In message <[log in to unmask]>, Brice Yokem
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Mr Brown -
>
>I have to confess, I do not know what you are trying to say.
Indeed.
> What you appear to be saying is not what you meant.
No.

Can I ask the List how far this confusion about what I said goes with
other readers here? I'd guess not far.

But your confusion was manifest from your ascribing two diametrically
opposed views to me, neither of which I held, and then managing to
disagree with both of them.

You then asked me how many buildings, planes and people were destroyed
or killed in an attempted hijacking that was thwarted.

My response was naturally a puzzled 'none'.

So, alas, our incomprehension is mutual, though I'm not sure the
confusion is.

>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.

Ah, so they are taking little or no action. Except that they may be
taking more action. That figures.....

But *somebody* is threatening our planes, and flights are still being
cancelled, just to be on the safe side, even as recently as a few days
ago.

>  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.

Exactly that point. You don't know. They don't tell you. But, without
the slightest evidence, you presume collusion. And not just any old
collusion, but specific collusion between one of the most secular, and
one of the most religious, groups out there. While some collusion
between terrorist groups may be likely, this is one of the least likely,
not the most likely, such collusions. I'd like that point borne in mind.

>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?

I refer you to our illustrious colleague, Denys. Despite our somewhat
opposing views, he is as uncomfortable with the word 'pacify' as I am,
given the overtones it has gained from various military actions around
the world.

You don't 'pacify' a country in which most people support you. There,
you just 'root out insurgents'. You 'pacify' a country when you don't
know who the hell is for you, and who is against you, so you just pacify
the hell out of them gooks, just to be sure. (Oops, wrong war - sorry -
counter-insurgency action). But that can't apply to the Iraq of which
you speak, can it?

--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

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