Thoughts on this morning

56 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike & Carole Curtis

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 1:24:23 PM9/11/01
to
My God.

My mother remembered when Pearl Harbor was attacked. She heard it on the
radio that afternoon.
Her older brother later enlisted and died at Okinawa.
She said it was just unbelievable. I understand that.

I was getting things ready to go to Small Press Expo, arranging for shipment
of a new comic.

This makes you realize how very very small our daily activities are at
times.

There's just a sense of numbness. At the moment I wish I could see a few
hours into the future.

I have friends in NYC in comics...I pray they're all right.

I spoke to someone today and told him it reminded me of November 1963. So
many weren't alive then.

For three days there was nothing else on TV and no one wanted there to be
anything else on TV.

I will be looking for the first announcement of Red Cross Blood Drives (as
we all should).

I did not vote for Bush for President, but at the moment I think the
smartest thing he could do is call his dad, who was not only a former
President but also a former head of the CIA. Political differences need to
go out the window right now.

Whether you are a Christian, Moslem, or even an atheist, please send all
your thoughts toward NY and Washington. And don't forget the families of
the passengers on the planes.

Mike

mhirtes

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 2:00:24 PM9/11/01
to
I asked a few elderly neighbors if this is what it felt like when Pearl
Harbor happened in '41, and they said "At least the Japanese were decent
enough to *formally* declare war, and to let us know who's responsible".

--
"Who's driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"

Mike & Carole Curtis

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 2:07:02 PM9/11/01
to

"mhirtes" <mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3B9E5137...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.radiks.net...

> I asked a few elderly neighbors if this is what it felt like when Pearl
> Harbor happened in '41, and they said "At least the Japanese were decent
> enough to *formally* declare war, and to let us know who's responsible".


My heavens. I hadn't thought about that. You're right, at least they
claimed credit, while "whoever" is still hiding.

Mike


Dragon Magic

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 3:24:05 PM9/11/01
to
It could be that these people have yet to claim
responsibility, hoping to further their terrorism
here. If they claim responsibility, we'll be on
higher alert for their people here and nearby.
While we're still looking, they have a better
chance to do far worse damage.

So it's probably good not to expect anyone
formally acknowledging responsibility, or at
least denying their actions in this, until they
get done what they want done.


Akai

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 3:41:53 PM9/11/01
to

Not to mention Pearl Harbor was a military target. Quite a bit different
from a commercial center packed with tens of thousands of civillians.

--

-Akai


"Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun
Shine on you crazy diamond..."

-Pink Floyd

AJL

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 5:19:31 PM9/11/01
to
Akai wrote:
>
> Not to mention Pearl Harbor was a military target. Quite a bit different
> from a commercial center packed with tens of thousands of civillians.

The WTC *was* a strategic military target... it just happens to have
tens of thousands of civilians there as well. It's a communications
center, as well as home to *many* embassy offices. When it fell, it
collapsed several levels of subway tunnels underneath. It crippled
*all* of Manhattan island.

The plane that crashed at Camp David as well as the Pentagon incident
were unmistakeably military targets.

We don't know where the plane that crashed in PA was headed... although
I just heard a report on the news that a Cellphone 911 call from a
passenger on that plane indicated that they were heading for Camp David
also.

This was a strategically planned attack on our command and
communications infrastructure.

Jeff Novotny

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 5:51:46 PM9/11/01
to
Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:

> This makes you realize how very very small our daily activities are at
> times.

Yes. I could not believe the news myself. My thoughts go out to the
people injured or killed in these attacks, and their friends and
families.

I can't think of anything to say that could truly express how terrible
today really was.

> I will be looking for the first announcement of Red Cross Blood Drives (as
> we all should).

Yes, I will be contacting the Canadian Red Cross looking for info. New
York may need emergency supplies as well.

Peace;
Jeff

bevnsag

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 6:12:05 PM9/11/01
to

AJL wrote:
>
> Akai wrote:
> >
> > Not to mention Pearl Harbor was a military target. Quite a bit different
> > from a commercial center packed with tens of thousands of civillians.
>
> The WTC *was* a strategic military target... it just happens to have
> tens of thousands of civilians there as well. It's a communications
> center, as well as home to *many* embassy offices. When it fell, it
> collapsed several levels of subway tunnels underneath. It crippled
> *all* of Manhattan island.

Not according to Mayor Juli or the press.

>
> The plane that crashed at Camp David as well as the Pentagon incident
> were unmistakeably military targets.

There are no confirmed reports of anything happening at Camp David.


>
> We don't know where the plane that crashed in PA was headed... although
> I just heard a report on the news that a Cellphone 911 call from a
> passenger on that plane indicated that they were heading for Camp David
> also.

There is no confirmed reports of anything other than the mere fact of a
hijacking by men armed with knives and such from the 911 call.


>
> This was a strategically planned attack on our command and
> communications infrastructure.

No. It is a largely symbolic attack against very visible and all too
American institutions. In that it has been very successful. As a C3
attack, it was entirely inconcequencial. You're reading too much Tom Clancey.

Charles Groark

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 7:56:30 PM9/11/01
to
bevnsag wrote:

> AJL wrote:
>
> > This was a strategically planned attack on our command and
> > communications infrastructure.
>
> No. It is a largely symbolic attack against very visible and all too
> American institutions. In that it has been very successful. As a C3
> attack, it was entirely inconcequencial. You're reading too much Tom Clancey.

Actually, I wonder whether Tom Clancy didn't (unintentionally, of course) give
these schmucks the idea. He ends his book Debt of Honor with a Japanese pilot
flying a 747 kamikaze-style into the Capitol building...

Charlie


Terry Knight

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 8:33:37 PM9/11/01
to
Jeff Novotny wrote:
>
> Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:
>
> > This makes you realize how very very small our daily activities are at
> > times.
>
> Yes. I could not believe the news myself. My thoughts go out to the
> people injured or killed in these attacks, and their friends and
> families.
>
> I can't think of anything to say that could truly express how terrible
> today really was.

Same here - I'm just stunned.

I was about to check in to a United Airlines flight from LAX this
morning - when I got to the terminal at 7:00am PST they were already
turning people away saying something about plane crashes and the
Pentagon. When I asked a fellow passenger what was going on and they
told me about the WTC crashes I thought he was first pulling my leg -
but it wasn't long before the awful truth sunk in.

As you probably know by now, LAX is now completely evacuated...
especially as it was the intended destination of some of the doomed
flights. I hoping that things get back to normal by Thursday so I can
get my flight back home to New Zealand...

I am completely gobsmacked by the events of today, and my heart goes out
to all the families of the victims of this vicious attack. THis is a sad
day for America and the world.

Kia kaha (Ever be strong),

--
Terry Knight | may...@attglobal.net | Stranded in Los Angeles, USA
=========================================================================
Homepage: http://www.furnation.com/mayfurr/ FurCode1.2: FCF3adm/C3famd
A+++ C+ D H M+ P R T W Z++ S# RLCT cn++$ a+ d e+ f h+++ iwf+ p+ sm*
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 8:55:58 PM9/11/01
to

"Charles Groark" <cgr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B9EA995...@home.com...

The US press is the enemies greatest source of information, I remember
watching a news story years ago concerning the ease at which an attack
could be done with aircraft and today they gave detailed reports of the
presidents location, making sure every one knows he is currently at the
Whitehouse, showing a live picture. Idiots.


Charles Groark

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 9:40:46 PM9/11/01
to
Kathmandu wrote:

> The US press is the enemies greatest source of information, I remember
> watching a news story years ago concerning the ease at which an attack
> could be done with aircraft and today they gave detailed reports of the
> presidents location, making sure every one knows he is currently at the
> Whitehouse, showing a live picture. Idiots.

Well, I can't blame them completely in this case. The American people
wanted to hear from the President and he made his speech this evening from
the White House. President Bush decided to make that speech (and I'm not
questioning that decision, despite my personal dislike for the man). The
media covered it, as they should have.

President Bush returned to the White House partly as a symbolic act.
Psychologically, I think it was probably the right thing to do.

Charlie


Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 11, 2001, 10:09:10 PM9/11/01
to

AJL wrote:

> The plane that crashed at Camp David as well as the Pentagon incident
> were unmistakeably military targets.

You know, I've heard mention of a plane crashing near Camp David a time or
two today, but still haven't heard any details on that. I've also heard
conflicting reports about a car bomb at the State Department, but, again, no
details. Are these legitimate? Can anyone offer details or updated info on
these?

--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm

Dr. Cat

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 12:45:31 AM9/12/01
to
Kathmandu <katm...@vidnet.net> wrote:
: The US press is the enemies greatest source of information, I remember

: watching a news story years ago concerning the ease at which an attack
: could be done with aircraft and today they gave detailed reports of the
: presidents location, making sure every one knows he is currently at the
: Whitehouse, showing a live picture. Idiots.

If they had decided it was best to keep the President's location secret,
I'm sure they would have done so. As it is, they had a press pool aboard
Air Force One, as usual - the government CHOSE to have the press know and
report on where he was and what he was doing.

I'm sure that after taking what they felt were reasonable measures to
determine whether they felt they could keep the president safe, this was a
deliberate decision to boost morale and reassure the American people that
he didn't need to go into hiding. If he had gone into hiding, I think
people would have felt a LOT more scared, feeling like lots more
terrorists are lurking and about to strike again at any moment.

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: Besides, the toilet paper is rougher in the secret bunker.)

Chris Beilby

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 2:29:25 AM9/12/01
to
> You know, I've heard mention of a plane crashing near Camp David a time or
> two today, but still haven't heard any details on that. I've also heard
> conflicting reports about a car bomb at the State Department, but, again,
no
> details. Are these legitimate? Can anyone offer details or updated info
on
> these?

By now, you probably have heard that these were just unsubstanciated rumors.
The second United flight, which crashed in Pennsylvanya, was on a flight
path that took it near Camp David, but it was most likely headed for a
second target in DC. And thank God it didn't make it... There are reports,
which may never be confirmed, that the passengers on that one managed to
overpower the Terrorists, and drive the plane into the ground...


Frances Kathleen Moffatt

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 8:01:21 AM9/12/01
to
Charles Melville (cp...@zipcon.com) writes:

> You know, I've heard mention of a plane crashing near Camp David a time or
> two today, but still haven't heard any details on that. I've also heard
> conflicting reports about a car bomb at the State Department, but, again, no
> details. Are these legitimate? Can anyone offer details or updated info on
> these?

Heard about the car bomb in front of the State Department; AFAIK, that's
legit. Nothing about Camp David.

Still thinking more of the blitz than Pearl Harbor.

Gingercat

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 7:15:28 PM9/12/01
to

"Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message
news:3b9ee...@feed1.realtime.net...

> (Disclaimer: Besides, the toilet paper is rougher in the secret
bunker.)

Did the American people need to know he landed in Shreveport LA as he
landed? Does the public need to know intelligence that was gathered just
to make us feel better? Come on people, remember when CNN was used for
artillary support for S.C.U.D. missles? Whoops, we missed, crank her up
5 degrees and to the left.

I would feel much better if the president were a mile underground along
with the senate and congress. Posturing is one thing, putting them out
as targets is another. Lets face it, they did this, how hard would it be
to drive a 67 VW bus onto the mall and set off a nuke?


Patrick C. Jones

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 8:21:48 PM9/12/01
to
"Chris Beilby" <cbe...@hroads.net> wrote:

>The second United flight, which crashed in Pennsylvanya, was on a flight
>path that took it near Camp David, but it was most likely headed for a
>second target in DC. And thank God it didn't make it... There are reports,
>which may never be confirmed, that the passengers on that one managed to
>overpower the Terrorists, and drive the plane into the ground...
>
>

News reports are saying that one of the passengers called his wife on
a cellular phone after the hijackers took control. He was told about
the suicide bombings at the WTC and presumably put 2+2 together and
figured his plane was bound for the same fate, took a vote with the
other men on the plane and decided to take action. Speculation has it
that the plane went down while they were fighting with the hijackers
for control of the craft.

---PCJ

Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 8:37:32 PM9/12/01
to

Kathmandu wrote:

> Did the American people need to know he landed in Shreveport LA as he
> landed? Does the public need to know intelligence that was gathered just
> to make us feel better?

Yes. For one, I'm really very, very grateful for the onslaught of news
reports yesterday. After hearing the initial reports of the tower
collisions, I stayed glued to the radio all day for further reports of
developments just so I could keep abreast, and to try and make sense of it.
To -not- hear anything more until some later point in the evening or the
next day would have driven me mad with anxiety. This was a major calamity.
There was no way that I wanted to be kept in the dark about what was
happening to my country, or to what else might have happened.
And, oddly enough, I -was- relieved to be getting reports of where the
President was. I didn't vote for him, (and probably still wouldn't), but it
somehow became very, very important to be reassured that he was still alive
and still safe, given what else was happening. I think your concern about
them 'giving his position' away is groundless. He wasn't at any one
location long enough for them to get a bead on him, and he had a military
escort all the way. How could they possibly strike at him under those
circumstances? By the time they could have gotten there, he'd have been
gone again. And if they had the capability to strike at him from afar, they
would have done it long since before.

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 12, 2001, 10:26:15 PM9/12/01
to

"Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:3B9FFFCC...@zipcon.com...

>
>
> Kathmandu wrote:
>
> > Did the American people need to know he landed in Shreveport LA as
he
> > landed? Does the public need to know intelligence that was gathered
just
> > to make us feel better?
>
> Yes. For one, I'm really very, very grateful for the onslaught of
news
> reports yesterday. After hearing the initial reports of the tower
> collisions, I stayed glued to the radio all day for further reports of
> developments just so I could keep abreast, and to try and make sense
of it.

There is a difference between "The president is at an undisclosed
location at this moment, maintaining contact in the command center of
Air Force One." as opposed to "The president is at lat 38,2643 long
25,8873 and will be there for 26 minutes. They likely couldn't do
anything but why make it easy if they could. It was unknown at the time.


. I think your concern about
> them 'giving his position' away is groundless. He wasn't at any one
> location long enough for them to get a bead on him, and he had a
military
> escort all the way.


How do you know? There are cells all over the country for instance, each
has a shoulder launched antiaircraft missle and waits for reports of the
president's location. Actually easier than coordinated hyjackings and
aircraft suicide attacks. Not beyond believability at all. Even easier
since it was the only aircraft flying over the US. It's not paranioa if
they really are out to get you.


DishRoom1

unread,
Sep 13, 2001, 12:54:32 AM9/13/01
to
Charles Melville wrote --

>AJL wrote:
>
>> The plane that crashed at Camp David as well as the Pentagon incident
>> were unmistakeably military targets.
>
> You know, I've heard mention of a plane crashing near Camp David a time
>or
>two today, but still haven't heard any details on that. I've also heard
>conflicting reports about a car bomb at the State Department, but, again, no
>details. Are these legitimate? Can anyone offer details or updated info on
>these?
>
>--

So far, I've been hearing stories on TV and radio that the Pentagon-crashed
plane was supposingly meant for the White House, but of some reason it just
circled over there and smashed into the Pentagon instead.

The plane that crashing near Johnstown, PA, was reported to have been intended
by its hyjackers to fly to Washington DC too to suicide-hit another signficant
American target. But they instead crashed into a field many several miles from
my home for some reason.

John Shughart

sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net

unread,
Sep 13, 2001, 8:59:45 AM9/13/01
to
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:

>So far, I've been hearing stories on TV and radio that the Pentagon-crashed
>plane was supposingly meant for the White House, but of some reason it just
>circled over there and smashed into the Pentagon instead.

Well, they're just _assuming_ that based on its flight path - it is
entirely possible that path was intended, though, and that the Pentagon was
the original target all along. No way to know.

It's also possible that it occurred to the terrorists that, since
President Bush was not _at_ the White House at the time, they could do more
damage to our ability to respond militarily and kill greater numbers of
highly-placed officials by ramming our military's command center instead.
(And they could well have been right, had it not been for the fact that the
wing of the Pentagon which they hit had recently been renovated and was
still, for the most part, unoccupied.)

>The plane that crashing near Johnstown, PA, was reported to have been intended
>by its hyjackers to fly to Washington DC too to suicide-hit another signficant
>American target. But they instead crashed into a field many several miles from
>my home for some reason.

The latest reports there seem to indicate that one of the passengers
called his wife on his cell phone, heard about the World Trade Center
impacts, put 2+2 together and realized his plane was bound for the same
fate... so, he spread the news, and a bunch of the passengers rushed the
terrorists all at once to fight with them for control of the plane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that
maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the
case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange:
You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't
know what you just started.

But you're about to learn."
--(Leonard Pitts jr., newspaper columnist, Sept. 12th, 2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://solarfox.home.texas.net/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 13, 2001, 8:50:06 PM9/13/01
to

Kathmandu wrote:

> "Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
> news:3B9FFFCC...@zipcon.com...

> . I think your concern about
> > them 'giving his position' away is groundless. He wasn't at any one
> > location long enough for them to get a bead on him, and he had a
> military
> > escort all the way.
>
> How do you know? There are cells all over the country for instance, each
> has a shoulder launched antiaircraft missle and waits for reports of the
> president's location.

And no one was, were they? Otherwise it would have happened. It
didn't.

Like I said, by the time his location was announced, he was already on
the move to his next point, and there was no time for any terrorist
reaction. By the time they could have gotten something ready, he was long
out of sight. With fighters on either side of AF1 for escorts.

The matter was handled well and responsibly. And if it -had- been that
much of a concern to security, they would never have allowed the information
to be released in the first place.

Niall C. Shapero

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 8:43:52 AM9/14/01
to
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that
> maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the
> case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange:
> You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't
> know what you just started.
>
> But you're about to learn."
> --(Leonard Pitts jr., newspaper columnist, Sept. 12th, 2001)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
> http://solarfox.home.texas.net/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am afraid that what we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with
a terrible resolve"
-- Adm. Yamamoto

I really don't think that the terrorists understand what is about to happen to them
and theirs...

-- N. C. Shapero

Blackberry

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 10:56:51 AM9/14/01
to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 05:43:52 -0700, "Niall wrote:
>
>"I am afraid that what we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him
>with
>a terrible resolve"
> -- Adm. Yamamoto
>
>I really don't think that the terrorists understand what is about to happen to
>them
>and theirs...

That's what gets me. In this day and age, it's impossible to hide for very
long, especially with such a network of subordinates as carried this out. And
who would be stupid enough to piss off the USA, especially with a Republican
administration in office? Do they really *want* B-2s sending bombs down their
chimneys?

--------------------
"It's ludicrous to have these interlocking bodies and not interlock. Please
remove your clothing now." -- Anya, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

AJL

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 2:23:05 PM9/14/01
to
> I really don't think that the terrorists understand what is about to happen to them
> and theirs...
>
> -- N. C. Shapero

---
"War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This
nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was
begun on the timing and terms of others; it will end in a way and at an
hour of our choosing."
-- U.S. President George Bush, Sept 14, 2001.

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 7:05:55 PM9/14/01
to

"Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:3BA1543E...@zipcon.com...


Lemme give you a reality check here, I live with in the Shreveport
viewing area and this clueless reporter is showing live pictures of Air
Force One landing at Barksdale AFB, no one had control of that
information, no one was stopping the broadcast. It is probably the
reason it took off again and headed to Nebraska.

You have our leaders spouting sensitive intellegance to make us feel
better, you have clueless reporters doing forward spotting for the enemy
to get that breaking story. You want the Presedent in the Whitehouse
with a big red target on his ass just to give you a warm fuzzy as the
United States was under attack? We did not know the extent of the attack
at the time and I think the dissemination of information to the public
that makes it any easier to hurt us is irresponsible and downright stupi
d. Letting Peter Jennings give us a warm fuzzy as buildings burn and
planes fall be damned. I don't need to know where Air Force One is, only
that the Presedent is safe.

I was listening to the radio with my co workers as the WTC collapsed, we
were all waiting for the nukes to go off in the harbor or some other
disaster. We didn't know at the time. We were shocked to hear them
announce the Presedent was landing in Shreveport as it happened. The
public doesn't need to know sensitive information, not while there was
still the potential for harm. Just because nothing happend is no
excuse...duh.


Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 7:25:59 PM9/14/01
to

"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3BA24B09...@ajlvideo.com...


<Kathmandu waves his hand> Excuse me! I know this is a dumb question but
who and where do we point our B-2s at? Do you really want to have 1
billion Muslimns really pissed off at us? We can't piss off Packistan
too much, they have nukes remember? These rats are in hiding and are
supprted by the people of a lot of countries,

Me, I'm of the opinion we level Mecca and put up McDonalds and Pizza
Huts, Disneyland and lots of Casinos. Give women equal rights and have
only one TV station with only monster truck races and WWF wrastlin'. For
every terrorist attack equals a Muslim holy place made into a parking
lot. Give 'em something to really be pissed about.


Atara

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 7:30:35 PM9/14/01
to
The amount of bigotry expressed in that post totally appalls me. Why don't you
go show how much of a man you are and go shoot out another mosque window,
Kathmandu?

Good fucking grief.

--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
***What doesn't fit in my email addy? NADA.***

Atara

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 7:54:12 PM9/14/01
to
at...@mb.sympatico.caNADA (Atara) wrote in <911CB12F5a...@66.80.7.254>:

>Good fucking grief.

It's been pointed out to me privately that you may have been joking about
leveling Mecca. The comments did seem out of place for you, but at this point
in time I don't see anything funny about furthering the damage that's already
been done to the Muslim community in North America.

If you were speaking facetiously, my sincerest apologies.

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 10:58:10 PM9/14/01
to

"Atara" <at...@mb.sympatico.caNADA> wrote in message
news:911CB12F5a...@66.80.7.254...

> The amount of bigotry expressed in that post totally appalls me. Why
don't you
> go show how much of a man you are and go shoot out another mosque
window,
> Kathmandu?

What I said was in a humorous spirit, but with a grain of truth. Nothing
matters to these people, kill them and they thank you, kill their
families and it makes them more determined. Human life has no value,
especially the infidel. A mosque has no value other than a meeting place
so that is pointless. The only and I mean only thing they value is
Mecca. Turning it into Las Vegas would hurt them more than turning
Afganistan into a vast radioactive glass mine. (I'm speaking about the
fanatic) I sound like a bigot I guess but it is the truth. According to
the Koran, any who die while fighting a holy war is guaranteed a place
in heaven and it is required of all the faithfull to fight the enemy in
this Jihad and we are the enemy. This was explained to me by my Iranian
brother in law (former) so I am not just talking out of my hat.

We are about to enter into a morass that our grandchildren will be
paying for I'm afraid because if we do anything that will really get the
fanatic's attention, we will anger one sixth of the population.


Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:16:17 PM9/14/01
to

"Atara" <at...@mb.sympatico.caNADA> wrote in message
news:911CCE58Ea...@66.80.7.254...

> at...@mb.sympatico.caNADA (Atara) wrote in
<911CB12F5a...@66.80.7.254>:
>
> >Good fucking grief.
>
> It's been pointed out to me privately that you may have been joking
about
> leveling Mecca.

I was joking. I know McDonalds food is bad but...

Keep this in mind, there is a whole lot less of it going on than say if
it were 1941 or 1957. It's not an excuse but it is an improvement.

>
> If you were speaking facetiously, my sincerest apologies.

No problem. I live in the south so I'm used to being called a bigot. Now
where did I put my hood...


Atara

unread,
Sep 14, 2001, 11:30:48 PM9/14/01
to
katm...@vidnet.net (Kathmandu) wrote in <9nug41$gcg$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:

>What I said was in a humorous spirit, but with a grain of truth. Nothing
>matters to these people, kill them and they thank you, kill their
>families and it makes them more determined.

Fine. I completely take back my earlier apology. You're now in the category of
people who attack law-abiding women on buses simply because they're wearing
traditional Muslim garb. You are fueling the hatred with your racist remarks
about "those people." Equating these utter fanatics to all Muslims is akin to
equating abortion-clinic bombers to all Christians. Islam has just as much of a
centre of peace as Christianity does. Think *I'M* talking out of my hat?
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/961070/detail.html

Speak to my Muslim friends who attended memorial services with me today at City
Hall. Speak to the Muslim people who lost loved ones in the WTC attack. Ask
them what they think about this. Then let's see if you have the gall to turn
around and spit in their faces. You make me fucking sick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20953-2001Sep12.html
http://www.mywinnipeg.com/cgi/news/sw.cgi?Appl=cp_news/national&Item=010914/n09
1496.dat&Menu=004
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/13/attack.australia.muslims/ind
ex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/chicago.mosque/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310989-412,00.shtml

I hope you like the company you're keeping.

Chris Beilby

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 12:14:07 AM9/15/01
to

> <Kathmandu waves his hand> Excuse me! I know this is a dumb question but
> who and where do we point our B-2s at? Do you really want to have 1
> billion Muslimns really pissed off at us? We can't piss off Packistan
> too much, they have nukes remember? These rats are in hiding and are
> supprted by the people of a lot of countries,
>
> Me, I'm of the opinion we level Mecca and put up McDonalds and Pizza
> Huts, Disneyland and lots of Casinos. Give women equal rights and have
> only one TV station with only monster truck races and WWF wrastlin'. For
> every terrorist attack equals a Muslim holy place made into a parking
> lot. Give 'em something to really be pissed about.

I suggest that you take a look at the Moslem community in your own town.
Most moslems in the US are just as angry about this as as the rest of us.
Moreso in fact, because the mosnsters who did this give them precicely this
bad reputation.

If we were to do what you suggest, we would be just as bad as the monsters!

*Bigot Plonk*


Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 6:35:49 AM9/15/01
to

"Atara" <at...@mb.sympatico.caNADA> wrote in message
news:911CEEEE1a...@66.80.7.254...

> katm...@vidnet.net (Kathmandu) wrote in
<9nug41$gcg$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
>
> >What I said was in a humorous spirit, but with a grain of truth.
Nothing
> >matters to these people, kill them and they thank you, kill their
> >families and it makes them more determined.
>
> Fine. I completely take back my earlier apology. You're now in the
category of
> people who attack law-abiding women on buses simply because they're
wearing
> traditional Muslim garb. You are fueling the hatred with your racist
remarks
> about "those people." Equating these utter fanatics to all Muslims is
akin to
> equating abortion-clinic bombers to all Christians. Islam has just as
much of a
> centre of peace as Christianity does. Think *I'M* talking out of my
hat?
> http://www.newsnet5.com/news/961070/detail.html


Your outrage is commendable but you missread my post, I said the
FANATICS do not care about anything...

Venting you moral outrage is healty, go ahead, let it out. I'm here for
you.


Cerulean

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 3:25:16 PM9/15/01
to
Quoth Kathmandu:

>According to
>the Koran, any who die while fighting a holy war is guaranteed a place
>in heaven and it is required of all the faithfull to fight the enemy in
>this Jihad and we are the enemy. This was explained to me by my Iranian
>brother in law (former) so I am not just talking out of my hat.

Osama bin Laden and much of Iran are Shiites. Shiite is the terrorist
jihad sect. Both the Shiites and we uninformed Americans tend to
believe it typifies the whole of Islamic belief, but Shiite is pretty
much the anti-Islam. Normal Muslims view murder and suicide as sinful,
just like any sensible person does.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( u!J3-,,u!ds pue Ja6u!j xa+e7 s!y uo +!s o6 ue) epoh,,

Kathmandu

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 8:41:51 PM9/15/01
to

"Cerulean" <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote in message
news:3ba3a809...@velox.critter.net...

> Quoth Kathmandu:
>
> >According to
> >the Koran, any who die while fighting a holy war is guaranteed a
place
> >in heaven and it is required of all the faithfull to fight the enemy
in
> >this Jihad and we are the enemy. This was explained to me by my
Iranian
> >brother in law (former) so I am not just talking out of my hat.
>
> Osama bin Laden and much of Iran are Shiites. Shiite is the terrorist
> jihad sect. Both the Shiites and we uninformed Americans tend to
> believe it typifies the whole of Islamic belief, but Shiite is pretty
> much the anti-Islam. Normal Muslims view murder and suicide as sinful,
> just like any sensible person does.


You are absouluely right. The Shiite are considered scum of the earth to
most normal muslims. Iran actually has a sizable Christian population in
addition to it's Islamic population. My point of discussion was there is
nothing we can do to them to actually hurt them. The only point of
leverage we have may be Mecca. It might actually get those "normal
muslims" to get off their asses and remove them from power. I also need
to say there were an awful lot of "normal muslims" dancing in the
streets on Tuesday. I also don't think I'll be seeing any "normal
muslims" turning in any terrorists for justice.

I know quite a bit about them since they are a part of my family. I know
they love to get together with family and friends in the evening, cook
shishkabobs and talk into the wee hours of the morning drinking coffee.
I know they use black and white thread to tell the exact moment of dawn
to begin prayer. I also know the rich really treat the peasants badly
(I'll tell you about peasant hunting sometime) and women even worse. I
know in some places in the middle east, the desire to have male children
has driven families to kill their female babies and it has gotten to the
point that there are very few women and they are threatened with
extinction. I know they have a seething hatred for Jews and since we
support them they mostly hate us as well (even the peace loving, normal
muslim. they may not kill or suicide, but they still hate us). I have a
Jewish friend who had his wife and father in law killed by terrorists in
Israel and he was left for dead himself and I also know my 14 year old
little sister was raped by a muslim, so if I sound just a teeny bit
bigotted, well, (as I remember those people jumping from the buildings
rather than die in the flames) tough shit.

I don't advocate hurting any middle eastern american, nor do I advocate
desicrating mosques or whatever in this country, it is stupid and wrong.
I think we need to check the immigration status of all non citizens and
expel all who are here illeagally since almost all of the terrorists had
expired visas or forged documents. I think discussing using Mecca as a
wake up call should be looked at. I don't think it is all that great an
idea but I don't have any others at the moment. Funny, nobody plonked me
over my suggestion of turning the desert into glass but suggest putting
up a McDonalds and doing the American thing of destroying old buildings
and putting in parking lots did. Hmmm.


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 10:20:55 PM9/15/01
to
Cerulean wrote:
>
> Quoth Kathmandu:
>
> >According to
> >the Koran, any who die while fighting a holy war is guaranteed a place
> >in heaven and it is required of all the faithfull to fight the enemy in
> >this Jihad and we are the enemy. This was explained to me by my Iranian
> >brother in law (former) so I am not just talking out of my hat.
>
> Osama bin Laden and much of Iran are Shiites. Shiite is the terrorist
> jihad sect. B

They're a bunch of Shiiteheads, then.

-MMM-

--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217

Cerulean

unread,
Sep 15, 2001, 11:30:38 PM9/15/01
to
Quoth Kathmandu:

>I think discussing using Mecca as a
>wake up call should be looked at. I don't think it is all that great an
>idea but I don't have any others at the moment.

Here's a wacky idea: Find the guilty party, give him a fair trial, and
kill him. Revenge upon innocents is useless; it doesn't matter whether
you're talking about killing them or desecrating that which they hold
dear. All it does is rally the survivors to support the next act of
revenge, which of course will be taken out on our innocents, so that
we support our politicians' revenge on their innocents, and so on.
Most of the world is made up of people who basically just want to get
on with daily life, and who don't have much time in the day to spend
on hating people they've never met. The cycle continues because they,
not the parties who did the things being avenged, always end up as the
target.

To kill evil, you have to cut its head off. Why has nobody tried this
yet? Assassination has been given a bad name over the years, but what
we really should have done during the Gulf War would have been to send
in a small squad of special agents to snuff Saddam Hussein. What's so
terrible about that? Why is war supposed to be more dignified? It's
one life, guilty of massive atrocities, instead of the numerous lives
of soldiers who probably don't have a choice and civilians who just
happen to be there.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#

/ (7 ( 77aqdwe) ydasor - ,,ss!7q Jnoh mo77oj,,

Elynne

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 2:07:58 AM9/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Cerulean wrote:
> To kill evil, you have to cut its head off. Why has nobody tried this
> yet? Assassination has been given a bad name over the years, but what
> we really should have done during the Gulf War would have been to send
> in a small squad of special agents to snuff Saddam Hussein. What's so
> terrible about that? Why is war supposed to be more dignified? It's
> one life, guilty of massive atrocities, instead of the numerous lives
> of soldiers who probably don't have a choice and civilians who just
> happen to be there.

I agree with you.

Upside: leaders are intimately, exquisitely aware of their
*responsibilities* to the people they lead. What a wacky concept - that a
leader should actually answer to the people that put him in charge! Damn!

Downside: for exactly this reason, no major leader will ever, ever condone
such an assasination program. The safest place for a general to be is
behind lines, preferably *far* behind lines. As long as assasination is a
more despicable, heinous concept than bombing civilian targets and
conscripting generations of your people as cannon fodder, the leaders will
be safe, and that's how they want it.

Downside corrolary: if an assasination program was substituted for war,
one possible serious drawback is that we'd never have any strong leaders
again. They'd hide in bunkers, construct elaborate police states to
protect themselves, and always walk on eggshells for fear of ticking off
the wrong people. Although I have to admit, I find the idea of world
leaders spending all their time and resources poisoning each other off
while leaving the general populace to get on with life has much appeal.

Elynne, stepping out of lurkdom to toss in a couple of pennies

--
My web-page-esque-thing: http://www.tomorrowlands.org/elynne/index.html
Reply to default weyr.org address for best results
"Catchy slogans don't win fights. Nasty maniacal weapons win fights."
- BattleBots

Timmy Ramone

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 6:37:37 AM9/16/01
to
Cerulean wrote:
>
> Osama bin Laden and much of Iran are Shiites. Shiite is the terrorist
> jihad sect. Both the Shiites and we uninformed Americans tend to
> believe it typifies the whole of Islamic belief, but Shiite is pretty
> much the anti-Islam. Normal Muslims view murder and suicide as sinful,
> just like any sensible person does.

"Shiite is the terrorist jihad sect?" Where do you get this crap?
Seriously -- I'd like to know what clown is defaming a major religious
sect in this way.

In a nutshell, Islam is made up of two major sects, Shi'a and Sunni,
derived from the followers of different sons of Mohammed. Both
believe in God and regard the Koran, as well as the Bible, as the
word of God. The major difference is that Shiite Muslims believe
that their religious leaders, the Mullahs, can act as intermediaries
between the faithful and God. Saying Shiites are "anti-Islam" is
like saying Baptists are "anti-Christian." And this weekend the
Mullahs in Iran denounced the murder and suicide of the hijackers
who attacked the U.S.

Finally, Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, meaning he was raised as a
Sunni Muslim, and probably still is.

--

"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto

Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 11:21:44 AM9/16/01
to

Blackberry wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 05:43:52 -0700, "Niall wrote:
> >
> >"I am afraid that what we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him
> >with
> >a terrible resolve"
> > -- Adm. Yamamoto
> >
> >I really don't think that the terrorists understand what is about to happen to
> >them
> >and theirs...
>
> That's what gets me. In this day and age, it's impossible to hide for very
> long, especially with such a network of subordinates as carried this out. And
> who would be stupid enough to piss off the USA, especially with a Republican
> administration in office? Do they really *want* B-2s sending bombs down their
> chimneys?

They don't have any chimneys.

Pardon the momentary note of facetiousness, but the fact is that this is a
terrorist organization that is webbed throughout the world. It doesn't really have
a stationary spot that can be called 'home'. The closest they have is whereever
bin Laden is hiding in Afghanistan, which is an incredibly poor country, and bin
Laden's organization is hiding among the nomads in the mountains. That, along with
their radical belief that their extreme actions are entirely within the blessings
of God, gives them a sense of superiority and high confidence that they can do no
wrong. Besides, succeed at bombing them in Afghanistan, and the organization
continues from some other country, and not neccessarily within the Middle East;
it's been reported that several of these terrorists have been operating out of
Germany, for instance.
And if they -do- get killed, they'll enter into Paradise as martyr's in God's
cause.
For them, it's a sort of 'win-win' situation.

Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 11:32:42 AM9/16/01
to

Kathmandu wrote:

Nope. The reason the plane took off again was that they realized that
there was still one plane still unaccounted for at that point, and the
Secret Service had received credible evidence (their words) that there was a
credible threat against the President himself. Bush wanted to continue on
to Washington anyway, but Cheney, with whom he was in direct contact at that
time, persuaded him to follow the Service's lead and fly to Nebraska
instead.

> You have our leaders spouting sensitive intellegance to make us feel
> better, you have clueless reporters doing forward spotting for the enemy
> to get that breaking story. You want the Presedent in the Whitehouse
> with a big red target on his ass just to give you a warm fuzzy as the
> United States was under attack? We did not know the extent of the attack
> at the time and I think the dissemination of information to the public
> that makes it any easier to hurt us is irresponsible and downright stupi
> d. Letting Peter Jennings give us a warm fuzzy as buildings burn and
> planes fall be damned. I don't need to know where Air Force One is, only
> that the Presedent is safe.

Doesn't work that way, and the President himself understood that. In
times of crisis like this, it's psychologically important to know that the
leadership is intact and the government is still operational. Bush took
pains to make sure that the populace knew both of these things. And
information was never released about his whereabouts until he actually
landed somewhere, and by the time it was disseminated it was too late for
anything to be done by an attacker, because he was gone again, until he
finally reached Washington.

> I was listening to the radio with my co workers as the WTC collapsed, we
> were all waiting for the nukes to go off in the harbor or some other
> disaster. We didn't know at the time. We were shocked to hear them
> announce the Presedent was landing in Shreveport as it happened. The
> public doesn't need to know sensitive information, not while there was
> still the potential for harm. Just because nothing happend is no
> excuse...duh.

I repeat, under the circumstances, I think your concerns are
exaggerated. I think it was well covered and well handled on all ends. I
say the results bear that out.

Charles Melville

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 11:35:35 AM9/16/01
to

Kathmandu wrote:

> Me, I'm of the opinion we level Mecca and put up McDonalds and Pizza
> Huts, Disneyland and lots of Casinos. Give women equal rights and have
> only one TV station with only monster truck races and WWF wrastlin'. For
> every terrorist attack equals a Muslim holy place made into a parking
> lot. Give 'em something to really be pissed about.

I'm in no more favor of that than I am of nuking Jurusalem or Bethlehem
or any other religious shrine or center of faith. Why punish an entire
religion for the extreme actions of a single, small faction? Makes as much
sense as blowing up the WTC to punish America. And is just as evil.

LncrAdvncd

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 1:36:20 PM9/16/01
to
>My point of discussion was there is nothing we can do to them to actually
hurt them. The only point ofleverage we have may be Mecca.

Why not glass Jeruselem, or the Vatican get the whole Jew/Christian/Muslim,
conflicts thing over while were're at it?

The holy sites are not responsible for the fanatics that aim their prayers
towards them. the only thing you can do is eliminate the problem directly, and
hopefully without causing new ones. Coercing other people who just happen to
share other branches of the same faith to do our dirty work will just breed
more bad blood. And if the frigging US of A, the world's only super power
can't hurt them, then how do you expect a bunch of 2nd and 3rd world nations to
do so...


ICAW

Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com

"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"

Dennis Lee Bieber

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 3:10:44 PM9/16/01
to
LncrAdvncd wrote:

>>My point of discussion was there is nothing we can do to them to
actually
> hurt them. The only point ofleverage we have may be Mecca.
>

According to one article I've read, bin Laden's biggest gripe with the
US is that we are supposed to have already desecrated Mecca and Meddina
(sp?) when Saudi Arabia allowed the country to be used for staging during
the Gulf war.

(This is coming via an initial configuration of KNode on Mandrake, not my
normal Agent/W98 -- apologies for any problems)
--
> ============================================================== <
> wlf...@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wulf...@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================== <
> Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
> Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

Timmy Ramone

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 5:00:54 PM9/16/01
to
Kathmandu wrote:
>
> Nothing
> matters to these people, kill them and they thank you, kill their
> families and it makes them more determined. Human life has no value,
> especially the infidel. A mosque has no value other than a meeting
> place so that is pointless. The only and I mean only thing they
> value is Mecca.

Gads, how completely ignorant can one person be about another relgion?
Let's read on and find out...

> Turning [Mecca] into Las Vegas would hurt them more than turning


> Afganistan into a vast radioactive glass mine. (I'm speaking about
> the fanatic) I sound like a bigot I guess but it is the truth.

You're right -- you do sound like a bigot. Maybe you ought to burn
down a few African-American churches as practice before blowing up
Mecca?

Cerulean

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 7:58:19 PM9/16/01
to
Quoth Timmy Ramone:

>Saying Shiites are "anti-Islam" is
>like saying Baptists are "anti-Christian."

Very apt... Modify that to "Southern Baptist" and I'd say they are.
Since I wouldn't expect anyone overseas to know the difference between
"Baptist" and "Southern Baptist", I must admit that I'm probably
underinformed about exactly what flavor of Shiites preach hatred and
racism. If anyone has the precise name for it, let me know so I can
get it right next time.

If you doubt that such a sect exists, I remind you that it was an
Iranian who told Kat that waging holy war against Americans is a vital
part of Islam, just like a Southern Baptist would tell you that a holy
war against homosexuals is vital to Christianity.

(Sorry if this flushes Sch*rn or Hay*s into the arena, but I feel it's
a very good analogy and I'm glad you supplied it.)

>Finally, Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, meaning he was raised as a
>Sunni Muslim, and probably still is.

As I understand it, he became a sort of disciple of the Ayatollah
Khomeni. But this is second-hand and from memory.

I'm not here to be a bad guy like some are, so instead of turning it
into a fight, I want to _thank_you_ for your effort to help me
understand better. Maybe we can set an example.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#

Timmy Ramone

unread,
Sep 16, 2001, 11:16:28 PM9/16/01
to
Cerulean wrote:
>
> Quoth Timmy Ramone:
>
> >Saying Shiites are "anti-Islam" is like saying Baptists are
> >"anti-Christian."
>
> Very apt... Modify that to "Southern Baptist" and I'd say they are.

I don't think that's fair to Southern Baptists, either. I know some
good folks who are SB's, so I know for a fact they're not *all* bad.
:)

> If you doubt that such a sect exists, I remind you that it was an
> Iranian who told Kat that waging holy war against Americans is a vital
> part of Islam, just like a Southern Baptist would tell you that a holy
> war against homosexuals is vital to Christianity.

No such sect exists. Katmandu talked to only one Iranian, and I
wonder if he recalls the conversation correctly. I should note that
the Iranian government, and thousands of Iranian workers and citizens,
have denounced this act of terror and violence. Shi'a Muslims have
their bad eggs, just as we have our Falwells and our Robertsons, but
you can't condemn them all for the actions of some.

> As I understand it, he became a sort of disciple of the Ayatollah
> Khomeni. But this is second-hand and from memory.

I don't think so. The Ayatollah was dead by the time he was fighting
in Afghanistan. No matter what kind of Muslim he is, his actions
have been denouced by other Muslims around the world.



> I'm not here to be a bad guy like some are, so instead of turning it
> into a fight, I want to _thank_you_ for your effort to help me
> understand better. Maybe we can set an example.

You're welcome -- I try my best, but even my understanding of Islam
is very limited. I'm sorry if I got a little upset, but I see a lot
of misunderstanding about Islam in America, and misunderstandings
all too often lead to conflict.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 1:51:15 AM9/17/01
to
Kathmandu <katm...@vidnet.net> wrote:
: I would feel much better if the president were a mile underground along
: with the senate and congress. Posturing is one thing, putting them out
: as targets is another. Lets face it, they did this, how hard would it be
: to drive a 67 VW bus onto the mall and set off a nuke?

Actually it would be a lot harder. I saw an analyst discuss this on the
news from a cost angle. The attack they made was pretty inexpensive. You
need some men, some training for the men, some knives and cardboard
cutters, travel expenses, fake passports. Getting a nuclear bomb put
together costs a LOT of money, and some of the components are extremely
difficult to get at all.

It's also a lot easier to trace and to catch people trying to do it, given
the scarcity of key components like weapons grade plutonium. The CIA
can't manage to follow everybody who has a knife or a pilot's license.
But I sure as hell bet they do their best to try and follow every nuclear
bomb component that finds its way onto the black market.

However, if some terrorists put together a nuke in the US, I don't think
the question of whether the president's whereabouts are widely broadcast
is even an issue. For one thing, they could take out an entire major US
city, or an entire major US city plus one president, and I think the
tragedy would be about equally unacceptable either way. For another
thing, I don't think they're going to be going "DAMN, Achmed, they didn't
broadcast what city the president is in on CNN, we can't nuke the
president today on the same day as the other attacks, I guess we have to
give up on getting him at all!" Presumably they'd just drive the old VW
bus up to Washington DC with the nuke and wait a day, a week, or a month
until it was widely known that the president was in town that day. Your
proposal of not broadcasting the president's whereabouts on high-terrorism
days is no protection, really. Unless you want him in that
mile-underground bunker 24/7, which is really no way to run a country in
my opinion. If you do that, it's like you're telling the terrorists "Ok,
you win, we hereby acknowledge that we can't stop you or protect even one
specific guy from you".

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: I don't know whether the 67 VW Bus is hard or easy to drive,
so I left that out of my calculations.)

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Sep 17, 2001, 7:38:46 PM9/17/01
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:25:16 GMT, Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
> Quoth Kathmandu:
>
>>According to
>>the Koran, any who die while fighting a holy war is guaranteed a place
>>in heaven and it is required of all the faithfull to fight the enemy in
>>this Jihad and we are the enemy. This was explained to me by my Iranian
>>brother in law (former) so I am not just talking out of my hat.
>
> Osama bin Laden and much of Iran are Shiites. Shiite is the terrorist
> jihad sect.

Also the main councle of isslamic scholars (forgottent the proper
name) have given the interpration that for it to be a holy war it has
to be one that is offically announced and attacking milrty targets.


--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 12:01:00 AM9/18/01
to
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:30:38 GMT, Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
> Quoth Kathmandu:
>
>>I think discussing using Mecca as a
>>wake up call should be looked at. I don't think it is all that great an
>>idea but I don't have any others at the moment.
>
> Here's a wacky idea: Find the guilty party, give him a fair trial, and
> kill him.

Shouldn't that be "and if he is found guilty kill him."

Cerulean

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 7:53:03 AM9/18/01
to
Quoth David Formosa:

>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:30:38 GMT, Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>> Here's a wacky idea: Find the guilty party, give him a fair trial, and
>> kill him.
>
>Shouldn't that be "and if he is found guilty kill him."

Just my flippant way of saying it. Add the disclaimer "not necessarily
in that order" if you like. Hypothetically, if the person being tried
is found innocent, then Step One ("Find the guilty party") was not
properly carried out and we have to start over. But in reality, our
government isn't going to go and grab anyone until they already know
for certain what the verdict will be.

Cerulean

unread,
Sep 18, 2001, 8:21:08 AM9/18/01
to
Quoth Timmy Ramone:

>No such sect exists. Katmandu talked to only one Iranian, and I
>wonder if he recalls the conversation correctly.

While Katmandu may be severely biased, my money is on the likehood
that the person he talked to believes those things. There is a group
of such people, and I would call them a splinter cult (likely a big
one given the ubiquitousness of simplemindedness worldwide) even if
they aren't officially recognized as such.

>Shi'a Muslims have
>their bad eggs, just as we have our Falwells and our Robertsons, but
>you can't condemn them all for the actions of some.

I agree. On self-analysis, I have a habit of trying to make myself
understood to whoever I'm speaking to by attempting to speak their
language. I often don't realize I'm doing it. So, my phrasing of the
post you first objected to was sort of my attempt at Baby Steps down
from the "this is what Islam is all about" conviction. I figure,
better to reduce the target of hatred by half than not at all.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Sep 19, 2001, 8:50:52 PM9/19/01
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:16:28 GMT, Timmy Ramone <R...@mones.4-ever> wrote:
> Cerulean wrote:
>>
>> Quoth Timmy Ramone:
>>
>> >Saying Shiites are "anti-Islam" is like saying Baptists are
>> >"anti-Christian."
>>
>> Very apt... Modify that to "Southern Baptist" and I'd say they are.
>
> I don't think that's fair to Southern Baptists, either. I know some
> good folks who are SB's, so I know for a fact they're not *all* bad.

Never are Siite moslems.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages