TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE

sam1967 RemoveThis @hetnet.nl wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:25:38 +0100, Gabriele Neukam
> <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>>On that special day, sam1967 RemoveThis @hetnet.nl, (sam1967@hetnet.nl) said...
>>
>>
>>>>are unaware of the tragedy of 9/11 that still haunts us all today (I
>>>>still shed a tear at least once a month from it)
>>>
>>>yep . you deserved it you murderous bastards,
>>
>>They got really murderous *after* nine-eleven. And BTW: Was *any* of the
>>plane hijackers of Iraqi nation? AFAIK, they were Algerians and the
>>like,
>
>
> they were saudis. but you cant invade a country when you already
> occupy it so they found the unlikely scapegoat of afghanistan.
>
>
Actually, the thing about Saudi Arabia is more complicated then that.
We can't invade Saudi Arabia without global support because of what
Saudi Arabial provides to the global community through its oil. Even
though the US only gets (I'm guessing here, because my memory isn't that
accurate, so someone post more accurate Saudi oil sells) 12% of their
oil from Saudi Arabia, if we were to invade, it would have a drastic
effect on the world economy. There would be a world shortage in oil
causing many industrialized nations' economies to struggle. When 9-11
happenned, we were still in the Clinton/Gore recession, which would
further rule out an invasion into Saudi Arabia, and as for diplomacy,
many of you who said that the US went into Iraq for oil would be joined
by many more if a unilateral US invasion of Saudi Arabia were to take
place, leaving the US with control over that much oil. Thus a war with
Saudi Arabia is not at the present feasible, and the best thing that we
could hope for in this case is some sort of diplomatic solution between
the US and Saudi Arabia.

--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

sam1967.DeleteThis@hetnet.nl wrote:

> they were saudis. but you cant invade a country when you already
> occupy it so they found the unlikely scapegoat of afghanistan.

Now you're being unfair. Afghanistan was a terrorist haven, more
precisely an al Qaeda haven (and certainly not an idyllic place to live
in).
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"Tracker" <"snailmail(valid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote...

> Laura Fredericks wrote:

>> My ASSessment of you still stands: Idiot.

> What better then to show us about your low self esteem by
> insulting others.

What better way to demonstrate your continued learning difficulties
than when you fail to snip Laura's body armour. How long have you
been posting to Usenet? Note, that's a rhetorical question - I know
the answer.

> HA-HA!

Cackle!

> If you want to learn about Computers, the Internet and Hackers,
> then visit my Website ...

for 11,000 pages of chat room logs. How tedious.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:10:18 +0100, Frederic Bonroy
<bidonavirus.TakeThisOut@yahoo.fr> wrote:

>sam1967@hetnet.nl wrote:
>
>> they were saudis. but you cant invade a country when you already
>> occupy it so they found the unlikely scapegoat of afghanistan.
>
>Now you're being unfair. Afghanistan was a terrorist haven, more
>precisely an al Qaeda haven (and certainly not an idyllic place to live
>in).

you still cannot invade a country without a single scrap of evidence
that they were behind 911.
there were more so-called al-qaeda cells in hamburg, germany than
afghanistan yet they never invaded germany,
then again why bother invading germany as you already occupy that
country.
there was absolutely no justification for waging war against the
sovereign state of Afghanistan.
if you wish to try and prove to me otherwise please take the debate
over to uk.politics.misc where you will find a thread entitled
"SLIGHTLY OT: Afghanistan"
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

<sam1967 RemoveThis @hetnet.nl> wrote in message news:rl1d30pi4e83q45ioffc4d6hsp0ejegc11@4ax.com...

> I think we should invade the US...

Who, exactly, is *we*? Ya gotta mouse in yer pocket? ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

sam1967.RemoveThis@hetnet.nl wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:10:18 +0100, Frederic Bonroy
> <bidonavirus.RemoveThis@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>sam1967@hetnet.nl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>they were saudis. but you cant invade a country when you already
>>>occupy it so they found the unlikely scapegoat of afghanistan.
>>
>>Now you're being unfair. Afghanistan was a terrorist haven, more
>>precisely an al Qaeda haven (and certainly not an idyllic place to live
>>in).
>
>
> you still cannot invade a country without a single scrap of evidence
> that they were behind 911.
> there were more so-called al-qaeda cells in hamburg, germany than
> afghanistan yet they never invaded germany,

We've invaded germany before, not much to see there. Seriously, though,
OBM was in Afghanistan; he was the leader of Al-Quaida. Therefore, it
makes more sesne to invade Afghanistan then Saudi Arabia, since that was
where OBM was. Of course, the Taliban had a chance to give him up and
avoid invasion, but they unwisely chose not to. Pick your friends
carefully.

<snip>
if you wish to try and prove to me otherwise please take the debate
> over to uk.politics.misc where you will find a thread entitled
> "SLIGHTLY OT: Afghanistan"
>

OMG, you're the one who started this debate here, and we've been telling
you to troll in these kinds of groups already. I'm sure you could find
plenty of people in those newsgroups who will take you up on the offer.
--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

sam1967 RemoveThis @hetnet.nl wrote:

> I think we should invade the US because it is clearly a terrorist
> haven .

?

> I am not just talking about the school of the americas I am
> talking about about the Bush administration.
> It is rotten and corrupt to the core.

So what? Can you name one single "clean" administration on this planet?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

sam1967.TakeThisOut@hetnet.nl wrote:


>
> yep . you deserved it you murderous bastards,
>
>
You're a belligerent little pussy aren't you?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:22:08 +0100, Frederic Bonroy
<bidonavirus DeleteThis @yahoo.fr> wrote:

>sam1967@hetnet.nl wrote:
>
>> I think we should invade the US because it is clearly a terrorist
>> haven .
>
>?
>
>> I am not just talking about the school of the americas I am
>> talking about about the Bush administration.
>> It is rotten and corrupt to the core.
>
>So what? Can you name one single "clean" administration on this planet?

can you see the flaw in your logic now ?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

sam1967 DeleteThis @hetnet.nl wrote:

> can you see the flaw in your logic now ?

No. Much as I dislike Bush, comparing his administration with the
Taliban is... ARE YOU CRAZY????
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Big Will wrote:

> Actually, the thing about Saudi Arabia is more complicated then that.
> We can't invade Saudi Arabia without global support because of what
> Saudi Arabial provides to the global community through its oil. Even
> though the US only gets (I'm guessing here, because my memory isn't that
> accurate, so someone post more accurate Saudi oil sells) 12% of their
> oil from Saudi Arabia, if we were to invade, it would have a drastic
> effect on the world economy.

You don't have to invade. If Bush stopped inviting the Saudi ambassador
to Crawford, it would be a huge leap forward. There is open support for
the Saudi regime from the US and that does not tally at all with its
anti-terror rhetoric.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Frederic Bonroy wrote:
> Big Will wrote:
>
>> Actually, the thing about Saudi Arabia is more complicated then that.
>> We can't invade Saudi Arabia without global support because of what
>> Saudi Arabial provides to the global community through its oil. Even
>> though the US only gets (I'm guessing here, because my memory isn't
>> that accurate, so someone post more accurate Saudi oil sells) 12% of
>> their oil from Saudi Arabia, if we were to invade, it would have a
>> drastic effect on the world economy.
>
>
> You don't have to invade. If Bush stopped inviting the Saudi ambassador
> to Crawford, it would be a huge leap forward. There is open support for
> the Saudi regime from the US and that does not tally at all with its
> anti-terror rhetoric.
It's not just open support for the Saudi regime from the US, it's a
whole mess of a security issue. Besides the US, Saudi Arabia is the
only nation allowed to issue US Visas. Considering that most of the
9-11 hijackers were of Saudi origion, putting a stop to this practice
would increase our borders right there. We still, of course, need to
increase security of our real borders (US and Canada), but that's
something else all together. Now, I could go on and on about this
paradox and others concerning the US relations with Saudi Arabia and our
middle east policy, but since this is alt.comp.virus, and not
alt.politics, I'll just leave it at what has been said.

--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE