[EMAIL PROTECTED] to me:
> ===
> So you agree with the
> thinking part of the world
> that GWB and his so-
> called "advisors" are a
> bunch of idiots...
> ==
> I don't recall seeing your credentials for even belonging to that group,
> let alone t
Nick FitzGerald -
===
So you agree with the
thinking part of the world
that GWB and his so-
called "advisors" are a
bunch of idiots...
==
I don't recall seeing your credentials for even belonging to that group,
let alone the memo that appointe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BRAVO! Well done bkfsec!!
It seems that most everybody knows the truth except those still
blinkered by the Neocons and their media brainwashing campaign.
BTW, quite a good related article by Manuel Valenzuela (for those
interested) can be found
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not a joke Gary.
If you are attempting to make the claim that Saddam NEVER had WMD you are
either Profoundly Misinformed, Astonishingly Ignorant of Late 20th Century
History; or simply Lying.
Wow. How utterly intellectually dishonest of you...
Saying that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<>
> But anyone who FIRST decides what they want to believe and THEN tries to
> find supporting evidence for it is an IDIOT. People who are NOT idiots do
> it the other way around: Evidence First, Conclusion Second.
So you agree with the thinking part of the world that GW
=
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Gary E. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Very funny, but humor belongs on
alt.rec.humor, not here.
RGDS
GARY
=
It's not
On 12/09/06, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is stupid. There's tons of documentation in the public domain that
refutes your assertions. Go read the International Chemical Weapons
agreements, which clearly state that white phosphorus is *not* defined as a
chemical weapon. Given t
--On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 09:12:14 +0100 c0ntex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Good sir, if what you say be true, show me your proof.
Also, using your medical training, explain the injuries to the bodies
in Falluja.
This is stupid. There's tons of documentation in the public domain that
On 12/09/06, bkfsec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you two are using different definitions for Chemical Weapons,
perhaps.
I think so, though chemical weapons have been used.
There are hundereds / thousands of bodies that have been melted almost
to the bone, while their clothes are in flaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you consider that America are
able to lie about the weapons of mass
destruction and then admit it,
"America" never lied about WMD.
America is not in a position to prove that any WMD s
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:32:52 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "America" never lied about WMD.
Of course it did not, a country cannot lie. The US and UK gouvernments did.
It is rather unfortunate that mostly those country's clueless citizens do
have to pay for their administrations aberrations.
-
Good sir, if what you say be true, show me your proof.
Also, using your medical training, explain the injuries to the bodies
in Falluja.
Thanks :-)
On 12/09/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Contex -
>If you consider that America
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Throwaway1!
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If you consider that America are
> >able to lie about the weapons of mass
> >destruction and then admit it,
>
Contex -
>If you consider that America are
>able to lie about the weapons of mass
>destruction and then admit it,
"America" never lied about WMD.
America is not in a position to prove that any WMD stockpiles
exist
Another:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5702006622816922747
Makes me sick.
On 10/09/06, c0ntex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5587990522549547050
--
regards
c0ntex
--
regards
c0ntex
___
Full-
15 matches
Mail list logo
