Subject:
|
Re: Can Larry Justify These Ones? Let's see!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:22:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > > > What about the "evidence" the USA had when it bombed Sudan?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not convinced that we didn't get snookered on that, and that it wasn't
> > > > > actually his plant after all.
> > > >
> > > > Can you justify this in any way?
> > >
> > > Well can you? Over the weekend that has been used as an example of how
> > > things can go wrong. Can you justify your words?
> >
> > For the 3rd time : Can you justify this in any way?
>
> Justify that I'm not convinced of something? How am I supposed to do that,
> exactly?
Tell us what your basis for that opinion is.
>
> Get a grip on yourself and your frothing.
I have a firm grip on reality. I'm not so sure you do. I'm not the only one
who thinks that either.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) My basis for "not being convinced that we didn't get snookered" is lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, bin Laden actually *was* the owner or part owner of that plant through some twisted chain, whether or not it was completely harmless or (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
