US military Operations ongoing in Iran right now (for Israel)

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.

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.