di
er does not have to be. We manage to have a non-royal power elite here
for instance.
On 1/19/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> he does have to be one of the royal family to be a member of the
> elite. His brother has lunch with Bush Senior about arms deals. Hmm.
>
> On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PRO
yes well... a bit of carrot so we'll keep running. I'm waiting to see gas
prices go back down. In a pure market setting, they should...
On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Saudi Arabia just announces they will boost production by 3 million
> barrels a day. Iran sells 2.5 million a day t
> Sam wrote:
> Iran attack Saudi Arabia, blockade the gulf? They don't have that kind
> of power.
>
Wow, do you need to read up. You can start by reading anything
General Barry McCaffery has said about that particular topic.
The invasion of Iraq has put the US into the following position:
1.) W
he does have to be one of the royal family to be a member of the
elite. His brother has lunch with Bush Senior about arms deals. Hmm.
On 1/19/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's not a member of the Royal family and his money and assets are
> frozen. You aren't really following along here. GG
but see.. we don't even hire americans who speak arabic. I posted some
figures a while back that looked authoritative to me, and they were
stunningly low.
> Why can't we hire real life Arabs, instead of just some American who learned
> Arabic? Everyone has their price, right?
Iran attack Saudi Arabia, blockade the gulf? They don't have that kind
of power.
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Saudi Arabia just announces they will boost production by 3 million
> > barrels a day. Iran sells 2.5 million a day to the world, making
> > Iran's
He's not a member of the Royal family and his money and assets are
frozen. You aren't really following along here. GG's claim was BL just
wanted to overthrow the Royal family so he could pray in peace. In
reality, he wants the entire world to face Mecca when they pray.
On 1/19/07, Dana <[EMAIL PRO
GG was blabbering about the US presence in the Middle East, we weren't
talking about Iraq. But, since you asked, how many people did SH
murder?
On 1/19/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Save lives! My god Sam, how does our presence in Iraq save lives? I
> don't know how you can say this with a
> Sam wrote:
> Saudi Arabia just announces they will boost production by 3 million
> barrels a day. Iran sells 2.5 million a day to the world, making
> Iran's oil irrelevant.
>
True ... true.
Unless the Saudis should change their mind ... or Iran destroys their
production facilities ... or blocka
yanno.. don't I remember reading that Osama is a multimillionaire from
one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia? Why would he need to
overthrow the current government there? He is a member of its ruling
elite, even if he is in exile.
> You drank the Bin Laden Kool-Aid? You seem to think bin Lad
Save lives! My god Sam, how does our presence in Iraq save lives? I
don't know how you can say this with a straight face! Of all the ways
that the troops in Iaq might be doing some good -- saving lives??? Do
you ever read a newspaper?
> > 3.) Maintain stability in the Middle East to prevent oil p
Why the F aren't we actively developing this kind of tech more. Granted,
this guy's deal isn't cost effective, but with more advances, it probably
would be and then the power grid would become a thing of the past. No more
worries over terrorist attacks on the power grid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/
$1.89 on my commute this morning. Still think that's higher than it should
be with oil barely over 50 a barrel right now
On 1/19/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > supply. Note that this is in fact what has happened $2 a gallon is
> now
> > "low" whereas I used to complain
Saudi Arabia just announces they will boost production by 3 million
barrels a day. Iran sells 2.5 million a day to the world, making
Iran's oil irrelevant.
On 1/19/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > not necessarily. If supply was throttled back a bit, the price would go
> supply. Note that this is in fact what has happened $2 a gallon is now
> "low" whereas I used to complain about $1.25.
Worse than that... $2.25 now seems "reasonable" to me.
paid $2.60/gallon for 87 Octane last night before my commute.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be
> Dana wrote:
> not necessarily. If supply was throttled back a bit, the price would go up
> but not enough to force anyone to seek alternatives. More money for the same
> supply. Note that this is in fact what has happened $2 a gallon is now
> "low" whereas I used to complain about $1.25.
>
O
hemselves
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:25 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> >
> > > Nick wrote:
> > > How? How in the world does
I also used to know someone with a degree in Arabic, which was considered
simply wierd at the time. I have wondered the same thing ;) whether he is
now making big bucks somewhere. I've tried googling him but the name is a
little too common, and his parents seem to have moved.
On 1/17/07, G Money
OK. I will look everything up when I get home. And if you are already making
that kind of $$ programming, the only advantage you would get is the 80K a
year tax break (Uncle Sugar will not tax you on your first 80K a year).
Bruce
On 1/17/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd love some inf
ROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> There are several agencies that hire former military members. Some take
> anyone from grunts to cooks. Others only hire from combat arms, and then
> others only h
te:
>
> not sure, but the positions I am looking into would be armed.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Sorge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More
not sure, but the positions I am looking into would be armed.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Sorge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> Well the reason that they offe
7;s going to
> be
> all good :)
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>
>
> > They offer a boatload to anyone going over to d
--- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> They offer a boatload to anyone going over to do civ work.
>
> I used to pull data cabling, I got an offer of well into six f
#x27;s remember most American's can't get a TS clearance.
- Original Message -
From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> They've been trying for years. American
I was referring to the ones working in DC. You need citizenship and
security clearance.
On 1/17/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very very dangerous work. A muslim working with the infidels, especially in
> a capacity that serves to supply information that can lead directly to the
> death
Stewart/REAC/HHQ/HUD)
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
They do hire real life Arabs. When I was in Iraq we had several men from
Sudan who were working with the HUMINT personnel doing interviews. The
ones
that the military hires are from countries we trust. And yes, they offer a
boat load of
Very very dangerous work. A muslim working with the infidels, especially in
a capacity that serves to supply information that can lead directly to the
death of radical muslims.i'd imagine these "translators" would be public
enemy #1 for the radicals.
On 1/17/07, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED
What a great gig, 6 figures just to talk.
I could get on board with that.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:35 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>
> They do hire re
They do hire real life Arabs. When I was in Iraq we had several men from
Sudan who were working with the HUMINT personnel doing interviews. The ones
that the military hires are from countries we trust. And yes, they offer a
boat load of $$ to them.
On 1/17/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Th
A friend of mine studied Arabic in college. This was pre-9/11 and done
simply because he was intrigued by the culture. Eventually he decided that a
job in the government as a translator or an expert in Arab culture might be
up his alley.
9/11 changed everything of course...and now he's a hot commo
They've been trying for years. Americans aren't interested in learning
and the foreigners don't think they'll get security clearance. I know
that three years ago they were offering well over $100k+ for
translators.
On 1/17/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why can't we hire real life Arab
Because of all the human shields you mean? They did wipe out a decades
worth of tunnel bunkers. It'll be ten years before Hezbollah will be
ready to attack again, but they have time.
On 1/17/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the same time the Israeli army was simply not prepared for
> > Larry wrote:
> > At the same time the Israeli army was simply not prepared for that
> sort of confrontation.
>
> And if you look at Hezbollah they're basically a propaganda and
> nation
> building organization that also has a healthy military wing.
>
> The US and Israel should learn a thing
On 1/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just my $.02
>
> I think it's part fof the problem. Loathe can address training issues
> better than I could.
> The major issue I feel is poor planning at the top we tried to crack
> an egg with a 20 lb sledge hammer.
>
> We have the
> gMoney wrote:
> Do you think lack of training is what is keeping us from winning in Iraq?
>
I think it's what *kept* us from winning. If we had the team (both
State and military) that knew what this type effort required, and a
President that listened to them, we wouldn't have done things the wa
community
To: CF-Community
cc: (bcc: Scott A. Stewart/REAC/HHQ/HUD)
Subject:Re: 12% Support More Troops
That sounds great...but let me ask you an honest question that gets to the
core of this:
Do you think lack of training is what is keeping us fr
> Do you think lack of training is what is keeping us from winning in Iraq?
Nope.
The prevailing attitude of the civilian leadership in the US that "if
we knock out the despot, they'll love us" that they'd greet us with
cheers and flowers was and is the problem.
The perception worldwide is that
That sounds great...but let me ask you an honest question that gets to the
core of this:
Do you think lack of training is what is keeping us from winning in Iraq?
On 1/17/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but we should have a special forces team whose team has, among
> other ski
> gMoney wrote:
> I dunno.I think the US Marines might just be the best trained combat
> troops in the world, by and large. Not sure about urban combat.
>
Yeah, but we should have a special forces team whose team has, among
other skills:
* Intense HVAC knowledge
* Structural engineering t
> Why can't we hire real life Arabs, instead of just some American who learned
> Arabic? Everyone has their price, right?
Yes, but Arabic speakers haven't been high on the priority list so far.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Car
On 1/17/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 1.) Create the best equipped, best trained urban combat troops on the
> planet.
I dunno.I think the US Marines might just be the best trained combat
troops in the world, by and large. Not sure about urban combat.
2.) Create a new br
> Larry wrote:
> At the same time the Israeli army was simply not prepared for that sort of
> confrontation.
And if you look at Hezbollah they're basically a propaganda and nation
building organization that also has a healthy military wing.
The US and Israel should learn a thing or 2 from that:
At the same time the Israeli army was simply not prepared for that sort of
confrontation. After years of the Intifata, the Israelis were more of police
force than an army in one sense. I was listening to one account of an assault
on a Hezbollah controlled town. The fighters were using Iranian su
>uhmm... larry, that was Sam's repsonse to one of my posts...
>
>
I wouldn't know, I was reading from the web. No names are associated with any
of the posts. So idiocy become anonymous mostly.
larry
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFus
No, it means destroying the explosives and insurgents that are going
into Iraq from Iran.
On 1/16/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Defend yourself" could mean kill everyone on the plant or it could
> mean retreat to fight another day, so there's not much in that
> statement.
~~~
> Sam wrote:
> Once you're afraid to defend yourself, you've already lost.
>
"Defend yourself" could mean kill everyone on the plant or it could
mean retreat to fight another day, so there's not much in that
statement.
It does spark an interesting question for me though: if a good
strategy and it
Once you're afraid to defend yourself, you've already lost.
On 1/16/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And they are not going to respond to "just a few strategic attacks"? Lets
> have a reality check here. Pearl Harbor was just a strategic attack, and look
> what happened after that.
>
;
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
> And they are not going to respond to "just a few strategic attacks"? Lets
> have a reality check here. Pearl Harbor was just a strategic attack, and
> look what hap
> Scott wrote:
> If the US attacks Iran, then there will be a response from Iran.
My theory has been that that's what the Hezbollah/Israeli
confrontation was all about. It was orchestrated by Iran to send a
message to the US and its allies (esp Israel and the UK) to say:
Check it out - we can do
Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>On 1/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So what's that three and a half weeks against the US? We don't invade,
>just a few strategic attacks. They can't invade the US. Maybe they
>could atta
We Americans, and especially our elected leaders, need to come to the
realization that you don't win a "war" in the 21st century by merely
obtaining military victories. Terrorists win not by scoring military
victories, but by reshaping how "war" and "victory" is defined.
The military victory sugge
>On 1/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So what's that three and a half weeks against the US? We don't invade,
>just a few strategic attacks. They can't invade the US. Maybe they
>could attack us in Iraq, but we would still win. We would probably
>just shock and awe them until
> Nick wrote:
> The US started leaving Saudi Arabia before the 9/11 attacks
That's all true - I'm not claiming that 9/11 changed policy, I'm
saying it accelerated it. The Saudi royal family was already being
threatened by its own population: thus the majority of 9/11 attackers
were Saudis; Saudi
The US started leaving Saudi Arabia before the 9/11 attacks, and well before
the invasion of Iraq. IIRC we started relocating there around 1994, and by
1997 patrols of the no fly zone were starting to come from that base.
The UAE spent a great deal of money to get us there.
> -Original Messag
> Nick wrote:
> In a way? How so? Our move to the UAE was strictly economical. They made
> a better offer.
>
No, it was all a "face" game. The Saudi royal family would have a US
base in downtown Riyahd if their population would accept it, but they
won't, which is why we were moved out into the de
In a way? How so? Our move to the UAE was strictly economical. They made
a better offer.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:02 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>
> >
> Nick wrote:
> China has no desire for military conqurering at this point
True. They're perfectly happy to watch their competition, us, waste
trillions protecting THEIR oil supply.
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade
> Nick wrote:
> Where did this number of 100,000 a month come from?
>
I just made it up. My point was, it's a lot of people. There is
essentially no law and there are roving bands of people that murder
anyone for anything. It's basically anarchy.
~~~
> Nick wrote:
> But bin Laden failed. He didn't drive us out.
True. In a way he did drive us out, but we're still fully capable,
supplied, and ready to defend the Royal family.
His efforts to regain the pennisula, so far, have failed.
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 5:41 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>
> The average crackpot agrees with the assessment of 100,000 dying a
month.
>
> On 1/14/07, Gruss wrote:
> >
> > >
China has no desire for military conqurering at this point, they want
the power through economic means. A military operation against the US by
China would be one of the worst ideas.
A military action by china would bring many countries against them.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:37 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 12% Support More Troops
>
> > Sam wrote:
> > that wants Saudi Arabia for the power and money.
>
> We disagree. Bin Laden wants Saudi Arabia and the Saudis know it.
> Bin L
according to the Realist school of thought
On 1/15/07, Gruss wrote:
>
>
>
> America as in the American military. Americans largest national
> interest in the Middle East is oil.
>
>
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~~~
> RoMunn wrote:
> America, as in who exactly?
>
America as in the American military. Americans largest national
interest in the Middle East is oil.
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7
America, as in who exactly?
The old-school Realists only care about the oil.
Fundamentalist Christians care about the existence of Israel, and they
dislike the spread of radical Islam.
Neo-Cons want to spread democracy and freedom and they see radical Islam as
an obstacle to that mission, and th
> Sam wrote:
> We're under attack so we have to act.
>
By Al Quaeda and Saudi Arabians, not Iraq.
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;
> RoMunn wrote:
> The average crackpot agrees with the assessment of 100,000 dying a month.
>
What's the average Iraqi believe?
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://ad
The average crackpot agrees with the assessment of 100,000 dying a month.
On 1/14/07, Gruss wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Have they made progress? I think they have. Judge for yourself.
> >
>
> Nope. The average Iraqi agrees with 100,000 dying a month.
On 1/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what would happen if the Taliban invaded Saudi Arabia concurrent
> with a public uprising?
The Saudis are always worried about an uprising, which is true for
most monarchies.
That's why they play both sides so they don't upset the masses. Hav
On 1/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you read it?
Yes
> It directly explains the Saudi-US relationship,
We weren't talking about that. You were claiming we have bases in
Saudi Arabia to protect them from bin Laden.
> Saudi policy contridictions,
Again, nothing to do with the d
> Sam wrote:
> We're not protecting them. They kicked out bin Laden in 1991 without our help.
>
So what would happen if the Taliban invaded Saudi Arabia concurrent
with a public uprising?
Answer:
With America: repelled.
Wihout America: they're conquered.
BTW- Where do you think all those F-15s
> Sam wrote:
> How is any of this relevant to our discussion?
>
Did you read it? It directly explains the Saudi-US relationship, the
Saudi policy contridictions, why the Saudis had a difficult time
support the Afghanistan invasion (much less Iraq later!), where Bin
Laden came from and what his 9/
On 1/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > that wants Saudi Arabia for the power and money.
>
> We disagree. Bin Laden wants Saudi Arabia and the Saudis know it.
> Bin Laden knows with America protecting the Kingdom he didn't stand a
> chance so he attacked us to drive us
How is any of this relevant to our discussion?
On 1/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > We went into Saudi Arabia because Iraq went into Kuwait.
>
> Here's a great Economist article for you from Sept 27th, 2001:
>
~~~
> Sam wrote:
> When were they behind us?
>
Oct 11th, 2001 Doha, Qatar:
---
MEETINGS of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference have seldom
roused much interest, even in the 56 Muslim countries that it
represents. This one was different. The world,
> Sam wrote:
> We went into Saudi Arabia because Iraq went into Kuwait.
Here's a great Economist article for you from Sept 27th, 2001:
WHEN Saudi Arabia cut off diplomatic relations with Afghanistan on
September 25th, the decision was hailed as the final step in the
international isolation of the
When were they behind us?
Poll: Muslims call U.S. 'ruthless, arrogant'
February 26, 2002 Posted: 7:54 PM EST (0054 GMT)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/26/gallup.muslims/index.html
On 1/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are others. See The Economist for more info) the ME w
> Sam wrote:
> that wants Saudi Arabia for the power and money.
We disagree. Bin Laden wants Saudi Arabia and the Saudis know it.
Bin Laden knows with America protecting the Kingdom he didn't stand a
chance so he attacked us to drive us out.
> Is this a joke? Most of their weapons are from China
> Sam wrote:
> Your peaceful monkey wants to be the ruler of the new Caliphate.
>
What is your point?
Mine is that we were much better off keeping our forces in Afghanistan
and Saudi rather than invading Iraq. Doing so pushed Bin Laden's
movement into overdrive and we've practically created the
Maybe you need to read the fatwa again:
[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and
military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the
al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in
> Nick wrote:
> Not exactly my point, but almost. The US Needs a military presence to
> prevent radical Islam from taking over the area and using the oil money
> to raise armies that and gain weapons that they can use against the US
> and our allies.
>
That's a good clarification: all the more rea
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
