Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 8 Oct 2006 13:22 T Wake wrote: > The problem is the US are the last superpower so no nation has the > strength for direct action. This leaves the people who feel > maltreated with no outlet, other than supporting terrorism. > > America is locked in a vicious circle and refuses to step outside of > it. Ahh, there is at least Russia and China to count. Not to forget France, who can blackmail all together. On concentional war, w/o nuclear, I guees no one could win, as no culture would support such a plan till to the end. Some tried :-), all fell on the nose... Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: John Larkin on 8 Oct 2006 13:26 On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:32:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:eprgi2letl4lmo4am69hagk9q15uat90mk(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:30:33 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>In an attempt to suppress free speech and debate on the issue, both >>>Rumsfeld >>>and Bush have used the word to refer to anybody that disagrees with Bush's >>>prosecution of the non-existent war. It's reprehensible. >>> >> >> It might be, if it were true. Obviously it's not. > >Obvious only to those who refuse to admit that Bush has ever done, or could >ever do, anything wrong. Those of us who saw each of them say it know they >did. > >Eric Lucas > If you google "bush treason" you will get about 5e6 hits. I've only perused a tiny fraction of them, but all that I've seen accuse Bush of treason, which is clearly absurd. Do you know of a case where W accused an American of "treason" for disagreeing with his policies or actions? John
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 13:33 John Fields wrote: > In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, Entirely falsely because the crew didn't check for any scheduled flights for one thing. > one or more warnings was issued, On the wrong frequency. > the warnings were apparently ignored, They weren't even addressed to the Airbus. > and the aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat. > A tragic accident, but not an atrocity. It would have been less atrocious for sure had the US apologised for this colossal error and compensated those affected straight away instead of having to be reluctantly dragged into the courts years later. > >What did it prevent? > > --- > Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. There never was an attack on the Vincennes. > Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? It would seem those sailors did it through sheer incompetence. Another USN vessel in the area had actually correctly identified the Iran Air flight btw. And you stil think the USA can be proud of these actions ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 13:36 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > >There was no threat. > > --- > Hindsight's 20-20. Were you there? The crew of the Vincennes was simply 'trigger happy. Another USN vessel realised the mistake they'd made but was too late to stop them. > >> >A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air > >> >lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels. > >> > > >> >Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening. > >> > >> --- > >> Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think. > > > >Preventing what ? > > --- > Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes. > > Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it? On the balance of evidence I'd have to say yes I'm afraid. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Oct 2006 13:38
T Wake wrote: > The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking > that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think its > ok - 'cos there was a threat. Which is why they indulge in 'pre-emptive war' - just in case. What a bunch of madmen. Graham |