--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a common thread, Gautam, let me help you see > it. Planning: > Saudi's and some others, Saudi in charge. > Financing: Saudi. Terrorists > involved 15 Saudis, 4 others.
There's another common thread, Doug, let me help _you_ find it. Not government agents. It's kind of a significant difference. I'm snipping the Phil Gramm stuff because it's all just speculation - not a fact in there to tease out at all. > > Up until about a > > year ago, the Saudis could probably be best > described > > as passive sponsors of terror. > > Oh, well, that makes it OK then. If it's true. And > it's not. Except it is. You know, arguing with you is remarkably like arguing with Dr. Brin. You know things. Facts don't really enter into the discussion. And everyone who disagrees with you is evil. It's quite remarkable. Ask Byman. He helped write the 9/11 report, he probably knows what he's talking about. There's been plenty of scholarship on this topic - in Foreign Affairs, for example. Or even the report itself, which you carefully ignore, since it contains evidence obviously contrary to your beliefs. > I repeat; 9/11 was funded by Saudis. Whether or not > it the government was > involved is open to question, but the money came > from Saudi Arabia. Well, some of it seems to have come from Germany, but I don't want to nuke Berlin. > Yes, they policed them so well that 3000 people are > dead. Well, perhaps we can try to get them to do it better. > > > We can't do it. > > You're right. We're finding that out in Iraq, > aren't we Amazing, Doug, you think Iraq is a screw up, so you want to get into something _even worse_. Truly that is policy as the height of rationality. You think the Muslim world is upset now? How do you think they would react if we occupied Mecca and Medina? And what legal justification, exactly, would there be for that? What equivalent to 1441 has been passed? I note that the ruling that governments are not responsible for the unsupported acts of their citizens was established in international law in the 19th century - and a good thing too, otherwise the British would have invaded us when American citizens kept stirring up trouble in Canada. > We can't???? We can force Iraq, a larger, more > heavily populated, more > politically and socially diverse country to do our > bidding but we can't > force SA? With an illegitimate government and a large portion of the population that supports us (even now, after so many mistakes)? Yes, that would be an easier task than attacking the holiest places in the Muslim world. If the difference isn't obvious to you, I can't point it out any more clearly. > Ask yourself why the pipeline has been such a > success, Gautam. What if > environmentalists had not raised a stink and it had > been left up to the > industry to build it any which way they could? We'd > have the cheapest POS > they could get away with. The environmentalists are > the reason it has had > minimal impact. Yeah, but the defeat of the environmentalists is the reason we built the thing. They wanted it stopped, not made better. So gee, forgive me if I'm not impressed. > I don't disagree that Nuclear power might be a good > stop gap alternative > to fossil fuels, but I think that the political > reality is that they will > never be accepted by the general public. Political reality is what you change through political leadership. As long as people prefer politicians who will pander for votes to leaders, then that's what you get. > The requirements should be much stiffer, and I fault > the Clinton > administration as much as anyone for this lapse. I see. Were they in the pay of the Saudis as well? That's quite a conspiracy. Sadly, Yahoo has (again) snipped the rest of the message. I think my point is made, though. And my last comments weren't personal insults, Doug. They were (again) observations. I've seen you make excuse after excuse for the most outrageous behavior on the part of Democrats, and do everything you possibly can to claim that Republicans you disagree with are evil. If you stand by your words you should accept that characterization. Heck, you should embrace it. Isn't that what you believe? That President Bush is an evil man. Well, if it's so obvious to you, it should be obvious to everyone else. I'm not less intelligent than you are, so what you can see, I can see. I guess I'm evil too. It's not as much fun as it is in the movies, somehow... When I pointed out stuff that Wes Clark or Teresa Heinz had said, you were fine with it. You talk about shutting down dissent, but that's nothing more than a tactic to protect yourself from criticism that you're just not willing to handle. As soon as anyone challenges a Democrat's judgment, it's oooh mommy mommy, help me, they're questioning my patriotism. But if you say, well, people who disagree with me are un-American. that's fine. Well sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
