Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Why assume bombs will be the weapons?

I didn't make that assumption. I was detailing the possible threat
delivery systems which could have been in place. As you can see
I also mentioned that ASMs are very efficient at hitting ships.

Having said that, the aircraft was flying level which is generally a sign
of a bombing run.

Actually, the Vincennes thought they were diving IIRC.

Yes, if they had waited long enough for visual observation it may have been
different. If the missile launch really was the result of faulty equipment

It was the result of faulty ppl. The equpiment was working fine, the crew were
reading what they wanted to see.

then all the more reason for the Ships Captain to be apologetic and reassure
the families that the loss was an accident not a deliberate ploy on behalf
of the "Enemy."

To be honest an apology should be left to the Pentagon in this case. Arguably
the captain should have been court-martialled. He had apparently been behaving
like a bear with a sore head all the time the Vincennes was stationed in the
region.

The Citations the ships crew got were a bad sign as well.

Utterly ridiculous and yet another way the USA manages to piss off foreigners.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby]
concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away
or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned
IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a
military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a
trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

I never noticed that. Makes things a bit gloomier.

For me personally, the purpose of this branch of the debate is not to seek
closure on the incident but to highlight the "world image" problem that
America suffers from.

Quite so and I find it truly amazing that seemingly well-educated engineers
should still find no error with this kind of behaviour.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Really? The president of Iran has declared it is the intention of his
country to kill millions? Could you point me in the direction of an
example
of this please

Where do you think their atomic bombs will be detonated?

And yet more assumptions.... While this may be a slightly more sound
assumption than the rest of your paranoid fantasies, can you not see that it
is an assumption to say that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons, and it is
yet another assumption that they intend to use them offensively? It is
certainly plausible that Iran actually intends to build nuclear power
plants. After all, as you point out, they are significantly behind the west
in technology, and use of nuclear power could help them to catch up, and
actually put them on more solid ground technologically as the oil supply
begins to run out.

However, let's suppose for a minute that you were a country that had just
been declared (wrongly, in your view) that you are on the Axis of Evil by
another country that has enough atomic weapons to destroy every lifeform on
the face of the planet (with the possible exception of the cockroaches),
several thousand times over. And let's say that that nation has just
attacked your neighbor who happens to have similar religious views as you,
in what you see as a crusade to destroy your religion. Wouldn't you want a
nuke or two as a deterrant to being vaporized for (in your view) no good
reason?

While I certainly think it is *plausible* that Iran wants a nuke or two to
use offensively, it is an *assumption* to say without qualification that it
is true. And since the only actual support you have for it being true are
your assumptions about Islamic extremists and their goals, and about whether
or not Ahmadinejad is one of them, I'd say it's all a shaky house of cards
on the basis of which I'm not ready to start tossing my Constitutional
rights into a funeral pyre just yet.

Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go on about it
too.

Graham

 

[Sorcerer]

"TuT" <edwarddotwilsonatbaesystemsdotcom> wrote in message
news:452a5587$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
| [snip]
Mission accomplished.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:45:07 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

In what way has food changed since say 200 yrs ago other than to introduce
synthesised stuff ?

We now get an immense variety of it, fresh stuff from all over the
world. And it's better quality, more nutritious, non-rotten and nearly
germ and parasite-free, fortified with vitamins and minerals,
available all year fresh and frozen, and it's dirt cheap.

200 years ago I would have been living on mouldy potatoes and the
occasional scrap of fish or mutton. Now I can have anything I want,
any time I want it. If I do want potatoes (which I do) I can buy about
a thousand pounds of them for an hour's work.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On 9 Oct 2006 02:12:59 -0700, panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:

Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.


No way mate, I will kill as many as I can using the latest hightech AND
the old fashioned way too.

OK, I'll take that for a "yes."

Thank you for an astonishing bit of education.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:09:53 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
<frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iq1ji2t66ov05f69i8oamaop8nq107jigb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things:
1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society.
2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society.


Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.

In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the wearers
boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society where the
outsider-norms are the rule.

Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts
from yours.

This is fascinating.

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eg7slo$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <mEtVg.13881$7I1.4141@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56eh$8ss_005@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Did you find the speech that Bush made in January? He described
why Iraq is important.

I saw it when he gave it.

Now go read it. That way you may be able to avoid your instant
conclusions.

I saw nothing there but more of the usual
fear-mongering that he has been doing all along.

Then we are talking about different speeches. The one
I heard described why Iraq was important.

Spin. There was no reason to go into Iraq.

However, I agree at this
point that we need to not "run away", since we created the mess for
absolutely no reason. We need to make a plan to stabilize the situation as
best possible, and then get the hell out of there and let them duke it out.
It's now essentially a full-blown civil war,

No, it's not.

So what would it take to be a civil war to you?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eg7u2a$8qk_008@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eg5tpm$70s$13@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg57l7$8ss_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's
highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism.

3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.


3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many
have died in car accidents in that time?

That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack.
That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by
anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal
risk in life.

Amazing really.

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?


So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him?

Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization
is not isolated to one human being.

/BAH

It sure isn't something that was in Iraq prior to our invasion.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eg806n$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <KStVg.13889$7I1.2829@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57ru$8ss_012@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are
afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why
does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the
very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

So you prefer people who can spin you a line of bullshit to
people who deal with real problems?


You call the Federal response to Katrina "deal[ing] with real problems"??

What are you talking about? The fact that federal response cannot
happen until the governor requests it?

Sure it can. It's happened in the past. And FEMA can sure get everything
ready.

The fact that a
hurricane is going to make a big mess and hoping it won't when
it is approaching is rational? The fact that it took sending in
the US Army before the locals in New Orleans started to clean
up their mess? 9/11 happened years ago. By last summer, all
major cities should have had evacuation plans and tested them.

Evacuation for what? A plane coming in?

New Orleans has always been in a hurricane zone; so all of
those local politicians should have had ample experience dealing
with hurricanes, before and after they occur. Yet, it's
the Federal government and Bush who are getting blamed for
local mismanagement. Furthermore, the voters of that area
reelected the same people who fucked up. This is an astounding
example of stupidity.

Right-wingers never like democracy when it doesn't produce results they want.

All we've done in Iraq is create one big, huge problem that, luckily for
Bush, *he* won't even have to deal with. I will grant you that Bush dealt
with 9/11 reasonably well--but what evidence do you have that Clinton
wouldn't have done just as well

Because he didn't do as well. You seem to keep forgetting that
9/11 was the SECOND bombing of those building. The first one
happened while Clinton was president and he did not deal with
the problem.

Huh? We arrested those responsible and they're in prison.

He just gestures and pretended it won't happen again.
He let the Arab coalition, established by Bush from the invasion
of Kuwait, falter.

Oh come on. The coalition refused to go into Iraq, which is why Bush Sr.
stopped when he did.

--or is it just your inability to admit that
Clinton was capable of doing anything good just because he got a blowjob?

The fact that he eschewed national security just to get that blowjob
was my concern.

The fact that you believe this is pathetic.

Clinton was verifiably trying to go after bin Laden--obviously he wasn't
successful, but he was trying.

No he wasn't. he was making a half-hearted gesture to show
that he was doing something. He was not serious about
dealing with this security threat.

Read Woodward's book. Read Clark's book. Get your info from other than the
RNC.

And I do clearly remember the Republicans
using the phrase "wag the dog" in relation to the effort to discredit
Clinton for even trying. (Back then, I was still reasonably happy with the
Republican party, so this isn't just a matter of me having selectively heard
something just because it made the Republicans look bad. Heck, back then, I
kind of agreed, because it was not clear to the average citizen what sort of
threat bin Laden was.) By contrast, there is solid evidence that
Condoleeza Rice was briefed with a plan to continue going after bin Laden.
Do you know how important she considered that meeting? She doesn't even
remember it happening! There was a good reason Colin Powell resigned. He,
as a skilled and level-headed diplomat,

Diplomat? He was a general. How did he get diplomatic skills?

Secretary of State isn't a diplomat?

was sick of the Administration's
cowboy foreign policy, including being made to lie to the public to justify
invading Iraq. Before he gave that speech, he *told* the President that the
intelligence was wrong...and he was forced to give the speech anyway.

If Bush had given his January, 2006 speech before going into Iraq,
would you have understood his reasoning? I don't think so because
you don't seem to comprehend it today.

If Bush had said we were going to war, with a billion dollars a week cost and
3000 dead, to "bring democracy" to Iraq, nobody would have been with him. He
had to use the WMD scare tactic.

>/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ob5fi2p4ovsp6rp448m92mjtoh38isluq2@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:42:31 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:aasdi21rrd3aj4cj4va9rh5vtdn25lgb9n@4ax.com...

Yes, as good as Iraq had WMD.

They did, you ditzo.

Uhh...no...not since 1991. You really do need to get yourself educated, and
not just listen to Bush soundbites.


Since '91, you dumbfuck, he was spending ALL of his time starving
the masses and feeding ONLY his military arm while having them build
"palaces" that he would not allow UN inspectors into. "Palaces" in
which he continued his chemical and biological arms programs in.

Not what Kaye said. Not what Duelfer said.

You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.

Yeah, sure.

>

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ma7fi2l8q4oc32p6chnf39hvlm89tmhcdk@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:05:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message newseb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)


It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.

Fuck you, asswipe! I *SHOULD* have the right to record ANY call that
is passed on MY phone,

In some states that will get you arrested. In CA, for example, the consent of
both parties is needed.

and buyer beware to all that call it or speak
to me on it.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <egafn9$8ss_004@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eg5ts4$70s$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg58fu$8ss_015@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip

People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush
is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the
only thing you hear from his political opposition.

I don't. I evaluate critically.


This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these
same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat
to the nation.

Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"?

They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership
replies with, "Trust me."

Anything is better than "stay the course."

So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is
better?


Why should we trust those who mucked up Iraq to see it through now?

The Liberal news lately is full of reports that Iraq has failed.

Man, John Warner came back and said the same thing!

Why do you think it has failed? How long do you think it takes
people to adjust their living habits from a viscious ruling
system to a representative ruling system? How long do think
it takes when two next door neighbors keep sending in people
to foment mob actions?

Give me a detailed time table. Do you expect these changes
in a few weeks, months, a few years? You certainly sound
like you expect everything to get perfect in less than a year.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f917c9ace8a03fe989a1c@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg6464$fjf$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article
kurtullman-4CDB3C.12183406102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <eg5rop$70s$4@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:


Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed,
even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country
and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed
up by current law, more or less.

Which law is that?


Case law. See below. This has been in place at least since my
training in the mid-70s.

If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1,
then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2,
because the tap was legal.
In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no
requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in
Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal.
If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are
fair game.

The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though.
Which was illustrated by Goomba one and two. As in Mafia type
one and two. One side is legal, then what is heard either way is okay.
Actually we are talking international wiretapping. Domestic by
most definitions remains inside the US. In this case the tapped phone is
outside the US. The US phone isn't tapped. But when someone from the
tapped phone calls or is called then the conversation is probably legal.

There isn't "tapping" anyway. The NSA monitors phone calls. ALL phone
calls.
Computers flag those with certain words or phrases, or certain voices, or
certain locales, etc. But we have no way of knowing which things cause
calls
to get flagged, nor do we have any assurance nobody is looking at the
others.

That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of
weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal).

The judge's decision was an embarrassment (written by Al Franken?).

Yeah, like the 4th amendment.

Even the leftie loons are saying the decision doesn't stand a
chance in hell of surviving (the reason the appellate court shelved
the opinion).

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f91802ac508385f989a1d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <SgvVg.13917$7I1.3691@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat. The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a message
to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of
sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your political
opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with the
political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary
might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't learn
to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on our
worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies.

Have you noticed that the page in question is over 18. Did CBS
news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to
light

You're lying.

won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how
they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a
Republican perv.

Yeah, it's Clinton's fault!

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <05cii2p4fh1u08166gal2omfh5t8tasdc1@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:37:07 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


Nice _guesses_, but how is that relevant? How many died in car
accidents? How many from cancer? How is throwing Foley in the can
(which is where he should be) help your 88,000?

I don't think Foley actually commited a crime. Apparently he
text-messaged some former House pages who were over the age of
consent.

16?

Compare that to, say, the Barney Frank or Gerry Studds cases.

And Crane. Same time as Studds. But a Republican -- why don't you ever
mention him too?

He should certainly resign from the House for proven stupidity, which
he promptly did.

http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <8m9ii2pbii7llkcrbofdfunqtlpniaujk7@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:05:49 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:u37ii25hvicshf5oncuffs4olfd576thp9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"joseph2k" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes
to
damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts
demonstrated.
Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the
refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment.

False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response.

A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't.

---
Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is,
for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the
water when threatened by an aircraft.

Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical?

---
The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from
an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting
duck.

In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking
these are not mounted on passenger aircraft.

---
And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths and do respond when contacted by the military.

It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing the
ship was calling HIS plane.

To not do so _is_ madness.
---

When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit.

---
Why assume bombs will be the weapons?
---

The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system
themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter.

---
It's a no-brainer. Mechanically I can easily do it in MFS if I'm
not geing shot at, But, why assume that's the plan? Issue warnings
and if they're not obeyed...
---

The fact that the WTC counter-example is getting stretched further and
further makes me think it was, indeed, a very poor counter example.

While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West
we
have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are
more
at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave.

The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them
was
a terrible attrocity.

The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what
happened
to them was a terrible attrocity.

---
In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated
by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned
over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a
terrible atrocity.

In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more
warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the
aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat.
A tragic accident, but not an atrocity.

Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who lives
in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident.

Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology?

---
No, and it wasn't his job to. If there was any apology to be made
it would probably have come from the State Department or the
President. I believe no apology was issued (although statements of
deep regret were made:

http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~nrotc/ns302/20note.html

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <qkmii2dl5ch9ubkvk3ucdkqkirq0ajks8i@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:40:14 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qm9gi297oamqd9flmtc4291edbfh6k9e2n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine
your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are
the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying
it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

---
Really?

Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your
Ameriphobia?

Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more?


You are accusing people of saying things, without citations, and then
wailing about how bad they are to say them. How clever of you.

John

Bush:

President Bush continued his attack on Democrats for "selectively" quoting an
intelligence report, claiming that their "argument buys into the enemy's
propaganda."

Bush said of the Democratic leadership: "It sounds like they think the best
way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <egd8c2$8qk_002@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <GbqdnS_iQ86RYrXYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egaj6a$8qk_003@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <Ke2dncVNEMkPSLXYRVnysw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egagl2$8ss_007@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5eir$8qk_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4526343A.24C8CC03@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people

Cite ?

I don't have one since I can't access the web.

That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it,
so
others can try to verify?

The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that
news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs
who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million
Americans would have to die to make things equal.

I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more
than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US
government policy.

Why do I have to produce the person and the words at the time
they were made

You dont. I didn't ask you to.

I simply pointed out there is an error in assuming all the posts made on
websites by Jihadists represent a genuine mindset.

If I come across a website with an essay from a Christian explaining how all
Muslims should be killed to make the world safer, am I to assume that is an
authorative viewpoint?

If the authors were responsible for the World Trade Towers'
destruction and other messes, yes.


but you can use any random sound extraction
from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election
in four weeks?

When have I done this? If I have it wasn't intentional and I apologise.

Even if I have done this though, how does that invalidate what I said?

Because these Democrats are purposely ignoring a national threat.

And what is that?

If you keep repeating and believing that they are correct, then
the mindset of those who intend to destroy Western civilization
will simply keep doing their gnat attacks until a Democrat
President is elected. Then, they conclude, based on past experience
with Democrat Presidents, making new messes will not have serious
retaliation from the US. They already know that Europe isn't
going to do anything.

Take a good look at what is happening in Afghanistan right now.
The Taliban are testing NATO's backbone.

And why are they doing it? Because Bush pulled out resources for his war in
Iraq.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <k9ski2he66qemvlu5cp38ltao29anhdht3@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg@pipex.net...
My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we
are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted
(possibly part of the problem).

I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word
from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should.

The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For
the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US
Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people
prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such
"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife.

I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to
snoop on international communications, or even domestic
communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit
murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in
that order.

They also didn't think it was wrong to keep slaves, if you really want to go
there.

The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled
up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing.

No, it's been recognized for other things, and has its foundations in common
law. The 4th amendment seems to imply a right to privacy.

John