The "Important people visiting London when attack took place" thread

[Yeziknoradio]

In the thread below, I mentioned ONE important person( Rudy Guilini.) who hapend to be visiting London when the attack occoured.

From Canada, the Premier of Ontario (Dalton Mcginty) and his wife were also visiting.

As well, there's the whole G8 thing...so who else was there when the attack took place?

I hope no one has family or friends visitng there to worry about.
(also important people.)

<P ID="signature">______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"
</P>

 

[RobertAnthony]

> In the thread below, I mentioned ONE important person( Rudy
> Guilini.) who hapend to be visiting London when the attack
> occoured.
>
> From Canada, the Premier of Ontario (Dalton Mcginty) and his
> wife were also visiting.
>
> As well, there's the whole G8 thing...so who else was there
> when the attack took place?
>
> I hope no one has family or friends visitng there to worry
> about.
> (also important people.)
>
Well, there was Bush, Fox (Mexico), "Blaque Jacque" Chirac of France and that's all I could see. IYAM, it's nothing more than appeasement. If you were to read throughout history what happened to countries when they were attacked--at first they tried to talk with those doing the attacking--how on Earth could you talk to Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito?!

Blair, as much respect I have for him, was a WIMP! Politicians have a SEVERE CASE of testicular cancer! In other words, 'scuse my language but, WHERE ARE THE BALLS??????

 

[JerryStevens]

"Well, there was Bush, Fox (Mexico), "Blaque Jacque" Chirac of France and that's all I could see. IYAM, it's nothing more than appeasement."

<u>What</u> is nothing more than appeasement? G-8 meetings??

"If you were to read throughout history what happened to countries when they were attacked--at first they tried to talk with those doing the attacking--how on Earth could you talk to Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito?!"

I'm really trying to follow you but what country "tried to talk to" Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito? There are always individuals within countries who favor appeasement but France and the UK responded to Hitler's invasion of Poland by entering World War II two days later; the US responded to Hirohito's little excursion into Pearl Harbor the same way. And Italy was attacked by Allied Forces because of Mussolini's decision to side with Hitler. They talked all right.. with bombs!

"Blair, as much respect I have for him, was a WIMP! Politicians have a SEVERE CASE of testicular cancer! In other words, 'scuse my language but, WHERE ARE THE BALLS??????"

What in the world are you referring to? Are you unhappy that he didn't engage in more fervent chest-thumping after today's attacks? Did you want him to personally squeeze off a few rounds of ammo? What? The guy put it all on the line to side with Bush against terrorism and you call him a wimp?! Kind of ungrateful aren't ya?<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[RobertAnthony]

> "Well, there was Bush, Fox (Mexico), "Blaque Jacque" Chirac
> of France and that's all I could see. IYAM, it's nothing
> more than appeasement."
>
> What is nothing more than appeasement? G-8 meetings??
>
> "If you were to read throughout history what happened to
> countries when they were attacked--at first they tried to
> talk with those doing the attacking--how on Earth could you
> talk to Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito?!"
>
> I'm really trying to follow you but what country "tried to
> talk to" Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito? There are always
> individuals within countries who favor appeasement but
> France and the UK responded to Hitler's invasion of Poland
> by entering World War II two days later; the US responded to
> Hirohito's little excursion into Pearl Harbor the same way.
> And Italy was attacked by Allied Forces because of
> Mussolini's decision to side with Hitler. They talked all
> right.. with bombs!
>
> "Blair, as much respect I have for him, was a WIMP!
> Politicians have a SEVERE CASE of testicular cancer! In
> other words, 'scuse my language but, WHERE ARE THE
> BALLS??????"
>
> What in the world are you referring to? Are you unhappy that
> he didn't engage in more fervent chest-thumping after
> today's attacks? Did you want him to personally squeeze off
> a few rounds of ammo? What? The guy put it all on the line
> to side with Bush against terrorism and you call him a
> wimp?! Kind of ungrateful aren't ya?
>
It's just the way Blair reacted in his empty suit--AND YEAH I WANTED TO SEEM SOME RETALIATION--TERRORISTS SPEAK ONE LANGUAGE VIOLENCE! Unlike Durbin, Boxer and to an extent Bush who believe in appeasement I DON'T--I do not want to see what Savage calls Eurabia! There must be investigation of ALL MOSQUES in this country, racial profiling must be enforced ACLU and Communists slapnuts be damned.

Of course this coming from a REACTIONARY RIGHT-WINGER and I ain't afraid to say so!

Islam--religion of peace--MY EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KeithE]

Re: Appeasement

> "If you were to read throughout history what happened to
> countries when they were attacked--at first they tried to
> talk with those doing the attacking--how on Earth could you
> talk to Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito?!"
>
> I'm really trying to follow you but what country "tried to
> talk to" Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito? There are always
> individuals within countries who favor appeasement but
> France and the UK responded to Hitler's invasion of Poland
> by entering World War II two days later; the US responded to
> Hirohito's little excursion into Pearl Harbor the same way.
> And Italy was attacked by Allied Forces because of
> Mussolini's decision to side with Hitler. They talked all
> right.. with bombs!

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was infamous for appeasing Hitler in September 1938. The result of that was that Germany took over the Sudetenland (a part of Czechoslovakia populated mostly by Germans) 2 weeks later. Hitler took the rest of the country in early 1939.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm>World War II European Timeline</a><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Keith Elster on 07/08/05 01:43 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: Appeasement

"British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was infamous for appeasing Hitler in September 1938. The result of that was that Germany took over the Sudetenland (a part of Czechoslovakia populated mostly by Germans) 2 weeks later. Hitler took the rest of the country in early 1939."

Of course. Chamberlain is nearly synonymous with appeasement. He is one of those I referred to when I wrote: "<u>There are always individuals within countries who favor appeasement</u> but France and the UK responded to Hitler's invasion of Poland by entering World War II two days later; the US responded to Hirohito's little excursion into Pearl Harbor the same way."

But I was responding to what Robert wrote: "If you were to read throughout history what happened to countries when they were attacked--at first they tried to talk with those who were doing the attacking." Chamberlain's appeasement was not in response to being attacked by Nazi Germany. England had not been attacked. And though they should not have waited, they did not wait to be attacked but waged war when Hitler took Poland.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: The

"It's just the way Blair reacted in his empty suit--AND YEAH I WANTED TO SEEM SOME RETALIATION--TERRORISTS SPEAK ONE LANGUAGE VIOLENCE! Unlike Durbin, Boxer and to an extent Bush who believe in appeasement I DON'T"

Robert, though I was born in Ohio, I spent many years living in Southeast Georgia, near Hunter Army Airfield and Fort Stewart, home to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized). They have consistently proven their rapid deployment capabilities in recent operations including the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent deployments to Egypt, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo; and, most recently to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are guys who see war up close. You know what I noticed when speaking with them? The experienced soldiers have a very businesslike attitude. No big talk at all. They will quietly tell you they have a distasteful but necessary job; are well-trained and will do their job well. In sharp contrast were the morons I'd hear calling the local talk radio station saying "We should go kick some ass!" as if this were a Friday night football game we were talking about. And I'd think: "No, you are not going to kick ass. You are going to your job at 7-11 and fantasize about being John Wayne, loser." The last thing we need is big talk from people who will not be sweating and shooting and watching kids die next to them. The only ones that have earned that right never seem to want to excercise it. Bush once said: "Bring 'em on!" I cringed. Bush said later that Laura Bush did too. It was a dumb thing to say and at least he now admits it.

"--I do not want to see what Savage calls Eurabia!"

OMG... don't listen to that guy. He is not well. He hates everyone.. Arabs, Clinton, Bush, Limbaugh... hates 'em all!

"There must be investigation of ALL MOSQUES in this country, racial profiling must be enforced ACLU and Communists slapnuts be damned."

You got close to saying something I agree with. We cannot screen 100% of the people in this country. We need to press our resources in going after the most likely suspects. Refusing to acknowledge that members of terrorist groups who hate America are Muslims so as not to offend anyone is embarrassingly stupid. It's like looking for rape suspects and interrogating both men and women so as not to stereotype.

"Of course this coming from a REACTIONARY RIGHT-WINGER and I ain't afraid to say so! Islam--religion of peace--MY EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Robert, don't mistake me for a leftist. For years I identified myself as a conservative but conversations like this have made me reconsider. Let's say I'm libertarian.


<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[westlife]

> There must be investigation
> of ALL MOSQUES in this country, racial profiling must be
> enforced ACLU and Communists slapnuts be damned.

And you're saying this before there's even any conclusive proof that any radical Islamic group had anything to do with it?

Remember, we first thought that the guys who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City were from the Middle East.... and we were wrong!
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[RobertAnthony]

Re: The

> "It's just the way Blair reacted in his empty suit--AND YEAH
> I WANTED TO SEEM SOME RETALIATION--TERRORISTS SPEAK ONE
> LANGUAGE VIOLENCE! Unlike Durbin, Boxer and to an extent
> Bush who believe in appeasement I DON'T"
>
> Robert, though I was born in Ohio, I spent many years living
> in Southeast Georgia, near Hunter Army Airfield and Fort
> Stewart, home to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized).
> They have consistently proven their rapid deployment
> capabilities in recent operations including the 1991 Gulf
> War and subsequent deployments to Egypt, Kuwait, Bosnia, and
> Kosovo; and, most recently to operations in Afghanistan and
> Iraq. These are guys who see war up close. You know what I
> noticed when speaking with them? The experienced soldiers
> have a very businesslike attitude. No big talk at all. They
> will quietly tell you they have a distasteful but necessary
> job; are well-trained and will do their job well. In sharp
> contrast were the morons I'd hear calling the local talk
> radio station saying "We should go kick some ass!" as if
> this were a Friday night football game we were talking
> about. And I'd think: "No, you are not going to kick ass.
> You are going to your job at 7-11 and fantasize about being
> John Wayne, loser." The last thing we need is big talk from
> people who will not be sweating and shooting and watching
> kids die next to them. The only ones that have earned that
> right never seem to want to excercise it. Bush once said:
> "Bring 'em on!" I cringed. Bush said later that Laura Bush
> did too. It was a dumb thing to say and at least he now
> admits it.

Jerry, I am glad you have connections with our soldiers in Iraq. But we are at war, sir--war was declared on this country 9/11/01--have you forgotten? Maybe you have.
>
> "--I do not want to see what Savage calls Eurabia!"
>
> OMG... don't listen to that guy. He is not well. He hates
> everyone.. Arabs, Clinton, Bush, Limbaugh... hates 'em all!

Well, let me say his program I would carry if I were PD of a radio station because he is no milqtoast nor blind Republican cheerleader like Limbuagh, Hannity, et al. I agree with just about everything he says because like the late Howard Cosell--he tells it LIKE IT IS! The other program I would carry--Jim Bohannon--serves as a contrast for those in the upper echeland of money. The rest of the time--I adopt the Live Local Talk--I would play music, but for the most part the entertainment industry is run by a bunch of uneducated liberal slimeheads!

>
> "There must be investigation of ALL MOSQUES in this country,
> racial profiling must be enforced ACLU and Communists
> slapnuts be damned."
>
> You got close to saying something I agree with. We cannot
> screen 100% of the people in this country. We need to press
> our resources in going after the most likely suspects.
> Refusing to acknowledge that members of terrorist groups who
> hate America are Muslims so as not to offend anyone is
> embarrassingly stupid. It's like looking for rape suspects
> and interrogating both men and women so as not to
> stereotype.

Well, to go OT men can be victims of sexual abuse, it's just that the media is persona non grata or perhaps there are guys who have egos the size of Lake Michigan who don't want their "pride" damaged.

>
> "Of course this coming from a REACTIONARY RIGHT-WINGER and I
> ain't afraid to say so! Islam--religion of peace--MY
> EYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> Robert, don't mistake me for a leftist. For years I
> identified myself as a conservative but conversations like
> this have made me reconsider. Let's say I'm libertarian.
>
Well, this is where I REALLY am going to say I AM INDEED sorry. I am a reformed liberal who went through hell and back at college and had to drink the Kool-Aid from the commie profs or else kiss about $12,000 in tuition good-bye--and this was a decade ago. Believe it or not I am Libertarian in some aspects, except on drugs (other than that, less government, more freedom, etc.). But your earlier comment makes me question your patriotism and even that of Preisdent Bush--where was the cowboy I elected? I guess he rode off into the sunset.

I am registered in my town as no affiliation--which allows me freedom to pick who I do or do not want. Sure it means I don't vote in the primaries--DOESN'T MATTER TO ME as both parties are full of corruption-driven by corporate greed--now the old me would've said that without much thought--but the new me says as much as I love capitalism, sometimes there are flaws with it. Sometimes it's just like me and with my disability of Autism--learning to live with it.

And also living with a mother who gets mad at the slighest thing--I guess you might call my mother a drama queen!

 

[JerryStevens]

Patriotism

"But your earlier comment makes me question your patriotism and even that of Preisdent Bush"

Both I and Bush wiil somehow endure the indignity.

But remember, no less a patriot than Patrick Henry petitioned for war without questioning the patriotism of his countrymen. In arguing against British appeasement, he began his famous speech this way:

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights" -

March 23, 1776

If only we could achieve anything approaching this level of dissenting speech today.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[doc9464]

> Well, there was Bush, Fox (Mexico), "Blaque Jacque" Chirac
> of France and that's all I could see. IYAM, it's nothing
> more than appeasement.

Me thinks Robert protests a little too much....im not sure why those who don't agree completely with Robert are appeasers or wimps or whatever the insult de jour is today....there are some general facts in place...

The world agreed and got on board with us getting back with the war on Afganistan...and a gentle reminder, Chirac was the First one to agree with us and sign on to help in afganistan...where the world gets off the train is Iraq....you may not agree but many of us don't like how Bush pushed the Iraq war, didn't tell the truth about it (my opinion), and how he and his administration has managed this war...they didnt like how he didn't let the inspectors complete their work, how he kept pushing that Iraq had to be done, etc. Osama bin Laden attacked America....not Saddam Hussein...

Now that our government has provided much evidence that Bush went in incorrectly and that Saddam and Osama were not working buddies - Bush said it as well -
(Dulfer Report, Intelligence investigation, 9-11 commission, etc) and we now have no exit strategy.....no plan....and no effective means of getting our troops from this self-created quagmire...whatever enthusiasm about the war

Iraq was not a terrorist haven until we attacked, won, and are now mismanaging the aftermath....Iraq is a terrorist haven now because the US (Bush as leader) created this haven. I fully support the troops but highly question their Defense Secretary and Commander in Chief for their failures so far.

Now Robert, before and others on the right bring up clinton...id thought id use Bush's own words about Kosovo before you choose to bring up clinton....

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.
(sources for quotes - [Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

Now, can one honestly say that Bush has put out a time table. He hasn't and wont do it. You dont have to attach specific dates as long as we know what the goals are.

My idea is that if we need to train the Iraquis then we should put them through the same basic training our soliders go through...so take 10k at a time, move them to Ft, Polk, Camp Pendelton, Ft. Campbell...and have at it....for 12 weeks, then send them back and bring home 10k of our military. Repeat until done...that way we have a way to put the iraq troops in good shape. Id say leave 10-25k of our troops in place to help monitor/evaluate the new troops. And we should accept the currently refused offers from other countries (INCLUDING FRANCE BTW) to train troops outside of Iraq. Us should agree to train 100k and other countries can train 100k - thats 200K troops (over 60k more than what we have on site now) plus if we leave 10-25k for special work/oversee the troops..then there might be a chance to close the borders and get a handle on the terrorists.

See thats ideas NOT coming from this alleged war president.....if this is done then we can begin to answer the questions (failures) of :

1) missing oil revenue (no one has idea of what happened to the oil money)
2) war profiteering (all the contracts that were not handled with any real management - example - KBR feeding troops subpar to bad food)
3) 8.8 billion dollars missing from Iraq Reconstruction effort - no current investigation and republican congress refuses to investigate this
4) finding Osama and getting Afganistan back online - yes, the Taliban is back and growing stronger and US is letting them do it...where is that Bush resoluteness...remember dead or alive...well Osama is still loose with no plan to get him...
5) etc.....

See, Robert, your president has created a huge mess....and its probably going to fall to his replacement (god, let it be a Democrat) to clean up his mess....if we dont impeach him first for war crimes....but you people who continue to push this war should volunteer to help on the shortfall...

There is an effort put out here at the link below
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_patriotboy_archive.html#111898519280678378

operation yellow elephant works well for young college republicans but for blowhards like you....robert, maybe you should consider joining the effort as well....maybe you will find those balls u seek




If you were to read throughout
> history what happened to countries when they were
> attacked--at first they tried to talk with those doing the
> attacking--how on Earth could you talk to Hitler, Mussolini
> or Hirohito?!
>
> Blair, as much respect I have for him, was a WIMP!
> Politicians have a SEVERE CASE of testicular cancer! In
> other words, 'scuse my language but, WHERE ARE THE
> BALLS??????
>