Your moment of Zen - brought to you by OBL
Count 1
Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by killing
thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to rebuild
countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
'Moments of Zen' indeed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/19/terror/main1220208.shtml
(...)
The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United States
are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001
suicide hijackings. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations
that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.
"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their
land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and
long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in
this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to
merchants of war."
(...)
***
He must have quite a following if he thinks he's in a position to act like a
government, the insane 'head' of an imaginary nation.
Abdiel
Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
--A
Dr. GroundAxe
It was reported he 'might' have snuffed it.
Dr. GroundAxe
> He's offering a 'truce'.
>
> Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by killing
> thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to rebuild
> countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
>
Kuff seems to consider this a legit offer, someone better get on the
hotline to the WH.
Count 1
"Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:98Pzf.3995$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a little later in the day its reported
this tape is unreliable.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if it is found to be reliable.
Dr. GroundAxe
He can stick his 'hudna' truce.
Count 1
> Count 1 wrote:
> > He's offering a 'truce'.
> >
> > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
killing
> > thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
rebuild
> > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
> >
>
>
> Kuff seems to consider this a legit offer, someone better get on the
> hotline to the WH.
Kuff is nuts.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> He's offering a 'truce'.
>
> Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by killing
> thousands of innocent civilians.
Continues one actually. Or have you not been keeping up with how the
Republicans are blaming it all on Clinton for not pursuing the 'war'
more agressively?
> Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to rebuild
> countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
You still don't know, or deny, the true consistency of the insurgency
in Iraq don't you?
>
> 'Moments of Zen' indeed.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/19/terror/main1220208.shtml
>
> (...)
> The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United States
> are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001
> suicide hijackings. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations
> that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.
>
> "Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their
> land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and
> long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in
> this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to
> merchants of war."
> (...)
> ***
>
> He must have quite a following if he thinks he's in a position to act like a
> government, the insane 'head' of an imaginary nation.
You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
Would you call his "imaginary nation" a 'dirt pixie'? :-)
Abdiel
>
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:98Pzf.3995$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Abdiel wrote:
>> > Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> He's offering a 'truce'.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
>> >
>>
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if a little later in the day its reported
> this tape is unreliable.
>
> But then I wouldn't be surprised if it is found to be reliable.
You have a way of taking a great many words to say not very much. Re-
gardless, however, of your rhetorical style, what do you think now of
Ledeen's article in which Iranians he trusts tell him bin Laden's
snuffed it in Iran, where he's been since the Afghanistan invasion?
Do you find that trustworthy, Count 1? Or did you find that trust-
worthy merely because of your polemics?
I bet the latter. In fact, I'm virtually certain of it. That's what
polemics do to a guy.
--A
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m9Pzf.3998$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > He's offering a 'truce'.
> > >
> > > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
> killing
> > > thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> > > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
> rebuild
> > > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Kuff seems to consider this a legit offer, someone better get on the
> > hotline to the WH.
>
>
> Kuff is nuts.
>
And I was thinking if you wanted to invade Iran you'd be nuts not to
take him up on it. :-)
Mitch
wrote:
Parts of it sounded like talking points from the Democrat Party. Bush
is a liar, the polls, etc. For a second there I thought he was going
to comment on Diebold voting machines. I'd sure hate to read that and
then realize that I agree with a good chunk of it!
Count 1
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137689318.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > "Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:m9Pzf.3998$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > He's offering a 'truce'.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
> > killing
> > > > thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of
more
> > > > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
> > rebuild
> > > > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kuff seems to consider this a legit offer, someone better get on the
> > > hotline to the WH.
> >
> >
> > Kuff is nuts.
> >
>
> And I was thinking if you wanted to invade Iran you'd be nuts not to
> take him up on it. :-)
We'd be nuts to assume OBL offers us anything in good faith, hudnas are no
exception. But I am glad you're beginning to see the connective tissue
between Iran and AQ. Its been there for years, afterall.
The Chozen Few
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:__Ozf.400223$ki.138496@pd7tw2no...
> He's offering a 'truce'.
>
> Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by killing
> thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
> rebuild
> countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
>
> 'Moments of Zen' indeed.
Zen and the Art of Megalomania Maintenance.
Count 1
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > He's offering a 'truce'.
> >
> > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
killing
> > thousands of innocent civilians.
>
> Continues one actually.
Good point - he did make his original declaration in 1996. Now - almost ten
years later - he seems to be looking for an 'out'.
Or have you not been keeping up with how the
> Republicans are blaming it all on Clinton for not pursuing the 'war'
> more agressively?
>
> > Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
rebuild
> > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
>
> You still don't know, or deny, the true consistency of the insurgency
> in Iraq don't you?
I have forgotten more about it than you will ever know.
> > 'Moments of Zen' indeed.
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/19/terror/main1220208.shtml
> >
> > (...)
> > The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United
States
> > are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11,
2001
> > suicide hijackings. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations
> > that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.
> >
> > "Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on
their
> > land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and
> > long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no
shame in
> > this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to
> > merchants of war."
> > (...)
> > ***
> >
> > He must have quite a following if he thinks he's in a position to act
like a
> > government, the insane 'head' of an imaginary nation.
>
> You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
Funny - I don't remember anyone declaring war on OBL. And I certainly don't
remember anyone treating him as if he was the head of a government. We had
Mullah Omar for that.
> Would you call his "imaginary nation" a 'dirt pixie'? :-)
No - 'dirt pixie' - as has been shown to you on countless occassions - is
nothing more than your delusions. A nonsensical statement devoid of meaning.
I would call his imaginary nation "1man4all's worst nightmare".
Count 1
I like the way TCF put it..
"Let's see if I understand the terms of this "truce" correctly. The
terrorists stop trying to kill us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also stop
trying to kill Iraqis and Afghanis, and in return we stop trying to kill
them in those two countries while they continue to try to kill us in ours?"
What a **deal**!! :-)
Count 1
"The Chozen Few" <thecho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rHPzf.557$MJ.114@fed1read07...
>
> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:__Ozf.400223$ki.138496@pd7tw2no...
> > He's offering a 'truce'.
> >
> > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
killing
> > thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
> > rebuild
> > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
> >
> > 'Moments of Zen' indeed.
>
>
> Zen and the Art of Megalomania Maintenance.
Now that would be a good title for a book. Especially since I didn't learn a
damn thing about Motorcycle Maintenance from that other one.
lanman
wrote:
>
I guess one could say you're just not easily surprised. :-)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
The Chozen Few
"There's a bridge in Brooklyn I'll blow up after selling it to you." ;o)
The Chozen Few
Besides learning that the motorcycle I'm maintaining is actually myself, I
also learned how Important (as opposed to merely important) it is to change
the oil frequently.
DoD
"Mitch" <mi...@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:76hvs1lpgi6pp12ll...@4ax.com...
Maybe that is the way we can swiftly defeat the terrorists. Send them all of
our screeching liberal ding dongs.
The Chozen Few
Oops, I should've said *my* oil.
Count 1
Ohhhhh! It was a *metaphor*. How did I miss that the first time around?
;-)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Coming up on 3.
Count 1
"lanman" <xlan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:avtvs15iqa9t7b9df...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:32:17 GMT, "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:98Pzf.3995$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Abdiel wrote:
> >> > Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> He's offering a 'truce'.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
> >> >
> >> > --A
> >>
> >>
> >> It was reported he 'might' have snuffed it.
> >
> >I wouldn't be at all surprised if a little later in the day its reported
> >this tape is unreliable.
> >
> >But then I wouldn't be surprised if it is found to be reliable.
> >
>
> I guess one could say you're just not easily surprised. :-)
A central axiom is "Truth is stranger than fiction". As such I find very
little truly surprising.
Count 1
The 9/11 commission report (page 61) mentions that Iranian and AQ
cooperation goes back to 1992. So it looks like we're coming up on 14 years.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137689036.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > He's offering a 'truce'.
> > >
> > > Interesting logic he's employing here...first - he starts a war by
> killing
> > > thousands of innocent civilians.
> >
> > Continues one actually.
>
> Good point - he did make his original declaration in 1996. Now - almost ten
> years later - he seems to be looking for an 'out'.
>
> Or have you not been keeping up with how the
> > Republicans are blaming it all on Clinton for not pursuing the 'war'
> > more agressively?
> >
> > > Then, admist ongoing threats of more
> > > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
> rebuild
> > > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
> >
> > You still don't know, or deny, the true consistency of the insurgency
> > in Iraq don't you?
>
> I have forgotten more about it than you will ever know.
>
Alzheimer's is a tragic disease.
>
>
> > > 'Moments of Zen' indeed.
> > >
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/19/terror/main1220208.shtml
> > >
> > > (...)
> > > The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United
> States
> > > are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11,
> 2001
> > > suicide hijackings. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations
> > > that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.
> > >
> > > "Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on
> their
> > > land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and
> > > long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no
> shame in
> > > this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to
> > > merchants of war."
> > > (...)
> > > ***
> > >
> > > He must have quite a following if he thinks he's in a position to act
> like a
> > > government, the insane 'head' of an imaginary nation.
> >
> > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
>
> Funny - I don't remember anyone declaring war on OBL.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm
Congressional Record: September 14, 2001
...
AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE
FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
The text of H.J. Res. 64 is as follows: ...
- - - - - - - - - -
That pesky Alzheimer's again? :-)
Count 1
> > > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > > by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
> >
> > Funny - I don't remember anyone declaring war on OBL.
>
> http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm
> Congressional Record: September 14, 2001
> ...
> AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE
> FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
>
> The text of H.J. Res. 64 is as follows: ...
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> That pesky Alzheimer's again? :-)
Maybe, although I don't think I'm so far along as to forget who I've called
a 'freedom fighter' in the past. :-)
Anyway, the document you are holding up as evidence of a declaration of war
against OBL isn't a declaration of war and doesn't mention OBL.
Wanna try again?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Oh, "Iran". I thought you'd said "Iraq". Nevermind.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
So you agree the invasion of Afghanistan was an illegal action under
even US law?
> and doesn't mention OBL.
*boggle*
DoWs usually (never?) don't mention a person by name.
>
> Wanna try again?
Count 1
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137697274....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were
one
> > > > > by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Funny - I don't remember anyone declaring war on OBL.
> > >
> > > http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm
> > > Congressional Record: September 14, 2001
> > > ...
> > > AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE
RESPONSIBLE
> > > FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
> > >
> > > The text of H.J. Res. 64 is as follows: ...
> > >
> > > - - - - - - - - - -
> > >
> > > That pesky Alzheimer's again? :-)
> >
> > Maybe, although I don't think I'm so far along as to forget who I've
called
> > a 'freedom fighter' in the past. :-)
> >
> > Anyway, the document you are holding up as evidence of a declaration of
war
> > against OBL isn't a declaration of war
>
> So you agree the invasion of Afghanistan was an illegal action under
> even US law?
I see you're still having trouble with logical deductions. And recent
history.
> > and doesn't mention OBL.
>
> *boggle*
>
> DoWs usually (never?) don't mention a person by name.
Then why did you claim a war had been declared on him?
> > Wanna try again?
I didn't think so.
Count 1
LOLOL
Suuure kuff...considering you were the one who mentioned Iran as if it was
somehow relevant to OBL's hudna its highly unlikely you misread 'iran' as
'iraq'. <chortle>
Go play your games with an opponent a little less seasoned to your cheap
deflections.
Dr. GroundAxe
It's a classic. Change the parameters of the debate and plead ignorance.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Several actions have been undertaken by the US administration since 911
citing 'being at war' as justification. You are deny that
justification. Or rather you are saying this particular document
isn't a DoW. The question naturally follows then as to what document
do you consider a bona fide DoW such that the justifications cited are
not fictitious?
>
>
> > > and doesn't mention OBL.
> >
> > *boggle*
> >
> > DoWs usually (never?) don't mention a person by name.
>
> Then why did you claim a war had been declared on him?
>
Oh sorry. Let me reword that so it doesn't cause you as much angst.
"You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Well it's what happened whether you believe it or not. The "coming up
on 3" should have been a give away.
I thought you'd be thinking that being free of IRAQ would leave the US
better positioned to take on IRAN.
>
> Go play your games with an opponent a little less seasoned to your cheap
> deflections.
It was a misunderstanding but I do understand if you think it is all a
plot by the evil anti-Jooz.
Count 1
This document is exactly what it says it is. A resolution authorizing the
use of force against terrorists. Its not a declaratin of war against OBL,
much as you want to portray it as such.
Therefore it is quite nonsensical to think the US bestowed the title of
national leader on OBL because of this resolution.
> > > > and doesn't mention OBL.
> > >
> > > *boggle*
> > >
> > > DoWs usually (never?) don't mention a person by name.
> >
> > Then why did you claim a war had been declared on him?
> >
>
> Oh sorry. Let me reword that so it doesn't cause you as much angst.
>
> "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
You can re-word it as much as you like, you're still not making sense and
you're still not showing that the US considers OBL a national leader.
Count 1
14 years of collusion with Islamic terrorists may make it inevitable. Even
Chirac is talking nukes these days.
> > Go play your games with an opponent a little less seasoned to your cheap
> > deflections.
>
> It was a misunderstanding but I do understand if you think it is all a
> plot by the evil anti-Jooz.
Plot? Hardly - more like an emberrassing blunder you failed to make an
excuse for. However I am surprised to see you admit you are anti-jewish.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
"RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT [911] ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES"
> Its not a declaratin of war against OBL,
> much as you want to portray it as such.
And the terrorists' leader was?
(And are you now allowing that it is a de facto DoW?)
>
> Therefore it is quite nonsensical to think the US bestowed the title of
> national leader on OBL because of this resolution.
>
>
> > > > > and doesn't mention OBL.
> > > >
> > > > *boggle*
> > > >
> > > > DoWs usually (never?) don't mention a person by name.
> > >
> > > Then why did you claim a war had been declared on him?
> > >
> >
> > Oh sorry. Let me reword that so it doesn't cause you as much angst.
> >
> > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
>
> You can re-word it as much as you like, you're still not making sense and
> you're still not showing that the US considers OBL a national leader.
I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
national leader - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
though he were one. Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war" unecessarily
elevates the status of OBL.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
I saw that. Fascinating. He seems to be saying that he may now use
nukes for both military and civilian purposes.
Interesting times.
>
> > > Go play your games with an opponent a little less seasoned to your cheap
> > > deflections.
> >
> > It was a misunderstanding but I do understand if you think it is all a
> > plot by the evil anti-Jooz.
>
> Plot? Hardly - more like an emberrassing blunder you failed to make an
> excuse for. However I am surprised to see you admit you are anti-jewish.
You should be. :->
Count 1
> I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> national leader
Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
"You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one by
declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
- only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> though he were one.
Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything you've
raised doesn't support your argument.
Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war" unecessarily
> elevates the status of OBL.
Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
Count 1
> > > It was a misunderstanding but I do understand if you think it is all a
> > > plot by the evil anti-Jooz.
> >
> > Plot? Hardly - more like an emberrassing blunder you failed to make an
> > excuse for. However I am surprised to see you admit you are anti-jewish.
>
> You should be. :->
I'm not surprised you are anti-jewish. I'm surprised you're admitting to it.
Dr. GroundAxe
Have you ever seen Kuff and OBL in the same place at once?
Count 1
LOL
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> > I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> > national leader
>
> Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
> "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one by
> declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
Use the clarified version which you seemed to accept before but now see
fit to snip:
"You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
>
> - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> > though he were one.
>
> Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything you've
> raised doesn't support your argument.
See the clarified version.
>
>
> Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> > criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war" unecessarily
> > elevates the status of OBL.
>
> Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
That your way of agreeing with my statement without seeming to agree
with me?
Count 1
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > > I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> > > national leader
> >
> > Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
> > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
by
> > declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
>
> Use the clarified version
If you wish to change your comment (you've been doing a lot of that lately,
have you considered thinking before you type?) and have me reply to it then
you're going to have admit your original was flawed.
which you seemed to accept before but now see
> fit to snip:
>
> "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
>
> >
> > - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> > > though he were one.
> >
> > Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything
you've
> > raised doesn't support your argument.
>
> See the clarified version.
Still doesn't help. War wasn't declared on his country.
Why are you still so confused about these matters?
> > Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> > > criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war" unecessarily
> > > elevates the status of OBL.
> >
> > Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
>
> That your way of agreeing with my statement without seeming to agree
> with me?
No. Its a caveat to putting too much faith in anything you say. I think
OBL's status is significantly diminished by calling him a war monger rather
than a simple 'criminal'.
But I suppose to those who think Islamic terrorists are heroes and McVeigh
was a freedom fighter calling OBL a warmonger would give him a rise in
status. But then those types tend to be highly misanthropic.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
I'm surprised you think I am.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137705005.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> > > > national leader
> > >
> > > Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
> > > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> by
> > > declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
> >
> > Use the clarified version
>
> If you wish to change your comment (you've been doing a lot of that lately,
> have you considered thinking before you type?) and have me reply to it then
> you're going to have admit your original was flawed.
I'll change it (sometimes) when I realize you don't understand what I'm
saying.
It's odd you'd think an updated version didn't already imply the
previous version was flawed - either by the sender or the receiver.
>
>
> which you seemed to accept before but now see
> > fit to snip:
> >
> > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
> >
> > >
> > > - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> > > > though he were one.
> > >
> > > Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything
> you've
> > > raised doesn't support your argument.
> >
> > See the clarified version.
>
> Still doesn't help. War wasn't declared on his country.
'country' - in ' marks. Let me clarify the statement yet again since
you don't seem to get it.
You: He must have quite a following if he thinks he's in a position to
act like a government, the insane 'head' of an imaginary nation.
Me: You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were
one by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
Version 2: You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he
were one by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?
Version 3: You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he
were one by declaring 'war' on his imaginary nation, eh?
Now I can maybe clarify it even more for you by dropping the ' marks
around 'war'. You snipped this question away that could do that:
- - - - - - - - - -
> Its not a declaratin of war against OBL,
> much as you want to portray it as such.
And the terrorists' leader was?
(And are you now allowing that it is a de facto DoW?)
- - - - - - - - - -
The germane question from the two is: And are you now allowing that it
is a de facto DoW?
Here's the original message if you need help reconstructing the
context:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/550e86ae5a938d7c
> You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
>
> Why are you still so confused about these matters?
>
>
>
> > > Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> > > > criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war" unecessarily
> > > > elevates the status of OBL.
> > >
> > > Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
> >
> > That your way of agreeing with my statement without seeming to agree
> > with me?
>
> No. Its a caveat to putting too much faith in anything you say. I think
> OBL's status is significantly diminished by calling him a war monger rather
> than a simple 'criminal'.
>
> But I suppose to those who think Islamic terrorists are heroes and McVeigh
> was a freedom fighter calling OBL a warmonger would give him a rise in
> status. But then those types tend to be highly misanthropic.
'Warmonger' doesn't quite do it I don't think. We're surrounded by
warmongers. ("One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.") A
significant portion of the editorials posted here are of the warmonger
variety.
And declaring war on warmongers seems, well, self-defeating. :-)
NAH
>He's offering a 'truce'.
http://www.pickeringcreek.com/Prom.jpg
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
NAH
>Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> He's offering a 'truce'.
>>
>
>Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/TSAChrono/letscallitadraw.jpg
NAH
>> Have you ever seen Kuff and OBL in the same place at once?
>
>LOL
http://www.photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/235792.gif
NAH
>Kuff seems to consider this a legit offer, someone better get on the
>hotline to the WH.
http://www.visualops.com/images/bindropdead.jpg
Count 1
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1137705005.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> > > > > national leader
> > > >
> > > > Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
> > > > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were
one
> > by
> > > > declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
> > >
> > > Use the clarified version
> >
> > If you wish to change your comment (you've been doing a lot of that
lately,
> > have you considered thinking before you type?) and have me reply to it
then
> > you're going to have admit your original was flawed.
>
> I'll change it (sometimes) when I realize you don't understand what I'm
> saying.
From my pov, you'll change it when you realize its indefensible. And like I
said, its an increasingly common pattern with you lately.
> It's odd you'd think an updated version didn't already imply the
> previous version was flawed - either by the sender or the receiver.
What's really odd about my behaviour is I still assume you'll act honorably
in these threads; with the courage to admit your mistakes and apologize for
your unjustified insults.
Call me an optimist.
> > which you seemed to accept before but now see
> > > fit to snip:
> > >
> > > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > > by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> > > > > though he were one.
> > > >
> > > > Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything
> > you've
> > > > raised doesn't support your argument.
> > >
> > > See the clarified version.
> >
> > Still doesn't help. War wasn't declared on his country.
>
> 'country' - in ' marks. Let me clarify the statement yet again since
> you don't seem to get it.
> Version 3: You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he
> were one by declaring 'war' on his imaginary nation, eh?
> Now I can maybe clarify it even more for you by dropping the ' marks
> around 'war'. You snipped this question away that could do that:
OK - so you're saying your final question/comment is;
***
You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one by
declaring war on his imaginary nation, eh?
***
Is that right or are you going to change it again?
The flaw in your question is found in the premise, so it really doesn't
matter how many variants you wish to present. You can portray this as
something I don't understand if it gives you comfort, but if you're not
willing to understand the answer I've provided then I think we're done here.
One more time....No declaration has been made against him or any national
entity, either in reality or in his imagination, which lends itself to the
idea that the US has bestowed upon him the title of a national leader. The
rhetorical declaration of a war on terror doesn't 'treat him as though he
were one'. It is, in essence, simply empty rhetoric, a place holder to
describe various military actions against various targets, and I don't think
reasonable people, including muslims (and even OBL himself), see OBL as a
leader because of this rhetoric.
> - - - - - - - - - -
> > Its not a declaratin of war against OBL,
> > much as you want to portray it as such.
>
> And the terrorists' leader was?
>
> (And are you now allowing that it is a de facto DoW?)
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> The germane question from the two is: And are you now allowing that it
> is a de facto DoW?
I snipped it rather than answer "no". The only answer possible considering
its a nonsequitur.
> Here's the original message if you need help reconstructing the
> context:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/550e86ae5a938d7c
>
> > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
>
> >
> > Why are you still so confused about these matters?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> > > > > criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war"
unecessarily
> > > > > elevates the status of OBL.
> > > >
> > > > Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
> > >
> > > That your way of agreeing with my statement without seeming to agree
> > > with me?
> >
> > No. Its a caveat to putting too much faith in anything you say. I think
> > OBL's status is significantly diminished by calling him a war monger
rather
> > than a simple 'criminal'.
> >
> > But I suppose to those who think Islamic terrorists are heroes and
McVeigh
> > was a freedom fighter calling OBL a warmonger would give him a rise in
> > status. But then those types tend to be highly misanthropic.
>
> 'Warmonger' doesn't quite do it I don't think.
I suppose you'd choose 'hero'.
Dr. GroundAxe
I'm going to quote the great Courtney Love...'when they get what the
want they'll never want it again'.
Abdiel
> Abdiel wrote:
>> Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> He's offering a 'truce'.
>>>
>>
>> Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
>>
>
>
> It was reported he 'might' have snuffed it.
That's what Ledeen *should* have said (if anything at all), and
barring that, what Count 1 should have said to clarify that what
Ledeen was saying was, very probably (and indeed turned out to be)
complete and utter BS. What Ledeen actually said was that, accord-
ing to Iranians he trusts, OBL *was* dead and in Iran, where he'd been
since the Taliban's "ouster" from Afghanistan. To which I say: BS.
As I recall, I said that all along.
You should too, by the way. And so should Count 1.
--A
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137707641.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1137705005.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not saying the US necessarily considers OBL to be a (trans)
> > > > > > national leader
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually that's exactly what you were saying.
> > > > > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were
> one
> > > by
> > > > > declaring 'war' on him, eh?"
> > > >
> > > > Use the clarified version
> > >
> > > If you wish to change your comment (you've been doing a lot of that
> lately,
> > > have you considered thinking before you type?) and have me reply to it
> then
> > > you're going to have admit your original was flawed.
> >
> > I'll change it (sometimes) when I realize you don't understand what I'm
> > saying.
>
> From my pov, you'll change it when you realize its indefensible.
If it's not communicating then it needs to be changed.
> And like I
> said, its an increasingly common pattern with you lately.
Maybe I'm just putting in the extra effort to help you understand?
>
>
> > It's odd you'd think an updated version didn't already imply the
> > previous version was flawed - either by the sender or the receiver.
>
> What's really odd about my behaviour is I still assume you'll act honorably
> in these threads; with the courage to admit your mistakes and apologize for
> your unjustified insults.
>
> Call me an optimist.
Call me a "looks-like-you-over-engineered-the-glass"-ist. :-)
>
>
> > > which you seemed to accept before but now see
> > > > fit to snip:
> > > >
> > > > "You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > > > by declaring 'war' on his 'country', eh?"
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - only that it may have been a mistake to treat him as
> > > > > > though he were one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then maybe you should demonstrate how they have. So far everything
> > > you've
> > > > > raised doesn't support your argument.
> > > >
> > > > See the clarified version.
> > >
> > > Still doesn't help. War wasn't declared on his country.
> >
> > 'country' - in ' marks. Let me clarify the statement yet again since
> > you don't seem to get it.
>
> > Version 3: You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he
> > were one by declaring 'war' on his imaginary nation, eh?
>
> > Now I can maybe clarify it even more for you by dropping the ' marks
> > around 'war'. You snipped this question away that could do that:
>
> OK - so you're saying your final question/comment
For now.
> is;
> ***
> You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one by
> declaring war on his imaginary nation, eh?
> ***
>
> Is that right or are you going to change it again?
Gonna change it again. 'war' should be in ' marks until we can find
something which meets your criteria as a DoW and thereby renders legal
some of the activities pursued by the US since 911.
>
> The flaw in your question is found in the premise, so it really doesn't
> matter how many variants you wish to present. You can portray this as
> something I don't understand if it gives you comfort, but if you're not
> willing to understand the answer I've provided then I think we're done here.
The flaw would rest on whether or not he were being treated as a head
of state by declaring war on his imaginary nation. I say a DoW rather
than an arrest warrant has the effect of making him more than he should
be.
It doesn't give me comfort. The DoW was a mistake and I have said so
several times.
>
> One more time....No declaration has been made against him or any national
> entity,
Has a DoW been made? If so against what?
> either in reality or in his imagination, which lends itself to the
> idea that the US has bestowed upon him the title of a national leader.
One more time... I never said the US bestowed the title on him. I said
the US is "treating him as though he were one".
> The
> rhetorical declaration of a war on terror doesn't 'treat him as though he
> were one'.
The rhetorical device may or may not depending on what else is in the
rhetorical package. However the rhetorical device alone does not
provide legal justification for things done which require an actual,
non-rhetorical DoW.
> It is, in essence, simply empty rhetoric, a place holder to
> describe various military actions against various targets,
Some actions of which may be illegal without an actual, non-rhetorical
DoW.
> and I don't think
> reasonable people, including muslims (and even OBL himself), see OBL as a
> leader because of this rhetoric.
>
And I did not give you rhetoric. I gave you HR64 from 9/14/2001.
>
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > > Its not a declaratin of war against OBL,
> > > much as you want to portray it as such.
> >
> > And the terrorists' leader was?
> >
> > (And are you now allowing that it is a de facto DoW?)
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > The germane question from the two is: And are you now allowing that it
> > is a de facto DoW?
>
> I snipped it rather than answer "no". The only answer possible considering
> its a nonsequitur.
>
It is a non-sequitor if you are attempting to conflate it with a
rhetorical device. If you are seeking legal justification for acting
as though you are at war then it is very much a sequitor. It or
whatever substitute DoW you wish to point to.
>
> > Here's the original message if you need help reconstructing the
> > context:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/550e86ae5a938d7c
> >
> > > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one
> > > by declaring 'war' on him, eh?
> >
> > >
> > > Why are you still so confused about these matters?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Remember I have advocated treating 911 as a
> > > > > > criminal matter in part because treating it as a "war"
> unecessarily
> > > > > > elevates the status of OBL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your history of advocacy is as varied as it is inconsistent.
> > > >
> > > > That your way of agreeing with my statement without seeming to agree
> > > > with me?
> > >
> > > No. Its a caveat to putting too much faith in anything you say. I think
> > > OBL's status is significantly diminished by calling him a war monger
> rather
> > > than a simple 'criminal'.
> > >
> > > But I suppose to those who think Islamic terrorists are heroes and
> McVeigh
> > > was a freedom fighter calling OBL a warmonger would give him a rise in
> > > status. But then those types tend to be highly misanthropic.
> >
> > 'Warmonger' doesn't quite do it I don't think.
>
> I suppose you'd choose 'hero'.
I suppose you'd prefer not to selectively snip away the rest of my
comments as a rhetorical trick. Asshole.
Count 1
> > > 'Warmonger' doesn't quite do it I don't think.
> >
> > I suppose you'd choose 'hero'.
>
> I suppose you'd prefer not to selectively snip away the rest of my
> comments as a rhetorical trick. Asshole.
I snip to save time and space. If something makes no difference in my post,
it gets snipped. Your;
"We're surrounded by warmongers. ("One who advocates or attempts to stir up
war.") A significant portion of the editorials posted here are of the
warmonger variety.
And declaring war on warmongers seems, well, self-defeating. :-)"
..made no difference to my reply that you'd call OBL a 'hero' before you'd
call him a 'warmonger'. Not only that, but attempting to change the topic to
warmongers in this group was clearly another cheap deflection tactic.
lanman
wrote:
>Dr. GroundAxe <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Abdiel wrote:
>>> Count 1 <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> He's offering a 'truce'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
>>>
>>> --A
>>
>>
>> It was reported he 'might' have snuffed it.
>
>That's what Ledeen *should* have said (if anything at all), and
>barring that, what Count 1 should have said to clarify that what
>Ledeen was saying was, very probably (and indeed turned out to be)
>complete and utter BS. What Ledeen actually said was that, accord-
>ing to Iranians he trusts, OBL *was* dead and in Iran, where he'd been
>since the Taliban's "ouster" from Afghanistan. To which I say: BS.
>
I doubt anyone cares what you say or think.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Ha, ha, ha! Check it, dude. You're the one who brought up "war
monger" right here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/8b2066b75b12d16d
"I think OBL's status is significantly diminished by calling him a war
monger rather
than a simple 'criminal'."
You really are an asshole. (And I thought I was being mildly
abusive.)
Pathetic.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
The Bush administration today offered its fullest defense of the
National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that
congressional authorization to defeat Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11
attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in
authorizing the N.S.A. activities." ...
The defense comes at a critical time in the administration's effort to
quell the growing political uproar over the N.S.A. program. House
Democrats will be holding their first hearing Friday on the legality of
the program, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled another
hearing in two weeks. A number of legal analysts, meanwhile, including
those at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have
questioned the legality of the program in strong terms.
But the Bush administration appears undeterred by the criticism. In its
white paper, it turned time and again to the congressional
authorization of Sept. 14, 2001, even though the Congressional Research
Service study was particularly skeptical of this line of defense. ...
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> Count 1 wrote:
> > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1137707641.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
...
>
> > is;
> > ***
> > You might have been a bit hasty in treating him as though he were one by
> > declaring war on his imaginary nation, eh?
> > ***
> >
> > Is that right or are you going to change it again?
>
> Gonna change it again. 'war' should be in ' marks until we can find
> something which meets your criteria as a DoW and thereby renders legal
> some of the activities pursued by the US since 911.
I cited the 14 Sep resolution as you recall.
>
> >
...
Phaedrine
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19cndnsa.html?ei=5065&en=b0d0354073
> 974fe6&ex=1138338000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dxblu
>
> The Bush administration today offered its fullest defense of the
> National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that
> congressional authorization to defeat Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11
> attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in
> authorizing the N.S.A. activities." ...
>
> The defense comes at a critical time in the administration's effort to
> quell the growing political uproar over the N.S.A. program. House
> Democrats will be holding their first hearing Friday on the legality of
> the program, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled another
> hearing in two weeks. A number of legal analysts, meanwhile, including
> those at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have
> questioned the legality of the program in strong terms.
>
> But the Bush administration appears undeterred by the criticism. In its
> white paper, it turned time and again to the congressional
> authorization of Sept. 14, 2001, even though the Congressional Research
> Service study was particularly skeptical of this line of defense. ...
"Zenith of his powers", eh? What are we talking about here, Saruman
the White or the US president who serves at the pleasure of the people?
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
<http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
Phaedrine
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No one seems to wonder how the CIA verified the tape so quickly this
time.
The Chozen Few
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SkQzf.400467$ki.278573@pd7tw2no...
>
> "The Chozen Few" <thecho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_WPzf.559$MJ.444@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OPPzf.400371$ki.151662@pd7tw2no...
>> >
>> > "The Chozen Few" <thecho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:rHPzf.557$MJ.114@fed1read07...
>> >>
>> >> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:__Ozf.400223$ki.138496@pd7tw2no...
>> >> > He's offering a 'truce'.
>> >> >
>> > killing
>> >> > thousands of innocent civilians. Then, admist ongoing threats of
>> >> > more
>> >> > destruction which he promises, he offers a truce to his targets to
>> >> > rebuild
>> >> > countries ruined by fanatical followers of his ideology.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Zen and the Art of Megalomania Maintenance.
>> >
>> > Now that would be a good title for a book. Especially since I didn't
> learn
>> > a
>> > damn thing about Motorcycle Maintenance from that other one.
>>
>>
>> Besides learning that the motorcycle I'm maintaining is actually myself,
>> I
>> also learned how Important (as opposed to merely important) it is to
> change
>> the oil frequently.
>
> Ohhhhh! It was a *metaphor*. How did I miss that the first time around?
>
> ;-)
Maybe your metaplug gaps need to be reset? ;o)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Not yet. I gave it some thought. In ascending order of
probabilities.
1. OBL was killed Dec 2001. The CIA produced the tape.
2. OBL is in a safe house in Utah. The CIA produced the tape.
3. AQ asked CIA if it were okay to broadcast the tape after sending a
copy.
4. NSA sent CIA a copy seconds after broadcast time.
5. CIA has TiVo tuned to just AQ.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> Phaedrine wrote:
> > In article <1137727686.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > No one seems to wonder how the CIA verified the tape so quickly this
> > time.
>
> Not yet. I gave it some thought. In ascending order of
> probabilities.
>
> 1. OBL was killed Dec 2001. The CIA produced the tape.
> 2. OBL is in a safe house in Utah. The CIA produced the tape.
> 3. AQ asked CIA if it were okay to broadcast the tape after sending a
> copy.
> 4. NSA sent CIA a copy seconds after broadcast time.
> 5. CIA has TiVo tuned to just AQ.
>
Oops! Replace all occurances of "AQ" with "AJ" to read:
1. OBL was killed Dec 2001. The CIA produced the tape.
2. OBL is in a safe house in Utah. The CIA produced the tape.
3. AJ asked CIA if it were okay to broadcast the tape after sending a
copy.
4. NSA sent CIA a copy seconds after broadcast time.
5. CIA has TiVo tuned to just AJ.
...
Count 1
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137727686.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My goodness. What vitriol. I must have hit a nerve.
The subject change I was talking about was 'warmongers **in this group**',
not the warmonger OBL under discussion.
And I still don't see you denying that you would, in fact, call OBL a hero
before you'd call him a warmonger.
:-)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Nerve/neuron. Whole bunch of them.
>
> The subject change I was talking about was 'warmongers **in this group**',
> not the warmonger OBL under discussion.
Ah, a clarification. Gotcha.
Not sure "warmonger" was really under discussion though. You threw
that in from left field so to speak. Perhaps an obfuscation attempt.
My reference to warmongers in this group was part of the effort to
illuminate your warmonger contribution as bogus.
>
> And I still don't see you denying that you would, in fact, call OBL a hero
> before you'd call him a warmonger.
This has come up before. Put aside the applicability of the term
"warmonger" to this discussion, my take on OBL's hero status at that
time and at this one is he still has all of his arms, legs and eyes so
he couldn't have been out on the front lines very much. Probably not a
hero.
>
> :-)
Count 1
You should try to be less sensitive. Might help you cut back on the
unwarranted insults you've been hurling around lately.
> > The subject change I was talking about was 'warmongers **in this
group**',
> > not the warmonger OBL under discussion.
>
> Ah, a clarification. Gotcha.
>
> Not sure "warmonger" was really under discussion though. You threw
> that in from left field so to speak. Perhaps an obfuscation attempt.
> My reference to warmongers in this group was part of the effort to
> illuminate your warmonger contribution as bogus.
Yes Kuff, I 'got it' the first time. If you want to bring up a totally
different topic, start a thread.
> >
> > And I still don't see you denying that you would, in fact, call OBL a
hero
> > before you'd call him a warmonger.
>
> This has come up before. Put aside the applicability of the term
> "warmonger" to this discussion, my take on OBL's hero status at that
> time and at this one is he still has all of his arms, legs and eyes so
> he couldn't have been out on the front lines very much. Probably not a
> hero.
Well, we know the applicability of the word 'hero' is entirely subjective,
so I'm not surprised you've left open the possibility.
> > :-)
>
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Correct. (Without concuring in your judgement of warrantedness.)
>
> > > The subject change I was talking about was 'warmongers **in this
> group**',
> > > not the warmonger OBL under discussion.
> >
> > Ah, a clarification. Gotcha.
> >
> > Not sure "warmonger" was really under discussion though. You threw
> > that in from left field so to speak. Perhaps an obfuscation attempt.
> > My reference to warmongers in this group was part of the effort to
> > illuminate your warmonger contribution as bogus.
>
> Yes Kuff, I 'got it' the first time. If you want to bring up a totally
> different topic, start a thread.
>
That sword cuts both ways.
>
> > >
> > > And I still don't see you denying that you would, in fact, call OBL a
> hero
> > > before you'd call him a warmonger.
> >
> > This has come up before. Put aside the applicability of the term
> > "warmonger" to this discussion, my take on OBL's hero status at that
> > time and at this one is he still has all of his arms, legs and eyes so
> > he couldn't have been out on the front lines very much. Probably not a
> > hero.
>
> Well, we know the applicability of the word 'hero' is entirely subjective,
> so I'm not surprised you've left open the possibility.
It's as subjective as the dictionary definition. Maybe you meant to
say "conditional" on meeting that definition?
>
> > > :-)
> >
Abdiel
I liked the first version better. I laughed so hard my tinfoil hat fell
off.
--A
Phaedrine
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phaedrine wrote:
[...]
> > No one seems to wonder how the CIA verified the tape so quickly this
> > time.
>
> Not yet. I gave it some thought. In ascending order of
> probabilities.
>
> 1. OBL was killed Dec 2001. The CIA produced the tape.
> 2. OBL is in a safe house in Utah. The CIA produced the tape.
> 3. AQ asked CIA if it were okay to broadcast the tape after sending a
> copy.
> 4. NSA sent CIA a copy seconds after broadcast time.
> 5. CIA has TiVo tuned to just AQ.
LOL! I thought that might coax a few conspiratorial remarks from you.
:) And I'm in luck because, incredibly, this time I "get" them all.
In the past, it's taken weeks (maybe more) for the Administration to
admit a tape was the genuine article. So it does seem rather remarkable
that this one took only a day. Personally, I can just see Karl Rove
jump up from his desk like the Ghostbusters' secretary yelling, "We've
got one!"
I can only imagine the dismay of the people who've been running all
those new "get out and travel" ads on TV. The timing is..... well.....
let's just say I'm hard pressed to call this a coincidence. And
besides, it gives the Capitol Steps another opportunity to drag out
their memorable little ditty, "The sun'll come out, Osama!..."
Abdiel
You're rather selective about how you apply your principles, aren't you,
Count 1? If you recall, on 2005-12-20, you asked me:
"Don't you just hate it when people do that kind of selective snippage?
I know I do."
It's very apparent that you do, Count 1. It bothers you, unjustifiably so
if you ask me. But, it seems, you don't have any problem doing it
yourself. Rather hypocritical of you. In front of that, it'd be nice if
you'd at least have the courage to stop insulting our intelligence and be
honest about why you do it.
--A
Count 1
> > unwarranted insults you've been hurling around lately.
> >
>
> Correct. (Without concuring in your judgement of warrantedness.)
From; Jan 17, thread "Hitchens to sue Bush admin over surveillance abuses
(Re: Christopher Hitchens - On Why We Must Win"
***
C1
> > when you referred to McVeigh as a freedom fighter.
Kuff
> URL please - asshole.
Mr. Bob Cooper;
"Hmmm. Was McVeigh an insurgent, a rebel, a militant or a freedom fighter?
I can never keep them straight."
Kuff responds;
"Freedom fighter."
***
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Where's the rest? As I explained (at a posting URL I'm not going to
bother to look up), I choose it from the list provided. "Militant"
was a close second (as I mentioned in yet another posting URL).
Strictly speaking your statement should be "when you picked McVeigh as
a freedom fighter from the list of insurgent, rebel, militant, freedom
fighter."
But strict accuracy is not your aim (in this regard) is it?
You never answered, I don't believe, when I asked you which you would
pick from the list.
Bob Cooper
"Abdiel" <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fw8Af.293246$2k.122493@pd7tw1no...
Tinfoil hats have little blocking effect on Kuffian emanations. I use 1 inch
lead shielding :>)
Count 1
Strict accuracy is exactly my aim, this is why I'm cutting and pasting your
words verbatim. Picking the term from a list does not change the fact that
you referred to him as a freedom fighter. You could have (and often have in
the past) simply inserted your own term of reference, or picked a different
one.
You didn't - you chose 'freedom fighter' to describe who McVeigh was.
The insult 'asshole' indicates that you thought I was lying or making
something up and couldn't prove you had referred to Timothy McVeigh as a
freedom fighter.
And now that you are proven wrong you should retract and apologize for the
remark.
Its all there in black and white - your words - your post - no confusion.
> You never answered, I don't believe, when I asked you which you would
> pick from the list.
In a discussion of the FACT that you referred to McVeigh as a freedom
fighter my opinions of who McVeigh was are totally irrelevant.
What's relevant here is the fact that you referred to him as a freedom
fighter. Exactly like I said you did, and for which you called me an
asshole. But - as you know - I am not an asshole, I was merely reporting
the facts.
:-)
Bob Cooper
Just curious, but did the answer "none of the above" ever occur to you?
<snip>
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Where? Or are you saying that "picking from a list" is the same as
"referring"? If this is what you are saying then I'll accept your use
of the term "referred" as accurate. If this is not what you are
saying, "picking from a list" = "referring", then we have a ways to go
yet.
> You could have (and often have in
> the past) simply inserted your own term of reference, or picked a different
> one.
>
> You didn't - you chose 'freedom fighter' to describe who McVeigh was.
Correct. I chose it from the list provided. I could have added to
the list and picked that addition I suppose. Any addition would have
to be the same *kind* of thing though as the other members in the list.
What other term, do you suppose, could I have added to the list
"insurgent, rebel, militant, freedom fighter"? 'Guerilla' maybe? (I
wouldn't have picked 'guerilla' either so that would have been
pointless.)
>
> The insult 'asshole' indicates that you thought I was lying or making
> something up and couldn't prove you had referred to Timothy McVeigh as a
> freedom fighter.
>
> And now that you are proven wrong you should retract and apologize for the
> remark.
>
> Its all there in black and white - your words - your post - no confusion.
>
>
> > You never answered, I don't believe, when I asked you which you would
> > pick from the list.
>
> In a discussion of the FACT that you referred to McVeigh as a freedom
> fighter my opinions of who McVeigh was are totally irrelevant.
Humor me. From the list, what would you refer to McVeigh as?
Bob Cooper
How about, "murderer"?
<snip>
Count 1
I am saying you referred to Timothy McVeigh as a freedom fighter.
I am saying you used an unwarranted insult by calling me an asshole when in
fact I was dead right.
> > You could have (and often have in
> > the past) simply inserted your own term of reference, or picked a
different
> > one.
> >
> > You didn't - you chose 'freedom fighter' to describe who McVeigh was.
>
> Correct.
So what's your issue here?
I chose it from the list provided. I could have added to
> the list and picked that addition I suppose. Any addition would have
> to be the same *kind* of thing though as the other members in the list.
> What other term, do you suppose, could I have added to the list
> "insurgent, rebel, militant, freedom fighter"? 'Guerilla' maybe? (I
> wouldn't have picked 'guerilla' either so that would have been
> pointless.)
Yes, pointless describes a lot of your attempts to mitigate these facts.
> > The insult 'asshole' indicates that you thought I was lying or making
> > something up and couldn't prove you had referred to Timothy McVeigh as a
> > freedom fighter.
> >
> > And now that you are proven wrong you should retract and apologize for
the
> > remark.
> >
> > Its all there in black and white - your words - your post - no
confusion.
> >
> >
> > > You never answered, I don't believe, when I asked you which you would
> > > pick from the list.
> >
> > In a discussion of the FACT that you referred to McVeigh as a freedom
> > fighter my opinions of who McVeigh was are totally irrelevant.
>
> Humor me. From the list, what would you refer to McVeigh as?
I'd be more inclined to answer the question if you demonstrated through an
apology you admit you owe ("put it on my tab") the requisite maturity to
discuss the matter. :-)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
How about "son" or "veteran" or "nose picker"? Yes he was a murder
but that doesn't fit the list.
Hey.... Wait a minute.... It was your list!
>
>
> <snip>
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Yes.
>
> <snip>
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Do you also say, in the context of your statement, "picking from a
list" = "referring"?
>
> I am saying you used an unwarranted insult by calling me an asshole when in
> fact I was dead right.
"picking from a list" = "referring" ?
>
>
> > > You could have (and often have in
> > > the past) simply inserted your own term of reference, or picked a
> different
> > > one.
> > >
> > > You didn't - you chose 'freedom fighter' to describe who McVeigh was.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> So what's your issue here?
>
"picking from a list" = "referring" ?
Count 1
What possible difference does it make?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Accuracy.
Abdiel
Lead is less stylish, more heavy, and the invariable brain-damage it yields
tends to cramp my style. Unlike tinfoil, of course. But thanks for the
tip.
--A
Count 1
(...)
> > > > I am saying you referred to Timothy McVeigh as a freedom fighter.
> > >
> > > Do you also say, in the context of your statement, "picking from a
> > > list" = "referring"?
> >
> > What possible difference does it make?
>
> Accuracy.
Rrrright...'accuracy' is your concern. Uh-huh. Then you'll want to
immediately acknowledge that I was totally accurate in describing your
insult to me as 'unwarranted'.
But sure Kuff - whatever gets you where you need to be. In the context of my
statement and this discussion, "picking from a list" is the same as
"referring".
***
Kuff;
"Or are you saying that "picking from a list" is the same as"referring"?
If this is what you are saying then I'll accept your use of the term
"referred" as accurate."
***
Now would you like to move onto the apology you've acknowledged you owe me?
Or shall we just call it a day?
Abdiel
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:06:31 GMT, abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel)
> wrote:
>
>>Dr. GroundAxe <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Abdiel wrote:>>>> Didn't you say he was dead just a little while ago?
>>>>
>>>> --A
>>>
>>>
>>> It was reported he 'might' have snuffed it.
>>
>>That's what Ledeen *should* have said (if anything at all), and
>>barring that, what Count 1 should have said to clarify that what
>>Ledeen was saying was, very probably (and indeed turned out to be)
>>complete and utter BS. What Ledeen actually said was that, accord-
>>ing to Iranians he trusts, OBL *was* dead and in Iran, where he'd been
>>since the Taliban's "ouster" from Afghanistan. To which I say: BS.
>>
>
> I doubt anyone cares what you say or think.
Touchy touchy, aren't we?
You're probably right, however. With one notable exception: *you*
obviously care what I say and think. Which, of course, is utterly
meaningless.
"I hope the violence escalates"
--XPatriotgamesX, 2004-03-24
--A
kuff (Isaac Adams)
IFF "picking from a list" = "referring"
>
> But sure Kuff - whatever gets you where you need to be. In the context of my
> statement and this discussion, "picking from a list" is the same as
> "referring".
Thank you. Thank you.
"We always regret the loss of innocent life."
>
> ***
> Kuff;
> "Or are you saying that "picking from a list" is the same as"referring"?
> If this is what you are saying then I'll accept your use of the term
> "referred" as accurate."
> ***
>
> Now would you like to move onto the apology you've acknowledged you owe me?
> Or shall we just call it a day?
A day.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad (Abdul-Khinzeer al-Mushrik)
work, I wanted to make an admittedly irrelevant (and irreverant)
comment.
Abdiel wrote:
>
> what do you think now of Ledeen's article in which Iranians he trusts tell him bin Laden's
> snuffed it in Iran, where he's been since the Afghanistan invasion?
The closeness of "Ledeen" and "Laden" threw me off. When I first read
Abdiel's post, I misread it, and thought he was referring to Bin Laden
as "Ladeen". I was going to exclaim that it was a funny typo. Exempli
gratia: here is Bin Laden's name in Arabic:
http://oopi.us/gifs/usaama_bin_laaden.gif
However, if you insert a yaa inbetween the last two letters, you get
http://oopi.us/gifs/usaama_bin_LAA_DEEN.gif
He becomes Usaama Bin Laa Deen. Usaama (big cat?), son of no religion.
lanman
wrote:
LOL. You flatter yourself.
Which, of course, is utterly
>meaningless.
>
>"I hope the violence escalates"
> --XPatriotgamesX, 2004-03-24
>
The correct quote is:
"Fool, the US is already in the line of fire, and your terrorist
brothers are already trying to kill them. I hope the violence
escalates to the point where the US stops trying to act as police and
goes back into war mode."
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Bob Cooper
"lanman" <xlan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ac24t191uemj2uoqe...@4ax.com...
LOL. He's very fond of, uh..."creative editing" and selective quoting.
Welcome to the club.
But, don't worry. If you really meant you hope the violence escalates,
you have a powerful ally: :>)
"slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."
--God, c. 6?? AD
Count 1
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7trAf.9331$bF.620@dukeread07...
In all modesty I'd have to say the membership is excellent.
> But, don't worry. If you really meant you hope the violence escalates,
> you have a powerful ally: :>)
>
> "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
> besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."
> --God, c. 6?? AD
LOL.
>
>
Bob Cooper
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mIuAf.191324$tl.28142@pd7tw3no...
I think we all deserve Purple Hearts :>)
Abdiel
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:38:42 GMT, abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel)
> wrote:
>
>>lanman <xlan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:06:31 GMT, abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt anyone cares what you say or think.
>>
>>Touchy touchy, aren't we?
>>
>>You're probably right, however. With one notable exception: *you*
>>obviously care what I say and think.
>
> LOL. You flatter yourself.
>
I don't think I do--and it wouldn't be much in the way of flattery
at that. You certainly care enough to bother responding.
>
> Which, of course, is utterly
>>meaningless.
>>
>>"I hope the violence escalates"
>> --XPatriotgamesX, 2004-03-24
>>
>
> The correct quote is:
> "Fool, the US is already in the line of fire, and your terrorist
> brothers are already trying to kill them. I hope the violence
> escalates to the point where the US stops trying to act as police and
> goes back into war mode."
>
Which changes the fact that you hope[d] the violence escalates in
what way? Do you think your ill-thought words would be of any
comfort to a mother, Iraqi or American, who lost her son there? I
don't think they would, XPatriotgamesX. In fact, I'm virtually
certain they wouldn't: they're nothing but insipid chickenhawk
war-porn.
--A
Abdiel
Glad you seem to be enjoying yourself here, Bob! I really hope you
don't mind, because if you do, you should get on Mr. Count 1 as well,
because he's as "guilty" (if you could call it that) as anyone else.
You too, by the way, for your selective editing of Qu'ran. Have you
read it yet?
I do take issue, however, with your term "creative editing." I don't
actually create anything new. If you didn't actually believe, for
example, that it was commendable to strip a young boy in front of his
father, hose him down with cold water, smear him with mud, and leave him
outside in the elements, you wouldn't have said it. Unless, of course,
you were lying, which I don't think you were.
> But, don't worry. If you really meant you hope the violence escalates,
> you have a powerful ally: :>)
>
> "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
> besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."
> --God, c. 6?? AD
"And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad),
then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward
convey him to his place of safety."
--Allah (swt), less than one minute later.
--A
Abdiel
>> > LOL. He's very fond of, uh..."creative editing" and selective quoting.
>> > Welcome to the club.
>>
>> In all modesty I'd have to say the membership is excellent.
>
> I think we all deserve Purple Hearts :>)
>
Get a room, you two!
:)
--A
DoD
What if he doesn't want to hear Allahs words?
and afterward
> convey him to his place of safety."
> --Allah (swt), less than one minute later.
Seems kinda contradictory, to me, but don't fret, I acknowledge there are
contradictions in Christianity.
Bob Cooper
Not in my experience.
> You too, by the way, for your selective editing of Qu'ran. Have you
> read it yet?
Could be. Would you believe me if I said, "Yes?" I assure you, however,
I've *at least* read the part that appears below. It is one of the most
interesting parts, I think. Many would agree.
> I do take issue, however, with your term "creative editing." I don't
> actually create anything new. If you didn't actually believe, for
> example, that it was commendable to strip a young boy in front of his
> father, hose him down with cold water, smear him with mud, and leave him
> outside in the elements, you wouldn't have said it. Unless, of course,
> you were lying, which I don't think you were.
>
> > But, don't worry. If you really meant you hope the violence escalates,
> > you have a powerful ally: :>)
> >
> > "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
> > besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."
> > --God, c. 6?? AD
>
> "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad),
> then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward
> convey him to his place of safety."
> --Allah (swt), less than one minute later.
Immaterial. You see, I have adopted your position. If God didn't actually
believe that it was commendable to slay the idolaters wherever you find
them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them
in every ambush, he wouldn't have said it. Unless, of course, He was
lying. Do you think He was lying?
Bob Cooper
"DoD" <the...@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:7QSAf.166$a97...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> "Abdiel" <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nLRAf.425139$ki.93651@pd7tw2no...
> > Bob Cooper <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "lanman" <xlan...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ac24t191uemj2uoqe...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:38:42 GMT, abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel)
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
> > > besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."
> > > --God, c. 6?? AD
> >
> > "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad),
> > then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah,
>
> What if he doesn't want to hear Allahs words?
Then, he's dead meat. That, of course, is the catch :>)
NAH
>You too, by the way, for your selective editing of Qu'ran. Have you
>read it yet?
Osama read it and said it instructed him to subjugate the world by forced
conversion or murder. Others agree with him. How many others? Billions?
Islam, in its present form, must be utterly destroyed.
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
Abdiel
It doesn't matter.
> and afterward
>> convey him to his place of safety."
>> --Allah (swt), less than one minute later.
>
> Seems kinda contradictory, to me, but don't fret, I acknowledge there are
> contradictions in Christianity.
>
It's not contradictory at all. It establishes limits that, should
one exceed them, define transgressions. That's the practicality of
Islam: while recognising that conflict is a facet of the human experience,
given the inequality and injustice that has always figured prominently
in our troubled history, and while establishing the right of the Muslims
to defend themselves and their beliefs in the face of intolerance and
injustice (the passages above were in regard to the fight between
Meccan idolaters and the Muslims, against which Muhammad (pbuh) had
negotiated a truce, and the acknowledgement that following the truce,
open warfare would inevitably resume unless the idolaters were prepared
to accept even the existence of the Muslims, which history demonstrated
they were not), the Qu'ran also establishes the limits of that fight.
--A