The War On Terrorism

[Admiral Piett]

Exactly,the delivery is the problem.You need an aicraft or something of similar.But that is not so easy as using mail.

[Darth Wong]

Deliving Athrax can be done by
*packing it a large crate, fly over city, release Crate, boom instant infection

Aerial dispersion will reduce the concentration to such pitifully low levels that almost no one will be infected, and those who are will suffer only a minor infection at most. I remind everyone that most of the people infected with anthrax last year survived; you need a big dose to kill someone, and you won't get that by dumping your spores over an entire city.

Mounting it to shaped bombs where only a tiny porition goes to the Athrax payload and the rest purpelse the Athrax into the Air

The heat and pressure would kill most of the anthrax.

Adding it to ventilation systems/infecting the Airfilters people buy for homes and offices

That might work. Infiltration is the best way to deliver that kind of weapon.

NOT placing it in a envople and mailing it to people!

Why not? It worked, didn't it? People were terrified nationwide.

[Darth Wong]

Regarding the general topic, 4 points:

• The irony of "guns lower crime" right-wing Americans going after Iraq simply because they might possess certain types of weapons is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
• The notion that you can declare war on a country because of what they MIGHT do is very disturbing. Bushie-boy Asscroft have repeatedly demonstrated that they have a McCarthyite mentality, and this is another example. By all means, if Iraq attacks somebody, drop the hammer. The mistake of "appeasement" before WW2 was that they did not take action while the Nazis did. But to attack someone because they MIGHT do something is a dangerous precedent.
• If they're against unstable religious theocracies getting nukes, then why didn't they bomb Pakistan into the stone age before THEY got them? I'm not afraid of Saddam using nukes; he's too cagey. I think that if nuclear weapons are ever exchanged in the next decade, it will be over Kashmir.
• Stop calling it the "war on terrorism." It is actually the "war on Al-Quaeda and anyone who might be connected with them." There are lots of terrorist groups in the world which America has no intention of messing with, because they're terrorizing others, so nobody cares (indeed, America has financed many terrorist groups in its day, including Osama himself).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

While I have no doubt Sadam would love to fire one of his nukes at Isreal, he knows Merkavas would be rolling into the shattered remains of Iraq the next day. And I highly doubt he has missles that could hit the US (hell, IIRC China can only hit Hawaii) or he would actually give one to a terrorist.


And biological weapons are more of a scare weapon then an effective one

[Joe]

Regarding the general topic, 4 points:

• The irony of "guns lower crime" right-wing Americans going after Iraq simply because they might possess certain types of weapons is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
• The notion that you can declare war on a country because of what they MIGHT do is very disturbing. Bushie-boy Asscroft have repeatedly demonstrated that they have a McCarthyite mentality, and this is another example. By all means, if Iraq attacks somebody, drop the hammer. The mistake of "appeasement" before WW2 was that they did not take action while the Nazis did. But to attack someone because they MIGHT do something is a dangerous precedent.

The reasoning is, according to Paul Wolfowitz, that there is a lot we don't know and lot we'll never know, so we've got to think differently about standards of proof. I don't buy it.

[*]If they're against unstable religious theocracies getting nukes, then why didn't they bomb Pakistan into the stone age before THEY got them? I'm not afraid of Saddam using nukes; he's too cagey. I think that if nuclear weapons are ever exchanged in the next decade, it will be over Kashmir.

Common misconception about Iraq; Iraq has one of the few (if not the only) completely secular governments in the Middle East, which you think would make it a natural ally of the U.S., but instead we choose to involve ourselves with the uber-fundie Saudis. Saddam is also not a "nut," as we so often like to refer to Middle Eastern leaders who don't share our beliefs. He isn't stupid; even if has nukes (which is questionable) and even if he has the delivery systems to launch the nukes at America (which he doesn't) he isn't going to use them, because he isn't crazy; he's not going to assure the destruction of the entire Middle East by attacking the biggest nuclear superpower in the world.

[*]Stop calling it the "war on terrorism." It is actually the "war on Al-Quaeda and anyone who might be connected with them." There are lots of terrorist groups in the world which America has no intention of messing with, because they're terrorizing others, so nobody cares (indeed, America has financed many terrorist groups in its day, including Osama himself).[/list]

Well, it was originally supposed to be the war to bring the 9/11 attackers to justice (Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11, but that doesn't really matter, I guess) but since we totally fucked up in that area, Iraq is going to have to suffer. Iraq probably doesn't even have anything to do with al-Qaeda; it's a secular government, as I said before, and probably would tend to avoid the funding of extremely religious terrorist sects (but that's okey dokey for the Saudis, our allies).

[Knife]

With all the before mentioned points in mind, remember that Iraq signed a cease fire with the colalition and has by all comon sence, violated it again and again.

[lgot]

That is the only reason...
In the creation of the state of Israel, the same treat, said there would be a Palestine state. Where is it ?
That Jerusalem would be a free area to all the religions there. Where is that ? (Even, the USA congress voted that Jerusalem legally belongs to Israel...I wonder, what does they have to do with United Nation deal ?)
But who ever say about attacking Israel ? A country that have nuclear power, btw. That have ties with terrorism : In the 70ths they (Sharom -sp?- helped to organized and command a squad to kill palestine leaders...). And that breakes all the rules they can break since 60's. ...
geez

[Meghel]

That is the only reason...
In the creation of the state of Israel, the same treat, said there would be a Palestine state. Where is it ?

The fact that Israel was attacked by its neighbours just after teh creation of Israel effectively destroyed this plan. But take heart, they have been working on the Palestine State for over 9 years now and it will come to pass.

That Jerusalem would be a free area to all the religions there. Where is that ? (Even, the USA congress voted that Jerusalem legally belongs to Israel...I wonder, what does they have to do with United Nation deal ?)

Isn't it free to all religions? I understood that there are Christian, Jewish and Islamic holy places there. And from what I gather, everyone is allowed to visit these places, given their peaceful intentions.

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that Jeruzalem would be an open capital of both Palestine and Israel.

But who ever say about attacking Israel ? A country that have nuclear power, btw.

I suggest you read this article from The conomist. It sums it up pretty well.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ ... id=1378577

That have ties with terrorism : In the 70ths they (Sharom -sp?- helped to organized and command a squad to kill palestine leaders...). And that breakes all the rules they can break since 60's. ...
geez

I suggest that you ask yourself the question to whether this was before or after a series of infamous hijackings carried out by the PLO and similar terrorists. It only stands to reason to train a unit to eliminate dangerous enemies.

Cheers,

Meghel

[Steve]

While I sometimes get tired of people screaming that Bush is going to create a police state, as if he were some evil wannabe Hitler, at the same time it re-assures me that we are paying the price of freedom well, and will continue doing so.

Mike, I'll point out that when Pakistan and India developed nukes, Bubba was in the White House, not Shrubby. Different policies there.

I would prefer we attack Iraq and get it over with. People here comment that Iraq is a secular government. So? Communist countries had "secular" governments. Iraq is a one party totalitarian dictatorship, it is not magically better simply because it has less fundies (and the fundies are still powerful enough that Saddam has to keep up the appearances of being a faithful Muslim, he only drinks alcohol in private, etc.).

Let us drop the "War on Terrorism" charade and say who our true enemy is: those who created the atmosphere and cheered bin Laden on to perform his act of terror. Wahhabist Islam is a Clear and Present Danger to the security, interests, and freedom of the Western World; it must be exterminated with the same zeal and finality that we terminated the Reich with. Our motto should be: "First Baghdad, then Damascus, then Riyadh." We should also take pains to aid the people of Iran in overthrowing the State of Tyranny that resides in Tehran.

Granted, Protestant fundamentalism is also a potential threat, but not a Clear and Present Danger. At least, not now.

[irishmick79]

Actually, India developed nukes in 1974, and Pakistan in the early eighties. All bubba was doing back then was smoking pot and talking about what a great president he was gonna be.

[Steve]

Actually, India developed nukes in 1974, and Pakistan in the early eighties. All bubba was doing back then was smoking pot and talking about what a great president he was gonna be.

I was referring to when they tested them and demonstrated their ability to make them to the world.

[lgot]

The fact that Israel was attacked by its neighbours just after teh creation of Israel effectively destroyed this plan. But take heart, they have been working on the Palestine State for over 9 years now and it will come to pass.

True that the action of the Arab League in 1948 resulted in conflict. But this does not change anything. At same time that Israel was created, Palestine was also. And until today, more than 50 years after there is no Palestine state. The rights of Israel are accepted (an uncertain right, but since the palestines in many times after the WWII actually sold the land to the newcomers, I would say a sure right) and for Palestines ? it is even commum to say among leaders of Israel against the Palestine state.
And since 1948 Isreal kept going out of the boundaries of the deal in after the 1948/1949 conflict. And this is accepted.

Isn't it free to all religions? I understood that there are Christian, Jewish and Islamic holy places there. And from what I gather, everyone is allowed to visit these places, given their peaceful intentions.

It is untrue. Palestines are not allowed free movimentation under the territory controled by Israel and they claim the city as their own, not as the international area.
Even, to the most ridiculous, I have seen radical rabines claiming the reconstruction of the Temple in his old place, which would lead to the destruction of the main islamic holy bulding. Jerusalem is anything but a neutral ground.
Actually, United Nations observers have been able to see the way the palestines are dealt there, under the humans conditions, but without USA support, United Nations is week to do anything.

I suggest you read this article from The conomist. It sums it up pretty well.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ ... id=1378577

It is irrelevant. I was making mention to Bush holy crusade against a "wouldbepower" of Iraq and Israel have all that.
Plus the text only shows hypocrisy in the dealing of the sittuation. The sittuation in Israel/Palestine is much urgent and important and the palestines are almost organized in guettos. Israel is a terrorist and criminal state and United Nation just does not have power to reckon it.

I suggest that you ask yourself the question to whether this was before or after a series of infamous hijackings carried out by the PLO and similar terrorists. It only stands to reason to train a unit to eliminate dangerous enemies.

irrelevant. Watever the motivations of his act, that does not change he acted was a terrorist. Plus the war there is older than the "hijackings" and the war of 56 , Israel hit first. So, please does not come with "he hit me first" explanation. Both are wrong. Both shut up and listen. Just, Israel is more powerful, so Listen More.

[Meghel]

Oh, this is going to be so much fun!

It is untrue. Palestines are not allowed free movimentation under the territory controled by Israel and they claim the city as their own, not as the international area.

Excuse me, but you are now ignoring your own statement!
You stated that Jeruzalem is not a free area to ALL RELIGIONS. I suggest that you read your OWN POST again and start thinking. So far, Jeruzalem is a a free area for all religions.
Perhaps not MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE, but you did not talk about that.

Even, to the most ridiculous, I have seen radical rabines claiming the reconstruction of the Temple in his old place, which would lead to the destruction of the main islamic holy bulding. Jerusalem is anything but a neutral ground.

IRRELLEVANT!
So far, this has not happened.
There are bigots and rabid clerics everywhere, and I have seen and heard rabid Mulsim clerics call for the death of all of Israel and Western civilization, just as I heard rabid Christian and rabid Hindu clerics call for the destruction of other peoples/Civilization.s

It is irrelevant. I was making mention to Bush holy crusade against a "wouldbepower" of Iraq and Israel have all that.

Nonsense, I was reacting with the article to your statement, as quoted below:

But who ever say about attacking Israel ? A country that have nuclear power, btw. That have ties with terrorism : In the 70ths they (Sharom -sp?- helped to organized and command a squad to kill palestine leaders...). And that breakes all the rules they can break since 60's. ...
geez

Now, please explain to me why the article that I gave you a link for is IRRELEVANT.

irrelevant. Watever the motivations of his act, that does not change he acted was a terrorist. Plus the war there is older than the "hijackings" and the war of 56 , Israel hit first. So, please does not come with "he hit me first" explanation. Both are wrong. Both shut up and listen. Just, Israel is more powerful, so Listen More.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Before I will comment onto the lawfullness of the elimination of Palestine leaders, I will require from you the factual data of these eliminations.
If we are talking about eliminating terrorists through government sanctioned military units, this is entirey LAWFUL.
If we are talking about eliminating political leaders through government sanctioned military units, this is entirey UNLAWFUL.

So please provide me with te proof of your claims.



Have a nice day,

Meghel

[Admiral Piett]

I was referring to when they tested them and demonstrated their ability to make them to the world.

This is a pretty academic consideration.The true reason is that Pakistan
has been vital for the wars in Afghanistan.And Musharraf is a "reasonable"
person.The fact that he could be replaced tomorrow by one of his fundie collegue is a thing that the Bush administration prefers to ignore.
An other indication,as if it was really needed,that the war in Iraq has little or nothing to share with the weapon of mass destruction question.

[lgot]

Code: Select all

Excuse me, but you are now ignoring your own statement! 
You stated that Jeruzalem is not a free area to ALL RELIGIONS. I suggest that you read your OWN POST again and start thinking. So far, Jeruzalem is a a free area for all religions. 
Perhaps not MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE, but you did not talk about that. 

Excuse me. But how is anyone is free to profess their religion or to go to their church if their movement is limited ??? "Fine, the city if free for all religion, but you palestine, pray outside there".
Make some sense...

IRRELLEVANT!
So far, this has not happened.
There are bigots and rabid clerics everywhere, and I have seen and heard rabid Mulsim clerics call for the death of all of Israel and Western civilization, just as I heard rabid Christian and rabid Hindu clerics call for the destruction of other peoples/Civilization.s

Indeed, but there is only one who have the power in a place that should have been neutral ground. It is not irrelevant if you see your church be in the middle of rage and attacks of those who have the power.

Now, please explain to me why the article that I gave you a link for is IRRELEVANT.

I will again, Because your article talks about United Nations views, not the USA´s president, which was what I was making reference.
But if you want...
1 - The article only shows more hypocrisy. So, Israel attacked a place in an pre-emptive war, so its fine ? In 1967 ? What about all the rest.
2 - It is false that United Nations have not condemned Israel. But USA used their vote, which have power to block sanctions, to not allow it to happen. The United Nations is blocked to work, by USA´s action, not because rules and articles.
So, the article is irrelevant, because Does not make reference to whom I was asking for more action and its clear biased.

Code: Select all

Before I will comment onto the lawfullness of the elimination of Palestine leaders, I will require from you the factual data of these eliminations. 

It is a joke. Golda Meir authorized the elimination to leaders of palestines leaders in retaliation to the Muniche´s Olympic attack. The attack only was come into light because they did that with people living in Europe and by accident they killed a inocent. So they have to explain to europe about this.
Plus is so unlawfull, that Sharon itself was fired as Defense´s Minister by Isreal´s owns governament (A investigation done by Itzhak Kahan, Aaron Barak e Yona Efrat) because he was found guilty of the Massacre of Sabra and Chatila, if I am not mistaken in 1982.
PLus the attack in 1981 to Bagda´s atomic station under construction, which was saw as illegal by UN.
If you want to read www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/jenin0503.htm there is full of acusations to Israel (And also to the Palestines, But since I do not think an evil justify another and there is one which is much more powerful...) lack of humans rights in dealing with Palestines.
There is more,because it is needed to be very naive to think about Israel being clean in this 40 years wars, but anyone can see that there is hypocrisy in the treatment of USA to Israel.
Which was my point.