Flight 685 from the Netherlands

[Russell Patterson]

The report just came out that a couple Saudi brothers(both pilots)
were on a flight from Amsterdam to Mexico City that was scheduled to
fly over the US some time ago. The flight had to be turned back
because Canada would not allow them to land. (They were on the
terrorist watch list)

The story went on to say that, when they got back to Amsterdam, they
tried to go to England and were denied. The reason they said they
were originally going to Mexico was to visit their sick father. My
question is, "Why didn't they try another route to Mexico if they
indeed were trying to visit their sick father?" Why try to go
somewhere completely different? I don't for one minute think the
threat to aviation is over.

Read about it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7529185/site/newsweek/

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

well considering the current administration is doing more to secure us
from threats from Iraq, and done nothing to improve aiprot security, it
wont suprise me if something happens again......

[miles]

wrote:
> well considering the current administration is doing more to secure us
> from threats from Iraq, and done nothing to improve aiprot security, it
> wont suprise me if something happens again......

Almost sounds like you hope it will so you can yell SEE and show your
hatred and political bias.

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

not in the least my father and I both fly domesticaly quite regularly
and he also flys internationaly 6 or 7 times a year....

I am just pointing out the irony of an administration protecting us
from terrorists thousands of miles away, yet ignoring safety here in
our airpots and borders.......


Chuck

p.s- when bush does something right, I give him credit, if it were
kerry in there ignoring airport safety, I would be just as harsh on
him.....

[Ken Pisichko]

miles wrote:

> wrote:
> > well considering the current administration is doing more to secure us
> > from threats from Iraq, and done nothing to improve aiprot security, it
> > wont suprise me if something happens again......
>
> Almost sounds like you hope it will so you can yell SEE and show your
> hatred and political bias.

Almost???

This past Saturday I drove into "the Land of the Free and the Home of the
Brave". Yes, the US border control fellow looked at my passport, but didn't
check my truck. Heck, I could have had "contaminated" (from the US
perspective) Canadian Beef or contraband drugs behind (or under) the seats.
They should have checked me out - after all the Border Control types have
always been VERY thorough AND professional before. Why not now? Running out
of money for staffing? If so........

[André Somers]

Russell Patterson wrote:

> The report just came out that a couple Saudi brothers(both pilots)
> were on a flight from Amsterdam to Mexico City that was scheduled to
> fly over the US some time ago. The flight had to be turned back
> because Canada would not allow them to land. (They were on the
> terrorist watch list)
That's just not true. The KLM flight returned to Amsterdam because of
internal company reasons. They *did* have permission to land in Canada.

André

[Frank F. Matthews]

wrote:

> well considering the current administration is doing more to secure us
> from threats from Iraq, and done nothing to improve aiprot security, it
> wont suprise me if something happens again......
>


I assume that you intended to say create threats from Iraq.

[Frank F. Matthews]

wrote:

> well considering the current administration is doing more to secure us
> from threats from Iraq, and done nothing to improve aiprot security, it
> wont suprise me if something happens again......
>


I assume that you intended to say create threats from Iraq.

[Frank F. Matthews]

wrote:

> not in the least my father and I both fly domesticaly quite regularly
> and he also flys internationaly 6 or 7 times a year....
>
> I am just pointing out the irony of an administration protecting us
> from terrorists thousands of miles away, yet ignoring safety here in
> our airpots and borders.......
>
>
> Chuck
>
> p.s- when bush does something right, I give him credit, if it were
> kerry in there ignoring airport safety, I would be just as harsh on
> him.....
>


But you are giving shrub a pass on creating terrorist threats from Iraq
where there were none before.

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

I never thought there was a threat to begin with, sure is now.........

unless 5000 people and camel could be loaded onto rafts and set sail
for our eastern seaboard, we were safe from Iraq......


Chuck

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

I never thought there was a threat to begin with, sure is now.........

unless 5000 people and camel could be loaded onto rafts and set sail
for our eastern seaboard, we were safe from Iraq......


Chuck

[miles]

wrote:
> I am just pointing out the irony of an administration protecting us
> from terrorists thousands of miles away, yet ignoring safety here in
> our airpots and borders.......

The problems do start 1000's of miles away and end here. Both are
needed and both are lacking. As long as there are politicians battling
each other things will always be lacking.

[miles]

Ken Pisichko wrote:

> This past Saturday I drove into "the Land of the Free and the Home of the
> Brave". Yes, the US border control fellow looked at my passport, but didn't
> check my truck. Heck, I could have had "contaminated" (from the US
> perspective) Canadian Beef or contraband drugs behind (or under) the seats.
> They should have checked me out - after all the Border Control types have
> always been VERY thorough AND professional before. Why not now? Running out
> of money for staffing? If so........

I've never had my truck or trailer searched when crossing from Mexico.
Others I know have. Like it or not, they profile. Border inspections
and border patrols are way under funded, understaffed, undertrained and
incompetent in my view.

[miles]

André Somers wrote:
> That's just not true. The KLM flight returned to Amsterdam because of
> internal company reasons. They *did* have permission to land in Canada.

Canada would let them land but the US would not allow it to cross its
airspace.

[miles]

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

> But you are giving shrub a pass on creating terrorist threats from Iraq
> where there were none before.

Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
the USA?

[Keith W]

"miles" > wrote in message
news:SC%8e.15497$%c1.10524@fed1read05...
> André Somers wrote:
>> That's just not true. The KLM flight returned to Amsterdam because of
>> internal company reasons. They *did* have permission to land in Canada.
>
> Canada would let them land but the US would not allow it to cross its
> airspace.


When flying from Europe to Mexico you fly over Canada
BEFORE reaching US airspace. If the KLM flight had wanted to
land in Canada US permission was NOT necessary.

Keith

[miles]

Keith W wrote:

> When flying from Europe to Mexico you fly over Canada
> BEFORE reaching US airspace. If the KLM flight had wanted to
> land in Canada US permission was NOT necessary.

You're missing the point. The news reported that the plane was not
allowed to fly over US airspace and thats why it could not go to Mexico.
I haven't said a thing about Canada.

[Keith W]

"miles" > wrote in message
news:mD79e.15548$%c1.4012@fed1read05...
> Keith W wrote:
>
>> When flying from Europe to Mexico you fly over Canada
>> BEFORE reaching US airspace. If the KLM flight had wanted to
>> land in Canada US permission was NOT necessary.
>
> You're missing the point. The news reported that the plane was not
> allowed to fly over US airspace and thats why it could not go to Mexico. I
> haven't said a thing about Canada.


In fact you did, In the post by you that I responded too you said

>> Canada would let them land but the US would not allow it to cross its
>> airspace.


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

I hate to say it....we created those terrorists in iraq....

if you think f a second, the southern states and scary mountain people
out west in our USA, wouldnt rise up with these "terrorist" style
attacks against any occupying force you are crazy....only then, they
would be refered to as freedom fighters or the last hope for
america......

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I hate to say it....we created those terrorists in iraq....
>

Many were already around, a substantial % of them are not Iraqi's
and the majority of Iraqi's are Shia who are not involved in the
attacks against the security forces.

You'll note that most attacks are aimed against Kurdish and Shia Iraqi's
by the minority Sunni groups who ruled Iraq using terror as a
method for 40 years.

> if you think f a second, the southern states and scary mountain people
> out west in our USA, wouldnt rise up with these "terrorist" style
> attacks against any occupying force you are crazy....only then, they
> would be refered to as freedom fighters or the last hope for
> america......
>

Or as in the case of the confederate raiders during the civil war
they'd be called dammed rebels.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[garciyalater@hotmail.com]

Many were already around, a substantial % of them are not Iraqi's
and the majority of Iraqi's are Shia who are not involved in the
attacks against the security forces.

You'll note that most attacks are aimed against Kurdish and Shia
Iraqi's
by the minority Sunni groups who ruled Iraq using terror as a
method for 40 years.>>>>

Yes, but as an independant nation, arent they allowed to rul just about
any way they choose?

the us locks people up for non-violent crime, taking away their right
to freedom for making a personal choice that effects only them. While
we fight to free others, we are losing our own 1st and 4th amendments.
While we push like crazy to get iraqi's to the polls, we try as hard as
possible to increase difficulties in voting here at home.

the US has its own problems, going half way around the world to take
care of other peoples problems is the job of the UN, except they werent
working fast enough for us, so we took it upon ourselves? LOL, create
war where there wasnt one....we are doing wonders!!

Had the moron in the big office, said to this country, sadaam is evil
and must go, I may be more favorable to this occupation, but under the
terms we went in for, it is absolute bull****. Why do we have afghan
warlords searching for osama, while we tool around looking to secure
oil revenue?

Chuck

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Many were already around, a substantial % of them are not Iraqi's
> and the majority of Iraqi's are Shia who are not involved in the
> attacks against the security forces.
>
> You'll note that most attacks are aimed against Kurdish and Shia
> Iraqi's
> by the minority Sunni groups who ruled Iraq using terror as a
> method for 40 years.>>>>
>
> Yes, but as an independant nation, arent they allowed to rul just about
> any way they choose?
>

Not when that involves starting a regional war every decade or so

> the us locks people up for non-violent crime, taking away their right
> to freedom for making a personal choice that effects only them.

Sure it does

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[miles]

Keith W wrote:
> In fact you did, In the post by you that I responded too you said
>
>
>>>Canada would let them land but the US would not allow it to cross its
>>>airspace.

Yes, but you reply made no sense to that respect. The plane turned back
because it couldnt cross US airspace. It had nothing to do with landing
or not landing in Canada. Your reply was about landing in Canada not
requiring US clearance. Well DUH!! Whats your point?

[Keith W]

"miles" > wrote in message
news:%Ph9e.15608$%c1.9790@fed1read05...
> Keith W wrote:
>> In fact you did, In the post by you that I responded too you said
>>
>>
>>>>Canada would let them land but the US would not allow it to cross its
>>>>airspace.
>
> Yes, but you reply made no sense to that respect.

So now you acknowledge you did in fact mention Canada OK

> The plane turned back because it couldnt cross US airspace.

Quite so

> It had nothing to do with landing or not landing in Canada. Your reply
> was about landing in Canada not requiring US clearance. Well DUH!! Whats
> your point?

That it could have landed in Canada without crossing
US airspace rather than returning to Amsterdam.
Your post implied otherwise.

Keith

[Ed]

Andr=E9 Somers wrote:
> Russell Patterson wrote:
>
> > The report just came out that a couple Saudi brothers(both pilots)
> > were on a flight from Amsterdam to Mexico City that was scheduled
to
> > fly over the US some time ago. The flight had to be turned back
> > because Canada would not allow them to land. (They were on the
> > terrorist watch list)
> That's just not true. The KLM flight returned to Amsterdam because of
> internal company reasons. They *did* have permission to land in
Canada.
>
> Andr=E9

According to Newsweek, the plane did NOT have permission to land in
Canada:

"and Canada rejected a request to land."

>From the full article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7529185/site/newsweek/

Ed

[miles]

Keith W wrote:

> That it could have landed in Canada without crossing
> US airspace rather than returning to Amsterdam.
> Your post implied otherwise.

You misunderstood. I said it could land in Canada. I also said it
returned because it couldnt cross US airspace. You incorrectly made an
assumption linking these.

[Mark Brader]

Keith W.:
> > That it could have landed in Canada without crossing
> > US airspace rather than returning to Amsterdam.
> > Your post implied otherwise.

"Miles":
> You misunderstood. I said it could land in Canada. I also said it
> returned because it couldnt cross US airspace. You incorrectly made
> an assumption linking these.

They are linked. The plane was actually in Canadian airspace when
they got the word about entry into the US being denied. If the
Canadian authorities had felt it was safe and appropriate for them
to land in Canada, the natural thing -- both from a viewpoint of
operating cost and customer service -- would have been to do just
that, and put the other 276 passengers on another flight, instead
of flying them across the Atlantic two extra times.

According to Newsweek, the plane *was not* allowed to land in Canada.

I make no comment as to rights and wrongs, only as to facts.
--
Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is
Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired."
| --Michael Chance

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Keith W.:
> > That it could have landed in Canada without crossing
> > US airspace rather than returning to Amsterdam.
> > Your post implied otherwise.

"Miles":
> You misunderstood. I said it could land in Canada. I also said it
> returned because it couldnt cross US airspace. You incorrectly made
> an assumption linking these.

They are linked. The plane was actually in Canadian airspace when
they got the word about entry into the US being denied. If the
Canadian authorities had felt it was safe and appropriate for them
to land in Canada, the natural thing -- both from a viewpoint of
operating cost and customer service -- would have been to do just
that, and put the other 276 passengers on another flight, instead
of flying them across the Atlantic two extra times.

According to Newsweek, the plane *was not* allowed to land in Canada.

I make no comment as to rights and wrongs, only as to facts.
--
Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is
Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired."
| --Michael Chance

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Lucas Tam]

miles > wrote in news:dE%8e.15498$%c1.2236@fed1read05:

> Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
> the USA?

1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.

And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of your
closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Lucas Tam]

"Keith W" > wrote in news:42651a00$1_1@
127.0.0.1:

>> Yes, but as an independant nation, arent they allowed to rul just about
>> any way they choose?
>>
>
> Not when that involves starting a regional war every decade or so

By that logic, the US is in the same boat (most of the time the US doesn't
start them, but sure joins in)! Maybe a couple regional wars every decade
or so.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Dave Smith]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> > Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
> > the USA?
>
> 1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.

Were those soldiers not killed in Iraq by a resistance movement fighting
against an occupying army who invaded on the pretences of looking for WMDs
which turned out not to exist?

[Dave Smith]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> > Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
> > the USA?
>
> 1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.

Were those soldiers not killed in Iraq by a resistance movement fighting
against an occupying army who invaded on the pretences of looking for WMDs
which turned out not to exist?

[miles]

Lucas Tam wrote:
> miles > wrote in news:dE%8e.15498$%c1.2236@fed1read05:
>
>
>>Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
>>the USA?
>
>
> 1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.

The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
Iraqi's. Try again.


> And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of your
> closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.

That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe because
it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not even
close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
countries? I do.

[miles]

Lucas Tam wrote:
> miles > wrote in news:dE%8e.15498$%c1.2236@fed1read05:
>
>
>>Got any evidence of Iraqi's who are plotting terrorist threats against
>>the USA?
>
>
> 1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.

The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
Iraqi's. Try again.


> And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of your
> closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.

That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe because
it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not even
close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
countries? I do.

[Lucas Tam]

miles > wrote in news:6YN9e.15916$%c1.5598
@fed1read05:

>The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
>Iraqi's. Try again.

Tell that to YOUR media, YOUR government, and YOUR military.

The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to Al
Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group (against
terrorists).

>> And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of
your
>> closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.
>
> That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe
because
> it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
> Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not
even
> close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
> countries? I do.

Technically people dislike the actions of the American government rather
than people themselves. If you travel internationally and don't see the
dislike for Americans... then you're the naive one. A lot of people are
still too polite to tell Americans in their face that they dislike them.
The moment they walk away, they snicker behind their backs.

This dislike for Americans has even cropped up in Canada. It happened to
me in Europe on the last trip when I was mistaken as an American...



--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Lucas Tam]

miles > wrote in news:6YN9e.15916$%c1.5598
@fed1read05:

>The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
>Iraqi's. Try again.

Tell that to YOUR media, YOUR government, and YOUR military.

The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to Al
Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group (against
terrorists).

>> And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of
your
>> closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.
>
> That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe
because
> it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
> Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not
even
> close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
> countries? I do.

Technically people dislike the actions of the American government rather
than people themselves. If you travel internationally and don't see the
dislike for Americans... then you're the naive one. A lot of people are
still too polite to tell Americans in their face that they dislike them.
The moment they walk away, they snicker behind their backs.

This dislike for Americans has even cropped up in Canada. It happened to
me in Europe on the last trip when I was mistaken as an American...



--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Frank F. Matthews]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> miles > wrote in news:6YN9e.15916$%c1.5598
> @fed1read05:
>
>
>>The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
>>Iraqi's. Try again.
>
>
> Tell that to YOUR media, YOUR government, and YOUR military.
>
> The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to Al
> Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group (against
> terrorists).
>
>
>>>And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of
>
> your
>
>>>closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.
>>
>>That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe
>
> because
>
>>it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
>>Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not
>
> even
>
>>close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
>>countries? I do.
>
>
> Technically people dislike the actions of the American government rather
> than people themselves. If you travel internationally and don't see the
> dislike for Americans... then you're the naive one. A lot of people are
> still too polite to tell Americans in their face that they dislike them.
> The moment they walk away, they snicker behind their backs.
>
> This dislike for Americans has even cropped up in Canada. It happened to
> me in Europe on the last trip when I was mistaken as an American...
>
>
>


I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)

[Frank F. Matthews]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> miles > wrote in news:6YN9e.15916$%c1.5598
> @fed1read05:
>
>
>>The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
>>Iraqi's. Try again.
>
>
> Tell that to YOUR media, YOUR government, and YOUR military.
>
> The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to Al
> Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group (against
> terrorists).
>
>
>>>And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of
>
> your
>
>>>closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.
>>
>>That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe
>
> because
>
>>it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
>>Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not
>
> even
>
>>close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
>>countries? I do.
>
>
> Technically people dislike the actions of the American government rather
> than people themselves. If you travel internationally and don't see the
> dislike for Americans... then you're the naive one. A lot of people are
> still too polite to tell Americans in their face that they dislike them.
> The moment they walk away, they snicker behind their backs.
>
> This dislike for Americans has even cropped up in Canada. It happened to
> me in Europe on the last trip when I was mistaken as an American...
>
>
>


I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)

[Dave Smith]

miles wrote:

> > 1500 soldiers died ... a vast number from road side bombings.
>
> The vast majority of those bombings were not from terrorist attacks by
> Iraqi's. Try again.

If soldiers are killed it is not a terrorist attack. It is an attack on a hard
target.

> > And now hatred against the US is at an all time high. Even some of your
> > closest allies are having second thoughts about the US.
>
> That is complete liberal leftist propaganda you want to believe because
> it supports your cause. Protesters are the ones who make the news.
> Thats the only ones you see and assume it represents everyone. Not even
> close. Do you travel internationally and talk to locals in those
> countries? I do.

Actually, I think he is quite accurate there. During the Vietnam war the
protesters got the press while most of the rest thought it was legitimate. Not
this time. The people I talk to overseas are all very much opposed to the US
action in Iraq. They never believed that there were WMDs. Maybe AMericans knew
better (because they had the receipts?) , but the fact that none turned out
just confirms what your former allies told you about why you shouldn't go.

[Dave Smith]

" wrote:

>
>
> the us locks people up for non-violent crime, taking away their right
> to freedom for making a personal choice that effects only them. While
> we fight to free others, we are losing our own 1st and 4th amendments.
> While we push like crazy to get iraqi's to the polls, we try as hard as
> possible to increase difficulties in voting here at home.

Not to mention the US invading countries, labelling their captives as
illegal combatants and then shipping them to a US base in Cuba with the
idea that since it is not US territory they are not entitled to due
process.

> the US has its own problems, going half way around the world to take
> care of other peoples problems is the job of the UN, except they werent
> working fast enough for us, so we took it upon ourselves? LOL, create
> war where there wasnt one....we are doing wonders!!

How dare the US operate as a sort of democratic forum and refuse to jump
when ordered to do so by the US. The UN was apparently not impressed with
Powells little Power Point presentation that showed drawings of what a
mobile bio-chemical warfare plant might look like alongside photographs of
parked trucks. The people at the UN were a) not convinced that Saddam had
WMDs, and b) use of force was likely to destabilize the country. So the US
said the UN was useless and invade don its own. Here we are two years
later, and a) no WMDs were found and b) the country in totally
destabilized.

Sure, there was some sort of an election. The people elected are not in
charge. There have been more than 1500 US soldiers killed, and who knows
how many thousands if Iraqis dead.

> Had the moron in the big office, said to this country, sadaam is evil
> and must go, I may be more favorable to this occupation, but under the
> terms we went in for, it is absolute bull****. Why do we have afghan
> warlords searching for osama, while we tool around looking to secure
> oil revenue?

Of course. But you would have known that no country has the right to go
into another country and force regime change. They must have figured it
was better to lie about the WMDs and use that as the pretence for invasion,
then switch the motive after the fact.

[miles]

Lucas Tam wrote:
> The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to Al
> Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group (against
> terrorists).

Not sure what your point is. I repeat, the vast majority are not from
Iraqi's.

> Technically people dislike the actions of the American government rather
> than people themselves. If you travel internationally and don't see the
> dislike for Americans... then you're the naive one. A lot of people are
> still too polite to tell Americans in their face that they dislike them.
> The moment they walk away, they snicker behind their backs.

Thats what you want to believe based on your own views. You do not know
that. It goes beyond them just being polite. They often agree with
many political aspects. Just doing that to be polite? It seems to me
that the only thing you base your statement on is your own biased views
and the media propaganda. It's what works best for you.

> This dislike for Americans has even cropped up in Canada. It happened to
> me in Europe on the last trip when I was mistaken as an American...

When I recently visited Montreal and Quebec City I found very few people
that disliked Americans or even American politics in general. Quite the
opposite. This was interesting because there are two disctinct
political groups in Quebec and on views towards Americans they were much
the same. There was no dislike and no, they were not just being polite.

[miles]

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

> I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
> that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
> who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)

Talk to many returning soldiers from Iraq? Most I have heard from do
say the residents in most of Iraq appreciate them being there. Very
opposite of what you here in the media. Odd that those that discount
the majority of the soldiers statements are all on the same political
side. Whatever agrees with them is the way it must be.

[miles]

Dave Smith wrote:

> Actually, I think he is quite accurate there. During the Vietnam war the
> protesters got the press while most of the rest thought it was legitimate. Not
> this time. The people I talk to overseas are all very much opposed to the US
> action in Iraq. They never believed that there were WMDs. Maybe AMericans knew
> better (because they had the receipts?) , but the fact that none turned out
> just confirms what your former allies told you about why you shouldn't go.

Bull. Russia, Germany, France and just about everyone else opposed or
for that war all stated independently that Iraq had WMD's. It was not
just a statement from the USA. Even in the USA the democrats had been
saying there were WMD's there for years.

[Frank F. Matthews]

miles wrote:

> Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>
>> I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
>> that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
>> who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)
>
>
> Talk to many returning soldiers from Iraq? Most I have heard from do
> say the residents in most of Iraq appreciate them being there. Very
> opposite of what you here in the media. Odd that those that discount
> the majority of the soldiers statements are all on the same political
> side. Whatever agrees with them is the way it must be.


Then again, do you think that the folks who are indifferent or who
really want the foreign troops out are likely to say so to the troops.


In any case I was just trying to point out where the two of you were
disagreeing.

[Lucas Tam]

miles > wrote in news:k4iae.16929$%c1.11524@fed1read05:

> Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>
>> I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
>> that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
>> who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)
>
> Talk to many returning soldiers from Iraq? Most I have heard from do
> say the residents in most of Iraq appreciate them being there. Very
> opposite of what you here in the media. Odd that those that discount
> the majority of the soldiers statements are all on the same political
> side. Whatever agrees with them is the way it must be.

Yes, but only 2 years ago... no Americans were dying in Iraq.

Now 1500+ are dead.

So I would say Americans are in more danger today because of the Iraq war.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Lucas Tam]

miles > wrote in
news:f1iae.16928$%c1.1808@fed1read05:

> Lucas Tam wrote:
>> The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to
>> Al Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group
>> (against terrorists).
>
> Not sure what your point is. I repeat, the vast majority are not from
> Iraqi's.

There were none... now there are many : )

Those militants have sure come out of the woodwork...


--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Anon-E-Moose]

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

>> Had the moron in the big office, said to this country, sadaam is evil
>> and must go, I may be more favorable to this occupation, but under
>> the terms we went in for, it is absolute bull****. Why do we have
>> afghan warlords searching for osama, while we tool around looking to
>> secure oil revenue?
>
> Of course. But you would have known that no country has the right to
> go into another country and force regime change. They must have
> figured it was better to lie about the WMDs and use that as the
> pretence for invasion, then switch the motive after the fact.

One day, some country is declare the President of the United States an evil
dictator and liberate the US. I would bet ALL my money that Americans would
term term the "liberation" and illegal invasion (and probably become those
"insurgents" themselves). Just watch ; )

[Frank F. Matthews]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> miles > wrote in news:k4iae.16929$%c1.11524@fed1read05:
>
>
>>Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that he's taking issue with the word Iraqi. Don't you realize
>>>that all the trouble in Iraq is caused by the nasty Saudis and others
>>>who have come in and terrorized the peaceful and grateful residents. :)
>>
>>Talk to many returning soldiers from Iraq? Most I have heard from do
>>say the residents in most of Iraq appreciate them being there. Very
>>opposite of what you here in the media. Odd that those that discount
>>the majority of the soldiers statements are all on the same political
>>side. Whatever agrees with them is the way it must be.
>
>
> Yes, but only 2 years ago... no Americans were dying in Iraq.
>
> Now 1500+ are dead.
>
> So I would say Americans are in more danger today because of the Iraq war.
>


Quite possibly more if you count those who survived until out of
theater. And I will admit that no Americans were being killed by Iraqis
a few years ago. However I cannot managed to see the Americans killed
in Iraq as victims of terrorism.

Personally I don't see that adventure as worth any american lives.
Alas, that's not the government attitude.

As to our being more in danger here in the US I doubt that the danger
has increased or decreased much. The Saudis who took out the towers on
9/11 represented a movement that hasn't changed much.

[Frank F. Matthews]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> miles > wrote in
> news:f1iae.16928$%c1.1808@fed1read05:
>
>
>>Lucas Tam wrote:
>>
>>>The media always reports the bombs were by militant groups linked to
>>>Al Qeada... or some branch of some fundamentalist Islamic group
>>>(against terrorists).
>>
>>Not sure what your point is. I repeat, the vast majority are not from
>>Iraqi's.
>
>
> There were none... now there are many : )
>
> Those militants have sure come out of the woodwork...
>
>



They have become concentrated in a place where they can cause trouble.
It's strange that they appear satisfied with mostly killing fellow Muslims.

[miles]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> There were none... now there are many : )
>
> Those militants have sure come out of the woodwork...

There are very few "IRAQI" militants attacking US soldiers.

[miles]

Lucas Tam wrote:

> There were none... now there are many : )
>
> Those militants have sure come out of the woodwork...

There are very few "IRAQI" militants attacking US soldiers.

[miles]

Anon-E-Moose wrote:

> One day, some country is declare the President of the United States an evil
> dictator and liberate the US. I would bet ALL my money that Americans would
> term term the "liberation" and illegal invasion (and probably become those
> "insurgents" themselves). Just watch ; )

Trouble with your logic is that the insurgents, militants, rebels or
whatever you choose to call them are mostly NOT Iraqi's.

[miles]

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

> Quite possibly more if you count those who survived until out of
> theater. And I will admit that no Americans were being killed by Iraqis
> a few years ago.

Very few are being killed by Iraqi's today. Most attacks on US soldiers
are not from Iraqi's.

[Pearce]

In article <AEEae.17786$%c1.1985@fed1read05>,
miles > wrote:


> There are very few "IRAQI" militants attacking US soldiers.

Reality sucks.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5723