Will there be another "9/11" ?

quote:

---

I thought the bible belt voted for the democratic party, since the democratic party is responsible for the liberal federal judges that legalized sodomy, it is interesting it turned on the bible belt.

---

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I repeat most of message 1:

quote:

---

I thought that it would be appropriate to post this topic today, on the third anniversary of the World Trade Center destruction and the five hijacked airliners. I just want to ask everyone if they think that such an event or even something worse is likely to happen in the next decade. Personally, I think that it is likely to happen again. Why?
1) The United States has more enemies than before.
2) It was shown that the U.S. could be attacked. I think that if another attack occurs, it could be potentially worse, since it only makes sense to attack hard. The enemy will not get more than one opportunity. Perhaps next time may involve Nuclear or Biological weapons.
3) Is there any way to avoid this nightmare?

---

Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Dear Holmes,
I was being general when I said that you write long replies. You are not the only one. I get caught up in the debates, too, and can't let it go. So do many others. Sorry to pick on you, but I figured you could take it. I love the debates, but I just don't have the time to keep up long ping pong matches. There comes a time when I surrender to the drip drip torture of illogical conclusions, subsets of the truth, misrepresentations, misreading what I wrote, and flat-out insults from some of the writers (not you, of course... you would never...).Oops! I take that back. Your last statement is so typical of a "last tag!"

Have not heard much comment on Cheney's blatant pandering to the lowest form of campaign tricks -- fear mongering.Interesting that he couched it such that IF bush was not re-elected that there would be another attack on the US, when in fact it was the lax bush administration's follow up that DID allow a second attack.One really wonders if he could do better with a second try.(just to bring this back on topic, heh)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The oil business, automobile business, and T-shirt business (in the USA, not China) all abide by our laws. I have stock in some oil companies, but I as hard as I tried, I couldn't buy Saddam Oil Company stock and share his profits. Yes, "We" is capitalized. (sorry, it's late in the day)

Obviously you think it's the USA's fault, and not Saddam's. Sigh.But by your logic, Iraq was not viable and therefore could be aborted.

Obviously you think it's the USA's fault, and not Saddam's. Sigh.But by your logic, Iraq was not viable and therefore could be aborted.

What about senators, we all know that GWB won the states, however, the stockmarket is doing well, is not the market doing well because mutual funds have written Kerry off after the republican convention, does the polls supporting GWB, make us more suspeptible for a terrorist attack pre-election, to like sway the election as the terrorists did in Spain, however if they attack us pre election, will that rebound on the terrorists(cause of the Americans believing GWB is more capable than Kerry, like darn if they do, and darn if they don't, perhaps Mr. Kerry military record is causing the terrorists to be undecided in the now, if there is any Muslims out there remember to vote for GWB, cause in America Sharia law is not soverign, something quite precious because Sharia law is coming to Canada, the bible talks of forgiveness(America giving Iraq back to the people), instead of an eye for an eye (Muslims take a country and refuses to give it back to the people), American freedoms is quite contrary to Sharia law, which is why terrorists hate America so, cause we stand for freedom, that our laws are not bound to Sharia law(if your a woman and don't want to be bound), if GWB is relected he will keep you free from being bound by Sharia laws against your will, you can convert to Christianity in America, and Muslims terrorists would be breaking US law to stone you, kill you, etc...

What does that have to do with the thread. Are you just bringing all the nonsense from the closed down thread over here to get this one shut down too?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, but the thought was that is GWB leading in the polls makes us more vulnerable to a terrorists attack, Yes___ No____

Sharia is being implemented in Ontario for civil arbitration. Both parties must agree to enter into it and any decision must be approved by a judge to ensure that it meets federal and provincial law as well as the Candian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is no different from the jewish arbitrators/courts set up in some US states.

IMHO, having GWB in office makes us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.The reason is, as I have posted in Message 15, GWB doesn't have a clue what terrorism is all about or how to oppose terrorists and terrorist attacks.One clear indication is that almost all of the infrastructure and social support services funding for IRAQ have not been spent and now GWB wants to convert $35,000,000,000.00 (35 BILIION dolars) of the infrastucture money to the military.This certainly increases the recruiting capability of terrorists, provides a definite example of why the US should be opposed, and increases the likelyhood of another major incident on US soils._{edited to fix spelling}This message has been edited by jar, 09-16-2004 10:52 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My impression is that you're babbling. Stop it.This is an official "A suspension might be coming" warning.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

quote:

---

... but I as hard as I trie, I couldn't buy Saddam Oil Company stock and share his profits

---

Once again, you keep making stuff up on this thread. I tire of it, as I'm sure everyone else does. First off, there was no "Saddam Oil Company". There were (and still are) actually multiple state-run oil companies - among them, North Oil Company, South Oil Company, Iraq Drilling Co., and Oil ExplorationCo. Cooperatively, they are involved with the State Oil Marketting Organization (SOMO). There are also the North Gas Company and the South Gas Company. These all fell under the general umbrella of the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), formed in 1964 (the country nationalized its assets betweenb 1972 and 1975); later, this was dissolved and merged with the Ministry of Oil.Prior to 1991, Iraq routinely allowed investment into its oil industry; it used this to help modernize its industry (note: corporate investments, not private investments. Nonetheless, if you invested in a company that was invested in Iraq, you were profitting from Iraqi oil sales).With the advent of the first Gulf War, UN sanctions placed on Iraq barred foreign investment into Iraq's oil industry. This was modified slightly in 1996, under the OFF, in which limited joint development contracts were allowed.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, I have noted this appears to be how you formulate your opinions and arguments. Heheh... sure I would, and I just did it again. As I am sure you will as well.Zing boom pow!"tag"

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)