Idiot PØlhÅl Burke
J.W.W.
bottom of all of his posts.
Three planes are successfully steered into three of America's most
conspicuous buildings and America's response will be to put more money in
missile defense as a way of bolstering the economy.-- Alexander Cockburn,
L.A. Times
Pooh Bear, Alex Cockburn may feel safe sitting out there in L.A., but people
out here on the East Coast know that if a terrorist (or more likely, a
nation that SPONSORS terrorism) gets ahold of a nuclear missle, we won't
have to worry about that crater in Lower Manhattan, because the whole East
Coast will be a glowing moonscape.
I take comfort in the fact that you are busy wanking and carping about
Jenni, and not making U.S. defense policy.
William Rothanburg
"pie in the sky" projects designed to enrich defense contractors.
The idiots promoting "Star Wars" defense systems seem to ignore a few
simple facts:
1. Nuclear weapons are not readily available to terrorists. The
nations that possess them have a GREAT interest in retaining control
of them.
2. A nuclear weapon will not fly itself. While they can be
delivered by a launch vehicle with intercontinental range, such
missiles are not particularly durable, easy to obtain, nor easy to
use.
3. A nuclear weapon CAN be readily transported in a common cargo
container. This is a low tech approach that is invulnerable to a
"Star Wars" defense.
4. Terrorists have known for several years that a nuclear weapon is
unnecessary - a 767 with full tanks does a pretty good job of
terrorizing a nation, and is inexpensive. Al you need is a few months
of pilot training and a ticket.
Go peddle your scare tactics elsewhere.
Bill
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:46:21 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
President George W. Bush
"It's not what you know, it's who you know."
This signature set has been reported to reduce spam. Maybe if others
do it we can defeat the email search bots.
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
Walpole
In article <1htcrt09errv4aeti...@4ax.com>, William Rothanburg
says...
spugem
Walpole <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Jiyt7.9911$ev2....@www.newsranger.com...
> And this has to do with Jennicam, how?
search keyword: 'disaster'
dhdave
"William Rothanburg" <wrot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1htcrt09errv4aeti...@4ax.com...
< 1. Nuclear weapons are not readily available to terrorists.
<The nations that possess them have a GREAT interest in retaining control of
them.
For the most part I agree with you , however I would like to point out that
during the 1980's both the Soviet Union and the United States developed what
may be termed "Nuclear Suitcases". For those that may not know, these are
small (1 megaton I believe) devices capable of leveling a fair sized part of
a major city. They can be carried by a single operative/soldier/terrorist.
When the Soviet Union disolved they "lost track" of about a dozen of them.
According to CNN, AT LEAST one is rumored to have found it's way, through a
very large transfer of funds of course, to Osama Bin Laden. He has also
attempted to purchase weapons grade uranium. According to Manhattan Project
physicist Luis Alvarez:
"With modern weapons-grade uranium, the background neutron rate is so low
that terrorists, if they had such material, would have a good chance of
setting off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the
material onto the other half....Even a high school kid could make a bomb in
short order."
I personally believe that the question is not whether these devices will
fall into the wrong hands (they already have), but when and how the elements
that posses them will attempt to use them. As you have already said, a
missile defense system, no matter how accurate, will be useless.
dh
Amanda Hugnkiss
<therea...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm glad to see the spectre of these so-called 'suitcase nukes' brought
up. This is a valid concern, but only one aspect of a far bigger
problem. 'Suitcase nukes' are only the tip of the iceberg.....
Fissionable material is also unaccounted for, as are entire armories of
light and heavy weaponry. Equipment and material for the manufacture of
biological and chemical agents are unaccounted for as well. News reports
this last week told of illegally obtained licenses for hauling hazardous
materials.... This scares the bejeezus out of me. I don't know about
other cities, but most of the potable water in Seattle comes from the
Cedar River, which is pumped into large, open air reservoirs.
Introducing biological agents into the water supply would be as easy as
tossing them over a fence.
> "With modern weapons-grade uranium, the background neutron rate is so low
> that terrorists, if they had such material, would have a good chance of
> setting off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the
> material onto the other half....Even a high school kid could make a bomb
> in
> short order."
An all too realistic possibility....... The people in the former Soviet
Republics, the very ones charged with the responsibility of guarding
fissionable material... are starving.... going months on end without
receiving paychecks etc... The temptation to sell this material for
sustenance must be very real, transcending even greed and avarice.
> I personally believe that the question is not whether these devices will
> fall into the wrong hands (they already have), but when and how the
> elements
> that posses them will attempt to use them. As you have already said, a
> missile defense system, no matter how accurate, will be useless.
>
> dh
I agree. I think the attack of Sept. 11th was merely a harbinger of
things to come. The weapons of mass destruction already in circulation
will surely find their way to our shores, (assuming they aren't already
here). Homegrown and readily available weapons of mass destruction
should also be a concern. Here is only one scenario: The detonation of
one railroad tanker car of androhydrous ammonia, in the network of
underground rail tunnels under downtown Seattle, would kill or
permanently scar the respiratory systems of thousands.
Security has been stepped up at our borders, but there is only so much
that can be done, our northern and southern borders have always been
porous, and shall always remain so. While annoyed at the inconvenience
of stepped up security at our airports, I am heartened by the
seriousness of the efforts. For the first time ever, the metal detectors
at Sea-Tac airport were sensitive enough to pick up the metal plating in
my left leg and right arm, this has never happened before. I found this
very reassuring.
As hawkish as I am, I agree with you and Bill R. about the missile
defense shield. A rather conservative estimate in mid-2000, put the
development and deployment cost at about $60 billion. I'm sure the price
tag will only rise. I *am* for the continued development of such a
system, but mightily opposed to it's deployment. Aside from the obvious
benefit of not further provoking declared nuclear powers, I think the
money would be better spent on anti-terrorism initiatives.
http://globalization.about.com/library/weekly/aa051500a.htm
>
On a lighter note..... Here is a humorous poke at the missile defense
initiative:
http://slate.msn.com/Features/faith/faith.asp
---
Amanda Hugnkiss Sacred cow tipping in Usenet since May '96
dhdave
"Amanda Hugnkiss" <hugnki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hugnkiss98122-165...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <iLHt7.251964$aZ.47...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "dhdave"
> <therea...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "William Rothanburg" <wrot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:1htcrt09errv4aeti...@4ax.com...
> >
> other cities, but most of the potable water in Seattle comes from the
> Cedar River, which is pumped into large, open air reservoirs.
> Introducing biological agents into the water supply would be as easy as
> tossing them over a fence.
>
This may come as small consolation Amanda, but from what I understand
poisoning a major water supply is almost impossible. Unlike air (where one
drop in a petri dish can poison the air supply of an entire room), water is
extremely effective at diluting biological agents. It would take such
massive amounts to actually kill anyone that the threat is almost wholly
discounted. Normally, I would be skeptical but I'm tempted to believe the
government regarding this only due to the fact that from the terrorist's
point of view poisoning the water supply if it were possible seems far
preferable to hijacking 4 commercial airliners. Far less manpower, money
and time would be required. And what better agent of sheer terror than
water, something we all take for granted and must have to survive. I know
that I can't now, and probably never will, look at an airplane in flight the
same way I did before September 11. Imagine the fear we'd feel everytime we
a filled a glass from the tap.
dh
MrFlagg
but have you heard of Walkerton, Ontario? and that was by accident!
Robert Taylor
>
> ok .. granted you said "major"
>
> but have you heard of Walkerton, Ontario? and that was by accident!
Well, gross neglect, actually.
J.W.W.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missles, but I have not heard anyone explain why
we NEED NO DEFENSE against Intercontinental Ballistic Missles...other than
the fatalistic notion that since we can die by other means, we don't need to
worry about them at all!
I SURVIVED the Pentagon attack, and I was about three miles from it...had it
been an ICBM, you might be breathing my vapors right now.
Yes, these other things, such as suicide bombs, low-tech delivery systems,
etc. are valid threats, and yes, we need the best ingenuity, intelligence,
etc. we can muster to deal with them...BUT one good old fashioned ICBM can
render all of these well-founded paranoias MOOT in an INSTANT.
Buckle your seatbelts, folks, the bad news is this: the old nay-saying days
are over...if we want to LIVE, we have to do EVERYTHING we can to maintain
our safety, and that INCLUDES MISSLE DEFENSE.
LONG LIVE STAR WARS!
"Robert Taylor" <tayl...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:3BB8EEAA...@idirect.com...
Amanda Hugnkiss
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> So far I have heard many people identify ADDITIONAL threats besides
> Intercontinental Ballistic Missles, but I have not heard anyone explain
> why
> we NEED NO DEFENSE against Intercontinental Ballistic Missles...other
> than
> the fatalistic notion that since we can die by other means, we don't need
> to
> worry about them at all!
>
> I SURVIVED the Pentagon attack, and I was about three miles from it...had
> it
> been an ICBM, you might be breathing my vapors right now.
>
> Yes, these other things, such as suicide bombs, low-tech delivery
> systems,
> etc. are valid threats, and yes, we need the best ingenuity,
> intelligence,
> etc. we can muster to deal with them...BUT one good old fashioned ICBM
> can
> render all of these well-founded paranoias MOOT in an INSTANT.
The concept of peace through threat of mutual annihilation is no less a
valid deterrent today, than it was at any point during the cold war. I
would fear the so called 'suitcase nukes' far more than a rogue missile.
Nukes may be available on the black weapons market... But the vehicle to
carry them, an ICBM, is not.
Besides being illegal under the terms of a treaty; A treaty the US was
a signatory on.... The MDS would also be seen as a provocative act by
other nuclear powers. Effectively restarting the Cold Wars nuclear
threat clock.... The prospect of living '2 minutes to midnite'....
Again..... Does *NOT* appeal to me.
I say go ahead and develop the system..... And then shelve it. The mess
we are currently faced with is the direct result of our provocations.
Why compound that problem with further provocation? Why destroy the
current climate of global cooperation and unity for the sake of an
unlikely scenario? The US *NEEDS* the goodwill of the world community if
it hopes to survive in this new age.
> Buckle your seatbelts, folks, the bad news is this: the old nay-saying
> days are over...if we want to LIVE, we have to do EVERYTHING we can to
> maintain our safety, and that INCLUDES MISSLE DEFENSE.
>
> LONG LIVE STAR WARS!
You silly goose...... 'Star Wars' was an entirely different program, as
was 'Brilliant Pebbles'..... Star Wars hoped to use space based lasers
to shoot down incoming ICBM's. The current initiative relies on
'Interceptor' missiles to detonate incoming ICBM's before they re-enter
the atmosphere.
Dan Abel
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Idiot William PØlhÅl Burke has been inserting the following quote at the
> bottom of all of his posts.
>
> Three planes are successfully steered into three of America's most
> conspicuous buildings and America's response will be to put more money in
> missile defense as a way of bolstering the economy.-- Alexander Cockburn,
> L.A. Times
>
> Pooh Bear, Alex Cockburn may feel safe sitting out there in L.A., but people
> out here on the East Coast know that if a terrorist (or more likely, a
> nation that SPONSORS terrorism) gets ahold of a nuclear missle, we won't
> have to worry about that crater in Lower Manhattan, because the whole East
> Coast will be a glowing moonscape.
I don't know why you are calling Burke an idiot. Of course he is, it's
obvious. Everybody who posts to AFJ is an idiot.
Speaking of idiots, why can't you understand that antimissle defense is a
waste of money when it comes to terrorists? What part don't you
understand? Why should a terrorist try to steal an ICBM to shoot at us
from half the world away, when they could much more easily (and cheaply)
bring in a nuclear bomb and just set it off in an apartment that they rent
in the middle of some big US city? Antimissle defense makes a lot of
sense when we are in a situation where we are actively engaged in war with
another country, and we won't let them bring in a bomb, and so they have
to use a missile to get it here.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
ab...@sonoma.edu
http://www.sonoma.edu/IT/AIS/people/Abel.html
William Rothanburg
terrorists have figured out there are more effective ways to attack
us. The Russians and Chinese have figured out their best chance of
surviving is by trading with us.
You SURVIVED the attack on the Pentagon? 3 MILES???? Shit, sonny,
you were so far away, you probably learned about it by television.
The people who were IN the Pentagon, THEY can say they survived.
(Sadly, nearly 200 didn't).
Bill
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:23:59 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
President George W. Bush
William Rothanburg
going to launch an ICBM at us? It would have to be someone with the
capability as well as the motivation.
While some of the countries in the Middle East have the motivation,
none have the capability. The French? They have developed nuclear
weapons AND have orbital launch capabilities. I doubt the motivation
exists. India would appear to lack both. The former states of the
USSR have the capability, but lack the motivation, since any attack on
us would leave them arrayed against us AND their neighbors. The
Japanese will soon have the launch capability, but would appear NOT to
have nuclear weapons.
The only serious threat would be the Chinese, however they must be
aware it would be an empty victory - the resulting counter attack
would leave them defenseless against their neighbors. And no matter
how much they feel they deserve to rule the world, they are not
suicidal.
Let's face it, you can shiver in fear all you want, but the 'evil
empire' is no more. Our (former) enemies no longer follow the
teachings of Marx and Lenin, they no longer have the belief they can
rule the world.
PlainBill
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:23:59 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>So far I have heard many people identify ADDITIONAL threats besides
President George W. Bush
spugem
Dan Abel <ab...@sonoma.edu> wrote in message
news:abel-02100...@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu...
> Everybody who posts to AFJ is an idiot.
you forgot "except for me"
> they could much more easily (and cheaply) bring in a nuclear bomb
> and just set it off in an apartment that they rent in the middle of
> some big US city?
but Radio Shack has their address and phone number
J.W.W.
> you were so far away, you probably learned about it by television.
> The people who were IN the Pentagon, THEY can say they survived.
> (Sadly, nearly 200 didn't).
>
> Bill
BILL CHECK THE MAPS THAT ARE READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET,
INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE THAT SHOWS THE FALLOUT FROM A NUCLEAR
WARHEAD, AND 3 MILES AWAY WOULD NOT BE A PLEASANT PLACE TO BE. NICE TO
KNOW, THOUGH, THAT YOU HAVE SUCH SNOTTY GOOD-CHEERED CONFIDENCE IN MY SAFETY
IN YOUR NATION'S CAPITAL.
J.W.W.
> going to launch an ICBM at us? It would have to be someone with the
> capability as well as the motivation.
PAKISTAN HAS THEM, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN'S IDEOLOGY ALL
THROUGH THE REGION OF AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, CENTRAL ASIA, THE MIDDLE EAST,
ETC. They don't have to build them, all they have to do is get sufficient
influence (or stage a coup) in a country that already has them.
All I hear from you people on the subject of ICBM's is "Don't worry, be
happy," Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
dhdave
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:QSAu7.809$K6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
the United States. Who said "Don't worry, be happy"? You are taking
yourself a little too seriously. I for one, advocate the development and
deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system. There are potentially
hostile nations that will have this capability by 2010-2015. More
importantly, they would be more than willing to sell or otherwise
disseminate it to others. However, Bill Rothanburg's assertion that is
pointless against the kind of terrorist attacks we are now witnessing is
entirely correct. Those that would seek to use the events of September 11
to underscore the need for an anti-missile defense are off their rocker.
dh
JeffW
>I don't know why you are calling Burke an idiot. Of course he is, it's
>obvious. Everybody who posts to AFJ is an idiot.
I haven't posted in a while. Can I still be an idiot?
Book
they are going, and hopefully, can arrange to shoot them down in time. If
launch from USSR (sic) it would have a flight time of about 30-60 mins. All
other means have significantly less warning time.
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3z9u7.10644$b66.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
William Rothanburg
so nervous being close to a target, MOVE!!! And stop belittling those
who WERE in danger.
Bill
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:23:57 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
President George W. Bush
Steven Calwas
> All I hear from you people on the subject of ICBM's is "Don't worry, be
> happy,"
Well, you have been told many other things by many people, including my own
original response to you, but you have either chosen to ignore them or are
incapable of "hearing" them. Perhaps it's time you made an appointment with
an eye or an ear doctor.
William Burke
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
And what is it that you're doing, exactly, for U.S. defense policy?
--
William Burke
>This is the same kind of mentality that wastes trillions of dollars on
>"pie in the sky" projects designed to enrich defense contractors.
>
>The idiots promoting "Star Wars" defense systems seem to ignore a few
>simple facts:
> 1. Nuclear weapons are not readily available to terrorists. The
>nations that possess them have a GREAT interest in retaining control
>of them.
> 2. A nuclear weapon will not fly itself. While they can be
>delivered by a launch vehicle with intercontinental range, such
>missiles are not particularly durable, easy to obtain, nor easy to
>use.
> 3. A nuclear weapon CAN be readily transported in a common cargo
>container. This is a low tech approach that is invulnerable to a
>"Star Wars" defense.
> 4. Terrorists have known for several years that a nuclear weapon is
>unnecessary - a 767 with full tanks does a pretty good job of
>terrorizing a nation, and is inexpensive. Al you need is a few months
>of pilot training and a ticket.
>
>Go peddle your scare tactics elsewhere.
>
>Bill
Just when I'd given up hope, along comes, of all people, Dr. William
Rothanburg... Love ya, Doc! Will you come visit us in New Mexico?
>
>On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:46:21 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Idiot William PØlhÅl Burke has been inserting the following quote at the
>>bottom of all of his posts.
>>
>>Three planes are successfully steered into three of America's most
>>conspicuous buildings and America's response will be to put more money in
>>missile defense as a way of bolstering the economy.-- Alexander Cockburn,
>>L.A. Times
>>
>>Pooh Bear, Alex Cockburn may feel safe sitting out there in L.A., but people
>>out here on the East Coast know that if a terrorist (or more likely, a
>>nation that SPONSORS terrorism) gets ahold of a nuclear missle, we won't
>>have to worry about that crater in Lower Manhattan, because the whole East
>>Coast will be a glowing moonscape.
>>
>>I take comfort in the fact that you are busy wanking and carping about
>>Jenni, and not making U.S. defense policy.
>>
>
>President George W. Bush
>"It's not what you know, it's who you know."
>
>This signature set has been reported to reduce spam. Maybe if others
>do it we can defeat the email search bots.
>tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
>ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
--
William Burke
<goat...@thecheesefarm.com> wrote:
Or reference "waste". All roads lead to jeniicam, and a worse hell than
that has never been envisioned.
--
William Burke
<therea...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"William Rothanburg" <wrot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:1htcrt09errv4aeti...@4ax.com...
>
>< 1. Nuclear weapons are not readily available to terrorists.
><The nations that possess them have a GREAT interest in retaining control of
>them.
>
>For the most part I agree with you , however I would like to point out that
>during the 1980's both the Soviet Union and the United States developed what
>may be termed "Nuclear Suitcases". For those that may not know, these are
>small (1 megaton I believe) devices capable of leveling a fair sized part of
>a major city. They can be carried by a single operative/soldier/terrorist.
>When the Soviet Union disolved they "lost track" of about a dozen of them.
>According to CNN, AT LEAST one is rumored to have found it's way, through a
>very large transfer of funds of course, to Osama Bin Laden. He has also
>attempted to purchase weapons grade uranium. According to Manhattan Project
>physicist Luis Alvarez:
>
>"With modern weapons-grade uranium, the background neutron rate is so low
>that terrorists, if they had such material, would have a good chance of
>setting off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the
>material onto the other half....Even a high school kid could make a bomb in
>short order."
And these can be thwarted HOW, exactly, by anti-missile defenses? Or are
we talking about "anti-suitcase missiles", because IF WE ARE, a LOT of us
have some work to do.
Are they doing "suitcase amnesty turn-ins" yet? I'd GLADLY take a hundred
bucks for mine.
>
>I personally believe that the question is not whether these devices will
>fall into the wrong hands (they already have), but when and how the elements
>that posses them will attempt to use them. As you have already said, a
>missile defense system, no matter how accurate, will be useless.
>
>dh
--
William Burke
What are you DOING? Aren't Sonoma State "investigative journalism"
<giggle> students supposed to be writing 200-word definitive exposes of
America's most undercovered stories?
YEAH, I receive those; some are decent, though cursory; most of them are
laughable, like Morely Safer on a $150 budget.....
--
William Burke
<goat...@thecheesefarm.com> wrote:
NO, but the Bureau of the Census DOES! Didn't you get the full-length
version, where it asks you, "how many foreign terrrorists with suitcase
nukes currently live at this address?"
--
William Burke
Gump...@hotmail.com (JeffW) wrote:
As long as the kid knows where you are.
--
William Burke
Amanda Hugnkiss <hugnki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, this is not as certain as it sounds...
Anthrax is always an iffy proposition. Nothing that would keep a
determined "freedom fighter" from trying, but it wouldn't necessarily kill
a lot of people.
Always a question about stocks taken away from where they were "hatched",
or the quality of the stock in the first place...
Smallpox has been mentioned, but I think it would be most likely to attack
the young, who've never had a vaccination, but they're the strongest in
the first place. I'm not sure smallpox would work on a large scale...
How about Plague, the so-called "Black Death" (there is some historical
doubt that has arisen that they are one and the same)... it MIGHT kill a
lot of people; if I were on their side, that'd be the one I'd try, but I'm
not sure sufficient stocks of Plague exist at all. And wasn't that said
to be carried by fleas, on the backs of RATS?
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a house flea in ten years, and
a house rat in about the same.... can squirrels be efficient carriers?
How about crickets? Chiggers?
I'm not downplaying the thing, but mostly I think we're just telling
ourselves scary stories at bedtime....
BUT tanker cars of anhydrous ammonia don't just materialize out of thin
air! How do you imagine someone pulls this one off?
NAH... pretty farfetched for even the Stephen King mindset.
>
> Security has been stepped up at our borders, but there is only so much
>that can be done, our northern and southern borders have always been
>porous, and shall always remain so. While annoyed at the inconvenience
>of stepped up security at our airports, I am heartened by the
>seriousness of the efforts. For the first time ever, the metal detectors
>at Sea-Tac airport were sensitive enough to pick up the metal plating in
>my left leg and right arm, this has never happened before. I found this
>very reassuring.
BUT WHAT IF? What if we're invaded by hordes of pancake-brandishing Gumpers and
Yacks? AIIEEEEEEEEEEEE! Spray butter on the streets, QUICK!
>
> As hawkish as I am, I agree with you and Bill R. about the missile
>defense shield. A rather conservative estimate in mid-2000, put the
>development and deployment cost at about $60 billion.
RATIONALLY, I believe it'd be closer to $600 billion...
I'm sure the price
>tag will only rise. I *am* for the continued development of such a
>system, but mightily opposed to it's deployment. Aside from the obvious
>benefit of not further provoking declared nuclear powers, I think the
>money would be better spent on anti-terrorism initiatives.
Actually, it'd be better spent air-dropping VCRs and Christina Aguilera
videos, and those of N'Sync.
I think the enemy (and an enemy, as we know that WE created!) would throw
in the towel.... er, surrender pretty quick.
BTW, do you know that one of Osama bin Laden's older brothers (he has a
LOT) invested heavily in Dubya's first bidness venture?
That's only REALLY interesting if you recall that Neil Bush was to meet
John Hinckley's older brother in Denver on the same day Ronnie Reagan was
shot...
GOTTA love a world so easy to understand!
>
> http://globalization.about.com/library/weekly/aa051500a.htm
>>
> On a lighter note..... Here is a humorous poke at the missile defense
>initiative:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/Features/faith/faith.asp
>---
>Amanda Hugnkiss Sacred cow tipping in Usenet since May '96
William Burke
<therea...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
YEPPERS! I give y'all one word: CHLORINATION.
William Burke
narcis...@excite.com (MrFlagg) wrote:
>ok .. granted you said "major"
>
>but have you heard of Walkerton, Ontario? and that was by accident!
My friend, NOTHING happens by "accident"; the word is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the way things are...
>
>>
>> This may come as small consolation Amanda, but from what I understand
>> poisoning a major water supply is almost impossible.
William Burke
<tayl...@idirect.com> wrote:
THANK YOU! It wasn't an "accident"... the only "accident" I could
possibly accept is running into your despised ex halfway around the world.
And even then....
William Burke
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>So far I have heard many people identify ADDITIONAL threats besides
>Intercontinental Ballistic Missles, but I have not heard anyone explain why
>we NEED NO DEFENSE against Intercontinental Ballistic Missles...other than
>the fatalistic notion that since we can die by other means, we don't need to
>worry about them at all!
>
>I SURVIVED the Pentagon attack, and I was about three miles from it...had it
>been an ICBM, you might be breathing my vapors right now.
MY GOD!!! Do you need any consolation, or financial aid? I live 65 miles
from it, and I'm about to try for disability for PTSD! I don't know HOW
you're coping, soldier!
>
>Yes, these other things, such as suicide bombs, low-tech delivery systems,
>etc. are valid threats, and yes, we need the best ingenuity, intelligence,
>etc. we can muster to deal with them...BUT one good old fashioned ICBM can
>render all of these well-founded paranoias MOOT in an INSTANT.
>
>Buckle your seatbelts, folks, the bad news is this: the old nay-saying days
>are over...if we want to LIVE, we have to do EVERYTHING we can to maintain
>our safety, and that INCLUDES MISSLE DEFENSE.
Which we already have. Just not as many as the warmakers WANT.
I have a cheaper idea: spray Prozac all over the entire Earth... every
day, from International Harvesters suspended from Zeppelins.
>
>LONG LIVE STAR WARS!
MAY THE FORÇE BE WITH US!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>"Robert Taylor" <tayl...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>news:3BB8EEAA...@idirect.com...
>> MrFlagg wrote:
>> >
>> > ok .. granted you said "major"
>> >
>> > but have you heard of Walkerton, Ontario? and that was by accident!
>>
>> Well, gross neglect, actually.
>>
William Burke
Hugnkiss <hugnki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wouldn't that be like building a 200,000 seat badminton stadium?
>>
>> LONG LIVE STAR WARS!
>
> You silly goose...... 'Star Wars' was an entirely different program, as
>was 'Brilliant Pebbles'..... Star Wars hoped to use space based lasers
>to shoot down incoming ICBM's.
I was NEVER convinced that was what the system was for. It was either
designed (1) to protect us from "space aliens" that some nutballs like
Nancy Reagan thought we were prey to or (2) simply make MEGATONS of long
green for the pals in the military-industrial complex... the word
"boondoggle" does not even get CLOSE!
William Burke
"J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Relax, Fuzzy... I've put in for your fucking purple heart AND the
Federation Medal of Distinction.
William Burke
<jab....@telstra.spam.com> wrote:
>Good things about ICBM's is that they can tell where they came from, where
>they are going, and hopefully, can arrange to shoot them down in time. If
>launch from USSR (sic) it would have a flight time of about 30-60 mins. All
>other means have significantly less warning time.
You mean just like they could tell where the airliners they KNEW were
highjacked were headed, for quite a while? And had a flight time of about
30-60 minutes?
WHOOPS! I think I lets ze cat out of some bag, yes?
William Burke
Rothanburg <wrot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Last time I checked, sonny, a 757 is NOT a nuclear weapon. If you're
>so nervous being close to a target, MOVE!!! And stop belittling those
>who WERE in danger.
>
>Bill
EASY, Bill... the boy has Post-Traumatic Stess Disorder (�1)...
And anyway, he's a bit touchy these days, after his Close Shave...
>
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:23:57 GMT, "J.W.W." <swa...@sprintmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> You SURVIVED the attack on the Pentagon? 3 MILES???? Shit, sonny,
>>> you were so far away, you probably learned about it by television.
>>> The people who were IN the Pentagon, THEY can say they survived.
>>> (Sadly, nearly 200 didn't).
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> BILL CHECK THE MAPS THAT ARE READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET,
>>INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE THAT SHOWS THE FALLOUT FROM A NUCLEAR
>>WARHEAD, AND 3 MILES AWAY WOULD NOT BE A PLEASANT PLACE TO BE. NICE TO
>>KNOW, THOUGH, THAT YOU HAVE SUCH SNOTTY GOOD-CHEERED CONFIDENCE IN MY SAFETY
>>IN YOUR NATION'S CAPITAL.
>>
>>
>
>President George W. Bush
>"It's not what you know, it's who you know."
>
>This signature set has been reported to reduce spam. Maybe if others
>do it we can defeat the email search bots.
>tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
>ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
William Burke
<cal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
EASY! He DOES have a lot of voices whispering in his brain, after all....
spugem
William Burke <half...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:halfmute-061...@1cust62.tnt1.culpeper.va.da.uu.net...
> >> they could much more easily (and cheaply) bring in a nuclear bomb
> >> and just set it off in an apartment that they rent in the middle of
> >> some big US city?
> >
> >but Radio Shack has their address and phone number
>
> NO, but the Bureau of the Census DOES! Didn't you get the full-length
> version, where it asks you, "how many foreign terrrorists with suitcase
> nukes currently live at this address?"
they told me that question would be 'optional' if you register
as a Democrat at the DMV
Lebed tells congress: "48 out of 132 nukesuites"
then tells 60 minutes: "100 out of 250 nukesuites"
i think he was more privy to Yeltsins vodka stock than to
any national security briefings
William Burke
<goat...@thecheesefarm.com> wrote:
ROFLMAO!! In Russia, are there telethons to buy Boris more wodka?
yack
<halfmute-061...@1cust62.tnt1.culpeper.va.da.uu.net>,
half...@earthlink.net (William Burke) wrote:
>
> BUT WHAT IF? What if we're invaded by hordes of pancake-brandishing Gumpers
> and
> Yacks? AIIEEEEEEEEEEEE! Spray butter on the streets, QUICK!
like, we're gunna invade eh! Me and gumper our bringin' special
equipment with us ta make your beer stronger. So everyone, put a two
four in your fridge cause we're invadin' soon eh!
and get some donuts too!
William Burke
<forn...@jennicam.i-p.com> wrote:
We welcome the Canadian Beerlords with open arms! Our conquering heroes!!
Could you pass through Wisconsin and bring some cheese down for little ol' us?
Those people so fat it take 20 minutes fo' a posse to git in the back of
the pickup to give chase....