 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / August 2007(OT:) What's the difference between Korean Humanitrain Hostages and Taliban?
Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held by the Taliban. There were 23, but the Taliban killed 2 of them. Most of the rest are young women. A Taliban negotiator said he "...sees no difference between the Korean hostages and Taliban members held in prisons..." No difference? How he can see no difference between Humanitarian aid workers and *MURDERERS* is beyond me. But then, I'm not a Raghead... > Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held > by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But then, I'm not a Raghead... As it happens, the Taliban has gone from being an oppressive, theocratic regime (think: Pat Robertson in a turban) to being a lawless gang of murderous thugs. We invaded their country and started in to put them out of business because they aided and abetted the criminal, bin Laden. Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held >> by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove > alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?th&emc=th U.S. Backs Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/world/middleeast/10arab.html?th&emc=th >>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held >>> by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > U.S. Backs Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/world/middleeast/10arab.html?th&emc=th And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>> held [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship > for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." Gee, you think if we stopped calling them ragheads, they'd be our pals, chums, pardners, friends? Think again. Call them pigs if you like, but it would only insult that noble animal. If you've forgotten, nineteen of these folks from the middle east gave us a wake up call almost six years ago, in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. >> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship >> for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > these folks from the middle east gave us a wake up call almost six years > ago, in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Most Liberals have forgotten this fact and want to extend the Olive Branch to them. Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims how they feel about it now. It would have been 23, but one of them was ill, and was put to death. They still haven't explained why the other one was put to death, but I have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian minister... >>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship >>> for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Most Liberals have forgotten this fact and want to extend the Olive Branch > to them. Really? Which liberals are those? You're going to need a pretty long list of examples to satisfy your own use of the word "Most." > Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims > how they feel about it now. They didn't "extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims," they went to Afghanistan to minister to Afghanis. And, most likely, to convert them. > It would have been 23, but one of them was ill, and was put to death. They > still haven't explained why the other one was put to death, but I have a > feeling it has something to do with being a Christian minister... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Really? Which liberals are those? You're going to need a pretty long > list of examples to satisfy your own use of the word "Most." OK. YOU seem to have forgotten it. And, I notice you skipped the section below... >> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims >> how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> They still haven't explained why the other one was put to death, but I >> have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian minister... >>>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > OK. YOU seem to have forgotten it. So, are you now admitting that your statement "Most Liberals have forgotten that fact and want to extend the Olive Branch to them [terrorists]" was insupportable and incorrect? Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing over 3000 deaths. We know who supported them. When did I say we should stop going after the terorrists that attacked us? When did I say we should stop going after the people that supported them? > And, I notice you skipped the section below... Yeah? Did you think you had written something profound? >>> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims >>> how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> They still haven't explained why the other one was put to death, but I >>> have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian minister... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > forgotten that fact and want to extend the Olive Branch to them > [terrorists]" was insupportable and incorrect? Not at all. Most of the l00ney lefft wants to end it now and leave it a shambles. > Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the > exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing over > 3000 deaths. We know who supported them. When did I say we should stop > going after the terorrists that attacked us? When did I say we should > stop going after the people that supported them? You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... >> And, I notice you skipped the section below... > > Yeah? Did you think you had written something profound? Yeah. See the subject header, and try to stick to it, eh? >>>> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the >>>> Muslims how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian >>>> minister... >> Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the >> exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... Look at DH's paragraph above, beginning with the words "Nor have I forgotten it." That is the paragraph we're going to talk about now. What DH didn't say is the name of the country whose ruling family supported the hijackers. He didn't mention it because grownups who read know the name of the country. Do you know the name of the country? If you do, type it in your next message. If you do not type it in your next message, we will assume you don't know the name of the country, and it will be time for you to stop posting messages in this discussion. >> You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supported the hijackers. He didn't mention it because grownups who read > know the name of the country. Do you know the name of the country? It's, uh, Phuque U, isn't it? >>> You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's, uh, Phuque U, isn't it? So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for being honest about it. >>>> You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for being > honest about it. I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. I didn't qualify the question with an answer because you know I know what you're saying. The fact is, I don't care to answer 6th grade Social Studies questions. And you don't attack any ally in such an unstable region, no matter how shaky that ally is. All the more reason not to attack them. >>>>> You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And you don't attack any ally in such an unstable region, no matter how > shaky that ally is. All the more reason not to attack them. The country we're talking about is not an ally. If you disagree, name the country. >> I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The country we're talking about is not an ally. If you disagree, name the > country. What do you mean, is not an ally? Better get reading. >>> I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Better get reading. Without knowing what country YOU are talking about, I can't tell you what I mean. >>>> I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Without knowing what country YOU are talking about, I can't tell you what > I mean. Same one you are... >>>>> I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Same one you are... When you are ready to stop behaving like a pissed off 8 year old girl, we can continue. >>>>>> I'm not as dumb as you act on Usenet. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > When you are ready to stop behaving like a pissed off 8 year old girl, we > can continue. When you're ready to stop patronizing me, I'll think about not acting like a mirror image of you... >>>>>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>>>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Not at all. Most of the l00ney lefft wants to end it now and leave it a > shambles. Oh? Which of the l00ney left has recommended that we stop pursuing the terrorists who attacked us? Be specific. And, since you persist in using the word "most," it will have to be a long list to be persuasive. As usual, of course, you are talking through your hat (I'm making a determined effort to be polite). >> Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the >> exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You seem to be propping up the Ragheads... Not at all. I believe in treating people who are not yet our enemies respectfully. People who are not our enemies might not be our friends but if we are rude to them, it certainly doesn't give them reason to become our friends. If we are kind and respectful, they may yet become our friends. We have wasted a lot of goodwill and jerks like you continue to piss away our chances to generate some. >>> And, I notice you skipped the section below... >> >> Yeah? Did you think you had written something profound? > > Yeah. See the subject header, and try to stick to it, eh? What do you think you wrote that's profound? The Taliban have degenerated into terorrists. There were terroristic aspects to their regime when they were in power in Afghanistan. People who trouble to pick up a paper (to read, not deliver) from time to time have known this for years. You remind me of a small child who has just discovered a fact about the world all on his own. When dealing with a small child, we are happy for him because he's started independent learning and we are pleased. In your case, you've apparently been willfully ignorant for years. You don't get points, now, for discovering that there's such a thing as TV news and gathering ni the occasional factoid. >>>>> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the >>>>> Muslims how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>> have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian >>>>> minister... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>>>>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > terrorists who attacked us? Be specific. And, since you persist in using > the word "most," it will have to be a long list to be persuasive. REF: Congress. Also, most of the people in the l00ney-left county I live in. > As usual, of course, you are talking through your hat (I'm making a > determined effort to be polite). You need to visit where I live. I bet they're even too Liberal for *YOU*! >>> Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the >>> exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > our friends. If we are kind and respectful, they may yet become our > friends. The Ragheads are our enemies. Not all Muslims are Ragheads. The Ragheads even attack other Muslims because they aren't religious enough, as in the attack in the Kurdish region that left at least 250 people dead. In April, in that same town, 23 members of a wedding party were killed. Do you know why? Because the bride was of one sect, and was marrying someone from another sect with no intention of 'converting'. So, they were *ALL* killed as Infidels; the Bride for not converting, the groom for not forcing her to convert, and the rest for supporting the marriage. > We have wasted a lot of goodwill and jerks like you continue to piss away > our chances to generate some. How so? Because I don't like Ragheads? I don't. >>>> And, I notice you skipped the section below... >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What do you think you wrote that's profound? The Taliban have degenerated > into terorrists. When? In the 1950's or '60's? The Taliban has been terrorists since their inception. THey have been targeting Muslim 'Infidels' that weren't religious enough for a long, long time. Back into the '60's. Nothing new here. > There were terroristic aspects to their regime when they > were in power in Afghanistan. People who trouble to pick up a paper (to > read, not deliver) from time to time have known this for years. I've known it since I was a kid, but I didn't know at that time it was the Taliban. > You remind me of a small child who has just discovered a fact about the > world all on his own. When dealing with a small child, we are happy for > him because he's started independent learning and we are pleased. Don't patronize me. I have been aware of radical islamists since I was in high school in the 70's. I went to school with some. > In your case, you've apparently been willfully ignorant for years. You > don't get points, now, for discovering that there's such a thing as TV > news and gathering ni the occasional factoid. I've been listening to All Things Considered since it's inception, the Sunday 'talking head' shows since I was about 12, the BBC since my 20's, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times and the Washington Post for years. I gave up the latter two when they started spinning to the left so hard it was making me dizzy (sorry, dizzy...) Actually, in the past year I have started to give a flying phuque less and less. What do I really care. All I want is the Ragheads to leve me the phuque alone. Music is a lot more soothing to the soul than the Political w.nkers on both sides I have been listening to for the past 30+ years. You still haven't even attempted to address two dead Korean Humaintarian workers who have extended the hand of peace in a troubled area and were 'sent to hell' by a bunch of Ragheads, or the 20 remaining in captivity. They actually released one the other day, when they said they had released two. So, extending the 'Olive Branch' to these people does exactly what, again? And don't skirt the issue by pointing out my prejudices by my calling the terrorists "Ragheads". That has been firmly established for at least a couple of years now. Try addressing the issue at hand instead. >>>>>> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the >>>>>> Muslims how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>>> death, but I have a feeling it has something to do with being a >>>>>> Christian minister... >>>>>>>>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and >>>>>>>>> friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > REF: Congress. Which ones and what, exactly, did they say? > Also, most of the people in the l00ney-left county I live in. Their names and the statements they made? >> As usual, of course, you are talking through your hat (I'm making a >> determined effort to be polite). > > You need to visit where I live. > > I bet they're even too Liberal for *YOU*! Very doubtful. >>>> Nor have I forgotten it. 19 or so Saudis and Egyptians (I forget the >>>> exact mix) brought down 4 planes and attacked three buildings causing [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > killed as Infidels; the Bride for not converting, the groom for not > forcing her to convert, and the rest for supporting the marriage. So? Religious persection is new? >> We have wasted a lot of goodwill and jerks like you continue to piss away >> our chances to generate some. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Try addressing the issue at hand instead. And you haven't pointed out one person who has recommended we let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. The one sensible thing you said is that you want terrorists to leave us alone. That was within our reach about 5 years ago. >>>>>>> Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the >>>>>>> Muslims how they feel about it now. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>>>> death, but I have a feeling it has something to do with being a >>>>>>> Christian minister... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> You still haven't even attempted to address two dead Korean Humaintarian >> workers who have extended the hand of peace in a troubled area and were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And you haven't pointed out one person who has recommended we let the > terrorists who attacked us off the hook. That doesn't really matter, does it, since it's not the point of the original post. > The one sensible thing you said is that you want terrorists to leave us > alone. That was within our reach about 5 years ago. I wanted the terrorists to leave us and everyone else alone 30 years ago. If they want to wipe the sects that aren't religious enough off the face of the earth, OK (well, actually, it's not. But better to let them fight amongst themselves). And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us alone. Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and captive Humanitarian Aid workers? >>> You still haven't even attempted to address two dead Korean Humaintarian >>> workers who have extended the hand of peace in a troubled area and were [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That doesn't really matter, does it, since it's not the point of the > original post. I know that. You were the one who made the accusation about lefty k00ks. I didn't bring it up. You did. Defend the position you chose to take. >> The one sensible thing you said is that you want terrorists to leave us >> alone. That was within our reach about 5 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us alone. It's still within our reach? Why? Because you say so? News bulletin: they're stronger than they were before. Why would they give up now? A few years ago, they were on the ropes. Then something happened that gave them new life, hope and recruits. I won-der what that was??? > Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and captive > Humanitarian Aid workers? What about them? Terrorists got to them. Do you *still* want a medal for learning something this week? By the way, the Taliban let two of them go. Why are those particular terrorists still in business? Haven't you been paying attention for the last few years? A little while ago, you reeled off a long list of news sources that inform you. I got a laugh out of that. You think that having terrorists leave us alone is still within our reach but the terrorists know they are getting stronger. Why would they let up now? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us alone. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A few years ago, they were on the ropes. Then something happened that > gave them new life, hope and recruits. I won-der what that was??? They can still just leave us alone, and kill each other. Somewhere along the line someone will be in charge of this country who will be fed up with their antics and just wipe them out in toto, 'Collateral Damage' be damned. >> Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and >> captive Humanitarian Aid workers? > > What about them? Terrorists got to them. Do you *still* want a medal for > learning something this week? By the way, the Taliban let two of them go. All I know of is three of them. One alive and two that have assumed room temperature. Where are you getting your news, al-jazeera? THEY said the Taliban released two, the rest of the world knows it was one woman. > Why are those particular terrorists still in business? Haven't you been > paying attention for the last few years? A little while ago, you reeled > off a long list of news sources that inform you. I got a laugh out of > that. You think that having terrorists leave us alone is still within our > reach but the terrorists know they are getting stronger. Why would they > let up now? They can still just leave us alone, and kill each other. Somewhere along the line someone will be in charge of this country who will be fed up with their antics and just wipe them out in toto, 'Collateral Damage' be damned. >>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us alone. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their antics and just wipe them out in toto, 'Collateral Damage' be > damned. Hitler was like that. The lives of the non-German populations weren't terribly important to him. Or important to the Germans, either. In fact, the lives of some Germans turned out to be not particularly important to Hitler and some Germans. >>> Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and >>> captive Humanitarian Aid workers? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Where are you getting your news, al-jazeera? I saw an AP report yesterday. MSM, you know. If I recall corectly, the Taliban called it a gesture of "goodwill." The Taliban want 21 of their buddies released. > THEY said the Taliban released two, the rest of the world knows it was one > woman. The real world knows it was two. This was posted today: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22259897-23109,00.html In Hachi's own special world, facts tend not to be constrained by reality. You could have checked your facts, first, and looked like less of a moron. >> Why are those particular terrorists still in business? You're still unwilling to take up that question, I see. >> Haven't you been >> paying attention for the last few years? A little while ago, you reeled [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They can still just leave us alone, and kill each other. They could but why would they? They're getting stronger, they're pulling us into war on their terms and, while it might be difficult to make a case that they're winning, they're certainly not losing. They're helping us make new enemies every day. Making new enemies is not the way to victory. You appear to be ignoring JSB's remarks on the British concern over excessive civilian casualties. Excessive civilian casualties are not helping us make friends. > Somewhere along > the line someone will be in charge of this country who will be fed up with > their antics and just wipe them out in toto, 'Collateral Damage' be > damned. Jawohl. I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. You get no respect for your tactics and subsequent failure to support positions of your own choosing. Positions, hell, they're not positions, they're gratuitous slams and insults. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty k00ks > are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. He got that "fact" from an absolutely rock-solid source: Splatt from Floriduh >> I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty >> k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. > > He got that "fact" from an absolutely rock-solid source: Splatt from > Floriduh Did you go to Phuque U. ? >>> I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty >>> k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Did you go to Phuque U. ? If you say stupid things, people are going to call you on it. If you don't like getting kicked, take the kick me sign off your back. Get it? >>>> I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty >>>> k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you say stupid things, people are going to call you on it. If you don't > like getting kicked, take the kick me sign off your back. Get it? I put it on yours a couple of messages ago. Still haven't noticed, eh? >>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the lives of some Germans turned out to be not particularly important to > Hitler and some Germans. Hitler didn't have 3,500 people killed in attacks on his own soil... >>>> Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and >>>> captive Humanitarian Aid workers? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If I recall corectly, the Taliban called it a gesture of "goodwill." The > Taliban want 21 of their buddies released. Yeah. Like I said, they will relase Humanitarian aid workers for murderers... >> THEY said the Taliban released two, the rest of the world knows it was >> one woman. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You could have checked your facts, first, and looked like less of a moron. I just reported what the BBC reported. The Taliban said it was two, the Korean and UN officials said it was one, and that's what the BBC said. You saying the BBC is a bunch of morons? >>> Why are those particular terrorists still in business? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > excessive civilian casualties. Excessive civilian casualties are not > helping us make friends. Pulling us into war on their terms? Their A-Teams are done. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel. THey're recruiting children. Yeah, these sound like the tactics of a team that is 'winning'... >> Somewhere along >> the line someone will be in charge of this country who will be fed up >> with their antics and just wipe them out in toto, 'Collateral Damage' be >> damned. > > Jawohl. Well, if that's what it takes. A couple of nukes made Japan see the light. > I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty > k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. > You get no respect for your tactics and subsequent failure to support > positions of your own choosing. Positions, hell, they're not positions, > they're gratuitous slams and insults. Here's a reminder of the original post: Re: (OT:) What's the difference between Korean Humanitrain Hostages and Taliban? When you stick to the topic, let me know... >>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hitler didn't have 3,500 people killed in attacks on his own soil... You should go back and think that one through. >>>>> Now, getting back to the original post, what about the murderd and >>>>> captive Humanitarian Aid workers? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You saying the BBC is a bunch of morons? I'm saying I'm not surprised you didn't check your facts. I expect you misunderstood this report, along with so many others. But you are not one with a penchant for accuracy. >>>> Why are those particular terrorists still in business? >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Their A-Teams are done. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Their original A-Teams are dead, it's true. But they are reported to be having MORE success than ever in recruiting new people who can pass more easily in the West. See the danger in that? > THey're > recruiting children. > > Yeah, these sound like the tactics of a team that is 'winning'... They are achieving their objective. And they're setting the tempo and they're getting more recruits. I said it would be difficult to make the case that they're winning but they're certainly not losing. In 2002, Al-Qaeda was on the ropes. Now Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever and the Taliban is roaring back, too. How did that happen? >>> Somewhere along >>> the line someone will be in charge of this country who will be fed up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, if that's what it takes. A couple of nukes made Japan see the light. What makes you more valuable than a Middle Eastern child? Why should we nuke them to save your sorry a.s? >> I'm still waiting for you to support your statement that most lefty >> k00ks are willing to let the terrorists who attacked us off the hook. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > When you stick to the topic, let me know... Me? Stay on topic? That's YOUR topic: "Most of the l00ney lefft wants to end it now and leave it a shambles." - Hachiroku, 8/15/2007, 8:27PM, CDT, in this thread and, in response, to a request for proof: "REF: Congress. Also, most of the people in the l00ney-left county I live in." - Hachiroku, 8/16/2007, 4:42AM, CDT, in this thread You made these off-topic gratuitous insults. Provide evidence for them. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> The real world knows it was two. This was posted today: >>> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22259897-23109,00.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But you are not one with a penchant for accuracy. Why should I have to check up on one of the most trusted news sources in the world? Even though they are too Liberal for my liking, I trust the BBC for mostly accurate reporting (Except when one 'science reported' unequivocally anninced Global Warming is entirely caused by humans). Their report said that the Taliban announced two hostages were released, but the Koreans and the UN said only one was. Why would I check that? Sounds like whomever you use for your source didn't do any checking and took the Taliban at their word. Big mistake... And as far as being accurate, at least I know how to read a graph... That's odd - why did you clip out your current bit of idiocy in question? Don't worry, I'll quote it later for you. >>>> The real world knows it was two. This was posted today: >>>> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22259897-23109,00.html [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Why should I have to check up on one of the most trusted news sources in > the world? You should have checked because you thought "one" and someone else said "two." This conflicted with your "facts." When I think "i" and someone else says "k," I check. Unless it's unimportant, in which case I ignore the discrepancy. What I won't do is gratuitously call attention to the discrepancy and tack on a little insult, the way you did when you said: "Where are you getting your news, al-jazeera? THEY [DH's source] said the Taliban released two, the rest of the world knows it was one woman." - Hachiroku, August 16, 2007, 4:25PM CDT, in this thread. You *could* have just said, "yeah, I heard something about that," if you didn't feel like checking the facts but you felt you had to put me in my place and correct me based on some half-remembered report lodged in your head by the BBC, so you tried to slap me around a little. Except, you were wrong. The Telegraph even has a picture... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/13/wtaliban113.xml > Even though they are too Liberal for my liking, I trust the BBC for mostly > accurate reporting (Except when one 'science reported' unequivocally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Big mistake... Except, they were right when they said two and I was right when I echoed it. For example, this BBC report says two: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6950762.stm > And as far as being accurate, at least I know how to read a graph... No, you don't. You don't even know how to read the news. And you don't check your facts. You might be fairly intelligent but you're sloppy and lazy and you compensate for those characteristics with obstinacy and bullying tactics. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> I'm saying I'm not surprised you didn't check your facts. I expect you >>> misunderstood this report, along with so many others. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You should have checked because you thought "one" and someone else said > "two." I didn't "think" 'one'; the BBC *told* me 'one'. Just further evidence you can't take Liberals at their word. So, like information I get from most Liberals, I guess when I listen to the BBC I will have to assume that something has been omitted, mis-stated, understated, over stated or just plain false because the reporter has an agenda and can't be fully trusted. I thought the BBC was trustworthy, but you have shown me I'll have to discount them and find another news source that takes what the Taliban says as the truth. >>>> I'm saying I'm not surprised you didn't check your facts. I expect you >>>> misunderstood this report, along with so many others. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > discount them and find another news source that takes what the Taliban > says as the truth. Sorry. This isn't the BBC's fault. When presented with a conflicting set of facts, responsible people check. You didn't and don't. Then you chose to elevate the issue with an insult. That's really bad judgement when you don't check. Considering I readily found a BBC story that said, "twol hostages," the simplest explanation is that you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered - or all three. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> I'm saying I'm not surprised you didn't check your facts. I expect >>>>> you misunderstood this report, along with so many others. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Sorry. This isn't the BBC's fault. When presented with a conflicting set > of facts, responsible people check. You didn't and don't. The BBC announced it two days in a row. Of course, when I checked their web site, those stories are not to be found. I don't think I should have to keep tabs on one of the biggest news organisations in the world. I would think they would have the 'quality control' to report responsibly, but I guess that's not the case. Now I wonder how many other stories that I've heard, that I've reported here are false or altered? > Then you chose to elevate the issue with an insult. That's really bad > judgement when you don't check. BWAHAHAHA See above. If the Lefties can't get the facts straight, why should I find that surprising? To be fair, *BOTH* 'sides' with agendas take things out of context, miss relevant facts, mis-state or over or under state issues. Biggest part of the reason I stay away from Fox News. But now I see the BBC is doing it too, I guess I should tune in Fox for half the night, and maybe I'll get the whole story... But I have to admit, I am becoming very disappointed with the BBC. I always looked to them as a trusted news source, and am disappoinited to find they now have agendas as well. > Considering I readily found a BBC story that said, "twol hostages," the > simplest explanation is that you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered > - or all three. No, I didn't 'mis hear', they reported it every half-hour for three hours. And I never heard a retraction or a clarification, either, not that day nor the days following. Guess I can't trust them as an 'infallible' news source any more. >>>>>> I'm saying I'm not surprised you didn't check your facts. I expect >>>>>> you misunderstood this report, along with so many others. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Now I wonder how many other stories that I've heard, that I've reported > here are false or altered? Well, you can wonder that but the rest of us will be wondering what else you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered. >> Then you chose to elevate the issue with an insult. That's really bad >> judgement when you don't check. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > always looked to them as a trusted news source, and am disappoinited to > find they now have agendas as well. Let's suppose you're right and the announcer said, "one hostage" was released. How is making a mistake "an agenda?" But - you're most likely wrong. You were wrong about aircraft fuel consumption being unrelated to load, you were wrong about carbon levels decreasing (they're increasing and this is such a central part of the science and the discussion that this is mind-boggling ignorance), you didn't know that CO2 levels are higher now than they have been anytime in the previous half million years. Getting the hostage count wrong would be in keeping with your record. >> Considering I readily found a BBC story that said, "twol hostages," the >> simplest explanation is that you mis-heard, misunderstood or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Guess I can't trust them as an 'infallible' news source any more. If you're so sure of yourself, you should do something about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Sorry. This isn't the BBC's fault. When presented with a conflicting >>> set [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, you can wonder that but the rest of us will be wondering what else > you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered. Gee, let me say this again: They announced it every half hour for three hours. They said the Taliban said two, they also said Korea and the UN only counted one. Every half hour for three hours. They even had a 5-7 minute discussion about it. That occured twice in the three hour period. I didn't misrepresent anything. I said it like I heard it. But, then, do I expect you do to anything but stick up for fellow Liberals, even when they're wrong? I stopped listening to Limbaugh because of his "Republicans can do no worng" attitude; guess I'll have to stop paying attention to you, too, >>>> Sorry. This isn't the BBC's fault. When presented with a conflicting >>>> set [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Gee, let me say this again: Just because you said it again doesn't make it right. You sound like a highly aromatic 4 year old boy denying that he's pooped his pants. > They announced it every half hour for three hours. They said the Taliban > said two, they also said Korea and the UN only counted one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of his "Republicans can do no worng" attitude; guess I'll have to stop > paying attention to you, too, If you're so sure of yourself, you should do something about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ I found the link for you and everything. What's the hold-up? Improve the world. Hold a "liberal" news source to a rigid standard of accuracy. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> They announced it every half hour for three hours. They said the Taliban >> said two, they also said Korea and the UN only counted one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I found the link for you and everything. What's the hold-up? Improve the > world. Hold a "liberal" news source to a rigid standard of accuracy. Thanks. I think I will. One of the reasons (actually, the sole deciding reason) I chose an XM receiver over a Sirius receiver was that XM offered the BBC in their line up. If I had realized the BBC had become so Liberal, and such a poor source of news, I would have gone with Sirius. So, here's a challenge for you. Why don't you monitor the BBC with me, and when they misreport or misrepresent something, you can ensure that I remain well informed. You can listen to them on-line, by Podcast, or on a lot of NPR stations. So far, you've been doing a good job. You pointed up thay misreported the hostage release, and you also debunked the report I heard last month that said Climate Change is caused entirely by humans. You did that when you posted the data that shows Climate Change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and has happened many times in the past. Keep up the good work, dh!!! >>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hitler didn't have 3,500 people killed in attacks on his own soil... Right. It was more like six million. >>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Right. It was more like six million. Oh, really? I must have missed that. Tell me what country invaded Germany and killed Germans when Hitler was Chancellor. >>>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Tell me what country invaded Germany and killed Germans when Hitler was > Chancellor. I thought you were referring to Hitler killing his own people. Never mind. >>>>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > I thought you were referring to Hitler killing his own people. Never mind. OK...you can slide...this time! ;) >>>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Oh, really? I must have missed that. Another example of your amazing ignorance. > Tell me what country invaded Germany and killed Germans when Hitler was > Chancellor. We did. So did the Soviets. But that's off the original point. You share a trait with Hitler; you are indifferent to the lives of others, when theyd be inconvenient to you. What makes your miserable life so much more important than that of a Middle Eastern child's that "Collateral Damage" is unimportant? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Another example of your amazing ignorance. So, what country or group attacked Germany and killed 6 million people that made Hitler go off and start WWII? I seemed to have missed that little bit of history. Must be revisionist. You could always point me out to some text or web page that shows where someone attacked Germany and made Hitler decalre war on Europe. >> Tell me what country invaded Germany and killed Germans when Hitler was >> Chancellor. > > We did. So did the Soviets. And that's what made Hitler start WWII? Gee, I thought it was the other way around. Like I said, must be revisionist. They're always trying to make the Good Guys look like bullies. > But that's off the original point. > > You share a trait with Hitler; you are indifferent to the lives of others, > when theyd be inconvenient to you. OK. Cool. Someone attacks my country, I get pissed. If they're going to hide behind the skirts of women and children, so be it. Hunt them down. Whatever. > What makes your miserable life so much more important than that of a > Middle Eastern child's that "Collateral Damage" is unimportant? The way Al Qaeda and the Taliban treat their own children. They don't mind sacrificing them, why should I? Most people fight to protect their children. These a.sholes wrap them in bombs and send them into shopping centers. >>>>>>>>> And it's still within our reach. All they have to do is levae us >>>>>>>>> alone. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So, what country or group attacked Germany and killed 6 million people > that made Hitler go off and start WWII? That is not the question you asked. You asked what country INVADED Germany and killed Germans while Hitler was Chancellor. That would be the US and the Soviets (also the British and maybe remnants of France's army). > I seemed to have missed that little bit of history. Must be revisionist. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And that's what made Hitler start WWII? Gee, I thought it was the other > way around. You did not ask what PROVOKED Hitler. My answer to the question you actually asked is perfectly correct. Take it to any high school history teacher and get it confirmed. > Like I said, must be revisionist. They're always trying to make the Good > Guys look like bullies. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If they're going to hide behind the skirts of women and children, so be > it. Hunt them down. Whatever. The trait you share with Hitler isn't getting pissed, it's a lack of regard for the lives of others. >> What makes your miserable life so much more important than that of a >> Middle Eastern child's that "Collateral Damage" is unimportant? > > The way Al Qaeda and the Taliban treat their own children. They don't mind > sacrificing them, why should I? As I said, you share a trait with Hitler, a disregard for the lives of others. > Most people fight to protect their children. These a.sholes wrap them in > bombs and send them into shopping centers. It's wrong for them to do that. Does that make it right for you to kill the children? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Most people fight to protect their children. These a.sholes wrap them in >> bombs and send them into shopping centers. > > It's wrong for them to do that. Does that make it right for you to kill > the children? No. But, an eye for an eye, right? >>>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>>> held [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Gee, you think if we stopped calling them ragheads, they'd be our pals, > chums, pardners, friends? SOME Afghanis, SOME Iranians, SOME Syrians, etc, etc, ARE our friends. I don't see any point to pissing them off, too, but alienating people does seem to be an important cornerstone of Bush Foreign Policy. > Think again. Call them pigs if you like, but it would only insult that > noble animal. > If you've forgotten, nineteen of these folks from the middle east gave us > a wake up call almost six years ago, in New York, Washington and > Pennsylvania. I remember. A mix of Saudis and Egyptians, as I recall, supported by an organization originating in Saudi Arabia, relocated to Afghanistan. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship >>> for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't see any point to pissing them off, too, but alienating people does > seem to be an important cornerstone of Bush Foreign Policy. How the Fu@k does BUSH play into this?!!? *I* am the one that doesn't like Ragheads. >> Think again. Call them pigs if you like, but it would only insult that >> noble animal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I remember. A mix of Saudis and Egyptians, as I recall, supported by an > organization originating in Saudi Arabia, relocated to Afghanistan. >>>> But then, I'm not a Raghead... >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship > for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." My respect of people in the Middle East is rapidly waning, and I don't call all Muslims "Ragheads". I only call Ragheads "Ragheads". >>>>> But then, I'm not a Raghead... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I only call Ragheads "Ragheads". Ahhh... then I'm sure that all the other Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc, etc, etc, are fully in tune with your fine disctintion and take no offense. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship >>> for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc, etc, etc, are fully in tune with your > fine disctintion and take no offense. The Ragheads know who they are. If the others take offense...too bad. It wouldn't surprise me if the Moderate Muslims have their own 'pet names' for the Ragheads. >> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held >> by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > We invaded their country and started in to put them out of business > because they aided and abetted the criminal, bin Laden. We invaded their country? They took the country by force and held the citizens basically as hostages. The government was unable to fend of the attacks and succumbed. > Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove > alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. >>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held >>> by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > citizens basically as hostages. The government was unable to fend of the > attacks and succumbed. No, the Taliban WAS the government. Its level of popular support and precise legitimacy was probably open to question but the nature of their government was the Afghanis own problem (see: self-determination), until they supported a terrorist who attacked us. >> Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove >> alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the Afghani people. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > No, the Taliban WAS the government. Its level of popular support and > precise legitimacy was probably open to question but the nature of their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the > Afghani people. To those unable, or unwilling, to admit the truth; it's called "divided attention". >> No, the Taliban WAS the government. Its level of popular support and >> precise legitimacy was probably open to question but the nature of their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To those unable, or unwilling, to admit the truth; it's called "divided > attention". It's also called "helping the Taliban by causing too many civilian deaths", according to the grownup news sources. >>> I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the >>> Afghani people. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's also called "helping the Taliban by causing too many civilian deaths", > according to the grownup news sources. And neither should have, or would have, been a problem if our military resources had been properly and efficiently directed at the sole problem at that time. More and more each page I read of Nasr, the reality of just how much this administration screwed up becomes clear. An observation, Joe. Most non-fiction reads have the material become lighter as you go on. His book becomes meatier, and slower to read. Agreed? >>>> I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the >>>> Afghani people. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > lighter as you go on. His book becomes meatier, and slower to read. > Agreed? Agreed. Now, maybe you can convince dbu to read it. He made a fuss because the author says the book's not meant as a historical study, but since it contains historical info, it's the author's opinion, or some bullshit excuse like that. > Agreed. Now, maybe you can convince dbu to read it. He made a fuss because > the author says the book's not meant as a historical study, but since it > contains historical info, it's the author's opinion, or some bullshit excuse > like that. As much as I believe, and still do, that many authors have a bias ax to grind, this one has none. The more you read of it, it becomes clear that his sole motive is to inform. He is almost without peer in writing skills. >> Agreed. Now, maybe you can convince dbu to read it. He made a fuss >> because [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He is almost without peer in writing skills. That leaves the other excuse, "they're just trying to sell books". Not sure if that one came from dbu or one of the others whose goal in life is ignorance. >>>>> I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the >>>>> Afghani people. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > contains historical info, it's the author's opinion, or some bullshit > excuse like that. At least *HE* admits it, sort of. Unlike Noam Chomsky who, at least in his own opinion, writes the Gospel Truth... >>> I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the >>> Afghani people. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's also called "helping the Taliban by causing too many civilian > deaths", according to the grownup news sources. So, tell me, who's targeting the women and children? >>>> I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the >>>> Afghani people. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So, tell me, who's targeting the women and children? According to our ally, the British, we are not targeting them. But, our ally, the British, say we are being careless to the point where their top soldier felt he had to protest. >>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>> held by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > government was the Afghanis own problem (see: self-determination), until > they supported a terrorist who attacked us. The Taliban was NOT the government in 1947. After years of attacks the Muslim government finally had to give up and surrender to the Ragheads that took the country by force. >>> Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove >>> alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. > > I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the > Afghani people. Because they are terrorists and make up the rules as they go along. Especially targeting women and children at things like the Harry Potter book release. Among other 'opportunities'. >>>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>>> held by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The Taliban was NOT the government in 1947. Just out of idle curiosity, how did you happen to pick 1947? > After years of attacks the Muslim government finally had to give up and > surrender to the Ragheads that took the country by force. Why does this "fact" smell like the bathroom does the day after everybody attends the Baked Bean Festival? Where did you get this "fact?" I'm afraid I can guess. But, more constructively, what "Muslim government" was this and in what year did this "surrender to the Ragheads" take place? >>>> Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove >>>> alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because they are terrorists and make up the rules as they go along. You miss the point. No surprise but a continuing disappointment. > Especially targeting women and children at things like the Harry Potter > book release. Among other 'opportunities'. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>>>> held by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Just out of idle curiosity, how did you happen to pick 1947? http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/popup?id=3477812 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6945206.stm >> After years of attacks the Muslim government finally had to give up and >> surrender to the Ragheads that took the country by force. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where did you get this "fact?" I'm afraid I can guess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6945206.stm > But, more constructively, what "Muslim government" was this and in what > year did this "surrender to the Ragheads" take place? Oh, crap. You finally got me...I'm confusing it with Afghanistan... But: "Pakistan also faces instability in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where some tribal leaders support the Taliban. Pakistan has had to deploy the army in these regions to suppress the local unrest, in Waziristan. The Waziristan conflict ended with a recently declared peace agreement between the tribal leaders and the Pakistani government that is expected to bring back stability to the region." >>>>> Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then >>>>> drove alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You miss the point. No surprise but a continuing disappointment. Again, I get the point. I was confusing Pakistan with Afghanistan. Senior Moment... >> Especially targeting women and children at things like the Harry Potter >> book release. Among other 'opportunities'. But, this *DID* happen in Pakistan... >>>>>>> Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers >>>>>>> held by the Taliban. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > But, this *DID* happen in Pakistan... Sure. Pakistan, now, does have serious problems with the Taliban and the Taliban is operating in Afghanistan and their operations are ramping up lately. The question still stands, why is the Taliban able to cause so much trouble, 6 years after Bush went in to put them out of business? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> But, this *DID* happen in Pakistan... > > Sure. Pakistan, now, does have serious problems with the Taliban and the > Taliban is operating in Afghanistan and their operations are ramping up > lately. The question still stands, why is the Taliban able to cause so > much trouble, 6 years after Bush went in to put them out of business? Cause they're like cockroaches... >>> But, this *DID* happen in Pakistan... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cause they're like cockroaches... And Communist Apparatchniks. And apparently, Liberals. Charles of Schaumburg. > >> The question still stands, why is the Taliban able to cause so > >> much trouble, 6 years after Bush went in to put them out of business? > > > > Cause they're like cockroaches... > > And Communist Apparatchniks. And apparently, Liberals. It's strange that you compare the far-right Taliban to leftists. What thought did you put into your statement? Hachiroku wrote: > Because they are terrorists and make up the rules as they go along. But they don't do that, unless they were criminals before they became terrorists. Otherwise they tend to have rather strong principles and rigid rules.. > Hachiroku wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > terrorists. Otherwise they tend to have rather strong principles and > rigid rules.. I...am...stupefied. Larry, you can NOT be serious with either of these statements. Terrorist don't make rules as they go along, unless they were first criminals? If you really meant that, it's the most dumbfounding thing I've read on usenet in many years. I'm married to a woman of middle eastern extraction. She's pure-blooded Lebanese, though both she and her parents were born here. If you ask her, and any of her family, about the mind set of their blood relatives, you'd know just how ridiculous your assertion truly is. There is nothing in the way of structure, honor, rules, or principles among these extremists. And I'm getting that from them, not you or the drivel on MSNBC. Please, get help. BTW, did you get that letter off yet to Mr. Nasr? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.