Children Deserve To Know...
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
BESIDES THE BASIC necessities of food, clothing and shelter, children
also benefit by understanding why they are here, where they came from,
and where they are going. Children deserve that much--don't you agree?
Those who really care about children should remind them of God's truth.
For starters, remind them that His Ten Commandments & Golden Rule (Two
Great Commandments) have always applied to everyone who has ever lived,
regardless of their beliefs. Remind children that God's Universal Law
was written by the hand of Almighty God, not by mortal men. Understand?
Some children figure this out for themselves early on, in lieu of any
spiritual guidance from mortal humans. But most children will protest
"how could my parents bring me into this evil world?" They ask "do we
have to die?" etc. That's because young children normally haven't yet
completely blocked off their psychic awareness of the heavens & hells,
and so the inherent conflict between the eternal vs. the temporal, of
the major arcana vs. minor arcana, is still fresh in their experience.
Young children are just coming to grips with their karma, and destiny.
They haven't yet forgotten exactly who they are and how they got here.
To a child, their stars/immortal souls have only recently fallen from
heaven to be born of the dust & raging waves(foamy crest), cut off to
the earth in the vulnerable mortal shell of the physical body born in
sin, born with a *plethora* of karma to work out--both good _and_ bad!
To be abruptly kicked out of heaven, to incarnate in a newborn infant
human body, is always traumatic for the soul. So children are already
struggling with this personal conflict from their first day of mortal
life on earth. While many children repress these unsettling memories
from infancy, other psychically-sensitive children awaken more readily
to their predicament, being innately-attuned to the major arcana thus
all-too aware of their minor arcana obligations per mortal lifetime-to-
lifetime. It's inescapable, because all unpaid debts to the Holy Ghost,
a.k.a. "the third part for evildoers", MUST eventually be paid in full:
"...vae mundo ab scandalis necesse est
...woe to the world from the scandals. Necessary it is
enim ut veniant scandala
indeed in order that they are coming the scandals,
verumtamen vae homini per quem scandalum
verily nevertheless woe to the man by whom the scandal
venit"
it is coming.
--Mattheus 18:7, editio Vulgata
Therefore, all adults, regardless of race, creed or color, share this
mutual obligation to be honest at all times, and most especially with
children! Remind children that all of us mortal human beings are born
in sin, essentially born to die. Remind children that God is not some
"religion" invented by mortal men, but is the Universal Father of all.
Remind children from an early age that all men are born with a divine
purpose, even those who don't realize this: i.e. that all things work
together for good, because all good comes from God, as anyone can see.
Remind children that all men are Created equal, and that the Light is
the same Light in all men, from the saintliest to the most sinful who
have ever lived:
"...erat lux vera quae inluminat
to be the Light veritable, which is illuminating
omnem hominem venientem in mundum"
every human being that is come into the world.
--Iohannes 1:9, ibid
Children, beware of the Liars, of ego-centric Anti-Christs, which are
self-aggrandizing mammon-worshipping deceivers from all walks of life!
Be warned against the official Church of Atheism which are the public
schools. Be warned against worldly Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and
other similarly-worldly places of mammon-worship, and of self-worship.
Beware the corporate world...beware slaves to sin, and slavery to sin:
"...et ceteri homines qui non sunt occisi in his
and the rest of the men who not they are being killed in these
plagis neque paenitentiam egerunt
plagues, neither in penitence they are conducting themselves
de operibus manuum suarum ut
away from the works of the hands of them, in order that
non adorarent daemonia et simulacra aurea et
not they are adoring the demons and similitudes of gold and
argentea et aerea et lapidea et lignea quae
of silver and of copper and of stone and of wood, which
neque videre possunt neque audire
neither to be seeing these are able, neither to be hearing,
neque ambulare et non egerunt
neither to be ambulant. and not they are conducting themselves
paenitentiam ab homicidiis suis neque a
in penitence from the homocides of theirs, neither from
veneficiis suis neque a fornicatione
the pharmaceuticals of theirs, neither from the fornication
sua neque a furtis suis"
of them, neither from the thefts of theirs.
--Apocalypsis 9:20-21, ibid
Beware those who preach doctrines of separation, e.g., "this man-made
religion is better than that man-made religion", "only Christians are
saved but Muslims, Atheists, Jews, Hindus, Astrologers, Tarot Readers,
Wiccans, Scientists and those of other religious faiths are damned to
Hell for all eternity", ad nauseam (albeit the Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheists come as close to eternal damnation as is inhumanly possible):
"finem loquendi omnes pariter audiamus
the finish to be spoken for all equally we are hearing.
Deum time et mandata eius observa
Zeus be you fearing and the mandates of Him be you observing.
hoc est enim omnis homo"
this to be in fact for all men.
--Ecclesiastes 12:13, ibid
So don't be deceived! Your immortal relationship with God is *your*
sovereign birthright. You don't need any worldly "intercessor", and
you damn sure don't need anybody's "permission". Don't fear occult
knowledge, experience and practice. Don't fear the supernatural, or
psychic awareness, as the Atheists & other fundamentalist religious
fanatics fear it. Remember exactly who you are and how you got here.
^^^^^^^
Practice self-discipline. Resist temptation. Try fasting once and a-
while. Accept the fact that the devil-incarnate is the enemy of the
whole human race, or as Solomon Neptune so conscientiously observed:
"vanitas vanitatum dixit Ecclesiastes
vanity of vanities, is saying the speaker of the Ecclesia,
vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas"
vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
--Ecclesiastes 1:2, ibid;
interlinear translations by DJM
Fair Warning,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRgB6/JljD7YrHM/nEQLH4QCg6xyY1LPG0wFrMunZl2Fk/tpmPfcAoMCK
Ti1WQl9p0JEl3mVGbPjBlfNl
=vRQ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joe Strout
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it>
wrote:
> BESIDES THE BASIC necessities of food, clothing and shelter, children
> also benefit by understanding why they are here, where they came from,
> and where they are going. Children deserve that much--don't you agree?
Yes, I'll be sure to explain reproduction when they're old enough, and
also expose them to thoughtful works about the future such as Kurzweil's
"The Singularity is Near."
> Those who really care about children should remind them of God's truth.
> For starters, remind them that His Ten Commandments & Golden Rule (Two
> Great Commandments) have always applied to everyone who has ever lived,
> regardless of their beliefs.
Yes, of course, your religion is the One True Religion and applies to
everybody else, even those members of a different religion who, oddly
enough, believe that theirs is the One True Religion and applies even to
you.
But yes, when the kids are old enough, we'll certainly go over all the
major faiths claiming to be One True Religions, as well as general
critiques such as Dawkins' "The God Delusion."
Maybe they'll be able to figure out why religious nuts feel the need to
cross-post to a bunch of unrelated newsgroups (which I am trimming in my
reply).
Best,
- Joe
leig...@optusnet.com.au
> In article <79b085aaa7337b1a2f506bd98f3fd...@remailer.cyberiade.it>,
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it>
Very nicely put note Dickwad has no reply method,
Or maybe he should state we is put here to promulgate the species, and
are born to Die.
LB
'Cease to be ruled by dogmas and authorities; look at the world!'
Roger Bacon, the 1st Scientist.
gb7...@yahoo.com
Christian criminal supremacy caused the deaths of millions in
history, and still today the Iraq war is categorized by
racist insanity and criminal supremacist corruption.
Bush runs a holly crusade by all means, radical supremacy
and crimes against humanity, there is only one percent
mind in the USA today.
seon ferguson
why not the mythical Godman himself?
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:79b085aaa7337b1a...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
GW Bush: War Criminal
> Yeah why not we tell our kids the Easter bunny and Santa Clause exists so
> why not the mythical Godman himself?
Someone should expose the current WH whopper about "executive privilege"
for the fascist ploy that it is.
seon ferguson
"GW Bush: War Criminal" <imp...@chimp.ca> wrote in message
news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%imp...@chimp.ca...
still believe it.
Steven Douglas
> seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > "GW Bush: War Criminal" <impe...@chimp.ca> wrote in message
> >news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%imp...@chimp.ca...
> > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > >> Yeah why not we tell our kids the Easter bunny and Santa Clause exists so
> > >> why not the mythical Godman himself?
>
> > > Someone should expose the current WH whopper about "executive privilege"
> > > for the fascist ploy that it is.
>
> > While there at it they should expose the WMD myths. Its so sad some fools
> > still believe it.
>
> that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq:
> http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
There's a bit of leftist "common knowledge" that (as usual) is just
plain false. The 9/11 Commission Report DID say Saddam had a loose
working agreement with bin Laden. That is what was believed, at the
time, by intelligence agencies. If newer information has disproven the
old information, and you expected the government to know at the time
(in advance) that the information they had was wrong, that's called
20/20 hindsight. And one thing leftists seem to be very good at is
using their excellent 20/20 hindsight to its maximum potential for
cynical political purposes.
JTEM
> The 9/11 Commission Report DID say Saddam had a loose
> working agreement with bin Laden.
It doesn't say anything of the sort.
It says that a Sudanese man by the name of Hassan al
Turabi brokered an agreement with bin Ladin to leave
Iraq alone, in order to protect his -- Turabi's --
ties with Iraq.
It also says that bin Ladin didn't honor this agreement
for very long.
JTEM
> The 9/11 Commission Report DID say Saddam had a loose
> working agreement with bin Laden.
Ironically, not only does it NOT say that, but it spells
out EXACTLY who the real threat was all along:
| Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put
| aside their divisions and join against the common
| enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan
| between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an
| informal agreement to cooperate in providing
| support-even if only training-for actions carried
| out primarily against Israel and the United States.
| Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and
| trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in
| explosives.
Turabi -- NOT Saddam -- is the one who, in the interest
of Arab unity & his own clout, talked to bin Ladin and
got him to agree to not take action against Iraq.
So, which countries -- according to your own goddamn
cite -- were supporting Al Qaida? Sudan (that was
Turabi's country) and Iran.
Which country did we invade?
Iraq.
Threat => Sudan.
Another threat => Iran
Countries not invaded => Sudan & Iran.
Steven Douglas
Read further:
[quoting the 9/11 Commission Report] "To protect his own ties with
Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would
stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently
honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid
a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)
outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist
groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin
Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al
Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated
and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish
enemy.
"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself
met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994
or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish
training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there
is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described
below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish
connections." [end quoting]
The report shows how, at different times, bin Laden wanted to
cooperate with Saddam when Saddam wasn't ready. Then when Saddam was
ready, bin Laden wasn't ready. But they were each prepared, at
different times, to cooperate with the other. Fortunarely, they just
never got their timing right. But the fact they never happened to
enter into an operational working agreement wasn't for lack of trying
on both of their parts.
JTEM
> The report shows how, at different times, bin Laden
> wanted to cooperate with Saddam when Saddam wasn't
> ready.
You misspelled "Turned him down."
Who didn't turn him down? Iran. Who turned him down?
Iraq.
So the report shows that Sudan & bin Ladin were firm
butt buddies, that Iran trained Al Qaida terrorists
and that Iraq turned down bin Ladin's requests.
Did we invade Sudan? No. Did we invade Iran? No.
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > The report shows how, at different times, bin Laden
> > wanted to cooperate with Saddam when Saddam wasn't
> > ready.
>
> You misspelled "Turned him down."
I responded to a poster who said: "Even the 9/11 report said that al
Qeada had no ties with Iraq." That statement is false, as the 9/11
Commission Report shows. They had various conversations through the
years, including an agreement that they would not work against each
other, and Saddam's tolerance (and even assistance) to another bin
Laden group within the borders of Iraq. My original point is correct.
Your diversion is typical of you.
JTEM
> > You misspelled "Turned him down."
>
> I responded to a poster who said: "Even the 9/11 report
> said that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq."
And they were right, because "Turned down bin Ladin"
is exactly the opposite of "had ties with bin Ladin."
Of course, after $2 billion in U.S. taxes dollars were
handed to bin Ladin, the Republicans most definitely
DID have "Ties."
And the Bush family being close friends to the bin Ladin
family also qualifies as "Ties," rather close "Ties"
actually.
But know what doesn't qualify as "Ties" to Al Qaida?
Turning down bin Ladin's request that Al Qaida be
allowed to operate inside Iraq. That DOES NOT qualify
as ties.
Please stop lying, seeing how you yourself offered the
proof that you're not telling the truth.
seon ferguson
"Dee" <deel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hw8349.9o9ux14dj6vrN%deel...@hotmail.com...
> that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq:
> http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
>
Yep Cheney is a kook spouting his whacky conspiracy theory.
seon ferguson
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176011426....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Did we forget to take our medicine today?
Woodswun
Only in the right wing alternative reality would an agreement by a
hamstrung dictator to not work against someone, in exchange for them
leaving him alone, be construed as al qaeda having "ties with Iraq".
Woods
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
I never even came close to implying that, leftist liar.
>
> Did we forget to take our medicine today?
I don't know, did you? I have no need for any medicine, thank God!
Steven Douglas
Did you miss the part where he tolerated, and even gave assistance, to
a bin Laden group within the borders of Iraq? And the various
conversations between bin Laden's people and Saddam's people through
the years constitute ties, whether you'd like to believe it or not.
Steven Douglas
> Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > "GW Bush: War Criminal" <impe...@chimp.ca> wrote in message
> > > >news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%imp...@chimp.ca...
> > > > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > >> Yeah why not we tell our kids the Easter bunny and Santa Clause
> > > > >> exists so why not the mythical Godman himself?
>
> > > > > Someone should expose the current WH whopper about "executive privilege"
> > > > > for the fascist ploy that it is.
>
> > > > While there at it they should expose the WMD myths. Its so sad some fools
> > > > still believe it.
>
> > > It is sad. It's also insane. Is Cheney a bot? Even the 9/11 report said
> > > that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq:
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
>
> > There's a bit of leftist "common knowledge" that (as usual) is just
> > plain false. The 9/11 Commission Report DID say Saddam had a loose
> > working agreement with bin Laden. That is what was believed, at the
> > time, by intelligence agencies.
>
Another lie of the left.
>
> > If newer information has disproven the old information, and you expected
> > the government to know at the time (in advance) that the information they
> > had was wrong, that's called 20/20 hindsight. And one thing leftists seem
> > to be very good at is using their excellent 20/20 hindsight to its maximum
> > potential for cynical political purposes.
>
> >http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
>
> Maybe you should read the whole thing.
> "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts
> ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have
> we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in
> developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
If you meant there was no "collaborative operational relationship,"
why didn't you say that? Just saying there were "no ties" is a lie of
the left.
>
> And that's hardly the only report that Cheney persists in ignoring:
I didn't respond to that. I responded to your *lie of the left* that
the 9/11 Commission Report said there were "no ties" between Iraq and
Al Qaeda.
seon ferguson
lying about? That he's a kook? That all the WMD's in Iraq were gone at the
time of the 2003 invasion?
seon ferguson
> lawyer.
Or maybe he should just go hunting with himself. The world would be much
better of.
Steven Douglas
You incorrectly stated that I'm another kook who thinks Saddam was
involved in 9/11. Anyone who says that about me is nothing short of a
liar.
JTEM
> Did you miss the part where he tolerated, and
> even gave assistance, to a bin Laden group
> within the borders of Iraq?
I certainly did!
> And the various conversations between bin
> Laden's people and Saddam's people through
> the years constitute ties,
It doesn't say there were various conversations
over the years. however, we do know for a fact
that there were intensly close ties between bin
Ladin and the GOP. We know the Republican gave
them $2 billion, in addition to helping them
create their financial network & training bases
in Afghanistan.
Then there's the close friendship between the
bin Ladin family and the Bush family.
Quite frankly, your burden of proof for "Ties"
with bin Ladin is greatly exceeded by Bush.
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > Did you miss the part where he tolerated, and
> > even gave assistance, to a bin Laden group
> > within the borders of Iraq?
>
> I certainly did!
That's because you haven't actually read the 9/11 Commission Report,
yet you want to discuss it as if you had.
JTEM
> That's because you haven't actually read the 9/11
> Commission Report,
Feel free to cut & paste the actual words that you're
misrepresenting, and I'll be happy to set you straight.
But I can't read what isn't there, and you certainly
can't expect me to guess as what you're distorting.
seon ferguson
Right wing nuts think I support the Democratic Party but that's not true, so
does that make them liars?
Ah slander, a very effective tool of the Republican party in dealing with
anyone who disagrees with them. I must say you have the makings of a fox
news presenter.
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > That's because you haven't actually read the 9/11
> > Commission Report,
>
> Feel free to cut & paste the actual words
I already did that, right here in this thread in response to your
glaring *ignorance* of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report. You
should try actually knowing what it says before attempting to discuss
it.
Steven Douglas
That would mean you decided to jump to a conclusion about me based on
nothing more than your own mean-spiritedness.
>
> Right wing nuts think I support the Democratic Party but that's not true, so
> does that make them liars?
You might not support the Democratic Party, but you're very likely
aligned with them.
>
> Ah slander, a very effective tool of the Republican party in dealing with
> anyone who disagrees with them.
Pot/Kettle/Black
>
> I must say you have the makings of a fox news presenter.
Really? Why is that? Specifically, please. I'd like to know.
JTEM
> On Apr 8, 9:43 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's because you haven't actually read the 9/11
> > > Commission Report,
>
> > Feel free to cut & paste the actual words
>
> I already did that,
No, Bush worshipper, you did not do that. There are no
words that say what you pretend to be reading. The ONE
and ONLY contact with Al Qaeda that the GOP-dominated
report claims was when bin Laden requested that Iraq
allow Al Qaeda to operate inside in Iraq, and Iraq turned
him down.
That's it. Period.
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 9:43 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That's because you haven't actually read the 9/11
> > > > Commission Report,
>
> > > Feel free to cut & paste the actual words
>
> > I already did that,
>
> No, Bush worshipper, you did not do that.
Yes I did, and I'm not a Bush worshipper. As I've stated here more
than once, I worship no man.
>
> There are no
> words that say what you pretend to be reading. The ONE
> and ONLY contact with Al Qaeda that the GOP-dominated
> report claims was when bin Laden requested that Iraq
> allow Al Qaeda to operate inside in Iraq, and Iraq turned
> him down.
>
> That's it. Period.
You're precisely wrong, because you have no idea what the 9/11
Commission Report says. You see, I've known it says this for years,
while you only found out the little bit you know just the other day
when you clicked on the link I provided. And I STILL had to provide
some text for you, because you stopped reading too soon. And, of
course, being you, you never went back and actually read what you're
pretending to know. So here it is again, one more time, just for you:
[quoting the 9/11 Commission Report] "To protect his own ties with
Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would
stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently
honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid
a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)
outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist
groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin
Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al
Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated
and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish
enemy.
"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself
met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994
or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish
training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there
is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described
below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish
connections." [end quoting]
Notice that last sentence there, just above? Can you read? There's
more. Go read it if you'd like to become informed about what you're
pretending to know.
el...@no.spam
Dee <deel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'd be happy with his appearance at the Hague.
But it shouldn't be solo!
seon ferguson
<el...@no.spam> wrote in message news:11761881...@no.spam...
JTEM
> There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime
> tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam
> against the common Kurdish enemy.
These imaginary "indications" were the fake intel
that came out of the Pentagon... even though no U.S.
intelligence agency (including military) would endorse
those reports.
> "With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin
> Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence
> officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin
> Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish
> training camps, as well as assistance in procuring
> weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded
> to this request.
THIS is the ONE and ONLY time there was any discussion
between someone representing Al Qaeda and someone
representing Iraq, and Iraq turned Al Qaeda down.
> As described below, the ensuing years saw additional
> efforts to establish connections." [end quoting]
>
> Notice that last sentence there, just above?
Yup. Al Qaeda made additional efforts to establish
connections (which, in English, means that no connections
existed (else they wouldn't need to establish them, now
would they?)), but those efforts were never successful.
> Can you read?
Yes. Al Qaeda made numerous attempts to establish
connections and failed.
WH
You're being a twat again douglas. The last sentence there says that
Al Qaida made additional efforts to establish connections. Can you
read? It's blatently obvious what that sentence is saying and what
it's referring to. Go on, copy and paste the next couple of sentences
for us there's a good boy!
WH
Steven Douglas
> Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 12:08 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 7, 9:37 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > "GW Bush: War Criminal" <impe...@chimp.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%imp...@chimp.ca...
> > > > > > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> Yeah why not we tell our kids the Easter bunny and Santa Clause
> > > > > > >> exists so why not the mythical Godman himself?
>
> > > > > > > Someone should expose the current WH whopper about "executive
> > > > > > > privilege" for the fascist ploy that it is.
>
> > > > > > While there at it they should expose the WMD myths. Its so sad
> > > > > > some fools still believe it.
>
> > > > > It is sad. It's also insane. Is Cheney a bot? Even the 9/11 report said
> > > > > that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq:
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
>
> > > > There's a bit of leftist "common knowledge" that (as usual) is just
> > > > plain false. The 9/11 Commission Report DID say Saddam had a loose
> > > > working agreement with bin Laden. That is what was believed, at the
> > > > time, by intelligence agencies.
>
> > > Not even close.
>
> > Another lie of the left.
>
>
>
>
> > > > If newer information has disproven the old information, and you expected
> > > > the government to know at the time (in advance) that the information they
> > > > had was wrong, that's called 20/20 hindsight. And one thing leftists seem
> > > > to be very good at is using their excellent 20/20 hindsight to its maximum
> > > > potential for cynical political purposes.
>
> > > >http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
>
> > > Maybe you should read the whole thing.
> > > "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts
> > > ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have
> > > we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in
> > > developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
>
> > If you meant there was no "collaborative operational relationship,"
> > why didn't you say that? Just saying there were "no ties" is a lie of
> > the left.
>
> completely pissant, and have been discounted in all the summaries as
> meaningless.
They kept reaching out to each other. And Saddam tolerated a bin Laden
supported group within the borders of Iraq, and may even have
supported that group. That's according to the 9/11 Commission Report,
which you said showed no ties. If you meant to say the 9/11 Commission
Report said they never had a collaborative operational relationship,
you should have said that. And I wouldn't have felt compelled to enter
this thread.
Steven Douglas
You haven't read the thing either, have you?
el...@no.spam
Dee <deel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Bolton
>George Stupid Bush
>Dougie J. Feith
>Abu Gonzales
>Scooter Libby
>William Luti
>Colin Powell
>Kindasleezy Rice
>Rummy Rumsfeld
>George Tenet
>Abram Shulsky
>Paul Wolfowitz
>John Yoo
Not Rove?
Werewolfy
> Not Rove?
--------------------------
Not Steven Douglas?
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
> many, many years.
The bin Laden family you're referring to had disowned Osama. And what
does this have to do with what you inaccurately said the 9/11
Commission Report reported?
>
> After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
President Clinton. It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those
members of the bin Laden family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as
the FBI knew from previous interviews) before their flight left the
country.
Steven Douglas
No, Wolfy, it's not about me.
Werewolfy
> Bah. I remembered after send...
>
> but I like the way that looks!
I like the way you write...;)
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
Okay, you've managed to divert the discussion away from your
inaccurate statement that the 9/11 Commisison Report said there were
no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when you obviously meant to say
there was not collaborative operational relationship (which is not the
same as no ties).
But what would you have liked to see happen to the bin Laden family?
Do you think they had been investigated prior to 9/11? Or do you think
they were hiding here, and were in on the 9/11 plot, and waited until
the last minute to make their escape (with the help of Richard
Clarke)? Please explain.
>
> > And what does this have to do with what you inaccurately said the 9/11
> > Commission Report reported?
>
> Read the part that you removed right after it. Hint: It's in reply to
> your wildly inaccurate statement "They kept reaching out to each other."
The 9/11 Commission reported numerous conversations over the years
between Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials. To say those aren't ties is just
unrealistic. To say those ties did not lead to a collaborative
operational relationship is something different.
>
> It's one thing to snip out the facts that you don't like, or aren't
> comfortable discussing; quite another to take a sentence out of context
> and question it. Ignoring what you yourself said to prompt the reply
> compounds the dishonesty.
As I have already pointed out, this started with your statement that
the 9/11 Commision Report said there were "no ties" between Iraq and
Al Qaeda is incorrect. That's the only relevant point in this
discussion.
>
> > > After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> > > _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
>
> > Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
> > President Clinton.
>
> Oooh, the "C" word. Well, it took you longer than most, so congrats.
What's wrong with pointing out a fact? It was in response to your
point that is nothing more than a distraction from your original
statement ("no ties") which was incorrect.
>
> > It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those members of the bin Laden
> > family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as the FBI knew from previous
> > interviews) before their flight left the country.
>
> And what does that have to do wtih Cheney's never ending bullshit about
> Usama bin Laden's ties with Saddam?
I didn't bring up Cheney. You did. I wasn't talking about Cheney. I
was talking about your inaccurate statement that there were "no ties"
between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Steven Douglas
> On 11 Apr 2007 05:33:12 -0700, in alt.astrology, "Steven Douglas"
> at a family wedding after 9/11.
I see. So what would you have done with the bin Laden family because
some family member committed a crime? What would you expect to happen
to you if your brother, or uncle, or cousin or someone committed a
crime?
>
> >> After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> >> _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
>
> >Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
> >President Clinton. It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those
> >members of the bin Laden family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as
> >the FBI knew from previous interviews) before their flight left the
> >country.
>
> sure!
Sure what? You don't believe the FBI cleared that flight?
Dee
Wrong again. And when are you planning to try to defend your total
fabrication, "[t]hey kept reaching out to each other"?
> inaccurate statement that the 9/11 Commisison Report said there were
> But what would you have liked to see happen to the bin Laden family?
> Do you think they had been investigated prior to 9/11? Or do you think
> they were hiding here, and were in on the 9/11 plot, and waited until
> the last minute to make their escape (with the help of Richard
> Clarke)? Please explain.
LOL
"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top
anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks,
despite being told there didn't seem to be one."
http://tinyurl.com/yq9ax
That Richard Clarke?
> > > And what does this have to do with what you inaccurately said the 9/11
> > > Commission Report reported?
> >
> > Read the part that you removed right after it. Hint: It's in reply to
> > your wildly inaccurate statement "They kept reaching out to each other."
>
> The 9/11 Commission reported numerous conversations over the years
> between Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials. To say those aren't ties is just
> unrealistic.
It's insane to ignore the conclusion of a report that said there were
_no ties_ in favor of some details that led said report to conclude that
there were _no ties_.
Repeat: "Several official investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies,
foreign intelligence agencies, and independent investigative bodies have
looked into various aspects of the alleged links between Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda. Every single investigation has resulted in the conclusion
that the data examined did not provide compelling evidence of a
cooperative relationship between the two entities."'
No ties. None, zero, zip.
> To say those ties did not lead to a collaborative operational relationship
> is something different.
There weren't any ties. It's a lie.
> > It's one thing to snip out the facts that you don't like, or aren't
> > comfortable discussing; quite another to take a sentence out of context
> > and question it. Ignoring what you yourself said to prompt the reply
> > compounds the dishonesty.
>
> As I have already pointed out, this started with your statement that
> the 9/11 Commision Report said there were "no ties" between Iraq and
> Al Qaeda is incorrect. That's the only relevant point in this
> discussion.
Silly semantics. The kind of ties that you're whinging about are
completely pissant, and have been discounted in all of the summaries as
meaningless. As I said before.
> > > > After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> > > > _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
> >
> > > Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
> > > President Clinton.
> >
> > Oooh, the "C" word. Well, it took you longer than most, so congrats.
>
> What's wrong with pointing out a fact? It was in response to your
> point that is nothing more than a distraction from your original
> statement ("no ties") which was incorrect.
The "C" word isn't a fact; and it's not ever relevant to the topic at
hand, whether it be:
BushCo's legalized torture,
BushCo's violations of the Geneva Conventions,
BushCo's pissing on The Magna Carta by banning Habeas Corpus,
BushCo's illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation,
BushCo's not giving the US troops decent armour,
BushCo's failure to find bin Laden,
BushCo's domestic crimes,
BushCo's economic disaster,
BushCo's failure to rebuild New Orleans, as promised,
etc., etc., etc.
Or today's special: BushCo's lies that were foisted on the US to support
the illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation.
> > > It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those members of the bin Laden
> > > family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as the FBI knew from previous
> > > interviews) before their flight left the country.
> >
> > And what does that have to do wtih Cheney's never ending bullshit about
> > Usama bin Laden's ties with Saddam?
>
> I didn't bring up Cheney. You did. I wasn't talking about Cheney. I
> was talking about your inaccurate statement that there were "no ties"
> between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There were _no ties_. Cheney is a drool.
And, as I said before; the Vice President of The United ( Ha. Ha. Ha. )
States of America is still spewing all that awful bullshit, in public,
in spite of all the reports which say conclusively that there were _no
ties_ :
1993 WTC investigations
1998 National Security Council exercise
2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations
2002 DIA reports
2002 British intelligence report
2003 CIA report
2003 British intelligence report
2003 Israeli intelligence
2004 Carnegie study
2004 9/11 Commission Report
2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
2004 CIA report
2005 update of CIA report
2006 Pentagon study
2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report
2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
2005 update of CIA report
Rinse, replace:
You have to admit that the constant and endless repetition of the words
"al Qeada-bin Laden" and "Saddam-Iraq" in the same sentence has
brain-washed a lot of Americans into believing that it's true, in spite
of endless reports to the contrary. Because, sadly, some do persist in
believing this lie.
Fortunately an awful lot of them have come to their senses :)
Dee
> On 11 Apr 2007 05:33:12 -0700, in alt.astrology, "Steven Douglas"
> <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 10, 10:27 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
[...]
> >> > > > If you meant there was no "collaborative operational relationship,"
> >> > > > why didn't you say that? Just saying there were "no ties" is a lie of
> >> > > > the left.
> >>
> >> > > Silly semantics. The kind of ties that you're whinging about are
> >> > > completely pissant, and have been discounted in all the summaries as
> >> > > meaningless.
> >>
> >> > They kept reaching out to each other.
> >>
> >> Pooh. The bin Laden family has been in bed with the Bush family for
> >> many, many years.
> >
> >The bin Laden family you're referring to had disowned Osama. And what
> >does this have to do with what you inaccurately said the 9/11
> >Commission Report reported?
>
> Not really Fact is he was reported and filmed being a guest of honor
> at a family wedding after 9/11.
>
> >> After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> >> _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
> >
> >Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
> >President Clinton. It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those
> >members of the bin Laden family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as
> >the FBI knew from previous interviews) before their flight left the
> >country.
>
> sure!
I am thinking that perhaps Formosa's Law might apply...
Dee
Steven Douglas
The 9/11 Commission Report says there were "friendly contacts" through
the years between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Friendly contacts who held the
United States as their common enemy. And while that was going on, we
should have just considered that "no ties"?
If two people with no collaborative operational relationship hold
occasional meetings, over a course of years, in which they discuss
combining their resources for a possible collaborative partnership,
you would consider those meetings to mean nothing? Very strange.
The rest of your post is all a distraction from the original reason I
entered this thread. Obviously you're dug in, and refuse to
acknowledge the difference between "no collaborative relationship" and
occasional meetings through the years in which they discussed their
common enemy. And you say that while that was going on, it should have
been considered to be of no consequence? Silly.
el...@no.spam
Dee <deel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am thinking that perhaps Formosa's Law might apply...
It never does. So why would it apply this time?
el...@no.spam
Dee <deel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I like the way you write...;)
>
>Thank you so much! :)
>
><blush>
I prefer the way you wrong <evil grin>!
Dee
> If two people with no collaborative operational relationship hold
> occasional meetings, over a course of years, in which they discuss
> combining their resources for a possible collaborative partnership,
> you would consider those meetings to mean nothing? Very strange.
What's strange is that you have no proof of these meetings, yet you
insist that they occurred.
The 2006 Senate report says quite clearly that Saddam "rebuffed* meeting
requests from an al-Qa'ida operative."
And, "The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of
meetings between al'Qa'ida and Iraq."
> The rest of your post is all a distraction from the original reason I
> entered this thread.
Redolent with disingenuous bullshit, and the faint stench of
hyper-partisan venom. Sadly, typical.
How was your Friday, btw?
Security Incidents for 04/13/07
Baghdad:
A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died April 12 due to a
non-battle related cause.
An MND-B Soldier died when a patrol was attacked with small arms fire
north of the Iraqi capital. The unit was conducting a security patrol
when the attack occurred. No other Soldiers were wounded during the
attack.
Around 1.30 p.m. an American squad exploded (in control) a roadside bomb
was put near the unknown soldier monument without casualties
A roadside bomb killed one policeman and wounded four others in southern
Baghdad on Friday, police said. A civilian was also wounded
Mortar rounds landed in a southern Baghdad district killing two people
and wounding eight, police said
Around 3 p.m. two mortar shells landed in Al Shurta Al Rabia
neighborhood. one resident was killed and 15 were injured.
Around 4 p.m. a road side bomb exploded in Saidiyah neighborhood
targeting civilians. One resident was killed and one was injured.
Around 5 p.m. small arms fire targeted a police commando's patrol in Al
Madaen city. one passing by woman was injured.
Police found 5 dead bodies throughout the capital in the following
neighborhoods: 1 in Rashidiya, 1 in Sadr, 1 in Ameriya, 1 in Amil, 1 in
Baia (7 less than yesterday)
Two MND-B Soldiers were killed and seven others were wounded when their
patrol base came under attack by anti-Iraqi forces south of Baghdad
April 12. Two Iraqi interpreters were also killed in the attack
BAGHDAD - U.S. forces captured 14 suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq insurgents
during operations on Friday, the U.S. military said.
Diyala Prv:
Unidentified gunmen blew up an elementary school in the district of Bani
Saad, south of Baaquba city, but no casualties were reported, local
residents said.
Early morning , terrorists bombed a public clinic at( Tibtib) village of
Jalwla district in Khanqeen.
LC Falih Hassan of the Iraqi national police was killed today after a
road side bomb targeted his vehicle today after noon. Three of his body
guards were killed.
Bihriz (in Diyala province) - A squad of Diyala battalion had reached on
of the abductors haunts in Bihriz and released two kidnapped persons
(one of them is from Baghdad who was kidnapped 35 days ago). Also this
squad captured ten suspected during its operation since last week and
found a factory for making roadside bombs in the suburban of Bihriz.
Diyala -Early this morning , terrorism groups which inhabit (Al-Nay , 25
houses and Sfeit Shant) attacked Dojma village as a kind of revenge to
killing five terrorists in a attack made yesterday night which failed to
achieve its points as they had fierce fighting from villagers.
Diala - Iraqi and U.S. forces killed two gunmen and arrested 11
suspected militants on Friday during a security crackdown in Diala
province, 57 km northeast of Baghdad, a security source said.
Khalis- Unknown gunmen killed four civilians on Friday afternoon in
central Khalis in Diala province, 57 km northeast of Baghdad, a police
source said.
Diwaniya:
A camp belonging to the Multi-National Force in southern Diwaniya came
under an attack with mortar and katyusha shells as Iraqi and U.S. forces
are conducting raids and search campaigns all over the city, a security
source said.
Kut:
A gunman shot down a citizen in central Kut city on Friday, a security
source in Wassit province said.
Jurf al-Sakher:
A fierce clash broke out between insurgents and a joint patrol of US and
Iraqi forces in the Jurf al-Sakher village, 65 km south of Baghdad
overnight, killing four insurgents,' the source said.
Hilla:
Early Friday, a roadside bomb detonated when an Iraqi army patrol was
passing by in central Hilla City, some 100 km south of Baghdad, killing
a soldier and injuring three others, the source said.
Gunmen opened fire on the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party's offices near
Hilla, wounding three guards, police said.
Iskandariya:
Earlier, several mortar rounds landed on the al-Asriyah village in the
al-Iskandriyah district, some 45 km south of the capital, wounding at
least 10 residents, the source added.
Basra:
A British base in northwestern Basra came under an attack on Thursday
night, a military spokeswoman in southern Iraq, Capt. Katie Brown, said
on Friday.
Kirkuk:
Gunmen seriously wounded two people when they attacked a barber shop in
southern Kirkuk, about 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said
Mosul:
Gunmen shot dead Mohammed Abd al-Hameed, a mosque imam in the northern
city of Mosul, as he was on his way to his mosque, police said. Hameed
was also a well-known figure in the Sunni Muslim Scholars' Association.
The Director of the state-owned-Grain Trade Company was abducted in
Ninewa after performing Friday prayer, while a policeman was injured in
a bomb explosion in Mosul, 402 km north of Baghdad, police sources said.
"A group of gunmen kidnapped Moayad Ahmed Hassan, director of the Grain
Trade Company, in the city of Mosul after performing Friday prayer in
al-Zohour neighborhood in northeastern Mosul," Head of the operations
room in Ninewa police command Brigadier Abdul Karim al-Juburi told the
independent news agency Voices of Iraq
Meanwhile, the brigadier said that a policeman was injured when a
roadside bomb went off on Friday afternoon in Mosul. "The bomb was
planted by gunmen late Thursday in al-Wehda neighborhood in southeastern
Mosul," he noted. The bomb was detonated targeting an Iraqi police
patrol, al-Juburi also said, noting that the blast seriously injured a
policeman.
http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/index.html
*rebuff
verb [ trans. ]
reject (someone or something) in an abrupt or ungracious manner.
noun
an abrupt or ungracious refusal or rejection of an offer, request, or
friendly gesture : any attempt to win her friendship was met with
rebuffs.
Dee
Dee
Perseid
the Words
I would like to be punished by you
Steven Douglas
No, I insist that the 9/11 Commission Report said they occurred. This
all started when you said the 9/11 Commission Report said there were
"no ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. My entire conversation with you
is about what the 9/11 Commission Report did or did not say. I say it
said one thing, you say it said another. That's all this conversation
is (and ever was) about.
GW Bush: War Criminal
Well, I appreciate the thought, but if you head on over to the new
republic or some of the "political" news froups, I'm sure you'll find
all the rancid, drooling, foul-mouthed abuse that you can handle. They
really have a hate on for "libruls". Aim for "pinko!" or the "C" word ;)
GW Bush: War Criminal
"They kept reaching out to each other." is what you said.
Holding occasional meetings, discussing resourses; which came from
*your* imagination. Well, yours and the malignant Dick Cheney's.
>This all started when you said the 9/11 Commission Report said there
>were "no ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. My entire conversation with
>you is about what the 9/11 Commission Report did or did not say.
That's funny, 'cause there's a shitload of words from you in this thread
that say otherwise.
>I say it said one thing, you say it said another. That's all this
>conversation is (and ever was) about.
I've just noted that isn't true. Not one single report could conclude
that there were ties...'cause there weren't any.
Just 10 days ago Dickie said that al Qaeda was operating inside Iraq
before his illegal invasion; _under the leadership of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi _who didn't ally himself with them until 2004_.
Two quotes from that link you didn't read:
"A declassified Pentagon report released Thursday concludes that there
was no direct cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qeada.
But Dick Cheney, apparently, remains convinced there was."
More importantly:
"[T]he report also sheds new light on the concerted effort within the
Defense Department to establish a Saddam-al Qaeda link, despite a
consensus in the intelligence community that Iraq and al Qaeda had only
limited contacts – and that claims of deeper ties were based on dubious
or unconfirmed data."
It's called "making shit up"; something you're apparently very familiar
with. The Bush administration lied their Country into war, which is
surely illegal.
Even the 9/11 report said that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
Steven Douglas
No, it came from the 9/11 Commission Report, which has been my point
all along.
>
> >This all started when you said the 9/11 Commission Report said there
> >were "no ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. My entire conversation with
> >you is about what the 9/11 Commission Report did or did not say.
>
> That's funny, 'cause there's a shitload of words from you in this thread
> that say otherwise.
That's because I fell into the trap of responding to distractions,
such as the one you're trying to draw me into. Read the 9/11
Commission Report. It says there were numerous contacts between Iraq
and Al Qaeda over a period of years. It's not that hard to read the
page I've linked to earlier in this thread. Read it.
GW Bush: War Criminal
Hardly. Besides:
"If newer information has disproven the old information, and you
expected the government to know at the time (in advance) that the
information they had was wrong, that's called 20/20 hindsight."
I *expect* that Dickie Cheney should, as VP, accept the fact that Iraq
and al Qeada had no ties (even if you can't).
They do now, BTW. Mission Accomplished!!
> > >This all started when you said the 9/11 Commission Report said there
> > >were "no ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. My entire conversation with
> > >you is about what the 9/11 Commission Report did or did not say.
> >
> > That's funny, 'cause there's a shitload of words from you in this thread
> > that say otherwise.
>
> That's because I fell into the trap of responding to distractions,
> such as the one you're trying to draw me into. Read the 9/11
> Commission Report. It says there were numerous contacts between Iraq
> and Al Qaeda over a period of years. It's not that hard to read the
> page I've linked to earlier in this thread. Read it.
I read it. When someone answers your call and says "no" to your pitch,
you don't have a tie* with them. Just like he said; no connections, no
tie.
TIE n. 1. A cord, string, or other means by which something is tied.
2. Something that connects or unites; a link: a blood tie; marital
ties.
3. A necktie.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that
said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
--
http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
http://iraqbodycount.org
http://www.stopiranwar.com
Steven Douglas
Hardly what? The 9/11 Commission Report says there were various
friendly contacts through the years between Al Qaeda and Iraq. And
whether you'd like to admit it or not, repeated friendly contacts
constitute ties. If your neighbors, who have no collaborative working
relationship, get together on a regular basis and have friendly
interactions, you would tell me they have no ties? Get real.
>
> Besides:
>
> "If newer information has disproven the old information, and you
> expected the government to know at the time (in advance) that the
> information they had was wrong, that's called 20/20 hindsight."
What's your point?
GW Bush: War Criminal
> On Apr 17, 10:26 pm, impe...@chimpy.org (GW Bush: War Criminal) wrote:
> > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 11:44 pm, impe...@chimpy.org (GW Bush: War Criminal) wrote:
> > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 13, 11:03 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:01 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 11:23 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 10:27 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 11:13 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 12:08 pm, deelil...@hotmail.com
(Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 9:37
> > pm, deelil...@hotmail.com (Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seon ferguson <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "GW Bush: War Criminal" <impe...@chimp.ca>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%impeach@chi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >mp.ca... > seon ferguson
> > Hardly. Besides:
> >
> > "If newer information has disproven the old information, and you
> > expected the government to know at the time (in advance) that the
> > information they had was wrong, that's called 20/20 hindsight."
>
> What's your point?
Again you're dishonest. Editing lines that have already answered your
stupid, whinging, repetitive questions isn't kosher. You should know
this by now.
Furthermore: you're an ignorant, petty, arsehole who wouldn't know a tie
if it whacked him in the face and then choked him.
Worst; you're tedious, stupid, and incredibly credulous, just like every
other half-baked, brain-free neocon worshipper who still has his head
stuck firmly up Bushie's flabby white arse.
Good luck with that.
Steven Douglas
If your neighbors, who have no collaborative working relationship, get
George Bush: Baby Killer
> Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:39:57 -0400, imp...@chimpy.org (GW Bush: War
> Criminal) licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> >Again you're dishonest. Editing lines that have already answered your
> >stupid, whinging, repetitive questions isn't kosher. You should know
> >this by now.
> >
> >Furthermore: you're an ignorant, petty, arsehole who wouldn't know a tie
> >if it whacked him in the face and then choked him.
> >
> >Worst; you're tedious, stupid, and incredibly credulous, just like every
> >other half-baked, brain-free neocon worshipper who still has his head
> >stuck firmly up Bushie's flabby white arse.
> >
> >Good luck with that.
>
> Don't hold back, Dee. Tell us how you really feel.
Don't encourage me :) I love how all you sane and loving Americans are
getting the bastids out of office; under the microscope, into jails. May
that fucking farce no longer be with y'all.
> Widdy
>
> I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
> The wicked sometimes rest.
>
> Alexandre Dumas, pere (with thanks to Twitch)
Hugs,
Dee