 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Scientific American article on Ethanol
Some interesting points. 1.Ethanol is so cheap in Brazil because they use sugarcane which produces far more ethanol per pound than corn. America's climate will not let it grow sugar cane. 2. A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the nrg of a gallon of gas. 3. Unlike gas,ethanol will bind to water and be ruined as a fuel. This means ethanol must be shipped by truck (expensive) as opposed to pipelines ( cheap). 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. Overall the article was pretty negative on ethanol use in america. As i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That won't cost a thing; in fact it will money. > Some interesting points. > > 1.Ethanol is so cheap in Brazil because they use sugarcane which > produces far more ethanol per pound than corn. America's climate will > not let it grow sugar cane. I guess I was dreaming all those years I cut cane in Louisiana. And exactly what is it they are doing in Louisiana and Texas when they claim to be harvesting sugar cane? > 2. A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the nrg of a gallon of gas. So? > 3. Unlike gas,ethanol will bind to water and be ruined as a fuel. > This means ethanol must be shipped by truck (expensive) as opposed to > pipelines ( cheap). And we don't move any gasoline by truck. > 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to > turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. Minor problem. Hillbillies have been doing it for centuries -- in fact, we fought a small war over it in 1792. > Overall the article was pretty negative on ethanol use in america. As > i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That > won't cost a thing; in fact it will money. Did it ever occur to anyone that there is not ONE SINGLE ANSWER to our energy challenges? Did it ever occur to anyone that a combination of: -- smaller cars -- lower speeds -- electric vehicles -- public transportation -- bio-diesel -- ethanol -- high effeciency appliances -- solar -- coal -- wind -- etc., etc., etc. There's a little something in there for everyone. It's like eating an elephant -- one bite at a time. Too damn many people are looking for an easy way out, a silver bullet. "Kickin' a.s and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.politics.bush: >> Some interesting points. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And exactly what is it they are doing in Louisiana and Texas when they > claim to be harvesting sugar cane? The poster would have been correct in saying: "America's climate will not let it grow sufficient sugar cane to be economically efficient for EtOH production as a fuel additive/extender." >> 2. A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the nrg of a gallon of gas. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And we don't move any gasoline by truck. Refined fuels are moved by what then, if not by fuel "truck"? >> 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to >> turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. > > Minor problem. Hillbillies have been doing it for centuries -- in > fact, we fought a small war over it in 1792. EtOH in gallons for personal consumption is far different than EtOH in hundreds of thousands of gallons as a fuel additive or alternative. >> Overall the article was pretty negative on ethanol use in america. As >> i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Too damn many people are looking for an easy way out, a silver bullet. You're correct. Bush's government is thinking that the future will be hydrogen fuel-based vehicles on a massive scale, and so it's probably wise to place your bets in this direction. > "Kickin' a.s and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in > alt.politics.bush: > > > > Too damn many people are looking for an easy way out, a silver bullet. That's very true. They don't want their lifestyle to change even one tiny bit and expect 'science' to come too the rescue. I see this bizarre obseesion recently too with 'zero point energy' or 'free energy', 'water fuel' and the like a.k.a 'perpetual motion' in some crazy belief that you can get something for nothing. > You're correct. Bush's government is thinking that the future will be > hydrogen fuel-based vehicles on a massive scale, and so it's probably wise > to place your bets in this direction. Hydrogen is a hopelessly inefficient boondoggle. As soon as the true costs ( and hopleless inefficiency - H2 uses *more* energy than other types ) get noticed it'll get buried *very* fast. In the meantime all it does is to sap research budgets that if intelligently managed would never be paying ppl to piss money down the drain on H2 in the first place. Graham >> "Kickin' a.s and Takin' Names" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in >> alt.politics.bush: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >energy', 'water fuel' and the like a.k.a 'perpetual motion' in some crazy belief >that you can get something for nothing. If you think we can sustain unlimited population growth and solve our energy (and other) problems by driving less, you are living in a dream world. >> You're correct. Bush's government is thinking that the future will be >> hydrogen fuel-based vehicles on a massive scale, and so it's probably wise [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Graham Hmm... which r.a.d troll is this? Probaby not this one. >I guess I was dreaming all those years I cut cane in Louisiana. Hmm... unlikely personal experience claim... could be GPSTroll, but that's actually a characteristic of many trolls. >And exactly what is it they are doing in Louisiana and Texas when they >claim to be harvesting sugar cane? Wasting money, because it costs so damn much to grow sugar cane in the US that it takes harsh import quotas to keep sugar cane growers in business. >> 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to >> turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. > >Minor problem. Hillbillies have been doing it for centuries -- in >fact, we fought a small war over it in 1792. Moonshiners don't ferment the stalks. >Did it ever occur to anyone that there is not ONE SINGLE ANSWER to our >energy challenges? Did it ever occur to anyone that a combination of: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >There's a little something in there for everyone. And all of it together doesn't add up to oil not even close. Ethanol from corn barely helps at all. There's orders of magnitude less vegetable oil produced each year than there is crude oil extracted (and remember that production of oil crops competes with ethanol crops and both compete with food crops). Solar, wind and coal won't fuel vehicles (without expensive and in coal's case, dirty measures being taken), and while the coal would certainly fill many electrical generating needs now filled by natural gas, the environmentalists prevent it. Conservation techniques ain't going to do it, either; at best they'll reduce the rate of growth of energy requirements.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Matthew T. Russotto wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted> > >I guess I was dreaming all those years I cut cane in Louisiana. > > Hmm... unlikely personal experience claim... could be GPSTroll, but > that's actually a characteristic of many trolls. No, I cut cane in SW Ohio, for silage. ----- - gpsman Plus, think of all the drunks who will go around with big straws. > Some interesting points. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That > won't cost a thing; in fact it will money. Here's a lowdown on ethanol productivity from various crops <http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/z/1Table3.gif> SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. > There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. ...and you don't want to be a millionaire? weird. bob z. My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be priced anywhere close to gasoline. So for ethanol to be competitive with gasoline taxpayers have to ante up millions of dollars to keep the pump price down. Must make sense to someone. > Some interesting points. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That > won't cost a thing; in fact it will money. > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be > priced anywhere close to gasoline. So for ethanol to be competitive > with gasoline taxpayers have to ante up millions of dollars to keep the > pump price down. Must make sense to someone. Oil is very heavily subsidized in the USA. How much has been spent in the middle east just in the last 5 years? Think it's closing in on a trillion now. > > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production > > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > middle east just in the last 5 years? Think it's closing in on a trillion > now. If that is the case then it is at best a break-even situation. There is no reason to subsidize farmers to grow the grain which is then produced by refineries that are also subsidized. >> > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production >> > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is no reason to subsidize farmers to grow the grain which is then > produced by refineries that are also subsidized. I don't think farmers are getting trillons of dollars and certainly thousands of people aren't getting killed, wounded, poisoned, and having their lives disrupted and mental health put into jeparody in the process. > >> > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production > >> > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > thousands of people aren't getting killed, wounded, poisoned, and having > their lives disrupted and mental health put into jeparody in the process. Check out the extent of the agricultural subsidy programs for grain farmers before going too far with that. >>> > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production >>> > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >thousands of people aren't getting killed, wounded, poisoned, and having >their lives disrupted and mental health put into jeparody in the process. Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) is (I think) the largest argi conglomerate and biggest recipient of taxpayer money. They also payed the largest anti-trust fine in history, a few years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midland They get paid taxpayer money to grow corn for ethenol. They make a *fortune* on byproduct aof the process called Lecithin. That was what the anti-trust conviction was all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecithin Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 <ADM> > They get paid taxpayer money to grow corn for ethenol. Yes I am very much aware of that. Now show me it's more than the oil industry gets including the military costs. I would cut them all off if it was up to me. >>>> > My understanding is that in Brazil as in the U.S. ethanol production >>>> > has to be heavily subsidized for the end product at the pump to be [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecithin More inaccuracy from Wikipedia. The principle ADM subsidy is for processing, not growing. Stork replied to: > 1.Ethanol is so cheap in Brazil because they use sugarcane which > produces far more ethanol per pound than corn. America's climate will > not let it grow sugar cane. So what. We're reseraching not only that, but also researching how to get ethanol from switchgrass, bacteria, and all sorts of otherr sources. > 2. A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the nrg of a gallon of gas. So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's ethanol. > 3. Unlike gas,ethanol will bind to water and be ruined as a fuel. > This means ethanol must be shipped by truck (expensive) as opposed to > pipelines ( cheap). Or build a waterproof pipe? > 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to > turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. Yep, and they are not only researching that, but also researching > Overall the article was pretty negative on ethanol use in america. So what. Whose Scientific American? Sounds to me like the article was written by scientists who make a living doing research into traditional fuels. All in all, its just a sour grapes article written by a bunch of selfish thugs with a political axe to grind. > As > i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That > won't cost a thing; in fact it will money. You can buy a smaller car and drive slower if you want. > > As > > i've said before, the answer is smaller cars and lower speeds. That > > won't cost a thing; in fact it will save money. > > You can buy a smaller car and drive slower if you want. Fine, but me doing it by myself won't lower my gas prices. For any of us to get any good out it, it must be done by everyone and that means the govt needs to pass laws that encourage it. I've mentioned before how the criminal penalty for moving violations should vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. That would encourage americans to buy smaller cars without actually forcing them to. THINK > Stork replied to: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > get ethanol from switchgrass, bacteria, and all sorts of otherr > sources. I think that reformed Eth makes sense. Making it from corn directly maybe less so. > > 2. A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the nrg of a gallon of gas. > > So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for > ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's > ethanol. You can make synthetic gasolines. > > 3. Unlike gas,ethanol will bind to water and be ruined as a fuel. > > This means ethanol must be shipped by truck (expensive) as opposed to > > pipelines ( cheap). > > Or build a waterproof pipe? You'd need an agent that dries the Eth. You have to deal with that in storage tanks, in the trucks, in your car tank. > > 4. Ethanol will not really make economic sense until a way is found to > > turn not just the corn kernels, but also the cornstalks into ethanol. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fuels. All in all, its just a sour grapes article written by a bunch > of selfish thugs with a political axe to grind. Or maybe you are paranoid. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's >ethanol. Suppose the US pulls out of Iraq tomorrow. The civil war gets going in earnest. In a few years, someone wins and the oil production gets back up to speed. In the meantime, still plenty of oil from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, domestically produced, etc. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for > >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > up to speed. In the meantime, still plenty of oil from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, > Mexico, Venezuela, domestically produced, etc. Or the war brings in other nearby oil producing countries and oil goes into the three digits. Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support, the disaffected individual Arab/Muslim. It's certainly not a short term process. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Laden's support, the disaffected individual Arab/Muslim. It's certainly >not a short term process. Iraq has noting to do with OBL and 9-11. The AQ folks are there *becuase* we are. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for > >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Iraq has noting to do with OBL and 9-11. The AQ folks are there > *becuase* we are. You are confused. Iraq has everything to do with al Qaeda and future 9/11s. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > Iraq has noting to do with OBL and 9-11. The AQ folks are there > > *becuase* we are. > > You are confused. Iraq has everything to do with al Qaeda and future > 9/11s. It probably does *NOW* after the insanely stupid invasion of the place and total failure to run it properly ! Graham >> >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for >> >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >You are confused. Iraq has everything to do with al Qaeda and future >9/11s. Iraq certainly caused the London and Spanish train bombings as well as major bombings in Turkey and Bali that us Americans are oblivious about. This wasn't the case until US, England and the dwarfs invaded Iraq. The entire Arab/Islamic world is angry to some degree about the US occupation of Iraq, even our firends and even if they approve of the removal of Saddam. We Americans are oblivious to what the world says about us. You are probably right. It was avoidable. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > This wasn't the case until US, England and the dwarfs invaded > Iraq. Ahem ! That's the *United Kingdom* not England please. There's a big difference. There's 4 countries in the UK, not just England. Graham > >> >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for > >> >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > about. This wasn't the case until US, England and the dwarfs invaded > Iraq. I'm pretty sure that the rants from al Qaeda have always included US out of *both* Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly those attacks you mention occurred post invasion but that doesn't mean that not invading would prevent those attacks. The Spain attacks were by kooks from Morocco, I think. The UK attacks were Pakistanis who were naturalized UK citizens or something like that. Neither are al Qaeda proper, one group isn't even Arabs. > The entire Arab/Islamic world is angry to some degree about the US > occupation of Iraq, even our firends and even if they approve of the > removal of Saddam. What is there to be angry about? This is a clash of not civilizations or religions but of times. It's a clash between a call to the future and one to the past. There are a lot of people who are running Muslim countries who are modernist and are afraid to face this fight. And that should be no wonder because while the winner might be obvious, what we go through to get there isn't. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >> >> >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for >> >> >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >or something like that. Neither are al Qaeda proper, one group isn't >even Arabs. >> The entire Arab/Islamic world is angry to some degree about the US >> occupation of Iraq, even our firends and even if they approve of the >> removal of Saddam. >> >What is there to be angry about? This is a clash of not civilizations or Ignoring the Crusades, etc, the Arab part of the Muslim world has been on the loosing side of battles with people that happen to be Christian for the last 100+ years. Start with pre-WWI when they got pushed out of the Balkans. Add Chechnya, Israel the Anglo-French-Israel invasion of Egypt, The Arab losses in the wars with Israel, the Shah, and a ton of smaller battles I can't type from memory. Lots of blood has been shed. 100 years is a short time in a culture that isn't saturated with manufactured media. It's an interval short enough that a living person, today, could have heard the stories, as a kid, from Gramps, speaking as a witness and participant in battles and can name family members that died. You may not be aware of what Britain did in Iraq or Iran before around the time of WWI up to 1953. There are *lots* of Arabs alive today that witnessed what happened. The population kicked Britain out of both countries. Russia has made colonial moves into Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan over the last 100+ years and is also hated. An analogy or something; time: here in the USA, in South Dakota, today, imagine that a white guy gets drunk and kills a kid from the Indian reservation. It happens. For us White Folks (I'm making an assumption here) it's just an unfortunate incident. We prosecute the killer and sincerely express remorse to the family of the victim. We go back to watching the TV and there is another car crash on that nights news. We've forgotten about the Indian kid. That was *yesterday's* news. On the other hand, the Indian community puts another notch on the long record of bad News in which they came out on the losing end. In the wake for the kid, the Elders repeat the names of individual dead Indians, from memory, going back to the Indian wars, now about 130 years ago. They can name battles and talk about the land they were pushed from. There are living people that heard these stories told first-hand by people they loved. They know that similar things have happened to other tribes, going back 400 years even if they can't recite the list from memory. Now, if Indians, as a group, were now a happy and economically average, this wake would just be a personal tragedy, but the Indians are poor becuase of their history with Euoropeans. Each incident is put in historical context by people that know their history, something that most Americans don' or can't do. Basically, only a few western travelers went to Arabia until oil was found, before WWI. Parts of Arabia experienced NO resident non-Arabs until after WWII. In 100 years we, largely America, Britain, and Frence have made ourselves hated in the region, with some fresh incident every few years to refresh memories. From their point of view, the last 100 years is all current events and all bad news. Remember, they didn't come here. *We went there*. Britain was the *worst* country we could partner with to overthrow Saddam. The last British outrages were 1922 (?) and there are elders alive today that participated as kids in tossing the brits out, that time. They are telling the people they know to do it again. Yes, we and Britain went into Iraq with the intention to make life better, on our terms, for the people. Unfortunately, the way we have behaved there in the last 5 years looks exactly like 1920 to some Arabs. They have just added the invasion of 2003 to thelong list of outrages in which they have lost in some way. Right now, the standard of living for many of not most non-Kurd Iraqis is *way* below what before what it was in 2002 undr Saddam. I mean health, sanitation, electricily, cooking and vehicle gas. Cites on request. Arabs can believe we either don't give a sh.t or are anctually killing them and what can we do to prove that they are wrong? Bush has *really* put us between a rock and a hard place. The war was fast and neat. Arabs reject *any* occupation by outsiders of any sort and and this occupation is a Bush-caused disaster that even those of us that opposed the war didn't expect to screw up so badly. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >Iraq certainly caused the London and Spanish train bombings as well as >major bombings in Turkey and Bali that us Americans are oblivious >about. This wasn't the case until US, England and the dwarfs invaded >Iraq. A repeat of the common fallacy that motivation is cause. >The entire Arab/Islamic world is angry to some degree about the US >occupation of Iraq, even our firends and even if they approve of the >removal of Saddam. > >We Americans are oblivious to what the world says about us. Not oblivous, but unconcerned. Because we know that no matter what we do, it will be wrong and we will be blamed. And that goes double for the Arab world. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Iraq certainly caused the London and Spanish train bombings as well as > >major bombings in Turkey and Bali that us Americans are oblivious > >about. This wasn't the case until US, England and the dwarfs invaded > >Iraq. > > A repeat of the common fallacy that motivation is cause. The UK attacks were Paki immigrants, home-grown. The attacks in Spain were from Morocco. What issues do some Moroccans have with Spain? > >The entire Arab/Islamic world is angry to some degree about the US > >occupation of Iraq, even our firends and even if they approve of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do, it will be wrong and we will be blamed. And that goes double for > the Arab world. If you are going to be blamed either way, better do what's in your own interest. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no support in Iraq until the USA invaded. His base was Afghanistan which US forces *left* to go invade Iraq. Graham > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support > > Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no support in Iraq until the USA invaded. That's an absurd claim. > His base was Afghanistan which US forces *left* to go invade Iraq. No, you nut, they could fight with the Americans in Afghanistan. You show me any Afghans who are in Iraq fighting against the Americans. Show 'em. Al Qaeda is first of all an Arab organization. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support > > > > Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no support in Iraq until the USA invaded. > > > That's an absurd claim. It's the simple truth. Saddam would never have tolerated any threat to his power base. > > His base was Afghanistan which US forces *left* to go invade Iraq. > > > No, you nut, they could fight with the Americans in Afghanistan. You > show me any Afghans who are in Iraq fighting against the Americans. Show > 'em. Al Qaeda is first of all an Arab organization. WTF are you rambling on about ? Graham > > > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > > > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's the simple truth. Saddam would never have tolerated any threat to his power > base. The country was in chaos under Saddam. The Kurds had their own enclave not respecting the central government, for example. > > > His base was Afghanistan which US forces *left* to go invade Iraq. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > WTF are you rambling on about ? Are you ESL? Show me Afghans, as you claimed, who went to Iraq to fight the Americans. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > > > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > > > > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The country was in chaos under Saddam. It's in even worse chaos now. > The Kurds had their own enclave not respecting the central government, for example. Because we supported them doing that you ninny ! > > > > His base was Afghanistan which US forces *left* to go invade Iraq. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are you ESL? Show me Afghans, as you claimed, who went to Iraq to fight > the Americans. WTF are you rambling on about ? Have you forgotten why NATO troops are in Afghanistan and how it started there ? Graham >> > > > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of >> > > > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Graham Including French kids in France's NATO units, dying for 9-11. Of the 21,000 (?) troops in the process of "surging" in Stalingrad^H^H^H^HBaghdad we have pulled American brigades out of Afghaistan whike the NATO commander is screaming that he doesn't have enough to fight the Taliban, as it is, Just like March, 2003. Bush pulled important troops from the REAL fight, in Afghanistan, and brought them to the party, in Iraq. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >> > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of >> > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's the simple truth. Saddam would never have tolerated any threat to his power >base. I've not chased it down, but I believe we've recently found a memo from Saddam to his internal spies, telling them to keep an eye out for any AQ/Islamists in Iraq so that they can be rounded up. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > >> > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from Saddam to his internal spies, telling them to keep an eye out for > any AQ/Islamists in Iraq so that they can be rounded up. Another point of interest is that Saddam was really just a token Muslim. He only really took it seriously after GW1 in order to be able to play the religion card to get sympathy from other Muslim nations. Also, under Saddam, Iraq was a largely secular country. The recent war has radicalised it. Graham >> >> > > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of >> >> > > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >took it seriously after GW1 in order to be able to play the religion card to get >sympathy from other Muslim nations. There was a funny long news piece on NPR or BBC radio during GW1. Arab Muslins have a fine oral tradition of hurling elaborate insults. The Bush coalation had a full team of these mullahs and they filled the airwaves with speeches aimed at the Irai population. Secular iraq had nobody to compete so they had to sneak someone in from Yeman or somewhere. There was a funny long news piece on NPR or BBC radio during GW1. Arab Muslims have a fine oral tradition of hurling elaborate insults. The Bush coalition had a full team of these mullahs and they filled the airwaves with speeches aimed at the Iraqi population. Secular Iraq had nobody to compete so Saddam had to sneak someone in from Yemen or somewhere. >Also, under Saddam, Iraq was a largely secular country. The recent war has radicalised >it. Yup. Saddam didn't become a public practicing Muslim and beat the drums for Palestinians until 2000-something. The Baathist party is secular. Somewhere, Syria (the *other* Baathist country, describes itself as officially secular and religion-neutral. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >> > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of >> > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >show me any Afghans who are in Iraq fighting against the Americans. Show >'em. Al Qaeda is first of all an Arab organization. Any angry Afghanistanis are fighting the us and NATO in their own country. The don't need to leave the country to find a Crusader to shoot at. AQ is multinational. If you look at where the 19 hijackers come from you'll see. There isn't an Iraqi in the bunch. The roots of AQ are in the Egyptian "muslim brotherhood". Now they have Chechins and kids from London, Spain and Germany joining up. One of OBL's influences was an interesting guy names Qutb, egyptian. He was radicalized by attending an normal American college in Colorado in the 50s. I highly recommend watching The Power of Noghtmares, a BBC production about the roots on the Islamist movements and the sh.t we are in now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm it's on Google video. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of > >> > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > country. The don't need to leave the country to find a Crusader to > shoot at. At least you've figured that much out. Remember that the US invaded Afghanistan before invading Iraq. > AQ is multinational. If you look at where the 19 hijackers come from > you'll see. There isn't an Iraqi in the bunch. Al Qaeda is the amalgamation of the Egyptian terrorist group that killed Anwar Sadat and the Saudi Arabian terrorist group that bin Laden founded. It now includes Muslims of all major ethnicities and has become a sort of holding company for crazies looking to put some more blood on the map. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > Al Qaeda is the amalgamation of the Egyptian terrorist group that killed > Anwar Sadat and the Saudi Arabian terrorist group that bin Laden > founded. It now includes Muslims of all major ethnicities and has become > a sort of holding company for crazies looking to put some more blood on > the map. It's an umbrella name for many disparate groups. Anyone would think it was an organisation like IBM the way you talk about it. Graham >> Al Qaeda is the amalgamation of the Egyptian terrorist group that killed >> Anwar Sadat and the Saudi Arabian terrorist group that bin Laden [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Graham And it's safe to say that *every* country [*] that has a significant Muslim population has a domestic Islamist cell that wants to bring Sharia law in where they live. These cells, as a rule, show no interest in, or capability for cross-border evil, which we would call terrorism. They certainly can be USED as safe heavens by the international terrorists but they, themselves may not care enoug about muslims outside their own country to make it a priority. [*] The US and Canada are different. I fnd it interesting that *every* actual Islamic terrorist on US soil (that we know of) came here recently. This is NOT the case for Islamists in Europe. Lots were second-generation. There were many Islamic acts of terror on US soil prior to 9-11-2001. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >> >> > Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about responding to the threat of >> >> > future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin Laden's support [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >a sort of holding company for crazies looking to put some more blood on >the map. Yup. And Bush Jr screwed the pooch. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > I highly recommend watching The Power of Noghtmares, a BBC production > about the roots on the Islamist movements and the sh.t we are in now. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm > > it's on Google video. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22 Absolutely first class. A *must see* for anyone with an interest in the background to Muslim extremism and the current response of the west. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks Also see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi Graham >> >So. There's no more gasoline, unless you want us to stay in Iraq for >> >ever. So we need to go with the best fuel we can get, and that's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Laden's support, the disaffected individual Arab/Muslim. It's certainly > not a short term process. That's funny. SignatureThere are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. > Or the war brings in other nearby oil producing countries and oil goes > into the three digits. Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. It's about the oil alright. Nobody gives a damn if there isn't any. Plus if stablity was desired, then leaving saddam hussein in power would have led to the most stable result. Now there is instability and higher prices and iraq's taps turned off. > It's about > responding to the threat of future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin > Laden's support, the disaffected individual Arab/Muslim. It's certainly > not a short term process. If you're worried about future 9/11s you should look squarely at the CIA that brought the mess into being in the first place. How many of the 19 had events, sightings, and documents that pointed to them being part of US intelligence orgs? IDs that had them living on military bases, defense language school, etc and so forth. > > Or the war brings in other nearby oil producing countries and oil goes > > into the three digits. Also, Iraq isn't really about the oil. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > led to the most stable result. Now there is instability and higher > prices and iraq's taps turned off. Saddam wasn't stable. In fact, as long as Saddam stayed in power, the US had to stay in Saudi Arabia. That was bin Laden's original excuse for attacking Americans. Whether you like it or not, the Iraqi situation does dovetail with Osama. > > It's about > > responding to the threat of future 9/11s by attacking the base of bin [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > US intelligence orgs? IDs that had them living on military bases, defense > language school, etc and so forth. What are you talking about? Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > Saddam wasn't stable. More stable than it is now. > In fact, as long as Saddam stayed in power, the US > had to stay in Saudi Arabia. That was bin Laden's original excuse for > attacking Americans. And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > Whether you like it or not, the Iraqi situation > does dovetail with Osama. Another CIA trained and supported individual. >> If you're worried about future 9/11s you should look squarely at the CIA >> that brought the mess into being in the first place. How many of the 19 >> had events, sightings, and documents that pointed to them being part of >> US intelligence orgs? IDs that had them living on military bases, defense >> language school, etc and so forth. > What are you talking about? Something that has been in the back of the papers. Might serve you well to inform yourself rather than relying on neo-con talk radio. > > Saddam wasn't stable. > > More stable than it is now. One disagreement is whether or not stability is a good goal in and of itself. > > In fact, as long as Saddam stayed in power, the US > > had to stay in Saudi Arabia. That was bin Laden's original excuse for > > attacking Americans. > > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. No they didn't. Good grief. > > Whether you like it or not, the Iraqi situation > > does dovetail with Osama. > > Another CIA trained and supported individual. There is no evidence that the US funded Osama at all at any time, nor that the US trained him at all at any time. > >> If you're worried about future 9/11s you should look squarely at the CIA > >> that brought the mess into being in the first place. How many of the 19 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Something that has been in the back of the papers. Might serve you well > to inform yourself rather than relying on neo-con talk radio. What is "neo-con talk radio"? I don't listen to talk radio, so maybe you could tell me. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > > > No they didn't. Good grief. Ok, Rumsfeld then ! Graham >> > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Graham Nope. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. Very much so. Iraq was a useful ally since it was at war with Iran and it got US aid to help it in that war. Graham >> >> > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Graham We (Reagan) helped *both* over time so neither would become a regional power. We were still pissed at Iran for kicking out our Shah. A million died in that war, partially for our Great Game. Saddam was mostly in the Soviet camp for arms purchases. There was *one* year when we sold him a bunch of stuff. I'd have to check the year and amount. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg >> >> > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg Yup. We all know that picture. Reagan was getting daily briefings that reported Sadddam gassing Kurds. That being said, America didn't help Saddam any way near as much as the USSR did, and over the entire reign, The French and Germans may have sold him more than we did. From memory, there was just ONE year when we sold Saddam lots of stuff. I'd have to dig the book up to see when and how much. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > > > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > > > > > No they didn't. Good grief. > > Ok, Rumsfeld then ! The Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad where he shakes Saddam's hand? That!? Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > > > And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad where he shakes Saddam's hand? That!? It's part of the big picture. The USA was quite happy for Saddam's forces to gas Iranians. I've also heard it said that Iraq received US precursor chemicals to make its poison gases. Graham >I've also heard it said that Iraq received US precursor chemicals to make its >poison gases. Ahh, innuendo. I've heard it said that people who use it with respect to US support of chemical weapons f.ck goats. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> > Saddam wasn't stable. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >There is no evidence that the US funded Osama at all at any time, nor >that the US trained him at all at any time. Agreed. OBL was his own funding source and he had access to money in Saudi Arabia. Reagan made the funding of the Muji in Afghanistan a "black" operation, It was denaible. We didn't publicize our efforts. ALL American money was filtered through Pakistan's ISI and the Muji were told it was Arab money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence OBL operated in parallel with us but he's a bright guy and probably knew about our part. The majority of AQ troops think that they kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan without the help of anyone that wasn't Islamic. OBL is on record in one of his speeches as inviting the "Far Satan" into a war in an Arab country so they can be defeated, as the Russians were. I think he got his wish. Saddam was used by OBL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > One disagreement is whether or not stability is a good goal in and of > itself. Stablity for the benefit of business interests is why the USA has supported dictatorships and overthrown governments the world wide. This includes the nations of Iraq and Iran. Gee wonder why it's such a problem now with the meddling of the CIA since the 1950s and all. >> And who trained and supported Saddam? USA's very own, CIA. > No they didn't. Good grief. The ignorance is staggering. First google match: http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r "While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim." >> Another CIA trained and supported individual. > > There is no evidence that the US funded Osama at all at any time, nor > that the US trained him at all at any time. It seems that's the latest thing of neo-con talk these days. However the connections have been made clear by all sorts of information over the years before and after 2001. I suppose we are just supposed to think that because the CIA washed their support through the ISI it just didn't happen. >> One disagreement is whether or not stability is a good goal in and of >> itself. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >because the CIA washed their support through the ISI it just didn't >happen. OBL was unknown to everyone when we started dealing with ISI. We was the wealthy owner of a civil construction company, in a suit. When he showed up in Pakistan, it was first to get money and volunteers from Saudi to help fightthe Russian. Then he would up using his engineering skills to do projects on the border and finally, he went to Afghanistan with his AK47 and earned his stripes under fire. The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to OBL. I don't think we ever shared camps or troops. OBL hated the US, even then. It just wasn't the enemy of the day. We were the "far enemy". USSR was the "near enemy" One source of many: Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden By Steve Coll (2nd ed) This covers Afghanistan and OBL from the Reagen era to 9-10-2001. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to > OBL. I wasn't arguing degree nor any of the other things you dragged in. Little or a lot, it was. >> The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >> OBL. > >I wasn't arguing degree nor any of the other things you dragged in. Little or >a lot, it was. If any, it was nearly zero of the billions we sent to the ISI, and if any of it went to OBL, ISI hid the source. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >>> The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >>> OBL. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If any, it was nearly zero of the billions we sent to the ISI, and if > any of it went to OBL, ISI hid the source. 'we' I really dislike that usage. 'we' weren't consulted, 'we' weren't even informed. The CIA did, not 'we'. Or are you part of the CIA? Seems like a great deal of revisionist history for the sake of the political football game to me. The whole mess comes from having more concern for business than the principles upon which the USA was established, and until that changes the messes will just continue to get bigger. > >>> The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to > >>> OBL. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > upon which the USA was established, and until that changes the messes will > just continue to get bigger. I thought most of the problem lay at the door of the daft "my enemy's enemy is my friend" policies. Graham >>>> The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >>>> OBL. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Seems like a great deal of revisionist history for the sake of the political >football game to me. Take "we" to mean Reagan and everyone that was working for him. This is not obscure or revisionist history. It's just one click more complex than the history most people get out of the crackerjack box, or Fox News. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to > > OBL. > > I wasn't arguing degree nor any of the other things you dragged in. Little or > a lot, it was. There's no evidence that the US funded or trained bin Laden. Read "Ghost Wars". Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's no evidence that the US funded or trained bin Laden. Read "Ghost > Wars". Sure... everything up to now was complete BS.... 'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright >>> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >>> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright That's well known. Does anyone know when the Bush family and the BL family met? I don't recall any mention of that. I'd like to know the date. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >>> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to > >>> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Does anyone know when the Bush family and the BL family met? I don't > recall any mention of that. I'd like to know the date. Do families that are split by divorce usually hang out together? You certainly know that the "bin Laden" family that "hangs out with Bush" isn't the same family that is run by Osama. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > certainly know that the "bin Laden" family that "hangs out with Bush" > isn't the same family that is run by Osama. Good Lord you're ignorant ! Of course they're the same damn family ! They're prominent Saudis and Osama is the 'black sheep' of the family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family Graham > > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation > > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course they're the same damn family ! They're prominent Saudis and Osama is the > 'black sheep' of the family. Osama bin Laden and his family of children and wives isn't the same family that the Bush family knows. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation > > > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Osama bin Laden and his family of children and wives isn't the same > family that the Bush family knows. What kind of revisionism is this ? Graham >> > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation >> > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Osama bin Laden and his family of children and wives isn't the same >family that the Bush family knows. Cite? Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation > >> > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cite? Eeyore keeps equating the patriarchal family of Mohammed bin Laden to the patriarchal family of Osama bin Laden. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" > > > >'I can't tell you guys what I know, all I can tell you is the Bushes vacation > > > >with the bin Ladens' - FBI agent Robert Wright [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course they're the same damn family ! They're prominent Saudis and Osama is the > 'black sheep' of the family. Osama bin Laden and his family of children and wives isn't the same family that the Bush family knows. 1) Osama's dad died in the 1960s. 2) He'd long divorced Osama's mother. 3) He had like 18 total wives and 50 or 60 children. 4) The Osama bin Laden family isn't the family you are talking about. You know this but you are being dishonest. Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >> >>> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >> >>> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >certainly know that the "bin Laden" family that "hangs out with Bush" >isn't the same family that is run by Osama. Yup, but nobody I know is making book that all 100+ bin Laden's have cut the ties to Uncle Osama. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 > >> >>> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to > >> >>> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yup, but nobody I know is making book that all 100+ bin Laden's have > cut the ties to Uncle Osama. Half brother. The father had like 19 wives and was divorced from Osama's mother as she was like number four or something. He died in the 60s. What sort of connection do you think they have? Signature"The ultimate test is always your own serenity." Robert M Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" >> >> >>> > The vast majority of our aid went to various warlords and little to >> >> >>> > OBL. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >mother as she was like number four or something. He died in the 60s. >What sort of connection do you think they have? In Arab culture families are *very* extended. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 >Do families that are split by divorce usually hang out together? You >certainly know that the "bin Laden" family that "hangs out with Bush" >isn't the same family that is run by Osama. In fact, Osama is pretty much the black sheep of his family. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Do families that are split by divorce usually hang out together? You > >certainly know that the "bin Laden" family that "hangs out with Bush" > >isn't the same family that is run by Osama. > > In fact, Osama is pretty much the black sheep of his family. Bush wasn't hanging out with the patriarchal family of Osama. That's what is invariably misrepresented around here. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message