On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:20:09 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:09:33 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:


They weren't anywhere where they posed an immediate threat. Nobody used
one, not the fedyin, not the republican guards, they didn't have them on
the front lines to be found when we over-ran their positions, none were
released as we shelled them, no resistance fighter has had any access to
them, Uday and Qusay didn't have any.


This was on CBS News last night, with an interview by al-Dabbagh


Al-Dabbagh said cases containing chemical or biological warheads were
delivered to front-line units, including his own, in late 2002, the
paper reported. He said they were designed to be launched by hand-held
rocket-propelled grenades, and did not know what exactly the warheads
contained.

Snip

“Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half an hour,”
al-Dabbagh added. He said the weapons were not used because most of
the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

Yes, they didn't want to fight for Saddam, but it seems nobody wanted to
ingratiate themselves with the invaders by saying "Here, see what I
have, here's those nasty chemical weapons you are looking for!!!" And
not one person in all those front line units was fanatical enough to use
one? And nobody has found any of these weapons that were dispersed into
the forward areas...To me this exceeds believability. A former Iraqi
commander, probably a Baathist, no physical evidence, making incredible
statements not supported by logic. Why should I trust him?

If you bought this line of BS I can't say that your reasoning skills
impress me. Can't you see the holes in this story? If you were the
interviewer are there other questions you would have asked? And the big
question still remains, where are the weapons?

I suggest you take it up with CBS.

CBS, whom you Im sure are aware...is not one of Bush's best buddies.

As to where the weapons are..who knows. The source reported that the
Fedayeen came by, grabbed all the weapons, and split off into the
sunset.

Im surprised you don't believe a Liberal Information Source.

Chuckle

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

On 8 Dec 2003 13:22:35 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Jim, once again, you failed to answer the question

No. That was your question and it's the wrong
question. My *statement* is the EXACT same
statement that you made in another thread about
two weeks ago, namely that I get very unhappy
when the constitiution gets a screwing.

And I will continue to stand by that statement.

Jim

So then..you will not answer the question, but make a statement only,
then continue to whine like a little child?

Ok, I can work with this.

G

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

On 8 Dec 2003 13:30:15 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Now could you please explain exactly why your view of the
BOR is a single, unitary amemdment - the second, of
course. And you will move heaven and earth to see to
it that the second is upheld verbatim, and stamp and
holler if anyone who supports it is denigrated.

Cites? We have the ACLU watching over the rest of them (their ignoring
the 2nd is notable btw)

A CITE? I don't need a cite for my opinion. This is
what you look like, to me.

Your opinion is noted..and a reminder that Opinions are like
assholes..etc etc is directed your way.

There is NO way to prevent terrorism, or acts of terrorism, without
stepping on peoples toes, or their Rights. Period. Full stop, end
program.

This is what ashcroft would have you believe. I had hoped you
were wiser than that. If you are willing to destroy the
constitition to save it, then I guess this part of the discussion
comes to a close.

Jim

Im still waiting for your suggestions on how the situation could have
been handled differently, and how you would handle it now.

Its obvious then that you are unable to provide any? Just kvetching is
your style? Interesting. Sad..but interesting

As to your touching concern about the Constitution, I suppose that it
also includes the 2nd Amendment? Not based on various of your
previous posts.....

Gunner


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

In article , Gunner says...

So then..you will not answer the question, but make a statement only,

Your question came after my statement IIRC, so the
*real* question remains in your court, how will YOU
preserve and protect the US constitution?

What other amendments become optional under Ashcroft's
program?

What rights are YOU willing to give up?

Let's start with, say, search and siezure. Now
the cops need no warrant issued under probable
cause, to search gunner's homes. How's that feel?

Next we're going to have you detained and incarcerated
for no reason at all. No arrest warrant need be
issued, no crime committed.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

also includes the 2nd Amendment?

I rest easy in this regard knowing you are walking
the face of teh planet.



Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

I thought that made *two*. After all, we
can't be quibbling about stepping on a
few rights now, eh? We're gonna upset
somebody no matter what happens.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Gary what is the matter with you? The government has been looking
for just such a plan and you said it out loud. We are all doomed now!

Pete.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

The reason that Gunner gave his vote for your plan is that in the typical
police states it is the "Gunners" of the society that are the police and
they
are the only ones that have the guns. Thus, Gunner would be quite happy
with the situation that you describe. He would have job security and
lots of guns.

Pete.

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents.

*Everyone* must be required to show their identity papers

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

Next suggestion - a new sarcasm detector for Gunner - his is broken.

Gary was obviously being sarcastic. Yet you take him literally, and
accuse him of the very thing he is critizing. Hence, detector must
be busted. (Or turned off when it is convenient for you.)

John Kasunich

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:40:10 GMT, Mark
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Then when we tighten up security and make sure it doesnt happen
again..the actions are demonized as violations of the Constitution
and Civil Rights..witness Patriot Act, Gitmo etc etc.

"and make sure it doesn't happen again"? You mean _try_ to make sure it
doesn't happen again. Even in a police state it is impossible to be
perfectly safe. In a free country it is even harder. But that is one
of the risks of life - not an excuse to turn this nation into a police
state.

I wish you folks would come up with a counter proposal to ensure the
security of the US, all the while taking money from the HUMINT side of
the equation, and solutions that do not violate (allegedly) someones
rights.

If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

I'm all in favor of spending on HUMINT. But I'd rather endure another
9/11 than give government the unbridled power you want it to have. I
just don't get it - you are a libertarian, but you have no problem with
goverment power in the hands of the Right.

Here's something it seems most people (at least the Dubya Dogmatics)
have missed: Pre 911 there were rules and procedures already in place
but the rules were not being followed and procedures were not being done.

No ****..and who was in charge of this during the 8 yrs prior to 9/11?
Whom refused to fund HUMINT sources both foreign and domestic?

It sure wasn't Dubya.

Wife works for the local University. They were suppose to track foreign
students. Did they? Sort of but not really. Since 911 their suppose to
track these foreign students. Are they? Sort of but not really. Pre 911
I suspect they didn't force compliance because it may have caused these
students to take their money to a more friendly institution. Post 911,
at last report, the software wasn't working properly. There may be other
reasons.

I strongly suggest you take a look at the Administrations of those
Universities..and ask them what their take on the matter was. Those
bastions of Liberal thinking were refusing to follow those steps as
being harmful to the rights of those students. Want the cites


If the existing laws are not being enforced, the answer is to enforce them,
not to add new laws. That's practically a quote direct from the NRA/RKBA
people. Why doesn't it apply to security? Why do we need the Patriot act
when existing laws aren't being used, or are being used selectively at the
whim of those in power? That's the exact reason why the RKBA people oppose
new gun control laws - and they are right. More laws and more government
power is not the answer.

There is a simple test for any law: would I want this law applied to
me? Do you want the government to search your home/shop without a
warrant while you are at work? Don't say "I have nothing to hide".
What if that government decides you shouldn't own guns - then you
certainly would have something to hide.

Suppose Lennie called up the Bureau of HS and said "Psst, there's a
guy named Gunner up in Bakersfield with a house full of guns and
a shop where he's making bombs for terrorists." Only the last three
words are a lie. Do you want the BoHS or ATF searching your house
because of a tip from the likes of Lennie? Do you want to be in the
position of having do _prove_ you aren't making bombs for terrorists?

Another problem lies in Government Agencies. Agencies have their piece
of the pie and their intent on keeping as much of their territory as
they can. Worse, each department within each agency has it's own piece
of the pie and their intent on holding onto as much as they can.

Absolutely correct. I notice that most of them are still run by
Clinton appointees. However..since Homeland Security was formed to
address this issue..the Left is Still screaming.

As long as all these people work at getting and keeping as much power as
each of them possibly can we don't stand a chance.

Of course..politicians are politicians.

Exactly - politicians are politicians. Last time I looked, Dubya was
a politician too.

Gunner, you would be screaming bloody murder if a Dem/Liberal administration
was passing laws like the Patriot act. But it's OK if the Right does it?
Do you want that Act to still be in effect when the pendulum swings back to
the left? (Don't tell me it won't swing. It always swings both ways, only
the time varies - it might be the next election, it might be in 2050, but it
_will_ happen.)

Please don't insult us by saying these people are here for our good,
these people in positions of power are there for their own good, and any
good that comes out of it for us is incidental.


Some are, some arnt. 9/11 changed our outlook and the playing field.

You claim to be a libertarian, but your mistrust of government power
seems to end abruptly as soon as you cross the aisle from Left to Right.
Believe it or not, the Left does _not_ have a monopoly on abusing power.
It's human nature - power corrupts. The Patriot act gives unsupervised
power to government, and sooner or later, it _will_ be abused.

John Kasunich

In article , John Kasunich
says...

If the existing laws are not being enforced, the answer is to enforce them,
not to add new laws. That's practically a quote direct from the NRA/RKBA
people.

Hmm. Good point, I had missed that.

There is a simple test for any law: would I want this law applied to
me? Do you want the government to search your home/shop without a
warrant while you are at work? Don't say "I have nothing to hide".

LOL. True story: wife is in law school, and they're doing
search and seizure law. Of course one student stands up and
parrots that exact line 'I have nothing to hide' so the
instructor says, "ok, come on down here in front and dump
your purse out on the table, right now."

Pause.

"No."

"Why not, you have _nothing_ to hide, right?"

"This stuff is personal."

Big laugh from entire class, red face on the victim.

You claim to be a libertarian, but your mistrust of government power
seems to end abruptly as soon as you cross the aisle from Left to Right.

Or, whenever the BOR clock hand departs "two."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I recently made an error when reporting statistics that I would like to
clear up.

I stated that Iraq had used WMDs on hundreds of thousands of its own people.
I referred specifically to the Kurds. As of an Associated Press story in
this morning's paper by Niko Price, my figures were in error. I had said
hundreds of thousands, when it was ONLY 180,000 and therefore did not reach
the 200,000 figure that would have made it plural. The poster who corrected
me said that the figure was about 5,000 in reality. I guess the real figure
is somewhere in between, but find the 5,000 number to be unbelievable. I
apologize to all statisticians, netnannies, and anal retentive people here
who require everything to be stated in explicit terms, which I did not do.
But this is not computer programming, and one minor mistake does not negate
the whole thing.

As for WMDs, and all those wailing that no WMDs have been found, what is a
WMD? In the Cambodian purge, tens of thousands of people were killed with
sticks driven into the back of their heads. Would a stick not then qualify
as a WMD to a reasonable man? Many of the hundreds of thousands of people
killed in Iraq were probably shot. Wouldn't that qualify a gun as a WMD?

This story today about Iraq says that human rights officials estimate up tp
to 500,000 people were murdered in Iraq, and Iraqi political officials
estimate the number could go as high as one million. Since there are
numerous mass graves in Iraq, and no need to excavate them all and count the
bodies, the exact number will never be known. All the sites of all the mass
graves will never be known.

So, for the purists in this debate, and for just us regular humans, what
constitutes a WMD? Is it the ability to kill 100,000 people at once, or
kill 100,000 people over a course of time? The Hussein regime certainly did
wreak havoc and mass destruction. The facts and evidence are there. All
that is left is this endless prattle by purists as to just how it was done.

Saddam Hussein WAS a WMD himself. And no, he has not been found. So, on
that point, I would agree that particular WMD has not surfaced. As for the
others, we have ample evidence that mass destruction of humans was carried
out. Do we really need to debate whether it qualifies as mass destruction
merely because it wasn't done by some particular means? Dead is dead.

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Steve

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:26:15 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

The reason that Gunner gave his vote for your plan is that in the typical
police states it is the "Gunners" of the society that are the police and
they
are the only ones that have the guns. Thus, Gunner would be quite happy
with the situation that you describe. He would have job security and
lots of guns.

Pete.

****sst...Pete..I didnt give my vote..I tallied his. Do try to keep
up, ok?

And your suggestion is?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On 9 Dec 2003 06:49:12 -0800, (John Kasunich)
wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents.

*Everyone* must be required to show their identity papers

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

Next suggestion - a new sarcasm detector for Gunner - his is broken.

Gary was obviously being sarcastic. Yet you take him literally, and
accuse him of the very thing he is critizing. Hence, detector must
be busted. (Or turned off when it is convenient for you.)

John Kasunich

sarcasm? Ya think? no ****?

And your suggestions to the problem of preventing/stopping terrorism
verses protecting individual rights are?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On 9 Dec 2003 05:53:26 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So then..you will not answer the question, but make a statement only,

Your question came after my statement IIRC, so the
*real* question remains in your court, how will YOU
preserve and protect the US constitution?

What other amendments become optional under Ashcroft's
program?

What rights are YOU willing to give up?

Let's start with, say, search and siezure. Now
the cops need no warrant issued under probable
cause, to search gunner's homes. How's that feel?

Next we're going to have you detained and incarcerated
for no reason at all. No arrest warrant need be
issued, no crime committed.

Jim

Hint Jim..Im trying to find out how you would handle the dichotomy
between personal rights and trashing the agencies responsible for
preventing 9/11 and keeping acts of terrorism from happening.

Are you saying you don't have a clue?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On 9 Dec 2003 05:54:40 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

also includes the 2nd Amendment?

I rest easy in this regard knowing you are walking
the face of teh planet.



Jim
Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it G

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

Gunner wrote:


Hint Jim..Im trying to find out how you would handle the dichotomy
between personal rights and trashing the agencies responsible for
preventing 9/11 and keeping acts of terrorism from happening.




Uh, Gunner .....


No Agency stopped 911. That's why there was a September 11th.


One of the ironies of 911 is the former FBI agent who was fired for his
continual attempts at getting all the little pie holders in the FBI and
other agencies to work together at counter terrorism took employment as
the security chief of the Twin Towers and died in the collapse.


And so it goes.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

SteveB wrote:

As for the
others, we have ample evidence that mass destruction of humans was carried
out.


No kidding?

Mass murder carried out years ago against a population the US Government
didn't give a rats ass about with weapons we supplied.

Following your logic I should be locked up for the M-80s I had and blew
off twenty years ago because I'm going to use those very same M-80s I
put a match to twenty years ago.



Do we really need to debate whether it qualifies as mass destruction
merely because it wasn't done by some particular means?



THeres an idea, lets not let the meaning of words get in the way of our
enthusiasm.




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

On 9 Dec 2003 07:26:07 -0800, (John Kasunich)
wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:40:10 GMT, Mark
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Then when we tighten up security and make sure it doesnt happen
again..the actions are demonized as violations of the Constitution
and Civil Rights..witness Patriot Act, Gitmo etc etc.

"and make sure it doesn't happen again"? You mean _try_ to make sure it
doesn't happen again. Even in a police state it is impossible to be
perfectly safe. In a free country it is even harder. But that is one
of the risks of life - not an excuse to turn this nation into a police
state.


Excellent statement! Bravo!

I wish you folks would come up with a counter proposal to ensure the
security of the US, all the while taking money from the HUMINT side of
the equation, and solutions that do not violate (allegedly) someones
rights.

If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

I'm all in favor of spending on HUMINT. But I'd rather endure another
9/11 than give government the unbridled power you want it to have. I
just don't get it - you are a libertarian, but you have no problem with
goverment power in the hands of the Right.

I have a problem with excessive government power in anyones hands. You
seem to be missing something somewhere...

Here's something it seems most people (at least the Dubya Dogmatics)
have missed: Pre 911 there were rules and procedures already in place
but the rules were not being followed and procedures were not being done.

No ****..and who was in charge of this during the 8 yrs prior to 9/11?
Whom refused to fund HUMINT sources both foreign and domestic?

It sure wasn't Dubya.

Wife works for the local University. They were suppose to track foreign
students. Did they? Sort of but not really. Since 911 their suppose to
track these foreign students. Are they? Sort of but not really. Pre 911
I suspect they didn't force compliance because it may have caused these
students to take their money to a more friendly institution. Post 911,
at last report, the software wasn't working properly. There may be other
reasons.

I strongly suggest you take a look at the Administrations of those
Universities..and ask them what their take on the matter was. Those
bastions of Liberal thinking were refusing to follow those steps as
being harmful to the rights of those students. Want the cites


If the existing laws are not being enforced, the answer is to enforce them,
not to add new laws. That's practically a quote direct from the NRA/RKBA
people. Why doesn't it apply to security? Why do we need the Patriot act
when existing laws aren't being used, or are being used selectively at the
whim of those in power? That's the exact reason why the RKBA people oppose
new gun control laws - and they are right. More laws and more government
power is not the answer.

Excellent point!

There is a simple test for any law: would I want this law applied to
me? Do you want the government to search your home/shop without a
warrant while you are at work? Don't say "I have nothing to hide".
What if that government decides you shouldn't own guns - then you
certainly would have something to hide.

Good man!

Suppose Lennie called up the Bureau of HS and said "Psst, there's a
guy named Gunner up in Bakersfield with a house full of guns and
a shop where he's making bombs for terrorists." Only the last three
words are a lie. Do you want the BoHS or ATF searching your house
because of a tip from the likes of Lennie? Do you want to be in the
position of having do _prove_ you aren't making bombs for terrorists?

Excellent!

Another problem lies in Government Agencies. Agencies have their piece
of the pie and their intent on keeping as much of their territory as
they can. Worse, each department within each agency has it's own piece
of the pie and their intent on holding onto as much as they can.

Absolutely correct. I notice that most of them are still run by
Clinton appointees. However..since Homeland Security was formed to
address this issue..the Left is Still screaming.

As long as all these people work at getting and keeping as much power as
each of them possibly can we don't stand a chance.

Of course..politicians are politicians.

Exactly - politicians are politicians. Last time I looked, Dubya was
a politician too.

And he got into the game 8 yrs after the fact. He is responsible
for? How long were the Tangos in and out of this country before Bush
got elected? Bush was in office what..9 months when the WTC went
down? Is he the problem..or did he inherit the problem?
Think man think.

Gunner, you would be screaming bloody murder if a Dem/Liberal administration
was passing laws like the Patriot act. But it's OK if the Right does it?
Do you want that Act to still be in effect when the pendulum swings back to
the left? (Don't tell me it won't swing. It always swings both ways, only
the time varies - it might be the next election, it might be in 2050, but it
_will_ happen.)

Buddy..I dont like the Patriot Act in any shape or form. Never did,
never will. I dont like flu shotes, back surgery or driving in LA
traffic.

The continuing question is..given that yall are screaming about the
stepping on the very edges of the Constitution by the Patriot Act..how
would you all handle it?

Lets face it..the Libs and their minions, for YEARS, simply ignored
or bypassed any of the usual checks and balances to prevent Tangos
from getting into the US, to keep an eye on them, to keep tabs on
them..all in the name of protecting individuals rights, being lazy and
in denial and Diversity..defunding a onetime very good HUMINT program
and trying to replace it with a more humane and touchy feely
electronic based Intel gathering system, and 9 months after a new
president takes office..when the **** hits the fan..its HIS fault?

Please don't insult us by saying these people are here for our good,
these people in positions of power are there for their own good, and any
good that comes out of it for us is incidental.


Some are, some arnt. 9/11 changed our outlook and the playing field.

You claim to be a libertarian, but your mistrust of government power
seems to end abruptly as soon as you cross the aisle from Left to Right.
Believe it or not, the Left does _not_ have a monopoly on abusing power.
It's human nature - power corrupts. The Patriot act gives unsupervised
power to government, and sooner or later, it _will_ be abused.

John Kasunich

no ****? Ya think? I shudder to think of what Hillary might do with
her hands on the Patriot Act.

The barn is on fire, and folks here are bitching about having to bust
down the door to get the horses out.

Ive asked for suggestions on how the damage control should be done.
Damage control trying to repair years and years of simply ignoring the
problem, or denying there was one. We have two borders that resemble
a screen door, any effort to track illegals or foriegn nationals from
unfriendly nations is quashed because their rights MIGHT be infringed,
an educational system that is firmly against any form of reporting or
tracking, and a gutted intel community thats supposed to be
responsible for putting it all together, run by Liberal political
appointees that follow the lead of whatever the liberal administration
wants them to do, not what they SHOULD have been doing all along.

9/11 happened, we lost more people than at Pearl Harbor as a result of
many years long mismanagement and you folks bitch about the draconian
response mandated by years of YOUR apathy?

Heyzus Christos boys...at the least..be consistant! As I pointed out
several times..no matter what you do..somebodys rights are gonna get
stepped on. If you require aliens to check in monthly, or report their
location, or a school to report who their alien students are..the Left
wails and moans and ****es all over themselves. As a result..we have 3
million aliens we dont have a clue as to where the hell they are. We
have a steady stream of illegal aliens from many nations coming into
this country from the north and the south through the screendoor
borders, but if any serious attempt to stop the flow..the Libs wail
and whine and **** and moan.
If we catch illegals and deport them, the Left wails and ****es and
moans. If we break up a cell of people sending money and aid to
Terrorists and put them in jail, the Left wails and ****es and moans.
If we hold captured enemies to try to gather information about their
buddies, the Left wails and ****es and moans.

Im greatly reminded of the Great Chicago Fire. When the fire got going
really good..they had to dynamite a bunch of houses and buildings to
create a fire break to prevent it from getting any worse. That fire
should never have started, or should have been nipped in the bud!

But no! Any attempt to do that would have stepped on somebodys rights!
And the Left kept wailing and ****ing and moaning to the point the
Exisiting laws were simply ignored or bypassed for years and years.

And 9 months after that poor ******* Bush takes the Oath of
Office..its all his fault?

Get real. Its YOUR fault for sitting on your ass and letting YOUR
elected politicians let this **** go on for so long.

A hell of a lot of us warned that this might happen..and we were
called haters and bigots and scare mongers and chicken littles. And
guess what? It happened just as we predicted. I remember people on
this newsgroup poopooing the idea it could ever happen. Well **** me
running.

Ive been a survivalist since the 70s, and world politics is something
any survivalist watches, the trends, the acts that occur elsewhere
that might have far reaching consequences that will effect us. 9/11
was NOT a surprise to most of us in the community. Nor is the
aftermath. And we are mad as hell that YOU let it happen.

The question has been asked many many times..how in a free society,
can one completly track and prevent organized and unorganized
terrorism, and remain completly free. THERE IS NO WAY!
Somebody is gonna get their feelings hurt. Period. End program, full
stop. Would you rather it be yours, the citizens..or the feelings of
illegal aliens and foriegn nationals? Is it better to limit the rights
of Americas citizens, or its visitors? You cannot have it both ways
boys.

Bush & Co and the rest of the nation, are now paying the price for you
guys sitting on your asses for so long in your nice snug warm Cave of
Apathy ©. Deal with it.

I asked repeatedly for suggestions on how to solve the problem. All I
got was flack. Nobody had any..because they didnt want to look at the
roots and face the fact they ****ed up..or allowed their elected
officials, school administrators, etc, to **** up. Sorry pal..thats
burying your heads in the sand..and THATs whats got us into this mess
in the first place!!!!!

The world has gotten to be a very small place, and we ignored
Washingtons advice to Avoid foreign entanglements. Im not sure we
could have. We depend on too much of the rest of the world to become
isolationist or neutral observers. And the minute we get involved with
anyone..we will and did make enemies. Yall can **** and moan about it
all you want (Petey..shut up) but the genie is out of the bottle and
he aint going back in, no how, no way.

As a Libertarian..I abhore the Patriot Act, in spirit at the least.
Its draconian and has long term ramifications I find horrifying.
Still I get no suggestions on what else we could have done. This is
NOT a situation you can slap a little bondo and a coat of paint on it
and call it good. We have several million people out there in the
world who want you and me and your dogs and your wife and kids dead
dead dead. And we are Still giving them the keys to the front door.
The Left is still ****ing and moaning if we suggest asking for the key
back. And they have YOU folks to back them up. Useful idiots whom
will ignore the root problem and whimper and whine.

Question for you all. Do YOU know anyone harmed or negatively
effected by the Patriot Act? I dont, and I know a hell of a lot of
people, including a bunch of foriegn nationals. I hear a lot of
wailing and moaning about it..

Again I ask..what the hell would YOU do to fix the problem (Petey shut
up) without resorting to such a measure? What kind of damage control
Should we be doing Now at this moment and for the years to come?

Should we enforce the existing laws and track aliens? Should we close
our borders? If we do..the Left will hate your guts for suggesting it.
If we dont..more people in this country WILL die. Not if..WILL.
How many of the people deported or captured under the Patriot Act
would have killed Americans by now? None? Some? What are the odds they
were all happy campers just here to work towards a nice picket fence
and a vine covered cottage? Does that include the ones sending money
to AlQuida and the Taliban? Or the ones smuggling explosives into the
US? I wonder how many groups or individuals or acts of terrorism that
have been stopped that the Feebs are not talking about? Or do you
think the 19 Tangos joyriding in those aircraft were stictly an blip
on the radar?

Frankly boys..given the years of ****ups and apathy..I dont have any
answers either. While I do NOT like the Patriot Act in the slightest,
I dont see any other way to preform the needed damage control. I dont
like our boys and girls in harms way in Iraq or Afghanistan
either..but what else can we do but dig the Tangos and their
supporters out, root, branch and vine? Make the point that if you ****
with the US, we will send very large men with machines and kill you?
Works for me, if there are no other options. Got any? (shutup Petey)

Next election cycle..remember boys and girls..remember who put you
into this situation in the first place. Remember who was all touchy
feely about the rights of those whom want to kill your wife and kids.
Those people who stood by and watched the fire grow and grow then
started wringing their hands when you have to dynamite a fire line.

Remember too..9/11 didnt happen, 3000 innocent people didnt die
"because of the ooooiiilllll". That mantra simply will NOT wash.

9/11 happened, because you let it.


Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:26:15 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:36:56 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
If you dont have any solutions..then you are part of the problem.

Well, here are some modest suggestions.

Really seriously crack down on weapons possession by anyone in the
US except authorized federal agents. A weapon will be defined as
anything any federal agent deems to be a weapon, or looks like a
weapon. Violators will be summarily executed.

No travel more than a quarter mile from your registered residence will
be allowed without a permit. *Everyone* must be required to show their
identity papers and travel permits at Homeland Security checkpoints
located throughout our cities, and at security barriers erected
anywhere
else. Failure to show proper documentation to HS troopers is grounds
for summary execution.

Strip and lock all passengers in their seats on commercial aircraft,
trains, and buses. (Private vehicles must be banned completely.)

Detain and strip search anyone coming within a quarter mile of a
federal building, school (its for the children), or other possible
terrorist target on foot.

Private homes can be searched at any time for any reason at the
government's discretion.

Telephone and data communications can be monitored at any time
for any reason, and the parties to the communications do not have
to be notified that they're being monitored.

If anyone looks Arabic, shoot missiles at him, his wife, his children,
his grandchildren, and anyone else who happens to be passing on
the street. Dynamite his home.

Etc.

What? You don't like those ideas? Then you're part of the problem,
and can be summarily executed for voicing such subversive thoughts.

Gary

Ok, we have one vote for a police state.

Next suggestion?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

The reason that Gunner gave his vote for your plan is that in the typical
police states it is the "Gunners" of the society that are the police and
they
are the only ones that have the guns. Thus, Gunner would be quite happy
with the situation that you describe. He would have job security and
lots of guns.

Pete.

****sst...Pete..I didnt give my vote..I tallied his. Do try to keep
up, ok?


Since he was being sarcastic, no one would assume that he would vote for it.
I tallied your vote because you express similar views. Was I wrong? ;-)


And your suggestion is?

Gunner

My suggestion is to cut the terrorists off at their knees, deprive them of
their
motivation, remove the cause that they fight for. The terrorists are
winning
their war against us because they have caused us to attack those things
that we Americans hold most dear; our freedoms.

If we stop propping up all the various monarchs, dictators, and the one
racist regime,
the Arabs won't hate us. It will be their job to overthrow those
governments. They
will no longer blame us for their problems because we will not longer be the
cause
of their problems.

See how simple it was? As a bonus, that approach is compatible with
American
values. The ideals that we used to say that we stood for. People in the
rest of the
world will admire us again. We will stand for something other than big
bombs.
We will no longer be the bad guy.

Unfortunately from your point of view, none of this involves us shooting
people or
bombing them into the stone age. Sorry Gunner.

Pete.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:33:36 GMT, Mark
wrote:



Gunner wrote:


Hint Jim..Im trying to find out how you would handle the dichotomy
between personal rights and trashing the agencies responsible for
preventing 9/11 and keeping acts of terrorism from happening.




Uh, Gunner .....


No Agency stopped 911. That's why there was a September 11th.


One of the ironies of 911 is the former FBI agent who was fired for his
continual attempts at getting all the little pie holders in the FBI and
other agencies to work together at counter terrorism took employment as
the security chief of the Twin Towers and died in the collapse.


And so it goes.

Ayup. Read my later and longer post..

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:14:02 -0800, "SteveB"
brought forth from the murky depths:

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.
To me, WMDs are anything which will kill many people at once.
And there isn't a GDMF thing our country can do about that to
make us all truly safe from any of that. Not in a free society.
Any sick person could do that: anywhere and at any time. Look
at the snipings lately. And look how our wonderful legal system
is handling the pair they caught. Multiple trials, one in each
involved state? Give me an effin' break.

That's what scares me more than terrorists do. Our gov't doing
all these silly, wastefully-expensive-yet-perfectly-useless,
rights-raping things and then trying to tell us that it will
"Make us safe."


-------------------------------------------------------
"i" before "e", except after "c", what a weird society.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications

Gunner wrote:
Im trying to find out how you would handle the dichotomy
between personal rights and trashing the agencies responsible for
preventing 9/11 and keeping acts of terrorism from happening.


If we shut down all the Gun Shows and round up all the right-wing
extremist Gun Nuts and misc. survivalism posters we'll be sure to
prevent another Oklahoma City style domestic terrorist bombing. Anybody
who ever bought or read the 'Turner Diaries' and other publications of
the American Nazi Party should be taken to gitmo as a un-American
terrorist sympathiser...Register all the Veterans too, Mc Veigh was one
so they must all be a security risk! Won't it be fun when a Democratic
president gets to interpret the "'patriot' act"???

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.

Flat-out untrue. The physics building in UW madison was detonated
by exactly such a device. The folks who wanted to blow up
the US Army Math Research Center decided that the physics
building (Sterling Hall) looked like a better target for some
unknown reason, and parked their van full of high-nitrate
fertilizer that had been soaked in fuel oil outside and set
it off.

They killed Robert Fassnacht, a researcher who was working
in the building that night.

I worked in the shop directly inside of the blast area, and
one could still see the gouge marks in the concrete floor where
equipment had been blown across the room - the marks all
radiated from one point on the exterior wall.

This event happened in the mid 70s IIRC.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Koz applauds Larry.

Maybe the Bush campain buzz slogan should be "don't you really like
pretending you are safer now than you were 2 years ago?"

Koz

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:14:02 -0800, "SteveB"
brought forth from the murky depths:



Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.



Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.
To me, WMDs are anything which will kill many people at once.
And there isn't a GDMF thing our country can do about that to
make us all truly safe from any of that. Not in a free society.
Any sick person could do that: anywhere and at any time. Look
at the snipings lately. And look how our wonderful legal system
is handling the pair they caught. Multiple trials, one in each
involved state? Give me an effin' break.

That's what scares me more than terrorists do. Our gov't doing
all these silly, wastefully-expensive-yet-perfectly-useless,
rights-raping things and then trying to tell us that it will
"Make us safe."


-------------------------------------------------------
"i" before "e", except after "c", what a weird society.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:14 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
Im trying to find out how you would handle the dichotomy
between personal rights and trashing the agencies responsible for
preventing 9/11 and keeping acts of terrorism from happening.


If we shut down all the Gun Shows and round up all the right-wing
extremist Gun Nuts and misc. survivalism posters we'll be sure to
prevent another Oklahoma City style domestic terrorist bombing. Anybody
who ever bought or read the 'Turner Diaries' and other publications of
the American Nazi Party should be taken to gitmo as a un-American
terrorist sympathiser...Register all the Veterans too, Mc Veigh was one
so they must all be a security risk! Won't it be fun when a Democratic
president gets to interpret the "'patriot' act"???

Ok, we have another vote for a police state.

Next?

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:13:03 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:14:02 -0800, "SteveB"
brought forth from the murky depths:

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.
To me, WMDs are anything which will kill many people at once.
And there isn't a GDMF thing our country can do about that to
make us all truly safe from any of that. Not in a free society.
Any sick person could do that: anywhere and at any time. Look
at the snipings lately. And look how our wonderful legal system
is handling the pair they caught. Multiple trials, one in each
involved state? Give me an effin' break.

That's what scares me more than terrorists do. Our gov't doing
all these silly, wastefully-expensive-yet-perfectly-useless,
rights-raping things and then trying to tell us that it will
"Make us safe."

And its all the morons clambering for the Government to Make them
safe, and wailing when it cant be done. They want a Nanny State..but
if you remove the rights to make it possible...Nanny becomes an Evil
Witch.

"Thomas Jefferson once said, :Those who would trade safety for freedom
deserve neither.” The implication being that those who trade their
freedom in order to be safe also trade away the only defense they have
against those that provide that safety. It is a fact that black slaves
in the south were almost never murdered. They were far safer than free
whites in that regard. All they had to trade for that safety was their
dignity and freedom. It is a paradox our founding fathers were keenly
aware of. Trusting in the magnanimity of a government which wields
absolute power was something they were not willing to do."


Its also been said..that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Striking a fine balance between the two..is the hard part.


Gunner


"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

On 9 Dec 2003 17:30:27 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


This event happened in the mid 70s IIRC.


1970. Woke me up some blocks away. Went back to sleep, had no idea
what it was till next day...

Gunner wrote:

And its all the morons clambering for the Government to Make them
safe, and wailing when it cant be done. They want a Nanny State..but
if you remove the rights to make it possible...Nanny becomes an Evil
Witch.

If by morons, you mean a portion of the general public, I
don't think so. Every single individual that I've talked
to thinks that the new airport safety stuff is absolutely
stupid. I think the bigger cause in this case is a
combination of government wanting an excuse to grab control
and industry fabricating a market for dubious expensive products.

I think that the great majority of people are not actively
wanting the government to make them safe. The problem is
for the *cough* honest politicians to make the hard
and right decisions to call bull**** on stupid laws.

On 9 Dec 2003 17:30:27 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.

Flat-out untrue. The physics building in UW madison was detonated
by exactly such a device.

Not exactly such a device but wasn't the Port of Galveston(sp) blown
up (accidently) in the early 1900s by a shipload of ammonium nitrate?


Laurie Forbes

"Laurie Forbes" wrote in message
...
On 9 Dec 2003 17:30:27 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques
says...

Until 9/11, no one considered an airliner as a WMD.

Ditto a batch of fertilizer and can of diesel fuel until OK City.

Flat-out untrue. The physics building in UW madison was detonated
by exactly such a device.

Not exactly such a device but wasn't the Port of Galveston(sp) blown
up (accidently) in the early 1900s by a shipload of ammonium nitrate?


Laurie Forbes

Close, but no cigar. It was Texas City, Texas, which is just across a spit
of water from Galveston Island. I would bet you a dollar that the year was
1947. Yes, it was a shipload of ammonium nitrate, and it destroyed darn
near the whole town. It was a disaster of a ten on a ten scale.
Occasionally, you see a segment about it on PBS or that type station.

Steve

Lets face
it, chemical and biological weapons don't destroy anything. They only
murder and kill.

This is a troll, right? What a ridiculous statement ). Destroying human
life in mass numbers isn't really "destruction" right?? If you had seen the
capabilities & effects of agents like VX, you'd retract that assessment. Where
do these people come from??? ).
Greg Sefton

Bray Haven wrote:

Lets face
it, chemical and biological weapons don't destroy anything. They only
murder and kill.


This is a troll, right? What a ridiculous statement ). Destroying human
life in mass numbers isn't really "destruction" right??


That's right.

Murder isn't destruction.

My being a former Nuclear Warrior, a SAC trained killer, I make the
distinction.




If you had seen the
capabilities & effects of agents like VX, you'd retract that assessment.


Not hardly Junior.


Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and these were both baby bombs, then try
to tell me a chemical or biological weapon causes destruction.


You think a chem or bio weapon is a WMD because you have chosen to not
have a clue.


When Dubya let it out how nuclear weapons would be used if Iraq let out
a little gas or a few spores I knew without a doubt there is an idiot in
the Presidency. Whether he meant it or not is of no matter, that he said
it was enough.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

In article ,
Gunner wrote:


Im still waiting for your suggestions on how the situation could have
been handled differently, and how you would handle it now.

We should handle terrorism the same way it was handled in the past when
the huge bomb made such a mess of Wall St or when that school was blown
up in (Wisconsin?). That was so many years ago people have forgotton
about them. We should just clean up the mess and move on. When we are
losing 35,000 Americans every year due to influenza coming from China
why should the 3000 at the WTC be treated differently?

As far as preventing terrorism, it should be done statistically. We
need fewer enemies, and we would have a lot less if we treated everyone
fairly and didn't take sides in foreign disputes (as was suggested by
George Washington in his farewell assress). The best Homeland Defense
is for many americans to actually carry arms; if that had been done
prior to 9/11 there is little doubt that there would have been no
successful skyjackings.

If the govt wants to do something effective in stopping terrorism, it
would rejuvinate the DCM with perhaps more emphasis on pistols; after
all it is the pistol rather than the rifle that is the first line od
defense. The rifle is an offensive weapon, the pistol (especially
concealed) is all you have when you are surprised.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

A city wide blackout at Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:26:17 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you bought this line of BS I can't say that your reasoning skills
impress me. Can't you see the holes in this story? If you were the
interviewer are there other questions you would have asked? And the big
question still remains, where are the weapons?

I suggest you take it up with CBS.

CBS, whom you Im sure are aware...is not one of Bush's best buddies.

As to where the weapons are..who knows. The source reported that the
Fedayeen came by, grabbed all the weapons, and split off into the
sunset.

I'm still occasionally wondering where those three ships which left Irag
last winter on a long cruise to nowhere finally decided to sail off too.

--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:11:11 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:26:17 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you bought this line of BS I can't say that your reasoning skills
impress me. Can't you see the holes in this story? If you were the
interviewer are there other questions you would have asked? And the big
question still remains, where are the weapons?

I suggest you take it up with CBS.

CBS, whom you Im sure are aware...is not one of Bush's best buddies.

As to where the weapons are..who knows. The source reported that the
Fedayeen came by, grabbed all the weapons, and split off into the
sunset.

I'm still occasionally wondering where those three ships which left Irag
last winter on a long cruise to nowhere finally decided to sail off too.

Excellent! question!

Gunner

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives