Skip to comments.
BLAST AT CITY TUBE STATION - FOUR BOMB EXPLOSIONS AROUND LONDON
Sky News ^
| July 7, 2005
Posted on 07/07/2005 1:45:13 AM PDT by RWR8189
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,861-3,880, 3,881-3,900, 3,901-3,920 ... 4,081-4,089 next last
To: Justanobody
She said the same as Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry and Kohl, Corzine and Lautenberg! I am going to down load it and put it next to Seantor Allen's release, for 08! ;)
3,881
posted on
07/07/2005 6:04:39 PM PDT
by
defconw
(ALLEN IN 08)
To: Eva
Rationality is based upon a set of given things or assumptions. Your basis says that suicide is irrational. An islamowacko's basis is that suicide and killing infidels is rational. He is no less rational than you if you understand his basic ethics. We don't like it. We value life. He doesn't. It is perfectly logical that you wouldn't blow up yourself to kill 20 people on a bus. It is also perfectly logical that he would. Rationality is a logical process starting with certain basic assumptions and values. If your values were the same as his, it would be rational for you to blow up the bus, too.
3,882
posted on
07/07/2005 6:04:49 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: lentulusgracchus
Crash eyewitnesses described aircraft behavior completely inconsistent with a shoe-bombing. A small bomb would more than likely (>80%) be ineffectual at such low altitude and speed. Weapons like that rely on aircraft speed and altitude (pressurization) to work. The initial skin rupture enlarges and the airframe disintegrates. That requires high speed and high altitude.O.K.
Wouldn't that explain the 'falling apart' effect, and the minimal damage on the ground?
(questions from non-expert.)
3,883
posted on
07/07/2005 6:05:58 PM PDT
by
fanfan
(" The liberal party is not corrupt " Prime Minister Paul Martin)
To: lentulusgracchus
Crash eyewitnesses described aircraft behavior completely inconsistent with a shoe-bombing. A small bomb would more than likely (>80%) be ineffectual at such low altitude and speed. Weapons like that rely on aircraft speed and altitude (pressurization) to work. The initial skin rupture enlarges and the airframe disintegrates. That requires high speed and high altitude.O.K.
Wouldn't that explain the 'falling apart' effect, and the minimal damage on the ground?
(questions from non-expert.)
3,884
posted on
07/07/2005 6:06:11 PM PDT
by
fanfan
(" The liberal party is not corrupt " Prime Minister Paul Martin)
To: Eva
Oh, thank God again! Were they supposed to leave tomorrow?
3,885
posted on
07/07/2005 6:06:30 PM PDT
by
TAdams8591
(Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
To: Gunrunner2
I don't know. It would have been real close.
3,886
posted on
07/07/2005 6:08:28 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: JWinNC
3,887
posted on
07/07/2005 6:08:50 PM PDT
by
fanfan
(" The liberal party is not corrupt " Prime Minister Paul Martin)
To: ohioWfan
Dick Durbin and his ilk are an unfortunate side effect from not having a declared war. If we had one we could hang him.
3,888
posted on
07/07/2005 6:10:17 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: Txsleuth
The 1993 Tower bombings, OKC, the Embassy bombings, the Cole and probably hundreds of other attacks occurred before we went into Iraq.
Terrorist attacks are caused by.....yes, terrorists!!
3,889
posted on
07/07/2005 6:12:34 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Txsleuth
Two days ago, and politicizing 9-11 along the way, Hillary said that NY was the best place for the Olympics. Today, she said it's not safe!!!
3,890
posted on
07/07/2005 6:15:55 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: furball4paws
No, your reasoning is faulty because Islam is based on the Koran which is in itself irrational. It has so many contradictions that it stands for nothing and everything, whatever you want it stand for. You can't justify an irrational ideology that is based on irrational, contradictory rules of morality. You are using circular logic.
3,891
posted on
07/07/2005 6:22:03 PM PDT
by
Eva
To: Sacajaweau
What is she, a flip-flopper? LOL
BTW, heads up everybody....Weasly Clark is going to be on Hannity & Colmes in a second....let's see how he, liberal idiot that he is, blames this on President Bush...
Speaking of weasely idiots, did ya'll see on Fox News that Saddam's lawyer quit today because his American lawyers (Ramsey Clark and pals) were getting in the way!!!! LOL
3,892
posted on
07/07/2005 6:22:44 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
To: Txsleuth
If Saddam's lawyer quit today, it's because Saddam said so.
3,893
posted on
07/07/2005 6:26:52 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Txsleuth
3,894
posted on
07/07/2005 6:28:20 PM PDT
by
Concentrate
(www.housepricecrash.co.uk)
To: Sacajaweau; defconw
Just as I thought, Weasley said that President Bush has spent about $100 million to LITTLE on Homeland Security...
He is the second one I've seen that has blamed Britain's attack today, on Bush not giving our government enough money!
Figure that one out!
3,895
posted on
07/07/2005 6:30:11 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
To: furball4paws
You evaded my question.
Do Dick Durbin's words have an effect on the war or not?
And how could they be treason if words don't matter (your original point, IIRC)?
3,896
posted on
07/07/2005 6:30:25 PM PDT
by
ohioWfan
("If My people, which are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray.....")
To: Concentrate
Terrific thread....
It would be interesting to read a thread that was happening in real time of 9/11 from people really close to the scene.
3,897
posted on
07/07/2005 6:33:55 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
To: trussell
You are so welcome!! They will be on a plane home soon!
3,898
posted on
07/07/2005 6:37:23 PM PDT
by
pitinkie
(revenge will be sweet)
To: furball4paws
Maybe. . .but I have real faith in this president. He acts in the interests of America and while it is nice to have allies along, it is not the defining criteria.
The presence or absence of allied support does not define the actions of Bush when it comes to national security. Allied support is not a criteria when determining if going to war is in the national security interests of the US. Whereas, sadly, for Clinton it was.
For Clinton, if he had no allied support then he would think, "Well, I guess it's not a national security interest."
That is lunacy.
Turning over to "allies" the solemn decision as to what constitutes a reason to go to war is an invitation to disaster. Bush knows better.
To: Txsleuth
Finally! Someone called the libs on their damn politiziation talking point they've been circulating today that Iraq didn't keep all terrorists there to fight. I guess we know what Libs have been doing today. Finding a spine to fight the WOT? No. In Shame of politicizing the war? No. Mourning the loss of Life and showing solidarity in will with britain? No. Concocting vicious divisive political talking points meant to tear down the war, tear down the president? YES!
Bennett called Alan on it and I'm thrilled. I want Bennett on more often. He isn't afraid to nail Alan to the floor even if Alans puts on that mock outrage of swarmy grin.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,861-3,880, 3,881-3,900, 3,901-3,920 ... 4,081-4,089 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson