That's why my post was a response to Tom's: I was asking for clarification of something he said. While you are welcome to jump in and try to speak for Tom, he is the only one qualified to clarify his statements.
And how can you call two questions and two declaritives a rant? Surely your posts came closer to meeting that definition?
Now you're playing a game trying hard to learn the actual names of Tom's and Scott's "enemies" on these, and other, boards. Well, the enemies are those who insist that terrorists are freedom fighters, regardless of action and motivation (Reuters, Ltd., comes quickly to mind here). Seems pretty clear.
With that bit, it's clear that you are in the Tom camp, so I'm happy to issue the same challange to you: show me "noble freedom fighter" in any news story (Reuters or anyone else you choose). Any evidence of this massive PR campaign will do. I am eager to join your camp if you can show me something.
Current Events » in reply to re: I missed it . . .
I understood your story with crystal clarity
The whole thread (35 posts)
- Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
- re: Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
- Can you clarify?
- re: Yeah -- they just misspelled U.S. when they hit the U.N. . .
- I sincerrly doubt that their goal is to evict the US from Iraq
- re: Can you clarify?
- Can you clarify?
- re: Lead UN Envoy Killed in Blast . . .
