Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
From: Ken Smith (kensmith_at_rahul.net)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Terry Given: "Re: modified PIC control loop"
- Previous message: Michael A. Covington: "Re: Low Parts-Count Oscillators"
- In reply to: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Next in thread: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:09:40 +0000 (UTC)
In article <6oKLc.15866$Zr.6140@okepread01>,
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
>>> If they were afraid of Saddam, why aren't they afraid of us?
>
>> How about: Because the US's CIA can't figure out who we are and their army
>> is populated by a bunch of wimps.
>
> Could you clarify that sentence? Who's "we" and "their"?
I was putting myself in the role of speaking as a terrorist. The "How
about:" was intended to make that clear. Sorry if it didn't.
>>> Why weren't they in-country earlier?
>>
>> They were afraid of Saddam.
>
> Ah. But did they expect the support (tacit or otherwise)
>they're currently getting from the Iraqi civilians?
No because they knew the civilians were too scared to breath too.
>> There has been a quite significant outcry from the US left. You've
>> obviously been watching the Fox news channel, if you missed it. The US
>> left has put it in the form of "why didn't we do something to prevent
>> it?" Its a valid question.
>
> I was unclear. I meant less outcry from the Iraqi
>civilians and the Muslim world in general due to _their_
>definition of murder.
Oh! Now your comment makes even less sense. Please explain.
> The US Left is operating on its own definition of murder
>of course, and second-guessing is easy for anyone who's
>never actually thought out the logistics involved while
>slashing military budgets.
And the US right has it own definition too. Was what Timothy McVea
murder? How about James Kopp?
>>> You can still fabricate a cover to leak the data so it
>>>can be independently confirmed. Happens all the time.
>
>> Yes thats how Ashcroft dropped the dime on the CIA person[1] to Novac.
>> [1] I don't remember her name.
>
> What's that got to do with Germany, France, et. al. not
>wanting to lose the big bucks?
Nothing it was an illistration of the method of leaking. Thats all.
>>> You keep going back to the WMD question. What about all
>>>the UN resolutions that were ignored?
>
>> The extreme US right constantly says the UN doesn't matter and is
>> useless. Why the heck should US personel die trying to defend a UN
>> resolution if the UN doesn't matter.
>
> It isn't the U.N., but whether the resolutions made
>sense. If they did, they ought to have ben backed up with
>force. If they didn't, they shouldn't have been made in the
>first place and amounted to U. N. bluster. Which is it?
What could there be in Iraq that is worth the blood of a single US
soldier?
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
- Next message: Terry Given: "Re: modified PIC control loop"
- Previous message: Michael A. Covington: "Re: Low Parts-Count Oscillators"
- In reply to: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Next in thread: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Reply: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|