🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:22:27 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:28:52 -0700, "LarryG@Yahuu.com"
><larryg_uu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 30, 6:52 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:58:34 -0700, "Lar...@Yahuu.com"
>>>
>>> <larryg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 29, 11:23 pm, Zeno <Z...@home.kom> wrote:
>>> >> (2:20 in) Proponents of radical Islam (islamofasicsts) believe that
>>> >> the west is engaged in a *conspiracy* to subjugate Islam.
>>>
>>> >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=obsess...
>>>
>>> >[Yawn]  Kind of lame for a conspiracy theory.  This is the same
>>> >old fear mongering perpetuated by the real masters of public
>>> >opinion manipulation.  Consider their other greatest hits:
>>>
>>> >- Saddaam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
>>>
>>> You meant "had" WMDs. Everyone and their dog knew that.
>>
>>No evidence (outside of administration propaganda) was ever
>>presented to show WMD's existed.  Perhaps Santa and the Easter
>>Bunny conspired with Saddaam to hide them in Never-Never Land.
>>
>>Yes, folks.  Mike Smith is really that gullible.
>
>The Chairman knocked your dumbassed dick in the dirt on that one...

Curiously, that's how Mikey was conceived.


>
>>
>>
>>
>>> >- Anyone labelled as an "enemy combatant" is too dangerous to
>>> >  have the rights of counsel, to know the charges against them,
>>> >  to be tried in a court, to face their accuser, etc.
>>>
>>> By definition, they do not have access to our legal system. {Think
>>> "Spies"}
>>
>>So much for everyone's civil rights, and the pressumption of
>>innocence.  IIRC, trials of spies are publicly held in civilian
>>criminal courts, not military tribunals.  Check your history.
>
>So you are defending the al qaeda... Why am I NOT surprised...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >- Osama bin Laden and nineteen poorly trained arab terrorists,
>>> >  hijacked sophisticated commercial airlines, brought down the
>>> >  Twin Towers, and punched a small hole in the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> It wasn't a small hole in the Pentagon, ya moron.
>>
>>It WAS smaller than the width of the fuselage of the airliner they
>>*claimed* hit the Pentagon.  There were no impact marks or holes
>>for the huge engines that should have impacted the outside wall.
>>And there really wasn't sufficient debris to indicate that a large
>>commercial jet was responsible for the damage.
>>
>>Get your facts straight before you embarass yourself further.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Larry G.
>
>Larry, you are a moron. You have NOT the foggiest clue about what
>happened at the Pentagon on 9-11-01.
>
>Here are numerous eyewitness accounts:
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
>
>And, even though you cannot possibly understand just how ignorant you
>are, here's another debunking  of your mindless little rant:
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
>
>Mike Smith