Jihad needs scientists

In article <dibcj2tfi7bdp7nbh74tr3upfnku9as0de@4ax.com>,
George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc,
but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British
soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones.

I can't resist being pedantic, because I think this is a conflation of
the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers
fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the
Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as
the shot heard round the world. To make things even more confusing,
the "shot heard round the world" has become connected in popular
culture with the "first shot" of the Revolution earlier on April 19 in
Lexington; it's not known whether the first shot at Lexington was
fired by a British soldier or an American militiaman. In Longfellow's
poem, the shot is fired by the colonial side, "the embattled farmers,"
at the Concord bridge.
Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems
to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time.

/BAH
 
In article <z7ednZWcEbePHqvYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh52sr$8qk_002@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <892dnbGwhIzhhajYRVnyvA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.


They were ingredients.

Which need to be made. These compounds do not occur naturally
in the soil.


Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a distraction.
This point is not irrelavent. I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains. A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons. The
engineers next door are ones who figure out how to deliver it.
The biolgists across the hall figure out its efficacy.
<snip..sorry, I'm not going to bother reading>

/BAH
 
In article <4536414B.11568EE5@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
David Bostwick wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was
Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

Mad presumably.

And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't
mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals.

Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which
religious
(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US.

Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality.

Maybe you need to understand what reality means first ?
I do know what it is.

You're living in a fantasy world.
No, I grew up and learned that "they lived happily ever after"
is a fairy tale.

/BAH
 
In article <MOudncmZRf69DKvYRVnyhQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh4va9$8ss_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453591FE.C2B3C58@hotmail.com...


David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was
Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

Mad presumably.

And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't
mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals.

Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which
religious
(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US.

Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality.

Amazing line of reasoning. Your reality seems very different from everyone
else's.
I realize that it seems like everybody else in the world sees
it differently. Millions are afraid to speak because they
will be immediately killed for heresy. There a lot of
overly-educated people who put belonging to the politically
correct clique above national security and personal safety.
There are also those who have no idea how work is done and
things are made. They believe that all things and all
inconveniences should be made and solved by The Government.
IOW, they won't get their hands dirty but expect others
to do all that nasty work for them; this is called slavery.

/BAH
 
In article <eh5eem$8b4$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh3g0l$1fm$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:
In article <eh34ou$nc5$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
wrote:
In article <eh30er$n6o$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:

[...]

Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every
killer who is anti-religion or unreligious?

By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything.

Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who
believes
the fundamentals of a belief system.

But liberals believe in liberty (that's what the word "liberal" comes from)
and you take away liberty if you insist on fundamentalism.
Which liberals are you talking about? The ones who call themselves
Liberals in today's politics put absolute equality, eliminating
liberty, as their number one goal.

<snip>

/BAH
 
In article <eh5ek8$8b4$4@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <45355C57.28A8837D@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip


You mean Kent State in Ohio, where outside agitators stirred up the
students and told them, "Your parents are rich! You can do anything you
want, the soldiers won't shoot at you?!"? The one where someone is
reported to have fired at the National Guard,

I suggest you read the report as to what happened.


and someone yelled "Fire"
immediately afterwards? The one, where after numerous nasty incidents
at US colleges all over the country where drunken idiots threw rocks at
the National Guard troops, and local police while they burnt buildings
and demanded their rights? I may have.


It was on the local Cincinnati and Dayton TV stations for days, and
discussed for months. You may also remember that it brought an almost
immediate stop to the campus riots all over the country.
This is not true. It did not stop the sitins. It did stop
the governors from calling in the National Guard every time there
was a sitin or some demonstration.

The few groups
that gathered and started trouble ran away as soon as it was announced
that the guard was called in. The national Guard is made up of well
trained soldiers who don't shoot for the fun of it. On the other hand,
if the other side is shooting at them they are trained to defend
themselves.


I imagine the Nazis rounding up and shooting villagers if the resistance used
a village as a staging area put an end to villages allowing the resistance
there too.
You should have the poster which campus instead of assuming he
knew what happened in those days.
/BAH
 
In article <ehab1j$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161169073.347610.229970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,


The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.


They
seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.

Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again.

Our business and politics do not
work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by
this because their businesses are generally government
controlled.
A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

and/or union controlled
Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a
radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New England.

espeically in the
manufacturing and mining areas.

In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything.
Except start wars.


This
is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about
a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether
the states or feds have power.


Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed
them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and
improved yeilds.

I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible.
What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is
that the US government should take control of all business and
make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they
want the US to become, not socialist, but communist.
You are a liar.


Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy!
 
In article <y1tZg.20904$7I1.5229@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh51sb$8qk_001@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.


And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?

I don't know. In my pre-9/11 days, I thought that businessmen
would make the world work better. I had a rude awakening and
was forced to examine thousands of assumptions I didn't even
know I had.

From unbelievably naive (I've been in industry for 15 years,
This is why you don't understand what I said. You haven't been
working long enough nor working in places that are production lines.

and I've never
had the delusion that "businessmen would make the world work better) to
paranoid delusional.
If capitalism (which also implies businesses) has its own
checks and balances built in, why wouldn't it have worked with
global politics, as long as their economies had some form
of capitalism? Each and every business has its home-grown brand
of internal politics.

Here's a hint. You've only just begun to scratch the
surface on the assumptions you don't even know you have, and even I suspect
you've created some new assumptions that you aren't aware of.
Here's a hint to you, hon. I've scratched off the ones that you
have used to build a wall around you.

/BAH
 
In article <453642C1.5D38F093@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries.

Utter drivel.
If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news
you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely
with one little oil tap turned off.


Now this bais of the news may
be due to media bias; I don't know but I'll find out.

It could well be US media bias.
That's possible so I listen to broadcasts from outside the
US.

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?
I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

/BAH
 
In article <BztZg.15968$e66.11130@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh52s4$8qk_001@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <Ow7Zg.17265$6S3.622@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2g2k$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.

And therein lies the problem...Bush will not be around to clean up, or
even
take responsibility for, the mess he and his henchmen have created in
Iraq.

This is your thinking blockage. YOu seem to have to be able
to assign blame of anything to one, and only one, human being.

OK, how's "the Bush Administration". Anyway, I guess you only find that a
problem when other people do it--you do it to Clinton all the time.
I have serious problems with a President who purposely flaunts
his job, espeically when it involves national security.

This has never solved problems, found solutions, and is
usually anti-productive.

I completely disagree. If people are accountable for their actions and
messes, they tend to be more careful of what they do. The Bush
Administration will never be accountable for the mess he's created.
What has Bush created? ARe you trying to tell me that Bush
was responsible for 9/11?
There are people who think like you.

Don't presume to know how I think. It's unbecoming of you. And don't think
you have a monopoly on knowing how to solve problems. I've solved plenty of
industrial problems in my career.
Then apply the same thought processes and analyses to this problem.

We had them at work. Our approach was to make them a boss of
something and get them out of our way so we could define
the problems and think of solutions.

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been created by
the current administration.
STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not. Some the future problems that they have started can be
countered by a Democrat president. However, there isn't a single
Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying
Western civilization and everything that smells of this living
style.

At least I've offered a desire to see the
administration do less going out of its way to create problems. That would
be a solution to future problems that they are likely to cause before they
leave office.

If you're going to wax pompous about all your problem-solving expertise,
I'll just say one thing. I tend to like to solve problems proactively, not
wait until they are problems. They're much easier to deal with then. So if
we can prevent the current administration from creating more of these
messes, we'll be better off in the long run.
You are focusing on the wrong data. Fixing the effect never
fixes the cause of any problem. All that does is insure job
security of cleaning the same mess up forever.

Delusions that arise from the
fear-based rhetoric of your government are causing you to lose your sense of
proportion and preventing you from seeing what the real problem is, let
alone proposing a solution.
You keep stating that I'm listening to that rhetoric. I am not.
[pomp snip]

Now, w.r.t. to the subject of this thread, most of you have
spent all of the writing time trying to blame one person
rather than hold a conversation about defining the problem
and possible solutions.

No, you're so focused on *your* definition of the problem, which is based on
defending the indefensible actions of the administration, that you just
won't or can't accept what we define as the problem, and therefore, you
reject out of hand the solutions that we do present.
This administation are the only politicians who are trying to deal
with a serious national threat. No other politician is.

You all seem to assume that, when Bush is out of power, the
problem will magically disappear. It will not.

I agree. The crap that this administration started will continue to be a
problem for a very long time. Thus my expression of regret that Bush and
his administration will never have to actually take responsibility for the
crap that they created.
This crap was started, and recognized as a problem, at the beginning
of the 20th century. Historians call it the end of the Ottoman
Empire.

At least the rate of increase of the problem will decrease. Yes, we will
still have to deal with terrorists, but that will be easier when we don't go
out of our way to make the problem worse.
No, the rate will increase logrithmically.

<snip...I'm getting pooped replying to the same old things>

/BAH
 
T Wake wrote:


If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would
continue largely as normal.
Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!

Either all of history, or your rendition of an ideal
world, is a lie. I've my thoughts on the matter and
have no further need of yours.
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <BztZg.15968$e66.11130@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh52s4$8qk_001@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Now, w.r.t. to the subject of this thread, most of you have
spent all of the writing time trying to blame one person
rather than hold a conversation about defining the problem
and possible solutions.

No, you're so focused on *your* definition of the problem, which is based on
defending the indefensible actions of the administration, that you just
won't or can't accept what we define as the problem, and therefore, you
reject out of hand the solutions that we do present.

This administation are the only politicians who are trying to deal
with a serious national threat. No other politician is.

You all seem to assume that, when Bush is out of power, the
problem will magically disappear. It will not.

I agree. The crap that this administration started will continue to be a
problem for a very long time. Thus my expression of regret that Bush and
his administration will never have to actually take responsibility for the
crap that they created.

This crap was started, and recognized as a problem, at the beginning
of the 20th century. Historians call it the end of the Ottoman
Empire.
Most net based discussions ignore the history of the region
as well as the cultural differences which prevent the
success of ordinary "politically correct" western thought
from achieving any sort of success.

It also helps to understand why the Ottomans held the region
in the first place, as well as the prior history of the
middle eastern peoples and their general lack of achievment.
"The crap," that is this particular crap, is much older,
identifiably linking all the way back into prehistory.

Some people also seem to think they're equipped to enter
into discussions like this merely because they believe
they have a grasp of "how to discuss." The discussions
they provide end up being futile because they're arguing
by method and gut feel instead of by logic based on
well grounded facts.

At least the rate of increase of the problem will decrease. Yes, we will
still have to deal with terrorists, but that will be easier when we don't go
out of our way to make the problem worse.
http://tinyurl.com/ydw8ll

No, the rate will increase logrithmically.
Yes.

snip...I'm getting pooped replying to the same old things
Yes.

There's the old joke about prison inmates yelling numbers at
one another followed by a general hysterical laughter. The
visitor was told that they all knew one joke book so they were
saving time by simly yelling the number of the joke.

The usenet version will eventually become firing salvos of
URL's at one another, especially when dealing with people
like Wake and Lucas.
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <453642C1.5D38F093@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this
either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they
get their oil deliveries.

Utter drivel.

If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news
you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely
with one little oil tap turned off.
/BAH

Nar.

Norge and Danmark do have so much own Oil, they cannot consume alone.

Also British Petrol and other European oil-societies (yes, it's also me
;-)), OMV (austrian do it with 'Know How' bez of no oil-territories)
for example, are oil-producing.


(remembering the last oil-bottleneck, in ~2000, when USA oil-tanker
pumped/bought oil at Rotterdam-Holland seaport -EU).

UK had the greatest struggle at that time. Truck driver have been on
strike, too.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eha9ce$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
and they are most assuredly not, as you
asserted, available in the corner drugstore, or any other consumer outlet.

Would you mind giving an example?
That would be inappropriate in this public form. Suffice it to say, I am a
highly experienced professional chemisty, and you're just going to have to
trust me when I say that the only CW starting materials that you can buy in
a drugstore are ethanol and isopropanol. If you want to go all the way back
to the phosphorus from matchheads, you're welcome to, but you're going to
have to process *billions* of matches to get enough material to do any
significant harm...and that's only after several very grueling processing
steps, and using about 20 other chemicals, all of which are *very* traceable
by the US agencies that care about such things.

Most of them are only available from chemical supply houses, and then only
to companies registered with those supply houses to receive chemicals from
them. It is probably not impossible to circumvent that system, but I have
no intention of trying to, so I don't know what it would take.

Any chemistry department can order chemicals.
Yes, I meant to say "companies and recognized academic chemistry groups."
High school chemistry departments have minimal access to chemicals--I think,
for example, they would have a very difficult time purchasing sodium cyanide
(there, I gave you one obvious CW starting material for free. It's up to
you to figure out which agent it's used to make.)


Did
you ever take a chemistry course and notice how labs are set up?
Uh....being a professional chemist for 25 years, I've taken enough chemistry
to make your head spin, and I've personally set up several labs. What's
your point?


Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory
their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984
according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? They got on the list because
they
can be used to make CWs.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. When they got used,
they were banned from export.

That's more cut-and-dried than it should be, but essentially correct.

Yet you implied that the US supplied all the resources that
Saddam used to kill people;
Why do you keep insisting on using these disingenuous arguing tactics??? I
said nothing of the sort. I said that Saddam Hussein was supplied with
*some* armaments by the US--perhaps the US government directly, and perhaps
US companies, abetted by the US government by looking the other way about
export controls. And I very specifically did *not* say that we provided any
CW support...in fact, I specifically said I thought we probably had not, and
another poster recently pointed out that the only incidents of CW-related
materials going to Iraq were illegal, and were shut down immediately upon
the government finding out.


you use this as an arguement that
the US shouldn't be in Iraq.
Uh, no....you have reading comprehension problems. I'm using this as an
example of how the US sticks its nose in places it doesn't belong, and that
ends up causing problems later. Iraq is just another example of this.
Please do try to keep up.


Actually, any research chemist will tell you that most chemicals have been
becoming more and more difficult to obtain for some time, and most of this
is to limit or prevent illicit use.

That's for drugs, I think.
Uh....no, you need to learn whereof you speak, before you speak. I am a
research chemist, and I am telling you that most chemicals have been
becoming more and more difficult to obtain for some time, and most of this
is to limit or prevent illicit uses of all sorts.


For CWs and their precursors, the
culmination was the CWC in the late 90s, which set very strict limits on
materials whose only use beyond research is to make CWs (Schedule 1
compounds), and very close tracking on materials that have other
legitimate
industrial uses but can also be used to make CWs (Schedule 2 and 3
compounds.) Beyond this, Schedule 1 - 3 compounds all have export limits.

Compounds. Now how do you stop filling orders for the ingredients
of those compounds? You cannot.
So what?


If you decide that noone should be allowed to make bread, you would
have to ban selling, distributing, and owning wheat seed. You are
focusing on the flour stage of chemical weapons. I'm talking about
the wheat seed stage of chemical weapons. Anybody can set up
a lab anywhere. If you don't think I'm right, count all the
news items that report meth labs. Note the word "labs".
Please do learn whereof you speak. There are a few huge differences: 1)
making a few hits of meth is very different than making enough CW to do more
than make a few people sick--the M is the critical part of WMD; 2) there is
a huge difference between the one or two steps it takes to get from Sudafed
to meth, and the several very difficult steps it takes to get from
phosphorous acid, methyl iodide, and sodium fluoride to Sarin, 3) there is a
modest chance that a meth fire will kill--maybe 10 %, maybe less. On the
other hand, it is a guaranteed, verifiable, 100% certainty that CWAs will
kill you *dead*, within minutes, if you are not handling them in a very
sophisticated facility. I'm not saying it is impossible to set up a
clandestine lab to make them, just very difficult. And it is made all the
more difficult by the fact that anybody getting the associated specialized
equipment and large quantities of those possible starting materials, in the
right combinations that suggest that they're being used to make CW, is going
to get a knock on their door by men in dark sunglasses. These are *not*
drugstore chemicals and hardware store equipment we're talking about here.

In any case, Iraq *verifiably* did *not* have CW or rad programs since the
first Gulf War in 1991, and we were essentially certain of that before we
went in in 2003. Inspections after the invasion only verified what we knew
before. This is not one of those wishy-washy "wellllll...the jury is still
out" questions, it is very cut-and-dried. It was verifiable as of Colin
Powell's speech to the UN. It's why he ended up resiging--he couldn't live
with being made to lie to the US population and the UN. The fact that the
non-thinkers in this discussion hem and haw and say "wellllll....the jury's
still out" means that Bush's deliberate attempts to create confusion and
fear over this issue in 2002-2003 worked on you. Shame on you for not
thinking clearly enough to see through his smokescreen!


Yet you are claiming that it is
the US' fault that other people use common chemicals bought from
US companies to kill people. I cannot follow your logic.

I said nothing of the sort. It is well-documented that the US government
supplied Saddam Hussein's regime in the 80s, in order to help them win the
war with Iran, our enemy at the time.

Sigh! How much of all Saddam's imports came directly from the
US _government_?
Who cares?


You are being ridiculous.
Pot, kettle.


Government is not
the same as a US corporation nor any US European subsidiaries.
Well, yes it is, if the government is complicit in the actions of industry
by looking the other way about export controls....and by the way, the US
corporation is responsible for the actions of their European subsidiaries.


I don't know if that extends to CW
starting materials--I suspect it does not, but I don't know that for a
fact.
I've never heard of CWs used against Iran, but that doesn't mean it didn't
happen.

What I'm taking the US government to task for is, on the one hand, arming
a
despot when he was our friend, without conceiving of the possibility that
he
might turn on us and become our enemy.

How do you know there was no thinking about Saddam becoming a
problem in the future? Any statesman or diplomat would never
make that assumption.
Well, that just makes it all the more stupid to arm him, now doesn't it?


It is the norm for people to change
alliances for the sole reason that their interests are better
served by changing sides. You do this at your job and
in any human relationship depending on the circumstances.
Ridiculous example. The difference is, I don't give my friends AK47s so
they can shoot me when they no longer like me.


It's just another example of the US
government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong (in this case, the
Iran-Iraq war),

Oh, really? Did you ever consider the state of an Earth where
the fUSSR controlled all oil shipping?
Wasn't going to happen, except perhaps in your paranoid fantasies, where all
things Republican can be justified by enough fear. The Soviet economy was
already beginning to fall apart by the early 80s, and their loss of ability
to carry out a worthwhile military operation wasn't far behind. Why do you
think we had to start sending them so much grain? Why do you think they
failed so miserably after *years* in Afghanistan, even with the help of the
Muhajedeen, when, by contrast, we went into Afghanistan with minimal help,
and wiped out the Taliban in a matter of *days*. That should tell you
something about how ridiculously weak the Soviet army was. And they
*weren't* going to be stupid enough to nuke the Middle East, and make the
oil fields uninhabitable. Having control of the oil shipments is worthless,
if they're too radioactive to get at. As others have pointed out, that was
*not* a Soviet proxy war. Your invention of paranoid conpsiracies is
reaching the bounds of human comprehension.


and then having that turn around and bite us later on,
ending up in the deaths of significant numbers of US troops and innocent
civilians in other countries.

That's life.
And therein lies the problem. It would be nice if the President of the US
didn't just say "well, golly gee, folks, that's life that thousands of US
children died" every time he bungles US foreign policy.

By the way, as long as we're having paranoid fantasies, you seem to be
awfully interested in CW precursors and finding out what you can get from
the drugstore. By your very own reasoning, we should bomb your home into
oblivion on the extremely unlikely chance that you are making CW in your
basement. After all, the potential mess you could cause is enormous. How
do you like them apples?

Eric Lucas
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems
to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time.
Now stop to think what else might be based on popular myths ?

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.


They were ingredients.

Which need to be made. These compounds do not occur naturally
in the soil.


Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a distraction.

This point is not irrelavent. I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains. A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons.
The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine.

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Millions are afraid to speak because they
will be immediately killed for heresy.
And you expect to be taken seriously ?

Graham
 
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

But liberals believe in liberty (that's what the word "liberal" comes from)
and you take away liberty if you insist on fundamentalism.

Which liberals are you talking about? The ones who call themselves
Liberals in today's politics put absolute equality, eliminating
liberty, as their number one goal.
You mean *US* poltics at worst perhaps.

Besides the Republicans are doing a fine job of eliminating liberty without
anyone else's help !

Graham
 
unsettled wrote:

T Wake wrote:

If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would
continue largely as normal.

Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing
brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much!
No it isn't.

Graham
 
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehabhc$8qk_003@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <z7ednZWcEbePHqvYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Not relevant, they are ingredient for the creation of CW. Breaking it down
into the common elements is truly pointless and nothing but a distraction.

This point is not irrelavent.
It is.

I am trying to get you to think with
more than ball-influenced brains.
No, you are trying to divert into a strawman - as usual. You claim to be
trying to make other people think yet you resolutely refuse to do so
yourself.

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons. The
engineers next door are ones who figure out how to deliver it.
The biolgists across the hall figure out its efficacy.
Irrelevant.

You created a strawman - claiming I was trying to blame the US for
everything - and when challenged you say "I am not reading any of this."

Despite your claims of an open mind, willingness to learn etc., you really
do have your head buried in the ground.

You make multiple claims to justify your standpoint and ignore their mutual
contradiction. In one post (the bits you snipped) you claim both the US
supported Iraq as a proxy in the Iran-Iraq war and that the US never
supported Iraq.

Amazing. I love your line of logic.

Feel free to snip and ignore everything you find difficult.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top