Terror......

Now this is an interesting comment. I do believe that Bush's administration should be changed but, not only was he legally elected once, but twice. So the method of election in the US must be changed, in some way, and that is up to the Americans. Every nation has the government that it deserves.

The part that interests me, though, is that after the Northern Ireland troubles the UK and Ulster have both Gerry Adams and McGuinness in positions of government. If they are not the biggest pair of living terrorists and murderers unhung, I don't know who are.

So who is calling the kettle black, here?

Split

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were terrorists. they committed high treason against the Crown, and fought against the rule of british law.
They are heroes now because america now have the biggest guns.
go figure.

recent declassification of UK documents showed britain was willing to blow up dams and flood Egypt and cause "indiscriminate mass slaughter" - was Anthony Eden a potential terrorist? (he was in charge of the military, so had access to "dynamite")
go figure.

oh, you forgot to mention Yasser Arafat. didnt he get a Nobel Peace Prize?

EDIT: Egypt in context of "Suez crisis"
 
Now this is an interesting comment. I do believe that Bush's administration should be changed but, not only was he legally elected once, but twice. So the method of election in the US must be changed, in some way, and that is up to the Americans. Every nation has the government that it deserves.

Split
Josef Stalin -
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html
 
Don't forget the Stern Gang, either. But I am talking about those in government in one's own country and we have a good example of that in today's UK government. The British have allowed that to happen in their own country.

God forbid that Spain allows ETA terrorists into its own government but I am old enough to know that it could well happen. That is not to say that we have to stand by and condone it, though.

Split
 
A "must read"..........

If you want to see an example of how badly "terrorism laws" and the police enforcing them can behave, look no further than the case of Dr Haneef arrested on the Gold Coast in Australia in connection with the recent attempted car bombings in the UK. It would be laughable if the implications were not so serious.

Dr Haneef was charged with recklessly providing a SIM card to a terrorist organization. At the bail hearing before a magistrate, the police stated that the SIM card was found in one of the car bombs. Evidently the magistrate was not at all convinced that he was a danger to anybody and granted bail.

Subseqently it transpires that the SIM card was not in one of the car bombs but in the possesion of one of those arrested in Liverpool. How could the police not be aware of this ? We're not talking PC Plod here getting around on a bicycle. There must have been scores of them working on the case.

Anyway, not to be deterred by the rule of law, the federal immigration minister takes away his visa so he will be locked up in an immigration detention centre. Rather than this, he elects not to post bail and in now held on remand.

It gets better though. The Sunday papers (all the Murdoch papers) run front page headlines about how police found pictures of the Q1 tower on the Gold Coast - claimed to be the worlds highest residential building - and suspect him of plotting to blow it up. One even published a picture of the WTC towers on 9/11. Never mind the fact that probably millions of tourists a year snap the Q1 tower.

The outrage is so great that the Federal police commissioner is forced to deny that there is any suspicion of a plot to blow up anything.

But it gets better still. When questioned by police as to why he had the names and phone numbers of "known terrorists" in his diary he denies all knowledge. It turns out that the police themselves wrote them in the diary. I find this incredible - talk about compromising evidence.

All this is a little lesson in what happens when hysteria takes over and certain politicians and the gutter press seek to fan the flames.
Thanks dcraig1
 
Now that the Iraqi Doctor has been released without charge would you say:

1. The Iraqi doctor terrorised the Australian people?
2. The Australian government terrorised the Iraqi doctor?

I'm still not clear as to what his connection to the UK terrorists were?

Perhaps all Iraqi Doctors should be gathered up and dealt with according to the prescriptions subscribed to on these threads by my right honourable trading friends... :cheesy:
 
Last edited:
Now that the Iraqi Doctor has been released without charge would you say:

1. The Iraqi doctor terrorised the Australian people?
2. The Australian government terrorised the Iraqi doctor?

I'm still not clear as to what his connection to the UK terrorists were?

Perhaps all Iraqi Doctors should be gathered up and dealt with according to the prescriptions subscribed to on these threads by my right honourable trading friends... :cheesy:

He is Indian - not Iraqi.

His second cousin was one of those arrested in the UK, though I'm not sure that he has been charged as yet. When he left the UK, I think he left his SIM card with him - as many people do when they leave the UK as a favour to friends or relatives.

Maybe Dr Haneef sympathises with the bombers, maybe he doesn't. I don't know. It does seem pretty unlikely that he was in any way actively involved in the attempted bombings. In any case, it seems there is no evidence of wrong doing and that should be the only thing that counts under the rule of law.

Australia, like the UK, is heavily dependant on foreign doctors. It is important that they are not driven away by perception of injustice that may have a racist tint to it. As the Americans love to say, that would really put lives at risk - and a lot more lives than under threat from some remarkably incompetant car bombers. International perception is important and these boofheads in the Australian Federal Police, the public prosecutor and the government egging them on have done Australia a disservice.

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/28/1990751.htm
 
Last edited:
He is Indian - not Iraqi.

His second cousin was one of those arrested in the UK, though I'm not sure that he has been charged as yet. When he left the UK, I think he left his SIM card with him - as many people do when they leave the UK as a favour to friends or relatives.

Maybe Dr Haneef sympathises with the bombers, maybe he doesn't. I don't know. It does seem pretty unlikely that he was in any way actively involved in the attempted bombings. In any case, it seems there is no evidence of wrong doing and that should be the only thing that counts under the rule of law.

Australia, like the UK, is heavily dependant on foreign doctors. It is important that they are not driven away by perception of injustice that may have a racist tint to it. As the Americans love to say, that would really put lives at risk - and a lot more lives than under threat from some remarkably incompetant car bombers. International perception is important and these boofheads in the Australian Federal Police, the public prosecutor and the government egging them on have done Australia a disservice.

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/28/1990751.htm

why should having a family connection mean that the doctor concerned has "sympathies"?
does that mean relatives of Dr Shipman have "sympathies" for murder?
does that mean the relatives of Ian Huntley are sympathetic to killing children?
for no other reason than being related?

you are introducing nuances, and inferences that do not exist, re: "sympathies", and undermining the fact that this guy has no connection supported by (un-fabricated) evidence.

EDIT: whats really interesting is the shift from "drop-outs" and "losers" and creating an atmosphere that middle-class, educated people are the "threat" - isnt that interesting?
doctors!
we have already had the phrase "asylum" hijacked, from being a means of escaping tyranny and a place of safety, and now associated with "scroungers" and "foreigners". (the constant use of asylum-seekers instead of economic-migrants, leading to a failure to distinguish the loss of the right to escape tyranny)

we are now getting an attempt to connect doctors, always associated with life and compassion, with death and terror. and always, failing to distinguish the absolute minority from the majority.
 
Last edited:
why should having a family connection mean that the doctor concerned has "sympathies"?
does that mean relatives of Dr Shipman have "sympathies" for murder?
does that mean the relatives of Ian Huntley are sympathetic to killing children?
for no other reason than being related?

you are introducing nuances, and inferences that do not exist, re: "sympathies", and undermining the fact that this guy has no connection supported by (un-fabricated) evidence.

EDIT: whats really interesting is the shift from "drop-outs" and "losers" and creating an atmosphere that middle-class, educated people are the "threat" - isnt that interesting?
doctors!
we have already had the phrase "asylum" hijacked, from being a means of escaping tyranny and a place of safety, and now associated with "scroungers" and "foreigners". (the constant use of asylum-seekers instead of economic-migrants, leading to a failure to distinguish the loss of the right to escape tyranny)

we are now getting an attempt to connect foreign doctors, always associated with life and compassion, with death and terror. and always, failing to distinguish the absolute minority from the majority.

Huh. I'm trying to deal with reality. It would hardly be surprising if some Muslims do have a certain sympathy with bombings considering the way the West is jackbooting its way across the middle east. The solution to this problem is for the West to stop jackbooting it's way across the Middle East. It's that simple.

As for nuances, there will be whole spectrum of opinion amongst Muslims ranging from "it serves you right" to unconditional condemnation of terrorist acts. It is not just a question of a few "bad eggs". The Howards, Blairs and Bushes have created the international political environment where bombings will occur. They are just as guilty - in fact worse. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and it ain't over yet.
 
As for nuances, there will be whole spectrum of opinion amongst Muslims ranging from "it serves you right" to unconditional condemnation of terrorist acts. It is not just a question of a few "bad eggs". The Howards, Blairs and Bushes have created the international political environment where bombings will occur. They are just as guilty - in fact worse. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and it ain't over yet.

good post. it is funny how many people forget that fights, conflicts, etc. always have 2 sides of the story where both sides have responsibility, by definition.
 
Trendie,

“whats really interesting is the shift from "drop-outs" and "losers" and creating an atmosphere that middle-class, educated people are the "threat" - isnt that interesting?”

I don’t understand this angle. Success of military or terrorist campaigns depends on planning, strategies and tactics (and logistics). This is dependant on educated/intellectual/intelligent leaders, not the capabilities of your average car bomber/cannon fodder. Flying civil jets is not a skill for survival in a fishing village.

Regarding questions of justice and police practise, as long as there is political pressure then corners will be cut. For example, the conviction of the Libyan bomber rested mainly on the identification of a fragment of circuit board found in a forest twenty miles away from the explosion. That is stretching credibility.

Similarly, the conviction of Jill Dando’s killer – a tiny fragment of gun-powder (?) in his pocket (he had weapons training in the TA) and a massive amount of circumstantial evidence. Unless additional evidence is presented, I hope he’s successful in his re-trial.

Grant.
 
Last edited:
Huh. I'm trying to deal with reality. It would hardly be surprising if some Muslims do have a certain sympathy with bombings considering the way the West is jackbooting its way across the middle east. The solution to this problem is for the West to stop jackbooting it's way across the Middle East. It's that simple.

As for nuances, there will be whole spectrum of opinion amongst Muslims ranging from "it serves you right" to unconditional condemnation of terrorist acts. It is not just a question of a few "bad eggs". The Howards, Blairs and Bushes have created the international political environment where bombings will occur. They are just as guilty - in fact worse. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and it ain't over yet.

Its a fact that it ain't over, yet, but I don't put the blame fairly asnd squarely on present day politicians. Arab/Western antagonism goes back much further than that, certainly to the beginnings of the Israeli State. The British gave up Palestine after WWII, probably pressurised by the US, but I believe that what Whitehall thought of the ME is expressed in the way that they drew the straight line frontiers at the end of WWI

In any case, until that dispute is settled, anything that has happened, and will happen, has its roots in Palestine. It is only the Russian threat, which appears to have ceased, that the Muslim question has been kept at bay as long as it has.

Make no bones about it, Pakistan is, and Iran is about to become, a nuclear power. Whoever replaces Bush, Blair and whoever, will not be popular unless he deals firmly with potential problems in the Islamic world. We don't like what has developed since the invasion of Iraq but only because it has not worked out as we wanted. If the war had been won and the troops were back home after a few months then Iraq would be history and Bush and Blair heroes. I do not agree that they "created" the present day atmosphere but, until Bush has gone, his administration is a convenient scapegoat for Americans to have. What they do, after he has gone, will be another matter.

Split
 
Its a fact that it ain't over, yet, but I don't put the blame fairly asnd squarely on present day politicians. Arab/Western antagonism goes back much further than that, certainly to the beginnings of the Israeli State. The British gave up Palestine after WWII, probably pressurised by the US, but I believe that what Whitehall thought of the ME is expressed in the way that they drew the straight line frontiers at the end of WWI

In any case, until that dispute is settled, anything that has happened, and will happen, has its roots in Palestine. It is only the Russian threat, which appears to have ceased, that the Muslim question has been kept at bay as long as it has.

Make no bones about it, Pakistan is, and Iran is about to become, a nuclear power. Whoever replaces Bush, Blair and whoever, will not be popular unless he deals firmly with potential problems in the Islamic world. We don't like what has developed since the invasion of Iraq but only because it has not worked out as we wanted. If the war had been won and the troops were back home after a few months then Iraq would be history and Bush and Blair heroes. I do not agree that they "created" the present day atmosphere but, until Bush has gone, his administration is a convenient scapegoat for Americans to have. What they do, after he has gone, will be another matter.

Split


Let bygones be bygones but if Bush and Blair are not to be blamed then who is accountable for the war and loss of 600,000 life, 2m + refugees and the wholesome destruction of Iraq?

I would be very interested to know who you blame or hold accountable?


Your second assertion that roots of what has happened and what will happen lays in Palestine is also a lot of tosh imo. As part of the industrial revolution the car was invented and oil discovered in the deserts. Oil being a major source of energy was key. And so the deserts were taken away from the Ottomans as the Arabs who lived in peace for over 600 years under the umbrella of the Ottoman empire was led to revolt under some good guidance from the Lawrence of Arabia.

However, plans seldom go according to plan and we lost out to the ever growing US strength and they have ended up with the ME and control of artificially created borders and kingdoms called the ME. UK got a kick in the teeth from the Arabs for creating their states torn from the Ottomans... Call it what you will US has had it's way. This happened towards the end of WWI.

Dealing with potential problems in the Islamic world is sort of an us or them outlook. This kind of thought is very very dangerous imo. Religeon has nothing to do with it. US and UK are in Iraq not the other way round. How can you say it's an Islamic World problem when we invade them. When you use us and them and Islamic World reference you are taking the whole show back to the crusades. Spitlink my friend you need to modernise and bring your ideas up to the 21st century. Whilst some religoeus fundamentalists may perceive it this way (and this applies to Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews and Muslims) these people are very much in the minority.

Problem is purely oil and resources. Nothing else. Through out the centuries Christians fought Roman Catholics (WWI & WW2 & all the other wars in Europe and elsewhere). Jews were mostly prosecuted by Christians and in the 16th century the Ottomans gave protection to the Jews when they were being butchered in Spain and badly treated in Italy. Only in the last 50 years has there been a Muslim Jewish problem. Even then I would argue it's a creation of the UK who had a problem with what to do with the Jews who were killed by the Germans (Catholics & Christian) with ferocity never seen before.
The UK got a kick in the teeth from the Arabs after we helped them against the Ottomans and so we left something behind you might say. Also, I would argue how much the US would protect the Israel if oil ran out in the desert and the region had no further economic interest or resources or water come to that.

Regarding your last statement IF etc... If you seriously believe Russia and China will leave the Worlds last 30 years oil reserves to the US without some fight you are not being realistic.

IMO
Identify the cause - oil, gas - energy
Identify the players - US, Russia, China (and India sooner or later)
Iran Iraq Palestine Israel - they are merely peons - proxy wars...
Religeon is only a tool to use in manipulating people.
 
Last edited:
IMO
Identify the cause - oil, gas - energy
Identify the players - US, Russia, China (and India sooner or later)
Iran Iraq Palestine Israel - they are merely peons - proxy wars...
Religeon is only a tool to use in manipulating people.

The cause is Israel/Palestine- The main trouble spots in the ME are not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Quatar and the other main Arab oil producing states. The trouble spots are Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. and now, Iraq. In today's world, what oil is left will be sold on the commodity markets at the going price A fat lot of good Iraqi oil is going to be until they can export it. That is not going to be any time, soon. The rest of what you say about the division of countries after WWI is, more or less a repeat of what I said.

Religion is only a tool, etc. I agree with that 100 per cent. But it is an important tool, nevertheless, and cannot be discounted, especially when it is being used by important, Muslim nations such as Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia.

What my main objection to the tone of these arguments is that no one wants to share the blame for what is happening. It is all Bush's fault. It is all Blair's fault. What a lot of crap. At least, in Spain, Aznar lost the election to a government that pulled out of Iraq within weeks, so it is no good saying that the American and British could not have done the same. It is like saying that we are completely stupid in the election of our leaders and, please,remember that Bush is in his second term of office, while Blair has resigned after ten years in office.

Split
 
The cause is Israel/Palestine- The main trouble spots in the ME are not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Quatar and the other main Arab oil producing states. The trouble spots are Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. and now, Iraq. In today's world, what oil is left will be sold on the commodity markets at the going price A fat lot of good Iraqi oil is going to be until they can export it. That is not going to be any time, soon. The rest of what you say about the division of countries after WWI is, more or less a repeat of what I said.

Religion is only a tool, etc. I agree with that 100 per cent. But it is an important tool, nevertheless, and cannot be discounted, especially when it is being used by important, Muslim nations such as Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia.

What my main objection to the tone of these arguments is that no one wants to share the blame for what is happening. It is all Bush's fault. It is all Blair's fault. What a lot of crap. At least, in Spain, Aznar lost the election to a government that pulled out of Iraq within weeks, so it is no good saying that the American and British could not have done the same. It is like saying that we are completely stupid in the election of our leaders and, please,remember that Bush is in his second term of office, while Blair has resigned after ten years in office.

Split

No the cause is not Israel & Palestine. That is a trouble spot yes but that is not the cause for the current wars or mess in the ME!

1. How did Israel & Palestine cause the war between Iran and Iraq?
2. How did Israel & Palestine cause the war between Iraq and Kuwait?

Israel and Palestine are very small countries used as peons in winning the hearts and minds of people. They are definately not the cause.


1. Iranians got sick and tired with the late Shah of Iran and had a revolution. Nuclear weapons were recommended to the Shah of Iran by the US. That's when their Nuclear program started. So what you see is continuation of that work.

In return for the US embarrassment, US cosied up to Saddam and got it to launch an attack on Iran. The late Shah of Iran exploited the Kurds to attack Iraqi interests in border disputes. US used this fact and tooled up Saddam to hit back and so the 9 year war or something was launched with US encouragement – Hit Iran whilst it was in post revolution turmoil and claim back land for Iraq. Call it what you will. Some would also add that the US encouraged the Shah of Iran to use the Kurds againts Saddam, so it could expand it's territories. This is disputed. However, not an unreasonable point as US often plays off countries against each other. You only have to look Latin America and Asia.

2. Much later on, having encouraged Saddam to get even with Iran after the revolution, Saddam found out US was giving arms and weapons to Iran (as well as supplying Iraq with arms and sattelite intelligence on Iranian movements - also do you remember Colonel North and Reagan fiasco. With the money from Iranian arms sales they supported the Nicaragua contra rebels and drug trafficers to overthrow the elected socialist Sandinista government in Latin America. You tell me the morality of this act. So who do you blame? You hold the view Israel and Palestine is the cause? Anyway, Raegan and Colonel North both took the 5th Amendment and nothing came of this immoral **** stirring and the episode is consigned to dust. BUT by then a very big change occurred. That is when Saddam turned and became an enemy of the US. Does anybody question why or how Saddam a US strong ally became an enemy?

Also bear in mind Iranian and Iraqi war was a stalemate after Saddam was supplied with chemical weapons as the US could not have the Iranians win. 1 million + Iranians died in that war. This is what you call a proxy war. Who do you hold accountable for these deaths. Saddam the agressor perhaps the US strong ally? I hope you don't mention Israel and Paletine. Read “Against All Enemies – Inside America’s War on Terror by Richard A Clark” This man was the national security adviser to three presidents including Bush Jnr., before he resigned. One can only take so much abuse eh?

Saddam having shed it's US luggage, then attacked Kuwait. (Israel and Palestine had nothing to do with this either). With Saudi Arabian and Kuwait money, the US fought the first gulf war.

The second gulf war in the ME, is all about over throwing Saddam because a large number of ME countries like Iran, Iraq and a number of others now no longer wish to sell or trade oil in dollars, but in Euros.

At the moment this is US worst night mare coupled with sinking dollar.

Think of the master stroke plan to take Iraqi oil and install US puppet government. Start selling Iraqi oil for US dollars - claim worlds remaining 50% oil for your self and you get to keep 70% of those proceeds. Teach Iran a lesson by getting Iraq to attack it, have another revolution, get rid of the mullahs and install a similar US friendly regime similar to the one with the late Shah of Iran. There is no problem with the countries you mention like the Saudi Arabia because it tows the US line. Watch what it happens if it steps outside. Also, other than Saudi Arabia remaining oil is in Iraq and Iran - 50 - 70% on experts accounts.

So when you talk about dealing with the problems in the Islamic World you have got your facts totally wrong. That's what the media and propoganda machine in elite government circles portray. That's all bull. It's purely oil and US interests mate. They and you can call it problems in the Islamic World and portray it as Islamic terrorism as much as you like. Only the people who don't care in the US and UK will buy it. As long as we are untouched and well off we get to live our lives and peace and comfort whilst causing death and destruction elsewhere it's cool. Rest of the world is wise to the strategic developments.

None of the above has anything to do with Israel and Palestine. This is like a little side show with little or no consequence irrespective of the suffering of all people in the region inclusive of Muslims, Jews and Christians. Religeon is merely a tool and I’m no Marxist.

Nobody believes Iran will launch nukes on Israel - not even Israelli intelligence. If one thinks about it - they would kill all the Leaboneese, Palestinians Jordanians and Egyptions in the process. This is rubbish fed out by the media to the masses. Nukes are defensive deterrent weapons not offensive. Does anybody seriously believe Iran thinks it can use it's nukes and survive to tell the tale? In return it will be wiped off the map.

Developments in Dubai is to setup a petrol borse there to trade petrol in Euros. It aims to become a financial hub to the new world order (no conspiracy pun intended) of the BRIC countries. There lies the real threat to our world order and financial markets.

Iran Pakistan and Indonesia are not important muslim nations. They are simply nations. Why make the Christian, Catholic or Muslim or Jewish nation distinction. When you talk in such fashion you are missing the point and stirring up the very fact the religeous gits want you to do.

The blame lies squarely with the US foreign policy IMHO. When you talk about sharing blame you are way off the mark.

US made Osama bin-Laden just as it made Saddam, just as it made the Shah of Iran, just as it made Noriega of Nicaragua. Think about it some more. Why would strong old allies of the US turn against the US? What do they have to gain or what do they have to lose? At the moment US is about to lose another one of it’s strong allies, Turkey. US doesn’t like the gas deal signed with Iran. (Currently Iranians have signed up some big gas supply deals with Turkey to supply gas to Europe, thus undermining Russian influence in Europe. Gas will be exported via Turkey and Greece to Italy and then to rest of Europe. Pure economic business. Resources and money.) It was pissed off because Turkish parliament voted against the war. At least against it without UN approval. Not only that, US arms and technology have ended up in Kurdish terrorists hands. It will not be long when Israel’s usefulness runs out along with oil in 30 years time and they too will be discarded. When the UK fought Argentina we received little help from the US. US wanted to be seen as impartial so as not to compromise its interests in Latin America.

Yes we are completely stupid by electioneering as we get lied to by politicians. Boris sold the Russian jewels at a penny. Putin is working for Russia and it's people but to us he is made out to be some deamon. The Russian people love him. Ask any Russian or non Western person. We harbour all Russian enemies and support them to undermine a stronger Russia. The very people who stole billions in Russia are in the UK. Same goes for China. The number of times I hear Tianomon Square being mentioned and Chinas human rights. Does anybody seriously think a bunch of revolutionary students could manage China? 60+ students dead and what an out cry. US killed and abused more of it’s own citizens in the trade unions back in the 30s. Beaten to a pulp. US human rights record is in front of the whole globe to see. Look at Iraq. Who is to blame for it all. Not one terrorist brought up before the courts. Why not? Al-Qaeda mentioned a zillion times. Where are these foreign fighters in Iraq? Does anybody see or hear a foreigner brought up for trial in Iraq. US just keeps blaming Iran. How effing smart is that. It travels 000's of miles to interfere in countless countries internal affairs and democracy and tells a neighbouring country not to interfere.

You don't blame US or UK but you like shared blame to me metted out. Incredible. Your handle on the situation is way of the mark IMHO.

You talk about Islamic World problem. I am talking about a global problem in that any one country invested with super power status is bad for the world. We need to have a balance. I blame the US foreign policy.

Do you buy all that crap about they don't like our freedom, democracy and civilised way of life?

So if you still hold the opinion the next US and UK leaders will still have to solve the problems in the Islamic World, I would say yes by pulling our troops out and undoing our **** policies of the last century. Moving away from oil and spending money on R&D and new energy sources is the way forward.

If people out there still feel we are part of the solution and helping with the problems in the Islamic World, then there are some very deceived bodies out there... :cry:

We (US & UK in the ME) are the problem:!:
 
Last edited:

Good post fibonelli. Also reminds me of Die Hard 1 and the failed attempt with the World Trade Centre. So when Ms Rice says no body could have foreseen this attack re: 9/11 - for all of US intelligence supremecy it leaves a lot to be desired. Wonder whether any of those guys heard of Hollywood? :rolleyes:

Like a bad fart. You can keep it quite but you can't get rid of the smell.

The stinky facts will ooze out into the open.
 
Hi Atilla,

A great post. I think that you deserve to win the argument because of the time and thought put into it. I can't argue with your points 1 and 2 and concede defeat!

The problem is what to do today. Leave Iraq the way it is and get out?

Regards Split
 
Top