OT: Earthquake in Osama Bin Laden

Seems there is a city in Pakistan called Osama Bin Laden (NBC Evening News)

It was hit pretty hard by the earthquake.

The US wants to send in the Marines.

1. Isn't this faster response than Katrina?

2. If the city is named OBL, how about HIM taking care of his namesake?
He IS a billionaire, and obviously the residents don't like America.

I don't give a shxt to USA, the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the United
snakes of America.

So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is to
stop sending troops all over the world, otherwise, they 'll all live in
endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.
Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will their
twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing? Probably
not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what you
got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.

But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own the
whole world...... it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to avoid a
beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.
"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.09.23.55.13.657733@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> Seems there is a city in Pakistan called Osama Bin Laden (NBC Evening
> News)
>
> It was hit pretty hard by the earthquake.
>
> The US wants to send in the Marines.
>
> 1. Isn't this faster response than Katrina?
>
> 2. If the city is named OBL, how about HIM taking care of his namesake?
> He IS a billionaire, and obviously the residents don't like America.[/color]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, "grape" <zx@ax> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I don't give a shxt to USA,[/color]

And we should care, why?
[color=blue]
> the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the United
>snakes of America.[/color]

Oooh, cute. But you're wrong. There's far more countries that we
HAVEN'T invaded that are as chaotic, if not more so, as Iraq and the
rest of the Middle East.
[color=blue]
>
>So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is to
>stop sending troops all over the world,[/color]

Can we see 'cause and effect' here? We didn't get serious about
sending troops to the middle east until around the 90s, when Saddam
got uppity, and invaded Kuwait. 'Course, Islamic terrorists had been
pulling shit for years before that, mainly because they were pissed
off about Isreal. Oh,but that's tottally the USA's fault too, right?
[color=blue]
> otherwise, they 'll all live in
>endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.[/color]

Spoken like one who doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.
[color=blue]
> Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will their
>twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing? Probably
>not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what you
>got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.[/color]

So, Britain being attacked in WW2 was caused by them? France being
invaded and plundered was caused by them? Hell, there's a long list of
atrocities in human history, hell, there's even some occuring NOW,
like over in Africa.
[color=blue]
>
>But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own the
>whole world......[/color]

But...but...then we'd have to own cretins like you! No thanks!
[color=blue]
> it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to avoid a
>beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
>kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.[/color]

More like a back-stab, since your terrorist buddies can't actually
take us on one-to-one.

(and as an aside, top-posting is the sign of a 'fuxking' moron,)


-LMB

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
[color=blue]
> I don't give a shxt to USA, the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the United
> snakes of America.[/color]

Right. We attacked the World Trade Center ouselves.
[color=blue]
>
> So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is to
> stop sending troops all over the world, otherwise, they 'll all live in
> endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.[/color]

Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
of Canadian you'd understand that.
[color=blue]
> Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will their
> twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing? Probably
> not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what you
> got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.
>
> But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own the
> whole world...... it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to avoid a
> beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
> kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.[/color]

Thank you so much. Don't ask when Anarchy and Terror come knocking at your
door. You guys are probably next in line, you know...
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.09.23.55.13.657733@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> Seems there is a city in Pakistan called Osama Bin Laden (NBC Evening
>> News)
>>
>> It was hit pretty hard by the earthquake.
>>
>> The US wants to send in the Marines.
>>
>> 1. Isn't this faster response than Katrina?
>>
>> 2. If the city is named OBL, how about HIM taking care of his namesake?
>> He IS a billionaire, and obviously the residents don't like America.[/color][/color]

"Louis M. Brown" <phyphor@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:o93kk11s7a13fuosqebj9mdp1aehorolei@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, "grape" <zx@ax> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I don't give a shxt to USA,[/color]
>
> And we should care, why?[/color]

*making popcorn for the show*[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the United
>>snakes of America.[/color]
>
> Oooh, cute. But you're wrong. There's far more countries that we
> HAVEN'T invaded that are as chaotic, if not more so, as Iraq and the
> rest of the Middle East.[/color]

You realize you're wasting your time with this one, right?[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>>So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is
>>to
>>stop sending troops all over the world,[/color]
>
> Can we see 'cause and effect' here? We didn't get serious about
> sending troops to the middle east until around the 90s, when Saddam
> got uppity, and invaded Kuwait. 'Course, Islamic terrorists had been
> pulling shit for years before that, mainly because they were pissed
> off about Isreal. Oh,but that's tottally the USA's fault too, right?[/color]

Of course - what's wrong with you?![color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> otherwise, they 'll all live in
>>endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.[/color]
>
> Spoken like one who doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.
>[/color]
And this surprises you?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will
>> their
>>twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing?
>>Probably
>>not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what you
>>got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.[/color]
>
> So, Britain being attacked in WW2 was caused by them? France being
> invaded and plundered was caused by them? Hell, there's a long list of
> atrocities in human history, hell, there's even some occuring NOW,
> like over in Africa.
>[/color]
Africa doesn't count, since it doesn't have any resources the more
aggressive countries need...
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own
>>the
>>whole world......[/color]
>
> But...but...then we'd have to own cretins like you! No thanks![/color]

Good point[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to avoid a
>>beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
>>kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.[/color]
>
> More like a back-stab, since your terrorist buddies can't actually
> take us on one-to-one.[/color]

Cowards that they are[color=blue]
>
> (and as an aside, top-posting is the sign of a 'fuxking' moron,)
>
>
> -LMB
>
>[/color]
Don't they all?

Natalie

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I don't give a shxt to USA, the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the
>> United
>> snakes of America.[/color]
>
> Right. We attacked the World Trade Center ouselves.[/color]

Pesky Americans![color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is
>> to
>> stop sending troops all over the world, otherwise, they 'll all live in
>> endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.[/color]
>
> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
> of Canadian you'd understand that.[/color]

LOL[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will
>> their
>> twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing?
>> Probably
>> not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what
>> you
>> got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.
>>
>> But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own
>> the
>> whole world...... it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to
>> avoid a
>> beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
>> kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.[/color]
>
> Thank you so much. Don't ask when Anarchy and Terror come knocking at your
> door. You guys are probably next in line, you know...[/color]

Great - now he has to go change his undies; nice going, Hachi!

Natalie[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.10.09.23.55.13.657733@ae86.gts...[color=darkred]
>>> Seems there is a city in Pakistan called Osama Bin Laden (NBC Evening
>>> News)
>>>
>>> It was hit pretty hard by the earthquake.
>>>
>>> The US wants to send in the Marines.
>>>
>>> 1. Isn't this faster response than Katrina?
>>>
>>> 2. If the city is named OBL, how about HIM taking care of his namesake?
>>> He IS a billionaire, and obviously the residents don't like America.[/color][/color]
>[/color]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:37:18 -0400, Wickeddoll® wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I don't give a shxt to USA, the whole worlds chaos 60% was due to the
>>> United
>>> snakes of America.[/color]
>>
>> Right. We attacked the World Trade Center ouselves.[/color]
>
> Pesky Americans![color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> So if the US residents face a terrorist revenge, first thing to check is
>>> to
>>> stop sending troops all over the world, otherwise, they 'll all live in
>>> endless fear of terrorism, or rather I'd call the retribution.[/color]
>>
>> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
>> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
>> of Canadian you'd understand that.[/color]
>
> LOL[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Image what if US never interfered any other countries' affairs, will
>>> their
>>> twin tower be torn down? will the NY creeps fear of subway bombing?
>>> Probably
>>> not, they'll live happily for centuries and peacfully...remember, what
>>> you
>>> got must has a cause, cause & effect, universal law.
>>>
>>> But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they own
>>> the
>>> whole world...... it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but want to
>>> avoid a
>>> beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is impossible... so time to get a
>>> kick-ass, USA, since yo've fuxked others too much.[/color]
>>
>> Thank you so much. Don't ask when Anarchy and Terror come knocking at your
>> door. You guys are probably next in line, you know...[/color]
>
> Great - now he has to go change his undies; nice going, Hachi![/color]

Glad to be of service!

[color=blue]
>
> Natalie[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.09.23.55.13.657733@ae86.gts...
>>>> Seems there is a city in Pakistan called Osama Bin Laden (NBC Evening
>>>> News)
>>>>
>>>> It was hit pretty hard by the earthquake.
>>>>
>>>> The US wants to send in the Marines.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Isn't this faster response than Katrina?
>>>>
>>>> 2. If the city is named OBL, how about HIM taking care of his namesake?
>>>> He IS a billionaire, and obviously the residents don't like America.[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>
> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
> of Canadian you'd understand that.
>[/color]
Sometimes but not usually. The cold war caused us to put
bases or troops in a lot of places were we were not invited, or were
invited by
the anti Soviet dictator of the time. This is one of the underlying reasons
we are hated in the Middle East. Proping up dictators, ie. Sha of Iran, or
having bases in the Middle East, ie. Saudi Arabia. It's funny how little
people in the US, especially right wingers, know about the underlying
causes for terroism. I'm not saying they are justified, just saying that it
helps to understand the real reasons and quit having this illusion that
everything the US has ever done in the world is not selfserving.

grape wrote:[color=blue]
> But, americans are tooo ambitious to think wisely, they thought they
> own the whole world...... it's like fuxked your neighbour's wife but
> want to avoid a beat-up by neighbour's husband, which is
> impossible...[/color]

Ummm, well, if you're talking current, bush and the RR will tell you that
'fuxked your neighbor's wife' is immoral and not something they'd do - well,
not in public at least. If you do get caught, the idea is to take your
licking(s) quietly. If you've got enough $$, you don't need to deal with
retaliation at all. Hope this helps.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:56:25 -0700, "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>>
>> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
>> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
>> of Canadian you'd understand that.
>>[/color]
>Sometimes but not usually. The cold war caused us to put
>bases or troops in a lot of places were we were not invited, or were
>invited by
>the anti Soviet dictator of the time. This is one of the underlying reasons
>we are hated in the Middle East. Proping up dictators, ie. Sha of Iran, or
>having bases in the Middle East, ie. Saudi Arabia. It's funny how little
>people in the US, especially right wingers, know about the underlying
>causes for terroism. I'm not saying they are justified, just saying that it
>helps to understand the real reasons and quit having this illusion that
>everything the US has ever done in the world is not selfserving.
>
>[/color]
ROFL

All I need to understand is the pictures of broken bodies after
9/11...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:56:25 -0700, ToMh wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>>
>> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
>> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
>> of Canadian you'd understand that.
>>[/color]
> Sometimes but not usually. The cold war caused us to put
> bases or troops in a lot of places were we were not invited, or were
> invited by
> the anti Soviet dictator of the time. This is one of the underlying reasons
> we are hated in the Middle East. Proping up dictators, ie. Sha of Iran, or
> having bases in the Middle East, ie. Saudi Arabia. It's funny how little
> people in the US, especially right wingers, know about the underlying
> causes for terroism. I'm not saying they are justified, just saying that it
> helps to understand the real reasons and quit having this illusion that
> everything the US has ever done in the world is not selfserving.[/color]


We pay the Saudis quite well for our bases there.
Now, the Shah of Iran...well.....

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:05:51 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:56:25 -0700, ToMh wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>>>
>>> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
>>> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
>>> of Canadian you'd understand that.
>>>[/color]
>> Sometimes but not usually. The cold war caused us to put
>> bases or troops in a lot of places were we were not invited, or were
>> invited by
>> the anti Soviet dictator of the time. This is one of the underlying reasons
>> we are hated in the Middle East. Proping up dictators, ie. Sha of Iran, or
>> having bases in the Middle East, ie. Saudi Arabia. It's funny how little
>> people in the US, especially right wingers, know about the underlying
>> causes for terroism. I'm not saying they are justified, just saying that it
>> helps to understand the real reasons and quit having this illusion that
>> everything the US has ever done in the world is not selfserving.[/color]
>
>
>We pay the Saudis quite well for our bases there.
>Now, the Shah of Iran...well.....[/color]

I'd suggest you investigate a bit....

PRINCE SULTAN AIR BASE, Saudi Arabia — In a major shift in American
focus in the Persian Gulf, the United States is all but ending its
military presence in Saudi Arabia
--

Scott in Florida

Still Voting Democratic?

You are Stuck On Stupid!

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:18:36 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:05:51 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:56:25 -0700, ToMh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.10.10.13.05.51.149197@ae86.gts...
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:03:33 -0400, grape wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Usually when we send 'troops all over the world' we are asked to, or are
>>>> retaliating to an attack on the US somewhere. If you were French instead
>>>> of Canadian you'd understand that.
>>>>
>>> Sometimes but not usually. The cold war caused us to put
>>> bases or troops in a lot of places were we were not invited, or were
>>> invited by
>>> the anti Soviet dictator of the time. This is one of the underlying reasons
>>> we are hated in the Middle East. Proping up dictators, ie. Sha of Iran, or
>>> having bases in the Middle East, ie. Saudi Arabia. It's funny how little
>>> people in the US, especially right wingers, know about the underlying
>>> causes for terroism. I'm not saying they are justified, just saying that it
>>> helps to understand the real reasons and quit having this illusion that
>>> everything the US has ever done in the world is not selfserving.[/color]
>>
>>
>>We pay the Saudis quite well for our bases there.
>>Now, the Shah of Iran...well.....[/color]
>
> I'd suggest you investigate a bit....
>
> PRINCE SULTAN AIR BASE, Saudi Arabia — In a major shift in American
> focus in the Persian Gulf, the United States is all but ending its
> military presence in Saudi Arabia[/color]


I guess because we'll have bases in Iraq?