US to attack Saudi Arabia? if not why not?

[Sammy]

Can anyone in this newsgroup explain what is happening with the US
military in regard to fighting the war on terrorism - specifically I
would like to know why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia as they
were the original breeding ground of Al Quadea ... were they not?

Osama originated from Saudi Arabia and so were many of the Sept 11 2001
hijackers. This is a issue many people especially American leaders have
rather curiously hidden from view since the Sept 11 attack happened.

According to my information Osama has his resources in many countries
around the world at the moment still...... but rather unusual Saudi
Arabia is still not bombed and invaded by the US.

If the US cant attack Saudi Arabia, why did it then attack Afghanistan
and then furthermore Iraq?

Does the US have some problem with invading Saudi Arabia and removing
the regime there?..

It has no quams on invading Afghanistan or Iraq.. so it must be
something else?

Maybe its the oil in Saudi .. oil doesnt change in the Middle East... I
could be wrong...

In summing up I believe the "coalition of lies" policies have been
rather bizarre, confusing and downright wasteful use money that could of
been better spent elsewhere on education and health issues in their own
countries.

Sammy

[Ragnar]

"Sammy" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone in this newsgroup explain what is happening with the US
> military in regard to fighting the war on terrorism - specifically I
> would like to know why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia as they
> were the original breeding ground of Al Quadea ... were they not?

Gee, they got enough problems with Iraq. One war at a time if you don't
mind.

> Osama originated from Saudi Arabia and so were many of the Sept 11 2001
> hijackers. This is a issue many people especially American leaders have
> rather curiously hidden from view since the Sept 11 attack happened.

Hidden? Not from what I've seen on TV and newspapers.

>
> According to my information Osama has his resources in many countries
> around the world at the moment still...... but rather unusual Saudi
> Arabia is still not bombed and invaded by the US.

One war at a time, OK?

> If the US cant attack Saudi Arabia, why did it then attack Afghanistan
> and then furthermore Iraq?

Umm, because Osama and his network were working out of Afghanistan?

And Iraq? Saddam had it coming. Too bad we didn't do it in '91.

> Does the US have some problem with invading Saudi Arabia and removing
> the regime there?..

What specifically has the Saudi government done to the USA to be removed?

> It has no quams on invading Afghanistan or Iraq.. so it must be
> something else?

Well, a good enough reason would help. I note that you haven't yet
articulated one.

> Maybe its the oil in Saudi .. oil doesnt change in the Middle East... I
> could be wrong...

What, oil stops invasions? HINT: It didn't stop the Iraq war for a second.

> In summing up I believe the "coalition of lies" policies have been
> rather bizarre, confusing and downright wasteful use money that could of
> been better spent elsewhere on education and health issues in their own
> countries.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Like the money would actually be spent on education and
health! What planet are you from?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Sammy" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone in this newsgroup explain what is happening with the US
> military in regard to fighting the war on terrorism - specifically I
> would like to know why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia as they
> were the original breeding ground of Al Quadea ... were they not?
>

Indeed

> Osama originated from Saudi Arabia and so were many of the Sept 11 2001
> hijackers. This is a issue many people especially American leaders have
> rather curiously hidden from view since the Sept 11 attack happened.
>

You mean apart from announcing it on world wide TV
coverage, this must be a new definition of hidden.

> According to my information Osama has his resources in many countries
> around the world at the moment still...... but rather unusual Saudi
> Arabia is still not bombed and invaded by the US.
>

Probably because OBL is regarded as a criminal
in Saudi Atabia and has been the subject of an
arrest warrant there for rather longer than the
US has wanted him. Then there is the little matter that
he has carried out terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

> If the US cant attack Saudi Arabia, why did it then attack Afghanistan
> and then furthermore Iraq?
>

Because the government of Afghanistan was providing
him with a secure environment to run his training camps
and sheltered him after Sept 11

> Does the US have some problem with invading Saudi Arabia and removing
> the regime there?..
>

Yes, the regime in power suits US interests, why remove it ?

> It has no quams on invading Afghanistan or Iraq.. so it must be
> something else?
>

Correct

> Maybe its the oil in Saudi .. oil doesnt change in the Middle East... I
> could be wrong...
>

You are

> In summing up I believe the "coalition of lies" policies have been
> rather bizarre, confusing and downright wasteful use money that could of
> been better spent elsewhere on education and health issues in their own
> countries.
>

You seem somewhat confused and in need of
medical help to be sure.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[tscottme]

Sammy > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone in this newsgroup explain what is happening with the US
> military in regard to fighting the war on terrorism -
<snip>

Did the voices in your head suggest asking this question in a military
aviation news group or did you come up with that bright idea on your
own?

--
Scott
--------
It's not a coincidence that pictures that would inflame the Americans to
war are not shown extensively while those pictures that undermine our
will to fight are shown ad naseum.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sammy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Can anyone in this newsgroup explain what is happening with the US
> > military in regard to fighting the war on terrorism - specifically I
> > would like to know why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia as they
> > were the original breeding ground of Al Quadea ... were they not?
>
> Gee, they got enough problems with Iraq. One war at a time if you don't
> mind.
>
> > Osama originated from Saudi Arabia and so were many of the Sept 11 2001
> > hijackers. This is a issue many people especially American leaders have
> > rather curiously hidden from view since the Sept 11 attack happened.
>
> Hidden? Not from what I've seen on TV and newspapers.
>
> >
> > According to my information Osama has his resources in many countries
> > around the world at the moment still...... but rather unusual Saudi
> > Arabia is still not bombed and invaded by the US.
>
> One war at a time, OK?
>
> > If the US cant attack Saudi Arabia, why did it then attack Afghanistan
> > and then furthermore Iraq?
>
> Umm, because Osama and his network were working out of Afghanistan?
>
> And Iraq? Saddam had it coming. Too bad we didn't do it in '91.
>
> > Does the US have some problem with invading Saudi Arabia and removing
> > the regime there?..
>
> What specifically has the Saudi government done to the USA to be removed?
>
> > It has no quams on invading Afghanistan or Iraq.. so it must be
> > something else?
>
> Well, a good enough reason would help. I note that you haven't yet
> articulated one.
>
> > Maybe its the oil in Saudi .. oil doesnt change in the Middle East... I
> > could be wrong...
>
> What, oil stops invasions? HINT: It didn't stop the Iraq war for a second.
>
> > In summing up I believe the "coalition of lies" policies have been
> > rather bizarre, confusing and downright wasteful use money that could of
> > been better spent elsewhere on education and health issues in their own
> > countries.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Like the money would actually be spent on education and
> health! What planet are you from?

You must have been trying to make some sort of point when you said "one war at a
time" twice in your response above. Why, then, are you defending our second war
(the one with Iraq) when the war on terrorism in Afghanistan is still ongoing
and unfinished and, even worse, no closer to being concluded than when we
started it? OBL is still apparently alive and on the loose, AQ is still
functioning in various places around the world, and the Talliban is not only not
vanquished, but has returned to Afghanistan and resumed control of some areas.
If that's the way to fight the war on terror, maybe we need to go back to school
and learn how to do it. it looks to me like we've lost our way.

George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Sammy" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

>> In summing up I believe the "coalition of lies" policies have been
>> rather bizarre, confusing and downright wasteful use money that could of
>> been better spent elsewhere on education and health issues in their own
>> countries.
>>
>
> You seem somewhat confused and in need of
> medical help to be sure.

Your two part conclusion is somewhat of a non-sequitor, unless you are a
physician. Many people are commonly confused by numerous things, and quite
often a clearer restatement of facts or arguments sorts out the confusion
without the need for medical help. Perhaps it might have been helpful if you
had asked him to provide an example or two of the wasteful use of money that
contributed to his confusion.

Care to try again?

George Z.

[Tamas Feher]

>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia

Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
protestants left on the face of Earth.

Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
>
> Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> protestants left on the face of Earth.
>

Hardly old boy. The jews and white anglo saxon protestants
are the ones with the nuclear arsenal and means to deliver it
and most Muslims would rather live than die.
Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George Z. Bush]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> >
> > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> >
>
> Hardly old boy. The jews and white anglo saxon protestants
> are the ones with the nuclear arsenal and means to deliver it
> and most Muslims would rather live than die.

You took the words right out of my mouth. This yo-yo must think he's a mezzuein
(sp?) calling the faithful to prayers. BTW, is he posting from Hungary? I
didn't know that they had a Muslim community there, although I shouldn't be
surprised since they're all over Europe these days.

George Z.
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Denyav]

>ou must have been trying to make some sort of point when you said "one war at
>a
>time" twice in your response above. Why, then, are you defending our second
>war
>(the one with Iraq) when the war on terrorism in Afghanistan is still ongoing

Spreading chaos maybe?

>and unfinished and, even worse, no closer to being concluded than when we

Not worse even better according to the motto of groups and associations that
the most of our (and some other nations) governing elite belongs to: "Ordo Ab
Chao"

If you start thinking about the meaning of "Ordo Ab Chao" you can explain many
seemingly senseless and counter productive actions.

>If that's the way to fight the war on terror, maybe we need to go back to
>school
>and learn how to do it. it looks to me like we've lost our way.

The governing "elite" is not interested in fighting terror or anything else
their only interest is the spreading chaos.

Christians must fight muslims,Christians must fight Jews,Jews must fight all of
them,CIA must fight with military,FBI must fight both of them.
In other words open ended conflicts must pop up everywhere in the world.
They simply think "the time has come".

[Eliminate SPAM]

Tamas Feher wrote:
>>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
>
>
> Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> protestants left on the face of Earth.
>
> Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
>

Tamas -

Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.

There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street" when:
- the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
- when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
- when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
after the end of GW I
- when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
- about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.

Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
smaller.

Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
as the rest of the world does.

Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).

[John Mullen]

"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> Tamas Feher wrote:
> >>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> >
> >
> > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> >
> > Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> > installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> > fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
> >
>
> Tamas -
>
> Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
>
> There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
when:
> - the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> - when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> - when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> after the end of GW I
> - when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> - about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
>
> Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> smaller.
>
> Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
> as the rest of the world does.
>
> Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
> in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).

What an incredible post!

I have read this group and a few others on Usenet since 1997 and thought I
was beyond surprise. But this one did it.

What combination of substances are you taking?

John

[Leslie Swartz]

John:

What is the point of asking the participants and readers of this newsgoup
to wade through the entire thread to have you "add" [sic] "> What
combination of substances are you taking?" at the end of a string of
point-counterpoint?

Are you adding "I disagree, for no particular reason?" to the argument?

O.K., noted.

Steve



"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tamas Feher wrote:
> > >>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> > >
> > >
> > > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> > > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is
World
> > > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> > >
> > > Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> > > installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> > > fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
> > >
> >
> > Tamas -
> >
> > Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
> >
> > There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
> when:
> > - the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> > - when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> > - when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> > after the end of GW I
> > - when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> > - about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
> >
> > Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> > smaller.
> >
> > Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> > peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> > who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
> > as the rest of the world does.
> >
> > Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
> > in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
>
> What an incredible post!
>
> I have read this group and a few others on Usenet since 1997 and thought I
> was beyond surprise. But this one did it.
>
> What combination of substances are you taking?
>
> John
>
>

[John Mullen]

"Leslie Swartz" > top-posted in message
...
> John:
>
> What is the point of asking the participants and readers of this
newsgoup
> to wade through the entire thread to have you "add" [sic] "> What
> combination of substances are you taking?" at the end of a string of
> point-counterpoint?
>
> Are you adding "I disagree, for no particular reason?" to the argument?
>
> O.K., noted.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Tamas Feher wrote:
> > > >>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia.
A
> > > > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is
> World
> > > > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > > > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> > > > installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> > > > fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Tamas -
> > >
> > > Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
> > >
> > > There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
> > when:
> > > - the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> > > - when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> > > - when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> > > after the end of GW I
> > > - when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> > > - about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
> > >
> > > Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> > > smaller.
> > >
> > > Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> > > peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> > > who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as
much
> > > as the rest of the world does.
> > >
> > > Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide
again
> > > in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
> >
> > What an incredible post!
> >
> > I have read this group and a few others on Usenet since 1997 and thought
I
> > was beyond surprise. But this one did it.
> >
> > What combination of substances are you taking?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>

Leslie

What is the point of your post? Are you the group's moderator or something?

Would you agree that 'other than OBL and his crew, the Arab street seems
awfully quiet and peaceful' when you think of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria,
Palestine?

Or would you agree with me that the post was evidence of a, shall-we-say,
very detached world-view?

Don't feel you have to reply unless you have something substantive to say!

John

[Eliminate SPAM]

John Mullen wrote:
> "Leslie Swartz" > top-posted in message
> ...
>>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>>>"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
>>>>Tamas Feher wrote:
>>>>>>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
>>>>>Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
>>>>>US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
>>>>>War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
>>>>>protestants left on the face of Earth.
>>>>
>>>>Tamas -
>>>>
>>>>Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
>>>>
>>>>There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
>>>
>>>when:
>>>
>>>>- the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
>>>>- when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
>>>>- when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
>>>>after the end of GW I
>>>>- when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
>>>>- about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
>>>>
>>>>Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
>>>>smaller.
>>>>
>>>>Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
>>>>peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
>>>>who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
>>>>as the rest of the world does.
>>>>
>>>>Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
>>>>in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
>>>
>>>What an incredible post!
>>>John
>>>
>
> Would you agree that 'other than OBL and his crew, the Arab street seems
> awfully quiet and peaceful' when you think of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria,
> Palestine?
>
> Or would you agree with me that the post was evidence of a, shall-we-say,
> very detached world-view?
>
> Don't feel you have to reply unless you have something substantive to say!
>
> John

John -

Here's something substantive.

Go back and reread the original post and then make an apology.

I'm not commenting on the opinions of the Arab street, or how they feel,
or any other warm-and-fuzzy reports. Nor am I commenting on localized
problems in Palestine or Iraq. I'm well aware of Arab opinion polls,
both before and after the Abu Ghraib.

The original post was talking about world-wide Jihad where "one billion
muslims instantly go jihad". This has been proposed several times; see
my list of when it was 'supposed to happen'.

I'm commenting on reality. A worldwide jihad hasn't happened. Billions
of Muslims haven't suddenly rushed out and declared jihad. Yes, recent
reports show Al Qaeda membership up - to perhaps 18,000 worldwide. Not
exactly "one billion". You'd think if the Arab street was really so
upset that Al Qaeda membership could of at least hit 100,000 by now. Not
even.

The report on terrorism dropping worldwide is based on the number of
incidents and the number of deaths. Both are hard numbers. Refute them
if you wish to try.

Regardless of opinion and local incidents, worldwide the prophesied and
feared 'worldwide jihad' hasn't happened.

That's not a detached worldview, it's reality.

[John Mullen]

"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> John Mullen wrote:
> > "Leslie Swartz" > top-posted in message
> > ...
> >>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>Tamas Feher wrote:
> >>>>>>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> >>>>>Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia.
A
> >>>>>US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is
World
> >>>>>War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> >>>>>protestants left on the face of Earth.
> >>>>
> >>>>Tamas -
> >>>>
> >>>>Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
> >>>>
> >>>>There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
> >>>
> >>>when:
> >>>
> >>>>- the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> >>>>- when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> >>>>- when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> >>>>after the end of GW I
> >>>>- when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> >>>>- about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> >>>>smaller.
> >>>>
> >>>>Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> >>>>peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> >>>>who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as
much
> >>>>as the rest of the world does.
> >>>>
> >>>>Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide
again
> >>>>in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
> >>>
> >>>What an incredible post!
> >>>John
> >>>
> >
> > Would you agree that 'other than OBL and his crew, the Arab street seems
> > awfully quiet and peaceful' when you think of Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Algeria,
> > Palestine?
> >
> > Or would you agree with me that the post was evidence of a,
shall-we-say,
> > very detached world-view?
> >
> > Don't feel you have to reply unless you have something substantive to
say!
> >
> > John
>
> John -
>
> Here's something substantive.
>
> Go back and reread the original post and then make an apology.
>
> I'm not commenting on the opinions of the Arab street, or how they feel,
> or any other warm-and-fuzzy reports. Nor am I commenting on localized
> problems in Palestine or Iraq.

ROTFL!!!

Cut to...

Adolf Hitler, Berlin, April 1945. Fuehrer Conference

"Well, mein Fuehrer, apart from these little localised problems around the
outskirts of Berlin with rogue elements of the US and Red Armies, everything
seems to be going very well for the 1000-year Reich. Keep working on those
architectural plans for the new cities we will build when we have won the
war."

>I'm well aware of Arab opinion polls,
> both before and after the Abu Ghraib.

Then you should know you are not correct in your assertion.

> The original post was talking about world-wide Jihad where "one billion
> muslims instantly go jihad". This has been proposed several times; see
> my list of when it was 'supposed to happen'.

Ah, I see. So anything short of a billion-strong uprising is 'quiet and
peaceful'? Riiiight...

> I'm commenting on reality. A worldwide jihad hasn't happened. Billions
> of Muslims haven't suddenly rushed out and declared jihad. Yes, recent
> reports show Al Qaeda membership up - to perhaps 18,000 worldwide. Not
> exactly "one billion". You'd think if the Arab street was really so
> upset that Al Qaeda membership could of at least hit 100,000 by now. Not
> even.
>
> The report on terrorism dropping worldwide is based on the number of
> incidents and the number of deaths. Both are hard numbers. Refute them
> if you wish to try.

Show me the numbers and where you plucked them from and I will have a go.

> Regardless of opinion and local incidents, worldwide the prophesied and
> feared 'worldwide jihad' hasn't happened.
>
> That's not a detached worldview, it's reality.
>

It certainly is *a* reality. Just not the same one the rest of us live in!

John (no apology, btw!)

[Eliminate SPAM]

John -

No need to apologize anymore - you just lost the argument yourself. As
per newsgroups rules, the first person to have such weak support for
their side as to have to stoop so low to invoke Hitler loses the entire
thread.

BTW, the citation for the numbers was in my original post - go look it
up yourself.

[John Mullen]

"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> John -
>
> No need to apologize anymore - you just lost the argument yourself. As
> per newsgroups rules, the first person to have such weak support for
> their side as to have to stoop so low to invoke Hitler loses the entire
> thread.

Pah! You got me on a technicality!

As you say, this automatically renders the tendentious bull**** you came
away with utterly correct. Ah well.

> BTW, the citation for the numbers was in my original post - go look it
> up yourself.
>

I shall.

J

[John Mullen]

"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> Tamas Feher wrote:
> >>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> >
> >
> > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> >
> > Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> > installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> > fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
> >
>
> Tamas -
>
> Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
>
> There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
when:
> - the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> - when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> - when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> after the end of GW I
> - when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> - about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
>
> Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> smaller.
>
> Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
> as the rest of the world does.
>
> Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
> in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
>

They don't count the war in Iraq? The intifada in Palestine?

Hmm.

Great 'facts'

John

[John Mullen]

"Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> Tamas Feher wrote:
> >>why the USAF is not attacking Saudi Arabia
> >
> >
> > Mecca, the holiest of holy muslim cities is lcoated in Saudi Arabia. A
> > US attack means one billion muslims instantly go jihad --> that is World
> > War III. In the end there would be no jews and white anglo-saxon
> > protestants left on the face of Earth.
> >
> > Remember UBL started his anti-USA campaing merely because the USA
> > installed ALLIED military bases in Saudi Arabia. In the end the WTC
> > fell.Get a life and don't set up wars from your couch!
> >
>
> Tamas -
>
> Same song, different verse. Hasn't happened.
>
> There was 'supposed' to be a world-wide uprising of the "Arab Street"
when:
> - the Allies set up bases in Saudi Arabia before GW I
> - when the Coalition invaded Iraq in GW I
> - when Coalition troops stayed in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries
> after the end of GW I
> - when the Coalition II invaded Iraq in GW II
> - about every 15 minutes when the Israelis do anything.
>
> Hasn't happened. In fact, the street protests are getting smaller and
> smaller.
>
> Other than OBL and his crews, the Arab street seems awfully quiet and
> peaceful. Perhaps, as is often overlooked, most Muslims are moderates
> who dislike and disagree with their Fundamentalist whackos about as much
> as the rest of the world does.
>
> Most recent annual report shows terrorist activity down worldwide again
> in 2003 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm).
>
>

Now that this has been admitted to be false, I invite you to apologise for
your mistake.

John

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:46:05 +0100, "John Mullen"
> wrote:

> "Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John -
> >
> > No need to apologize anymore - you just lost the argument yourself. As
> > per newsgroups rules, the first person to have such weak support for
> > their side as to have to stoop so low to invoke Hitler loses the entire
> > thread.
>
> Pah! You got me on a technicality!
>
> As you say, this automatically renders the tendentious bull**** you came
> away with utterly correct. Ah well.

No, not quite. The corollary to Godwin's law says that the first
person to mention Hitler or the Nazis _loses_ the argument, but it
doesn't say that the other participant(s) wins it.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John Mullen]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:46:05 +0100, "John Mullen"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Eliminate SPAM" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > John -
> > >
> > > No need to apologize anymore - you just lost the argument yourself. As
> > > per newsgroups rules, the first person to have such weak support for
> > > their side as to have to stoop so low to invoke Hitler loses the entire
> > > thread.
> >
> > Pah! You got me on a technicality!
> >
> > As you say, this automatically renders the tendentious bull**** you came
> > away with utterly correct. Ah well.
>
> No, not quite. The corollary to Godwin's law says that the first
> person to mention Hitler or the Nazis _loses_ the argument, but it
> doesn't say that the other participant(s) wins it.
>
> Mary

Indeed. It takes a real dork to imagine anyone could 'win' anything on
Usenet anyway. I wish this silly war could be over and we could all go
back to arguing about WW2 and Nam again. It was so much nicer.

BTW where is Tarver these days?

John