If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Please, Do NOT start wars for us !!!!
"Steve Hix" wrote in message
... In article , "Perro Blanco" wrote: "Steve Hix" wrote in message ... In article , "Perro Blanco" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... "bar86" wrote in message ups.com... Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had stable regime that Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a country without rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda. Are you stupid or just ignorant? Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist attacks on Israel. This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide bombers is well documented So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...". There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid. That's you Blanco. I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?) Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right? that you are in the frame. READ the sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does it say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)? "Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist attacks (on Israel)". It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks, but he did. Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their activities. Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to make them more functional. Your defence of an illiterate's nonsensical ramblings shows, perhaps, a kind heart but does nothing to promote the redundancy of languages to make them more functional. The guy is talking scribble and making wild statements in that Iraq was not funding ANY of the groups mentioned. The one note of truth that stood out, however, was where he said "Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist attacks...", although he did add the words "of Israel". I stand by my interpretation of what he said, which was why I added the bit about the US's turning a blind eye to many of its people funding of terrorism against an ally, which confirmed his statement, as given - one could even substitute "Britain" for "Israel". CONTEXT! I could have added a bit about, say, the many plots against Castro or - well, I could go on but there are too many examples, of which the world is fully aware. You then make a statement regarding "Iraq's documented propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their activities.". Semantics be my friend, eh? Bearing in mind that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a total a tissue of lies there are many who would take issue with your words. Iraqis, having seen their country invaded by a foreign aggressor with a propensity to invade weaker nations, have decided to hit back in the only way they can. They are merely defending their way of life - "freedom" at the end of a gun is as much use to them as a chocolate fireguard. It seems nothing will ever change, except that in this case it has turned out to be a bit more difficult for the United Sates of North America than "Operation Just Cause" which tried to justify Panama, and I dread to think what they called the invasion of Grenada where America was "threatened" by a population of about 100,000 people. Again, there are many more examples. I suppose, when you people were busy going down the genocide trail with your own indigenous population, they qualified as "terrorists" as well. "The only good injun is a dead one" was the line in those days, despite the fact they were merely defending their lands and their way of life. What he actually says and what he apparently means are two totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he would be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there with him. In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said, since it clearly stumbled over known background facts. Perhaps that is what confused you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
31 Jul 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 31st 06 10:51 PM |
16 Feb 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 16th 06 11:46 PM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Max Cleland is CBS source for memogate | Bob Coe | Military Aviation | 21 | September 22nd 04 01:59 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |