sad news, indeed

"Alaskan420" wrote in message
news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780@trndny07...

is that just another
symptom of the liberal dogma?

I am very willing to debate the war with anyone but please don't just spew
what you've read in the papers, liberal or conservative. Do the research
for
yourself and come to the table prepared.


I told you once. you are seriously undergunned in the logic department. I
do not think you want to go there.

And before anyone goes off half-cocked.

They have medicines so you can get full-cocked. I work in health care trust
me.

The global problem of Islamic terrorism has very little to do with who's
president or even America itself. And Iraq was an internal "killing field"
long before the U.S. got involved.

Iraq wasn't about global terrorism but since you must, what about the other
killing fields that we so conviently don't consider our issue? Oh, they
don't sit on a large crude oil deposit.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
. ..

"Alaskan420" wrote in message
news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780@trndny07...

is that just another
symptom of the liberal dogma?

I am very willing to debate the war with anyone but please don't just
spew
what you've read in the papers, liberal or conservative. Do the research
for
yourself and come to the table prepared.


I told you once. you are seriously undergunned in the logic department. I
do not think you want to go there.

And before anyone goes off half-cocked.

They have medicines so you can get full-cocked. I work in health care
trust
me.

The global problem of Islamic terrorism has very little to do with who's
president or even America itself. And Iraq was an internal "killing
field"
long before the U.S. got involved.

Iraq wasn't about global terrorism but since you must, what about the
other
killing fields that we so conviently don't consider our issue? Oh, they
don't sit on a large crude oil deposit.

Ummm...

Who said Iraq was about Global terrorism? Notice the "period" after the word
itself? You have to read rw's previous post. That sentence was a response to
his claim that we turned Iraq into a killing field. Which we did not. We
just added American casualties.

Do you folks truly believe Iraq was about oil? If so, can you tell me where
it's going since we've been there? Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Far
more oil and certainly more valid political reasons to attack there.

P.S. Wayne, personnal attacks don't validate your political view. Show me
facts. I am a logical person. My opinions can change.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

Alaskan420 wrote:

Do you just find it convenient to forget the USS Cole, (Clinton)? The
embassy bombings in Mogadishu, (Clinton)? Or any of the other 138,643
Islamic terrorist attacks recorded since 1967?

It would help your case if you didn't "remember" bombings that didn't
happen or cite figures with no basis in fact.

- JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Alaskan420 wrote:

Do you just find it convenient to forget the USS Cole, (Clinton)? The
embassy bombings in Mogadishu, (Clinton)? Or any of the other 138,643
Islamic terrorist attacks recorded since 1967?

It would help your case if you didn't "remember" bombings that didn't
happen or cite figures with no basis in fact.

- JR

ARE YOU INSANE? Anyone else here want to back this guy up and claim that
the USS Cole or the embassy bombings in Mogadishu did not occur?

If you folks want to have a reasonable discussion fine. But this type of
claim just goes too far.


--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS

Alaskan420 wrote:

Wow! The LA Times? Well, there's an unbiased source for you. Why didn't you
go all out and quote the NY Times or Geraldo?

Yes, Uncle Rush woulda been such a credible source.

The Nazi and Soviet propaganda machines put a lot of effort into
discrediting the independent press in their countries as well.

"Alaskan420" wrote in message
news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780@trndny07...
And please... Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?

Just in case anyone was wondering about the sort of non sequiturs that got
us into this mess in the first place....

"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:


Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?



The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

Almost?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On 27 Jun 2006 12:42:26 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

Er, no. The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq (or
anywhere) is directly attributable to Islamic terrorists and no one
else. Period.

Now, if you want to say something along the lines of: "GW is in large
part responsible for the (primary) condition in Iraq that allow Islamic
terrorists to operate in Iraq as freely," there could be a debate. It's
somewhat misleading, albeit technically correct, as he is responsible
for causing the removal of Saddam, which is the (primary) condition that
allows Islamic terrorists to operate as freely. But by taking such a
position, one would tacitly acknowledge that he would be equally
responsible for enabling whatever good might occur.

HTH,
R

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Nothing like changing the question to suite your answer, eh?



--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS