Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: CatAshleigh <yusuf921@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> To: Subject: Re: The Terrorists are coming! I was originally going to e-mail this to the people who made the comments, and would recognise what they had said, so I didn't preserve the distinction of who said what, but after re-reading I think it's directly related to Big Brother's attempts at limiting our privacy the >> are my comments, the > are responces and the ones without any >> at all are my counter porposals. sorry if there's any confusion
first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only country with nukes in the middle east is Israel) country with a nuclear program is pakistan, and they're years away from anything that could be stolen.
True, but only because they haven't gotten their hands on any yet. It is well known in certain international arms circles that Kadaffi or Hussein would absolutely *love* to have their own means of producing nuclear weapons. And they aren't alone.
We built Hussein, and I believe that Kadaffi was still struggeling to build chemial when we bombed him in '86, or so, but I believe I could be mistaken.
some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims as terroists.
I don't think so. Most of the world's terrorists (with the exception of the IRA and a handful of others) are recruited and trained by folks in the Middle East. It may be true that they have gotten more than their share of publicity in the past, but the fact remains - the Middle East is *the* training ground for that sort of thing, and there isn't a fundamentalist over there who wouldn't like to shove a suitcase nuke up Bill's ass.
Every orginization which exists in the middle east has a purpose, Hezbullah's purpose is the liberation of Palestine, using nukes would be counter produtive, like in the movie "red dawn" USSR invaded, but USA wouldn't use nukes on it's own territory, because that would make it worthless land. think critically, 1) What would be gained by nuking the US? there are more Muslims here then there are Jews 2) the objective of "terror tactics" is to destroy a lot of property with as few injuries as possible, something akin to "counting coup" to demonstrate that "IF their intention had been to kill people, alot more bodies would be found, which (ie more fatalities) is easly accomplised by simply packing the bomb with shrapnal. could you be more specific about which "fundamentalists" you're talking about?
Haven't you heard? America *is* THE ENEMY to a majority of the folks over in that part of the world. If you don't believe me, travel to that part of the world carrying an American passport and see what happens.
OY! please don't make generalizations. Iran had a popular revolution and overthrew the Shah (it's well documeted that he tortured prisoners in his jails) and replaced it with a democratic parlement, and implemented Islamic law, the USA urged Saddam Hussein to attack them and refused to extridite the Shah to be tried for his crimes. Would you expect any less after that? Who else called the USA a satan? the "ENEMY" is dictators who suppress the people from democratic elections and the countries who back them. therefore keep your eye on Egypt, but they're not very conserned about the USA because there's not much the USA can do to interfere there.
In message <Pine.3.87.9408011942.A12890-0100000@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> CatAshleigh writes:
first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only
How do you know?
that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel bombed them. the only country the usa is throwing a hissyfit about is Pakistan. (and N. Korea)
Ahem. Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm. I spent quite a while next door in Afghanistan and am familiar with the culture.
the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads) Uzbek was part of the USSR, and that's where they deposited some of their permanent sites, Uzbek refused to return them when the federation broke apart because they (they're smart) don't trust the russians farther then they can throw a nuke at them, after all they wanted nothing to do with USSR and were forced into the USSR by the soviets invading. Nukes are their insurance, they're not going to be parting with those any time soon. China is who they should be keeping an eye on. Smaller weapons certainly, such as stinger missiles, but that's capitalism :) A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers). If none of these is unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle. It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY
Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at least have some nuclear materials.
The "defector" is an idiot, saudies were too busy building infrastructure to waist money backing other people's weapons development. The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies aren't too fond of Shi'a. It might also be noted that the USA is similarly guilty.
second of all there are more deaths caused by lighting on golf courses, ask any insurance agency.
Also not true. The total number killed directly and indirectly in Japan alone by atomic bombs is certainly over 100,000. I can't believe that that many people have been killed by lightning on golf courses!
<BUZ> that's deaths from lightning on golf courses verses "terrorist attacks" I should have made that more clear, sorry. I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary)
some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims as terroists.
Pork barrel?
by inflating the NSA, and CIA, more people in your department, more job security.
-- Jim Dixon ----------
The only other people who are called terroist are the IRA, and I don't see the FBI scrambling to protect Great Britian's consulet in DC when a car bomb goes off in London
Here in the UK we read about lots of terrorist groups, not just the IRA: ETA in Spain ...
At least not called terrorist in USA papers, in fact only the British news agencies call the IRA terrorists, american papers seem to take a neutral attitude to the situation. my paragraph was in responce so automaticaly equating "nessisary step-ups in security against terrorists" as a codeword for "spying on arabs and muslims" by the FBI and CIA.
Maybe you should subscribe to a London newspaper.
The internet is better.
--- Jim Dixon
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig