OT: Freed Australian apologizes to Bush

[url]http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050620-115844-4630r.htm[/url]

Mark wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050620-115844-4630r.htm[/url]
>[/color]

What a fucking moron this guy "Douglas Wood" is.

Feigned complicity with the hostage takers is in many cases the only
way these innocent civilians are released by these maniacal hostages.
By refuting them, and apologizing, he's simply given the hostage takers
another reason to kill hostages rather than freeing them.

Washington Times was irresponsible for reporting this.

Here's a quote from a top Islamic cleric (same article), who lives in
Australia:

<quote>
Australia's top Islamic cleric, meanwhile, said the military operation
to free Mr. Wood could have endangered the lives of two Iraqis still
being held by the kidnappers.
"The stupid action that was taken last week has exposed the fathers
of these families to death," Sheik Taj El Din al-Hilaly told reporters
on his return from Baghdad, where he had tried to secure Mr. Wood's
release. He said it was unlikely the Iraqi hostages would now be freed.

</quote>

OK...how bout that kids? Was Wood worth two Iraqi hostages?

So what you are saying is that it's better to have three hostages than
two, right?

Killing the hostage takers is a much better deterrent than complying
and negotiating, let's focus on that

Mark wrote:[color=blue]
> So what you are saying is that it's better to have three hostages than
> two, right?
>
> Killing the hostage takers is a much better deterrent than complying
> and negotiating, let's focus on that
>[/color]

The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
quagmire in the first place.

Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?

In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> quagmire in the first place.
>
> Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]

I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
that kind of information?
--

On 21 Jun 2005 08:08:11 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>Mark wrote:[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050620-115844-4630r.htm[/url]
>>[/color]
>
>What a fucking moron this guy "Douglas Wood" is.
>
>Feigned complicity with the hostage takers is in many cases the only
>way these innocent civilians are released by these maniacal hostages.
>By refuting them, and apologizing, he's simply given the hostage takers
>another reason to kill hostages rather than freeing them.
>
>Washington Times was irresponsible for reporting this.
>
>Here's a quote from a top Islamic cleric (same article), who lives in
>Australia:
>
><quote>
>Australia's top Islamic cleric, meanwhile, said the military operation
>to free Mr. Wood could have endangered the lives of two Iraqis still
>being held by the kidnappers.
> "The stupid action that was taken last week has exposed the fathers
>of these families to death," Sheik Taj El Din al-Hilaly told reporters
>on his return from Baghdad, where he had tried to secure Mr. Wood's
>release. He said it was unlikely the Iraqi hostages would now be freed.
>
></quote>
>
>OK...how bout that kids? Was Wood worth two Iraqi hostages?[/color]

Hell yes!

--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On 21 Jun 2005 08:08:11 -0700, "Learning Richard"
> <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> >Mark wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> [url]http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050620-115844-4630r.htm[/url]
> >>[/color]
> >
> >What a fucking moron this guy "Douglas Wood" is.
> >
> >Feigned complicity with the hostage takers is in many cases the only
> >way these innocent civilians are released by these maniacal hostages.
> >By refuting them, and apologizing, he's simply given the hostage takers
> >another reason to kill hostages rather than freeing them.
> >
> >Washington Times was irresponsible for reporting this.
> >
> >Here's a quote from a top Islamic cleric (same article), who lives in
> >Australia:
> >
> ><quote>
> >Australia's top Islamic cleric, meanwhile, said the military operation
> >to free Mr. Wood could have endangered the lives of two Iraqis still
> >being held by the kidnappers.
> > "The stupid action that was taken last week has exposed the fathers
> >of these families to death," Sheik Taj El Din al-Hilaly told reporters
> >on his return from Baghdad, where he had tried to secure Mr. Wood's
> >release. He said it was unlikely the Iraqi hostages would now be freed.
> >
> ></quote>
> >
> >OK...how bout that kids? Was Wood worth two Iraqi hostages?[/color]
>
> Hell yes!
>[/color]

Why was Wood's life worth more than the lives of two Iraqi civilians?

"Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-9B03A6.14242421062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > quagmire in the first place.
> >
> > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]
>
> I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> that kind of information?
> --[/color]

Just like a neocon like DBU to think that common sense is top secret
information. ROTFL!

Josh wrote:[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-9B03A6.14242421062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > > quagmire in the first place.
> > >
> > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]
> >
> > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> > that kind of information?
> > --[/color]
>
> Just like a neocon like DBU to think that common sense is top secret
> information. ROTFL!
>[/color]

you beat me to it

Dbu_^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > quagmire in the first place.
> >
> > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]
>
> I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> that kind of information?
>[/color]

what? Its all in the paper dbu

In article <1119382797.033625.23830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > > quagmire in the first place.
> > >
> > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]
> >
> > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> > that kind of information?
> >[/color]
>
> what? Its all in the paper dbu[/color]

Where does the paper get it's information?

Unless it's a direct quote from a authorized spokesperson from the
defense department I treat media stuff as hearsay.
--

In article <AWCdnQiHFNg98iXfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Josh" <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Dbu_^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
> news:ntspam-9B03A6.14242421062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > > quagmire in the first place.
> > >
> > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?[/color]
> >
> > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> > that kind of information?
> > --[/color]
>
> Just like a neocon like DBU to think that common sense is top secret
> information. ROTFL![/color]

Your idea of common sense is rumor and hearsay to fit your anti Bush
crusade.
--

Dbu_^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1119382797.033625.23830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Dbu_^ wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > > > quagmire in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?
> > >
> > > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> > > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> > > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> > > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> > > that kind of information?
> > >[/color]
> >
> > what? Its all in the paper dbu[/color]
>
> Where does the paper get it's information?
>
> Unless it's a direct quote from a authorized spokesperson from the
> defense department I treat media stuff as hearsay.
>[/color]

OK EVERYONE.... ANSWER THIS. Would you be more likely to believe:

1. A daily news synopsis from about 10-20 different sources, or
2. A Pentagon briefing

?


I'd be more than happy to post a couple of news breakdowns for you so
you can see the nature of some of my sources -- no secrets, just
compilations of the days news stories.

On 21 Jun 2005 13:43:32 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>Dbu_^ wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <1119382797.033625.23830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Dbu_^ wrote:
>> > > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
>> > > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
>> > > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
>> > > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
>> > > > quagmire in the first place.
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?
>> > >
>> > > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
>> > > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
>> > > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
>> > > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
>> > > that kind of information?
>> > >
>> >
>> > what? Its all in the paper dbu[/color]
>>
>> Where does the paper get it's information?
>>
>> Unless it's a direct quote from a authorized spokesperson from the
>> defense department I treat media stuff as hearsay.
>>[/color]
>
>OK EVERYONE.... ANSWER THIS. Would you be more likely to believe:
>
>1. A daily news synopsis from about 10-20 different sources, or
>2. A Pentagon briefing[/color]

The Pentagon briefing...

Ever look at 10-20 new sources? They all come from the same place...

the days news stories.


--

Scott in Florida

In article <1119386612.828002.172450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dbu_^ wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <1119382797.033625.23830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Dbu_^ wrote:
> > > > In article <1119380494.502527.35340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The problem is that this obviously very high-level Islamic Cleric was
> > > > > in the midst of negotiations, and once again the "Coalition" took it
> > > > > upon itself to take military action. We simply cannot continue
> > > > > operating in this fashion, its how we've gotten into this awful
> > > > > quagmire in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you think that at least some coordination was in order?
> > > >
> > > > I continue to be amazed at how much you seem to know about what is going
> > > > on in Iraq and inside the government. Where do you get all this insight
> > > > and why aren't you running things over there and over here? You also
> > > > seem to have access to top level planning and secrets, where do you find
> > > > that kind of information?
> > > >
> > >
> > > what? Its all in the paper dbu[/color]
> >
> > Where does the paper get it's information?
> >
> > Unless it's a direct quote from a authorized spokesperson from the
> > defense department I treat media stuff as hearsay.
> >[/color]
>
> OK EVERYONE.... ANSWER THIS. Would you be more likely to believe:
>
> 1. A daily news synopsis from about 10-20 different sources, or
> 2. A Pentagon briefing[/color]


I'll try to be nice one more time. First for security reasons not every
bit of information is made public. To do that would give away to our
opponents (terrorists and ben laden) information that would help them to
evade our finding and destroying them. If you were hunted would you
like to have all the information you can possibly get? Of course you
would. So, 1. the media doesn't have ALL the information to make the
claims they make. 2. The defense dept is not going to give out
information to the news media that would compromise their job of finding
the people they want to find, makes sense? 3. The defense dept is
going to give us the offical word as to what is happening to a point
where is won't compromise the work they are doing.

I don't know how to make it any more simple for you. If you still don't
get it then I have to assume 1. You just aren't very bright or, 2. You
just want to argue, or 3. You hate Bush and you want to make arguing a
way of life until you get the guy you like in power.


[color=blue]
>
> ?
>
>
> I'd be more than happy to post a couple of news breakdowns for you so
> you can see the nature of some of my sources -- no secrets, just
> compilations of the days news stories.[/color]
--