[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time
back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

* George is missing an opportunity?
*Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

* The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault.

For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

Stephen