Re: The Terrorists are coming!

[jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)]

In message <Pine.3.87.9408021916.A3618-0100000@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> CatAshleigh writes:
> > >   first of all the only "muslim" (NOT ARAB, NO ARABS HAVE NUKES, the only
> > 
> > How do you know?
> > 
>  that's common knowlage, when Iraq got close to developing them, Israel 
>  bombed them.

In this case, "common knowledge" = "not true".

> > Ahem.  Uzbekistan is Muslim, and is also the third or fourth largest
> > nuclear power, and also is in a part of the world where there is a
> > long tradition of ... how do I say it gently ... greasing the palm.
> 
> the 5 largest nuclear powers are 1) USA 2) Russia 3) china 4) India
> 5) Israel (believed to have about 100 warheads)

Uzbekistan has several ICBM sites.  Some of the ICBMs are MIRVed, with
maybe 10 warheads each.  I think that Uzbekistan may outclass China.  I
have never heard claims that India had more than 100 warheads.	The
Ukraine also has many ICBMs and I would assume outranks India and Israel.
I also believe that France outclasses both India and Israel.  And Britain
has nuclear submarines carrying thermonuclear weapons, tactical weapons
carried by fighter/bombers, etc.  What is your authority for this ranking??

> >    A large part of the former USSR was Muslim and there were strategic and
> >  tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over the place (tactical weapons
> >  are used as mines, fired from artillery pieces, carried by short range
> >  missiles, and dropped from fighter bombers).  If none of these is
> >  unaccounted for, it is a genuine miracle.
>  
>  It was my understanding that only the USA was incompetent enough to develop
>  "tactical" nuclear weapons where any grunt can drop them and KABLEWY.

I DEFINED the term "tactical".	I mentioned no grunts.	The Soviets certainly
had tactical nuclear weapons of every type that I mentioned, and more (nuclear
torpedoes, for example).  Their plans for the invasion of Europe have been
published.  These plans included the heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons
in every theater.  Their strategic weapons would have been used on America.

> > Also, there has been quite a lot of press coverage here in the UK of
> > the defector from Saudi Arabia who claims that (a) the Saudis backed both
> > the Iraqi and the Pakistani nuclear programs and (b) the Saudis at
> > least have some nuclear materials.
> 
>  The "defector" is an idiot,

I saw him interviewed on TV, his IQ seemed to be fairly high.  130+ ?

>			       saudies were too busy building infrastructure
>  to waist money backing other people's weapons development.

But ... no one disputes the claim that the Saudis backed weapons
development in Iraq; the Saudis freely admit it.  They deny only
the reports about nasty (nuclear, chemical, and biological) weapons.

>    The Saudies backed Iraq because they were fighting Iran and saudies 
>  aren't too fond of Shi'a.

And in the next line you admit it yourself.

>			      It might also be noted that the USA is similarly
>  guilty.

By this point, you've lost track of what you are saying.  The USA is
similarly guilty of funding Iraqi development of nuclear weapons??

[I made a reference to the atomic bombing of Japan]

>  I'm glad that you mentioned that though, lets remember that it was the
>  USA who was the "terroist" who bombed the civilians at Nagasaki and 
> Heroshima (terrorist as defined in the dictionary)

My dictionary does not define the term 'terrorist' that way.  The Japanese
started the war with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, the US ended it by
bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was a nasty war on all sides.  Any
soldier knows that the best way to win is to induce terror in your
opponent.  But the term 'terrorist' is not used for soldiers engaged in
open warfare.  It normally refers to those who make clandestine attacks
with the purpose of inducing terror in civilians.

If you hijack an airliner, you are a terrorist.  If you firebomb Dresden,
what you have done may be sickening, but you are not a terrorist.  You are
a soldier in a brutal war.  Most wars of any length get brutal.


The style of argument used here is very 1984.  Words are used in abnormal
ways, people are demonized (Israel, America), contradictions are stated
in the same sentence, vilification replaces logic.

And also, comments were asked to be sent by email, and then edited
before being replied to in public.  Not good.
--
Jim Dixon