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?
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.
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. 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. 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.
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! Then again, we are talking about elementary arithmetic. Yes, the probability of someone being killed by lightning on a golf course tomorrow is much much higher than that of the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a populated area. But when that nuclear weapon goes off, it's not going to be just one golfer that gets scorched.
some call it pork barrel, I call it consperasy theory to protray muslims as terroists.
Pork barrel? -- Jim Dixon