Mr Brown -

I have to confess, I do not know what you are trying to say.  What
you appear to be saying is not what you meant.

As far as Al-Quaida, we are focused presently on them as targets, so they
are trying to keep a low profile.  On the other hand they suspect their
days are numbered, so they may be taking action now, since if they do not,
there may not be another opportunity.  If you are asking me if I know
what terrorist group is in collusion with other groups, which ones are
responsible for what attempts, I confess, I don't know.  We are talking
about a bunch of organizations which by necessity operate in secret, and
they do not consult with me on their operations.  The people they do
consult with are not talking.  Most of this is pretty obvious, so exactly
what point are you trying to make.

The rest of this seems to be quibbling over the definition of the word
'pacify'.  You implied we do not need to 'pacify' Iraq because the army
has surrended.  I know for a fact 'Izzy' has not surrendered, and he
was part of the army, right?  I claim we need to 'pacify' the country
because there are still elements (army or not) resisting the occupation.
Are you saying we do not need to do that?  What?

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *