At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the
laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians
as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be
poured out upon all nations)
At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Stephen,
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
demonstration about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
This is an excellent
You're both right, but are talking about different periods of history. After the
Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century, military battles, which until then had
been as Rick characterizes them, took on a more civilized manner. It lasted maybe
about a century.
Rick Mathis wrote:
At 08:00 PM
At 01:43 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by
the laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting
civilians as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning
about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed
nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning
about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed
nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva
At 09:31 11/9/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford
Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a
display
of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder
and put
it in his
-Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_-
This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the
dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace
table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this
historical view, like the original commentary intended for the
exhibit,
Steven Montgomery wrote:
---
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
demonstration about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
---
I don't know who was morally right or wrong in
It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which get
absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is even
worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use is in
tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed
-Steven-
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United
States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians.
Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes moral high ground in a war.
Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus
legitimate targets,
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
demonstration about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
Stephen was right, Steven. Your demonstration idea is too risky. We had
to do
The primary objective is to kill people and
break things, with more success than the enemy. Morality aside, this is
the reality of warfare.
Amen. Kill the enemy!!
That is what I learned when I served in the US Army for a brief period.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a difference, Stacy, between a true thermonuclear bomb and a so-called
dirty bomb. A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive
material around. Depending on the circumstances, this can be quite deadly, and is
hard to clean up after, and its effects can be pernicious,
Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even
though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated,
there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love
to come to us through Canada. They take up residence here like normal
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the
envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much
greater.
---
Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does
it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting
Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood
the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island.
Stacy.
At 07:08 PM 11/09/2002 +, you wrote:
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the
envirowackos have stirred up,
At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up,
although I'm
sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that
Nagasaki
wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was
clouded over
that day, so
You know you have been hit because there is a great big explosion, and the
guys with the Geiger counters say pops!
That's how you know.
What are you talking about with the Japanese??? Do you actually know what a
dirty bomb is?
It is a conventional explosive with radioactive material
I noted on this list many years ago, that BH Liddell Hart wrote a book in
the late 60's or early 70's, I think, called A History of the Second World
War in which much of this was disclosed. The Japanese tried to get to the
US by going through the Soviets, who, for their own imperialistic reasons,
We (aka the real world, the rest of the world, etc.) are not afraid that your
troops' military training isn't up to snuff*, we just hope your CiC knows that
it's ready, aim, fire, not ready, fire, aim. ;-)
*As I'm tempted to suggest to Jonah Greenberg, perhaps we really *do* need a good
invading
Stacy Smith wrote:
Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even
though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated,
there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love
to come to us through Canada.
This is
You should be more concerned about wax buildup ;-)
Stacy Smith wrote:
Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood
the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island.
Stacy.
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
Dresden was not an industrial city. You may be confusing it with Leipzig, which
got off relatively light. What Dresden was was a centre of transportation for
central Europe, a transfer point for many trains and highways. It was chockfull
of refugees when the RAF bombed it. What little heavy
Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in
the second week of January.
Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the pilot,
and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the Enola Gay
here)
Steven Montgomery
Sorry, Marc, but you are wrong. This information comes from several experts
in this field who deal with the actual (expected) contaminants. Neither you
nor I are experts, so from my perspective, you lose. Spreading hysteria
must be a Canadian sport, which has filtered down to the anti-nuke
was clearly correct in warning us against
beer but not against nuke power plants.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Jim Cobabe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course
I just thought of something else, in addition to my original response. I should
actually give in on this. For 3 reasons:
1. I was wrong when I said AECL Med Prods (now known as Theratronics, and along
with Nordion, part of MDS) was one of the few sources of radioactive caesium
isotopes. I was in
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: who was the first country to launch a raid on residential
areas
in an enemy country in WWII, and what was the city involved?
Great Britain, May 11, 1940. They bombed the quiet peaceful town known as
Westphalia which was miles from any front.
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: who first broke neutrality in WWII?
Great Britain, September 3, 1940, ostensibly to guarantee the territorial
integrity of Poland. However after the war Poland was divvied up to the
Soviets--so what the heck was WWII fought for?
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: what major Ally's naval assets were destroyed by another
Ally,
and why?
This was a harder one, but I think I remember it was the Germans who
scuttled Italy's ships to prevent them from falling into Allied hands. Am I
right?
--
Steven
(plus the usual Canuckistani comeback, which is that given what y'all
are [not]
taught about geography in school, we have no need to fear, because we
know you'd
have to find us first...)
Hey Marc; would you mind stepping out of my cross hairs as you are
blocking my vision. ;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL
Jon wisely said:
Those who want to fault the US for what we
did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame
the
nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well.
And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was
wise and the making of more nuclear
LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote:
Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in
the second week of January.
Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination
And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely,
however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may
very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely.
Stacy.
At 05:54 PM 11/09/2002 -0600, you wrote:
Jon wisely said:
Those who
This from the guy who wants to elect President Hinckley and curse with him a
politician's job? ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
Jon wisely said:
Those who want to fault the US for what we
did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame
the
nasty old US for being so bad
Very good! Another week in Moose Jaw for our boy genius :-)
(You realize, of course, that Moose Jaw is our equivalent of a Fargo joke -- you
know, first prize is one week, second prize is two weeks. Actually, it's also the
site of an airbase where our military pilots are trained. My cousin's
It's not your crosshairs that worry me as long as you can't read a map
Kill-a-watts? Is that a light bulb or a target? I want gas, not leeders...
How come all these up-and-down liney things on the map crowd so close together
up here?
Paul Osborne wrote:
(plus the usual Canuckistani
Actually I was thinking of Norway. Poland was considered (wrongly, of course) a
combatant and was, of course, invaded by Germany which started the war. Britain
had not guaranteed their neutrality, but had said it would declare war if Germany
invaded, which is what happened. Britain occupied Norway
And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely,
however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may
very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely.
Hey, at least I know how to win a war and that is the purpose of fighting
a
At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased
properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to
French West Africa (Algiers?) for protection when France was invaded. The
British
scuttled the entire
Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe we'll allow a
side-trip to Medicine Hat, the 40-40 city (where it's either plus 40 or minus 40 o
C; nothing in between).
Steven Montgomery wrote:
LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now?
--
Steven
At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February
I can jump in the car and in 40 minutes be in short sleeve weather.
--
Steven Montgomery
At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote:
Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe
we'll allow a
side-trip to
Well, you're a pretty good student of the war, that's for sure.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased
properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to
French West
snort We visited my brother-in-law in St. George, just south of you, in February
2000, and they had to turn the air-conditioning on at night for us. I am not making
this up.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February
I can jump in the
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.
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
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 nuclear
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.
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
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
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.
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
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
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII?
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
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
My sentiments exactly. Do you really call that winning, for the few of
us that are left? I suppose in some ways it is. At least those of us who
are left will deserve to be left. But for a while we will have to go
through torment, and don't ask me to look forward to that.
Stacy.
At 10:41
It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the war.
You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in Japan if
you want to maintain
Collateral damage would take on a whole new meaning!
Jon
Steven Montgomery wrote:
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.
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be
two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3
guys plus 21 gals - 28 people.
And remember, whoever gives his life for me
And we're diggin' as fast as we can, right? :-)
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
We already have the moral low ground. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped?
Stacy.
At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
Jon
Mark Gregson wrote:
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since
The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice
guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their
disability irrelevant.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about
cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not
survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking
about. Or are you
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you
are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I
could learn to cope.
But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow
fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear
attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are
Yes, I've started getting those.
Stacy.
At 03:26 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no other side of the world anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than
from where you live, but I digress. :-)
This is a cliche. Of course there is an other side of the
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
defend ourselves, and ONE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME COMPARING NEPHITES
SITUATIONS TO OUR CURRENT SITUATIONS.
---
Any thoughts on this statement? --JWR
Ouch! If they were radioactive do you think I'd want that? Unless the
Lord intends everything that's brought by them to all of a sudden become
free of radiation. That may be a bigger miracle than any prophet has ever
seen happen.
Stacy.
At 02:11 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much
Try buying one of those military special gliders that one runs on one's
back or whatever.
Stacy.
At 01:55 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no other side of the world anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to
Jon Spencer wrote:
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
I heard President George Bush state at the beginning of the Gulf War that the
...with sarcasm. Not to be taken seriously.
Jon Spencer wrote:
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
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
Mark Gregson wrote:
It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the
war. You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in
Japan
Thanks for that -- I wasn't aware of this. I'm not surprised that it involved China,
actually.
Mark Gregson wrote:
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose
their
lives in such an attack?
IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win
at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that
end, I am all for it. Whoever attacks this
At 06:32 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose
their
lives in such an attack?
IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win
at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that
end, I am all
Steve,
I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to
preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a
church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm
not prepared to see my country go down for any reason even if it meant
the
Quote
Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the
most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can
plant
in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will
not
forgive us for this.
If we are to avoid extermination, if the
I was hoping for some. Actually, I have given quite a bit of thought to
this question, and I have had a very difficult time with it.
Jon
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
defend ourselves, and ONE HAS
At 11:00 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
Quote
Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the
most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can
plant
in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will
not
forgive us for this.
If we are to
It may be a cliché to you, but it is not a cliché to me. How did the Twin
Towers disappear? How did the Pentagon get zapped? How did the Twin Towers
get bombed? How did all of the threats that were aborted without us ever
knowing get enabled?
Distance is a barrier only to major movements of
Only if it were a rationalization. The Chinese are still suffering today
because of the biological weapons the Japanese used on them. The Japanese
offensive was brutal and criminal beyond what I can comprehend.
That only a few Japanese died compared to the excesses of their war
campaigns should
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view.
If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower
(at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no
long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a
Then why weren't the Japanese able to overcome the effects? The key here,
I believe, is how would we know we had been hit to take the showers? Plus,
what if they're laced with bioweapons?
Stacy.
At 01:52 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a
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.
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 are
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
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 can
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
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
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 objective.
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?
The
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 sure
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
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 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
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
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 better
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
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
