From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:33:36 -0400
At 08:33 PM 7/29/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I'm not sure
John D Giorgis wrote:
I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style
bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions.
At 14:08 2003-07-31 -0400, you wrote:
No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically
but the targeting of civilian
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat
every terrorist
in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of
almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me
John D. Giorgis wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed
for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists
are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries.
I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings,
Oklahoma City-style
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat
every terrorist in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard
of
almost everywhere in the world?
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist
in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of
almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is
necessarily
At 11:22 PM 7/25/03 -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard
time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove
evil from the world, I'm quite sure.
Some likely
In a message dated 7/25/2003 10:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine
alongside Israel.
2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and the DPRK
We would then be at war for at least a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does
that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for
that long? Golly
Which, of course, no one is saying, except those
making indefensible criticisms and they trying to hide
their partisan motivations behind a
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard
time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove
evil from the world, I'm quite sure.
Some likely conditions;
1) The establishment of a secure, viable
Nick Arnett wrote:
If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't
we return to normal political discourse, in which one is
not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we
can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is
going to change to allow us to
From: Nick Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions
necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one
might properly call 'normal' conditions?
It ends when the US has dominated all the other countries in the world, I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John D. Giorgis
...
No, we are at war because September 11th caused this President to
recognize
that we had long since been at war in a way that we had not previously
recognized.Moreover, 9/11
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
14 matches
Mail list logo
