"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Perro Blanco" wrote:

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"bar86" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
stable regime that
Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have
a
country without
rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks on Israel.
This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al
Qaeda
was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
bombers is well documented

So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist
attacks...".

There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.

That's you Blanco.

I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?)

Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

that you are in the frame. READ the
sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does
it
say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?


"Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks (on Israel)".

It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
but he did.

Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that
the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam
Hussein.

It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented
propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their
activities.

Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to
make them more functional.

Your defence of an illiterate's nonsensical ramblings shows, perhaps, a kind
heart but does nothing to promote the redundancy of languages to make them
more functional. The guy is talking scribble and making wild statements in
that Iraq was not funding ANY of the groups mentioned. The one note of truth
that stood out, however, was where he said "Before the US invaded Iraq
(either time) they were funding terrorist attacks...", although he did add
the words "of Israel". I stand by my interpretation of what he said, which
was why I added the bit about the US's turning a blind eye to many of its
people funding of terrorism against an ally, which confirmed his statement,
as given - one could even substitute "Britain" for "Israel". CONTEXT! I
could have added a bit about, say, the many plots against Castro or - well,
I could go on but there are too many examples, of which the world is fully
aware.

You then make a statement regarding "Iraq's documented propensity to fund,
shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their activities.". Semantics
be my friend, eh?

Bearing in mind that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a total a tissue of
lies there are many who would take issue with your words. Iraqis, having
seen their country invaded by a foreign aggressor with a propensity to
invade weaker nations, have decided to hit back in the only way they can.
They are merely defending their way of life - "freedom" at the end of a gun
is as much use to them as a chocolate fireguard.

It seems nothing will ever change, except that in this case it has turned
out to be a bit more difficult for the United Sates of North America than
"Operation Just Cause" which tried to justify Panama, and I dread to think
what they called the invasion of Grenada where America was "threatened" by a
population of about 100,000 people. Again, there are many more examples.

I suppose, when you people were busy going down the genocide trail with your
own indigenous population, they qualified as "terrorists" as well. "The only
good injun is a dead one" was the line in those days, despite the fact they
were merely defending their lands and their way of life.

What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he
would
be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
with him.

In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said,
since it clearly stumbled over known background facts.

Perhaps that is what confused you.