Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Judy

Ahhh have I let myself in for it here eh? Sorry Judy, I've been really busy and haven't had time to respond properly yet. I wanted to post something on the Boa forum first on something I consider slightly more important than putting our sides over here.

In the mentime, have a look at the link below to read about the not-so Jewish history of Palestine.
Palestine

I've never claimed to be an expert in Middle Eastern history...nor any history for that matter. The article you offered was interesting and informative...but it didn't challenge anything significant I said in my posts below.

There's plenty more comments I could make about it, but I feel I've invested enough time in this conversation without much return at all.

I look forward to hearing from you, and then perhaps I will find the time to write again. In the meantime, I'll be battening down the hatches, so to speak...getting ready to be overrun by Hurricane Isabel. So if you do finally offer some valid discussions and don't hear back from me, it'll be because we've been knocked offline for a few days.

Judy
-----
1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)

Take care and I hope you and your family / friends keep safe!

Give him time to look up the answers, lol. He's probably having a tough time finding the right crossword puzzle.

not.

Actually, I do have other things that take up my time at the moment. I did however see this report today, and I'm sure you'll be interested to see it. You know Hermann and I mentioned that even Bush himself has commented on the lack of a link between 9/11 and Saddam. And, that because your government has failed to make a big deal of this FACT (as it currently stands), a massive 69% of you have been mislead to believe that there is a link. I think you are one of those 69%!

Well, here's some reading for you:

"Bush denies Saddam-9/11 link"

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has distanced himself from comments by Vice President Dick Cheney that left the impression he saw a possible link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We`ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11," Bush told reporters on Wednesday as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Democrats have accused the administration of creating the "false impression" at the heart of a widespread belief held by Americans that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.

A recent poll by the Washington Post said 69 percent of Americans believed there was a Saddam link to the September 11 attacks although no evidence of such a link has surfaced.

Cheney, interviewed on Sunday on NBC`s "Meet the Press", left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks.

Cheney said on Sunday "It`s not surprising" the public would believe Saddam was involved in the attacks, blamed on the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, who has repeatedly praised the attacks.

`CENTRAL FRONT` IN TERROR WAR

Despite distancing himself from part of what Cheney said, Bush frequently suggested in speeches in the run-up to war that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, warning that Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction could fall into the wrong hands. To date, no weapons have been found.

In recent speeches, he has called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terror, saying U.S. occupation forces face "a foreign element" as well as Saddam loyalists.

But the U.S. authorities have yet to produce any foreigners known to have participated in any recent military operation.

At the White House on Wednesday, Bush held a National Security Council meeting with his top foreign policy and military advisers and discussed Iraq.

The United States is searching for a compromise with France and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council on a new U.N. resolution that would create a multinational force for Iraq and set up a pathway to Iraqi sovereignty.

Bush is to address the U.N. General Assembly on September 23 but U.S. officials said this was not seen at the White House as a deadline for a new U.N. resolution.

France said on Tuesday it wanted fast international recognition of Iraqi sovereignty but accepted that it could take time before a full hand over of power from U.S. military forces was possible.

U.S. officials are rewriting the resolution in order to take account of the concerns of members of the U.N. Security Council.

"We`re still talking about it," Bush said. "The key is to make sure that the political situation in Iraq evolves in a way that will lead to a free society."

You know it's funny. I guess the fact that Hermann and I agree with the Ex Chief weapons inspector for the UN makes us somewhat outlandish? Remember, these are ALL of the things which were put forward as a case for war. Bit by bit, and very slowly, all the reasons are falling apart. Of course we can always fall back on the Kurdish 'massacre' over a decade ago, which was ignored then because the US and Saddam were friends. But you know, that seems to be the only one major reason we currently have why there was a war.

Alas, it is late, and I still haven't responded to some of your answers Judy. And I had promised myself that I'd stop responding to these rather annoying posts by the Scot! Now, I need some sleep.
LINK

Well gee, if Blix says so, it must be true, LOL! Which side of the fence will he be on tomorrow? Didn't he say that they got kicked out, thus not being able to complete their inspection? Guess somebody was running out of hiding places. Oh, and I'm soooo sorry I annoy you. I don't see much reason to anymore. I think by now everyone knows what you're really about. Toodles BTG.

Big Tough Guy

Is that what this is all about? You are upset because the US and Saddam are no longer "friends"? You poor bloody moron! Do pompous arrogant English twits like you really believe that when it becomes necessary to take a viscious, tyrant like Saddam out, we shouldn't be allowed to because at one time we were "friends"? Grow up creep!

Snake Feller

Funny you have enough time to compose yet another lengthy "hearsay" type diversionary post, yet still no response to the relevant questions that Judy so civily asked. And of course no answers to your own questions you posed below. Very evasive for such an "all-knowing" scientist. I predict that any answers you "may" have for Judy will be vague and inconclusive at best. In any case, your constant pursuit of my posts while avoiding others that defy you has become more amusing and detrimental than it has lent credibility to your agenda. Nice job!

Actually, I find your posts so pathetic that answering them in a brief moment is not a problem. This whole thing doen't take priority in my life you know! Who said I was an all knowing scientist by the way? Keep laying those bricks and give the posting a rest!

It's "doesn't", not "doent", Mr. educated scientist.

And you keep pluckin' Nematodes out of puddles, professor. Keep on postin' buddy!