I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I
agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I
suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but
only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning.
S
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their
lives in such an attack?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera t
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I can respect your opposition to the way things are going, and part of me
agrees with you - but only part. I hope, along with you, that your
prognostications are not correct. But PLEASE don't go so far over the edge
in stating the reasons for you
If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
> After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
> >The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined
> >that he is guilty. Ca
> I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a
> carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use
> nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of
> our own loss. We would have the moral low ground when t
To be sure, but it seems the videotape was prepared ahead of time and delivered to
al-Jazeera on condition they not play it until after the 11th of September, from
what I recall. That would at least imply foreknowledge, if not guilt as such.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A
And, to add to Marc's comments (don't faint, Marc :-), we would suffer
greatly in both the short and the long run were we to so over-react.
I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a
carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use
nuke
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television,
> out of
> >Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so
> there's not
> >much doubt.
>
> Right. And, I'm in favor of nucle
John, you seem to have a really blind spot on this issue. This is really
not like you - it has given you Alzheimer disease, I think. The video of
USB claiming responsibility and talking about the plans ahead of time was
played ad nauseum on the TV rag outlets. And while we do have an obligation
Yes, but cocky people are very proud of their deeds. I don't have any doubts.
Stacy.
At 07:13 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television,
out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after. He
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television, out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so
there's not
much doubt.
Can we be sure he was telling the truth when he "admitted" to the
No, I got that. I think I properly addressed that. I just would like him
to add something to the discussion in the form of a rationale for his
statement, rather than just repeatedly making the same unclear statement.
Besides, I was having fun!
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> After much pondering
Uh, how about his own statements? Does that work for you? :-)
Jon
The ever lovable and gregarious John W. Redelfs wrote:
> Do we really know for sure that Osama was behind the 9-11 attacks. Just
> what is the evidence?
Again, you fail to answer the question. Why do you say that we have left
the job half done? What evidence do you have that nothing is happening
against the Taliban. I see plenty happening. What in the world are you
talking about I gave you several options to choose from and you didn't
answ
>Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television,
out of
>Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so
there's not
>much doubt.
Right. And, I'm in favor of nuclear strikes if necessary--if that's what
it takes to knock out those people that support
After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
>The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined
>that he is guilty. Case closed.
>>Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence.
--JWR
The US government is not that broken John. It is without a doub
-Paul-
> The President of the United States and US intelligence has
> determined that he is guilty. Case closed.
-John-
> Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence.
I agree with John. Poor Saddam. My heart bleeds for him.
Sympathetic Stephen
/
After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined
that he is guilty. Case closed.
Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence. --JWR
///
I remember that video.
Stacy.
At 09:30 PM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television, out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so
there's not
much doubt.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Do we really know for sur
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television, out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so there's not
much doubt.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Do we really know for sure that Osama was behind the 9-11 attacks. Just
>
> >what is the evidence?
>
>Do we really know for sure that Osama was behind the 9-11 attacks. Just
>what is the evidence?
The President of the United States and US intelligence has determined
that he is guilty. Case closed.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sig
Definitely we should win the victory over the Taliban before going on to
other types of terrorists.
Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
And the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, don't forget that
one.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
> >We are moving to other targets as if we have the Taliban licked. We don't.
>
> Oh, but we have achieved our real if unstated objecti
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
You must be much more clear than you have been. Again, I ask, what do you
mean by "moving on." I can make lots of guesses, but you should know best
what you mean. As an example of your lack of clarity, do you mean that we
are turning our backs
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
We are moving to other targets as if we have the Taliban licked. We don't.
Oh, but we have achieved our real if unstated objective. We have dropped a
lot of very expensive bombs, and we have given George Bush wartime powers
at the expense of
I am implying that we have only left the job half done if we leave the
Taliban any room to start over again and form another government anywhere.
Stacy.
At 09:42 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
You must be much more clear than you have been. Again, I ask, what do you
mean by "moving on." I ca
You must be much more clear than you have been. Again, I ask, what do you
mean by "moving on." I can make lots of guesses, but you should know best
what you mean. As an example of your lack of clarity, do you mean that we
are turning our backs to the Taliban and assuming that they no longer pose
We are moving to other targets as if we have the Taliban licked. We don't.
Stacy.
At 07:30 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
OK, I'll bite. What should we do? And why do you think we are "moving on"
(could you define that please?)?
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
My point still holds even if they ar
OK, I'll bite. What should we do? And why do you think we are "moving on"
(could you define that please?)?
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
My point still holds even if they are no longer in Afghanistan. Why are we
moving on?
Stacy.
My point still holds even if they are no longer in Afghanistan. Why are we
moving on?
Stacy.
At 09:30 PM 11/06/2002 -0700, you wrote:
My original point was to ask why the US was so obsessed with Iraq when
Pakistan
presents a greater danger. And there's more to it than saying they were
put in
I appreciate your correction of my misreading, and you are right.
There is no "old" Pakistani government. It's not a democracy, but has always been
controlled by the military, even when civilian leaders are in power. And I was
clear to point out that it was a Cold War event -- that's my point. Sho
They are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. And by the way, as W said, this will
take a long time. Afghanistan will not be converted overnight from a
hellhole to a place of peace and tranquility. However, I look forward to
the day when we can send missionaries there.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
> If th
If the Taliban are coming back, why are we moving on?
Stacy.
At 06:20 AM 11/06/2002 -0900, you wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,834287,00.html
It looks like Marc may be vindicated in his predictions that the Taliban
will come to power in Pakistan. Why we are planning a
Oh boy! An exciting day to turn the tables! I did not say "people of
Pakistan." Rather, I said "people in Pakistan," not thinking it necessary
to offer a long and boring recital of what we all already know.
When you say it was the Pakistani gov't with US money who put the Taliban in
place, you
My original point was to ask why the US was so obsessed with Iraq when Pakistan
presents a greater danger. And there's more to it than saying they were put into
power by the "people of Pakistan." It was the Pakistani government plus extremist
clerics, using US taxpayer dollars, who put the Taliban
I am in contact with a former Muslim American. I have also been in contact
with another former Muslim from Turkey and present Muslims. Like you I
once believed that was the goal of all Muslims--to take over countries by
the sword. I no longer believe this. I also believe that when it started
I figured that if I added the France option, people would get the what I
thought to be obvious facetiousness, given John's well stated objection to
any preemptive strikes. (Of course, I don't think that they are preemptive,
but reasonable people can disagree; thus John and I can CLEARLY disagree!
Who says we should attack anybody?
Stacy.
At 08:35 PM 11/06/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Who objected to Marc's obvious statement? The Taliban was put in power by
people in Pakistan.
This is a real "Duh!". By the way, are you advocating that we attack
Pakistan first, and THEN Iraq? I have a bette
That has always been their goal, just as it is our goal. It's the means
that are important. There are many good Moslems who want to take over the
world just as we do (start buildin' them thar fonts). Then there are the
rest.
We do need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Who objected to Marc's obvious statement? The Taliban was put in power by
people in Pakistan.
This is a real "Duh!". By the way, are you advocating that we attack
Pakistan first, and THEN Iraq? I have a better idea. First, we'll attack
Israel - that will completely fool the fake Islamists and
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
Do any of you believe that the Islamist goal is not just to get Israel out
of the west bank but also to take over the entire world?
I do. The goal of Islam, like the goal of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is to convert the who
Do any of you believe that the Islamist goal is not just to get Israel out
of the west bank but also to take over the entire world?
Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/ch
After actually reading the article John posted (I posted my "rant" before reading
the article) I note that it agrees with my memory that the NWF and Baluchistan
were the provincial legislatures the Islamist coalition won. But I also saw an
interesting link to India that might be worth reading:
htt
And since I'm in a prognisticating mood, I'll further predict that the spark that
will ignite that particular region (Pakistan) will be Kashmir. Right now al-Qaeda
appears to be most active in Yemen, but I think eventually we'll hear more about
their activities in Kashmir. The problem in Pakistan i
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,834287,00.html
It looks like Marc may be vindicated in his predictions that the Taliban
will come to power in Pakistan. Why we are planning a war against Iraq
when the Taliban is coming to power in a nation that already has nuclear
weapons is a c
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
