BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
Rata Rioja wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:42:11 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:

Yes. Remind us of that the next time an Adolf Hitler starts to take
over
Europe......

We would have srted it out ourselves.

right.
surely you jest.

france was gone.
poland was gone.
holland was gone.
belgium was gone.
italy was gone.
north africa was gone.

england was fast disappearing.

who was going to take care of adolf again?


Unfortunately, he isn't, "jesting". He really believes that crap. Either
that, or he is grasping at straws in order to back up his faulty arguments.

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:23:30 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Gary P" askme@newsgroup wrote in message
...
How many Iraqi terrorist have attacked the US William, compared with
say,
Saudis?

Difficult to say....Before 9/11? After 9/11? In the last 20 years? Truth
of
the matter is, we don't know, because we don't always catch them,

Of course an ignorant person like you wouldn't know that the 9/11
attackers were all Saudi's, and none of them were Iraqi. The other
attacks you had, were nutcases from your own soil, so they don't count
for Iraqi's either.

and
everybody and his brother takes, "credit" whenever there is a successful
attack.

True muslims, the fundamentalists, don't take credit for the work of
one of their martyrs. They do take claim for organising though.

Also, if Al Queda carries out the attack, we don't know how many of
the actual attackers were Saudi's, and how many were from elsewhere in
the
ME.

Geez, you are dumb. They all had Saudi passports.

Yes, OBL was able to buy them all Saudi Passports. Unfortunately, they are
all dead, so we'll never know exactly who they were, will we?

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 06:26:44 GMT, "Mike" wrote:

Here is another question Rata IF you think you can answer it.

So, where is it?

On second thought I have wasted enough time on you.

Duh, running out of counter-arguments, are we?

rr

I think I have wasted enough time on you too, Rata.....

"Gary P" askme@newsgroup wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:mcfwc.4243$HG.352@attbi_s53...

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:52:20 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:

Yes.....By any reasonable evaluation, Saddam Hussein was a prime
number
one
terrorist himself.......

You created the monster yourselves....

That may be, and it may not be, but it doesn't change the fact that we
finally got rid of him.

And now sleep much safer in your beds.


Why yes, now that you mention it, I do.

"Gary P" askme@newsgroup wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:qhfwc.47924$eY2.23197@attbi_s02...

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:58:54 GMT, Dave Head wrote:

I don't trust they were even making a good-faith effort to find it.

What does that have to do with anything? A terrorist bomb will be
delivered in
a van driving up to the mall in DC, or ground zero in Manhattan, or
the
strip
in Vegas, or anywhere they want. Air Defense has nothing to do with
it.

There is a country, far to your west, which can deliver them by
airmail.

rr

Which is exactly why we still have a few thousand ICBM's with nuclear
warheads attached.......Even Clinton wasn't stupid enough to get rid of
those.......

The lesson you have yet to learn, like the Roman Empire, is that the
further
you spread the weaker you are. Your enemy becomes an internal enemy
that's
harder to fight. A guerrilla or underground enemy. You can't nuke Chicago
because there's a cell of fighters in Chicago. The problem with letting
the
eagle fly is that the chicks come home to roost.


There must be a cryptic message in there somewhere......Let me run it
through my decoding department.......

"david.mccall" wrote in message
news:lijwc.46296$3x.28313@attbi_s54...

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:08:37 GMT, "Mike" wrote:

The difficulty you have is in the definition of the word "enemy". In
your limited scope, an enemy has to be someone in camouflage-suit,
carrying a gun. In the mind of a terrorist, it's someone who works for
a system which opposes their ideology/goals. Now, broaden your view,
and you'll understand why they target civilians. It's not because they
are civilians, but because they are the enemy.

So if the civilians are the real enemy, then we wasted a load of money
on smart bombs, where a few big ones would have done the job.
Is that what you are saying?


It's not only the military which causes the itch, it's a lot bigger
than that.

Bingo


So, you think muslim countries don't have a freedom in religion?? How
ignorant.

I guess free means something completely different on that side of the
pond.


Yes....Their women are free to wear either black or brown birkas......

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:07:37 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

There is a big difference between hating policies and governments
versus the individual people of a country,

Yes, but it quickly overflows from hating the government to hating the
people too. After all it's them who elected the government.
But I know this is wrong. I catch myself once in a while hating a
whole nation, for the fault of their leaders. And then I go into
a quiet corner and chastise myself

never the less if we Americans
are hated by inference because Goerge Bush is our current president,...so be it.

Nobody likes to be hated because of their government. Aks FL135.

We have a motto in our country, It states "United We stand divided We fall".

Which is pretty universal.

Most of us would support our president because he is elected, however such elections
give us the option to change our leaders.

Supporting your president when he makes mistakes, is not a good thing
though.

A difference between us and probably 75% of the world.

Yep.

rr

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:12:18 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

More accurately he had a very long leash for too many years.

Yep.

Who knows perhaps, however alot of CIA ops are citizens of the countries they
inhabit, perhaps some are diplomats.....just like the spies from your country.

Yes. It would be hard for a white guy to spy around unnoticed in e.g.
Iraq.

rr

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:59:21 GMT, "William Graham"
wrote:

For the zillionth time, we did not, "create" Saddam Hussein.

Let me rephrase it then: you created your own monster by maintaining
him.

Since the Carter administration, they haven't been doing too much....He
pulled the rug out from under their feet......

So, that explains why all the intelligence surrounding Iraq, was
severly flawed, and as such could never be trusted for a case for war
in the first place.

rr

"david.mccall" wrote in message
news:Utjwc.5773$4S5.1625@attbi_s52...

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...

That's not what he says. On the other hand you advocate "throw around
some bombs and the world will be a better place". Yeah right.

I was not in favor sending our people into Iraq. I didn't think
they were worth the effort. Even Bush the first didn't think
they were worth it, but his son did, so here we are.

Probably because a zillion people told Bush Junior that they didn't vote for
his dad the second time around because he "let that SOB in the desert go". -
I know that's why I didn't vote for him the second time......


It is a long shot to think any western style government will
work over there. As you said in another post, they are still
tribal by nature. Our efforts are probably a total waste on
money and American lives.

David


Yes.....I agree with you on this.....I think it's good that we went in there
and got rid of Saddam Hussein, but beyond that, I doubt if the Iraqis will
ever be able to maintain a democratic government....To paraphrase Jack
Nicholson, "they can't handle freedom".....