Which way? Probably somewhere in BC or in Northwestern Ontario. Miles
and miles of bog and lake and not much else except ofr mosquitos.
Unless you're a local though you can die very easily in that area
though.

larry

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:16:50 -0700, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ::nod:: I do not want my skepticism to cause me to dismiss a real
> possibility. I went looking for that story about the mayor of Laredo
> and did not find it. Possibly I simply did not find it. I do hear a
> lot of chatter about Arabs on the Mexican border but I hear it on a
> paranoid far-right list where I lurk. No place else. The Clear Channel
> interview could be right, but... the politics of the owners make me
> wonder.
>
> I hate to discuss specific tactics as this conceivably might help
> someone trying to hurt the United States, but both the northern and
> southern borders are wide open in the west, except that in the South
> you have Mexican checkpoints, Border Patrol checkpoints and
> life-threatening desert conditions. I mean, it was 109 here yesterday.
> Not a day for a hike.
>
> Now, which way would *you* try to come in?
>
> Dana
>
> --- Original Message -----
> From: Doug White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:50:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: Look Out New York!!
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The "hundred" story was on a Clear Channel Radio Show where a moderator was
> interviewing Border Patrol agents in Arizona.
>
> There were comments like "There are only 12 agents covering the entire border.
> and the description of how they rounded up a number of illegals, and noticed
> that they were dressed and clothed much like the Mexicans, except all their
> clothes were brand new, and that "They grouped to themselves" and "Spoke to each
> other in some Arabic language."
>
> The agent went on to say that when they took them to the INS Judge, they were
> give a court appearance date and then released into the streets.  He further
> commented that illegals almost never appear at these hearings.  If this is the
> case, then what is the purpose of the Border Patrol and INS?
>
> The "hundreds" part came when he stated statistically that for every illegal
> they intercept and capture, that 10 to 50 get away.
>
> The moderator was agog upon being informed that the INS judges were just setting
> these people free on a wholesale basis, but that was cooborated by the Mayors of
> Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio and El Paso, TX.
>
> I am not trying to elevate anyone's fear level, only I raise the question that
> after hearing all the re-election campaign rhetoric about the US being "safer"
> and at the same time the Mexican Border appears to be just as wide open as it
> was before 9/11.
>
> I have seen much publicity about new harder to fake, ID cards, and
> fingerprinting legal immigrants, but little or no changes has been made in
> regard to the illegal immigration.  In this respect, I do not feel this country
> is "safer," and that the Candidate is continuing his record of lying and
> misleading the public.
>
> Finally, I hope and pray that no one is New York, or surrounding area has to go
> through another incident.
>
> Doug
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: dana tierney
>  To: CF-Community
>  Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 3:23 PM
>  Subject: Re: Look Out New York!!
>
>  Have I missed a story about these hundreds of Arab males? The only one
>  I remember was that one in the Tombstone paper. It *is* scary if true.
>  But you know... there was just a story here about how a terrorist
>  attack in New Mexico was supposed to have been called off in May
>  because the timing wasn't right (?) If other news coverage is to be
>  believed then at the time secuurity at Los Alamos was extremely lax,
>  so *that* can't have been the problem. If you wanted population in New
>  Mexico you would go for Albuquerque, and there were no particular
>  events here in May... it does not make sense.
>
>  I *hope* these threats are real and these warnings issued in good
>  faith, but I suspect not. If they are, what good are they? The warning
>  is too vague to be actionable.
>
>  Dana
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to