"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::Fred, you're the one showing signs
:
:Nope, because I'm going to once again decline to be dragged down into
:yet another pointless discussion with you of the whichness of the why
:on this issue.
:
:Translation - Fred's been caught in a mistake (again).

Translation - Paul's elected to start lying (again).

::If "regional" includes operations across Europe, in North Africa and in
::both Americas, then yes.
:
:'Operations'? Sorry, but acquisition of funds and material and hiring
:out as trainers are not 'operations'.
:
:Killing people and blowing stuff up counts as "operations".

Yes, but this is something of a non sequitur to what I said above.

::Which terrorist organisations _don't_ fit this model of "regional"?
:
:Al Qaeda, for one.
:
:So, there's only one "international terrorist group"?

Now, where did I say that?

:You're saying the _PLO_ weren't international, and they've had a seat at
:the UN for thirty years!

Another bit of gorilla dust you like to throw ... 'political wing' is
not 'terrorist wing'. Having an observer seat at the UN means bugger
all. If that makes an organization 'international', I guess we'd all
better be very worried about Tong a....

::Oh, so now we're accepting that PIRA _do_ have "international reach",
::just not _enough_ of it to meet your definition?
:
:Paul, anyone who can afford an airplane ticket potentially has 'global
:reach' for one-off ops. That hardly makes them a global organization.
:
:PIRA trained, based, raised funds, and killed in many countries. Seems
:sufficient to call them "international".

Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth, since
they are worse than any other possible evil extant or potential on the
planet.

Happy now?

::Yep,
:
:Well, pleased to see you're at least finally admitting that reason
:indeed deserts you on this issue.
:
:Oh, stop being so idiotic, Fred.

Very well, I'll stop taking you at your word and simply pretend you're
saying other words entirely. After all, that's your preferred tactic
with me.

:Recognizing you have the problem is
:the first step toward doing something about it.
:
:My only problem is finding you so funny when you get on your high horse
:in defiance of facts. Usually in preparation to ride off into the sunset
:when you show you've not only grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but
:beaten yourself senseless with it.

You mean when you foam sufficiently prolifically to be a dead loss of
time, which is where you've been headed for a while in this thread.

:Remember when you claimed that nobody used PGMs for CAS, and that dumb
:iron was preferred? That you spoke for the aviation community with one
:voice? Whoops. (Of course you fled the debate at that point, perhaps
:because you realised what you'd said)

I disagreed with your contention that JAMS from B-52s at 30,000 feet
constituted 'close air support'. Given a choice between those and
'dumb iron', the Marines, at least, will use 'dumb iron' (if the
questions we've been getting from them are any indicator).

[We are now about to enter the famous Paul Adam "winning through
extraneous volume on an unrelated issue" tactic ... nab, it's not
worth bothering with.]

::but I'm not the one ignoring the facts and making up definitions on
::the fly.
:
:No, you're just the one foaming and blotting, as usual, while
:substituting snide remarks for logic.
:
:I'm the one with the facts, Fred, you're the one claiming black is
:white. Again.

Stick to torpedoes, Paul.

:Keep it up, it's funny.

To you, no doubt it is. This sort of game being 'amusing' for you is
one of the reasons you keep cycling into my killfile. Not worth the
time and bother once you start 'playing', and combatting your lies and
distortion is hardly either 'entertaining' or useful. You can
certainly lie bigger and faster than anyone I know can tell the truth.

plonk

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.