Is this statement true?:
"The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more civilian casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
-- Steve
Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and how you
define causality.
Case 1
Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC, about 3500.
From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on Iraq,
many more.
Case 2
Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on WTC,
and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory action
that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
Regards,
Allen Rice
Dear Steve;
As they say out in the Midwest - You Betcha!
2,986 in WTC's and Pentagon and Flight 93. Otherwise do the math as listed below which is relatively up to date.
-- IN IRAQ --
30,000 IRAQI TROOPS KILLED
and 90,000 SERIOUSLY INJURED Aug. 2003
194,452 IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED
and 350,014 SERIOUSLY INJURED April 2006
2,332 U.S. TROOPS KILLED
and 36,248 SERIOUSLY INJURED April 2006
208 OTHER COALITION TROOPS KILLED
and 624 SERIOUSLY INJURED April 2006
126 U.S. CIVILIANS KILLED
and 227 SERIOUSLY INJURED April 2006
187 OTHER COALITION CIVILIANS KILLED
and 337 SERIOUSLY INJURED April 2006
-- IN AFGHANISTAN --
8,587 AFGHAN TROOPS KILLED
and 25,761 SERIOUSLY INJURED July 2004
3,485 AFGHAN CIVILIANS KILLED
and 6,273 SERIOUSLY INJURED July 2004
278 U.S. TROOPS KILLED
and 834 SERIOUSLY INJURED March 2006
131 OTHER COALITION TROOPS KILLED
and 393 SERIOUSLY INJURED March 2006
See the web site for details: http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
Bush the Mass Murderer.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
Is this statement true?:
"The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more civilian
casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
-- Steve
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
Dear Allen;
You wrote in part:
due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which devastated Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000 troops to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban and slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course let Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq because Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and how you
define causality.
Case 1
Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC, about 3500.
From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on Iraq,
many more.
Case 2
Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on WTC,
and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory action
that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
Regards,
Allen Rice
Ron,
Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was given
as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
opted for 2.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
You wrote in part:
due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to take,
about 3500 plus many more.
I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which devastated
Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000 troops
to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban and
slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course let
Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq because
Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and how
you
define causality.
Case 1
Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC, about 3500.From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
Iraq,
many more.
Case 2
Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on WTC,
and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
action
that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
Regards,
Allen Rice>
>
> Is this statement true?:
>
> "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian
> casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
>
> -- Steve
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Allen;
What the heck Option 1 or Option 2 - it would be better for everyone if Bush just opted-out of Iraq and Afghanistan - immediately if not sooner - say in about a New York second.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,
Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was given
as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
opted for 2.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
You wrote in part:
due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to take,
about 3500 plus many more.
I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which devastated
Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000 troops
to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban and
slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course let
Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq because
Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and how
you
define causality.
Case 1
Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC, about 3500.From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
Iraq,
many more.
Case 2
Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on WTC,
and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
action
that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
Regards,
Allen Rice>
>
> Is this statement true?:
>
> "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian
> casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
>
> -- Steve
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
Ron,
I was trying to make the point, badly it appears, that your original
question did not have a black and white answer; that the response
depended upon the person's perspective, which can be quite honorable
though it varies 180 degrees from one's own.
Happens a lot just that way, seems to me.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
What the heck Option 1 or Option 2 - it would be better for
everyone if Bush just opted-out of Iraq and Afghanistan -
immediately if not sooner - say in about a New York second.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianAllen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was
given
as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
opted for 2.Regards,
Allen Rice--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Allen;
>
> You wrote in part:
>
> due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to
take,
about 3500 plus many more.
>
> I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which
devastated
Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
>
> If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000 troops
to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban and
slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course let
Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
>
> Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq because
Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
>
> Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
> Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and
how
you
> define causality.
>
> Case 1
>
> Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
>
> From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack
on
> WTC, about 3500.
>
> From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
Iraq,
> many more.
>
> Case 2
>
> Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
>
> Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC,
> and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
action
> that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
>
> Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
>
> Regards,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is this statement true?:
> >
> > "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian
> > casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Allen;
Actually Steve DeKorte asked the original question:
Is this statement true?:
"The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
And it is obviously true from the WTC timeline of Sept. 11. to today in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,
I was trying to make the point, badly it appears, that your original
question did not have a black and white answer; that the response
depended upon the person's perspective, which can be quite honorable
though it varies 180 degrees from one's own.
Happens a lot just that way, seems to me.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
What the heck Option 1 or Option 2 - it would be better for
everyone if Bush just opted-out of Iraq and Afghanistan -
immediately if not sooner - say in about a New York second.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianAllen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was
given
as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
opted for 2.Regards,
Allen Rice--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Allen;
>
> You wrote in part:
>
> due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to
take,
about 3500 plus many more.
>
> I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which
devastated
Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
>
> If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000 troops
to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban and
slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course let
Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
>
> Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq because
Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
>
> Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
> Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and
how
you
> define causality.
>
> Case 1
>
> Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19, 2003.
>
> From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack
on
> WTC, about 3500.
>
> From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
Iraq,
> many more.
>
> Case 2
>
> Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
>
> Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC,
> and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
action
> that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many more.
>
> Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't it?
>
> Regards,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is this statement true?:
> >
> > "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian
> > casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Ron,
Sorry, all them pixels look alike.
And nope, it isn't obvious, depending upon which of the two
scenarios one wants to reason from.
This is because the argument can be made that George Bush's orders
were a result of Bin Laden's and that Bin Laden is therefore
responsible for the entire set from 9/11 on.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
Actually Steve DeKorte asked the original question:
Is this statement true?:"The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
And it is obviously true from the WTC timeline of Sept. 11. to
today in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,I was trying to make the point, badly it appears, that your
original
question did not have a black and white answer; that the response
depended upon the person's perspective, which can be quite
honorable
though it varies 180 degrees from one's own.
Happens a lot just that way, seems to me.
Regards,
Allen Rice--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Allen;
>
> What the heck Option 1 or Option 2 - it would be better for
everyone if Bush just opted-out of Iraq and Afghanistan -
immediately if not sooner - say in about a New York second.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was
given
> as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
>
> I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
> opted for 2.
>
> Regards,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Allen;
> >
> > You wrote in part:
> >
> > due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to
take,
> about 3500 plus many more.
> >
> > I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which
devastated
> Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
> >
> > If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000
troops
> to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban
and
> slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
> allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course
let
> Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
> >
> > Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq
because
> Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
> > Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and
how
> you
> > define causality.
> >
> > Case 1
> >
> > Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19,
2003.
> >
> > From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida
attack
on
> > WTC, about 3500.
> >
> > From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
> Iraq,
> > many more.
> >
> > Case 2
> >
> > Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
> >
> > Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC,
> > and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
> action
> > that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many
more.
> >
> > Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't
it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen Rice
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is this statement true?:
> > >
> > > "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
> civilian
> > > casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
> > >
> > > -- Steve
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> U s government grant California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Allen;
Not if George Bush didn't use the attack as an excuse to attack everything in sight.
He could have literally concentrated on doing what had to be done to get Osam bin Laden and done nothing else but that.
Everything else was totally extraneous and the deaths which occurred on all sides as a result.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,
Sorry, all them pixels look alike.
And nope, it isn't obvious, depending upon which of the two
scenarios one wants to reason from.
This is because the argument can be made that George Bush's orders
were a result of Bin Laden's and that Bin Laden is therefore
responsible for the entire set from 9/11 on.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
Actually Steve DeKorte asked the original question:
Is this statement true?:"The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
civilian casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
And it is obviously true from the WTC timeline of Sept. 11. to
today in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
Ron,I was trying to make the point, badly it appears, that your
original
question did not have a black and white answer; that the response
depended upon the person's perspective, which can be quite
honorable
though it varies 180 degrees from one's own.
Happens a lot just that way, seems to me.
Regards,
Allen Rice--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Allen;
>
> What the heck Option 1 or Option 2 - it would be better for
everyone if Bush just opted-out of Iraq and Afghanistan -
immediately if not sooner - say in about a New York second.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Please go back and read again what I said. No indication was
given
> as whether case 1 or 2 was the "correct" one.
>
> I gather you have opted for 1. The President of the US, et al,
> opted for 2.
>
> Regards,
> Allen Rice
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Allen;
> >
> > You wrote in part:
> >
> > due to retaliatory action that the US had no choice but to
take,
> about 3500 plus many more.
> >
> > I totally disagree that the retaliatory action which
devastated
> Afghanistan killing some 3,000 civilians was due to no choice.
> >
> > If the USA was serious they would have used the 150,000
troops
> to form a barrier around the mountain retreats of the Taliban
and
> slowly closed it in trapping Osam bin Laden. This in instead of
> allowing local Pakistani troops to do the dirty who of course
let
> Osama bun Laden literally "slip" through their fingers.
> >
> > Then using that as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq
because
> Saddam "partnered" with Osama bin Laden on the attack at the WTC.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Rice <amrcheck@> wrote:
> > Yes and no. Depends upon how you break up the timeline, and
how
> you
> > define causality.
> >
> > Case 1
> >
> > Time line breaks at a) September 10, 2001 and b) March 19,
2003.
> >
> > From 9/11/01 to 3/18/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida
attack
on
> > WTC, about 3500.
> >
> > From 3/19/03, civilian deaths due to unneccessary US attack on
> Iraq,
> > many more.
> >
> > Case 2
> >
> > Only one time line break, at 9/10/01.
> >
> > Following 9/11/03, civilian deaths due to Al Qaida attack on
WTC,
> > and then to subsequent "collateral damage" due to retaliatory
> action
> > that the US had no choice but to take, about 3500 plus many
more.
> >
> > Whether it is Case 1 or 2 that applies is the argument, isn't
it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen Rice
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is this statement true?:
> > >
> > > "The orders given by George W. Bush have resulted in more
> civilian
> > > casualties than those given by Osama Bin Laden."
> > >
> > > -- Steve
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> U s government grant California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
How does Bin Laden's actions in any way justify Bush bombing civilians? If one wants to use that reasoning, one could say Bush senior's actions caused Bin Laden's.
-- Steve
Dear Steve and Allen;
By Steve's extension then Bush Senior causing Osam bin Laden causing George Jr.
is the real cause of George Jr. So it's really all George Seniors fault.
Goerge Sr. he's the real mass murderererer.
But then Ron Reagan supported Saddam and gave him all sorts of neat things to use against Iran during the Iran - Iraq war. And Saddam thought he coiuld go and take the oil back that Kuwait was draining out from under Iraq and went to War on Kuwait because he thought go old Uncle Sap wouldn't really mind.....
So then Ron Reagan is the real instigator of the whole mess in Iraq and Iran.
But then Carter supported the Shah of Iran until the Shah got his butt kicked out by the Ayatollah. So then maybe Casrter was the one who really started it by ticking off Iran who got ticked off at Iraq and started their war and then Saddam got US weapons and used them until Iran and Iraq bled each other white and then Saddam kicked butt in Kuwait.
Hey!!! It's All Jimmy "Peanut" Carter's fault.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
It would be more accurate to suggest that Bin Laden's action was
caused by US support for Israel. That's the case that Bin Laden
makes.
Besides, Bush is NOT "bombing innocent civilians". He is merely
inflicting "collateral damage" in the course of going after (sorta)
known bad guys.
Allen Rice
> This is because the argument can be made that George Bush's
orders
> were a result of Bin Laden's and that Bin Laden is therefore
> responsible for the entire set from 9/11 on.How does Bin Laden's actions in any way justify Bush bombing
civilians?
If one wants to use that reasoning, one could say Bush senior's
actions
Nice analysis, Ron, making the point. Wherever one stops in the
timeline, there is always a grievance that preceded that point in
time. Measuring out measures of guilt is a pointless exercise.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Steve and Allen;
By Steve's extension then Bush Senior causing Osam bin Laden
causing George Jr.
is the real cause of George Jr. So it's really all George
Seniors fault.
Goerge Sr. he's the real mass murderererer.
But then Ron Reagan supported Saddam and gave him all sorts of
neat things to use against Iran during the Iran - Iraq war. And
Saddam thought he coiuld go and take the oil back that Kuwait was
draining out from under Iraq and went to War on Kuwait because he
thought go old Uncle Sap wouldn't really mind.....
So then Ron Reagan is the real instigator of the whole mess in
Iraq and Iran.
But then Carter supported the Shah of Iran until the Shah got
his butt kicked out by the Ayatollah. So then maybe Casrter was the
one who really started it by ticking off Iran who got ticked off at
Iraq and started their war and then Saddam got US weapons and used
them until Iran and Iraq bled each other white and then Saddam
kicked butt in Kuwait.
Hey!!! It's All Jimmy "Peanut" Carter's fault.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
> This is because the argument can be made that George Bush's
orders
> were a result of Bin Laden's and that Bin Laden is therefore
> responsible for the entire set from 9/11 on.How does Bin Laden's actions in any way justify Bush bombing
civilians?
If one wants to use that reasoning, one could say Bush senior's
actions
caused Bin Laden's.
-- Steve
SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant California politics
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Could this be
the turning
pointfor in US
Hegemony? Is the
thirty five year
experiment in
worldwide faith
based currency
starting to
crack? Cornered
Rats do not give
up without a
fight, but for
tonight gold is
breaking out
over 600 hundred
dollars an
ounce,and silver
is soaring over
13 dollars an
ounce.Gold was
around 465 when
the dike broke
in NOLA..
Interesting
times.
The bull market
in gold is still
young. Many
reasoned
arguements put a
bull market
target between
2500 and 15000
per ounce. My
target for Novaa
Gold is over 200
per share, now
around 15.
NovaGold has a
market cap just
north of 1
billion dollars
and 30 million
ounces of north
american gold in
the ground . By
buying that
stock,you get
economically
recoverable gold
in the ground
for less than
40 dollars an
ounce.
Got Gold?