TV airs confessions in murder of scientists

[The Starmaker]

The method used in the killing of the scientists

place magnetic bombs on cars


courses including


How To Place Magnetic Bombs On Cars

"There was a motorcycle racing complex (in Tel Aviv) where we received training. We were told we
needed to improve our skills so that we would be able to attach magnetized bombs to moving cars ...
We were given time bombs that we had to push the start button when we attached it," he said.
"At the end of the training course, members (of the group) were given money. They arranged our return (to Iran)."

"there were three groups involved in the bombings:
Two on a motorbike, a car driving in front to slow the target car and
a third support team waiting nearby to help if necessary."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-05-17-03-38


The Starmaker


Is Albert Einstein safe anywhere in the world?

[Quadibloc]

This was not something on Israeli TV. This was on Iranian TV. Nothing
can really be known as to whether there os any truth to it.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

I simply don't know how you get through a day...

[Rich]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:851317e6-ef22-4749-9501-
c4264a...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

> This was not something on Israeli TV. This was on Iranian TV. Nothing
> can really be known as to whether there os any truth to it.
>
> John Savard
>

The magnetic bombs on cars attached by motorbike riders sounds familiar.

[The Starmaker]

CIA Calls Israel Main US Regional Spy Threat

"The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency's Near East Division,
the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials.
Counterintelligence is the art of protecting national secrets from spies.
This means the CIA believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501706_162-57482391/us-sees-israel-tight-mideast-ally-as-spy-threat/




John Savard has a looooooooooot of catching up to do...


The Starmaker

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 6, 8:16 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> This means the CIA believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.

That I can believe. Israel is more competent, after all. But its
interests do not significantly conflict with those of the United
States, unlike the case with most other Middle Eastern governments,
which presumably means that the difference in competence is quite
large to make up for the difference in intent.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

That's what President Nixon said, "They make the best spies in the
world."

[Will in New Haven]

Everyone spies on everyone. We spied on Great Britain and the Soviet
Union during WWII. They spied on us. "Ally" means more at some times
than others but it never means "we won't look out for ourselves."

--
Will in New Haven

[The Starmaker]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 3:22 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 6, 8:16 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > This means the CIA believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.
> >
> > > That I can believe. Israel is more competent, after all. But its
> > > interests do not significantly conflict with those of the United
> > > States, unlike the case with most other Middle Eastern governments,
> > > which presumably means that the difference in competence is quite
> > > large to make up for the difference in intent.
> >
> > > John Savard
> >
> > That's what President Nixon said, "They make the best spies in the
> > world."
>
> Everyone spies on everyone.

But we arrest spies,


Jonathan J. Pollard is a former United States Navy intelligence analyst
who was convicted in 1985 of spying for Israel. Mr. Pollard, an American, is serving a life term in a North Carolina prison.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/p/jonathan_j_pollard/index.html


He should get the *death sentence*!


The Starmaker

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>> That's what President Nixon said, "They make the best spies in the
>> world."
>
>Everyone spies on everyone. We spied on Great Britain and the Soviet
>Union during WWII. They spied on us. "Ally" means more at some times
>than others but it never means "we won't look out for ourselves."

Charlie Stross has an interesting blog today:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/spies-1.html

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote

>>> That's what President Nixon said, "They make the best spies in the
>>> world."

>>Everyone spies on everyone. We spied on Great Britain and the Soviet
>>Union during WWII. They spied on us. "Ally" means more at some times
>>than others but it never means "we won't look out for ourselves."

> Charlie Stross has an interesting blog today:
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/spies-1.html

That assumes that the spying is done in person, and that the country
being spied on can somehow work out who are the spies in advance.

That last is just a tad easier said than done.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 7, 3:11 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> He should get the *death sentence*!

According to one account that I read, anti-Semites in the Republican
party cut off satellite intelligence that the U.S. had formerly been
supplying to Israel, which it needed to defend itself against
aggression by its neighbors.

So maybe he should get a Presidential pardon.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

Obama Loves Israel!

[Will in New Haven]

He should serve his sentence. I am not surprised or paricularly
offended that any nation conduct intelligence operations against any
other nation, including us. However, that doesn't mean we should
tolerate it when we catch someone.

The pardon should be saved for whomever finds Starmaker and cuts him
into little pieces and feeds the pieces to some animal he wants to
poison.

[The Starmaker]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>

are you an animal?

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 9:01 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:

> However, that doesn't mean we should
> tolerate it when we catch someone.

In general, that is true.

As I say, the book I read about the Pollard case did make a case for
an exception, but then it was written by someone with an existing
viewpoint on the issue.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 12:21 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Obama Loves Israel!

After September 11, 2001, we are all Israelis.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

Death to Traitors, no exceptions.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Oy vey. How can you say that? ("easy, I just type "After September
11...".")

That was, for us, a one-off. We're not generally threatened by
terrorists. Israel sits smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of hostile
states (and does not help its cause by belligerently pissing them off at
times) which are not all that much smaller than they are. We're across
an entire ocean, bracketed by one pretty much regular ally similar to us
and a smaller country to the south.

The terrorist organizations that rail against us oddly have failed to
do anything significant since. (Please don't give credit to "increased
security"; nothing that's been done has been sufficient to prevent any
of a number of simple approaches to succeed, had anyone tried). Had our
government not decided to do the OMG, TERRORISTS!!!11!!!! PANIC PANIC
PANIC approach, 9/11 would be viewed as a single tragic event instead of
a symbol of AMERICA IN DANGER ! ! ! 11 !!

We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists. We're much more
endangered by our own government.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Rod Speed]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> Quadibloc wrote

>> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

>>> Obama Loves Israel!

>> After September 11, 2001, we are all Israelis.

> Oy vey. How can you say that? ("easy, I just type "After September
> 11...".")

> That was, for us, a one-off.

Nope, just the most spectacularly successful.
There were quite a few duds before that one.

> We're not generally threatened by terrorists.

Depends on how you define terrorists. Oklahoma...

> Israel sits smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of hostile states (and does
> not help its cause by belligerently pissing them off at times)

Even just existing does that.

> which are not all that much smaller than they are.

Many are much bigger than they are.

> We're across an entire ocean, bracketed by one pretty much regular ally
> similar to us and a smaller country to the south.

And still got 9/11 because that stuff is irrelevant.

> The terrorist organizations that rail against us oddly have failed to do
> anything significant since.

Hardly surprising given that no one would actually be stupid
enough to put their hands up to aircraft hijackers after that.

> (Please don't give credit to "increased security"; nothing that's been
> done has been sufficient to prevent any of a number of simple approaches
> to succeed, had anyone tried).

Have fun explaining the number that have been caught trying.

> Had our government not decided to do the OMG, TERRORISTS!!!11!!!! PANIC
> PANIC PANIC approach, 9/11 would be viewed as a single tragic event
> instead of a symbol of AMERICA IN DANGER ! ! ! 11 !!

Unlikely given the anthrax result.

> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

Yes, even 9/11 and Oklahoma are just a complete yawn.

> We're much more endangered by our own government.

Mindlessly silly.

[Will in New Haven]

You _really_ mean death to Jews, doncha? C'mon, you can admit it here.
We are all fiends.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 12:46 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Death to Traitors, no exceptions.

A traitor is someone who betrays a country to its enemies, not someone
who disobeys an unjust government to defend freedom. Thus, countries
like Russia and North Korea killed many people they called traitors
who weren't.

I would love to see Omar Khadr be executed - he is indeed pretty close
to a traitor, given that when Canadian soldiers were fighting there,
he, a Canadian citizen, was fighting too, but with his gun pointed the
other way, at our American allies - but we, like you, can only charge
people with treason during an actual declared war (something that
hasn't happened, due to the U.N. Charter, since World War II).

Jonathan Pollard broke the law, but he may have done so to keep the
United States true to its ideals, not out of opposition to those
principles.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>

He renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen.

What kind of person would "renounced his United States citizenship"? Should be shot on site!

Give me the order and he's dead. Why is he still alive?

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>         The terrorist organizations that rail against us oddly have failed to
> do anything significant since.

This is not true.

For example, on July 7, 2005, fifty-four people were murdered in
London. If you can't bring any of them back, don't say it isn't
significant.

This is a crisis as long as it is possible for people sharing the al-
Qaeda mentality to so much as kill one single human being. Until all
the Islamic extremists can be institutionalized, we will not be safe.

John Savard

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote

>> Death to Traitors, no exceptions.

> A traitor is someone who betrays a country to its enemies,
> not someone who disobeys an unjust government to defend
> freedom. Thus, countries like Russia and North Korea killed
> many people they called traitors who weren't.

> I would love to see Omar Khadr be executed - he is indeed pretty
> close to a traitor, given that when Canadian soldiers were fighting
> there, he, a Canadian citizen, was fighting too, but with his gun
> pointed the other way, at our American allies - but we, like you,
> can only charge people with treason during an actual declared war

That is just plain wrong.

> (something that hasn't happened, due
> to the U.N. Charter, since World War II).

And that is wrong too.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/8/12 4:52 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> The terrorist organizations that rail against us oddly have failed to
>> do anything significant since.
>
> This is not true.

But it is.

>
> For example, on July 7, 2005, fifty-four people were murdered in
> London.

I was properly replying from the American point of view. "Us" being
"the USA". London is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, which is
also one of the points I made as to why concerted attacks on the USA are
hard to do.

How many Al-Queda attacks have there been since 9/11 on American soil?
How many by similar organizations? None that I know of. The closest
would be the one Muslim serviceman who went bonkers, but he wasn't a
terrorist in the organized sense; if we call that terrorism then Jack
the Ripper was a terrorist.

Don't tell me they couldn't have done any; oh, sure, they would have a
hard time pulling off such a stunt with an airplane again, but there's
three other modes of transportation which can carry very large volumes
of explosive or toxic substances which aren't really secure at all
against any even vaguely determined attempt to use them for terror.

Despite that, nothing else of note has happened here. Because they have
neither the will, nor the organization, to do so. Either that, or they
haven't got the brains of a chipmunk. In any case, they ain't a threat
even vaguely worth the major changes done to our government.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:20:15 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:jvue5g$vs6$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing.screenplays:

[...]

> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

And to the extent that we are, it's almost entirely by the
home-grown variety.

> We're much more endangered by our own government.

Brian

[Bill Snyder]

And strangely enough, though a half-dozen people were murdered
just the other day, he doesn't say that we won't be safe until all
the racists can be institutionalized.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Rod Speed]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> Quadibloc wrote

>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>> The terrorist organizations that rail against us
>>> oddly have failed to do anything significant since.

>> This is not true.

> But it is.

Nope.

>> For example, on July 7, 2005, fifty-four people were murdered in London.

> I was properly replying from the American point of view. "Us" being
> "the USA". London is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean,

Yes, but the same thing could happen in the US.
The ocean has nothing to do with what some of the
moslems already in the US can do if they choose to.

> which is also one of the points I made as to why
> concerted attacks on the USA are hard to do.

Trouble is that that line can't fly. The US has in fact
LOTS more moslems already in the US than Britain has.

> How many Al-Queda attacks have there been since 9/11 on American
> soil? How many by similar organizations? None that I know of.

There have in fact been a couple of attempts, one involving a car
bomb in Times Square which didn't succeed, but which could have.

And you will never know how many have not happened just because
the US has made it much harder for moslems that are outside the
country to rock up in the US like those that did 9/11 did.

> The closest would be the one Muslim serviceman who went
> bonkers, but he wasn't a terrorist in the organized sense;

Neither were those that did the London bombings.

> if we call that terrorism then Jack the Ripper was a terrorist.

McVeigh was certainly a terrorist.

> Don't tell me they couldn't have done any; oh, sure, they would
> have a hard time pulling off such a stunt with an airplane again,
> but there's three other modes of transportation which can carry
> very large volumes of explosive or toxic substances which aren't
> really secure at all against any even vaguely determined attempt
> to use them for terror.

And you will never know how many have not happened just because
the US has made it much harder for moslems that are outside the
country to rock up in the US like those that did 9/11 did.

> Despite that, nothing else of note has happened here.

That's just plain wrong with the car bomb in Times Square.

> Because they have neither the will, nor the organization, to do so.

You don't know that.

> Either that, or they haven't got the brains of a chipmunk.
> In any case, they ain't a threat even vaguely worth the
> major changes done to our government.

You don't know that either. Plenty ran the same line before
9/11 with the rather pathetic attempts on the twin towers
that had happened previously. And then the shit hit the
fan very spectacularly indeed because no one bothered
to do anything about the threat, because they had run
the same line you are running now.

[Rod Speed]

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

> And to the extent that we are, it's almost
> entirely by the home-grown variety.

That's just plain wrong when the most spectacularly successful wasn't.

And we will never know how many havent happened just
because its now in theory much harder for moslems outside
the country to rock up in the US and do another.

>> We're much more endangered by our own government.

Haven't noticed the government doing anything like 9/11 or Oklahoma.

Even Waco isnt a risk to the general public.

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>> The terrorist organizations that rail against us oddly have failed to do
>> anything significant since.

> This is not true.

> For example, on July 7, 2005, fifty-four people were murdered in
> London. If you can't bring any of them back, don't say it isn't
> significant.

> This is a crisis as long as it is possible for people sharing the

> al-Qaeda mentality to so much as kill one single human being.

That doesn't make it a crisis if we can't get it down to zero.

> Until all the Islamic extremists can be institutionalized,

Not even possible.

> we will not be safe.

We won't be even if that is done, because they aren't the only extremists
around.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Aug 8, 12:20 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>         We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists. We're much more
> endangered by our own government.

Ah, sounds like a call for Public Policy Analys Man!

So, yeah, analyzing public policy is what I do. ABD in the field.

I pay attention to relevant treaseach/papers.

Gun Control laws. 1500 dead annually.

CAFE standards 1300-2600 dead annually (lighter cars are less safe)

War on Drugs 10,000 dead annually (legal drugs means no wars between
rivel drug lords, and a great deal more)

FDA approval to sell drugs 15,000(+) dead annually

Ban on human organ sales unknown dead, but likely a great many


So, yeah... the US government kills more Americans annually than all
the terrorist attacks ever launced., combined

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 5:01 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:

> And strangely enough, though a half-dozen people were murdered
> just the other day, he doesn't say that we won't be safe until all
> the racists can be institutionalized.

It's not as strange as you think.

Not that I approve of racism. But if we go around trying to
institutionalize all the racists, _we_ won't be safe; we will be shy
about expressing any unconventional opinions. Institutionalizing all
the radical Islamists just means that ordinary Muslims won't be
entirely safe from being caught up in the dragnet, but that's _their_
problem.

Basically, it's easier to address an external threat than an internal
one, because in the case of an internal threat, one is constrained in
additional ways by local public opinion.

If people in the West *were* to take the ordinary people of the Muslim
world seriously as fellow human beings, this would be a good thing.
And, to be fair, they do - to an extent. But they're so far away - and
it seems that many ordinary Muslims are unprepossessing in the sense
that they practice discrimination against non-Muslims in their midst,
which makes it very hard to feel sorry for them - that when push comes
to shove, we will think of our own safety, and the safety of the
people we care about, first.

And, as it happens, Americans do care about the safety of people in
Britain and Israel and Spain and Denmark, for example, quite a bit, as
these are countries with the people of which Americans interact on an
equal basis.

It's quite true that, so far, al-Qaeda hasn't followed up 9/11 with
one terrorist attack after another in the continental United States,
each one worse than the last. And, in the initial shock after 9/11,
many people expected and feared that exactly that was what was going
to happen.

Well, as long as there are any members of al-Qaeda or kindred
organizations out there... that _is_ what they would like to do, if
they could. And it's not easy to spot terrorists as they prepare;
especially if they choose a target that isn't an obvious one people
are paying attention to. After all, there are only too many ways to
kill a lot of people.

It hasn't happened yet is good news, but that's not the same as being
absolutely sure it can never happen.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 8, 3:15 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> What kind of person would "renounced his United States citizenship"?

Someone who doesn't want to file a U.S. tax return every year after
having moved to another country?

John Savard

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>A traitor is someone who betrays a country to its enemies, not someone
>who disobeys an unjust government to defend freedom. Thus, countries
>like Russia and North Korea killed many people they called traitors
>who weren't.

Treason is whatever the ruler says it is. Because they don't care
about the people nor the country, but themselves and their peers.

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

>> A traitor is someone who betrays a country to its enemies,
>> not someone who disobeys an unjust government to defend
>> freedom. Thus, countries like Russia and North Korea killed
>> many people they called traitors who weren't.

> Treason is whatever the ruler says it is.

We havent had rulers in the west for centurys now and even when we
did have, very few of them ever got away with that approach either.

> Because they don't care about the people nor the country,

That's just plain wrong. Plenty of them did.

> but themselves and their peers.

Plenty of them cared about a lot more than just that.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/8/12 7:19 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Aug 8, 12:20 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists. We're much more
>> endangered by our own government.
>
>
> Ah, sounds like a call for Public Policy Analys Man!
>
> So, yeah, analyzing public policy is what I do.

You have a job analyzing this?

> ABD in the field.

So that would be, no. No credentials, no job, no publications, no
credibility.

[The Starmaker]

or maybe somebody who wants to *spy* on the united states..

hang him. that Benedict Arnold.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:27:24 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:jvv76d$fkb$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing.screenplays:

> On 8/8/12 7:19 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:

[...]

>> So, yeah, analyzing public policy is what I do.

> You have a job analyzing this?

>> ABD in the field.

> So that would be, no. No credentials, no job, no
> publications, no credibility.

I don't think that credentials would improve his credibility
even if he had them.

Brian

[David Mitchell]

On 09/08/12 00:06, Rod Speed wrote:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>
>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.
>
> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people for
decades.

Does that count?

I hope you think so, because Americans funded a lot of it.

> Haven't noticed the government doing anything like 9/11 or Oklahoma.
> Even Waco isnt a risk to the general public.

The policies of this and the previous President have radicalised
thousands of young Muslims.

Including those who carried out the London bombings mentioned earlier.

--
David Mitchell
No, not that one.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <jvue5g$vs6$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>On 8/8/12 2:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

>> After September 11, 2001, we are all Israelis.
>>
>
> Oy vey. How can you say that? ("easy, I just type "After September
>11...".")
>
> That was, for us, a one-off. We're not generally threatened by
>terrorists. Israel sits smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of hostile
>states (and does not help its cause by belligerently pissing them off at
>times) which are not all that much smaller than they are.

For values of "not all that much smaller" that include "several
substantially larger":

Lebanon: 10,400 km^2
Israel: 20,770 km^2
Syria: 185,180 km^2
Egypt: 1,001,449 km^2
Saudi Arabia: 2,152,000 km^2

Source: <http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/area2.html>

>government not decided to do the OMG, TERRORISTS!!!11!!!! PANIC PANIC
>PANIC approach, 9/11 would be viewed as a single tragic event instead of
>a symbol of AMERICA IN DANGER ! ! ! 11 !!
>
> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists. We're much more
>endangered by our own government.

AOL that.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:39:18 +0100, David Mitchell
<david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:J6idnbEIkpb3PL7N...@brightview.co.uk> in
rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing.screenplays:

> On 09/08/12 00:06, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote

>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and
> assaulting people for decades.

> Does that count?

> I hope you think so, because Americans funded a lot of it.

If I remember correctly, Rod is Australian, in which case
this is a bit of a non sequitur.

[...]

Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Well, if he HAD them I would at least no longer be able to say "No,
you're not an economist". He might be a bad economist, but he would, in
fact, be one, as opposed to now where he constantly claims a title he
does not actually have any right to.

[Will in New Haven]

You'd faint if you saw a dead man, you anonymouse cowardly piece of
shit. Answer my question.

--
Will in New Haven

Bill Reich in Branford, Ct near New Haven

[The Starmaker]

Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 5:15 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 2:46 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 8, 9:01 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > However, that doesn't mean we should
> > > > > > tolerate it when we catch someone.
> >
> > > > > In general, that is true.
> >
> > > > > As I say, the book I read about the Pollard case did make a case for
> > > > > an exception, but then it was written by someone with an existing
> > > > > viewpoint on the issue.
> >
> > > > > John Savard
> >
> > > > Death to Traitors, no exceptions.
> >
> > > You _really_ mean death to Jews, doncha? C'mon, you can admit it here.
> > > We are all fiends.
> >
> > > --
> > > Will in New Haven
> >
> > He renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen.
> >
> > What kind of person would "renounced his United States citizenship"? Should be shot on site!
> >
> > Give me the order and he's dead. Why is he still alive
>
> You'd faint if you saw a dead man, you anonymouse cowardly piece of
> shit. Answer my question.

I don't want to answer questions that will 'ignite your anit-semitic impulses'.



The Starmaker

[Michael Stemper]

In article <k00a57$jao$1...@dont-email.me>, mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
>In article <jvue5g$vs6$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:

>> That was, for us, a one-off. We're not generally threatened by
>>terrorists. Israel sits smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of hostile
>>states (and does not help its cause by belligerently pissing them off at
>>times) which are not all that much smaller than they are.
>
>For values of "not all that much smaller" that include "several
>substantially larger":
>
>Lebanon: 10,400 km^2
>Israel: 20,770 km^2
>Syria: 185,180 km^2
>Egypt: 1,001,449 km^2
>Saudi Arabia: 2,152,000 km^2

My apologies to any Jordanians who might be reading this thread:

Jordan: 89,200 km^2

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 9, 5:39 am, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The policies of this and the previous President have radicalised
> thousands of young Muslims.
>
> Including those who carried out the London bombings mentioned earlier.

Young Muslims who whine about the consequences of 9/11, and think to
do more violence against innocent people in response to them...
deserve to be stopped before they get very far in their plans.

If they would take a look in the mirror instead, and realize that
Israel exists because non-Muslims can't be safe under Muslim rule - as
is demonstrated in Lebanon, in Egypt, in Indonesia - then maybe there
would be fewer terrorists in Palestine that have *led* to Israel
having to take security precautions that are more and more onerous to
Palestinians.

Of course, it's just human nature not to look in the mirror and admit
that things are the fault of one's own shortcomings or those of one's
own nation.

So, one is wasting one's time asking the citizens of the strong and
powerful United States to look at their nations' shortcomings,
whatever they may be... but at least in the case of the Islamic world,
*it* is weak, so if it is not willing to look in the mirror, it can be
*made* to do so, just as we forced the German nation to look in the
mirror instead of scapegoating France or the Jews.

John Savard

[Shawn Wilson]

On Aug 8, 7:27 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> >  ABD in the field.
>
>         So that would be, no. No credentials, no job, no publications, no
> credibility.

And yet I trumpt the hell out of YOU and your opinions, jackass.

[David DeLaney]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 09/08/12 00:06, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>>
>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.
>>
>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.
>
>We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people for
>decades.
>
>Does that count?

Well yeah, but that endangered YOU over THERE. Not US over HERE.

>I hope you think so, because Americans funded a lot of it.

Sure. But we were exporting the terrorism, not importing it.

>The policies of this and the previous President have radicalised

hundreds, if not

>thousands of young Muslims.

Daved
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Scott Lurndal]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Aug 8, 7:27=A0pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> > =A0ABD in the field.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 So that would be, no. No credentials, no job, no publicat=

>ions, no
>> credibility.
>
>
>And yet I trumpt the hell out of YOU and your opinions, jackass.

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Aug 9, 6:02 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>         Well, if he HAD them I would at least no longer be able to say "No,
> you're not an economist". He might be a bad economist, but he would, in
> fact, be one, as opposed to now where he constantly claims a title he
> does not actually have any right to.

Sigh... And the monkees commence the shit throwing...

[Bill Snyder]

There he is, folks, a legend in his own mind.

[Greg Goss]

Actually you're wrong. The spelling error signifies the sound and
fury of someone angry enough that his spelling falls apart.

And the anger is a response to a hit that counts. He knows how
effective his argument that his most-of-a-degree counts against
someone who has published in the field and taught classes much like
the ones he claims gives him authority.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Greg Goss]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <jvue5g$vs6$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:

>> That was, for us, a one-off. We're not generally threatened by
>>terrorists. Israel sits smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of hostile
>>states (and does not help its cause by belligerently pissing them off at
>>times) which are not all that much smaller than they are.
>
>For values of "not all that much smaller" that include "several
>substantially larger":
>
>Lebanon: 10,400 km^2
>Israel: 20,770 km^2
>Syria: 185,180 km^2
>Egypt: 1,001,449 km^2
>Saudi Arabia: 2,152,000 km^2
>
>Source: <http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/area2.html>

Well, in conversation, "larger" often refers to population rather than
square miles. The endless Arabian desert doesn't count much when
calculating a hostility index.

>Lebanon: 4,224,000
>Israel: 7,890,600
>Syria: 22,530,746
>Egypt: 82,000,000
>Saudi Arabia: 28,376,355

So your point is valid. I just disagree with the evidence you
summoned.

[Rod Speed]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people for
> decades.

Yes.

> Does that count?

Nope, because I was commenting on his claim that the US
isn't particularly endangered by terrorists. What happened
in that soggy little island isn't relevant to that claim of his.

> I hope you think so,

I don't.

> because Americans funded a lot of it.

Sure, but that's got nothing to do with his claim.

>> Haven't noticed the government doing anything like 9/11 or Oklahoma. Even
>> Waco isnt a risk to the general public.

> The policies of this and the previous President have radicalised thousands
> of young Muslims.

Sure, but again, I was just commenting there on his silly
line about the govt being more of a worry than terrorists.

> Including those who carried out the London bombings mentioned earlier.

Only rather indirectly. They were more on about what the british govt had
been part of.

[Dano]

"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:a8ikbr...@mid.individual.net...

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people for
> decades.

Yes.

==============================================

There have also been plenty of terrorist attacks throughout the world...in
Europe...Asia...Africa. This is foolish to claim no one has been impacted
as badly by terror as the US.

We're actually pretty late to the party.

[Michael Stemper]

Fair enough. Correction accepted.

[Rod Speed]

Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

>>>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

>>> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people for
>>> decades.

>> Yes.

> There have also been plenty of terrorist attacks throughout the world...in
> Europe...Asia...Africa.

Not relevant to what I rubbed his nose in about what the
US has seen that shows that his claim that the US isn't
particularly endangered by terrorists is just plain silly.

> This is foolish to claim no one has been impacted as badly by terror as
> the US.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

> We're actually pretty late to the party.

Not relevant to what I rubbed his nose in about what the
US has seen that shows that his claim that the US isn't
particularly endangered by terrorists is just plain silly.

[David DeLaney]

Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> writes:

>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>>> So that would be, no. No credentials, no job, no publications, no

>>> credibility.
>>
>>And yet I trumpt the hell out of YOU and your opinions, jackass.
>
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend...

Dave "give me your hands, if we be friends" DeLaney

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/9/12 7:43 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

> Not relevant to what I rubbed his nose in about what the
> US has seen that shows that his claim that the US isn't
> particularly endangered by terrorists is just plain silly.
>

Actually, all you mentioned was "stuff that coulda happened".

Not impressed at all.

If they actually meant to do anything, I can think of at least three
EASY methods to cause AT LEAST as much damage as 9/11. They haven't,
which means they either don't have the will, the resources, or the
brains. They need all three or they're nothing.

Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our own
freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way to make
the terrorists laugh their asses off.

Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to you, because
people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
the risk as part of the expected events.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 9, 8:56 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>         Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to you, because
> people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
> the risk as part of the expected events.

Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable choice, since it is not as
if, after spending a certain limited sum of money, each of the
individuals killed by the attacks on 9/11 was revived.

I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever, and thus will
tolerate no possibility of being killed.

A reasonable compromise can be made, where sensible-minded people
remain free, but people in other societies that haven't yet come to
share our values are prevented from having the opportunity to do any
injury to us. The cost to *their* freedom... is *their* problem.

Eventually, the lesson of never doing violence to their betters will
be so deeply ingrained in every one of them that we need fear them no
longer.

John Savard

[Rod Speed]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Not relevant to what I rubbed his nose in about what
>> the US has seen that shows that his claim that the US
>> isn't particularly endangered by terrorists is just plain silly.

> Actually, all you mentioned was "stuff that coulda happened".

Another lie. I also rubbed your nose in 9/11 and Oklahoma,
both of which leave what any other country has seen for
dead, even if you add up ALL the IRA etc has done for Britain.

> Not impressed at all.

Your problem.

> If they actually meant to do anything, I can think of at least three
> EASY methods to cause AT LEAST as much damage as 9/11.

You have absolutely no idea how many of those have
been avoided just because its now much harder for know
moslem arseholes and others to get into the country.

> They haven't,

Yet. Fools ran the same line before 9/11 and
looked damned silly when it had happened.

> which means they either don't have
> the will, the resources, or the brains.

Means nothing of the sort. It can also mean that those
interested in doing that sort of thing have been fucked
over so comprehensively that they have enough trouble
staying alive, let alone doing another on the scale of 9/11.

> They need all three or they're nothing.

Yet. Fools ran the same line before 9/11 and
looked damned silly when it had happened.

> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended
> up costing us a lot of our own freedom

We have lost fuck all in fact. Its just more of a nuisance
to use commercial aircraft flights than it used to be.

We have always had that sort of thing in wartime
and only fools don't see any value in that approach.

> -- and every incident excuses more such.

Fuck all more in fact.

> That's the way to make the terrorists laugh their asses off.

Bin Laden aint laughing. Neither are all the other dead ones.

> Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen
> to you, because people will abuse the freedom.

That's inevitable after something like that.

> C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
> the risk as part of the expected events.

Your problem.

[Rod Speed]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>> Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to
>> you, because people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like
>> freedom and accept the risk as part of the expected events.

> Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable choice,

Yes, the voters wont tolerate that option. He gets to like that or
lump it or fuck off to Somalia or wherever if he doesn't like that.

> since it is not as if, after spending a certain limited sum of money,
> each of the individuals killed by the attacks on 9/11 was revived.

That's not the reason its not an acceptable option.

> I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever,

Soorree, we haven't worked out how to do that.

> and thus will tolerate no possibility of being killed.

You do in fact tolerate that every time you leave your house.

> A reasonable compromise can be made,
> where sensible-minded people remain free,

Depends entirely on how you define free.

You will never be free to take a bomb on a plane, or to stuff
your car full of explosives and drive it around the streets either.

You aren't free to kill anyone who you disagree with either.

> but people in other societies that haven't yet
> come to share our values are prevented from
> having the opportunity to do any injury to us.

Not even possible.

> The cost to *their* freedom... is *their* problem.

> Eventually, the lesson of never doing violence to their betters will be so
> deeply ingrained in every one of them that we need fear them no longer.

Pure fantasy.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:c9113254-1d9c-449e...@gr5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing.screenplays:

> On Aug 9, 8:56 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>>         Freedom means that sometimes bad things will
>> happen to you, because people will abuse the freedom.
>> C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept the risk as part
>> of the expected events.

> Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable choice,

It's the only choice acceptable to me.

> since it is not as if, after spending a certain limited
> sum of money, each of the individuals killed by the
> attacks on 9/11 was revived.

Utterly irrelevant.

> I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever,
> and thus will tolerate no possibility of being killed.

Dream on.

> A reasonable compromise can be made, where sensible-minded
> people remain free, but people in other societies that
> haven't yet come to share our values are prevented from
> having the opportunity to do any injury to us.

No, it can't.

[...]

[David Mitchell]

On 10/08/12 03:56, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 8/9/12 7:43 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Not relevant to what I rubbed his nose in about what the
>> US has seen that shows that his claim that the US isn't
>> particularly endangered by terrorists is just plain silly.
>>
>
> Actually, all you mentioned was "stuff that coulda happened".
>
> Not impressed at all.
>
> If they actually meant to do anything, I can think of at least three
> EASY methods to cause AT LEAST as much damage as 9/11. They haven't,
> which means they either don't have the will, the resources, or the
> brains. They need all three or they're nothing.

Indeed. Having this debate with friends we brainstormed a variety of
one man or group operations which could easily cause anything from
economic damage to loss of life and destruction of property on a massive
scale.

And the preparation required for most of them is as simple as "Get a job
as a Fuel Tanker driver."

Another requires the purchase of a pair of wire cutters, once you get to
New York.

>
> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our own
> freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way to make
> the terrorists laugh their asses off.

Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

> Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to you, because
> people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
> the risk as part of the expected events.

Couldn't agree more.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <c9113254-1d9c-449e-a1b7-
017f50...@gr5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Aug 9, 8:56 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >         Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to you, because
> > people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
> > the risk as part of the expected events.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable choice, since it is not as
> if, after spending a certain limited sum of money, each of the
> individuals killed by the attacks on 9/11 was revived.

No, but the 42,196 people killed in traffic accidents in US that same
year also remain dead.

> I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever, and thus will
> tolerate no possibility of being killed.

You seem to be remarkably arbitrary in choosing which threats to go
after, however.

--
Juho Julkunen

[David Mitchell]

On 09/08/12 21:20, Rod Speed wrote:
> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>
>>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.
>
>>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.
>
>> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people
>> for decades.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Does that count?
>
> Nope, because I was commenting on his claim that the US
> isn't particularly endangered by terrorists. What happened
> in that soggy little island isn't relevant to that claim of his.

I think it is - in the grand scheme of things, two events in six years
isn't a lot, compared to decades of bombings and assassinations; so, no,
America isn't particularly endangered by terrorists.

Certainly a lot of people died - to put it in some kind of perspective:
as many as die every 21 days from homicides and car-accidents.

>
>> The policies of this and the previous President have radicalised
>> thousands of young Muslims.
>
> Sure, but again, I was just commenting there on his silly
> line about the govt being more of a worry than terrorists.

It's not silly - if government policy leads to more "terrorist" events
then it's a dangerous policy. Specifically, if you can trace a line of
causality from a UAV strike on a Pakistani wedding party, to a car-bomb
five years later, it's reasonable to say that the govt policy caused the
latter.

>> Including those who carried out the London bombings mentioned earlier.
>
> Only rather indirectly. They were more on about what the british govt
> had been part of.

Specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way that the UK would
have invaded Iraq by itself, so I'd say that whoever was working Bush's
mouth was at least partly responsible for that too.

Most of the blame, of course, lies on our insufficiently damned PM.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Aug 8, 6:17 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:20:15 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> <news:jvue5g$vs6$1...@dont-email.me> in
> rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing.screenplays:
>
> [...]

>
> >    We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.
>

> And to the extent that we are, it's almost entirely by the
> home-grown variety.

Which usually spring from hate groups, the military, the military and
hate groups, or psychiatrists.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/the-real-terrorist-threat-in-america.html

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Aug 10, 8:04 am, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 09/08/12 21:20, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Rod Speed wrote
> >>> Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote
> >>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>
> >>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.
>
> >>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.
>
> >> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating and assaulting people
> >> for decades.
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> Does that count?
>
> > Nope, because I was commenting on his claim that the US
> > isn't particularly endangered by terrorists. What happened
> > in that soggy little island isn't relevant to that claim of his.
>
> I think it is - in the grand scheme of things, two events in six years
> isn't a lot, compared to decades of bombings and assassinations; so, no,
> America isn't particularly endangered by terrorists.

How do you arrive at two incidents? Kaczynski, Loughner, Oklahoma
(vet), the anthrax scare, the Fort Hood shooting, the Sikh temple, the
Dark Knight shooter, and the pilot who crashed his plane into a
building. That's one pilot, one mathematician, an army psychiatrist, a
man under the care of an army psychiatrist, one a skinhead (vet), one
scientist. That's the list. There's a pattern.

[The Starmaker]

Juho Julkunen wrote:
>
> In article <c9113254-1d9c-449e-a1b7-
> 017f50...@gr5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> >
> > On Aug 9, 8:56 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen to you, because
> > > people will abuse the freedom. C'est la vie. I like freedom and accept
> > > the risk as part of the expected events.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable choice, since it is not as
> > if, after spending a certain limited sum of money, each of the
> > individuals killed by the attacks on 9/11 was revived.
>
> No, but the 42,196 people killed in traffic accidents in US that same
> year also remain dead.

"42,196 people killed in traffic accidents"?

9/11 was not a terrorist act, ...it was an act of war.

Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist act, it was an act of war.

If you want to go to war with somebody, you attack them.

war

noun /wôr/
wars, plural

A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.



You never heard the expression, "This means War!"




Didn't the plane hit the Pentagon? Attacking the Pentagon is an act of War. Not terrorism. Don't believe everything
you read in the papers...

Did all the soldiers run out of the Pentagon screaming "THEY ARE TERRORISING US!!!! me oh my, me om my.


The truth is, Terrorism does not exist in the United States. All you have are people who let themselves be...terrorised.


The only people who are ...terrorised are women and pussies. You know who the "pussies" are..they are the ones
who cry..."terrorism".

The next time you see or hear somebody say they are being..."terrorised", you're looking at a pussy.

I cannot make it any simplier than that.


The Starmaker

[Quadibloc]

thepinkpantsuit wrote:
> or psychiatrists.

I take it then we need more volunteer ministers to reduce terrorism?

John Savard

[thepinkpantsuit]

No, that doesn't seem to work, either. But perhaps a spiritual path
that focuses on inner-peace and human compassion, not necessarily
mythological gods fighting each other for supremacy.

[thepinkpantsuit]

I'm thinking something like an eastern approach.

Positive psychology

One of the main goals of yoga is to improve overall well-being through
teaching discipline and self-regulation.[14] Recently, research has
focused on the healing properties of yoga and how it relates to
positive psychology.One of the most recent trends in the practice of
and research about yoga as alternative therapy is how it relates to
the field of positive psychology.Positive psychology is the study of
that which contributes to the overall well-being of and supports the
optimal functioning of individuals.[18] As more research is released
in support of yoga contributing to a better state of being, yoga
becomes more in line with positive psychology's focus on developing
alternate strategies for healing and bettering individuals' lives.[18]
Positive psychology refutes the concept of dualism and scientists in
this field believe that the body and mind cannot be separated. This
logic indicates that all physical benefits resulting from the practice
of yoga are coupled with mental benefits such as development of inner
consciousness, positivity, awareness, and appreciation of nature,
combining to offer a whole-body therapy. Drawing from recent research
on the mental and physical benefits of practicing yoga, positive
psychologists have begun to look deeper into the possibilities of
utilizing yoga as a positive psychology therapy.[19] (see Major
Empirical Findings and Applications, Anxiety and Depression, below)

[The Starmaker]

Yoga is just...just..sleeping in a sitting position. It's sleeping,
sitting down.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:55:32 +0100, David Mitchell
<david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our own
>> freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way to make
>> the terrorists laugh their asses off.
>
>Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.

There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism, and an
act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the nation
doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[thepinkpantsuit]

There you go. Not much action going on while you're asleep. Or while
the aggressive side of your brain is asleep.

[Dano]

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
news:qdqa281qa4laaenqs...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:55:32 +0100, David Mitchell
<david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our own
>> freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way to make
>> the terrorists laugh their asses off.
>
>Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.

There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism, and an
act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the nation
doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.

======================================

Precisely. That's what makes the tactic so effective. That enemy could be
anywhere. Be anyone. And can strike where you least expect and feel most
secure.

And yep...OBL got exactly what he desired. The true goal was to make us
spend our way to financial ruin and to
willingly...enthusiastically...relinquish our cherished freedoms.

All in the name of national security...and national cowardice.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:06:13 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.
>
>There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism, and an
>act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the nation
>doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.
>
>======================================
>
>Precisely. That's what makes the tactic so effective. That enemy could be
>anywhere. Be anyone. And can strike where you least expect and feel most
>secure.
>
>And yep...OBL got exactly what he desired. The true goal was to make us
>spend our way to financial ruin and to
>willingly...enthusiastically...relinquish our cherished freedoms.
>
>All in the name of national security...and national cowardice.

He would have preferred it if we had attacked Saudi Arabia. But
attacking the biggest secular Arab power was almost as good for him.
And our wars are excellent recruiting for his cause.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 10, 12:51 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, that doesn't seem to work, either. But perhaps a spiritual path
> that focuses on inner-peace and human compassion, not necessarily
> mythological gods fighting each other for supremacy.

Not that you need to worry about it, but my post wasn't referring to
any Abrahamic religion, but instead to a modern applied religious
philosophy. The volunteer ministers in question would go around
auditing people (not in the sense that would be better done by
volunteer accountants) and so on. They probably wouldn't have E-meters
on loan...

Your identification of psychiatrists as a part of the problem was what
had me thinking in that direction, apparently mistakenly.

John Savard

[Dano]

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message

news:aava281utudev3ajt...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:06:13 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.
>
>There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism, and an
>act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the nation
>doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.
>
>======================================
>
>Precisely. That's what makes the tactic so effective. That enemy could be
>anywhere. Be anyone. And can strike where you least expect and feel most
>secure.
>
>And yep...OBL got exactly what he desired. The true goal was to make us
>spend our way to financial ruin and to
>willingly...enthusiastically...relinquish our cherished freedoms.
>
>All in the name of national security...and national cowardice.

He would have preferred it if we had attacked Saudi Arabia. But
attacking the biggest secular Arab power was almost as good for him.
And our wars are excellent recruiting for his cause.

=======================================

If he REALLY wanted to hit Saudi Arabia...it wouldn't have been too hard.
But it's probably a bit to close to home since all the suicide pilots were
from there.

[thepinkpantsuit]

Ah, I see. No, no. I was thinking along the lines of eastern religious
philosophy.

[Rod Speed]

"David Mitchell" <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zpedncalnKooa7nN...@brightview.co.uk...

I still prefer that heavy aircraft cockpit doors be completely
secure and that some minimal checking of passengers for
stuff like Glocks and AK47s and bombs be done than
doing nothing tho.

I am also in favor of the sort of limitations on our freedoms
in time of war that we have seen in the past too.

That one is less important now because I don't believe
that we will see another world war again for various
reasons, mostly because nukes have ensure that, so
I don't believe that releasing the Pentagon Papers
should be punishable, or that Bradley Manning
should be punished for what he did either.

[Rod Speed]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote

>>>>>> We aren't particularly endangered by terrorists.

>>>> No one else has had both a 9/11 and Oklahoma.

>>> We had the IRA blowing stuff up, assassinating
>>> and assaulting people for decades.

>> Yes.

>>> Does that count?

>> Nope, because I was commenting on his claim that the US
>> isn't particularly endangered by terrorists. What happened
>> in that soggy little island isn't relevant to that claim of his.

> I think it is

I don't.

> - in the grand scheme of things, two events in six years isn't a lot,

But they produced the sort of downsides that most would
agree would be better avoided if that can be done without
too much of an impact on how we do things day to day.

For example I think it's a great idea that heavy aircraft
cockpit doors should be completely secure and if the
pilots don't like the fact that they can no longer have
the stewardesses delivering what they prefer eat and
drink during the flight, that's just too bad.

I also think it makes a lot of sense to check for the
most obvious stuff like Glocks and AK47s and bombs
using metal scanners etc with the passenger's baggage.

> compared to decades of bombings and assassinations;
> so, no, America isn't particularly endangered by terrorists.

But the comments about what the IRA got up to in Britain
aren't relevant to that.

> Certainly a lot of people died - to put it in some kind of perspective:
> as many as die every 21 days from homicides and car-accidents.

Yes, but we do take significant steps to minimise serious car accidents
for that reason, even when they do have some impact on our freedoms,
like you not being legally allowed to drive when pissed etc.

And we also mandate various stuff with the design of
cars etc so you aren't free to endanger anyone you feel
like endangering by choosing to drive a car with no
working brakes, even tho I have done that myself at times.

>>> The policies of this and the previous President
>>> have radicalised thousands of young Muslims.

>> Sure, but again, I was just commenting there on his silly
>> line about the govt being more of a worry than terrorists.

> It's not silly

Corse it is when the US has seen 9/11 and Oklahoma.

The US is in fact just as endangered by terrorists as anywhere else
is, and rather more than Australia is for example, just because a
hell of a lot more stupid moslems hate it than they do Australia.

> - if government policy leads to more "terrorist"
> events then it's a dangerous policy.

There is no real alternative with some policy.

Yes, if the US chose to have a completely isolationist
foreign policy and had chose to just yawn when WW1
and WW2 happened, and just shrugged when the
countrys in the middle east decided to exploit their
oil reserves when the US had consumed theirs, we
would not have seen some moslems hate the US
and want to do the sort of thing that bin Laden did.

But that's hardly a viable approach to govt policy.

> Specifically, if you can trace a line of causality from a UAV
> strike on a Pakistani wedding party, to a car-bomb five years
> later, it's reasonable to say that the govt policy caused the latter.

Yes, but clearly the US getting involved in kicking Iraq out of
Kuwait in the first Gulf War pissed off a hell of a lot of complete
arseholes like bin Laden, but that's hardly a viable approach to
deciding if the US should just do nothing when Iraq invades Kuwait.

>>> Including those who carried out the London bombings mentioned earlier.

>> Only rather indirectly. They were more on
>> about what the british govt had been part of.

> Specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way
> that the UK would have invaded Iraq by itself,

Yes, but they had previously attempted something like
that with Suez and in fact it was the US that demanded
they backed off on what they tried to do there.

> I'd say that whoever was working Bush's mouth
> was at least partly responsible for that too.

Yes, that's certainly true.

But it isn't actually viable to do govt policy on the basis
that nothing that might piss off some complete loon like
bin Laden or McViegh should ever be contemplated.

After all, the complete implosion of much of the world's
financial system, AGAIN, was the direct result of US govt
policy too, or more strictly the lack of adequate policy,
and that must have comprehensively pissed off plenty too.

So far we haven't actually seen any do an Oklahoma or 9/11
as a result of that, but it remains to be seen if that ever happens.

> Most of the blame, of course, lies on our insufficiently damned PM.

Sure, but again, it just isn't feasible to ensure that that can't happen.

So we basically have to at least do some stuff that ensures
that when some loons try to do something spectacular, its
likely that only the most effective will succeed.

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot
>>> of our own freedom -- and every incident excuses more such.
>>> That's the way to make the terrorists laugh their asses off.

>> Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

> And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.

That's bullshit. He certainly didn't want the Taliban booted out
of govt in Afghanistan, or to have al Qaeda obliterated either.

Or to be executed either.

Or to have the US prevent Iraq fucking over Saudi
Arabia after they had fucked over Kuwait either.

> There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism,
> and an act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the
> nation doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.

And terrorists often don't do that, even when their operation is
obliterated.

[Rod Speed]

Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Howard Brazee wrote

>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot
>>> of our own freedom -- and every incident excuses more such.
>>> That's the way to make the terrorists laugh their asses off.

>> Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

Mindlessly silly.

>> And we let bin Laden get what he wanted, mostly.

>> There is nothing that says something can't be both terrorism,
>> and an act of war. But sometimes it is difficult to define the
>> nation doing the war sufficiently to know who needs to surrender.

> Precisely.

Fraid not.

> That's what makes the tactic so effective.
> That enemy could be anywhere. Be anyone.

Pity it can't.

> And can strike where you least expect and feel most secure.

And that in spades.

> And yep...OBL got exactly what he desired.

Like hell he ever did.

> The true goal was to make us spend our way to financial ruin

That was never his true goal.

> and to willingly...enthusiastically...relinquish our cherished freedoms.

And neither was that.

> All in the name of national security...and national cowardice.

You wouldn't know what real cowardice was if it bit you on your lard arse.

[David Mitchell]

I was responding specifically to "No one else has had both a 9/11 and
Oklahoma".

[Rod Speed]

"David Mitchell" <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:nbSdnTgsSd19bbjN...@brightview.co.uk...

No one has on the scale of those alone.

No one has on just one of them alone either.

Even the King David Hotel bombing wasn't a patch on Oklahoma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

[David Mitchell]

On 11/08/12 06:34, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Howard Brazee wrote
>>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our
>>>> own freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way
>>>> to make the terrorists laugh their asses off.
>
>>> Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.
>
> Mindlessly silly.

Not at all - the aims of terrorist organisations (for example the
establishment of Islamic states) can never be achieved by killing a few
thousand people.

If you have any comment which is not a pointless insult, please feel
free - otherwise this discussion is over, as far as I'm concerned.

[The Starmaker]

Wasn't the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan a terroist act? I could be wrong...
but after firebombing them almost completely..and they wouldn't give up..that atomic bomb certaintly terroize them into
surrendering.

I don't even want to show the pictures...it's ...terrifing.



The Starmaker

[Walter Bushell]

In article <a8jkbn...@mid.individual.net>,

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever,
>

> Soorree, we haven't worked out how to do that.

And we never will. I believe accidents without aging would do us in
around 700 years. Besides after a couple of thousand years where is
you identity? Most of your memories of today will be gone or you will
have big gaps in your memory, because the human brain can only hold so
much.

Of course, the prospect of a thousand years bedridden in a bad nursing
home does not delight either.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <MPG.2a8f24493...@news.kolumbus.fi>,

Let's ban cars or at least restrict the speed to 25 mph.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/11/12 6:48 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <a8jkbn...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever,
>>
>> Soorree, we haven't worked out how to do that.
>
> And we never will. I believe accidents without aging would do us in
> around 700 years.

That's why you need better regeneration and backups. Accidents that
involve complete immolation to cinders are considerably more rare than
those that just break your neck.

> Besides after a couple of thousand years where is
> you identity? Most of your memories of today will be gone or you will
> have big gaps in your memory, because the human brain can only hold so
> much.

Do we have any idea what that "so much" is?

I have big gaps in my memory anyway; I don't remember much of my early
years (before, say, age 10).



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Wayne Throop]

::: I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever, and thus

::: will tolerate no possibility of being killed.

:: You seem to be remarkably arbitrary in choosing which threats to go
:: after, however.

I dunno. He at least seems pretty consistent in going for solutions that
seem guaranteed to have disastrous, horrific, side effects. Vat girls.
Destroy the village to save it. Etc, etc. All the classic blunders,
some of them worse than pursuing a land war in asia, or going up against
a sicilian when death is on the line.

[The Starmaker]

Everyone lives forever...

[Wayne Throop]

:: I believe accidents without aging would do us in around 700 years.

: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: That's why you need better regeneration and backups. Accidents that

: involve complete immolation to cinders are considerably more rare than
: those that just break your neck.

Again, I recommend an xref to Sheffield's "The Ganymede Club".
Even if we ignore Major Medical and uploading and backups, the figure of
700 years is if you walk around in an environment much like ours today.
The Ganymede Club members didn't. And they proactively went about
eliminating threats to boot.

Of course, how much fun you can have locked up in a saferoom
depends somewhat on how much money you have to spend on the saferoom.
Ganymede club members had a LOOOOOOOT of money to spend.

[Will in New Haven]

It was war. It was terrifying, maybe it was terrorism but it was war.

--
Will in New Haven

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<2dc5c6e3-a6ac-4b51...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

All the terrorists are men, and most are "white" men and there is a
high percentage of vets?

[Rod Speed]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Howard Brazee wrote
>>>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Plus, all the countermeasures have ended up costing us a lot of our
>>>>> own freedom -- and every incident excuses more such. That's the way to
>>>>> make the terrorists laugh their asses off.

>>>> Absolutely. Terrorism only works if you let it.

>> Mindlessly silly.

> Not at all

Fraid so.

> - the aims of terrorist organisations (for example the establishment of
> Islamic states) can never be achieved by killing a few thousand people.

That's just one example of terrorism not working.

There have been plenty of other examples which have worked,
for example the terrorism used to get the colonial power to give
up and pull out etc. And the jews using terrorism to see the british
decide that it wasn't worth the cost in lives staying in Palestine etc.

That is in fact part of the reason most of the europeans have
pulled out of Afghanistan now.

> If you have any comment which is not a pointless insult,

That's not a pointless insult, it's a statement of fact.

> please feel free - otherwise this discussion is over, as far as I'm
> concerned.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you
to contribute to any discussion that you don't like.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <a8m5ac...@mid.individual.net>,

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but we do take significant steps to minimise serious car accidents
> for that reason, even when they do have some impact on our freedoms,
> like you not being legally allowed to drive when pissed etc.

I agree driving when extremely angry or indeed emotionally upset is
very dangerous.

[Rod Speed]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> I wish to be free, but I also insist on living forever,

>> Soorree, we haven't worked out how to do that.

> And we never will.

Likely.

> I believe accidents without aging would do us in around 700 years.

Dunno, can't see how you can come up with any date when
the level of accidents has changed so much over time, and so
has our capacity to deal with them without dying from them.

There are plants that live longer than that.

> Besides after a couple of thousand years where is you identity?

That’s a different issue entirely. Those plants manage regardless.

> Most of your memories of today will be gone or you will have big
> gaps in your memory, because the human brain can only hold so much.

I don’t buy that. Your identity may well change over time,
but then it does anyway even with our current lifespans.

> Of course, the prospect of a thousand years bedridden
> in a bad nursing home does not delight either.

Sure, but it doesn’t have to be like that. Those plants
that do much better than 700 years don’t do it like that.